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

[alang1216]

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?

Wrong. My parents were very strict but never hit me. There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Pacifism is not the same as passiveness. MLK was non-violent but hardly passive.

 

[GaryDog]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

Ask your average Iraqi right now, and I'd wager you're "absolutely" wrong.

And I absolutely don't care what the average Iraqi thinks on the subject.

That's about as stupidly arrogant as it gets right there /\/\\\\/\/\/\\

 

[GaryDog]

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Bullshit:

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed

Be specific and quote where any member of the US Government said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And no wikipedia does not a source make since it can and is edited by anyone.

Wikipedia has source notes. No wonder you guys nominated Trump, none of you can research a thing.

 

[GaryDog]

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.......

Your mistake is in assuming there are "evil" people. There are only varying motivations, ignorance, and religion, usually combined with mental illness.

Religion, in particular, is most responsible for making otherwise good people do terrible things. If you reduce all to black-and-white evil, you condemn yourself to repeating the horrors over and over and not addressing the real problem.

 

[oldsoul]

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Bullshit:

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed

Be specific and quote where any member of the US Government said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And no wikipedia does not a source make since it can and is edited by anyone.

Wikipedia has source notes. No wonder you guys nominated Trump, none of you can research a thing.

you may wish to take a look at this:
CDZ - Information
It may help you to understand what, I believe, they are getting at.

 

[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.

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

Your mistake is in assuming there are "evil" people. There are only varying motivations, ignorance, and religion.

Religion, in particular, is most responsible for making otherwise good people do terrible things. If you reduce all to black-and-white evil, you condemn yourself to repeating the horrors over and over and not addressing the real problem.

Are you, then, saying that people like Hitler, and Ted Bundy, were not evil people? Simply people who did evil things?

 

[GaryDog]

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.......

Your mistake is in assuming there are "evil" people. There are only varying motivations, ignorance, and religion.

Religion, in particular, is most responsible for making otherwise good people do terrible things. If you reduce all to black-and-white evil, you condemn yourself to repeating the horrors over and over and not addressing the real problem.

Are you, then, saying that people like Hitler, and Ted Bundy, were not evil people? Simply people who did evil things?

Correct. There are factors that helped create Bundy and Hitler. If you just go with "they're evil" you ignore those societal factors. It's dismissive, wrong, and childish.

 

[GaryDog]

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Bullshit:

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed

Be specific and quote where any member of the US Government said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And no wikipedia does not a source make since it can and is edited by anyone.

Wikipedia has source notes. No wonder you guys nominated Trump, none of you can research a thing.

you may wish to take a look at this:
CDZ - Information
It may help you to understand what, I believe, they are getting at.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Bullshit:

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed

Be specific and quote where any member of the US Government said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And no wikipedia does not a source make since it can and is edited by anyone.

Wikipedia has source notes. No wonder you guys nominated Trump, none of you can research a thing.

you may wish to take a look at this:
CDZ - Information
It may help you to understand what, I believe, they are getting at.

Actually, that's what I'm getting at. It is not disputed that Colin Powell attempted to create a tie between al qaida and Saddam during his UN speech. Denying facts does not make for productive conversation. I shouldn't have to break down the wikipedia fact page on how tides happen, either.

 

[oldsoul]

If you just go with "they're evil" you ignore those societal factors

Not necessarily. One can say that they were evil, AND still recognize the societal factors involved. To say one cannot do that is what is childish. One can recognize evil and still recognize that there are societal factors that "allow" them to act on their evil tendencies.

 

[GaryDog]

If you just go with "they're evil" you ignore those societal factors

Not necessarily. One can say that they were evil, AND still recognize the societal factors involved. To say one cannot do that is what is childish. One can recognize evil and still recognize that there are societal factors that "allow" them to act on their evil tendencies.

Not unless you succumb to the fictional fantasy of "evil." Evil is a childish word, used for fairy tales to justify the punishment of the story's villain. It's not real life.

 

[2aguy]

If you just go with "they're evil" you ignore those societal factors

Not necessarily. One can say that they were evil, AND still recognize the societal factors involved. To say one cannot do that is what is childish. One can recognize evil and still recognize that there are societal factors that "allow" them to act on their evil tendencies.

Not unless you succumb to the fictional fantasy of "evil." Evil is a childish word, used for fairy tales to justify the punishment of the story's villain. It's not real life.

Wow......evil is a fantasy.......you are not a student of history are you...?

 

[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.......

Your mistake is in assuming there are "evil" people. There are only varying motivations, ignorance, and religion, usually combined with mental illness.

Religion, in particular, is most responsible for making otherwise good people do terrible things. If you reduce all to black-and-white evil, you condemn yourself to repeating the horrors over and over and not addressing the real problem.

Wrong.....atheism, in the form of socialism...murdered 100 million people in the modern era, not during the middle ages when everyone was barbaric......modern nation states following socialism murdered 100 million people.....atheists who hated religiion.......

 

[alang1216]

Wrong.....atheism, in the form of socialism...murdered 100 million people in the modern era, not during the middle ages when everyone was barbaric......modern nation states following socialism murdered 100 million people.....atheists who hated religiion.......

None of those people were killed because of their religious beliefs. They were killed because they were deemed a threat to a dictator's power or racial or class beliefs.