3 ms·
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine): "In short, I believe that non-violent metho
by qntty 11y ago
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine):
"In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."
- sillysaurus3 11y agoYou're right. Apologies for misrepresenting Benjamin's position. (He's correct, I think.)
- ufmace 11y agoI honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so. That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.