Pacifism

[Terrance]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> If Gandhi and King were with us today could they entertain any hope in
> SHAMING bin Laden and his minions into laying off?

But the peace movement is attempting to shame the USA and its allies
into laying off not the terrorists. Those that are calling for a peace
solution, as Doug noted, are not necessarily naive of history, of
policy, of the complexities of the current state of affairs. The peace
movement understands that their chances are better with the USA and its
allies and that there is little chance of pacifying the terrorists. The
peace movement has been active, it protested the Gulf War, war in
Yugoslavia, the relentless bombing of Iraq, etc., so. although the
current climate is even more challenging, it's not hopeless. There are
also cross currents at work here. On the political side people are
working, as they have been following the Oklahoma City bombing, to
protect citizen's constitutional rights and civil liberties. Peace may
not prevent a war, but it can win a few battles here. But the rhetoric
of the Left is not helpful imho.  This is why I think the militant Left
needs to realize that their inflammatory rhetoric is counterproductive.
The militant 1960's style,  self absorbed,  indignant, self-righteous, 
certain that "AmeriKa is a capitalist Nazi state," would have us believe
that the government has usurped a time of mourning to make a war
economy.  In the USA we have a tradition of peaceful activism that has
succeeded in changing hearts, minds, policy, even ending war. The
lessons of the 1960s are important here, but this is not the 60s,
terrorism is not Hitler, Iraq is not Vietnam and we don't have a huge
baby boom population of young idealists, we have a very different world.
But the fact that the peace movement is active tells me that they
believe that the best chance for peace is to appeal to those "nasty war
mongering Americans."    




> 
> Gandhi and King by all accounts were motivated by profoundly religious
> ideals such as loving one's neighbor and enemy. However they also had a
> political agenda. Get the Brits out and grant civil rights.

Yes, and here the colonialism, racism, is much more complicated. 



For Ghandi is was clear, we are Indians and you are our masters, but we
want freedom. 
For King, again, it was clear, we are Black, you are our masters and we
want freedom. 

What will a peace leadership, in the ME and in USA (West)  call for
here? 

Tough stuff, complex. Why did Chomsky write against the peace process?
There are a million questions like this one. 


> 
> Seems to me that people who advocate pacificism as the proper course in the
> present situation need to show how pacificim might have practical results.
> Ours is basically a secular society that doesn't want to depend for results
> on Divine intervention. Despite all the prayer meetings that seem to be
> going on. If anything these are Pure Theatre it seems to me.

Perhaps the peace movement needs to sow its seeds in nations not so
secular? 
And of course there is an ongoing attempt to do just that. 


> 
> Forgive me for this but I can't help but lump pacifists that don't at least
> have some plausible results in mind into that category of fanatic who are
> often referred to as true believers. Not a good category to be included in.
> 
>         P.


There are always fanatics in any movement, but the vast majority of the
people working for peace are not fanatics, they are smart, reasonable,
pragmatic, resolute, hard working folk just like us.