-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of brettk at unicacorp.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:34 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: RE: On Selective Pacifism & other Oddities
Max,
I can't name a single pacifist on this list, nor can I think of anyone who has used a pacifist argument to oppose the war in Afghanistan.
>On this list, as noted in previous post, there are arguments
>against the U.S. campaign on grounds that the U.S. stinks
>and merits no support, ever. Fine. No pacifism, that. But
>they are also arguments that violence is always bad (or
>ineffective), that innocents will suffer, or that the war is
>engaged for ulterior motives. Those arguments
>condemn all wars (obviously including the Civil War), and
>you can't make them if you have a few favorite wars of
>your own.
Where on this list has it been argued that the ONLY reason to oppose the war with Afghanistan is that civilians would be killed? Or the simplistic violence bad, non-violence good? Or that the war is waged for ulterior motives? You have erected a straw man - I can't think of one person who has offered these reasons, and nothing else, for their opposition to the war. . . . Brett
You have to read the arguments charitably. If someone whom you know is not a pacifist puts forward an argument that, taken one way, implies pacificism, and taken another, does not, why not interpret it the second way? The first way makes for diverting but increasingly irritated and angry discussion. jks
Fair enough:
There is endless repetition of news about casualties, death, and destruction, as if that made the case. I agree that such information belongs in a 'just war' analysis, but as Luke points out, that is not what we see.
There has been extended discussion of the oil/pipeline/great game thingy as the *real* reason for the U.S. mission. Also discussion of the Bushies wanting to use 9/11 to advance U.S. hegemonism. An implication is that ulterior, self-interested motives are prima facie invalidating factors, but in fact 'national interest' motives are always part of the mix in wars, just and otherwise.
Finally, there is the idea that the use of violence "never solves anything," to quote MP verbatim. More generally, the presumption that using violence is a losing game because you create more enemies than you kill. I would call that a pacifist argument too.
mbs