[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:04:37 -0400
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Doesn't sound like you're too interested in dissent. But real quick, we can
talk all we want about ideologies, but the bottom line is, world peace is
achieved through not waging war. Given that the U.S. waged the Vietnam War and
then started another war in Iraq, the U.S. has no credibility with not waging
war, which is to say, world peace. Also, given that the U.S. is revoking
constitutional rights and freedoms within its borders for the duration of the
war, which just so happens to be something in the realm of eternity, the U.S.
has no credibility with liberal democracy either. And as far as liberal
democracies not attacking each other, WWI was waged in Europe, and other than
Japan, WWII was waged in Europe, in and among liberal democracies, so that
claim makes no sense. Also, the country that holds itself out to be the
template for liberal democracy had within its boundaries one of the bloodiest
civil wars ever. Therefore, liberal democracy is useless for not waging w
ar, which is to say, achieving world peace. As far as pacifists obfuscating
and impeding, there were/are no pacifists among the neocons. The neocons took
their ideology and ran with it, and here we are, blaming the pacifists, even as
the likes of Newt Gingrich call for WWIII, Waging war to spread liberal
democracy to maintain world peace sounds like a sequel to Catch 22. It makes
no sense at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/5/2006 1:14:30 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
In case any pacifists are treating this discussion train seriously, they should
understand that Fukuyama and Barnett both advocate processes that would result
in world peace. In Fukuyama?s case as can be seen in his book America at the
Crossroads, he believes in taking a rather passive stance because the process
is, in his view, inevitable. Hegel as Kojeve taught believed the end of
history would be achieved through Capitalism. Marx thought Hegel right except
he got things backwards. The end of history would be Communistic. That
opinion prevailed until the fall of the USSR in 1991. After that Fukuyama
wrote his book describing the Hegelian, the Kojeve Hegelian end of history.
World peace is a great incentive. The Neocons embraced Fukuyama?s thesis
except they did it a little too enthusiastically to suit Fukuyama. He didn?t
agree with the idea that Liberal Democracy could be exported to Iraq; so he
parted company with the movement he was partly responsible for founding.
Barnett too had a plan, a much more detailed plan for achieving world peace.
Once all nations are in the functioning core (aka Liberal Democracies) world
peace will be achieved. An important assumption is that Liberal-Democracies do
not war against Liberal Democracies. Everyone involved believes that?s the
case, Fukuyama, Barnett and all the Neocons. World Peace is the incentive for
the Neocons to be proactive, but that isn?t going so well for them nowadays.
I asked a question that thus far no pacifist has answered. If (a conditional
word) world peace can be achieved by means of the spread of Liberal-Democracy,
shouldn?t it be favored by pacifists even if it means a few wars here and there
to prevent Liberal-Democracy from losing ground -- not like the war in Iraq,
but a war perhaps to prevent a rogue nation from causing a lot of trouble?
Pacifists like to tote up the dead. Surely there would be fewer dead with a
few wars to keep Liberal-Democracy on the expansive straight and narrow than if
all wars regardless of their merit were to be resisted willy nilly -- given the
fact that Pacifists merely impede and obfuscate. They never succeed in
actually stopping wars. In fact their efforts seem to encourage such people as
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad. They hear about all that
opposition to the administration?s policies, and they think they don?t need to
take the Bush administration seriously. Saddam Hussein d
idn?t take the Bush administration seriously for similar reasons. And before
Saddam Osama bin Laden didn?t take the Bush administration seriously.
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
