CDZ HackSaw Ridge: Is Pacifism in the face of evil virtuous?

[alang1216]

Drumpf said we should have just taken their oil.

Because that worked so well for Germany after it lost WWI?

 

[2aguy]

The thing is, Germany and Japan didn't rise up in a vacuum. There were actions by others who induced them to act, and induced others with powers of persuasion to cause the army to act in evil ways. So if your question is, could pacifism work? Sure, if it's practiced across the board. And if it's always practiced. But the way you couch the question is to cast Germany and Japan as evil that fell from the sky, when in fact there was much prior to WWII that induced those actions.

the socialists in Germany and Japan are not the issue......how they came to power is not the issue...the issue is...if you have the ability to resist evil...but are a pacifist....can you be considered virtuous if you do nothing? That is the question....

If you are a pacifist and stumble upon a man trying to murder a woman......and there is no time to wait for the police....are you virtuous if you do nothing to stop it......

You spelled "facists" wrong.

Facism is simply one type of socialism.....

 

[bodecea]

The thing is, Germany and Japan didn't rise up in a vacuum. There were actions by others who induced them to act, and induced others with powers of persuasion to cause the army to act in evil ways. So if your question is, could pacifism work? Sure, if it's practiced across the board. And if it's always practiced. But the way you couch the question is to cast Germany and Japan as evil that fell from the sky, when in fact there was much prior to WWII that induced those actions.

the socialists in Germany and Japan are not the issue......how they came to power is not the issue...the issue is...if you have the ability to resist evil...but are a pacifist....can you be considered virtuous if you do nothing? That is the question....

If you are a pacifist and stumble upon a man trying to murder a woman......and there is no time to wait for the police....are you virtuous if you do nothing to stop it......

You spelled "facists" wrong.

Facism is simply one type of socialism.....

Nope....opposite pole.

 

[Gracie]

Another thread discussed the new Mel Gibson movie, "Hacksaw" ridge...a movie about a conscientious objector who became a medic and then was awarded the Congressional Medal of Action for saving lives during the battle of Okinawa....

The question is this......the national socialists in Germany, and the Japanese in Asia...were not going to be stopped by good intentions, or polite requests to return the land they had conquered and to stop murdering innocent people....is pacifism in the face of that kind of evil virtuous....

I am not saying that the medic who is the focus of this movie isn't a hero...he obviously is......and though he refused to fight, he used his bravery and skills to aid those who did do the actual fighting....

But.....in a larger context......is Pacifism okay if it allows an evil act to succeed?

This is about true Pacifism...where you would have the means to fight and very possibly defeat another person committing an evil act, but you refuse to stop that act because it would require fighting...

Thoughts?

I admire those who have the ability to be passive. Me? It's not in my genes I guess.

 

[alang1216]

Do you really think that if we knew then what we know now, the US would have supported Bush in his invasion of Iraq?

No....we know he did not have WMDs at the time of the invasion...after we invaded and actually were able to look for the weapons without playing games with the inspectors...do you remember the games the inspectors had to play to do their jobs....? And if he was still in power he would have started his programs up again and then we would have faced him selling the weapons to terrorists....

That is the thing...we didn't know then what we know now...mainly because the inspection process was a joke......and the bribes that he paid to U.N. officials...remember the oil for food scandal?

I think you just answered the OP. In the real world we never have all the facts and we never know how an intervention will turn out. Pacifism is not always the right choice but neither is force. Force should be the absolute last resort.

 

[oldsoul]

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

Assuming everything you said is true, how many lives ended by the US would have been too many to be considered justifiable?

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Conscientious objectors can- and have served honorably.

 

[9thIDdoc]

But then again there may come a time when the lack of one more defending gun can get people killed. So I have very mixed emotions about COs. Standing aside and letting people get killed (especially when it's your job to help them) is an evil act in my book.

 

[2aguy]

The thing is, Germany and Japan didn't rise up in a vacuum. There were actions by others who induced them to act, and induced others with powers of persuasion to cause the army to act in evil ways. So if your question is, could pacifism work? Sure, if it's practiced across the board. And if it's always practiced. But the way you couch the question is to cast Germany and Japan as evil that fell from the sky, when in fact there was much prior to WWII that induced those actions.

the socialists in Germany and Japan are not the issue......how they came to power is not the issue...the issue is...if you have the ability to resist evil...but are a pacifist....can you be considered virtuous if you do nothing? That is the question....

If you are a pacifist and stumble upon a man trying to murder a woman......and there is no time to wait for the police....are you virtuous if you do nothing to stop it......

You spelled "facists" wrong.

Facism is simply one type of socialism.....

Nope....opposite pole.

Wrong....Communism, fascism, nazism are three types of socialism.....they very slightly in how they see the government controlling the economy....but they do expect complete control of the economy by the government........and don't tell us communism has no government........we are talking about how it actually works...since someone must decide who gets what according to their needs and who gets what taken according to their ability....

Fascism, communism, nazism....................................................American conservatism, Libertarianism

That is how that actually looks.......

 

[2aguy]

Conscientious objectors can- and have served honorably.

I agree....but when it comes to the act of fighting to stop evil...or standing aside.....?

 

[9thIDdoc]

But then again there may come a time when the lack of one more defending gun can get people killed. So I have very mixed emotions about COs. Standing aside and letting people get killed (especially when it's your job to help them) is an evil act in my book.

Conscientious objectors can- and have served honorably.

I agree....but when it comes to the act of fighting to stop evil...or standing aside.....?

#48 above: But then again there may come a time when the lack of one more defending gun can get people killed. So I have very mixed emotions about COs. Standing aside and letting people get killed (especially when it's your job to help them) is an evil act in my book.

 

[alang1216]

Assuming everything you said is true, how many lives ended by the US would have been too many to be considered justifiable?

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

 

[2aguy]

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Not likely....evil people simply murder pacifists.......

 

[oldsoul]

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Does celebrating MLK reduce the membership of the KKK? Didn't think so.

 

[2aguy]

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Does celebrating MLK reduce the membership of the KKK? Didn't think so.

Or the black kkk, black lives matter....

 

[alang1216]

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Not likely....evil people simply murder pacifists.......

Evil people murder pacifists and non-pacifists alike.

 

[alang1216]

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Does celebrating MLK reduce the membership of the KKK? Didn't think so.

A generation ago you could be a KKK member and get elected to office. A lot has changed.

 

[2aguy]

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Not likely....evil people simply murder pacifists.......

Evil people murder pacifists and non-pacifists alike.

Yes....I agree....but non pacifist good guys are the only ones who can actually stop evil people......right?

 

[2aguy]

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Does celebrating MLK reduce the membership of the KKK? Didn't think so.

A generation ago you could be a KKK member and get elected to office. A lot has changed.

Yes....democrats supported the militant arm of their party...even elected and praised them, like rober byrd...a good friend of hilary and bill clinton......

 

[oldsoul]

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

True, but when done properly, sanctions CAN work. Not always, and not in all cases, but they do work. The problem with most sanctions is that one of two things (or both) happen:

1. Sanctions are not fully implemented on a broad (near global) scale, whether through bribes, non-participating nations, or other means.
2. Sanctions are not "tough" enough.

In my opinion, for sanctions to work, one must achieve two things:

1. Sanctions must be implemented that target specific areas that will place maximum pressure on the leadership.
2. Sanctions must be adopted by all, or very nearly all, trade partners, and potential trade partners.

If these two objectives are not met, the sanctions will not, indeed, cannot work.

Maybe if we celebrated pacifists like we do soldiers we'd need fewer soldiers.

Does celebrating MLK reduce the membership of the KKK? Didn't think so.

A generation ago you could be a KKK member and get elected to office. A lot has changed.

True, and it is due to people who have actually DONE something, not sat passively by doing nothing. Passivity does not solve any problems, at best it helps to avoid them. When a problem already exists it takes people who are not passive to correct it.