time will tell on wmd, page-20

Olive,

I said, I can't understand it. I'm sure pacifists could rationalise their position.

The pacifists who merely attend peace rallies are the ones I had in mind.

I see that position as a manifestation of selfishness.ie. if it's anothers life or suffering is at stake my consciece , not another's safety will come first.

There is another type of pacifist which are sometimes called aggressive pacifists. The human shield volunteers in Iraq belong to that group.

The following gives a clue to their recent origins:

"In 1984 an American theologian and social activist named Ronald Sider sought to spur Christians to a more aggressive pacifism. "Unless we ... are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic, vigorous new exploits for peace and justice ... we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands filled with injustice," Dr. Sider told a conference of Mennonites".

I would say this group, willing to lay down their lives for their beliefs, apart from the charge of being suiciders, would probably save few if any lives at all and in the end the same charge of selfishness could be levelled against them.

Ghandi is often held up as a good example of pacifism:

"Pacifism may be adopted as a pragmatic political strategy, in which case its effectiveness is open to debate. It has sometimes been successful, as in the case of Mohandas Gandhi's non-violence, which played a major role in India's independence. Gandhi relied on his followers committing acts of non-violence with the specific purpose of setting a perfect contrast with the violence used by the British against them, in order to sway public opinion. Similarly, Gandhi repeatedly advocated that Europe, from Britain to the Jews and Czechs, not resist Nazi violence; he hoped that the Nazis themselves would then see the error of their ways. Critics have generally judged Ghandi correct in his own circumstance under the British, but naive in the case of the Nazis. His doctrines proved apparently incapable to prevent violence during the partition of British India into today's India and Pakistan. Critics of this kind of pacifism claim that being non-violent in the face of violent criminals or armies tacitly or explicitly encourages more violence. They often characterize pacifism as simply "waiting tolerantly for criminals to learn that their actions are unwise".

A little more contemporary stuff below:

"The political theory of Green parties lists 'non-violence' and 'de-centralization' towards anarchist co-operatives or minimalist village government, as two of their ten key values. However, in power, Greens like all politicians often compromise, e.g. German Greens in the cabinet of Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder supported an intervention by German troops in Afghanistan in 2001, but on condition that they host the peace conference in Berlin - and during the 2002 election campaign forced Schroeder to swear that no German troops would invade Iraq.

This suggests that many who advocate 'non-violence' or pacifism, especially political parties that participate in government, actually advocate what is more properly called de-escalation or even arms reduction (on a very large scale). Many outstanding pacifists of this sort have taken part in defensive military actions when their countries were attacked, but others prefer to leave their country if it is preparing for aggressive war (such as Germany in the 1930s). Clearly a party that writes and enforces law is not non-violent. It can be pacifist, however, by refusing participation in external conflicts, refusing to supply weapons, and sheltering refugees but not combatants"


Principled or radical pacifism
While those who believe that war is normally preferrable to peace are rare indeed, pacifism as a distinctive belief is not at all common. The distinction of pacifism is not only an extraordinary faith in the effectiveness or benefits of peaceful means of resolution of conflict, but the principled rejection of all pretended justification of violent means under any circumstances. At a minimum, this stance is adopted as a matter of personal conviction limited to one's own choices, which sometimes leaves the individual conscientiously free to serve in a war effort as a non-combatant if required to do so. Some people who felt they could not in good conscience fight in a war, served as ambulance drivers during World War I, others were jailed".

Of course pacifists argue that war only engenders more war and pacifism, they say, is the only way to break that cycle. The Quakers have a long history of pacifism so it is not a new doctrine and it has not affected the way conflicts have been settled over the centuries to the present day. In part the Ghandi attitude in others led to many millions of deaths that certainly would have been prevented had there bveen pre-emptive intervention in Italy's and Germanies affairs in the 1930's.

I would suggest Iraq is today's Germany.

quotes from Wikipedia Encyclopedia

regards llew

ps. It's just occurred to me I should have married a Quaker woman. Now that would really be the test. I wonder how divorce rates of pacifists compare with the rest of society.