Pacifism and the Mideast Conflict

[androbot2084]

I propose we start a debate about pacifism.  Are these teachings really practical for today?  What about Gandhi was he just a dreamer?

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "...What about Gandhi was he just a dreamer?..."

Gandhi taught that some types of situations must be met with violent resistance.

He singled out the Nazis persecution of Jews as one which must be met with violence, for he said that Nazism, unlike the British Imperialists, was a completely savage and barbaric movement which was immune to peaceful resistance.

He was not just a dreamer...he took real practical action and personally demonstrated that much of his beliefs could be accomplished if people wanted to have a democratic India free of foreign control.

Gandhi was one of the world's most prolific writers...Go to the library of any major university which offers degrees in South West Asian languages and history, and your mouth will drop open with amazement and awe when you see the tremendous literary output Gandhi left...volume upon volume taking up a huge section of a library.

He began his life as a practicing legal attorney prone to beating his wife when angry.  At some point he underwent a spiritual search which led to his eventual role as the "Father of Modern India".  Even Catholic nuns who lived in India during his lifetime revered him as a true "Christ-like" figure.  Gandhi and the Buddha, both Indians, are the only men known to have literally walked on foot the entire length and breadth of India holding audiences who came to listen.  He stands as one of the true giants of the 20th Century...a personality and leader who was 'larger than life'.  He singlehandedly and nonviolently organized the Indian people into a movement for national liberation, and it was Gandhi alone who effected the British giving India back their country and ending their Imperial Rule of the Crown Colony of India.

[androbot2084]

Well of course a person who uses violence as a way to solve problems is going to think that it is the only effective solution.  For example a man who beats his wife because his wife nags him thinks that this is the only effective way to force her to stop nagging him.  However it can be soon realized that he would probably have to kill his wife to get her to stop nagging.

When we are faced with more difficult problems such as dealing with the Nazi's and it is assumed pacifsm does not work but rather the only thing that will work is a complete military victory.  However we must ask ourselves are their any victors in war?  After the Germans were defeated we had a constant threat of nuclear war with the Russians that threatened to end life as we know it because the only effective way to deal with these Godless communist monsters was with a first strike all out nuclear attack so we could get them before they got us.

If we really think about it there is probably a lot of alternatives  to violence during World War 2.  The United States could have accepted Jewish refugees but instead turned them back because we did not want any more illegal aliens. And  the liberation of concentration camps was probably not a very high strategic goal during World War 2. You see when you engage in war your objective is too take out the enemies capacity to fight.  So resources would be spent in bombing munitions plants and enemy positions. As far as rescuing the wounded and dying soldiers the objective is only to restore the fighting efficiency of the soldier. If a soldier can no longer fight he is either written off or recieves a low priority for medical care. Again I am sure a lot of Jewish lives could have been saved if the rail lines leading to the concentration camps were bombed.  But then again the Allies were only interested in tactical and strategic targets and not in rescue missions.

[MassuhDGoodName]

androbot2084:  "...If we really think about it there is probably a lot of alternatives  to violence during World War 2.

By very definition of the term, "World War II" is violence on a global scale; not 'non-violence'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

androbot2984:  "The United States could have accepted Jewish refugees but instead turned them back because we did not want any more illegal aliens."

-Your opinion is illogical because "refugee" and "illegal alien" are unrelated in terms of legal status defined by law.  A "refugee" is not by definition an "illegal alien".

-Furthermore, you state that the United States "did not want any more illegal aliens", yet there was no significant influx of illegal aliens into the United States until the 1950's when President Eisenhower responded to a flood of illegal Mexicans by launching "Operation Wetback".

Prior to this time the United States allowed organized and legal immigration into the U.S., primarily from Western Europe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
androbot2084:  "...However we must ask ourselves are their any victors in war?

-The answer to this question is YES.

-The ALLIES emerged victorious...the USSR was one of the ALLIES.

-The USSR not only defeated a massive Nazi surprise attack & invasion of its homeland, but counterattacked, occupying half of Germany and surrounding Berlin.

-Had the American led Normandy Invasion not taken place, the USSR might have not only emerged victorious in its "Great Patriotic War", but pushed all the way to the Atlantic Ocean as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
androbot2084:  "After the Germans were defeated we had a constant threat of nuclear war with the Russians"

-Incorrect.  It was only years later that the Soviets acquired the ability to produce a nuclear device.

-The "Mexican standoff" which resulted from the threat of mutual annihilation is what prevented open military conflict between the U.S.A. and the USSR, due in no small part to the fact that both nations shared the goals of acquiring material wealth and increasing their own standards of living.  The result was "war by proxy" where both sides used smaller and potentially less dangerous countries around the world to fight each other in attempts to prove ideological superiority.
 

[androbot2084]

Although World War 2 was indeed violence on a global scale not every single country in the world engaged in combat.  Switzerland for example was nuetral.

As far as the comment "illegal alien" I was only trying to convey a feeling of anti-imigration sentiment that existed in the United States that prevented Jewish World War 2  refugees from entering the country. Nevertheless I think allowing Jewish refugees into the United States would have been a good way for pacifists to save Jewish lives.

As far as the comment that there are no victors in war it seems that any victory in World War 2 was very short lived.  By 1949 Russia had the atomic bomb and by the 1960's Russia was an imminent threat to world peace.  Although the doctrine of mutually assured destruction may have prevented an all out nuclear war, unfortunately there were also first strike doctrines and first strike technologies that put this country and the whole world on the brink of nuclear war that would have ended life as we know it. For example in the 1980's Pershing missles were installed in Europe that could have taken out Russia's defenses in a matter of minutes. And there was a lot of talk about "winning" a nuclear war by our insane Presidents and Generals who failed to realize that even if it were technically feasible to win a nuclear war we would all still die by starvation once the nuclear winter set in.

Probably one of the biggest arguments against pacifism is the it would give the enemy a field day in which millions of innocent people would die.  However the advocates of war that insist that war is a solution to all our problems fail to tell you that they too have their field days in which billions die.