ChatterBank2 mins ago
Obtaining peace.
25 Answers
"If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and non-violence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer."
- Dr Martin Luther King.
Do you agree with this statement? Do you ever think that violence can ever be used in the name of peace, and if so- under what circumstamces?
For those who may not know who Dietrich Bonhoeffer was, he was an exceptionally talented Christian theologist who lived in Nazi Germany. He actively opposed fascism and was put under Gestapo surveillance for preaching against the Nazis. He was arrested for plotting to overthrow Hitler and was hanged at Flossenburg in April 1945. He was a profoundly courageous man, and his actions and various theological works have been subject of great interest.
However, it is also believed he played a part in the planning of the July Bomb Plot to assassinate Hitler.
Does the evil of Hitler and his fascism condone the use of violence?
I apologise for choosing such an extreme example, but please feel free to submit and share other example that you think are important. I also apologise iif this isn't news, I'm new to the AB, and was unsure what category to place this under, but with the recent terrorist activity I suppose it is vaguely topical.
Discuss!
Peterhouse
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peterhouse. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Welcome to AB! :-) Certainly a very interesting topic. I think the original plan was that threads like this would go in chatterbank (known to many as CB) but that topic section has become home for lighter subjects, so given the choice between "history and myths" and "news" - I think you put this in the right place!! If ABE (Answer Bank Editor) thinks we were mistaken, they will move it to the best home - so don't worry! :-)
I read once that "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity". Sorry for the profanity folks! Mind you, we all also know the phrase "Fight fire with fire".
That said, I do agree that it's a subject that throws up a lot of questions. I certainly think it is VERY topical.
I'm not sure exactly of my views on this, but I will read with interest other people's opinios and then form my own at the end.
I hope that's ok Peterhouse! :-)
Oh please bernardo, that's a soundbite marched out to defend a big unprovoked act of aggression on a soverign state by international vigilantes. The premise to that war was that there was "weapons of mass destruction" (a term useful in the way it can instill fear in the general public while avoiding specifics that could be proved or disproved) that the (admittedly evil) leader of that country could unleash on us at a moments notice. That scenario never came to pass, so the one you quote was marched out so that we could feel that we're doing good work.
I would have thought that most people have seen it for what it is, an attempt to secure a stable supply of cheap energy to fuel future economic growth in the aggressors countries. The initial reason was untrue (at the time of looking at least), the real reason is unpallatable, so here we are spreading democracy around the globe. When does Zimbabwe get their invasion, when do we go into North Korea?
To answer Peterhouses question, I have to agree with acw's virginity quote. To take it further, it reminds me of the childhood story of the north wind and the sun trying to get a man to take off his coat. The wind tries to blow it off him but continually fails, the sun shines on him and he takes it off straight away. The IRA tried to bomb and shoot their way to a political goal and were resisted all the way. ETA are doing the same and it (largely) fails to work. US & UK in Iraq are doing the same, do you think that'll work? Everybody involved knows they are right, so it'll never work. And we never learn.
I would have thought that most people have seen it for what it is, an attempt to secure a stable supply of cheap energy to fuel future economic growth in the aggressors countries. The initial reason was untrue (at the time of looking at least), the real reason is unpallatable, so here we are spreading democracy around the globe. When does Zimbabwe get their invasion, when do we go into North Korea?
To answer Peterhouses question, I have to agree with acw's virginity quote. To take it further, it reminds me of the childhood story of the north wind and the sun trying to get a man to take off his coat. The wind tries to blow it off him but continually fails, the sun shines on him and he takes it off straight away. The IRA tried to bomb and shoot their way to a political goal and were resisted all the way. ETA are doing the same and it (largely) fails to work. US & UK in Iraq are doing the same, do you think that'll work? Everybody involved knows they are right, so it'll never work. And we never learn.
Ralph - maybe Bernardo is acutally expressing his own opinion. Just because people are not totally cynical doesn't make them stupid/naive!
And there is a VERY fine line between "live and let live" and "turning a blind eye". Perhaps some people feel that respect for and protection of ones fellow man is not a passive affair.
Whilst I agree that there were economic reasons for the war in Iraq, the world IS a better place without Sadam Hussein. The whole thing is a mess, but the Social Workers' attitude of "Take the Troops out of Iraq and the bombs in London stop" is TOTAL PISH. These extremists hate the West and are not going to suddenly forgive all just because we pull out of Iraq. To tihnk THAT would be naive.
Whatver you say, there is a BIG difference between countries taking action, and underground terrorist groups. Physically and ideologically. That needs to be taken into account in these arguments.
acw, as usual, I cannot argue with anything you've said. I take this opportunity to tone down what I've said, but I stand by the general content. I am deeply cynical of everything unfortunately, but also very tolerant. However, war/violence is something I cannot tolerate as I see it purely as a waste of people. I'm not up for appeasement either, just anti-war, especially when it isn't necessary.
I wholeheartedly agree that war results in lives being wasted unecessarily. But then it could also be argued that some people dying in the short run, is worth it to secure long term peace and stability - back to the question Peterhouse posed. If those young boys hadn't laid down their lives in 1914-18 and 1939-45 Europe would be a very different place now. Although we will never know what colour the grass would have been, I cannot help but think that it's greener this side, and that their deaths were not "unecessary". I think that is how their families felt, then and now. That people who die in war, do so for good reason.
If you catch my drift.... :-)
Thank you all for such interesting responses.
I agree with acw about the Second World War. In the history of conflict I can think of no other occassion where one side was so inexplicably evil as the Nazis were, and I think that it is comparitively easy to draw the sides of 'good' and 'evil'.
I think no man can deny the attrocities of Nazism and the need to destroy it.
However I believe that WW2 is a almost an unique example.
Ralph wrote:
Oh please bernardo, that's a soundbite...
It wasn't a soundbite; it was my honest opinion which I have held consistently for nearly three years, since long before the war started, and which I have expressed publicly and repeatedly during the whole time.
...marched out to defend a big unprovoked act of aggression on a sovereign state by international vigilantes....
My opinion is that the Liberation of Iraq (I do not regard it as an "attack on" or "attack against" Iraq) was justified because of the long record of external aggression that Saddam Hussein's regime had against neighbouring countries (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) and the million people killed by him. If Saddam Husein had stayed in power, he would have developed WMDs in the future, would have prepared to attack his neighbours (yet again) and continued the wholesale murder of his own people. The 25,000 people who have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war (not the ludicrously inaccurate and unscientific figure of 100,000 which is spouted regularly by the far-left) is far fewer than the number who have been saved by Saddam's overthrow.
...The premise to that war was that there was "weapons of mass destruction" ... that the (admittedly evil) leader of that country could unleash on us at a moments notice...
Not for me it wasn't. If Bush and Blair based their war on an inaccurate claim of 45 minutes, and on the existence of WMDs in the present, then that is their problem. The fact that WMDs turned out not to exist in the present is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, because they would have been developed in the future.
...That scenario never came to pass, so the one you quote was marched out so that we could feel that we're doing good work....
Again that is not relevant. And it is not something which I have "quoted", it is what I myself stated as my own views.
...I would have thought that most people have seen it for what it is, an attempt to secure a stable supply of cheap energy to fuel future economic growth in the aggressors countries...
Apart from the fact that you should have said "liberator countries" rather than "aggressor countries", yes of course it was. The maintenance and security of a continuing favourable supply of oil to western countries from the Middle East is a vital resource and a vital economic interest of the Western countries. As such it was part of the legitimate aims and purpose of the War, and I have always said so.
...The initial reason was untrue (at the time of looking at least)...
You mean the 45-minute claim? Their reason, not mine.
...the real reason is unpalatable, so here we are spreading democracy around the globe.
Yes. I for one am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
When does Zimbabwe get their invasion, when do we go into North Korea?
Zimbabwe does not threaten aggression against its neighbours and does not provide vital oil supplies or other economic benefits to us or our allies. North Korea is bound to collapse internally soon anyway, without external assistance.
Again that is not relevant. And it is not something which I have "quoted", it is what I myself stated as my own views.
...I would have thought that most people have seen it for what it is, an attempt to secure a stable supply of cheap energy to fuel future economic growth in the aggressors countries...
Apart from the fact that you should have said "liberator countries" rather than "aggressor countries", yes of course it was. The maintenance and security of a continuing favourable supply of oil to western countries from the Middle East is a vital resource and a vital economic interest of the Western countries. As such it was part of the legitimate aims and purpose of the War, and I have always said so.
...The initial reason was untrue (at the time of looking at least)...
You mean the 45-minute claim? Their reason, not mine.
...the real reason is unpalatable, so here we are spreading democracy around the globe.
Yes. I for one am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.
When does Zimbabwe get their invasion, when do we go into North Korea?
Zimbabwe does not threaten aggression against its neighbours and does not provide vital oil supplies or other economic benefits to us or our allies. North Korea is bound to collapse internally soon anyway, without external assistance.
What a brilliantly eloquent defence of your own opinion Bernardo! :-)
I hope Peterhouse gives you 3 stars when he next checks this thread!
PS - I say "he" because I'm making an assumption that your name is Peter House. Of course I've just realised that Peterhouse may just be your surname. Whilst your anonymity is your choice entirely, please accept my apologies if I've been making a false assumption! :-)
Depends who's attacking them obviously. And who else is around, what neighbourhood I'm in and if it's dark etc etc.
As a young woman who's not that strong I'm not going to go in there and get myself beaten up as then I'm no help to the elderly person.
I'd call the police.
What does this have to do with this discussion which is clearly centred on issues that are NOT one on one? i.e., fighting for peace or freedom on a wider scale. We've discussed war and terrorism. Anyone's answers on muggings won't influence the outcome of the debate any more than the price of fish will.
bernardo, we never went to war on your opinion, we went on the opinions of the people who claimed it was necessary to find weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I think we were misled by the guys at the top. They couldn't sell the liberation idea to the UN Security Council (and they sure as hell couldn't get them to agree to securing oil supplies) so they sold us a story that wasn't true (WMD), and went it alone. I feel that was wrong and can really only set a bad precedent.
I too am happy that Hussein is gone, but I'm still annoyed at the series of events that led to his removal. The "war on terror" is masking all kinds of things here, as it does in Israel/ Palestine, Chechnya and presumably countless other places that I either can't remember or don't know about.
The possibility of Iraq developing WMD in the future is not a sound case for war. It may square it in your mind, but it wouldn't stand a chance in a court. It's kind of like that Tom Cruise movie where you could get arrested and convicted before commiting a murder that you would have done had you been free to do so. There's fundamental flaws in that idea.
I still think Zimbabwe could do with a good democracy injection. The half million people recently thrown out of their houses in order to make the place look nicer would probably agree with me.
I too am happy that Hussein is gone, but I'm still annoyed at the series of events that led to his removal. The "war on terror" is masking all kinds of things here, as it does in Israel/ Palestine, Chechnya and presumably countless other places that I either can't remember or don't know about.
The possibility of Iraq developing WMD in the future is not a sound case for war. It may square it in your mind, but it wouldn't stand a chance in a court. It's kind of like that Tom Cruise movie where you could get arrested and convicted before commiting a murder that you would have done had you been free to do so. There's fundamental flaws in that idea.
I still think Zimbabwe could do with a good democracy injection. The half million people recently thrown out of their houses in order to make the place look nicer would probably agree with me.
Just because bernardo isn't a government/military advisor doesn't make his opinions any less valid. Please at least recognise that bernardo, like all ABers and everyone else in fact, is entitled to his opinion, even if it doesn't match with yours. It seems only fair enough that you do that please. :-)
Latest Posts
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.