This need not be a long post in order to convey a recent observation concerning liberalism and life. They always seem to be on the wrong side of it.
Liberalism is pro-abortion. Elective abortion intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings for reasons of convenience and frivolity.
Liberalism is anti-capital punishment. People who have been convicted of capital crimes and find themselves on death row have raped, tortured, and murdered an innocent person or people. Liberalism seeks to protect and preserve the person who could do those things to a fellow human being. Often times trying to bestow martyr status upon them.
On the other side of the coin, Liberalism opposes the rights of law abiding citizens to procure and own firearms for the defense of oneself, property, and others. They would have the victim defenseless and the attacker coddled in prison.
Liberalism props up same-sex marriage and belittles the traditional family structure. Traditional marriage, through marriage laws, is designed to produce and foster the next generation. It persistently advocates same sex marriage, and also the demonizes people support traditional marriage.
Sifting Reality 
Or, looking at it another way, liberalism is quite consistenly pro-life (with the exception, one could argue, of the stand on abortion).
We tend to be opposed to war-as-solution and support non-lethal means of dealing with bad actors. We are especially opposed to war actions that will cause harm to innocent bystanders, such as the Hiroshima bombing or any bombing of civilian areas.
Pro-life/anti-death.
We tend to be opposed to killing people as a punishment for crime.
Pro-life/anti-death.
Those in the liberal camp (and there are some, but not all) who favor gun RESTRICTIONS and regulations do so in favor of sparing life. Very few that I know of in the liberal camp want to see outright bans on guns. Just reasonable restrictions, like we have for cars, explosives and other items with potential for great harm.
Pro-life/anti-death/harm.
Our environmental positions are positions for life and opposed to death/harm. Reasonable environmental protections help limit toxic pollutions, which in turn, cause harm. Pollution especially tends to harm the poor, the young and the elderly and for reasons of life and health, we support reasonable restrictions/requirements in favor of clean air, water and land.
Pro-life/anti-death/harm.
And our support for marriage equity for gay folk? That is all about supporting quality of life and liberty for those in a formerly oppressed minority. Encouraging sexuality within the confines of a faithful, loving marriage relationships, encouraging support for adoption and families – gay or straight – is a very pro-life/pro-health position.
Pro-life/pro-health/pro-liberty.
So you can see, pretty consistently pro-life.
Just to offer the other side of the coin.
Respectfully,
Dan
Reread the title dan.
Oh, I forgot torture:
Liberals tend to be anti-torture and pro-life, even as it regards our enemies (or those accused of being an enemy).
Pro-life/anti-death, anti-harm.
Pro abortion, anti baby, pro criminal, anti intervening on evil with a military allowing even more evil.
? I read the title. Liberals tend to be on the RIGHT side of life, it seems to me, when it comes to all these issues. We tend to be pro-life when it comes to war, the death penalty, the environment and torture.
Even on the abortion issue (which I can readily concede that, from a certain viewpoint – one I used to hold – it is “anti-life”), the thinking is pro-quality-of-life and pro-liberty/freedom of determination.
We are not “pro-criminal” beyond the very LIFE-affirming being in favor of seeing them restored to a responsible, contributing, healthy member of community, but that, too, would seem to be the right side of life.
Do you really think simply punishing people for crimes, keeping them in prison for life or killing or torturing them is positive? Pro-life? Healthy for society?
We would disagree.
We are CERTAINLY not anti-baby.
We are CERTAINLY not anti-intervening against evil.
That we take pro-life, constructive, healthy, Christian, positive steps to oppose wrong-doers is not an indication that we are supporting of wrong-doers. We’re just trying to stop wrong-doing in a healthy way, as opposed to bombing another nation, including civilians. As opposed to torture (which we all oppose if it’s done to “us,”).
In short, we support a very Golden Rule approach to dealing with these problems. And I, for one, think the Golden Rule is very much on the Right Side of Life.
~Dan
Thats the problem. TO YOU you think you are.
No one is talking about torture. Dont you dare try to twist this around. You eanted an example of dishonest dealing? There it is. Introducing yourself as antitorture as if me and my political persuasion is protorture.
You brought up the topic of “being on the right side of Life.” To me, torture and the environment fit in that category. That is NOT dishonest, John. You may not want me to bring those topics up and that is fine, but that, TO ME, they seemed to fit the category is not in any way dishonest.
Nor is it dishonest noting that, of the two political spectrums, it TENDS to be the conservatives who sometimes defend torture while liberals TEND to almost always oppose it. That is factually NOT dishonest.
Feel free to disagree, John, but don’t characterize motive when you don’t know motive. You tend to get it wrong.
But tell you what: IF you can point out ANYTHING that is objectively dishonest about what I said and I will contribute $10 to the charity of your choice. Or, you could think better of what you said and back off the false dishonest charge and admit you misspoke. Perhaps you misunderstood me, that’s fine, but now that I’ve clarified, clearly you have misspoke. Be a man and admit it.
~Dan
Liberals support everything when voters do. They were all for the war in Iraq and waterboarding until it fell out of popular acceptance.
But were not talking about torture (which waterboarding is not) or the environment. So, no off topic comments Dan.
My apologies for the “off topic” comments. I thought the topic was being on the Right Side of Life and those topics seemed to fit to me. My apology for misunderstanding, I shall refrain from mentioning those topics on this post. Please remove the comments if you wish, again, with my apologies.
See how that works, John? I admitted a mistake, explained how I got there, and apologized.
It’s not that hard to man up and admit a mistake, even if it was understandable.
And no, liberals were NOT supportive of the war in Iraq. Perhaps you missed the world’s LARGEST EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND opposition to that war from people across the board and across the globe, but especially by more liberal types.
“According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.”
“These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations” (ie, “liberals.”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
~Dan
Dan, look up the roll call vote for going to war in Iraq.
As long as you brought up torture, liberals have a more positive view of scialism than communism too.
RE: “roll call for Iraq vote…”
Oh, if you are speaking of the group “Democrats and Republicans in elected office…” then yes, they did get sucked into voting against Life/in favor of the War. But I was looking at your actual words, where you said, “Liberals support everything when voters do. They were all for the war in Iraq…”
You didn’t mean “liberals,” you meant, “elected Democrats…”? Then yes for that tiny fraction of the more progressive, you would be correct. But when we speak of Liberals, in general, then no, clearly they were NOT “all for the war in Iraq…”
Again, factually speaking, people turned out in numbers unprecedented in all of human history to oppose this war, largely more progressive/liberal types, certainly led by more progressive/liberal types.
As to the “socialism/communism…” I’ll pass on going down that road, because I’m unclear what is and isn’t on topic here. But since you brought it up, I would just note one thing: that support for a more socialist/communist ideal is not the same as support for the more fascist/deadly reality of many socialist nations in history.
Many people look at Jesus and the disciples and the early church and their communitarian lifestyle and envision a world that is more equitable, more life-affirming, more positive, more just and have thought that SOME FORM of communism might be ideal. But that is absolutely not the same as support for fascism, which liberals do not support at all, since it is contrary to liberal values.
~Dan
No, I also meant liberals. Youre focused on the period of time long after entering Iraq. But right after 9/11 and prior to the war, it had full support of the majority of Americans, including liberals.
? You mean, prior to having any information or time to contemplate rationally about next steps, at that time before all the details were in, “liberals” were for agreeing with conservatives to go to war in Iraq?
1. I doubt it. Where’s the data?
2. Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to rush into a war without knowing the details or considering the ramifications would rightly be classified an impetuous fool.
I repeat: Liberalism TENDS to embrace the more peace-making/pacifistic/non-militaristic… pro-life approach to dealing with violent types. That stands.
~Dan
According to global intelligence that conservatives and liberals both had access to, and given Saddams refusal to allow UN inspectors in to look for nuclear weapkns, and given that Saddams own generals believed they had nuclear weapons, and given that Saddam had a history of funding and allowing terrorists harbor in Iraqi borders, yes, liberals were for it.
You hve an excuse for every liberal shortcoming. Too bad you arent as charitable toward conservatives.
How inane!
“We tend to be pro-life when it comes to war…”
Actually, your allegedly pro-life position on war results in the deaths tens of thousands (if not more) by allowing those who are truly despotic and unconcerned about the rights and dignity of their fellow citizens to carry on their literal reigns of terror. The conservative side allows that war is indeed a solution when non-military attempts to end such suffering fails. The conservative side understands that war is a logical and righteous option when one’s own people are attacked, and often swift and brutal retribution is the only option that can succeed when dealing with the truly evil in the world.
The problem is how that is portrayed by such as Dan, who simply regards it as “war-as-solution”, as if it is the only strategy ever employed by right leaning leaders. That’s called “slander” and “deceit”.
And as I said, in the meantime, while Dan and his ilk pretend they are making progress with solely non-violent means and kumbaya negotiation, the truly evil carry on as before, brutally abusing their own people and neighbors while regarding Dan and his ilk as the spineless and illogical people they are. That’s called “reality”.
“…the death penalty…”
The liberal dispenses with logical and practical notions of justice by their opposition to the death penalty. It is based on the unproven notion that all evil can be rehabilitated and that there is no crime for which the suffering and loss of survivors cannot be healed by the nonsensical kumbaya attempts by people like Dan to make angels out of demons. It is as if the suffering and loss of the survivors of capital crimes are unimportant, and if people like Dan say they should get over it, by golly they should, as we’ve got more important targets of our attention, that being the rat bastards who murdered your loved ones and disrupted your lives so violently.
So how is one pro-life who cares so little for the life unjustly taken and the suffering of those the taken leaves behind? Were the murderers unaware of the heinous nature of the crime they committed before doing so? Is it possible they did not know murder is sinful and against civil law…pretty much everywhere?
We can never know if capital punishment truly deters murder, though enough stats exist to argue affirmatively. We do know it prevents the convicted from ever murdering again. That alone is good enough. But the important point is the justice served by such a sentence for the worst crime, the most permanent and irreversible crime that robs another of their most important possession—their life.
What’s more, the all-or-nothing attitude of people like Dan do not take into account the fact that only the worst of the worst are sentenced so harshly, with many other murders sentence to lesser penalties, some resulting in eventual freedom.
Dan’s position is NOT prof-life. It makes a mockery of and mitigates the value of the life taken by the people he believes must be saved. That position is disgusting, reprehensible, repulsive and abhorrent. It is NOT pro-life.
“…the environment…”
Far too often, the Dan Trabue’s of the world pretend their alleged love for the environment comes at the cost of the many benefits, life-saving among them, of the industries impacted by their efforts. There’s is a very superficial concern that disregards how advances in technologies have led to less suffering and longer life. He has no concern for those who will have less of their hard earned dollars for their own use due to a rise in prices due to ineffective, but more costly alternatives to the oil and coal that provide the power upon which we depend. He believes we’d all be better off enjoying the woods despite the inability to save the life of someone from an easily treatable injury or illness that products made from petroleum now handle.
His belief that his environmental position equates to being pro-life is just another superficial position that does not consider all the ramifications. And then he dares speak of quality of life as regards the unborn. Shameful how shameless he is.
“…and torture.”
Like all other positions already covered, as well as those not yet, this one also demonstrates an incredible level of superficiality in Dan’s world view. Like his opposition to the right leaning perspective on those other positions, it makes crass and unsupportable assumptions about the motivations and intentions behind conservative positions. Here, he presumes torture has no place regardless of how real and impending the threat of loss of innocent life may be. He presumes torture is used to go fishing for intel, rather than to procure details from one who is known to possess intel the subject won’t easily give up in time by other “less torturous” methods. He also presumes that the term applies when he says it does, never once giving any indication of what techniques could not be called torture by any reasonable person (assuming he understands what “reasonable” is—I won’t wager my own money on that).
Let’s assume all forms of torture are on the table for use. Choose your own method that to YOU seems the most horrible and inhumane. If you would allow the deaths of innocent fellow citizens (or the citizens of allied nations) rather than inflict that method of torture upon someone with life saving intel, then you are as guilty of the deaths of those people as are those who directly end their lives. With absolute certainty, you have proven that you are NOT pro-life.
Those like Dan do not weigh out the choices available. He will not look beyond right now (the torture of an evil person with life saving intel, the execution of a murderer, the plight of the desert tortoise, etc) to the ramifications of the choice made. When his positions result in death, or more death than what other choices, such as war, torture, technological advances, etc, would bring about, he is pro-death, not pro-life. His positions are false and fraudulent because they do not result in life at all. That is, except for those who have taken or will take life unjustly.
My point, John, is simply this:
Liberals TEND to reject war-as-solution. We TEND to embrace more Life-saving, less Death-dealing approaches to international conflict.
Conservatives TEND to not reject war so much. Has there been a US war in the last 100 years that conservatives have not fully supported, generally speaking? Because there have been wars that liberals have not supported, generally speaking.
That was my point and I think it’s just a fact that we should be able to agree upon. Now, we could debate how effective at preserving life is a more anti-war/Just Peacemaking Theory type approach vs the more traditional war approach that we’ve tended to take.
The point is, liberals DO embrace life giving solutions. We just may disagree on their efficacy vs more conservative approaches.
“Liberals TEND to reject war-as-solution.”
No. You TEND to reject risking your necks for a righteous cause no matter how many innocent people die in the meantime. You TEND to reject conservatives and in doing so take the position that they take a “shoot now, ask questions later” attitude. The invasion of Iraq to remove Hussein from his despotic seat of power took place after a decade of failed diplomacy and UN resolutions. Non-military options were failing miserably and this people and neighbors were suffering.
You slander conservatives because they TEND to go to war when doing so is necessary as if they’re looking forward to the opportunity to kill and risk death. Conservatives don’t support war, you moral cripple, they support the cause behind the war.
YOU support only talking about Christian grace.
And thats what I dont get about dan thinking that war is never the answer. If a maniac like Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people, and he would stop no matter the sanctions and diplomatic attempts, what is loving about allowing it to continue?
Like with abortion, what is loving about supporting a mothers right to choose to kill her baby?
Fellas, liberals and pacifists are NOT talking about doing nothing. We’re pacifists, not passivists. We support taking JUST and RATIONAL actions to stop deadly violence.
We just don’t agree that war is usually the best way to accomplish this. Look at Iraq or Viet Nam for an example. Our “solution” came at the cost of hundreds of thousands of deaths. We don’t believe the best way to stop violence is by causing even more violence. That is stupid, irrational, crazy and immoral.
As is the continued claim that liberals want to “allow it to continue.”
You assume “going to war” is necessary when you have one tool in your tool kit. Liberals are talking about finding more tools because we know that if the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, then every problem is a nail.
And conservatives DO support war-as-solution way more often than liberals do, Marshall. Do you really disagree with that? Is there a war that we’ve engaged in in the last 150 years that you think was a mistake? Because there are wars that liberals think was a mistake. So, clearly, factually, conservatives DO tend to support war as solution, at least here in the US.
Ultimately, many liberals believe that war is a failure of imagination. “We can’t think of anything better to stop this bad situation, so let’s go to war…” Doesn’t matter if that decision is counter productive. Doesn’t matter if that decision kills more people, including innocents. It’s the best we can think of so let’s do that.
We don’t tend to accept that idea.
~Dan
“Pretty please” is not a plan
“You assume “going to war” is necessary when you have one tool in your tool kit.”
This is exactly the very bullshit statement against which I already argued. It is willfully deceitful, though typical of Dan and his twisted understanding of conservative philosophy, which he laughingly claims to have adhered in the past. No conservative regards war as the “ONLY” tool in the kit, and you’re a complete asshole for saying so right after I spoke distinctly against this notion. We do not even support war as A solution. We simply acknowledge that it is a possible solution that must always remain on the table if one chooses to lead and protect a nation. ALL wars can be described as “mistakes”. But our choosing to involve ourselves in one, or to launch military action is often based on compelling reasons we cannot or could not ignore without further risk, often of the fatal variety.
Keep in mind also that leftists have played their roles in involving our country in war. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and even Slick Willie and Barry Obummer have engaged in military actions. The difference is that conservatives understand the concept of war, when its appropriate and how to wage it effectively better than leftists. YOU, in particular, are not the least bit qualified to broach the subject, much less have any clue about dealing with the reasons we most often go to war. Where those reasons involve bad characters especially.
“Ultimately, many liberals believe that war is a failure of imagination.”
Ultimately, most liberals, and on this issue most especially you, are full of crap. “Failure of imagination”? Who was running the show between Bushes I & II? Where was this “imagination” and how did it prevent Hussein from killing so many of his own people and ignoring over a dozen UN resolutions and threatening to assassinate a US president? How did this imagination prevent 3000 murdered on American soil? You’re a complete idiot of the worst kind.
And if that’s all we were advocating, you’d be right. But you know that telling falsehoods is not right, John, so I’ll assume you are making that statement in ignorance.
Look, in Nicaragua and other Latin American nations, guerrilla warfare and sometimes gov’t troops were killing innocent villagers. Witness for Peace and other similar Christian, liberal organizations devised a plan and sent Americans and other “witnesses” to these villages where the killing and raping was happening. They placed themselves there as human shields. And while the killers had no compunction about taking innocent lives, they received some of their support from the US and others, so out of self-interest, they would stop the violence in villages with witnesses.
Peace without violence. Poof.
We are NOT advocating doing nothing. Anyone who would say that is a bald-faced liar.
We are NOT talking about cowardly hiding. Our witnesses for peace placed themselves (continue to place themselves) on the firing line, literally, and did so with no guns in their hands. Marshall, John, is that something you are prepared to do?
So, anyone who suggests that there is cowardice behind our actions is also a bald-faced liar.
What we are advocating is being smarter about stopping violence.
Look, even in WWII, with Hitler clearly being a deadly menace, killing MILLIONS of people… even in that war which many deemed “necessary,” the War-Solution came at a cost of TENS OF MILLIONS of lives.
What we are saying is we have to be smarter about stopping violence. If the deaths of millions of innocents is a problem, then a solution that involves killing TENS of millions is not a very wise solution, in hindsight. If preventing innocent deaths was the goal, it failed.
What we are saying is we need to come up with smarter, more effective methods of stopping the violence done by the Hitlers and Saddams of the world. And we can see the failures of war, and we can see the wins gained even in the relatively small, private scale of Non-Violent Direct Action done by groups like Witness for Peace. We’re saying that if gov’ts and individuals took the TRILLIONS of dollars spent on war-as-solution and invested even a percentage of that into NVDA as solution, we’d have fewer cases where we felt the need to engage in war-as-solution, because we already know how awful war-as-solution is. Ask any combat veteran and I’m sure most will agree that war-as-solution IS an awful solution.
~Dan
In fact, you mention Saddam as an example of the problem of violence and we would agree. And we could probably agree that bin Laden is another example. That is why liberals would have opposed giving support in the form of military weaponry to people like Saddam and bin Laden, like conservatives did.
We need better solutions. Peacemakers and war-accepters should be able to agree on that, we should be able to find some common ground.
Read up on Just Peacemaking Theory with an open mind and I bet you’ll find much you can agree with.
~Dan
How would you have stopped Bin Ladens terrorism from a pacifist plan?
I wouldn’t have provided him arms, support and legitimacy in the first place, as the conservatives who propped him up did.
Look, terrorism is a tough thing to prevent. But you’re not going to prevent it by bombing people, especially if you hit innocent people. That only strengthens the bin Ladens. As the conservatives did. I wouldn’t do that, either.
The way you beat terrorism is to not make terrorists into heroes. You need to marginalize, treat them as the petty criminals and thugs they are, not like war heros or war opponents. The minute you treat them as war heros and opponents, you have made them legitimate and given them some followers and support. People who kill or harm innocent bystanders are just criminals. Treat terrorists like criminals. Period.
Then, in addition to that, you absolutely can NOT say, “In some cases, it is okay to kill innocents. So, it’s wrong when THEY do it in NYC, but when WE do it in Hiroshima, it’s okay…” because then you have legitimized the killing of innocent as an acceptable tool in the struggle against your opponents. We have to be above that, pure, clean, reputable.
But this seems to be off topic, are you wanting me to provide some ideas that liberals have as to how best to fight terrorism?
~Dan
So instead of yammering on about time travel going back and not arming him, answer the friggin question. How would you pacifistically have stopped bin Laden from committing terrorism?
I would NOT have created him in the first place, like the conservatives did.
What are you asking? IF we allow conservatives to prop up and support and arm terrorists and then, when they go rogue, what should we do about what the conservatives helped create?
I answered that.
1. Treat terrorists like the criminals they are, not like war opponents.
2. Don’t kill innocent civilians in your efforts to fight violence.
3. Marginalize the terrorists. They are killing innocent people, everyone recognizes how horrible that is if you let it stand as the crime it is. BUT, if you go in and start killing innocent civilians in your efforts to stop the terrorists, you muddy the waters, making people on the street wonder who is the greater monster.
4. If you have a terrorist action that happens or that is being plotted, you go after them with police authorities.
5. You get the nations involved to cooperate in apprehending the criminals. You work through the world court and support the world court (unlike what conservatives tend to do – they seek to undermine world courts, typically).
Like that. What else do you want?
What is your solution that has worked so well? Start a war in Iraq when they had NOTHING to do with 9/11? At a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars?
No thanks.
~Dan
So then you have no answer except to go back in time. And you wonder why I loathe you.
? What “go back in time…”??
TODAY, we start following my steps 1-5 and it will improve our fight on terrorism. TODAY.
The thing, as it relates to your post today, is that liberals have ideas on how to promote LIFE, on the right side of LIFE. AND conservatives have some ideas on it, too. We all want to see a decrease in terrorism, and end to people like Hitler. The thing is, we should look for the best, most moral, most effective ideas and strive to come to an agreement on them.
Suggesting that “the other side” is on the “wrong side of life” is not a helpful part of that process. But beginning at looking what does and doesn’t work, setting aside presumptions of “that won’t work” because it’s coming from “the other side” is a fool’s errand and destructive, not helpful. We need to work together for moral, effective solutions.
~Dan
Dan
Other than going back in time to not have armed him, how would you have prevented bin laden from committing acts of terrorism?
And John, suggesting I’m talking about going back in time, if that is what you are suggesting, is a bald-faced lie. Not once did I suggest that. Look at my words, it is not there.
Pointing out mistakes that, in this case, conservatives made in the past is NOT suggesting going back in time, it’s saying, “You tried that and it didn’t work. Let’s not do it again.”
~Dan
Your words were as an answrr, more than once, was to not have armed him In the first place.
John, bin Laden is gone. There is nothing more for us to do on bin Laden. But TODAY, for people like bin Laden, the first thing is: Don’t arm them. That’s advice for TODAY, not for going back in history.
You’re welcome.
~Dan
Dan
If you had to handle bin laden, when he was alive, and after he was armed, and presenting a real threat of terrorism, how would you prevent him, using a pacifist tack?
Do you underatand the question yet?
I’d arrest him. We’d send the police after him, working in conjunction with the nations involved and the world court, hunt him down and arrest him.
What would you do differently? Bomb the neighborhoods where MAYBE he is, or not, killing children and innocent bystanders? Or would you do the same thing I’m suggesting?
Or would you declare war on Iraq to capture a criminal, even though he’s not connected with Iraq?
What would you do?
~Dan
How often did we bomb nations where we thought he MIGHT be? You’re an idiot. You also ignore the reasons he got western support years ago in the first place.
Given the reality of knowing, in hindsight, how stupid it was to prop up and arm bin Laden, Saddam, Pinochet, the Somosas, Noriega, etc, etc, can we agree that this is, NOW, today, something we ought not do?
As the joke went, HOW did Bush know that Saddam had WMDs? We still had the receipt!
~Dan
…speaking of being on the wrong side..!
Again, Dan, you’re an incredible idiot. The leaders of our country and of our allies are often in a position of deciding between two evils. Not because they’re bored and have nothing else to do, but because not choosing between them does not protect us from what happens between the two evils. National interests are usually at stake, even if not everyone agrees as to the importance of those interests.
You, as if your kumbaya crap has any real value to mankind, choose NOW to deal in absolutes, when for the leaders of nations, it isn’t so simple. Which of our allies do we forsake by one choice that might mean no war? I know you have no problem with letting people die so as not to “return evil for evil”, but some of us have other ideas of “evil” than fools like yourself. You’re a fraud, Dan.
After an incredibly busy week I got back to this and had a couple of things pop out.
It would appear that Dan’s contention is that Bin Laden would not have become a terrorist without being armed by conservatives (presumably American). Yet,in reality, virtually every picture of Bin Laden or of any AQ members two weapons prevail, AK variants and RPG’s. These are both weapons designed and produced virtually exclusively by communist or former communist countries. So it would appear that Dan is suggesting that these unnamed conservatives purchased weapons from communist countries to arm Bin Laden. This certainly doesn’t sound plausible.
It’s also a little difficult to come to terms with this liberal = tends toward pacifism construct, at least on a nation state level. Especially if one looks at recent history and at which presidents have been in office when wars have started.
WW1-Woodrow Wilson A quick look at his agenda would seem to suggest that liberal would be appropriate.
WWII- Roosevelt/Truman I’d classify Truman as less liberal than Roosevelt, but certainly neither could be classified as conservative. Bonus points to Truman for being the only president to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
Korea-Truman
Vietnam/Bay of Pigs-Kennedy/Johnson While Kennedy held at least some positions that would be labeled conservative in today’s political world, it’s safe to say that we’ve got two more liberals.
Grenada/Panama- Regan Short, and with a minimum of casualties.
Various Baltic engagements, Clinton
Gulf War1- Bush 1 Again, short and to the point.
Gulf War 2/Afghanistan- Bush 2 In hindsight, while both were republicans it seems clearer that neither Bush was as conservative as advertised.
I’m sure I missed some things, but that seems a representative sampling.
So, from a recent geopolitical standpoint, it seems problematic to contend that Liberals are less likely to engage in wars. In reality, it would be more accurate to suggest that on a geopolitical scale it sometimes becomes necessary to do things that must be done. One has to wonder how recent history might have been different had Carter not allowed the Iranian terrorists to hold our embassy and personnel hostage, but instead chosen to act early and decisively to end the situation by any means necessary.
One flaw, it seems, to pacifism on a national scale is that it virtually guarantees that innocent people are going to get killed, whether it is ultimately successful or not. In a perfect world it would be great to live geopolitically with that philosophy, sometimes in the real world the decision ends up being about minimizing the loss of life rather than preventing it. Certainly not desirable, but sometimes unfortunately necessary.
Of course there is the problem of the 56 million abortions, but hey those aren’t really alive right?
One clarification: The left tend to be pacifistic/peace-maker friendly. That is, the Left tends to respect – if not totally agree with – the ideals of peace-maker types. We respect the Gandhis, Kings, Mark Twains, Albert Einsteins and Mother Teresas, etc, we hold them up as role models for their words of wisdom on the subject of War and Peace.
Clearly, though, no one like a pacifist or Just War Theorist has ever been elected to President, and not many to Congress. So we have not ever had anything like a pacifist as president, not from the “liberals” and certainly not from the conservatives.
I’m just noting the reality that the Left/liberals tend to talk about, promote, search out peaceable solutions and be less-prone to accepting war as a solution.
Do you really disagree?
Even when you all support Martin Luther King, it’s for his work on racial justice. But, look at his work about economics or about peacemaking, and conservatives certainly tend to reject those ideals.
I mean, when I say something like…
“Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.”
I get mocked and lynched by the Marshall-types around here. Am I mistaken?
I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” The world must hear this. I pray to God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.
I am convinced that it is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world…
Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have got to do this. We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools. We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.
Of course, I could go on with books’ worth of quotes from King that are anti-war. Do you all respect this language or think it wrong, evil or at least misguided?
Liberals TEND to hold these words up as nearly sacred. Conservatives tend to distrust these words as foolish.
Thus, liberals TEND to lean pacifistic – while rarely fully being pacifists, whereas conservatives tend to lean away, sometimes to the degree of mocking peacemakers as being passive and “just want to sing Kum Ba Ya as a solution…”
Do you disagree?
~Dan
So the answer is to establish a definition of “liberal” that applies to such a small portion of the left as to be meaningless.
Let’s look at the real world for a moment. If you are the parent of one of the 300 girls kidnapped by Boco Haram, (Ignoring the fact that the State Dept under Hillary chose not to name BH a terrorist orginization for several years), who would you rather have coming to rescue your daughter. A bunch of twitter hashtag wielding pacifist liberals, les than 10 military IT types, or a platoon of Delta force? Personally, I’d give Delta force a much better chance of rescuing my daughter than Dan. But, hey that’s me.
As far as the gross generalizations above, a couple of thoughts.
First, I question of a pacifist could constitutionally serve as president, it seems as though it would be difficult to swear to protect and defend, while knowing that they would refuse to use force to do so.
Second, I’d submit that those on the right would certainly prefer peace to war. I’d also submit that sometimes it is necessary to engage in actions in order to protect the greater good.
It’s interesting that people point to Gandhi and his nonviolent resistance to colonial England. No question it worked to some degree, due to the fact that the British were unwilling to engage in attacking those who weren’t attacking them. However, how many Indians have died over the years due because their caste didn’t justify things like clean water, or food, or medical care? So, your country gains freedom from the empire, and with that freedom it chooses to marginalize thousands/millions of it’s own people because they were born in the wrong caste. Is condemning someone to death from starvation or lack of sanitation more respectful than shooting them?
I once had a conversation with a guy who claimed (in fact he sounded much like Dan) to be a pacifist. When pushed, he made an admission that kind of surprised me. He said that his commitment to pacifism was very important to him. Until someone threatened his wife or daughters, at that point all bets were off. Honestly, I suspect that most people who claim pacifism have a similar line, the point at which theory gets trumped by the actual reality of an actual threat to someone or something that is important.
Personally, my opinion is that people write off pacifists (I’m not talking about someone who chooses to personally be a pacifist, I’m talking about the folks who think that pacifism should be mandated government policy) as “Kum by Yah” or whatever, is that these lofty theories never get put to a real world test. Neville Chamberlain anyone? It’s all well and good to say “Terrorists are bad mean people, they should be arrested.”. How reasonable that sounds. Except for the fact that it’s a bit of a challenge to peacefully arrest an AK toting fanatic without using even the tiniest little bit of force. How many LE types are going to go after the aforementioned armed fanatic while being told, “You can arrest them, just don’t hurt them.”? It sounds lovely, especially when you’re not the first one through the door.
I’d like to make a proposition. How about a group of pacifist folks actually organize and go rescue these captive girls in Nigeria. Too hard, maybe a delegation can go chat with Hamas or Fatah and help them see the error of their ways.
I think people would be so much more receptive to pacifism, if they could actually see it work on a geopolitical level. The reason why pacifism was somewhat effective with MLK and Gandhi was that their “opponents” were from countries like the US and Britain which come from a Judeo/Christian foundation and where people instinctively oppose shooting unarmed people. How well does that work against a society who thinks it’s appropriate to indoctrinate children to strap explosives to themselves and blow up a bus?
I’d be thrilled to see a world where peace is the rule, not the exception. Unfortunately, I see little to make me believe we’ll see it this side of the final outworking of the Kingdom of God.
Craig…
A bunch of twitter hashtag wielding pacifist liberals, les than 10 military IT types, or a platoon of Delta force? Personally, I’d give Delta force a much better chance of rescuing my daughter than Dan.
It all depends on the circumstances. As a rule, I’d rather have a team of knowledgeable, dedicated advocates of NVDA than gun-toting warriors work out a solution.
One thing you may be unaware of, Craig, is that there is a range of beliefs that fall under the pacifism title. And beyond that, there are the advocates of Just Peace Theory who are not, strictly speaking, pacifists. I’m including all these who lean towards peace-making within the liberal banner.
But it IS true that our elected officials tend to be MUCH more conservative (even the Democrats) than the crowd that I would identify as Peace-leaning liberals. I just know that when it comes to the protests and organizations of opposition (like the millions of people across the globe who protested Bush’s Iraq invasion), they tend to be peace-leaning. And, as noted, even the elected Dems tend to be more supportive of peace efforts and less likely to want to go to war that the elected GOP.
Again, do you really think this is not the case?
Craig…
I’d submit that those on the right would certainly prefer peace to war…
OF COURSE they would. I never not one time said anything to suggest that they didn’t. What I said (as opposed to what you appear to be reading into what I said) was that conservatives tended to be more supportive of war-as-solution. That is not saying that conservatives love war, or that conservatives want war, just that they tend to be more supportive of war-as-solution than liberals.
That’s all I said. Do you really disagree with my actual point? It does not sound like it.
Craig…
I’d also submit that sometimes it is necessary to engage in actions in order to protect the greater good.
That was my point. That conservatives are more likely to believe that it is necessary to engage in war-as-solution than liberals, as a general rule.
Again, I would ask: Do conservatives tend to think that ANY of our wars in the last 150 years have been a mistake? Because liberals do.
You appear to be agreeing with my actual point while wanting to argue some other point.
Craig…
No question it worked to some degree, due to the fact that the British were unwilling to engage in attacking those who weren’t attacking them.
This is the point of Just Peacemaking Theory: That nearly ALL entities have that point at which they are unwilling to attack. The way to succeed peacefully is to find the pressure points at which people are unwilling to continue down a road of violence.
JPT advocates believe that, all of us being equally human, all have equal moral and justice understanding at some point, as well as an understanding their own best interests. JPT urges us to find ways to make the violent see that is in their best interests not to continue down that path of violence.
Unless you are of the belief that there are nations where the people are sub-human, it’s a very rational place to stand and a path that most conservatives and liberals could find some rational and moral common ground.
Craig…
is that these lofty theories never get put to a real world test. Neville Chamberlain anyone?
1. Neville Chamberlain was NOT a pacifist.
2. In order to stop Hitler from killing millions, we entered a war that killed tens of millions. It is not unreasonable to ask, “Could we have done something better and more moral, more rational?”
3. You are absolutely right that, by and large, pacifism has rarely been put to the test at the gov’t level. However, the early Christian church, along with Jesus, took pacifistic steps in dealing with violence. If it did not work at all, then the church would have been exterminated. The church is still here.
The anabaptist and other peace churches put their version of pacifism into practice, and they are (we are) still here.
Witness for Peace and other similar organizations have put pacifism to the test and had some good success.
It would be interesting to see some gov’t to give it a serious try sometime. But it does take courage and wisdom to go down that road, and by and large, I don’t think most gov’ts have that kind of courage or wisdom.
~Dan
Craig…
I see little to make me believe we’ll see it this side of the final outworking of the Kingdom of God.
We will almost certainly not see an end to murder, to killing, to abuse, to rape, to oppression, etc, in our lifetimes. I don’t think that’s the point. I think what Jesus taught is NOT, “We won’t see perfection in this world, therefore, raping, killing, abuse of any kind is okay, as long as it’s a lesser evil…” but, “We may not see perfection in this world, but we who believe in the Way of Peace, the Way of Love, the Way of Justice… are to start living that life TODAY, here and now, not wait for the sweet by and by.”
If we all agree, “it’s not going to happen in this world, so we don’t have to start living into it,” then that is certainly a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We should pray, and ACT, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven…” Seems to me that is one of Jesus’ main points about the Way of Grace.
~Dan
Craig…
How about a group of pacifist folks actually organize and go rescue these captive girls in Nigeria. Too hard, maybe a delegation can go chat with Hamas or Fatah and help them see the error of their ways.
There are, in fact, Christian Peacemaker Teams out there that do just this kind of thing. The trouble is, these organizations are not funded at a scale of the US Pentagon. But tell you what: Let’s create within the gov’t, room to support Peacemaker Teams to the tune of, even a tenth of the military budget – say $70 billion – pay the brightest and best to work on problems like the girls in Nigeria or the problems of violence in Israel-Palestine, invest in it, work on it, develop plans and strategies at that sort of level and then let’s see what we can come up with.
I mean, look, you agree, I’m sure, that you want peaceable solutions where possible. We won’t magically come up with them, we have to invest in their development.
Or, set aside the gov’t. Let’s let churches step up and take this on, they’re a natural fit. The Southern Baptist spend hundreds of millions of dollars on missions and other hundreds of millions (billions??) on staff and church buildings; and other denominations spend their hundreds of millions doing the same thing. What an amazing witness if these Christian groups joined in with Jewish organizations and Muslim organizations ! and invested, organized, planned, strategized and pulled together peace rescue teams to follow in the steps of Jesus and start working for peaceful solutions in places like Nigeria here and now!
http://www.cpt.org/cptnet/2009/01/22/democratic-republic-congo-missing-children-kashenda
That would be something to see.
~Dan
Dan,
I haven’t read the comments in their entirety, but I’m quite certain someone else factually pointed out that Hiroshima probably saved more lives than it took. How much longer would that bloody war have been waged, and at what human cost? How many more soldiers, American and Japanese, would have died or suffered needlessly?
And there are plenty of liberals who’d like to see guns banned, or the private ownership of them severely curbed. This is not “pro-life;” this is anti-life. The majority of gun violence is committed with illegally obtained weapons.
That is, indeed, what some people guess as to what might have been. Others guess that Japan might have surrendered in other ways, that they were a defeated nation already and this was unnecessary.
Since we can’t hit replay and know, we can’t know, can we?
What the people at the time KNEW beyond a doubt – what we can today KNOW beyond a doubt – is that IF we choose to target and kill civilian men, women and children, we are GOING TO KILL them. Deliberately. Now, we can make justifications (maybe it will save more lives in the end? Maybe it’s the only way? etc), but all we can know going into that situation is that we have justified the targeting and deliberate destruction and death of (in that case) tens of thousands of civilians.
At least one military commander, Admiral Leahy, called the bombing a bad move…
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.” (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441).
The point being that liberals, given a chance to choose to do something like Hiroshima again or not, would tend to say, “No, the targeting of civilians is always a moral wrong. It’s wrong when ‘the enemy’ does it and we recognize it then, it’s also wrong for us…”
If we make justifications for the deliberate killing of innocents, we need to recognize that is what all people do who use violence.
~Dan
Dan,
So, your answer is that the government should spend tens of millions of dollars on peacemaking teams, yet even you admit that this is at best unproven on a geopolitical level. Instead, why wouldn’t folks like you band together raise money and actually pick one area of the world, demonstrate that their approach, a) works, and b) is more successful. If there was some actual real world evidence that these approaches worked, there would most likely be more openness to using them more often.
There are at least a couple of problems with your WWII analogy.
1. Hitler killed at least 12 million innocent people, had the rest of the world not intervened that total would undoubtedly have been higher as the camps were still running at capacity up until the end of the war. This also ignores the millions of people who didn’t die in the camps as well as the missions of people forced into slave labor. How many deaths and slaves are you willing to tolerate before you are willing to use force to stop wrong?
2. Had the rest of the world not appeased Hitler and intervened earlier. For that matter, had the rest of the wold not chosen to disarm and therefore not pose a credible threat. How many millions of lives would have been saved?
3. The responsibility for the lives lost in WWII falls squarely on the shoulders of those who started the war, not those who ended the war.
4. You’re right, it’s not unreasonable to ask “Could we have done something different/better ?”. The problem is it’s also reasonable to ask, “What would you have done?”, “What makes you think that Hitler was reasonable enough to have been persuaded to just stop his bad behavior?”.
5. It’s also reasonable to ask. If your daughter was held by Boco Haram, would you rather have Delta Force rescue her, or wait until some unproven peace team tries to persuade these folks to give the girls back?
I have to say I find your naive belief that Islamic terrorists (for that matter most Islamic countries) share your respect for innocent life kind of charming. It is quite obvious that aculture that considers it acceptable to blow up innocent people, use chemical weapons against their own citizens, kidnap pre teen girls to sell into forced marriages, is going to be receptive to a peaceful approach.
In short, I’d love to see some actual successful results on a geopolitical scale, but if your folks don’t have the ability or courage to press your position in the US political system, it causes me to doubt how effective it would be against more hostile opposition.
To Dan’s silliness, I offer this article. It discusses the unsupported premise that Japan was about to surrender before Truman dropped the bombs. In support, I also offer this, which is a discussion of the calculations related to casualties related to a possible invasion of Japan by American forces as an alternative to the bomb. In it, one can see that the concern for the type of foe the Japanese were, compared to the Nazis elevated the concerns regarding American casualties. Now compare with islamists and pretend we now do not face an even more evil and sociopathic enemy.
What little is available concerning any Japanese hope for peace points to an aim towards peace with no change to the Japanese power structure. Only people like Dan could believe that simply “stopping” would have prevented the Japanese from rearming to re-launch their plans. What rational person could view that as an acceptable set of terms from a hostile initiator of war and conquest?
Dan’s ludicrous Just War Theory/Just Peace Theory hokum requires that both sides have basically the same views and values regarding self-determination and human life and peace itself. When two neighbors argue, they are likely neither looking to kill the other. Compromise is possible. But if one side is intent of totally forcing its will on the other, regardless of the feelings and rights of the other, diplomacy is mere exercise and this has been shown to be true on the scale of a Sadam Hussein, down to the level of street gangs.
Craig’s recommendation is perfect. All the Dans of the world can gather and raised funds to support their own efforts to engage in diplomacy with the worst actors on the international stage to see if they can get them to stop cutting off heads, to accept Israel’s right to exist in the world and to stop kidnapping girls. In the meantime, those who really care about the lives of their loved ones, and the lives of allies, should continue to eliminate and/or force unconditional surrender of those who have proven themselves unwilling to live in peace.
That stupid Admiral Leahy, what’s he know?!
As noted, at least at small scales, Just Peacemaking/NVDA HAS been tried out and found to be successful, or at least as successful as war-as-solution. JPT supporters can and certainly should try to implement these policies at a wider scale, but non-profits can only do so much, especially if gov’t forces are working counter to the non-profits’ efforts and spending trillions of dollars to the millions of non-profit spending.
Again, read up on JP Theory so you can consider it from a place of information, rather than from a place of ignorance. It’s all about finding ways to force positive change without engaging in the deadly violence that we’re opposing. I would think reasonable people would want to know their peaceful options, especially if they are followers of the Prince of Peace.
~Dan
Dan,
My point in providing the two links you most likely didn’t read, was to point out that just because you could find someone who opposed the bombings, it doesn’t mean that was unanimous and that there wasn’t serious and sincere concerns that compelled the use of the atomic bombs. It also should have indicated that it wasn’t OK’s flippantly as your “war as solution” crap condescends. Keep in mind also that these same cities were targets for firebombings as had already happened all over Japan, and that some Japanese of the time suggested that the bombs did not destroy as much as a firebombing would have. Who’s to say? But you once again speak after the fact in true Monday morning quarterback fashion, without putting yourself in the shoes of the people who had to make the decision. Also keep in mind the fact that Leahy was involved with the development of the bombs as part of his “highest military” position.
As to your JP/NVDA fantasies, instead of forcing us to read anything, be a dear and provide links in support of your own position. While doing so, note that most wars in which our country had to take part occurred after periods of disarming. Had we maintained our military strength after previous wars, rather than believing we could spend far less because previous wars had ended, more recent wars might have never taken place, or at least been waged in a manner that wouldn’t draw us in. Despots do not feel the need to negotiate when they feel they are at an advantage, and I doubt any of your JP/NVDA stories would show otherwise.
Marshall, I almost certainly have already read more about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings than you ever have, from all sides. I am well aware that there were some/are some who guess that maybe it saved more lives than it took. There are others who guess that it was not necessary and took more lives than it saved.
My point, if you’d followed my words, was that we don’t know, that we CAN’T know what might have been. People who say, “It saved lives” are just guessing. People who say, “If we had tried some JPT solution, things would have turned out worse than a war that killed tens of millions of people” are just guessing. There’s not a fortune teller in the bunch who can tell us what might have been.
As to your laziness in looking up possible peaceful solutions that might prevent another choice like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, if you’re concerned about peaceful solutions, you’ll look it up. If you’re not, you won’t. How’s about that?
But here, here’s the google link to “just peacemaking theory…” to give you a head start…
https://www.google.com/#q=just%20peacemaking%20theory
~Dan
“Marshall, I almost certainly have already read more about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings than you ever have, from all sides.”
Wow, presumptuous and condescending much?
” I am well aware that there were some/are some who guess that maybe it saved more lives than it took.”
Then you should be aware that the vast majority of the military and political establishment believed that the bomb would shorten the war and save lives. This was not simply a “guess”, it was based on the level of resistance encountered on Iwo Jimo and Okinawa as well as the totality of the evidence in the entire Pacific campaign. It seems unreasonable to think that the Japanese would have fought so tenaciously of islands they had conquered, but simply have given up when it came time to invade the home islands. Further, this discounts the culture of Japan at the time, between the notion that the emperor was god and the Bushido code it seems likely that the Japaneses would have defended the home islands with at least the same degree of tenaciousness with which they defended Okinawa. Further, had it been necessary to invade the death, pain, and destruction would have involved a much greater segment of both the population and geography that the two cities.
‘There are others who guess that it was not necessary and took more lives than it saved.”
This guess was, of course, not supported by the actual evidence.
To be fair. It could be argued that the first bomb could have been dropped on an empty island, to demonstrate its power before using it on Japan. I can see a good argument for this, however given the history, I suspect the Japanese leadership would have dismissed it as propaganda. It could also be argued that there should have been a longer wait between the two bombs. Given the fact that they didn’t immediately surrender after the first, I personally doubt another week or month would have made much difference. The fact that they didn’t surrender after the first bomb also doesn’t bode well for the “They were about to surrender anyway” theory. As they certainly could have saved themselves from the second bomb, but chose not to.
It’s interesting that Dan has chosen the Leahy quote to make his case. Because while he clearly had questions about the A bomb, he clearly did not have any problems with the strategy of blockade and incendiary bombing that preceded the A bomb, and felt like that strategy would have been successful eventually. So, in essence what Leahy (and by extension Dan) are advocating is that it is somehow better and more humane to starve civilians via a blockade and burn them via incendiary bombing than to have dropped the A bomb.
It’s an interesting and confusing way to look at things, but to each his own.
This thread seems to bring up a couple of related, but off topic, questions/observation.
1) What is it about the American left that makes them think that simply retweeting a hashtag or going to a demonstration to wave signs around is actually accomplishing anything. This seems to be a way to seem as though one is doing something substantive, while not exposing themselves to any actual risk. Does anyone really think the Boco Haram guy’s are suddenly going to release the 300 girls and stop killing Christians just because a bunch of WL’s are retweeting? Seriously, why aren’t there a flock of WL’s on the ground in Nigeria right now using non violent means to stop the scourge of Boco Haram? I suspect I know the answer, but will leave it unsaid for now.
2) How does one evaluate the success of these non violent tactics Dan champions?
3) It seems like there is a willingness on the pacifist side to disregard or minimize the potential suffering that might/will occur while they try to come up with measures that might succeed. Just as with Dan’s new hero Admiral Leahy who didn’t like the bomb, but was perfectly OK with starvation and/or napalm. How long are these folks willing to let evil go on while they try to reason with the bad guys. Or, a more realistic example. You are walking down the street and see one guy beating and stabbing another. As a good pacifist, you stop and try to reason with the attacker, you use your best and most logical arguments, yet the beating/stabbing continues. So, while one blow to the attacker would potentially stop the harm immediately, how much more suffering is acceptable before violence is an option.
4) I find it inconsistent to suggest that the left tends toward pacifism when there is such a large swath of the environmental movement who is perfectly content to use violence when they deem it necessary. I can’t help but note that almost every use of the Sartre “By any means necessary” quote is from some group on the pacifist tending left.
While I agree that nonviolence is preferable to violence, it seems like at some point it’s better for the victim to use whatever means are necessary to stop their suffering as close to immediately as possible using any reasonable means available.
Craig, as I’ve pointed out many times before, there are a range of pacifists. Beyond that, there is a range of those who believe in Just Peace Theory.
Having said that, in my experience, if a pacifist or JPTheorist saw a beating or attack taking place, they would intervene immediately to stop the attack. I, myself, have placed myself between an attacker and their victim, giving the victim a chance to escape while I “talked down” the violent one.
In the mental health field, in which I have some schooling and where I have worked with some who have been prone to violence, we learn about Safe Physical Management (SPM), about ways to intervene in violent situations to DE-escalate the violence. From hard experience in the real world, we know that responding to violence with violence tends to escalate the violence. The point would be to deescalate violence in a way that keeps everyone safe and gives a chance for redemption and rehabilitation to all involved, including the violent one.
In the real world of actual violence, there is NO ONE approach that works perfectly. But I have seen NVDA and SPM work, at least at times, when done well.
You all are saying, “Why aren’t the pacifists on the ground stopping these kidnappers,” but I will note that those who believe in violence as a solution are not on the ground, either. You are not there stopping it, so I will take your call for us to be doing something with a grain of salt.
In the real world of actual violence, the “right” response, the best response, is not always evident. We all need to come up with plans and steps and procedures on what to do to QUICKLY step in and resolve this sort of kidnapping, or the violence in Rwanda, or in Nicaragua or the list goes on. But we haven’t – none of us – figured out just what that best response is.
In the real world where non-pacifists tend to rule, we have not found those solutions. Pacifists haven’t, nor have non-pacifists. We do know – just from personal experience, if we’re honest, that violence tends to promote and encourage more violence, not less. If someone attacks a family member of yours, you are likely to want to respond with violence of your own towards the attacker, it is a natural human reaction.
But is it the best way to solve violence? I think the evidence in the real world is, not so much.
Dan
“You all are saying, “Why aren’t the pacifists on the ground stopping these kidnappers,” ”
Actually, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m suggesting that as a way to demonstrate the superiority of pacifism, this situation would be an excellent opportunity for pacifists to put their money where their mouth is. Instead, y’all are patting yourselves on the back because you’ve gotten this big twitter campaign as if that is actually an accomplishment or will actually save these kids.
“but I will note that those who believe in violence as a solution”
What I will note, is that you have incorrectly characterized the position of those who disagree with you. It’s subtle, but definite. Is this intentional? Is it just your prejudice showing through? I don’t know for sure, but as long as you choose this tactic, you make it more difficult to converse.
“… are not on the ground, either.”
In actuality, I am pretty sure that there are various folks on the ground as we speak who are trained in the appropriate use of force and who are attempting to rescue these children as we speak. Unfortunately, the US has chosen to send less that 20 folks and those are essentially IT guys.
I know that you realize the value of unsupported anecdotal information and I’m sure that you took that into account when you chose to offer only unsupported anecdotal information as your response. I have no doubt that things like that can work, I’m just suggesting that in any situation it is unwise to unilaterally limit the options available.
But, now that you’ve brought it up, where are the pacifists and what are they doing to rescue the Nigerian children?
Craig…
Instead, y’all are patting yourselves on the back because you’ve gotten this big twitter campaign as if that is actually an accomplishment or will actually save these kids.
1. I do not know who is organizing any of these twitter campaigns of which you speak. I would guess that people from many backgrounds might be trying to raise awareness in this manner.
2. To that end, as far as it goes, it’s not a bad thing. Raising awareness is always one of the first steps one needs to take to stop violence. Thugs and abusers tend to like to work in the dark. Turning on the light is probably a good thing.
Do you think raising awareness of an incident like this is a bad thing? Are you criticizing those who are doing this while you’re doing nothing? That sounds rather small, if so.
~Dan
3. While there may be some who are “patting themselves on their backs,” for “tweeting” about this, I’m unaware of it being a widespread problem. I don’t twitter, though, so maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe there ARE those out there who “tweeted” about this and are now saying, “Whoo! Now I’ve done the hard work, surely those girls will be saved. I’m awful glad I did what I could do by tweeting…” If that exists as an actual problem, by all means, point it out. If you really think it’s that worthwhile to do so.
Dan
Dan,
As usual I see no reason to do your work for you. However let’s look Hillary Clinton. During her tenure as SECSTATE she had the knowledge and authority to designate Boko Haram as the terrorist group that it clearly is, yet she chose not to. However, now she’s front and center (along with Michelle Obama, who’s husband has a fair degree of power in these areas), tweeting up a storm.
Sure it’s OK to raise awareness, but seriously, to think that it’s any more than that is just silly. Of course to have been in a position to have done something concrete that could have prevented this from happening and to have done nothing, can’t be considered good under any circumstances, can it?
I’m not sure what’s wrong with pointing out the inanity of thinking that a twitter campaign is actually going to do anything to save these girls. It just happens to be true.
My point is, this would be a wonderful opportunity for pacifist folks like you to demonstrate how effective their tactics are, and as far as anyone can see they choose not to take the opportunity.
I can’t help but notice you’ve only chosen to respond to one tiny bit of my earlier comments. I wonder why.
Dan thinks because he talked some wussy out of beating up a bigger wussy he’s got the total package of understanding on violence. He doesn’t. I have, coincidentally, been reading on some stuff from one in the know on the subject, who trains military and law enforcement professionals, as well as civilians, about the proper use of violence to defend against the violent. To Dan, this confirms his suspicions, but he has no clue about those who use violence to oppress, terrorize and harm.
The source speaks of two forms of violence: anti-social and asocial. The former is what Dan encountered. The perp obviously had a limited desire to inflict violence upon his victim. As Dan tells it, it suggests just a beating. But if the perp was asocial, he would already have inflicted heavy injury on his victim by the time Dan had gotten between them, and likely would have broken Dan for getting in his way. Such people are out there. They exist and no “Just Peace” theory has any effect on them.
Such exist on the global scale as well. Everything I’ve read on JP is simply what has already been attempted by the time a George W. Bush says “enough” and kicks Saddam’s ass. But the Dans of the world prefer to ignore all the time that separated the Gulf Wars, all that went on in between that resulted in the decision to take Saddam out. And as we know, Saddam was an asocial type, unpersuaded by JP talk, as he continued messing with the Kurds, shooting at allied planes patrolling the no-fly zones, planning assassinations of US Presidents, and ignoring UN resolutions to which he signed his name. Oh, and don’t forget the rape rooms! Yeah. Talk this dude down my ass.
For any Christian to act as if evil does not exist in the world is ludicrous and demonstrates an incredible lack of understanding of Scripture, which Dan shows routinely. It is perfectly OK, in my mind, for the Dans of the world to get in front of an asocial character and suffering the consequences if they really feel it will accomplish anything. But it is NOT OK to do so when the lives of others are more than simply at risk, they are soon to be snuffed or enslaved.
What Dan wants to believe is “war as solution” is really war as A solution and one that remains on the table at all times. The asocial characters understand this, which is why the lasting effects of the atomic bomb was a few decades of lesser conflicts, rather than all out attempts to conquer. But the reality is that it works this way: where war is the solution, it is the ONLY solution and must be carried out in a manner that insures the annihilation of the aggressors that invited it, or their complete and unconditional surrender. It must be done quickly and with extreme prejudice for the sake of the innocent. Dan thinks its something we WANT to do. The fact is that we know better when it MUST be done and we aren’t about to risk lives to do otherwise.
Dan,
Only a liberal could be so arrogant as to pass judgement on those who are no longer here to defend themselves for actions you weren’t around to witness. I can’t even begin to imagine the terror our parents and grandparents must’ve felt during World War II. Nor can I imagine the sheer tonnage of responsibility their leaders must have shouldered.
I’m the proverbial World War II history buff. I own about a dozen books on the matter and have read two dozen more. I also had the good fortune to volunteer in a veteran’s hospital as young teenager and hear the stories some of those old timers would tell. Of course, none of that makes me an expert. I’m not. But I don’t need to be in order to conclude that Hiroshima probably saved lives. It seems to be common sense at this point.
Our leaders felt that an invasion of Japan was the only sure way to get these people to surrender. The blockade simply wasn’t working. But then from June of ‘44 to June of ‘45, we suffered a million combat-related casualties on Okinawa, Saipan, and Iwo Jima. The statistics, according to a book entitled Hell to Pay, showed that one American death and seven American wounded resulted in the death of just seven Japanese soldiers. So it was obvious that invading Japan would be more of a pyrrhic victory. It was estimated that the United States would suffer at leasts a million deaths, not injuries or casualties – but deaths!
So, don’t tell me that Hiroshima was unnecessary. Please, educate yourself, read the estimates our leaders were given at the time, and then decide if you would have done things any differently, keeping in mind your responsibility to those troops and their families.
Yes, Terrance, you’re telling Admiral Leahy that HE is mistaken and I’m the one that is arrogant.
The fact is, I’ve not told anyone anything. I’ve stated a fact: That NO ONE KNOWS what “might have been.” That is just a real world fact. You are not in a position to tell us what “might have” happened if we had done this and not that. Nor am I. I’m not saying that the fear that people felt (on all sides, in all nations) was not a real fear. I’m not judging people who are dead.
I’m stating a reality: We went to war, choosing to kill tens of millions in an effort to stop a nation from killing millions.
From there, I’m merely asking the question: Could there be a better way?
Beyond that, i’ll add a question: To you all here who defend the bombing and destruction of two civilian cities as “necessary,” who defend the tens of millions of lives it took to “win” that war: Is there a number where it DOES become obvious that this was a mistake?
The 60-100 million people killed in WWII represented about 2% of the world’s population. That is, in your estimation, an acceptable price to pay to stop a madman from killing millions. Would 500 million have been acceptable? Would half the world’s population and a nuclear winter have been acceptable? Is there ANY line that you would not draw and say, “You know, this really is not worth it… this solution is not a viable solution?”
Or would destroying half the world have been acceptable if “the cause was just…”?
~Dan
Marshall…
To Dan, this confirms his suspicions, but he has no clue about those who use violence to oppress, terrorize and harm.
The source speaks of two forms of violence: anti-social and asocial.
What do you know of what I’ve studied or what I’ve experienced? There are indeed, a wide variety of reasons why people do violence. For some, there is mental illness involved and, in a sense, they can’t help themselves. Some are, indeed, sociopaths and creeps and moral misfits of all sorts.
The place that you are failing to understand, I think, is coming from your ignorance of JP Theory. Even the insane (usually), even the amoral (usually) have some sense of their own self-protection. You may not be able to reason with people, for instance, who are in the middle of a psychotic break (and I know, I’ve been around them), but you can appeal (usually) to them on the level where they’re at, helping them understand that this is going to hurt them.
Now, for the truly out of touch who can’t see or don’t care if it’s going to hurt them, who can’t see or don’t care if it hurts innocent bystanders… these people exist, too. The thing is, they exist in isolation. There are some sociopaths out there, in your city, in my neighborhood. BUT (and this is critical) NOT EVERYONE in the neighborhood is a sociopath, not everyone in a nation is a sociopath.
Where you have a sociopathic leader and, stretching things, even a sociopathic group of accomplices that are propping up the leader, you don’t have a whole nation of sociopaths. You appeal to the nation, you make the case to the people that “This leader is acting in ways that will harm you, that will harm others…”
Because people are all human and all have the same basic make up of humanity, because there are no “races of monsters” out there, we can appeal to people around the sociopaths, even when the sociopaths can’t be reasoned with.
People power is ultimately greater than deadly weapon power, that is part of why JP Theory can and has worked. Right now, Muslim and Christians, people from Africa and people from around the world… we ALL can see that the Boco Haram guys are just a bunch of creeps. We outnumber them and have humanity in agreement against this tiny splinter of thugs. BUT, as soon as we make it a Us Against Them deal, as soon as we go down the deadly road of violence and start killing the sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and children of other people, then they start to get sympathy and we start to lose.
Again, read up on JPT so you’re not speaking from a place of ignorance. It’s quite rational and well thought out.
Dan
Um, not really, I’m citing statistics and estimates that put our actions into some perspective. At the time, it was absolutely thought that we would suffer at least a million deaths if we invaded Japan. And this idea that somehow Japan was ready to surrender is utterly asinine and inconsistent with the facts. They didn’t even surrender after Hiroshima, for crying out loud! It took a few days after Nagasaki before they buckled.
Leahy’s objections were mostly moral objections, believing that war should be fought a different way. Other people objected as well. I’ve heard it all before. Even President Eisenhower believed the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary. But you have to look at it from the perspective of Truman and his advisors. Japan wasn’t surrendering, and after the heaving losses suffered at Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, experts believed at least a million more deaths would be realized before an invasion proved successful.
So, don’t tell me I can’t say with some degree of certainty what would have happened. Our military estimates are typically pretty reliable, and the heavy losses at Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, as previously stated, are also a pretty reliable indicator.
Your pacifistic ways sound nice in theory, but in the real-world, they get you killed.
You don’t know, Terrance. No one knows “what might have been.”
Don’t be delusional.
~Dan
I know it with at least some degree of certainty. I don’t know it to be 100% fact, no. But I think it’s safe to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrific as they were, probably saved lives.
It is believed by some historians that at least some of the Purple Hearts being awarded today were originally made during World War II, as the U.S. military anticipated up to 1 million casualties to result from an invasion of the Japanese mainland which the atomic bombings rendered unnecessary.
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-rumor-doctor/the-rumor-doctor-1.104348/are-purple-hearts-from-1945-still-being-awarded-1.116756
We cannot know “what might have happened” with epistemological certainty, but it does seem unlikely that the Japanese would have defended their own island with less ferocity than they did Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
“Yes, Terrance, you’re telling Admiral Leahy that HE is mistaken…”
Actually, this is false. First Leahy is dead and therefore can’t be told anything. Second, I was unaware that disagreeing with Leahy is somehow objectively wrong.
However, you have yet to reconcile your support of Leahy’s position on the use of the A bomb, with his support of the policies he felt were appropriate and working. Specifically the incendiary bombing campaign and the use of a blockade. So, you and Leahy agree that it’s appropriate to firebomb and starve people to death, but not to use nukes.
“The 60-100 million people killed in WWII represented about 2% of the world’s population.”
Since you don’t cite a source for this number, it is hard to know exactly what this represents. However, if this number includes the 12-20 million of innocent people murdered by Hitler and the unknown millions murdered by the Japanese during their conquest of China, Korea, and other countries, then the figure by itself is meaningless.
“Is there ANY line that you would not draw and say, “You know, this really is not worth it… this solution is not a viable solution?””
I don’t see any point in seriously dealing with this hypothetical until you answer the related question I posed earlier. How many innocent people are you willing to have killed before you (or pacifists in general) would a) get involved and b) admit that your tactics aren’t working?
Also, when you say “…this really is not worth it…”, you need to admit that the “this” you are referring to is oppressed, or dead innocent people. Which leads back to my earlier question.
Bubba and Terrance,
I think that anyone who has spent even a tiny bit of time studying the events of the Pacific campaign in WWII as well as the mindset of the Japanese leadership and military, cannot avoid the conclusion that an invasion of Japan would have been incredibly costly in terms of lives and that the continuation of the firebombing and blockage would have seen many more dead Japanese than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Craig…
How many innocent people are you willing to have killed before you (or pacifists in general) would a) get involved and b) admit that your tactics aren’t working?
If ANY people are being killed or oppressed, I would want to figure out the best tactic to take. If we implement Tactic 1 and it isn’t working, then evaluate what’s going wrong. If necessary, make changes and try again. If it appears to be a failing approach, try something else, move to Tactic 2.
Again, this is part and parcel of JPT. Read up on it and you would know the answers.
The thing is, Craig, JPT tactics have not been put into place at any large scale, because nations are not convinced of their efficacy. The fear of failing prevents people from trying. BUT, where it has been put into place, it has proven effective. Some success stories include:
US Civil Rights work
Overcoming apartheid in S Africa
Stopping the Contra terrorism in Nicaragua
The Arab Spring
Now, in some of these, there was certainly some violence mixed in to the formula, but, by and large, these are examples of non-violent wins over violence and oppression.
The point is, as GK Chesterton eloquently put it, that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
So, asked and answered.
So, to repeat the answer: IF an approach that I’ve advocated was not working, I’d re-evaluate it and, if necessary, move on to another tactic. BUT, what I wouldn’t do is abandon my values and embrace methods that I feel are evil, even if someone said, “We should try this, it will work to stop the violence.”
For instance, IF someone said, “If we just go in there and start kidnapping and raping the mothers, daughters and sons of Boco Haram, THAT will stop them!” and assured me that solution would work 100%, I still would not do it. Why? Because I believe that is an evil answer.
Nor would I bomb their children, Nor would I bomb other innocent bystanders.
Now, my questions to you:
1. Would you embrace methods that you believe are evil, even if some assured you they would stop the violence? Would you rape children if that was a guarantee of success in stopping evil?
2. How many deaths would it take for you to say, “This is not a workable solution?” If 2% of the world’s population is not enough, is 25%? 50%? Where would you draw the line and say, “Stop, wait, we can’t go down this road?” Or is there no such line and you’d fight until the last person on earth was dead in defense of your ideal of stopping violence?
So your answer to one of my questions is, you don’t really have an answer. You’d just keep trying things unproven on a national scale and hope something worked. Meanwhile x number of people die while you try to find something that works.
But, since I know I won’t get anything more from you until I do I’ll answer your questions.
1. I would not use methods that are evil in order to stop evil.
2. I would weigh the long term effects of any action and choose to engage in whatever action provided the most effective means of stopping the problem at the smallest cost in lives. I don’t think there is one magic number or percentage.
I note that you acknowledge that in all of your examples of “successful” uses on NV, that there was actually a component of violent action. By what objective standard can you attribute the “success” of those to NV when clearly violent action played a part in the change.
Of course you still haven’t dealt with the problems posed by either the number of deaths in WWII or with the tactics that you and Leahy appear to find acceptable.
Craig…
So your answer to one of my questions is, you don’t really have an answer. You’d just keep trying things unproven on a national scale and hope something worked.
No, I absolutely do NOT have a perfect answer to the problem of violence. Nor do you. Otherwise, you’d implement it and there’d be no more violence, right?
Are you thinking that you DO have a perfect answer? If so, I’d love to hear it.
Craig…
1. I would not use methods that are evil in order to stop evil.
Then on this ideal, we are agreed. Neither of us would engage in actions we consider evil in order to stop evil. We just disagree about what is and isn’t evil.
To me, deliberately targeting and bombing a civilian population – even of the “enemy” – is evil. Therefore, I can not engage in that, any more than I could engage in raping children if someone advocated that as a “solution.”
To me, those are comparable tactics. We appear to just disagree on where to draw the line for “evil.”
So, at the very least, it seems you can understand my principle on which I stand. Good.
~Dan
I guess a follow up question would be: Are you willing to criticize people who take a principled stand and refuse to actively participate in behaviors they think are evil?
I am not, just for what it’s worth.
Craig…
So your answer to one of my questions is, you don’t really have an answer.
No, that is not my answer. I gave my answer which I now repeat:
If ANY people are being killed or oppressed, I would want to figure out the best tactic to take. If we implement Tactic 1 and it isn’t working, then evaluate what’s going wrong….
“IF ANY” means that IF EVEN ONE life is being taken or oppressed because of my tactics, I’d want to evaluate and re-evaluate.
But consider: Hitler is killing off people by the thousands. What do we do? If we start dropping bombs, then lives are lost, including innocent lives. The same would likely hold true for JPT approaches. IF there is a group of people out there intent on doing violence, then lives WILL be lost, no matter what approach we may take. That consideration would have to be factored in to JPT approaches.
So, do I have ONE answer that applies in all situations? No, no one does. Do you?
No, of course, you don’t.
So, given that no one has one answer – and certainly not one perfect answer – then it is not an apt or rational response to say, “So, um, you don’t really have an answer…” That would be a blatantly false response to my answer.
I’ll assume you spoke in ignorance, not in some deliberate blind partisan attack.
~Dan
I guess it’s a bit interesting that the folks who actually engaged in the actions you are so worked up about were (as you describe them) liberals who tend toward pacifism.
So, if an answer doesn’t strike your fancy it’s “blatantly false”, I guess that’s at least a response.
So, that’s a No, you do NOT have an answer to the problem of violence? Of course you don’t. No one does. There is no one answer. So, your criticism towards me for having “no answer” also applies to you, if you want to criticize for nothing.
~Dan
Dan,
“What do you know of what I’ve studied or what I’ve experienced?”
Only what you’ve expressed over the years on the blogs. Like John, Craig, Terrance, Bubba, Neil, Mark, Stan, Glenn and a host of others in that time, I’ve found no reason to pretend you have a clue on this subject, and on many others. But aside from that, you go on to say…
“There are indeed, a wide variety of reasons why people do violence.”
The reasons don’t matter, which is one piece of evidence that you don’t get it. If a guy in a bar wants to act tough, beat your ass because he thinks you “dissed” him, he’s merely engaging in anti-social behavior. He only goes so far as beating your ass. His intention is limited to that. Sure, you could die in the process, but his intention is beating your ass. Such people can be reasoned with before the do real harm. They can be taken aside, possibly, and convinced that the consequences of beating your ass are too stiff, and the likelihood of doing far serious damage too great.
But there are others that intend to do serious damage, even kill. You can’t reason with such people like you can the run of the mill asshole. These people go way beyond asshole. You’ve never dealt with people like those. That guy you “talked down” wasn’t people like those. And you won’t see them coming. They don’t threaten. They act. Too late to JP their asses when you’re laid out getting stomped and crippled. Your only choice is, provided they don’t score on their first strike, is to return fire, because if you try your, “Hey man, violence isn’t the answer,” he’ll be on you before you get to the “y” in “Hey”. Now you can turn the other cheek, though he’s probably turned it 3 or 4 times for you before you even think to do so on your own, and that’s fine. Die if you think that would make Jesus happy, but the reality is that you’re murdering yourself.
The same is true on a national scale in dealing with despotic aggressors.
“Even the insane (usually), even the amoral (usually) have some sense of their own self-protection.”
What you don’t get is that they don’t think in those terms. That’s part of what makes them insane. Others don’t think you have the power to stop them, so their need of protection isn’t high priority. And once they launch, impact is guaranteed. These ain’t the British with whom Gandhi dealt. You won’t be talking them out of it once they begin.
“You appeal to the nation, you make the case to the people that “This leader is acting in ways that will harm you, that will harm others…””
You mean the people that their despotic sociopathic leaders are brutalizing? To those people you’ll appeal? You somehow think they don’t understand they’re being oppressed? Their pain, suffering, deaths, raped women, missing menfolk…they don’t understand how that’s happening and by whom? You’re kidding, right?
Or do you mean that these people need to told who’s kicking their asses on a daily basis. “OH!”, they’ll say. “Sure, we’ll just convince el presidente to stop hurting us! Why the hell didn’t WE think of that?”
Or do you mean, YOU guys kill that bastard because I’m too JP for that sort of thing!??
“People power is ultimately greater than deadly weapon power, that is part of why JP Theory can and has worked.”
You mean, if more people were for people all people everywhere, there’d be a lot less people to worry about and a lot more people who care? JP has never worked against the most monstrous people in the world. And yes, there are indeed monsters out there and there always has been.
“BUT, as soon as we make it a Us Against Them deal, as soon as we go down the deadly road of violence and start killing the sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and children of other people, then they start to get sympathy and we start to lose.”
This is stupid, because it doesn’t reflect reality. You slander our leaders who do their best to direct military actions against those who’ve provoked it with the least collateral damage possible by speaking as if they purposely target innocent civilians. In the meantime, you’ll continue to putz around while those same civilians are murdered.
“The point is, as GK Chesterton eloquently put it, that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.””
The Christian ideal is not furthered by allowing people to die so that you can show everyone how Christian you are.
“1. Would you embrace methods that you believe are evil, even if some assured you they would stop the violence?”
Killing evil murderers who won’t stop murdering after engaging in diplomacy is not evil.
“Would you rape children if that was a guarantee of success in stopping evil?”
What’s your fixation with child rape, Dan? You bring it up so often. This routine and suggestive question demonstrates your unwillingness to engage in mature discussion. How about this, Dan: Are you so opposed to killing evil people that you’d rape children if thought that would prevent you from having to kill evil people who would rape and kill the children you had to rape?
The fact of the matter is that sometimes, the answer to violence is violence. Violence is not evil. There is nothing in Scripture that even hints that violence is evil. Violence has its place in fighting evil. People who use violence for profit (monetary or otherwise) are not the same as those who use violence to defeat aggressors. And no one on this side of the issue has ever put violence as a first option. We just understand when its time to use it. Too many people die because you won’t. You’re on the wrong side of life again.
Dan,
I’m not criticizing you for having no answer, so please stop suggesting that I am. I am pointing out the fact that your “solutions” to stopping violence have never been tried on a geopolitical level, and therefore should be treated skeptically. Further, your “solutions” in the areas where you suggest that NV has worked are all tinged with violence, yet you choose to attribute the “success” of these to NV with no actual support for this assumption.
The fact that you have chosen to focus on this one small narrow point as opposed to addressing the multiple weaknesses in your stated positions, and answering questions, says volumes about the strength of your positions.