BS: Difference between peace and anti-war

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:26 PM

Guest Just a Friend, think a little bit. think of 1938 Munich, when the England and France who had an alliance with Czechoslovakia (ie if any country is attacked the others will come to their defence.)

at Munich, England and France signed away Czechoslovakia to the Germans, (the Czechs werent even present) Neville Chamberlain the Prime Minister came back saying we have 'Peace in Our Time' why should we go to war over some country and people we know little about. (I note that many Czech and Polish pilots later fought in the Battle of Britain)

Churchill told Chamberlain he wanted peace with honour but instead received war and dishonour. ALl the sit-ins and boycotts in the world would have done nothing against Hitler. The Germans were a ruthless bunch of gangsters who wouldnt have been stopped except by war. In fact after the war the Germans said they expected an Allied reaction after re-occupation of the Rhineland, and after the occupation of Sudeten land in Czechoslovakia (which by the way was never part of German territory, and was heavily fortified with formidable gun installations - Czechoslovakia was a well armed industrialized nation). each time the Germans thought that maybe there will be a reaction and Hitler might be overthrown. But in fact each time they were emboldened by the opportunity.

I dont think there are many people who dont want peace but there are times (as in wwII) when there is no alternative to war. As Stan Rogers sang in Harris and the Mare when his wife is struck down by a drunken madman, 'I was a conshie in the war but I had to see his blood to be a man'.

what is there to learn from wwII, certainly that leaving Europe in a mess after the First war led to a lot of instability -- for those that want to talk about root causes -- on the other hand the root causes of the holocaust had nothing to do with the west. (this I think parallels todays discussions of those seeking root causes of terrorism -- ie. while there are legitimate beefs from the Islamic world, poverty, anti-globalism, the palestinian problem, many of those causes have their origins there (and have nothing to do with the west) ie. not all dictatorships were installed and maintained by western powers - as in Pakistan which was a freely elected govt. later overthrown by the military. its like saying the holocaust was a direct result of Versailles, it wasnt.

its pointless to talk about anti-war and peace, sometimes you have to defend yourself, but more important is that there is a mechanism, a new Marshall plan, if you will, to stabilize that region afterwards perhaps under the auspices of the UN, so that an opportunity for a long term period of peace and stability is not missed (as it was in the early 90's after the Russians pulled out.)

as well as look at long term political goals, ie. forgive more 3rd world debts, try to establish checks and balances on trends in globalism ie. protection of environmental and labour rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: InOBU
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:29 PM

Hi Guys... I just posted two new Quaker songs, which I think show active pro peace, in the face of war... Cheers Larry
PS The posts are EVEN ANOTHER! Quaker song (from Larry) and I think the other was Otway's Latest A Quaker Song 4 today

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:24 PM

Guest: Huh?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:11 AM

"the only way to arrive at peace is to wage war".
=
the only way to achieve chastity is by fucking

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:46 AM

My argument isn't that insisting on peace (when your opponent is waging war) is "doing nothing"; rather, it is that it is "accomplishing nothing". Civil tactics will not, INHO, make much of an impression on this foe.

Pacifism is an ideal, and a very fine one, at that. But, to every thing there is a season, and (to paraphrase something that Doug said above) at times the only way to arrive at peace is to wage war.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:05 AM

53, I keep seeing people equating doing something other than waging war as doing nothing. And DougR has said that there are many folks who advocate doing nothing. I really can't understand where people who say things like that get idea that anyone advocates doing nothing. I haven't heard a single person say they think we should just sit and do nothing.

I have heard a lot of people say that of all of the possible things we could be doing, waging war either shouldn't be the first option, or it isn't a good option. But everyone I've heard on this subject has come up with plenty of ideas about what we should be doing instead of waging war. I think the "do nothing" accusation is a specious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:03 AM

It is rude to answer a question with a question :)

However, lets assume there is some group hidden in Atlanta that are behind this Anthrax attack. Arrest them and put them on trial, with any luck, execute them. Now, as to your rather outrageous idea of bombing thier neighborhood. Not literally, I don't think so. But lets bring it into light of what is going on. If Atlanta officials said that the Federal Government had no right to arrest these people, and threatened the feds if they tried to arrest them. I think it is safe to assume we would give every chance for the culprits to be turned over, then we would move in whatever force was needed to capture them. There are many differences however. The people of Atlanta elected thier leaders, it is not a military power, there are others, but I think you can tell that such a comparison is not very effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 09:01 AM

Where do you see him saying THAT, 'Just a Friend'???

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:59 AM

I never used the term pacifist 'Friend'. True pacifists are as you say wedded to the belief that all fighting is wrong. The main tenant of my argument is that where the cause is justified i.e. disagreeing with something that is inherintly evil causes some people who would be peace loving to want to fight. Another interesting thought is that 'the state' refused to let 'soldiers' who had fought in the International Brigades against the facists join uo into the regular British Army

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:52 AM

McFat,

I find your contention that pacifists become soldiers when the enemy is evil enough to be pretty offensive, not to mention wrong.

True pacifists never serve in the armed forces. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:45 AM

Whilst I think a lot of people were for the peace movement before and during the 2nd World War. I think the overwhelming need to defeat facism led them to fight againt the Nazi's. I think that similar sense of 'fighting for justice' was also apparant during the Spanish Civil War. So the paradox is that you can be pro peace but feel strongly enough to fight !!

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:36 AM

Oops! Just a nobody, I meant to also say I was in agreement with the distinctions you made about the IRA. Except for one thing.

The Provos always said they only targeted Unionist and British police, military, and economic targets and never civilians. However, as many of us well know, they did kill quite a few civians in their bombing campaign on the British mainland as "collateral damage" (as our military preferes to refer to innocent civilians).

Now, there are those who would still say they were acting with reason and just cause under the circumstances, and there are those who would still condemn them as terrorists no matter what they do to bring a just peace to Northern Ireland.

But the fact of the matter is, the Provos lost a lot of their supporters when they took to the bombing campaign in Britain, because of the civilian deaths. Does this mean that the IRA's supporters never had the stomach for "real" war--or the resolve to conduct "a different kind of war" as we claim to be doing with the convention and covert war we are now waging in Afghanistan?

I certainly hope so. And I certainly hope that as we see what carnage and suffering is being inflicted upon the innocent civilians of Afghanistan, we too will lose our "resolve" and stomach for this war, no matter how just and right many feel it to be at this time.

Seeking revenge and acting out of rage will always be cause for regret somewhere down the road, even if you are the richest and most powerful nation in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 16 Oct 01 - 08:25 AM

Just a Nobody,

After I wrote my post above, I was off to see the newborn baby of a friend of mine. I heard about the baby with anthrax just before I left. We were celebrating of course, especially because our new baby was severely distressed during labor, and had to be resucitated in the womb.

I guess I'd answer your question with a question--if the anthrax cases *aren't* traced back to Middle East terrorists, but are found to be the work of American(s) citizens interested in gaining notoriety on the back of Sept 11th, what would you have us do? Bomb their Atlanta neighborhood?

While I do have tremendous compassion and empathy for the victims of the Sept 11th attacks and their families, and the victims of the anthrax mail attacks and their families, I also have tremendous compassion and empathy for the victims and families of the US bombings in Afghanistan. My compassion and empathy isn't limited to my clan, my nation, or my religion.

So if a person is enraged over the attacks on America, I suggest they try and transform that rage into compassion by coming to grips with the suffering with others as well. You might try this link for starters:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011016/ts/attacks_refugee_children.html

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:07 PM

Anti-war and peace, they are pretty much the same creature in different clothes.

You speak of the ambiguity of the term terrorist with the IRA. When the call to arms originally went out to defend Nothern Ireland, There was a military presense, it fought against a military. By that definition, it is a revolt. When the Real I.R.A., planted the bomb in Omgeah (sp?), That was terrorism. Terrorism targets civilians and non-military. Terrorism erodes the confidence of the people that support the military, and weakens the governments ability to continue a given action. Basically, there is little ambiguity in the word.

I suppose, since I drifted off the topic, if you really want to know the difference between pro-peace and anti-war lay out a scenario. I just heard on the news that a 7 month old has been diagnosed with Anthrax. If this is followed back to a terrorist group, what would you do? Look closely at how you feel, define yourself as anti-war or pro-peace. I think within a few posts you will find your answer. I refrain from my comments now, because I just put my 3 month old daughter to bed and my thoughts are vile. Untill I can calm down my belief is tainted by immense greif, horror, but most of all rage.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:20 PM

Anti-war and peace activism is about taking action (that is what activism is all about!)

There is conflict resolution, negotiation, consensus building, boycotts, non-cooperation, non-violent resistance, and many other tactics used by those who wish to shut down a government, a corporation, etc.

And none of the above strategies is more or less effective or time consuming than than bombing people back to the Stone Age.

But what I am interested in discussing here is not war vs. peace, or war vs. anti-war, but anti-war vs. peace.

I believe there are important philosophical differences, and I would say if anyone were going to be standing around hand-wringing it would be people who advocate peace, but have no strategies and tactics for getting there.

Case in point: yesterday, the Republic of Ireland re-interred the bodies of 10 IRA men executed by the British, and buried in Mountjoy Prison in Dublin.

There is a certain amount of "outrage" over this honor being paid to the IRA who fought the war of independence which ended in the partitioning of the country by the British in the 1920s, and the Provisional IRA, who have fought for independence for Northern Ireland since 1969. The pro-British folk claim both the contemporary *and* historic IRA are/were terrorists.

Their argument goes along the lines that anyone fighting against the British are terrorists.

It is this sort of ambiguity I'm talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 06:31 PM

Nice artwork, Sirepseh, esp. yours!

I agree with you, why do most think the only alternative to war is to do nothing? That is an absurd assumption. Did the Quakers and other conscientious objectors do nothing during the Vietnam war? No, many of them served in the military in non-combat positions. There are endless things one can do to try to help while not actively participating in nor advocating war.

DougeR, I know there's plenty of loose sand in AZ, but up here the old clay dirt is packed so hard and so dry, even an ostrich couldn't hide its head. :-)

Saying that people for peace are not aware or people who are against the war are not aware is just not true. It's sounds like saber-rattling to me.:-)

Peace,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 06:00 PM

Hesperis: I think folks who feel that way (sit and do nothing), and there are many people who feel that way, in reality would find that hard to do. Why? Because they have their heads in the sand.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: hesperis
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:13 PM

Why is "sit and do nothing" always the only other response that people think of?

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: 53
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:07 PM

anti war could mean 2 things, #1 is that you have a good reason to oppose the conflict and #2 is that you might think peace will come if we just sit and do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: hesperis
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 01:59 PM

Anti-war

For Peace

Probably long load times, sorry. The price of Art and all that...

Subject: RE: BS: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 01:59 PM

I don't know anyone who would prefer war to peace.

The division of opinion between people as related to war is,in my opinion, the fact that some people believe that war is necessary under some conditions in order to achieve peace. The other side believes that making war is not justified under any circumstances.

DougR

Subject: Difference between peace and anti-war
From: GUEST,A Friend
Date: 15 Oct 01 - 12:25 PM

I thought it might be interesting (in light of the anti-war songs thread contributions) to discuss what people feel the difference is between being for peace, and opposing the war.

There seems to be definite philosophical differences between the two, if the song suggestions of the anti-thread are anything to go by.