War Is the Coward's Escape from the Problems of Peace

topic posted Sat, August 5, 2006 - 6:10 AM by  Heroness
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
this is a great article...from one of our true heros....who has since passed..

www.forusa.org/fellowship...coffin.html

War is humanity's most chronic and incurable disease. Said Plato: “Only the dead have seen an end to war.” Historian Will Durant estimated that in all recorded history only twenty-nine years could be described as free of war. And of all centuries, the last set records for bloodletting.


I saw..Bill Moyers interview him..a while back... thought I would pass this along..
posted by:
Heroness
Boston
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • The coward's escape......In micro, it is the moron who terrorizes his wife and kids because the boss criticized his job performance, and in macro, it's $hrubco declaring war on Iraq to either bring about Armageddon or simplt take over every bit of every resource the planet has left.
  • Ten
    Ten
    offline 1
    No, delusions of peace, love and equality are a moron's escape from reality.
    • believe what you wish..

      without the dream..

      there is no action...

      as John Lennon said.. as long as there is life..there is hope~
      • Ten
        Ten
        offline 1
        The point I am trying to make is that you can make as many emotionally appealing statements about peace as you wish, and they can all be easily be countered by equally emotionally charged and vain sayings.

        Example:

        - War is the coward's escape from the problems of peace

        vs.

        - Peace is a coward's escape from fullfilling his duty as a man

        If you want to advocate peaceful solutions, for the love of dog don't argue that peace is better than war because war is worse than peace. It makes you look stupid.
    • <...No, delusions of peace, love and equality are a moron's escape from reality....>

      Hmmmmmm.....Looks like we have a micro-moron here.
      • It's easier to tear down than to build. It's easier to fire off a rocket than to try to negotiate a solution. Maybe it's just entropy? But what course of action can one take in the face of irrational behavior?

        If you are out at a street fair minding your own business and someone comes up to you and begins to get aggressive what do you do if they don't leave you a way out? Suppose there's not a cop around?? Say your friends are somewhere else? What do you do if the person is totally irrational? Suppose he's/she's obviously bigger than you and you decide to fight. Do you fight "fair"? Now expand that into a macro situation. I myself don't have an answer other than try to survive.
        • Ten
          Ten
          offline 1
          "It's easier to tear down than to build. It's easier to fire off a rocket than to try to negotiate a solution"

          You are very right. However, do you think that just because something is harder to obtain it's somehow better than the alternative? Faulty argument.

          "If you are out at a street fair minding your own business and someone comes up to you and begins to get aggressive what do you do if they don't leave you a way out? Suppose there's not a cop around?? Say your friends are somewhere else? What do you do if the person is totally irrational? Suppose he's/she's obviously bigger than you and you decide to fight. Do you fight "fair"? Now expand that into a macro situation. I myself don't have an answer other than try to survive."

          Have you ever actually been to a street fight? I mean, a /real/ street fight? Cuz anyone who was would tell you that there's no such thing as a "fair" street fight. Your personal best case scenario in a street fight would be run to the hills while you still haven't gotten stabbed. Street fights are for people who prefer to stab rather than being stabbed.

          Now, I don't like this analogy of yours where you are apparently "minding your own business". Lebanon wasn't in any way minding their own business. Instead, they were quietly amassing rockets and waited for an opportunity to snatch a soldier or two. I don't see how this may count as "minding their own business". And don't tell me they were stockpiling these cheapass rockets for any legitimate self defense purpose. None of this would be happening if Hizbollah didn't capture our soldiers.
          • <Now, I don't like this analogy of yours where you are apparently "minding your own business". Lebanon wasn't in any way minding their own business. Instead, they were quietly amassing rockets and waited for an opportunity to snatch a soldier or two. I don't see how this may count as "minding their own business". And don't tell me they were stockpiling these cheapass rockets for any legitimate self defense purpose. None of this would be happening if Hizbollah didn't capture our soldiers.>

            Hezbollah was not Lebanon. It did not have the sanction of the Lebanese government. It wasn't too popular with the Lebanese villagers until the Israeli bombs began to drop. If you want a street fight analogy, let's say I got robbed by a mugger, saw you walking down the street, and I threw a rock at your head and beat the hell out of you simply because you were there. That would be a much more accurate anology.
            • Ten
              Ten
              offline 1
              A great analogy indeed, assuming that the person walking down the street, the one that gets beaten up, is also the person who gives food and shelter to the mugger and encourages him to rob people, cheering, clapping and dancing when someone does get mugged... in which case, I shall say again, the shotgun directive should be applied.
              • <A great analogy indeed, assuming that the person walking down the street, the one that gets beaten up, is also the person who gives food and shelter to the mugger and encourages him to rob people, cheering, clapping and dancing when someone does get mugged... in which case, I shall say again, the shotgun directive should be applied. >

                First of all, please understand that I am not anti-Israel. I am Jewish. I have an aunt in Tel-Aviv whom I have been speaking to on the telephone once a week for 40 years. I have visited Israel a few times. I have a third cousin who is at the front in Lebanon and a second cousin who is a physician caring for the war wounded on both sides. I am stunned and horrified at the ignorance of my fellow Jewish Americans when they bad-mouth Zionism without realizing that Zionism was the beginning of civil rights for Jews world wide, and I am utterly disgusted at the way Americans think that somehow Israel is America in the desert, and that Israel paralels American histroy with the Native Americans. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of pig headed ignorance.

                I also understand that your neighbors see Israel as America in the desert, and that Israel is taking the heat for the Bush follies in Iraq, and that the current violence in Lebanon has more to do with Bush's stupidity than any "blood thirst" in Israel. Unlike other Americans, I understand that the Middle East is not Europe. It is almost impossible to negotiate with neighbors who feel as if they are in no way bound by the dictates of their government. You negotiate with one faction of the Palestinians, and another faction goes raiding into your legal settlements. You talk peace with Lebanon and Hezbollah begins shooting rockets into the 1967 borders. How the hell are you going to deal with something like that?

                This is made worse by the utter stupidity of many so-called American liberals who like G.W. Bush, think they have the right to impose their will on a foreign government by protesting in a war zone, and then yelling in shock when some of them get hurt. What do they expect? It's a war zone. I am also appalled at this American attitude that somehow your neighbors are comic book victims waiting for Captain America to save them. Nobody forced Hezbollah to accept those missles from Russia and from Syria, and nobody forced Hezbollah to fire them at civilians.

                With that said, I do not see how Israel's response is going to make Israel one bit safer. Yes, you can blow Lebanon to hell, but 20 years later they will be back on their feet firing missles at Israel again. Only next time there will be more Hezbollah and more and bigger missles. The hard liners will probably not be elected in the next Iranian election, but you always have Syria and Saudi Arabia, and their bizarre fantasies ablout recreating the Ottoman Empire.

                Frankly, I do not see either logic or sense in supporting either the Israeli government nor Israel's neighbors in this current fracas. I do not understand how killing innocent women and children is going to make Israel one bit safer or assure its future survival. At the same time I do not see any sense in supporting Israel's neighbors in their imaginary and religiously motivated war against Israel. Both sides have committed sufficient atrocities to cause the ret of the world to say stop. This is it. Not one dime to either side. Not one gun to either side. Not one single bullet, and if you are going to continue this, then you can continue it without our help or support. I feel that the American part in this fracas should be as mediators to assure the safety and security of Israel and its neighbors.

                Also keep in mind that the end of foreign aid to Israel is inevitable. Bush and his idiocies at home and abroad has bankrupted the United States. We have such a deficiet that I will be amazed if the U.S economy doesn't collapse. Right now the foreign aid the U.S is sending to Israel has been borrowed from the Chinese. Keep that in mind while you support your war.

                BTW, I do wish you and yours well. I hope you and your family are safe from the violence. My views are not based on any hatred of Israel. These are the views of a proudly Jewish peace activist.
          • <You are very right. However, do you think that just because something is harder to obtain it's somehow better than the alternative? Faulty argument.>

            Remember we are talking about irrational people who are pursuing “revenge” in a blood feud. And I’m not specifically talking about the Jews and the Arabs. There are plenty of long standing feuds to go around. I agree with the thread statement, but sometimes a person or country has to defend itself.

            <Have you ever actually been to a street fight? I mean, a /real/ street fight?>

            I meant a one on one situation not a “donnybrook”. Wars incorporate the “gang” mentality. I was asking the tribe members what they would do if they were say the leader of a country. Sometimes you have to fight was all I was implying.

            <Now, I don't like this analogy of yours where you are apparently "minding your own business". Lebanon wasn't in any way minding their own business.>

            Ten, actually we are on the same side on this but there are many tribe members who will make the contention that Hizbollah has some legitimate beefs even though they may be operatives of Iran.
        • <If you are out at a street fair minding your own business and someone comes up to you and begins to get aggressive what do you do if they don't leave you a way out? Suppose there's not a cop around?? Say your friends are somewhere else? What do you do if the person is totally irrational? Suppose he's/she's obviously bigger than you and you decide to fight. Do you fight "fair"? Now expand that into a macro situation. I myself don't have an answer other than try to survive. >

          There is a huge difference between fighting off a mugger and iring rockets into civilian villages. There is a bigger difference between putting an end to the rockets and going totaly crazy and murdering thousands. Man, I've been hearing your reasoning since I was a little kid during the 60s, and it makes no more sense to me now than it did then.
          • "There is a huge difference between fighting off a mugger and iring rockets into civilian villages. There is a bigger difference between putting an end to the rockets and going totaly crazy and murdering thousands. Man, I've been hearing your reasoning since I was a little kid during the 60s, and it makes no more sense to me now than it did then."

            Brother, I really am glad that you are in this group. You're one of the most rational people here, even if we don't always agree.
        • that was great...thanx...

          because....if you don't learn ..to not fight..

          then we all get killled..and so does the planet..and everything that has been built here..

          this is one freakin beautiful rich place..

          and worth the struggle...to try to preserve her..

          and her children for future generations...

          they say I'm a dreamer..but..I'm not the only one~

          there is power in the masses..
          like the snow ball..

          one flake doesn't make a snow ball ....its the massing together..the connecting of like minds and spirits..from around the world..that is growing..every day..

          we see the hatred..do we see the good...

          do we see the people that are working their asses off..to protect what we have

          and not see the world..paved over by haliburton~
          • Ten
            Ten
            offline 1
            too much... uncertainty... and... confusion...
            • Five or Ten years down the road, maybe not even that long. please recall what I am saying now. Not only is this war wrong. . .it will not work.

              the solutions to middle east conflict will not come through the applications of violence by Israel and the USA.
              • Ten
                Ten
                offline 1
                Neither through surrender of Jewish land or release of murderers from prisons.

                Hopefully, that.
                • Ethics of course shows that violence is wrong, but sometimes in the real world, nations and people don't take the ethical path.

                  So let's look at practical factors. It's a matter of mathematics.

                  There is an old strategists saying that I can't recall exactly, but it is something like. . .

                  " Amateurs discuss tactics, armchair generals discuss strategy, and professionals discuss logistics. "

                  Since we all love to use Hitler as an example, let's do, but in a different sense.

                  In Hitler's invasion of the USSR, he focused on strategy and never did the math regarding relative logistics. He could have checked the population figures for Germany and the USSR but he failed to do so. Neither did he consider the potential manufacturing capability and safe transportation routes available to the USSR. The sheer force of numbers overwhelmed the german army. A really good case could be made that the Studebaker truck defeated the Nazis. The US sent so many Studebakers (as well as other war material) to the USSR and that logistical supply was never an issue. The germans faltered because of limited productive capacity and fuel resources.

                  How many Israelis are there? How many Moslems? Similarly, how much financial support is available to Israel to pay for weaponry, vs the potential for her enemies? What are the chances that Israel will gain more allies? What are the chances that her enemies will gain more allies?

                  It's mathematics. Peace through negotiations are the only answer. Unless you want to consider a radioactive desert where this region used to be.

                  Regardless of what anyone thinks is right and just. Mathematics rules all.

                  Even if Israel manages to crush all opposition in Lebanon, which I don't believe they will. It will come back to them. The Islamic people's have been greatly agitated by the USA and Israel. This isn't going to end until there is a just two state solution acheived through peace negotiations.

                  Russia and China will supply Israel's adversaries. The USA will go broke. . .we are not that far off. Who will supply Israel?
                  Our army will crumble, due to the badly planned war in Iraq.

                  There is no hope save for peaceful negotiations resulting in a just two state solution.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Ten
                    Ten
                    offline 1
                    Or we could take the other extreme and say "perpetual military intimidation covered by the nuclear weapons we have as means to achieving strategic objective of retaining integrity of the state at enemy's expense". Same cock, different hand.
  • Unsu...
     
    So does this mean that when the US pulled out of Lebanon in 1983 because Hizbollah massacred 250 Marines, it wasn't cowardly?

    And since Hezbollah and the Arab world saw the US response as weak, that they are cowards because they continued to attack us?

    And when Israel gets repeatedly attacked without provocation, that they are cowardly for retaliating ?

    Does any use of force in a war-like manner constitute cowardly behavior? If an aggressor will not negotiate peace diplomatically, is it cowardly to fight them with weapons of war?
  • <The point I am trying to make is that you can make as many emotionally appealing statements about peace as you wish, and they can all be easily be countered by equally emotionally charged and vain sayings. >

    well....

    The point I am trying to make is that you can make as many emotionally appealing statements about peace as you wish, and they can all be easily be fulfilled by equally logically charged efforts to attaining peace.

    however if you don't want peace, shit hand that guy a piece, and let him enjoy the horrors of war.
    • <You are very right. However, do you think that just because something is harder to obtain it's somehow better than the alternative?>

      No but violence is worse than peace. It is quite easy to figure that one out. Yes, you are right, peace is a not better alternative for defense contractors, and those who support them, but for the mass populous it is better. Unity is better than divison, unless one has something to gain from divison.

      Lets see how much war costs:
      with hate, it is hard to promote American commodities which are of higher quality than Chinese goods, if people hate Americans because our government provides others with bombs that kill civilians.

      That is just an economic loss of an ally. I have not figured out the cost of the loss of life, however many do not value life which is sad, and reflects upon them.

      I mean why don't you post the gains from war, and the losses from peace. I think that is a good idea, and then we can compare.
      • Unsu...
         
        <No but violence is worse than peace. It is quite easy to figure that one out. Yes, you are right, peace is a not better alternative for defense contractors, and those who support them, but for the mass populous it is better. Unity is better than divison, unless one has something to gain from divison. >
        The point of who is it better for is the key question, as long as the people in charge are the ones the benefit, peace will never be the goal.

        <Lets see how much war costs:
        with hate, it is hard to promote American commodities which are of higher quality than Chinese goods, if people hate Americans because our government provides others with bombs that kill civilians.

        That is just an economic loss of an ally. I have not figured out the cost of the loss of life, however many do not value life which is sad, and reflects upon them. >

        Again who is dieing the poor? the middle class? To the rich that prosper from the war that is a win, win for them.

        <I mean why don't you post the gains from war, and the losses from peace. I think that is a good idea, and then we can compare.
        >
        I would say that the point that seem to be missed, here is that goal has never been peace, the people that start wars prosper from it, they could care less how many lives are lost or how much misery it cost, the notion that war is a coward's choice is assuming peace is wanted by those in power.