"Violence Doesn't Solve Anything"

[Adam's Apple]

Thank God for Moral Violence
By Dennis Prager, World Net Daily
July 4, 2006

Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.

for full article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50907

 

[Bullypulpit]

"Violence doesn't solve anything."

Hmmm...I'm certain the citizens of Carthage would like to hear that, as violence most certainly settled their fates. Or perhaps the citizens of Rome would also be interested in that notion as the Visigoths sacked what was once the proud heart of the Roman Empire.

While we're at it, perhaps we could call forth the shades of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington to debate the issue, with Hitler as the mediator. And as for Hitler, violence was his solution for millions and, in the end, himself.

Violence has settled more issues in human history than many of care to think of, whether justly or unjustly. Its application should be left in the hands of those schooled and experienced in that application. And our political leaders should listen to those rough men who go into harms way, before sending them there. Unlike the dilettantes we now have in office have done. Or, more appropriately, failed to do.

My thanks to Robert A. Heinlein and "<i>Starship Trooper</i>".

 

[William Joyce]

Sure. But Dennis Prager's standard seems to be, "violence against Muslims and National Socialists is good." That is, "violence against the enemies of the Jews."

I doubt he'd agree that violence against Jews is good. But there are those who believe that the only solution to the Jewish problem is violence against Jews. I'm not saying I subscribe to this view, but there it is.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sure. But Dennis Prager's standard seems to be, "violence against Muslims and National Socialists is good." That is, "violence against the enemies of the Jews."

I doubt he'd agree that violence against Jews is good. But there are those who believe that the only solution to the Jewish problem is violence against Jews. I'm not saying I subscribe to this view, but there it is.

Oh don't be so effing coy about it. You and RWA should both hang out at Stormfront's BB. I'm certain both you anti-semitic sots would have been happier had Hitler won W.W.II. But you'd find some other race or ethnicity to dehumanize and denigrate just to make you, the snivelling little mediocrities that you are, feel better about yourselves.

 

[musicman]

While we're at it, perhaps we could call forth the shades of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington to debate the issue, with Hitler as the mediator.

Those guys all wore sunglasses? Wow - you learn something new every day, I guess. Kind of hard to picture, isn't it - Napoleon hanging out, looking cool in his shades...Hitler burning a joint...?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Those guys all wore sunglasses? Wow - you learn something new every day, I guess. Kind of hard to picture, isn't it - Napoleon hanging out, looking cool in his shades...Hitler burning a joint...?

Don't be obtuse...Shades...Ghosts...spectres...

 

[musicman]

Don't be obtuse...Shades...Ghosts...spectres...

To the gentle musical accompaniment of a rap boom box:

"I'm the Duke of Wellington - the baddest dude

I put Little Frenchy on a watery loo

He be short and nasty - but he got good dope

And we're chillin' with Adolf - smokin' that rope

Yeah, smokin' that rope - boom boom thump boom boom thump

Smokin'that rope..."

 

[Adam's Apple]

Bully, do us a favor and read the full article before you respond. Then lead us through the finer points of how no moral good can come from the use of violence. Prager said that moral good can come from the use of violence, and he gave examples to illustrate that. Are you saying that no good came from the use of violence to stop Napoleon and Hitler?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, do us a favor and read the full article before you respond. Then lead us through the finer points of how no moral good can come from the use of violence. Prager said that moral good can come from the use of violence, and he gave examples to illustrate that. Are you saying that no good came from the use of violence to stop Napoleon and Hitler?

If you'd actually paid attention to what I wrote, you would see that I have no compunction against the just use of force, which was the case with Hitler and Napoleon. There will, likely, always be a need for the use of force, and those we entrust to use that force must understand its application and its limitations as well as understanding and accepting the responsibility and consequences for its use.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Sorry if I misread the intent of your first post. My first impression was that you thought you had found a post you could do a little trolling on. Glad to know that you agree with Prager that moral good can come out of the use of violence because it can and most definitely does.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yes, violence can solve things. And I can drive to work in a wooden cart pulled by a donkey, that doesn't mean it's the best way.

Hitler's rise to power could have been avoided if Wilson hadn't pushed us into WWI. It could have been avoided if it weren't for the punitive Versailles treaty. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. I wonder if Mr. Prager knows that 18 or so other countries in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without firing a shot? If ending slavery was the goal of the north, they could have abolished the fugitive slave laws. Or, if they didn't have the votes for that, the north could have seceded from the south, which would effectively nullify those laws. After all, northern secession is what many abolitionists wanted! This is how slavery was abolished in south america--large numbers of slaves escaped into free nations. The enforcement costs of keeping people enslaved exceeded the benefits of slavery, and it became cheaper to simply pay the workers.

 

[musicman]

Yes, violence can solve things. And I can drive to work in a wooden cart pulled by a donkey, that doesn't mean it's the best way.

Does man have it in his inherent nature to do things "the best way"? Does he - as the founders of modern American liberalism asserted in the Port Huron Statement - possess unrealized capacities for love and reason? Or had we better think the best of people, but keep our powder dry?

Hitler's rise to power could have been avoided if Wilson hadn't pushed us into WWI. It could have been avoided if it weren't for the punitive Versailles treaty. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. I wonder if Mr. Prager knows that 18 or so other countries in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without firing a shot? If ending slavery was the goal of the north, they could have abolished the fugitive slave laws. Or, if they didn't have the votes for that, the north could have seceded from the south, which would effectively nullify those laws....

If my grandmother had balls, she could have been my grandfather. Man is a corrupt, self-serving creature by his nature.

 

[Gunny]

Yes, violence can solve things. And I can drive to work in a wooden cart pulled by a donkey, that doesn't mean it's the best way.

Hitler's rise to power could have been avoided if Wilson hadn't pushed us into WWI. It could have been avoided if it weren't for the punitive Versailles treaty. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. I wonder if Mr. Prager knows that 18 or so other countries in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without firing a shot? If ending slavery was the goal of the north, they could have abolished the fugitive slave laws. Or, if they didn't have the votes for that, the north could have seceded from the south, which would effectively nullify those laws. After all, northern secession is what many abolitionists wanted! This is how slavery was abolished in south america--large numbers of slaves escaped into free nations. The enforcement costs of keeping people enslaved exceeded the benefits of slavery, and it became cheaper to simply pay the workers.

Now let's toss some reality into the equation. Hitler WAS allowed to go as far as he did, and at that point, only violence could stop him. Only the treat of violence would have EVER stopped him.

Slavery could have been ended without violence, BUT ..... the battle for power/control of the the US Government between Southern planters and Northern industrialists could never have been. The US Civil War was inevitable because the domination and direction of this Nation was what was at stake. Slavery was a symptom, but not the entire issue.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes, violence can solve things. And I can drive to work in a wooden cart pulled by a donkey, that doesn't mean it's the best way.

Hitler's rise to power could have been avoided if Wilson hadn't pushed us into WWI. It could have been avoided if it weren't for the punitive Versailles treaty. Slavery could have been ended peacefully. I wonder if Mr. Prager knows that 18 or so other countries in the western hemisphere abolished slavery without firing a shot? If ending slavery was the goal of the north, they could have abolished the fugitive slave laws. Or, if they didn't have the votes for that, the north could have seceded from the south, which would effectively nullify those laws. After all, northern secession is what many abolitionists wanted! This is how slavery was abolished in south america--large numbers of slaves escaped into free nations. The enforcement costs of keeping people enslaved exceeded the benefits of slavery, and it became cheaper to simply pay the workers.

No, it's not necessarily the best way. But sometimes it's the only way. When some one's coming at you with a meat cleaver, you should either be prepared to do violence or die. The trick is to do the least violence needed to resolve the situation, rather like aikido. Unfortunately too many, especially those in power, fail or even refuse to understand that principle.

Hitler's rise to power could have been prevented by a less punitive armistice than what was produced in the Treaty of Versailles. But such a treaty was not written, and Hitler came to power.

As for the Civil War, it wasn't about the abolition of slavery, that was just a sidebar. It was about defiance of federal authority. Had Fort Sumter never been fired upon, there would likely have been no war. But such "what ifs" really don't provide us with any real answers to our current problems.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Does man have it in his inherent nature to do things "the best way"? Does he - as the founders of modern American liberalism asserted in the Port Huron Statement - possess unrealized capacities for love and reason? Or had we better think the best of people, but keep our powder dry?

I'm not arguing to disband the military. Of course we should keep the powder dry. That's a far cry from what this guy is advocating and celebrating. Advocating neutrality in foreign affairs while keeping american troops on american soil isn't some utopian pie-in-the-sky theory that depends on the inherent goodness of human beings. It's been tried before in our history, and worked well.

Now let's toss some reality into the equation. Hitler WAS allowed to go as far as he did, and at that point, only violence could stop him. Only the treat of violence would have EVER stopped him.

This still doesn't discredit my main point though. Let's say I walk into a notorious biker bar, get piss drunk, and start insulting everyone's mother. Yes, at that point, it would be smart to fight back. But that doesn't discredit the policy of minding your own business, which is what this guy is trying to do.

If we'd never entered WWI, it wouldn't have mattered if Hitler went on a rampage, we would have been just another faraway neutral country at that point. Even then, Hitler was going out of his way to avoid sinking US ships headed towards Britain, even when fired upon. That's why FDR was seeking to enter the european war "through the backdoor"--via provoking Japan with a gas embargo, and Operation Rainbow Six.

Slavery could have been ended without violence, BUT ..... the battle for power/control of the the US Government between Southern planters and Northern industrialists could never have been. The US Civil War was inevitable because the domination and direction of this Nation was what was at stake. Slavery was a symptom, but not the entire issue.

The civil war was not inevitable. The only thing necessary was for yankee politicians to let the south go peacefully. Again, this is not some crackpot idea like communism that requires the masses to be inherently selfless. It only requires pragmatic leaders. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland allowed (or still does?) cantons to secede if they didn't like the central government. It has worked well for 800 years.

 

[Annie]

The civil war was not inevitable. The only thing necessary was for yankee politicians to let the south go peacefully. Again, this is not some crackpot idea like communism that requires the masses to be inherently selfless. It only requires pragmatic leaders. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland allowed (or still does?) cantons to secede if they didn't like the central government. It has worked well for 800 years.

If the Union had allowed secession, and mind you the South wasn't alone in calling for such at times, we would not be the country we are. It would have been war after war, no cohesiveness in commerce. After we finished with our own fighting, the Europeans would have finished us off.

The Union had to be held, getting rid of slavery was just sped up by the secession.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If the Union had allowed secession, and mind you the South wasn't alone in calling for such at times, we would not be the country we are.

Good! We might actually have a central government(s) that respect constitutional limits. We might live under governments that don't devour half the GNP. There's also no reason why the south couldn't have rejoined the north later on.

It would have been war after war, no cohesiveness in commerce.

Huh? There is no reason to belive that. If the southern states could have seceded peacefully, then there's no reason that further divisions couldn't have been peaceful. And sharing the same central government is not a prerequisite for trade. We do just fine trading with Canada. The CSA would have essentially been just another Canada.

The Union had to be held, getting rid of slavery was just sped up by the secession.

The union did not need to be held, and was never intended to be "indivisible"--socialist rhetoric notwithstanding. All of the founding fathers were secessionists. Even Alexander Hamilton, the great federal centralizer, was not against secession.

 

[Gunny]

I'm not arguing to disband the military. Of course we should keep the powder dry. That's a far cry from what this guy is advocating and celebrating. Advocating neutrality in foreign affairs while keeping american troops on american soil isn't some utopian pie-in-the-sky theory that depends on the inherent goodness of human beings. It's been tried before in our history, and worked well.



This still doesn't discredit my main point though. Let's say I walk into a notorious biker bar, get piss drunk, and start insulting everyone's mother. Yes, at that point, it would be smart to fight back. But that doesn't discredit the policy of minding your own business, which is what this guy is trying to do.


If we'd never entered WWI, it wouldn't have mattered if Hitler went on a rampage, we would have been just another faraway neutral country at that point. Even then, Hitler was going out of his way to avoid sinking US ships headed towards Britain, even when fired upon. That's why FDR was seeking to enter the european war "through the backdoor"--via provoking Japan with a gas embargo, and Operation Rainbow Six.

The civil war was not inevitable. The only thing necessary was for yankee politicians to let the south go peacefully. Again, this is not some crackpot idea like communism that requires the masses to be inherently selfless. It only requires pragmatic leaders. If I'm not mistaken, Switzerland allowed (or still does?) cantons to secede if they didn't like the central government. It has worked well for 800 years.

What discredits your "main point" is the 20/20 hindsight. Our involvement in WWI brought a stalemated war to an end, and at the time, it was thought it was "the war to end all wars." Only hindsight reveals that the aftermath sowed the seeds for the rise to power of fascism/Hitler.

I am not a believer in the Roosevelt conspiracy stuff. While he antagonized Japan with embargoes, that has pretty much been our "weapon of choice" during peacetime against ANY Nation that is/was an aggressor. Japan's Asian conquests threatened US interests in the region, and the behavior of its army brutal in the extreme.

You oversimplify the politics that led to the US Civil War. "Yankee politicians" were not about to let the South go peacefully, and Southern politicians were not about to be dominated by policy that favored Northern industry to the detriment of Southern import/export.

Those Northern politicians were not controlled by pragmatism -- they were controlled by Northern industrialists. Southern politicians were controlled by wealthy planters. Neither was going to take a back seat to the other, and laws that favored industry hurt agricultural import/export, and vice-versa.

Add to the equation an idealist who believed the Union of States to be unassailable, and you inevitably have war.

 

[Annie]

Good! We might actually have a central government(s) that respect constitutional limits. We might live under governments that don't devour half the GNP. There's also no reason why the south couldn't have rejoined the north later on.



Huh? There is no reason to belive that. If the southern states could have seceded peacefully, then there's no reason that further divisions couldn't have been peaceful. And sharing the same central government is not a prerequisite for trade. We do just fine trading with Canada. The CSA would have essentially been just another Canada.



The union did not need to be held, and was never intended to be "indivisible"--socialist rhetoric notwithstanding. All of the founding fathers were secessionists. Even Alexander Hamilton, the great federal centralizer, was not against secession.

All of those writings predate the admission of the states through the Northwest Ordinance and the Louisiana Purchase. While there were many early skirmishes with Native Americans, by 1830's the 'cooperativeness' of the new country was in full bloom. I seem to remember several attempts at gaining Canadian territory, but the French and English stopped that. The Southwest was a different matter altogether.

To think that the North and the South were going to make it as two countries, would be foolhardy, the Mississippi River alone would have been a flashpoint. There was already too much interdependency between these sections.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh don't be so effing coy about it. You and RWA should both hang out at Stormfront's BB. I'm certain both you anti-semitic sots would have been happier had Hitler won W.W.II. But you'd find some other race or ethnicity to dehumanize and denigrate just to make you, the snivelling little mediocrities that you are, feel better about yourselves.

I'm against anyone with dreams of totalitarianism.