Pacifists versus Peace

[Lazy Lob]

July 21, 2006
Pacifists versus Peace
By Thomas Sowell

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

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. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

[oscarsierra]

A very good read. Thanks.

[Durandal]

All too true...

[Dronetek]

Great piece, to bad people are to full of themselves to realize that sometimes war is necessary.

[Hypno85]

Great piece, to bad people are to full of themselves to realize that sometimes war is necessary.

^^ Exactly ^^

And a very good read thank you.

Hypno

[ed316]

Too true. Good read

[Hollis]

I agree with the other respondents. Exellent read. It would be a wonderful world if all was needed to fix a problem was a Hug :hug: ,

[Lazy Lob]

Thank you gents. I remember once watching a couple of specimens from the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp on TV many years ago saying that nukes weren’t necessary. The interviewer asked them how we should defend ourselves from a hypothetical Soviet attack. Their reply was “love, if we show and give them enough love they will respond in kind”. I choked.

[oldsoak]

Thank you gents. I remember once watching a couple of specimens from the Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp on TV many years ago saying that nukes weren’t necessary. The interviewer asked them how we should defend ourselves from a hypothetical Soviet attack. Their reply was “love, if we show and give them enough love they will respond in kind”. I choked.

---and after taking one look at the women there, the Russians said "F**k that, we'd rather kiss a walrus " and b*ggered of home. :lol:

[Firetxmi]

I understand war is necessary sometimes, but I also believe that we need to exhaust diplomacy and non-violent solutions before we resort to it.

[ZeroZen]

I understand war is necessary sometimes, but I also believe that we need to exhaust diplomacy and non-violent solutions before we resort to it.

Thats a fact but the consequences to liberate the oppress, We became the aggressors in the eyes of many...

[wubanga101]

War is a neccesary evil.

~WU~

[Dronetek]

I understand war is necessary sometimes, but I also believe that we need to exhaust diplomacy and non-violent solutions before we resort to it.

You dont think 2 decades of failed diplomacy is enough?

[Asheren]

nope 2 decades are not enough and after next two 4 will be not enough etc. etc. Its how this s..t works. They allways need more time to spread peace love and war.

[Laworkerbee]

You dont think 2 decades of failed diplomacy is enough?

Let diplomacy fail, at least give it a chance. Anything is better than having your sons, and fathers, and brothers come home in wooden boxes, there is always time for war.

Great find LazyLob

[Firetxmi]

Thats a fact but the consequences to liberate the oppress, We became the aggressors in the eyes of many...

We are responsible for liberating all the worlds oppressed? We must have a lot of work to do, and I think we started in the wrong location if this is true.......

[Firetxmi]

Let diplomacy fail, at least give it a chance. Anything is better than having your sons, and fathers, and brothers come home in wooden boxes, there is always time for war.

Great find LazyLob

Agree!!!!!

[remo williams]

Originally Posted by Laworkerbee
Let diplomacy fail, at least give it a chance. Anything is better than having your sons, and fathers, and brothers come home in wooden boxes, there is always time for war.

x3. However Talleybrand said it best, and I think that people cannot wrap their minds around this. He said When someone is doing something that is detrimental to you. hurting you. After asking them to stop and they don't do so, you must make them stop. they won't stop themselves. They don't know how. There are some people who do not understand anything but getting their asses handed to them,and will not stop until they do. this is very much different from those who look for conflict,and the peace movement consistently gets the two behaviors twisted imho.

[Firetxmi]

x3. However Talleybrand said it best, and I think that people cannot wrap their minds around this. He said When someone is doing something that is detrimental to you. hurting you. After asking them to stop and they don't do so, you must make them stop. they won't stop themselves. They don't know how. There are some people who do not understand anything but getting their asses handed to them,and will not stop until they do. this is very much different from those who look for conflict,and the peace movement consistently gets the two behaviors twisted imho.

I agree (the current case with Israel/Lebanon is a decent example), but lets face it- we have been involved in some places where no one was really hurting us.

[annihilation]

Peace works great when everyone is aboard. It only takes one person to be aggressive to **** everything up.

That being said, I don't believe in Peace or Pacifists, its just against human nature.

[remo williams]

I agree (the current case with Israel/Lebanon is a decent example), but lets face it- we have been involved in some places where no one was really hurting us.

Yes, but I was speaking in general to the general though of many "peace activists" that you can accomplish peace and avoid conflicts all the time by talking and sharing caulifower and garlic salads.

[Laworkerbee]

x3. However Talleybrand said it best, and I think that people cannot wrap their minds around this. He said When someone is doing something that is detrimental to you. hurting you. After asking them to stop and they don't do so, you must make them stop. they won't stop themselves. They don't know how. There are some people who do not understand anything but getting their asses handed to them,and will not stop until they do. this is very much different from those who look for conflict,and the peace movement consistently gets the two behaviors twisted imho.

I totaly agree

[Durandal]

Peace works great when everyone is aboard. It only takes one person to be aggressive to **** everything up.

That being said, I don't believe in Peace or Pacifists, its just against human nature.

I agree with your first statement full heartedly.

I disagree with the second though. While the U.S. may have low level crime we do have peace within our borders and regardless what the anti-immigration types might think, with our neighbors. Its been like that since I was born...which is more than most people in the world can say.

I also respect a person with enough moral fortitude to be able to say "I will NEVER use violence". I know I could not do it. The moment someone threatened my family or invaded my country I would have no problem with doing harm to those that would do it to me, but there are pacifists out there, like it or not.

[annihilation]

I agree with your first statement full heartedly.

I disagree with the second though. While the U.S. may have low level crime we do have peace within our borders and regardless what the anti-immigration types might think, with our neighbors. Its been like that since I was born...which is more than most people in the world can say.

I also respect a person with enough moral fortitude to be able to say "I will NEVER use violence". I know I could not do it. The moment someone threatened my family or invaded my country I would have no problem with doing harm to those that would do it to me, but there are pacifists out there, like it or not.

True there are pacifists (which is a tough thing to be) but they exist mostly in stable and peaceful nations where they are protected by those who are not pacifists.

True we do have a form of peace in this country and thats because of the heavy enforcement of troops and law enforcement.

Man im tired,ill add more later...ttyl

[Durandal]

True there are pacifists (which is a tough thing to be) but they exist mostly in stable and peaceful nations where they are protected by those who are not pacifists.

True we do have a form of peace in this country and thats because of the heavy enforcement of troops and law enforcement.

Man im tired,ill add more later...ttyl

What about medics in World War II?

A perfect example. Some did their duty and never took a shot.

[Lazy Lob]

I don’t think the author is saying that diplomacy should not be given a chance. He says that once given a chance there are activists who cannot see that other party may not be interested in diplomacy, and may even believe their procrastinating lies.

This lack of interest in diplomacy by any attacker is because if full war does break out they have a get out clause if things start going wrong for them. This get out clause comes in the form of the UN and Peace Activists. He is saying that once war breaks out it should run its course, let both sides get their fill of blood and maybe next time they will think twice about it giving any peace accord a better chance of survival.

[Elmo]

Pacifists versus Peace
By Thomas Sowell

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

This article is amazing. The author babbles about the American civil war, WWII, Middle East, and Falklands and draws this outrageous conclusion about peace movements bringing war!

And he's got nerve to talk about "realities". Why did he leave WWI out of his rant? Oh, that's mainly because his war-mongering attitude of war as a solution to every problem is excactly the same as back then. And the outcome was what?

Weird logic...a war-monger who projects his guilt on peace movements. Never
underestimate the power of self-denial.

[Durandal]

I don’t think the author is saying that diplomacy should not be given a chance. He says that once given a chance there are activists who cannot see that other party may not be interested in diplomacy, and may even believe their procrastinating lies.

This lack of interest in diplomacy by any attacker is because if full war does break out they have a get out clause if things start going wrong for them. This get out clause comes in the form of the UN and Peace Activists. He is saying that once war breaks out it should run its course, let both sides get their fill of blood and maybe next time they will think twice about it giving any peace accord a better chance of survival.


I agree with everything there except that not all attempts at peace result in war.

I think if are outside the conflict we need to look at it and see if peace is a solution.

For instance...

What's going on right now in Israel and Lebanon...this is one of the examples that fits his concept.

The Falklands is a horrible example.

The Falklands COULD have been avoided IF the British had simply made the taking of it TOO costly for the Argentineans. They would have bitched and moaned but ultimately, nothing would have happened. Because the Islands chain was weakly defended, a 2nd world nation was able to take it.

Nor do I think world opinion condemns the Brits for what they did. Most do not even remember it.

The point is, peace, to me, is simply no war. Rattling sabers is still peace.

Just like the use of the U.S. Navy (and others) has kept the major sea lanes open. None of the navies have had major nation conflicts keeping it that way since WWII, but the display of force has kept a peace.

I do not think one is capable without the other...

I think we are starting to get into Clausewitz territory now...

[Laworkerbee]

This article is amazing. The author babbles about the American civil war, WWII, Middle East, and Falklands and draws this outrageous conclusion about peace movements bringing war!

And he's got nerve to talk about "realities". Why did he leave WWI out of his rant? Oh, that's mainly because his war-mongering attitude of war as a solution to every problem is excactly the same as back then. And the outcome was what?

Weird logic...a war-monger who projects his guilt on peace movements. Never
underestimate the power of self-denial.

I suppose you believe in cease fire's then and wars that never end? that kind of fighting in my opinion is immoral. You fight hard, and fight to win, and end the damned war as quick as possible.

[Durandal]

Why did he leave WWI out of his rant? Oh, that's mainly because his war-mongering attitude of war as a solution to every problem is excactly the same as back then. And the outcome was what?

Actually, by mentioning World War II as an example he highlights World War I as a perfect example of simply ending a conflict without TRULY defeating the enemy and the result of a peace and appeasement mentality directly leading to World War II.

Maybe he assumes his readers have at least a working knowledge of modern history.

[panzerjager]

I understand war is necessary sometimes, but I also believe that we need to exhaust diplomacy and non-violent solutions before we resort to it.


Ultimo Ratio Regum, amigo.

[Elmo]

Actually, by mentioning World War II as an example he highlights World War I as a perfect example of simply ending a conflict without TRULY defeating the enemy and the result of a peace and appeasement mentality directly leading to World War II.

Maybe he assumes his readers have at least a working knowledge of modern history.

Perhaps. Or because he can't dodge the fact that it was the outcome of "war to end all wars" philosophy that started to plague the world until 1945. And there is no peace movement to blame when it comes to outbreak of WWI.

It appears he's some sort of right-wing social-darwinist in his 70s anyway, offering his insights on his "realities". And a respected economist. Figures.

[Durandal]

Perhaps. Or because he can't dodge the fact that it was the outcome of "war to end all wars" philosophy that started to plague the world until 1945. And there is no peace movement to blame when it comes to outbreak of WWI.

I quickly rescanned the article, maybe I still missed something, but no where does he say that "peace" movements or pacifists start wars.


It appears he's some sort of right-wing social-darwinist in his 70s anyway, offering his insights on his "realities". And a respected economist. Figures.

I'll sort of agree with you here. In part because, as a nation we actually helped the Brits during the Falklands, not oppose them. As a kid a wrote a letter to Haig telling him I was proud we were helping out our old ally.

[Laworkerbee]

As a kid a wrote a letter to Haig telling him I was proud we were helping out our old ally.

Nerd.... p-)

[Durandal]

Nerd.... p-)

Yes, yes I was...

[BritGrunt]

War is a neccesary evil.

~WU~
Making sense isn't your area of expertise, is it? War is evil but never neccesary

[Durandal]

Making sense isn't your area of expertise, is it? War is evil but never neccesary


So, for instance, World War II was not necessary?

It was VERY necessary.

[BritGrunt]

So, for instance, World War II was not necessary?

It was VERY necessary.Not very good at following the argument through logically are you...?

The invasions of Poland etc by Germany was not necessary..ipso facto there would not have a been a WW2, BTW I typed it slowly ok?

[wubanga101]

Not very good at following the argument through logically are you...?

The invasions of Poland etc by Germany was not necessary..ipso facto there would not have a been a WW2, BTW I typed it slowly ok? Well then I suppose that we could negotiate with osama bin laden right? Or that israel can negotiate with hezbollah?War is needed because sometimes destruction is the only thing dictators and terroist groups understand.

~WU~

[wubanga101]

Well then I suppose that we could negotiate with osama bin laden right? Or that israel can negotiate with hezbollah?War is needed because sometimes destruction is the only thing dictators and terroist groups understand.

~WU~ Plus if hitler didn't invade poland how much longer do you think the holocaust would have lasted because britain and france were to much into "appeasement" and not stopping a lunatic

~WU~

[Durandal]

Not very good at following the argument through logically are you...?

The invasions of Poland etc by Germany was not necessary..ipso facto there would not have a been a WW2, BTW I typed it slowly ok?

Actually, your the one that has tried to argue an illogical argument.

World War II HAD to happen.

It happened because (I know this is a VERY simple way of listing events):

• The German lost World War I
• German economy goes to crap (for a number of reasons)
• Germany knows its the world's whipping boy
• Lots of resentment and political infighting
• Hitler gets to power and consolidates it
• Hitler invades Poland

There is no choice there. Hitler had to do what he was going to do. Trying to LOGICALLY argue that there was a choice there...a choice for a man that wanted to lead Germany into a world dominating Roman styled 1000 year empire is silliness. He knew he was going to go toe to toe with the only other dominate power in Europe....Russia that was where EVERYTHING was headed. There was no choice involved. Choices on HOW it was done, but the conflict was inevitable.

The allies fight against Hitler was not a choice. It was necessary. War was a necessity to both end Hitler's regime and preserve as much of Europe as free and not under Soviet rule. That was a necessity.

[Laworkerbee]

Well then I suppose that we could negotiate with osama bin laden right? Or that israel can negotiate with hezbollah?War is needed because sometimes destruction is the only thing dictators and terroist groups understand.

~WU~

There might come a day when we will have to negotiate with bin Laden :|

[Lazy Lob]

Durandal there are times where even I feel “less is more”. You hit the nail right on the head with the “World War II was not necessary?”. Excellent!

I also feel that BritGrunt lost that one. No follow through necessary.


There might come a day when we will have to negotiate with bin Laden :|

And what do you think he would want from us?

[BritGrunt]

Durandal there are times where even I feel “less is more”. You hit the nail right on the head with the “World War II was not necessary?”. Excellent!

I also feel that BritGrunt lost that one. No follow through necessary.



And what do you think he would want from us?


mmmm, I have noted on here that those who shout the longest and loudest about wars are those who have never been in one. I reitrate my statement.. Wars are not a necessary evil.. if they were politicians would be using them instead of diplomacy to achieve their aims every time. Read some books by great military leaders, you will find that they have the same viewpoint, but of course if you know better........

[wubanga101]

mmmm, I have noted on here that those who shout the longest and loudest about wars are those who have never been in one. I reitrate my statement.. Wars are not a necessary evil.. if they were politicians would be using them instead of diplomacy to achieve their aims every time. Read some books by great military leaders, you will find that they have the same viewpoint, but of course if you know better........ Like I had said war is evil...but sometimes thats the only option we have.

~WU~

[Laworkerbee]

And what do you think he would want from us?

withdraw from country X or some Western city glows in the dark, who knows? but I don't think it's anything that can be ruled out.

I try to never say never since the Berlin wall fell, I never thought I'd see that happen.

[Durandal]

mmmm, I have noted on here that those who shout the longest and loudest about wars are those who have never been in one. I reitrate my statement.. Wars are not a necessary evil.. if they were politicians would be using them instead of diplomacy to achieve their aims every time. Read some books by great military leaders, you will find that they have the same viewpoint, but of course if you know better........

Christ...

That's your reply? An attempted insult claiming no one that has been in a war understands? Read a memoir?

What crap.

[Lazy Lob]

withdraw from country X or some Western city glows in the dark, who knows? but I don't think it's anything that can be ruled out.

I try to never say never since the Berlin wall fell, I never thought I'd see that happen.


The problem with obl is that he wants us all to become muslims ruled under a Caliphate and with his version of Islam. He may curtail these goals, on a temporary basis, so as to get concessions out the west hoping that a few of our idiot politicians will believe him. But all in all his stance gives little room for negotiation. His goals are pretty all encompassing.


mmmm, I have noted on here that those who shout the longest and loudest about wars are those who have never been in one. ........

rofl rofl rofl......I believe you…;-). Here? But this is the interweb. How about the real world? Did you know Hitler...remember him, probably the biggest war monger of the 20tnh century. He was actually a sergeant in the signal corps in WWI before committing the world to all out war 20 years later. Where does that leave your theory?

[BritGrunt]

Christ...

That's your reply? An attempted insult claiming no one that has been in a war understands? Read a memoir?

What crap. You do seem to be doing a lot of shouting.

[Durandal]

You do seem to be doing a lot of shouting.

rofl rofl rofl