Thursday, April 23, 2009

Blog on War and Peace

War is not peace. Although some people believe that you can only achieve peace through war, the two concepts are fundamentally different. In this explanation, you will realize that I often refer to liberals as the peace side, and conservatives as the war side. You may be offended by this call, but bear with me, because I am not trying to slam one side or the other, which you will see by the end.

I start with the proposition that there are people who are warlike, and they are conservative, and the people who are liberals are pro-peace. First, a very important question. If there was a war between people who love war and people who love peace, who would win? It is summed up in the expression "Nice guys finish last."

But there have been occasions in the history of the world where those who loved war the most did not win. The Nazis, for example. So maybe we need to review, and see what each offers.

What are some other characteristics that go along with a pro-peace attitude? A willingness to consider everyone on earth your brother, not just those who look and speak like you and join your army. A willingness to share, a sympathy for other people. Tolerance, understanding. Voluntary restraint in using scarce resources. Democracy can flourish. And people feel sympathy back, and will help you when you are in trouble because you helped them when they needed it. A sense of humour. A sense of art and culture. Diplomacy, politeness.

What are some attitudes that go along with a pro-war attitude? A willingness to shoot first and ask questions later. A need to be armed at all times. A negative attitude towards those who have not done anything for you lately. A desire to crush any opponent you do not like. A sharp tongue to criticise and ridicule. A dictatorship works best in a warlike nation. There is a need to inflict pain, and the belief that torture will win cooperation. Intimidation, yelling and interrupting. Although super friendly with those considered "friends", very hateful to those considered enemies. And a greedy nature.

It's true, almost everyone can and will have a little of both in them. Sometimes you need to be warlike, sometimes you need to be for peace. But it is possible to be too warlike, and everybody will hate you. You may think "Who cares? I would rather be feared and obeyed than be liked and downtrodden." But if you are too warlike, a backlash will set in and bite you in the ass as soon as you turn your back, which one day you must do. If you are too peaceful, others may take advantage of you. I would say in general, that the warlike side always seems to have an initial advantage, but the side of peace can just as easily win in the long term, as more and more people come forward to help "the nice guys".

This is of course Jesus's message of peace. Turn the other cheek instead of "an eye for an eye" that soon turns into 2 eyes for an eye and worse.

4 comments:

  1. Several of my American correspondents have recently referred to the Democrats as 'The Party of Peace' in their nation. Hmmmm ....

    To put this into perspective: a little American history trivia:

    Who led the U.S. into the following major wars?

    Q ... The Indian Wars (1787-1898)?
    A ... George Washington (I)

    Q ... The War of 1812 (1812-1814)?
    A ... James Madison (D-R)

    Q ... The U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1847)
    A ... James Polk (D)

    Q ... The Spanish-American War (1898)?
    A ... William McKinley (R)

    Q ... World War I (1917-1918)?
    A ... Woodrow Wilson (D)

    Q ... World War II (1941-1945)?
    A ... Franklin Roosevelt (D)

    Q ... The Korean War (1950-1953)?
    A ... Harry Truman (D)

    Q ... The Vietnam War (1964-1973)?
    A ... Lyndon Johnson (D)

    Q ... The Persian Gulf War (1991)?
    A ... George H. W. Bush (R)

    Q ... War in Afghanistan (2001-????)?
    A ... George W. Bush (R)

    Q ... Iraq War (2003-????)?
    A ... George W. Bush (R)

    Seems to me that there are a lot of (D)'s up there!

    On the other hand, while the (D)s seem to have the first two centuries of U.S. history pretty much locked up, the (R)s now seem to be coming into
    their own.

    (BTW ... Compared to this, Canadian trivia makes for weak gruel. Canada has only ever entered a 'shooting war' on the coattails of the British Empire, or under the auspices of the UN or NATO.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the Republican pro-war record extends back to 1964, if you leave out the bombing of Serbia (Clinton) since no ground troops got involved.

    Compared to Republican contemporaries Johnson had an easy time portraying himself as the moderate.

    Republican counterparts Barry Goldwater and Richord Nixon both discussed using nuclear weapons on North Vietnam or on the Viet Cong, and criticised the Democrats for not going hard enough against North Vietnam.

    NixonGoldwater

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, certainly my little history 'FAQ' was a bit of hyperbole. US politics are much more complex than my simple little list would suggest.

    All those decisions to go to war were made in the context of situations that had developed over time, often during administrations of the opposing party. So simply listing the president at the moment the actual event happened is grossly unfair.

    Just about as unfair as declaring that 'Republicans are the party of war.' ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's why I tried to not make an accusation about who is for peace and war right from the start, and I wrote that both tendencies coexist in each person. But it makes writing about attitudes to war easier if I recognize that liberals are viewed as pacifists, especially by conservatives in the US since 2003 at least. And maybe even further back.

    The Republican Party has come a long way since being founded as an anti-slavery party.

    ReplyDelete