FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Non Violent war





rshanthakumar
Non violent war!

Does it sound logical? There were a number of incidents in History that are examples of non violent warfare.

One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.
Two, the struggle of the South African apartheid movement
Three, the fight for the civil liberty in United States

I think that this is what is needed for the world today. To express discontent and dissatisfaction if everybody were to take up the gun then we loose peace. This is much more important for human survival than the green house effect.

Do you subscribe to this? Is non violence a solution? will it save the world?
coolclay
Um, no. Who is going to pay attention to a bunch of hippies sitting around in a peace circle in a "nonviolent war". Nothing changes unless you make it change. Thats the way the world works unfortunately. But in theory yes a nonviolent war would be nice.
Bones
I hate to say this, but no I dont think it would work..because as Bush has proven to us already..when intelligence and common sense break down..the guns come out.
Soulfire
Sitting back with a picket sign doesn't change things. Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes that action taken is war. And the civil rights movement in the United Sates was hardly non-violent (whether it was intentional or not).
rshanthakumar
Soulfire wrote:
Sitting back with a picket sign doesn't change things. Actions speak louder than words, and sometimes that action taken is war. And the civil rights movement in the United Sates was hardly non-violent (whether it was intentional or not).


I think the idea of a non-violent war is not in putting up pickets and showing off a protest board. It is real war. Strategies have to be worked out to 'fight' without using the gun. There are a number of ways. For instance, if we need to stop war, may be we should stop large scale production of weapons. People should stop working in companies that make weapons for terror units or countries that support terror.

It is not picketing or demonstrating. It is a show of commitment. There will be infringes but slowly people will join and it will become a major force. When it develops other strategies can be worked out. This is not hurting physically the other guy. Stop his lifeline by non violent means so that he realises it is good to stay out of it.
nopaniers
Absolutely. I can think of many more examples:

- The freedom of the Baltic states
- The creation of East Timor
- The orange revolution
- The fall of the Berlin wall
- The opening of Hungary's borders
- The cedar revolution
- The end of the Kyrgystan's dictatorship
- Democracy in Russia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech and Slovak republics
- Solidarity in Poland

Of course there are those who take this stance and have yet to see success (although they have won international support and recognition). One example I particularly admire is Aung San Suu Kyi.

Just imagine if the world's military spending ($1 trillion + per year) was spent on something useful like promoting education and information. Personally I think those people who pedal weapons should be held accountable for what damage their products do.
QrafTee
rshanthakumar wrote:
Non violent war!

Does it sound logical? There were a number of incidents in History that are examples of non violent warfare.

One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.
Two, the struggle of the South African apartheid movement
Three, the fight for the civil liberty in United States

I think that this is what is needed for the world today. To express discontent and dissatisfaction if everybody were to take up the gun then we loose peace. This is much more important for human survival than the green house effect.

Do you subscribe to this? Is non violence a solution? will it save the world?

Alright, so we'll drop the guns in Iraq while the terrorist crash their car bombs into our facilities and then pick up those weapons we drop and kills not only our people, but their own people who "oppose" them or simply because in the terrorist's eyes, they're "traitors." Nice... when we do that make sure I am told so I can go to a country with at least enough weapons to take out opposing forces in the event they stop being peaceful... but seriously who is going to stop being peaceful, right?
Bones
QrafTee wrote:
Alright, so we'll drop the guns in Iraq while the terrorist crash their car bombs into our facilities and then pick up those weapons we drop and kills not only our people, but their own people who "oppose" them or simply because in the terrorist's eyes, they're "traitors." Nice... when we do that make sure I am told so I can go to a country with at least enough weapons to take out opposing forces in the event they stop being peaceful... but seriously who is going to stop being peaceful, right?


Umm did I miss something here..the terrorists that supposedly attacked the US are not, nor were they ever in Iraq. Of course they are attacking you now, you invaded their country and killed thousands of innocent civilians! What did you think was going to happen!?
JoeFriday
rshanthakumar wrote:
Non violent war!

Does it sound logical? There were a number of incidents in History that are examples of non violent warfare.

One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.
Two, the struggle of the South African apartheid movement
Three, the fight for the civil liberty in United States

I think that this is what is needed for the world today. To express discontent and dissatisfaction if everybody were to take up the gun then we loose peace. This is much more important for human survival than the green house effect.

Do you subscribe to this? Is non violence a solution? will it save the world?


I believe this has already saved the world once.. WW3.. ie, the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union
JoeFriday
Bones wrote:
QrafTee wrote:
Alright, so we'll drop the guns in Iraq while the terrorist crash their car bombs into our facilities and then pick up those weapons we drop and kills not only our people, but their own people who "oppose" them or simply because in the terrorist's eyes, they're "traitors." Nice... when we do that make sure I am told so I can go to a country with at least enough weapons to take out opposing forces in the event they stop being peaceful... but seriously who is going to stop being peaceful, right?


Umm did I miss something here..the terrorists that supposedly attacked the US are not, nor were they ever in Iraq. Of course they are attacking you now, you invaded their country and killed thousands of innocent civilians! What did you think was going to happen!?

actually, there is a lot of evidence showing a direct correlation between al qaida and Iraq.. many al qaida terrorists were trained in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein helped them get training and partially funded them

as for thousands of innocent civilians being killed.. you're probably referring to the estimated 100,000 civilians that Saddam killed during his last 10 years as a dictator.. if you break it down.. 100,000 people into 10 years.. that's 11 people an hour he killed NON-STOP FOR TEN YEARS.. he's probably glad we invaded as he was literally running out of places to put the bodies

people complain that we can't find a semi-trailer size supply of WMD in a country the size of Ohio, but they ignore the mass graves we find every other day
rshanthakumar
QrafTee wrote:
rshanthakumar wrote:
Non violent war!

Does it sound logical? There were a number of incidents in History that are examples of non violent warfare.

One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.
Two, the struggle of the South African apartheid movement
Three, the fight for the civil liberty in United States

I think that this is what is needed for the world today. To express discontent and dissatisfaction if everybody were to take up the gun then we loose peace. This is much more important for human survival than the green house effect.

Do you subscribe to this? Is non violence a solution? will it save the world?

Alright, so we'll drop the guns in Iraq while the terrorist crash their car bombs into our facilities and then pick up those weapons we drop and kills not only our people, but their own people who "oppose" them or simply because in the terrorist's eyes, they're "traitors." Nice... when we do that make sure I am told so I can go to a country with at least enough weapons to take out opposing forces in the event they stop being peaceful... but seriously who is going to stop being peaceful, right?


True, if you were to leave them with weapons in their hands. You are not supposed to hand over guns to them, anyway!!

But well, let us get this straight. There is no one single solution for all the war / conflict situations that are existing in the world. But there will be a non-violent one if we have the faith and work out an approach plan to fight the non violent war.

do you think US will win this war in Iraq? It is going to be another Vietnam. More American deaths will happen and they will be forced to withdraw one day. The same went true about the short Israeli war on the militia. Who gained out of it? Or do you think the war on terror will be over with Iraq or even if you do the same with Iran, too? You can never ever defeat another person by using force. He might succumb but will certainly come back, himself or his friends or his heirs. And either you will answer or your friends or your heirs. Be sure of that.

Guns are never silenced. They will only go into an hiding.
discountcontacts
unfortunately, there is a worldwide resurgence in conservatism. LEftists are now viewed as losers and out of touch with the majority. Look at students around the world- they dont give a stuff about politics. Therefore, since no one cares, then you cant win a war against the establishment through popular resistance. IT comes back to the timeless truth- whos got the guns wins. Gandhi won because passive resistance was his innovation, he was a devious Indian who innovated. People thought he was cool since they've never since it before. But if you do it nowadays, the people will think you r sad, you are an idiot and the riot police will claim you made the first attack and bash you up. Take you back to the police station and looky looky what will happen to you. Is that a hammer and a phone book. Oh is that pipe? Will you see the light of day again?
NooBix
A good example would be

Military coup of thailand (violent... right??)

vs.

Anti-Chen protests in Taiwan (peace)

Which one is better? you decide Confused
rshanthakumar
discountcontacts wrote:
unfortunately, there is a worldwide resurgence in conservatism. LEftists are now viewed as losers and out of touch with the majority. Look at students around the world- they dont give a stuff about politics. Therefore, since no one cares, then you cant win a war against the establishment through popular resistance. IT comes back to the timeless truth- whos got the guns wins. Gandhi won because passive resistance was his innovation, he was a devious Indian who innovated. People thought he was cool since they've never since it before. But if you do it nowadays, the people will think you r sad, you are an idiot and the riot police will claim you made the first attack and bash you up. Take you back to the police station and looky looky what will happen to you. Is that a hammer and a phone book. Oh is that pipe? Will you see the light of day again?

If you retrace history, man has been violent all through. But slowly and steadily he has been moving out of it and becoming more civilized. We are at the cross roads of history where such collisions happen. But we need to move ahead and establish that the world is really moving away from more violence. US law abhors violence; with everyone including the people who are under custody. But they 'outsource' even that to countries like Eqypt or Syria where the prisoners are tortured and the information is obtained from the arrested person.

We want to be away from violence but we don't believe in it!
Moonspider
Alright, let’s bring a little common sense into this discussion. Firstly, war is a very vague term. It can be applied to any conflict from the most violent in American history (The American Civil War) to a “war of words” between politicians. Obviously the assumption here is that we want to try and apply non-violent strategies to achieve victory in a traditional conflict between nations or warring parties/factions. Correct?

Looking at it historically, what non-violent means of opposition would have succeeded against Napoleon? What about Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire? What non-violent option could Abraham Lincoln have used to bring South Carolina back into the union, thus preventing the Civil War?

The answer, of course, is none. The only non-violent choice in all of the above historical examples would be not to fight, succumb to the will of the power willing to fight.

I argue that, given a nation or organization with the capability and will to wage a violent struggle, non-violent means of resistance will not prevail. Let’s look closely at a few of the “non-violent” examples listed earlier in the thread. I will not examine all of them for some fall outside of my personal knowledge.

1. “the fight for the civil liberty in the United States” – rshanthakumar
The “opposing forces” in this instance were political leaders wishing to keep the status quo. Although there was some violence, the opposition did not have the political will to use force, for such action would have been not only illegal but against the nature of American culture. (Americans abhor the use of the military inside its own boundaries, a cultural hold-over from 18th century colonialism.) If the United States was a totalitarian government, the movement could have been put down by force: simply gun down the opposition and throw others in prison without charges, leaving them there until they die. Crack down harshly on leaders, followers, their families, etc.

3. “The fall of the Berlin Wall” – nopaniers
A byproduct of the Cold War, which was won by a number of means, not the least of which was military power and the threat of its use. There is nothing non-violent or non-military about winning the Cold War.

4. “Democracy in Russia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech and Slovak republics”
Once again, a byproduct of the United States and her allies winning the Cold War.

I’m afraid that there is no non-violent means of successfully resisting military force. If anyone here or elsewhere can develop such a strategy, that would be tantamount to a Fifth Generation Warfare method. (World War II is an example of Third Generation or “Maneuver Warfare.” Mao-Tse Tung wrote the doctrines that became the model for Fourth Generation Warfare, used by Minh in Vietnam, the Mujahideen in the Soviet Afghan War, and the “insurgents” in the current Iraq War.)

As an aside, no major power has ever won a Fourth Generation war. The Soviet Union, The United States, France, and Britain have all been defeated by this method. It is the only style of war the United States has ever lost. If the US wins in Iraq it will be the first time in history a major power has won a fourth generation war.
ahamed
I don't think so that the non-violent approch to gain something is working anymore in this world. Respective authorities doesn't care about anything non- voilent unless it turns to violent ...
Moonspider
rshanthakumar wrote:
If you retrace history, man has been violent all through. But slowly and steadily he has been moving out of it and becoming more civilized.


I must disagree with your conclusion. The 19th Century was more violent than the 18th. The 20th was the most violent in history. The 21st does not look like an improvement.

Humans are becoming more advanced, but not more civilized. Our ability to achieve great accomplishments in technology and general science far out paces our morality.

I predict that the 21st Century will be more violent than the 20th.
HoboPelican
I think people are over simplifing the issue. Moonspider stated
Quote:
given a nation or organization with the capability and will to wage a violent struggle, non-violent means of resistance will not prevail.
.

Ok, on the surface that seems to make sense, but the whole point of non-violent opposition is to undermine the will of the "enemy" to kill or injure a non-aggessive, unarmed opponent. When a nation or organization uses overwhelming power to crush a non-threatening opponent, it's populace often reacts in such a way as to apply political pressure at home to end the conflict. Outside of the nation, the world community is likely to react with economic and politcal pressure. In the case of a small country, those pressures are considerable.

I'm not saying it is going to replace traditional warfare in my lifetime. But it has worked and it will continue to work.
joshumu
The nonviolent expamles used dont include the violent actions that happened. The british were weekend from violent conflicts it was involved in in other colinies. And alot of the rights movment was couppled with vietnam. Non violence is a good step but historicly, violence gets the job done. I dont even think our pressent regime is going to give up without a physical fight.
HoboPelican
joshumu wrote:
... The british were weekend from violent conflicts it was involved in in other colinies.


Not sure what your point was here. Is it your thought that the british empire wasn't capable of putting down the movement? I can't buy that without a very good citation. I think the key thing to remember is that no matter how strong in equipment a nation is, it is, in the end, controlled by the will of the people. It may take time, but I think this is true. And the people can be manipulated very easily.
Moonspider
HoboPelican wrote:
I think people are over simplifing the issue...the whole point of non-violent opposition is to undermine the will of the "enemy" to kill or injure a non-aggessive, unarmed opponent. When a nation or organization uses overwhelming power to crush a non-threatening opponent, it's populace often reacts in such a way as to apply political pressure at home to end the conflict.
.

True, in whatever form it takes, warfare is never a simple issue. And as a professional I would never seek to minimize it. Here I will expound upon an earlier post of mine.

The point of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) is to undermine the political will of the enemy. Each evolutionary generation of warfare attacks the enemy at ever deeper points in its structure. Allow me to briefly explain.

Second Generation Warfare (2GW) sought to destroy the enemy's armies. 2GW came about once nations were large enough and nationalism was such that massive armies could be sent into the field. Napoleonic warfare is an example of 2GW. This came into complete fruition during the American Civil War. At the end of that war, trench warfare had become the norm as a byproduct of those tactics and evolving technology. However this continued until close to the end of World War I, when technology evolved that allowed nations to move to a different methodology. Even then, the only nation to change to 3GW was Germany during the interwar period. The French Armies that Germany faced in 1940 were based around 2GW thinking, whereas the Wermacht was 3GW.

Third Generation Warfare (maneuver) is epitomized in War World II. Whereas 2GW sought to destroy armies in the field, 3GW attacks a nation's infrastructure: command and control, economy, cities, etc. Destroying the army in the field is no longer as important. Germany, as an example would avoid massed armies and defensive positions to drive deeper into the enemy's territory.

The first Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq epitomize 3GW. No nation in the world can compete with the United States in this type of warfare. However, the historical rule is that by the time a nation has mastered one generation of warfare, the next is already in play.

The next is, naturally, Fourth Generation (4GW). This began with the teachings and strategies of Mao Tse-Tung against Kai-shek in the war for control of China. 4GW goes beyond a nation's infrastructure to the very hearts and minds of the enemy's population. The goal is to destroy the enemy's political will to wage war. Ho Chi Minh used it masterfully against France and later the United States.

In 4GW, military victories mean little or nothing. For example, in ten years of fighting the United States won every battle it fought in Vietnam. However, it does not matter. As Ho Chi Minh said, we could kill 12 of his men for every 1 we lost and he'd still win. He was right. The American people lost the political will to prosecute the war. The same method was used against the Soviets in Afghanistan and against the United States currently in Iraq. 4GW uses a number of methods to accomplish its goals outside of traditional military activity. The lines of warfare, politics, civilians, and soldiers are greatly blurred.

(I did over simplify the complexities of all generations here for expediency.)

Vietnam is not an example of non-violence stopping war, i.e. Americans placing political pressure upon the government to pull out. It is an example of the masterful use of 4GW by Ho Chi Minh.

In order to prove that non-violent warfare works, someone will have to cite an example where non-violent resistance defeated an enemy force. I have not seen one. The only examples I have seen were either political changes short of open warfare (such as the Civil Rights Movement) or misrepresentations (any change resulting from the West's victory in the Cold War). The original question related to war.

If history is an example, 5th Generation (5GW) should be out there already, and there has been some discussion about it, but nothing definitive.
HoboPelican
Moonspider wrote:

True, in whatever form it takes, warfare is never a simple issue. And as a professional I would never seek to minimize it. Here I will expound upon an earlier post of mine.

The point of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) is to undermine the political will of the enemy. Each evolutionary generation of warfare attacks the enemy at ever deeper points in its structure. Allow me to briefly explain.


Its good to know your background, it helps understand your POV.

I think you made the point for us. Underming the will to fight is exactly what the tactic of non-violence is designed to do.

Since you brought up nam, what 4gw tactics did the north use to undermine our will to fight? I think you are grossly underestimating the effect the protests at home had on the determination to continuing fighting. No disrespect intended, but is your knowledge of nam based texts or first hand experience?
Moonspider
For the record, my knowledge of Vietnam is second-hand (veterans, others), as well as my personal and professional studies.

Yes, undermining the will to fight might be a goal of a non-violent movement. However, my point is that non-violence alone cannot win a war. It can bring about political change, but cannot by itself defeat a military force.

I am by no means underestimating the effect of domestic protests upon U.S. policy makers, and forgive me if it sounded so. It was pivotal. However that is also one of the goals of an enemy using 4GW, in that case the communists in Vietnam. The communists did not bring about the peace movement, but they did everything to exploit it to reverse U.S. policy.

There was no peace movement at the beginning of the current Iraq war, at least not a significant one. However as it grows, the insurgents there will use all methods in their ability to exploit and encourage it.

In 4GW, a number of tactics are used, very few of them military in the traditional sense. Guerilla tactics can be part of it. Using non-uniformed personnel to carry out operations, using children and women as defensive elements or offensive weapons. Public relations is vital (to supporters, non-aligned, and enemies). Jane Fonda's visit was, arguably, a military tactic in 4GW. The Tet Offensive was a monumental tactical failure for the Communists. They were defeated dramatically. However, it benefited them greatly in a strategic sense in how it altered American perceptions in 1968.

One must remember that in 4GW, all things are blurred. Even the beginnings and endings of a war. Civilians, soldiers, borders, front lines, are all meaningless. Ironically, 4GW can be argued to be a return to ancient times in regards to warfare, where states and non-state entities wage war routinely, using any method possible to achieve victory (think of the Roman Empire vs. groups of "barbarians.")

Understand that many warfare generations can be at play at once. The first part of the Iraq War was 3GW, now it is arguably 4GW.

It is quite a complex and evolving topic with a plethora of opinions. I'm sure I made some errors in my haste to write as well as in my own ignorance of the theory's entirety. However for anyone interested I refer you to the following website for some further information:
www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm
Moonspider
As I read my last post I wanted to clarify something.

The members of the peace movement in the United States during the Vietnam War were not waging war against the United States. That is why I do not count it as an example of non-violence winning a war. The U.S. was at war with North Vietnam and the communist insurgents fighting in South Vietnam. Therefore, the peace movement was a factor in the U.S. losing a war against the Vietnamese communists.

Other U.S. defeats in 4GW conflicts include Somalia (1990s) and Lebanon (1980s).
HoboPelican
Moonspider wrote:
As I read my last post I wanted to clarify something.
...


Good clarification. And I agree with a good part of what you are saying. I think a case could be made that while the peace movement was not what is classically called a war for territory, it did encompass enough elements of a civil war to be considered in this context. The protesters were captured, beaten or shot by the government. In a very real sense the police were an enemy force directed by a government with specific goals.

But I wont push that line of debate. BTW-I was there, if you couldn't tell.

Lets go to the classic example. Gandhi and the "Quit India" protests in India. How do you rationalize that sit? You can't just ignore it because Britain was overly committed elsewhere. There are always commitments and using a optimal time for an attack is a time honored tactic, no?

I think you might be downplaying the value of non-violence in disputes due to its inherent slow pace. Since it's aim is to change the psychology of its enemies, it is easy assign its results to other things. (And I do realize it works the other way, also)

The civil rights movement, Nam, India, these are just examples of how non-violence has had real impact on conflicts. To ignore it as a tactic is sort of like going to your tool box and saying "I almost never use a file, I'm gonna throw it away".
ibay
rshanthakumar wrote:


One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.



I will call him an ignorant whoever says this. There were a large number of rapes and massacres during India's partition. Most of them were committed against Muslims by Hindus and Sikhs as a revenge for supporting partition.
Thousands of Muslim women were kidnapped and gang raped. Entire Muslim communities were massacred. Many old people in Pakistan still remember those stories of genocide. One famous account is that of trains arriving in Lahore(Pakistan) with all the people dead and blood dripping from bogies.
Another one is of drains filled with blood and streams of blood coming out of houses. When migrated people moved into empty houses, they used to see blood stained walls and floors in them.
xalophus
ibay wrote:
rshanthakumar wrote:


One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.



I will call him an ignorant whoever says this. There were a large number of rapes and massacres during India's partition.

I'll call it personal hatred that causes you to start up something that isn't even relevant to the discussion.

What do post independence communal riots have to do with the non-violent struggle for independence ?

ibay wrote:
Most of them were committed against Muslims by Hindus and Sikhs as a revenge for supporting partition.

What gives you this precious information ?

I'm very much interested as to your sources.
Hatred and separation appear to be the very foundation of the source which leads to such propaganda.

ibay wrote:
Thousands of Muslim women were kidnapped and gang raped. Entire Muslim communities were massacred. Many old people in Pakistan still remember those stories of genocide. One famous account is that of trains arriving in Lahore(Pakistan) with all the people dead and blood dripping from bogies.
Another one is of drains filled with blood and streams of blood coming out of houses. When migrated people moved into empty houses, they used to see blood stained walls and floors in them.

Although you try your best to point out the "villain", none of the above is applicable to just one side of the border.

Wasn't there complete ethnic cleansing in Pakistan, and virtually all the Hindu and Sikh population of Pakistan forced out (or killed) ?
We can debate the number of victims, and let me assure you, you will be surprised to compare the version of partition that you've been taught with the version as reported by the neutral European jounalists.

But here's some food for thought -
Didn't the Muslim league (which was the origin of the "Pakistan" ideology) pledge their full-allegiance to the British during world war 2 even as the freedom fighters of the pre-partition India decided not to support the British (which, incidentally, is the non-violent war that this thread is about) ?
Wasn't the Muslim league drawing up plans for a seperate muslim country even as the Indian national congress was demanding the British to quit India ?

Funny how you try to blame the freedom fighters for something that was directly caused by those that were never a part of the freedom fight.

You are welcome to discuss the causes and the villains of the partition of India in another thread where it belongs.
Moonspider
HoboPelican wrote:


...In a very real sense the police were an enemy force directed by a government with specific goals.

But I wont push that line of debate. BTW-I was there, if you couldn't tell.

Lets go to the classic example. Gandhi and the "Quit India" protests in India. How do you rationalize that sit? You can't just ignore it because Britain was overly committed elsewhere. There are always commitments and using a optimal time for an attack is a time honored tactic, no?

I think you might be downplaying the value of non-violence in disputes due to its inherent slow pace. Since it's aim is to change the psychology of its enemies, it is easy assign its results to other things. (And I do realize it works the other way, also)

The civil rights movement, Nam, India, these are just examples of how non-violence has had real impact on conflicts. To ignore it as a tactic is sort of like going to your tool box and saying "I almost never use a file, I'm gonna throw it away".


It seems that we could go on for some time debating the definition of war, which in its own right, especially in this era, is a worthwhile task. In a very real sense the United States of the 1960s seemed like a nation tearing itself apart, not unlike a civil war in that regard. Yet I choose to define it differently. Semantics perhaps. For example, you may see the peace movement of the 60s and 70s as a separate struggle during the Vietnam War, I see it simply as a "front" in the Vietnam War, the domestic front, if you will. I see the Civil Rights Movement more as a political movement, not open warfare, more akin to the movement for women's suffrage than the Civil War.

Ironically, I think this blurring of politics and war to be at the very heart of the modern warfare dilemma. Clausewitz stated that "War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means." But Michael Foucault turned that definition around, saying that "politics is war continued by other means." The latter definition certainly applies to the Irish resistance to British rule, or the Palestinian desire to displace Israel. The Cold War soundly represents this philosophy as well, with long periods of non-violent diplomacy (albeit backed by large militaries) interspersed with periods of open warfare.

As to the point of non-violence, unfortunately I am honestly not very familiar with Gandhi's work in India to pressure Britain into giving up its colony, and so regrettably cannot speak at length about it. However, I do not discount the use of non-violent measures. I'll admit that it has worked under many circumstances. However, I argue that non-violent resistance cannot defeat someone willing to use total force.

I would never advocate the use of force as a first choice, only the last when all other avenues are exhausted. (Of course, people will always differ in opinion on when that point is reached in a given circumstance.) There are any number of non-violent actions that can be used in a struggle between entities. However, I sadly think it idealistic to think that non-violent actions alone will someday displace the use of violence. I wish that it were so.

Yes, as you said non-violent actions can be slow to bring about change. However so can war. The current war in which we find ourselves, the Global War on Terror (an inappropriate name IMHO), will be a very long war, a generational war. I've seen it coming since my first experiences with the Middle East in the 80s as a young man when my father worked in Saudi Arabia. I'm honestly surprised it took this long to reach this point of open warfare. Arguably it began in the 70s with the revolution in Iran. Subsequent attacks prior to 9/11 were all part of this war. 9/11 was not the first strike. We as a nation were just too blind to see that we were at war.

I don't think I'll live to see it end, and I expect far worse attacks in the United States than 9/11. Furthermore, I think it is a new era that will require new philosophies and strategies. And despite the emphasis by the United States on technology, technological superioriy will have vey little to do with the outcome. Traditional combat will at times play a role, but so will a vast array of tools.

Forgive me if I rambled here. But despite our differences, I believe we are closer in our trains of thought than it may have first seemed.
HoboPelican
Busy day, but I wanted to let people know that I moved this topic to the Philosophy/Religion board. It seemed to fit there better.

@Moonspider. I havent had a chance to read your recent post yet, except for the last paragraph. I have no doubt our differences are largely semantic. Either way, I will read your post ASAP and will enjoy chatting more about it with you and any others that have thoughts on this.
Moonspider
A good choice to move the thread. Tis very much a philosophical discussion.
Lviter
Non-violence is the only way to save the world, mostly when we talk about environmental problems...

We don't care about ourselves. We keep destroying one another and destroying the whole planet. Where is this goint to stop?
odinstag
rshanthakumar wrote:
Non violent war!

Does it sound logical? There were a number of incidents in History that are examples of non violent warfare.

One, the Indian Independence introduced this concept to the world.
Two, the struggle of the South African apartheid movement
Three, the fight for the civil liberty in United States

I think that this is what is needed for the world today. To express discontent and dissatisfaction if everybody were to take up the gun then we loose peace. This is much more important for human survival than the green house effect.

Do you subscribe to this? Is non violence a solution? will it save the world?


I think you may be confused.

Plenty of violence was used in all instances.

Ghandi was killed. And the region is currently violent as can be.

The Boer were murdered and terrorized. Not peacefully driven away.

BTW, there were not black african in South Africa except for a small tribe that was not effected by the Boer, till after the Boer brought jobs to the region and blacks from up north migrated to South Africa.

And there was much violence on all side in the civil rights movement.

It was not the peaceful street marches that put blacks in white schools. It was bayonets in White children's backs.

Try again.

Whenever you try to force someone to your side. Through physical or non-physical means it is violence. Making someone uncomfortable till they come to your side is violence.
rshanthakumar
odinstag wrote:


Whenever you try to force someone to your side. Through physical or non-physical means it is violence. Making someone uncomfortable till they come to your side is violence.


1. True. Force in all forms is deplorable. But then what I am saying is that non-violent force is better than the violent one. We should move atleast one more step forward.

2. Moonspider was saying:
Moonspider wrote:

I must disagree with your conclusion. The 19th Century was more violent than the 18th. The 20th was the most violent in history. The 21st does not look like an improvement.

Humans are becoming more advanced, but not more civilized. Our ability to achieve great accomplishments in technology and general science far out paces our morality.

I predict that the 21st Century will be more violent than the 20th.

Violence is not only in the wars. It is in our daily life. Do you go out shopping and end up with a duel with an unknown man? Life has changed to the better. We need not carry a gun or a weapon to protect ourselves on the streets of our city. (Thank god!) We have become a little bit more civilized.

3. All new inventions have come about because of need. Mao could only fight that way, all other contemporary methods would have given him only defeat. So is the case with the Indians. All other methods would not have given them what they wanted.

4. Non violence is not something without violence. It is violent because it hurts people. It hurts the opposite party as much as if not more, than what a violent attack would do. It should wound him so much that the enemy will not even get up and fight with you. It all depends on the strategy that you evolve.
cloudship
no violence is only the choice under the consideration that, the governer is much stronger than the movement group and is nice enough for bearing the anarchy state.

otherwise, there is no hope for a peaceful ending of a silent war.

It is not dependent of the mover but the governer.

Thus, this is not a topic of whether there could be a silent war could save the world, but whether a silent war could save the world.

As i see in this topic, my answer is no.
rshanthakumar
We always think many things are not possible. But time and again we have been proved wrong. Europe has removed the death sentence long ago. Still the other countries need to adopt these. Slowly but steadily people are moving away from torture and causing pain to co-human beings. it will all end one day may be not this century may be the next millenium.
Related topics
terrorism
Support Danish
Does being pro-war contrast w/ religion (e.g. Christianity)?
PS3 Fails
An Exam I Wrote In Another Class [Not Really A 'Joke']
The Middle East Conflict
Should marijuana be legal?
North Korea tests a nuclear weapon
Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW)
Is 'world peace' impossible?
wat do ppl have against islam???
HOW does religion start wars?
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radic
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.