The Folly of Pacifism, by.....my brother.

Status
Not open for further replies.

VaughnT

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
1,009
Location
Western SC
The following is from an email I just rec'd from my brother in Augusta, GA. His letter, apparently, is or will soon be published in the Augusta Chronicle and I thought it was exceptionally well-written and worthy of your commentary.

Considering that my brother isn't a shooter or combat trainee, I was surprised to see something like this come from him.



Dear Mr. Terpack,

Thank you for your letter. Please confirm your authorship of this letter wither by returning this e-mail or calling The Augusta Chronicle's editorial department at 823-3430. Also please include a daytime phone number where we can reach you, in case we have further questions.

Also, The Chronicle prides itself on exclusivity. Have you sent this letter to any other publications?

Again, thanks for writing, and we hope to hear from you soon.
Joe Hotchkiss, Editorial Coordinator
The Augusta Chronicle


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Folly of Pacifism by John A. Terpack II




Pacifism is a lovely ideal, but it is the cause of more grief than joy in the real world. More people than can be imagined have been made to suffer unduly because they were unprepared to meet aggression with aggression. In fact, pacifism is the reason 3,000 people died that fateful September morning. Although the hijackers were outnumbered by ten to one or better, passengers were told to go along with their demands, to be pacifists. Only those passengers on flight 93 realized there was a problem and acted. While they still died, how many lives were saved because their plane did not reach its target? Had the passengers on the other three planes acted with equal courage we would not have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. The towers would still grace the Manhattan skyline. Numerous families would still have their loved ones. Because the passengers on those three planes chose to meet violence with submission we not only lost them and the souls in those buildings, we also lost hundreds in wars that would not have been fought.

How ironic is it that the same beliefs which cause people to protest the "senseless" violence of war allowed the events to transpire which triggered the war? What would happen if terrorists were to attack a peace rally? Would the anti-war crowd submit, as they wish our country to do? Or would they take a stand and defend themselves against a known enemy who means to harm them, as our country has done? Those who claim violence is never the answer have never faced imminent danger. If a psychopath breaks into your home and begins sodomizing your twelve-year-old daughter, you do not try to reason with him. I actually feel sorry for any man who says he has nothing he would fight to protect.

It is a sad truth, but it is truth nonetheless, that violence is sometimes the only answer. Islamic terrorists do not care what your worldview is. They do not care who you voted for or whether you support the war. There were people of all religions and heritages in those towers when the planes struck. Wealthy died alongside poor, black next to white, pacifist next to hawk. They all died not because of their ideals, but because of their country of residence. It is the folly of pacifism to think we can avoid future bloodshed by turning the other cheek. We turned the other cheek when they bombed the towers the first time, when they blew up our embassies in Africa, when they bombed the USS Cole, and even when they threw a crippled old man off the side of a cruise ship. We're out of cheeks to turn, it's time to fight back.





John A. Terpack II

Augusta, GA
 
Glad you guys liked it. I'll pass along your thoughts and am sure that my brother will appreciate the kind words.
 
Pacifism isn't a viable foreign policy, imho. Note, however that there are other tactics available in foreign policy other than kill.

The best tactics are a combination and/or tactics somewhere in between, imho.
 
like asking the UN for permission first?
Like getting the support of as many other countries as possible (through the UN is fine), thereby minimizing the amount of resources that our country has to spend and maximizing the chances of success.
 
But didn't we....?

I thought we gave the Talibastards two weeks to give up OBL? I thought we (and the UN) gave Saddam Insane 12 years to comply with numerous UN resolutions? Diplomacy only works with reasonable people and then only if they know you are willing to crack heads together.

I suspect the US is using a multi pronged attack against those arrayed agin' us. Just because the Bush Admin isn't giving us a daily run down on the tactics doesn't mean nothing is taking place. I have no doubt the CIA is up to some very dirty tricks as we speak.

While the world is focused on the right hand, are the BG's watching the left hand? :)

Strategery... you gotta love it.

Tim
 
On the subject of poor tactics regarding resource use:

War May Require More Money Soon
Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A01

Intense combat in Iraq is chewing up military hardware and consuming money at an unexpectedly rapid rate -- depleting military coffers, straining defense contractors and putting pressure on Bush administration officials to seek a major boost in war funding long before they had hoped.

Since Congress approved an $87 billion defense request last year, the administration has steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq will be sufficiently funded until early next year. President Bush's budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 included no money for Iraqi operations, and his budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, said no request would come until January at the earliest.

But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. military fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and that more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence in Iraq and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.

The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.

The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28903-2004Apr20.html

Major Rearrangement of U.S. Forces in Iraq to Deal With Holes in Coalition, Shifting Violence
By Jim Krane Associated Press Writer
Published: Apr 20, 2004


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - With the coalition fraying and guerrilla violence spreading, the latest job for the U.S. military in Iraq appears to be patching holes - like those left by the impending withdrawal of Spanish, Honduran and Dominican troops.

The military here is in the midst of a serious reorganization, shifting and swapping troops to cope with simultaneous crises in the south - where some coalition partners have balked at clashing with rebellious Shiites - and in the west, where a standoff in Fallujah has drained troops from elsewhere.

The rearranging could mean a continued, large U.S. military presence in the south, where the United States had handed security duties to its allies. The coalition partners signed on believing they were patrolling a peaceful region, a situation that has dramatically changed.

The Dominican Republic was the latest planned withdrawal, announcing Tuesday night it would pull its 302 troops out of Iraq within several weeks. Honduran and Domincan forces have been serving under a Spanish-led brigade since August.
…
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3XG6UATD.html
 
Wars cost money, and other brilliant revelations

June 16, 2003

THE OUTLOOK

Pax Americana: Affordable,
But Fraught With Challenge

By BOB DAVIS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- Can the U.S. afford its expanding commitments to confront adversaries around the globe?

Posed narrowly, the answer is certainly yes. The Pentagon is asking for about $380 billion next year. That is more than Russia, China and Europe combined spend on defense. But it still is only 3.4% of the U.S. economy -- less than one-half the percentage the U.S. devoted to defense during much of the Cold War.

Even if rebuilding Iraq and other war-torn nations doubled expected outlays for foreign aid, to about $45 billion annually, the U.S. still would be spending less than half as much as it did during JFK's presidency, as a percentage of gross domestic product.
......
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105571287852830100,00.html

-Morgan
 
Financing the war would be easy.... after September, bring all those confiscated weapons over here and auction them off...there's no doubt in my mind they'd get some of my money...:D
 
My personal opinion is that we should not be trying to rebuild Iraq until we are done fighting there. I am sorry to all the civilians, but, when the war is ended is the time to rebuild. (If "Mr average Iraqi" is suffering, he may wish to help us end this conflict, if he is living better now with our rebuilding efforts than he ever has in his life he will want us to stay there.) We should fight the war, and when the fighting stops, then and only then should we consider the humanitarian side.

To create meaning from the meaningless strings of zeros in our talk of finances, consider this. We have 270 million people in the US, including women and children, and unemployed, etc. When the term billion dollars is used, that is almost four dollars for every man, woman and child in this country. (If you have a family of four, that is sixteen dollars for your share of every billion that the government spends.)
OR, maybe like this (estimated workers?) 150 million working people, the rest, young or infirm, or old? EVERY worker is paying a bit over six dollars per every Billion the government spends. The government can not spend if it does not tax.
 
ksnecktieman,

We have to rebuild as we go, to give them jobs and a life so that they can look forward to earning a living and be too busy to attack us. Heck, they'd even be gratefull.

Remember, there's only a few 'hotspots' in the entire country.
 
Getting back on topic, great piece! I had a similar conversation last year. My contention, like your brother's, is the weapons on that day were not box cutters; the weapon was our own passivism. I had an unanswered question then. I have to use one big what if to get this through. That is the hijackers could communicate between planes. So here is my scenario. So if there were one or two individuals on the first plane, and they saw the hijack coming by overhearing the hijackers, and preemptively killed the three or four hijackers. On the other three planes the hijackers get word of the stunt and call off their plans.

My question is what would we do to the guys who killed the potential hijackers? I think our judicial system would be self righteous enough to prosecute them for manslaughter. Obviously in hindsight now we should give them medals, but from the no-hijacking-happened perspective, our heroes killed at least three people who, while admittedly were trying to hijack the plane, had yet to "threaten" the whole plane.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?
 
Like getting the support of as many other countries as possible (through the UN is fine), thereby minimizing the amount of resources that our country has to spend and maximizing the chances of success.

Given the UN's track record for success in military interventions and peacekeeping missions, that's a pretty comical statement.
 
Many people who were not in favor of the Iraq war, are very much in favor of our war in Afghanistan. To me, Afghanistan was totally justified, but yet the justification for Iraq other then "he's a bad man" just isn't the case. We havent found any WMD (oops), and very little ties to Al Queda(oops). Yet what we will do is give thousands more radical islamics another reason to hate our country. We've hurt relations with allies which have taken years upon years to form. We are needlessly waisting lives and billions of dollars in a country, where obviously some people don't want us there.


The idea behind getting international support is so we actually don't look like Iraq. We don't want to be some bully who invades countries at will for whatever reason. Having a UN mandate or shoot, I would settle for a EU decision, gives our cause more legitimacy than if we go at it alone, or with just a few other smaller countries(and the Brits of course).

Sure, France, Germany, and Russia had a lot more to gain by having Hussien in power than we did, of course that is going to effect their decision, much like how we now have much more to gain by stabilizing Iraq.

"Either you are with us or against us" is incredibly short sighted and juvenile. And not all actions are "terrorist" events. Terrorist :banghead: seems to be the new "buzz" word.

Sorry, early morning and a late night equal an incoherent response :p
 
VaughnT: Good on yer brother!

Pacifism is an attractive idea to the pretentious but intellectually barren mind. I think the following quote sums up the truth rather well:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
 
Having a UN mandate or shoot, I would settle for a EU decision, gives our cause more legitimacy than if we go at it alone, or with just a few other smaller countries(and the Brits of course).

Maybe not incoherant, but certainly deserving of a :rolleyes: .
 
I was hopeing for something more specific than a :rolleyes:.

To address that part: Most would agree that when we went into Iraq last time there was much less international dissent (and cost to us) because Bush 1 went to great effort in getting backing and support. This time Bush 2's like it or not policy has cost us a lot of money and political capital.
 
I agree we don't need UN permission, but support is a different thing. Do you see it as desireable at all or just worthless?
 
exactly, UN support would go a lot further then if we didnt have it.


I would also agree that UN sponsored missions can and have led to very poor results. That is not what I am saying, but having the support(either political, monetary or military) is a very added benefit in this day of age.

Again, no country needs to ask for permission to do anything nor should they. That is the point of soverignty. However, in this current age, we do need the support, whatever it maybe, from other countries. This is clearly obvious from our appearnt effort to seek UN support as well as that of our allies. Only a few joined in, which raises a question of why. Having international support is a good thing. Having EU or UN support, IMO would have been much more beneficial compared to our current position... which also sees countries leaving Iraq... but that's another thread


EU and UN permission needed for legitimacy? Sorry, but I thought his quote would speak for itself. Maybe you're into that kinda thing. I dunno.
Legitimacy depending on your point of few. Of course some people in this country are going to feel that this effort in Iraq is completly legitimate. However, people in other countries might not feel that way. Having an official decloration of UN support goes a long way in having other countries feel that this regieme change is legitimate and not just an illegal invasion. It's all about view point and to whom. I was referencing the world view point versus a viewpoint from here.


So yes, my quote still stands. If you think that having at the very least official EU support(which will now be 25 countries) would not help convince other nations that this effort is just, well I'll see you a :banghead:
 
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill


Just an aside, the same quote can be applicable to those in Iraq fighting against us. It goes both ways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top