What is Digg?61 Comments
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -15/+62I find it very annoying how conservatives like to oversimplify everything. The trick seems to be to put a patronizing tone and reduce issues to an uttermost simplicity and then provide the "enlightened" answer to the problem (not the actual problem, but the oversimplified one), i.e. pushing an agenda.
I'm with Ortega y Gassett, in "The revolt of the masses" he said pacifism isn't an acceptable solution to war because it doesn't provide a solution to the PROBLEMS that generated war in the first place. That doesn't mean just accept war as if we were mindless primates (ok, maybe we are...), but finding alternative solutions to war.
Most claims in the article can be easily refuted if you take some simplifications away or by just not falling under the rhetorics of the article (that's ironic for an article who bashes rhetorics)
For example:
"Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan?" Rhetoric question. The fallacy is to put things in black or white, cease-fire/annihilation. Wars can be ended by negotiation, for example. But the problem is to make the issue about war and not going to the roots of war. What were the causes of war? what made the citizens of a civilized country like Germany support a dictator like Hitler?
There's also the example of Falkland Island. You see, I'm from argentina. So I can tell you why we attacked England. Of course, many people in my country think those islands belong to Argentina. But the reason the country went to war was that, at the time, it was ruled by a dictator (Leopoldo Galtieri, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_Galtieri ), whose regime was in decline. I quote the wikipedia:
After four months in office and with his popularity low, Galtieri's forces invaded the weakly-defended British Falkland Islands in April 1982, and he declared the "Malvinas" a province of Argentina -- as they had been from 1820 to 1833, before Britain gained control over them.
Maybe if Argentina had won we would still be living under a dictatorship, who knows. Nowadays there's still people who think Falkland Island belong to Argentina. But things are handled in a different way http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1810401,00.html
The thing is that causes of war are complex. And even if war turns to be the simplest solution, it is also the most irrational one, since the outcome is independent of who is right or wrong. The logical consequence of the thoughts of the article would be "the strongest is always right", and that is simply stupid... and not smart as it tried to sound. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25many grown adults in the us are as aducated as a fourth grader
- simX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20*must* *resist* *urge* *to* *point* *out* *irony* *of* *thewebguy's* *comment*.....
ARGH, it's KILLING ME! - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -22/+36"I find it very annoying how conservatives like to oversimplify everything."
It should be noted that this is an oversimplification. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Many grown adults in the middle east are as educated a fourth grader, and buy into a violent radical faith that further distorts their already dim view of the world around them. Education is the best long term goal, but its extremely hard to figure out how to actually educate in a place like that with zero infrastructure and religious zeal.
- avions, on 10/12/2007, -18/+30"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Millions of people need to read this article. You would think after almost 60 years of "WWII" study and education, we would have learned from the mistakes of the past. - simpleblob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Well, I still don't know which side was right, but I do know which side will win.
- TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21I find it annoying that people automatically think your conservative just because you believe in a strong national defense and that your against appeasement.
I'm a Liberal that doesn't mean I'm a democrat that doesn't mean I'm anti-war That doesn't mean I live in Vermont (although it's a wonderful state...er! stop iT!!)
You people generalize too much I find it too bad you can't just logically make up your own mind and come to each topic separately. - FlaG8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It's always insightful to hear how they did things in Chamberland.
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Patrick, the problem is that war *can* lead to peace.
At the most basic level: If you annoy me continually, and I kill you, you will stop annoying me.
At a more complex level, if one violent gang attacks another peaceful gang, and the attackers are eliminated, so is the problem.
At the level of nations, if one nation attacks another, and that nation is eliminated (or reduced to a non-military power, see WWII Japan for example), the problem is eliminated.
These situations are simple, but not overly so; they are simple because they represent simple truths.
The difficulties come when defeating the enemy is not possible. That might be because the enemy is stronger, smarter, better prepared, and so on. It may be because opposing forces within a country weaken its resolve to pursue a war to its destructive and final conclusion, as with Bush in the first Gulf war. It may be because other nations unite behind the opponent.
None of this means that the war was just, or unjust; none of this means that the attacker is on the right side, or the wrong side. These are tactical obstacles.
Better politics than war; better peace than politics. But what if there is already war? It seems quite clear that the attacks on the Israelis were not slowing down, and were coming out of Lebanon. Turn the other cheek... in order to be slapped there as well? At some point, attacking the attacker is a legitimate defense. It has to be. If you are peacefully walking down your own street, and I attack you, are you out of line to return an attack? Even one designed to stop me in my tracks? I don't think so. Some states in the US have a law that says that you can use only the same amount of force as the attacker; that's the kind of idiot law that happens when people take blanket stances in favor of maximum peace at any price. If I don't want to be attacked, it is incumbent upon me to not attack anyone, and not to shelter anyone who would launch such an attack. At that point, I can legitimately expect you to leave me alone. Lebanon is in a very bad position; they've been sponsoring, protecting and assisting attacks on Israel for some time. It seems clear to me, at least, that Israel's incursions into Lebanon are a defensive response.
Personally -- and I want to be very clear this is just my opinion -- I think what we are looking at here is the result of people being "educated" by a savage, primitive, and entirely nonsensical religion, specifically Islam (this time... during the crusades, I'd be pointing at Christians here -- I'm an equal-opportunity religion basher), where the religion calls for destruction of "the other guy" regularly and consistently. These are not well informed or reasonable people. Consequently war is not a solution I would rule out. I have no intention of converting to Islam, no intention of being part of Mohammad's flock (or any other flock) and unlike, say, Buddhists, I do not trust those who follow the teachings of Mohammad to be willing to stay home and leave everyone else alone. I suspect the Israelis feel similarly.
In order to have peace, BOTH sides have to stand down. The Muslims show no sign of doing so. Negotiations.... decades of them... have not stopped them. Perhaps it is at last time to slap them down. Frankly, I'm cheering for the Israelis here. - member57, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The one that killed everyone that laid down their weapons. The victors often rewrite history and most sheeple believe it and move on. Use of force has resolved more conflicts than any other method in history. Remember, war isn't about about dying for your country, it's about making that other poor bastard die for his. rough quote from Patton, I believe.
So I guess, with your reasoning, that the founding fathers should have just laid down their weapons? Continued with the status quo? Should the North have laid down it's weapons, the South? Who's right, keeping the Union or States rights? What Nazis, Japanese? Should we negotiate with terrorists? Should we convert to Islam, like they want? Want to give up you standard of living to accommodate them? You view, in my opinion, is naive, and suicidal. In the world of geo-politics, the meek inherit an ass whoopin. - Irimi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is how the world has changed. Under old media-power structures, information like this would not even be discussed. The communication channels that the Internet has created are changing everything.
"To abjure violence is a luxury which a delicate few enjoy only because others stand ready to do violence in their behalf." George Orwell - aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I'd personally rather die for peace than kill for peace. I'd feel a hypocrite if I did otherwise."
I understand how you feel--I'm not about to join the army anytime soon. But just think--if everyone who wanted peace let themselves be killed by people who wanted war, then all that would be left of the human race would be people who wanted war. How would you feel knowing that you left the human race to the warmongers? I'd rather fight for a little while in order to secure a peace than just stand by. Peace is worth fighting for--in fact, it's the only thing worth fighting for. - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14The problem is not war; the problem is wars in the wrong places at the wrong times over the wrong issues.
The genocides in Rwanda and Darfur? Reason for war.
Iraq? Not a reason for war.
The Holocaust and the subsequent bombing of Pearl Harbor? Reason for war.
Vietnam? Not a reason for war.
Yes, those are gross oversimplifications, and they're just as subjective as any argument for or against any given conflict. My point is that there is a lot of misguided warmongering and false comparisons. Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, North Korea... these are not Nazi Germany, and anyone trying to make the comparison has lost his or her mind. And, lest we forget, WWII was a provoked response. - PatrickX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This article is pretty ridiculous. It's stupid to me to say that peace movements couldn't bring an end to World War II. First of all, peace is about preventing wars from happening, and if a war does happen then unless both sides want peace then one will have to win militarily. That doesn't, however, mean that a side should just give up hope for peace. He also equates peace with disarmament which is a huge fallacy. Peace is the absence of war, not of weapons. Police officers may carry weapons, but they hope never to have to use them. He also falsely equates peace with pacifism... however, it is possible to be strong and show that you can defend yourself without going to war. Wars only start when there is an aggressor, and peace is about not becoming that aggressor.
- timmsb3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So if a guy is black, he has to be a Liberal? Oh, that's right black guys are'nt smart enough to have opinions that differ from the stereotype. You douche-bag.
- dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think constant cease fires that never last spanning hundreds of years indicates that the two sides just cannot let it go. Should they fight it out and settle it once and for all?
I do not get the middle east, all they do is hold grudges from 500 years ago, don't they have better things to do?. You don't see citizens from the North and South of the United states still pissed at each other. Even blacks and whites have mostly gotten over slavery. - OrderSponge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Regardless, it's fairly safe to say that war is going to be with us for awhile. Humans haven't changed so much in our history as Westerners like me would want to assume.
In the interests of ending war, however: when two or more opposing groups with incompatible agendas decide that violence is the only way to solve their problems, what stops them? The reason that people resort to violence is because it's almost always the only way of deciding a conflict unilaterally, that is, it doesn't require any person or agency to maintain the solution.
When two groups still have a grievance they are more than willing to kill over, why would they be interested in peace? They're willing to kill and die already, and they're obviously unwilling to compromise. Telling them to stop shooting isn't likely to help. The real question is, is campaigning to prevent a third party from getting involved likely to help, or to hurt? - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Worked for Ghandi, worked for MLK"
The English did not have a stated goal of wiping out all Indians. Americans didn't want to wipe out all blacks, they didn't want to give them the same rights as whites. Your analogy is flawed. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc... want to wipe out all Jews. Every last one of them. You cannot use non-violent resistance against that. - trishg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Oh, good one. So, Israel should throw down their arms to prove they're the ones in the right. Then they could feel all noble for the 3 days it would take for the Islamists to eradicate them from the Earth (their stated goal).
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I believe the point is not that peace movements haven't created peace, its basically that if (well, I'm going to have to simplify sides here) the good, opposing side decides to drop everything and give up, the evil side will merely conquer and dominate. Look at current situations. War is brewing not because people want to fight, its because they want to fight BACK.
- Chromantix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sometimes war is necessary, what the author is trying to say (I think) is that those who ignore the consequences of NOT taking action are just as dangerous and/or responsible for bloodshed as the ones who ignore the possibility of non-aggression in favor of all-out conflict.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Thats not what the article was about...
He was saying that peace movements never accomplish anything because they merely bring about more war. He wasn't saying might makes right, he was saying that sitting on your ass and just telling the bad guys "no" doesn't accomplish anything. - PatrickX, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18Yes, peace through aggression... next you'll be saying WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Aggaman is a racist. He thinks all blacks are liberals and only the Uncle Toms of the world are conservative. If that isn't racism, I don't know what is.
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Jesus got nailed to a cross for his beliefs. Hell, he let 'em do it. So, are you implying that what he did was unwise, and that he should have fought off his captors with every last breath of his body? Seems to me that would've kinda defeated the purpose of Christianity, honestly."
Not that I'm particularly Christian, but the purpose of Christianity as I understand it is that Jesus died for our sins *so that we wouldn't have to*. Jesus told us to turn our other cheek to our enemy's fist, not our enemy's nuclear weapons. And the God of Christianity isn't exactly a pacifist either; check your Old Testament. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Look at chamberland and the apeasment groups in the late 1930's they loved peace, well more like they hated war. Which is understandable but a hatred of war can leave to a fear of war. A fear leads to (this sounds really familiar) suffering.... (Did I just quote yoda?)
Anyway the apeasment movement in the late 1930's weren't pro-nazi and they weren't really pro-peace they were more anti-war. There's a major difference between the two. When your pro-peace your willing to fight for it (I.E. war, I know fight for peace sounds wrong somehow) but when your anti-war you see peace as a means to an end rather than the other way around. (something like that I'm too tired for a rant right now) - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5um "middle east policy" is death to Israel. US had to protect other democracies from animation.
- bayerj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Truth is, it's not always so black and white, but I can say one thing, if one side in a conflict threw down their weapons and refused to fight, I think it'd become clear pretty quickly to everyone which side was right and which was wrong."
I've not yet been able to find a single point in history when this would have led to anything. Actually, enough countries lay down their weapons in WWII and that did not make Hitler or the Germans change their minds. - Cymsdale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I loathe the Libertarian party, but to say they have not accomplished a single thing is very unfair. In the US (which I assume you are talking about), they are considered the third largest party because they have successfully elected many local officials into public office. This is a good thing for them, because parties need to grow from a local level. It's silly to assume they are failures just because they haven't elected a president or a senator.
- AssultMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9This is the most ridiculous statement ever.
Throughout the article he makes ONE statement: Might makes right.
He doesn't even try to get into when it is right to attack an aggressive foreign nation, which is what this article should have been leading up to.
What a daft dork. - node3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Osjpr
Dismissing their argument does no good while they are in power. Just because an idea is based on a logical fallacy does not stop it from being enacted, it only stops it from actually working. - artgon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15I believe in peace through superior firepower. The only way to stop terrorist organizations is through aggression not diplomacy. This has been proven time and time again. Look at what diplomacy achieved with Yasser Arafat...
- digitalsheep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In general, the columnist has a point: if all the world were pacific, with one exception, the one aggressor would likely plow over the rest until it was stopped. Letting one's guard down invites those with a more sinister disposition to take advantage, and he is correct to caution against that.
But what is the "reality" this columnist cites? The "reality" that "war is hell" most likely comes from a worldview that claims war is the inevitable outcome of conflicting interests, that war is beyond our ken and beyond morality--it is simply something we must accept, and calls for regulation and peace are comical at best. Let's "analyze" this idea, "derive [its] implications," and "test those implications against hard facts".
The columnist seems to accept that "war is hell," and the implication of war being hell is that it is a unique realm of human experience--it is literally hell, beyond our understanding, and beyond morality. The implication of the view that war is beyond morality--beyond morality because it is the sole option to solve these problems, and therefore necessary and justified if we are to survive (and survival is of chief importance)--is that there are no such things as war crimes; that it is morally insignificant if we ignore white flags; that women and children are fair game for attack; and that soldiers should be allowed to torture, massacre, rape, and execute civilians and enemy soldiers alike. It also doesn't matter if you use guerrilla (terror?) tactics or fight on a battlefield. I fathom that this columnist would say that the Holocaust was morally wrong and that 9/11 was a travesty; but if they were wrong, then we accept that some kind of morality prevails even in hell. Our beliefs--quantifiable "hard facts" about what we think--dictate that this columnist's worldview is wrong because it implies what we no longer accept about war and peace.
(/feeding him his own medicine) - shogunu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another article by the same author:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=a_cycle_on_nonsense&ns=ThomasSowell&dt=07/18/2006&page=full&comments=true - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I still can't understand why I was so much wrong, especially since nobody cared to explain "why" in their replies. Obviously most got the meaning contrarily to what I actually meant.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rhino, the Nazi Holocaust was started in the Nazi laws against Jews in the mid-30's.
If thinking a strong defense is a good thing makes you a conservative, then you can sign me up as a conservative. I have read history and know that talking to dictatorships usually ends up in war if you do not back up your word with force once in a while. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Worked for Ghandi, worked for MLK... Anyway, there are so many inherent problems with "war for peace." Obviously, the side that wins is the side with more soldiers and bigger guns, which does nothing to demonstrate your correctness in the conflict. Anyway, take Jesus. For those of Christian persuasion, he never took up arms against his enemies, nor encouraged his followers to act in such a manner. Jesus got nailed to a cross for his beliefs. Hell, he let 'em do it. So, are you implying that what he did was unwise, and that he should have fought off his captors with every last breath of his body? Seems to me that would've kinda defeated the purpose of Christianity, honestly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you are not willing to kill for something and the other guy is, guess who wins?
- aMeta4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2" There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent."
Here, as well as in many of his other remarks, he fails to take into account that most of these extremists that are creating conflict in the middle-east ARE, in fact, suicidal already.
I feel that this person may be mildly retarded.
"War is Peace"
"1 + 1 = 3"
"Kill em All"
etc... - timmsb3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Part of the problem is that things like the existence of war crimes and the Geneva conventions make war a more viable option. There is no game without rules, and creating rules for war makes it into a game, albeit with high stakes. If war is really the absolute last resort, it should be fought to be won. Period. Declaring some tactics off limits because they are too harsh, makes starting and fighting a war easier politically, because people know that some things won't happen. LIke the fire-bombing of a large city. If people knew that these things probably would happen, they would be much less likely to accept war as an option. If one is going to fight a war, winning should be the only objective.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8I'd personally rather die for peace than kill for peace. I'd feel a hypocrite if I did otherwise. Truth is, it's not always so black and white, but I can say one thing, if one side in a conflict threw down their weapons and refused to fight, I think it'd become clear pretty quickly to everyone which side was right and which was wrong.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well written and well put.
- Vive42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Americans fighting over middle east policy is like ancient romans arguing over the relative merits of hindu vs egyptian faiths at a crucification. Its in poor taste and ignores almost every relevant fact in exsistance. Just a hint- the peace movement isnt causing more wars to break out. But theres a good chance US foreign policy is.
- node3, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10No, Radiant, it's not an oversimplification, it's a generalization. And it's a very apt one.
Here is a (very short) list of conservative/republican oversimplifications:
- Stem Cell research is murder.
- Taxes are theft, and therefore immoral.
- If the President does it, then it's *not* illegal.
- John Kerry == Flip-flopper.
- Guantanamo detainees are not subject to any legal rights whatsoever.
- Bill Clinton was impeached.
- Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11th belong in the same sentence.
- Abstinence-only education.
- Mission Accomplished.
All of the above are gross oversimplifications. You have no idea how excruciating it is that the right is treating those, and virtually all other, issues so simplistically, when the realities are so much more complex and nuanced. Doing as they are doing is a surefire recipe for disaster. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -16/+13Why should people be interested in the track record of peace movements? You implicit premise is that peace movements have not created peace, and therefor they are useless. You argument is as assinine as it is stupid. Would you say that since the track record of the libertarian party is that it has failed to accomplish one single thing, that it is useless? Bet not.
- Rhinobird, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Rhinobird
I retract my post. Apparently a little wikipedia is a good thing. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and NAZI "final solution" started in the same month. - volscio, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2These warmongerers love war but have no clue how to wage war properly. Just the state of war gives them a woodie even if it accomplishes nothing (or makes things worse).
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9That's how they become libertarians.
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11"I find it very annoying how conservatives like to oversimplify everything. The trick seems to be to put a patronizing tone and reduce issues to an uttermost simplicity and then provide the "enlightened" answer to the problem (not the actual problem, but the oversimplified one),"
If they've done that, they are using a strawman logical fallacy. Their argument can be dismissed. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is