It's not pro-war vs anti-war. The question is deterrance vs pacifism.

[leftyandproud]

Had someone suggest this to me today...that his side of the aisle wants peace...Almost every human wants peace. They just prefer a different METHOD of achieving it. (We were talking about the crap Putin is doing in Russia, and got into a discussion about the USSR and cold war)

People on the right have same motivations as us (for the most part)...but different methods and ideas for how to achieve the end result.

I realize this idea may HUMANIZE the people we are talking about, and force us to look at the real-world results of the different policies and approaches to various resolving problems...so it may be difficult for some people here. I know it is much easier just to label right wingers as evil/selfish/racist/fascist assholes who want everyone to die...It makes it much easier to dismiss them.

I have fallen into this trap before, but in reality I know it isn't the case.


What do you think?

[Tacos al Carbon]

1. Now, don't start acting like people with different political beliefs

Might be human beings. That way lies madness.

[aquart]

2. Define "deterrance." Define "pacifism."

Because I have no clue what you are talking about.

And I'd rather not assume.

[leftyandproud]

8. well

Deterrance = big military....big weapons...stuff to scare the crap out of anyone who dares f*ck with us...you know the idea. It may also including throwing your weight around in the world and scaring your enemies into pre-emptive surrender (Libya's leader basically said he saw what happened in Iraq and was frightened for his own safety...then came clean and basically disbanded his nuke program)

I'm willing to admit that was probably an example of "successful" deterrance, in that it wouldn't have happened if we didn't take out the Afghanistan and Iraq regimes in a three year period...scaring everyone else to death. I am not saying this justifies the war, far from it...but it certainly is a positive side-effect of the wilingness to take military action.

A nation favoring deterrance obviously is LESS likely to spend time using diplomatic channels...talk...negotiations...trying to pressure bad countries with UN power, sanctions, etc etc.

I think a modern definition of pacifism or appeasement would be the opposite of this. Trying to make peace by showing our good intentions, by reducing military power and weapons buildups, by pulling back troops from sensitive areas, making concessions, and promoting organizations like the UN...multilateral talks and political pressure to bad nations, rather than using PHYSICAL pressure (military threats) to accomplish the same goals.

[welshTerrier2]

34. totally absurd

first of all, your definition of deterrence is way too hawkish for my tastes ... what you're talking about is not the only form of deterrence ... you're talking about threatening other countries with military force ...

but there are other ways to "deter" them from any given action ... there is political pressure, economic pressure and all sorts of other means ... deterrence is not as monolithic as you suggested ... i would argue that "deter" does not necessarily mean "force" ...

secondly, your main point that pro-war vs. anti-war is really deterrence vs. pacifism is total nonsense ... in fact, i would argue that pacifism is often a very effective form of deterrence ... have we learned nothing from Martin Luther King and Gandhi?? i oppose the war in Iraq for all kinds of reasons ... i do not oppose all war ... where do those views fit in your model?

you stated: People on the right have same motivations as us (for the most part)...but different methods and ideas for how to achieve the end result.

oh really? well, that's very accomodating of you ... but i think the primary motivation for both Vietnam and Iraq was commercial gain ... yes, some on the right may believe we're spreading democracy ... one, we're not ... and two, that was not even the stated reason we invaded Iraq ... bush and the neo-cons are clearly preparing for generations of war ... and you in your very open-minded way want to see them as seeking peace? are you serious? yeah, they're seeking peace all right ... peace after they have established a global empire where uprisings are easily squashed ... i guess you might call that a form of peace ...

the neo-cons are very, very evil people ... if your point is that those they've duped into supporting them may share some values (peace, democracy) with the left, fine ... i'm sure that's true in many cases ... but they have been duped into believing the right-wing propaganda ... do you think those in power are going to say that they seek global empire and corporate governance? they wouldn't have much support if they did ... you need to differentiate between the evil power elite who seek only power and the fulfillment of their greed and the well-meaning sheep who have been duped into following them ...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Right, even the Nazis told their people that they were

conquering Europe and killing Jews for some screwed-up "higher ideal." According to the official line, they were avenging the Treaty of Versailles, they were getting rid of the people who had caused Germany's economic problems, they were finding "living space" (Lebensraum) for a crowded country, they were making people proud to be German again.

They didn't say, "We're a bunch of greedy imperialists and mass murderers, and you can join us."

[welshTerrier2]

37. great example, LL ...

dead on as usual !!

[ET Awful]

3. If history has tought us anything, it's that waging war for peace is

kind of like fucking for virginity. It's a self-defeating endeavor.

Such an argument is complete nonsense. It's not a question of deterrance v. pacifism, it's a question of necessity v. choice. While all war is barbaric and undesirable, war by choice is the most undesirable of all.

[RafterMan]

6. I'll take a war of choice

but it has to be a good choice.

Iraq doesn't pass that test.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ET Awful]

17. WWII was a war of necessity, we were attacked and . . . get this . . .

we actually went to war against the people that attacked us.

Sorry, but you can't wage war for peace, they are contradictory concepts.

[RafterMan]

18. The japanese would not have attacked us

if we had kept selling them oil and possibly given up the Philippines.

They didn't hate us for our freedom, they were afraid we would meddle with their empire building in East Asia so they launched a preemptive strike.

[ET Awful]

19. Gee, you mean they used fear to launch a preemptive strike?

Sound like anyone else you know?

[RafterMan]

21. No

I mean they were afraid, so they launched a preemptive strike. They had no need to "use fear" for anything. Had FDR given the Philippines independence and not issued an oil embargo, they would not have attacked.

It was completely avoidable. War of choice.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. well that is a bit of a stretch

While it is true that our oil embargo was putting a crimp in Japanese imperialist expansion into Asia, that is not the same as 'we chose to go to war with Japan'. The chose to attack us rather than stop conquering asia. The situation in 1941 was not at all analogous to the situation in 2003.

[RafterMan]

25. I'm not trying to make an analogy

In fact, I was refuting the explicit analogy. All I'm saying is that it was a war of choice. I'm not saying it was a bad choice, just that it was a choice.

You are correct in saying "they chose to attack us rather than stop conquoring Asia", but I don't think the two perspectives are mutually exclusive.

[leftyandproud]

28. Germany didn't attack us. *NT*

[ET Awful]

33. They did declare war on us, and were the allies of Japan

They did start attacking our shipping, etc. So yes, they did attack us.

[RafterMan]

4. I think that's utterly and completely wrong

at least in terms of the words you use. I didn't oppose the war because I'm a pacifist, I opposed it because it was self-defeating folly. And deterrence is what we had before the war -- far more than we needed, in my opinion. It seems the goalposts have been moved to the left -- now preventive war is described as deterrence, and opposition written off as pacifism.

Further, I want to shake these people who talk about issues in this way -- it's like they're astrologers or something. The policy is smart or stupid in itself -- it will work and have benefits or it will fail and have costs regardless of the philosophical orientation of those arguing about the policy. Why couldn't we ask *that* question? This is not a dispute between Summers and Autumns or Venus and Mars or left-brained and right-brained or any other hokey meta-analysis.

</rant>

Sorry. Yes, I agree everyone wants peace. Great. The problem is the particular set of policy choices made by this administration risk everything for a prize of no value. I'm okay, you're okay is for choosing pizza topings. On matters of war and peace, get it right or get out.

[LynnTheDem]

5. The freepo-fascist IDOL; "Strength lies not in defense but in attack."

"The people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom."

"Only force rules. Force is the first law."

"Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."

“The Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”

-Quotes from Adolf Hitler, rightwingnut hero.

[Maraya1969]

7. That may be true of some Conservatives

but I think the far right would like to turn this country into a Christian Country. And that means controlling others which is not peace.

When Bush spoke about spreading "Liberty" around the world I felt like he wanted to be President of the World! I know JFK said the same type of thing but JFK was a very different person than Bush. Bush believe that only born again Christians are going to Heaven so he would feel justified in overtaking them to save them from "Hell".

Evangelical Christians believe this and that is what I find frightening. More people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity than any other religion since the birth of Christ. In that respect Christians make The Taliban look like wimps.

[xchrom]

9. not everyone who opposes this war is a pacifist.

also, i suggest that you consider some of the rhetoric from the right before you proclaim them as friendly to the left in any way.
if you look at some of the things delay, gingrich, and others have said in the past -- there is a theme of violence towards democrats, environmentalists, leftists of any stripe.

i am not so simple minded as to think they are any thing but human --

but the neighborhood has become dangerous and i am not so foolish as to think these People don't wish me harm.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. I kept waiting for you to use the word Progressive, stumble word.

Apathy starts by justifying,wrong.And NO everybody does''nt want peace,it's just they won't realize it.

[RafterMan]

11. Now you've added a sanctimonious speech

It's not just "labelling"!

They have chosen a *bad policy*. Their bad judgement has put my country and my life at risk. I don't care what their motives are -- the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What's important is that they blew the call.

As I said before, if you want to take us to war, get it right or get out.

[retread]

12. Didn't this used to be called "Kill a commie for Christ"? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Am A Pacifist Up To A Point...

The point being my chin....


I really don't understand your post....

[bowens43]

15. I think you're wrong if you believe that what you have said

applies to this group of criminals who have taken over the government of the United States. They do NOT want peace , they want war. Anyone who claims to want peace through the use of superior fire power and the invasion and occupation of countries with differing political philosophies is a liar.

They don't want peace, they want domination. Remember WE started this war. WE attacked them. THEY did nothing to us to deserve this attack.
WE are the bad guy in this war.

As Abby once said "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

Don't fall into the trap of humanizing these greedy, bigoted, fear mongering idiots.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. the bush crowd are idiots...

but lots of wars are fought to restore the peace...

[Warren Stupidity]

20. the people on the right...

are

1. apocalyptic christian fundamentalist theocrats: they want to bring on armageddon and see the current crisis as the path to enabling the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. These people are massively dangerous nutcases and they share power with:

2. imperialist pax america neoclown militarist likudnik fascists: they seek to achieve 'peace' by eliminating all military competition on the planet. The see their principal enemy as China, not Osama bin Laden. The middle east mess is a stepping stone towards world domination. Caeser, Napolean, and Hitler had similar visions of world peace. They share power with the fundy crowd and draw support from the third pillar of the right:

3. 9-11 lobotomized morons. For these folks anything that remotely resembles killing muslims is acceptable, as they are continually reminded that doing so will make them safe and that means that no flying fundamentalist fuel bombs will burn them up in their suburban homes, and that they will get to watch super bowl XXXIX and see the conclusion of the next round of American Idol.

In my opinion only group 3 has motives that aren't either criminal or insane. They really just want to be safe, and there is always hope that large numbers of them can be coaxed out of their fear induced lobotomy.

[amber dog democrat]

22. I have difficulty with this dichotomy

I am more inclined to think there are lots of more complex and darker forces that combined, create the world view or myth that trends to American neo con or right wing ethnocentrism. I mean we are talking about generalities here.

Ignorance, greed, vested interests, self interests, congnative dissonnance, and a lack of contact with reality, with truth, and folley seem more to be the reasons where we are now. It seems the action of the Chimp administration have only added to the burden of grief, fear and rage already out there in the world.

I have little faith in our leadership to make effective changes - as we move towards a totolitraian society. The dangers are very real and can't be rationalized away - though i wish they could.

[markus]

24. No, its American Ideals v. Corporate Greed

Yes, there is a small group of people (and I am on the inward fringe of that group) who think that the entire military complex is just wrong.

But in the real world (and that is why I find myself on the inside fringe of this group), we have to have a military.

The question of the day is: what are our international values, and how do we act on them?

Do we support dictatorships and repression abroad, as Bush does and will, in the name of the war on terror? That is the recipe of the Cold War, which was really a status quo which benefited the conservatives.

Instead, do we want the real, from-the-bottom-up freedom of Solidarity and the Velvet Revolution, the real causes of the end of the Soviet era?

Is our future the Allawis of the world, or the Chavez?

[lostnfound]

26. Yep. The real issue is also property rights vs human rights

because in many countries (i.e., South & Central America) real democracy will lead to landless peasant's movements or nationalized oil industries or worker's rights.

All of which are threatening to those with property but seen as necessary for human rights by those who live in squalid conditions created by centuries of exploitation and pressure at the barrel of guns.

And also because some countries (like the US) continue to think they have a right to use superior firepower to allow exploitation of resources for corporate profit.

[lostnfound]

27. Often, it's the informed vs the uninformed

The ones who believe that bombing Iraq was a deterrent are getting their 'news' from Fox and Rush. They don't read books; they don't know who Judith Miller is and that she was passing on lies; they don't know the total extent to which our nation's policies are being written by corporate bigwigs from the energy industry; they couldn't tell you who is Elliott Abrams or Paul Wolfowitz or Karen Kwiatowski and they don't know how many civilians have died in Iraq.

[Jim__]

29. Do you believe the Iraq war was for deterrence?

Do you believe we can use war to eliminate tyranny from the world? Bush's inaugural promised no less. That's not a political disagreement. To think we are going to defeat evil in the world (one of Bush's earlier promises) is insanity. To back such a policy is insanity. We cannot rationally discuss the slaughter of Iraqi children. We cannot rationalize their deaths. I know, in a war innocents die. And, I am not a pacifist. However, it is the sheer unavoidable horror that will occur in any war that mandates that it be an absolute last resort. This administration uses it as a matter of policy. I'm sorry, that is not a mere political disagreement.

[Q]

30. These aren't simply 'different beliefs'....

...it's the difference between right and wrong.

I think you're trying rationalize why Bush lied about an urgent need to attack Iraq and his defenders having a sincere belief in those lies.

In the real world...some things really are black or white. You're introducing shades of gray and moral relativism into whether it's good to support a war that didn't need to happen and the slaughter of thousands of innocents.

[leftyandproud]

31. I don't really know why I made the post

I'm not trying to rationalize anything...certainly not the Iraq war. I just had some ideas in my head and decided to type them up (not as articulate as I would like). I just wanted to bounce this stuff off you folks and see the responses. I've seen people on our side recently becoming so extreme and so polarized that they seem to believe the pubs are inhuman, and that their motivations are evil. I really don't think this is the case...wrong...misguided...stupid...naive...maybe all of those things, but the average conservative is not evil. They don't want the world destroyed...They don't like to see U.S. soldiers dying. They hate it as much as we do. The problem is that they honestly have bought into this "liberation" crap, and believe "draining the swamp" of terrorism, and setting up democracies in the middle east is the best thing for the world. They honestly believe that this is a good thing and that we should be pursuing it by any means necessary. Like I said, it is a disagreement of POLICY, not end goals. We all want PEACE in the end. They just believe achieving it will take steps that we are not willing to take.

If we can't accept the fact that most republicans want the same end result as democrats, we will continue to lose debates, and elections, because we dismiss these people as evil and don't engage them, or even attempt to educate them about our ideas.

This is not helping anyone. If more people on our side would realize that the pubs don't want to kill half the planet...that they don't really LIKE being at war, then we can move forward. Everyone wants peace in the end. Conservatives just want to go about it the wrong way.

That was what I was trying to say.

[w4rma]

32. "pacifism" is a straw man argument. You should humanize our side to him.

And remove "pacifism" as the label. You see, I *support* deterrance, and have opposed Bush's invasion and occupation at every level. They support extermination and oppression and resource taking.

[ClassWarrior]

35. No, punishment vs. protection.

Or, to use your formulation, militance vs. diplomacy.

NGU.