...How different our world would be today if only nations had stood for what is right in 1932 instead of appeasing some sick bastards...

However, before we get too excited about this historical parallel, it is also possible that delay would have only made the totality worse. In other words, we stood up, HItler delayed, got better prepared, THEN started ...

He started his wars 4-5 years earlier than the "plan" ... even worse if they had gotten their logistics act together ...

I am for actively searching for ways that are both non-violent and powerful ....

The only reason we ain't looking is that too few believe there is any answer in that direction.

The only reason there is not yet an answer is too few are looking in that direction.

And one of the reasons for this is that many of the solutions tried so far, League of Nations, UN, and even earlier historical compacts, have been so, um, unsuccessful ...

---

I am for actively searching for ways that are both non-violent and powerful ....

The only reason we ain't looking is that too few believe there is any answer in that direction.

The only reason there is not yet an answer is too few are looking in that direction.

And one of the reasons for this is that many of the solutions tried so far, League of Nations, UN, and even earlier historical compacts, have been so, um, unsuccessful ...

So we put serious research into doing *different* non violent things as well as (or instead of) more of the same once it is obvious it won't work. I would like to see a major power have as many different kinds of non-violent technique at its disposal as it has kinds of weapons -- why don't we?

The military tell us they need different weapons against different enemies. OK, why do we assume that the same non-violent technique will work against different problem countries? Because we didn't have anything else to try. Why was that, because we never looked.

If we get a just a few successes while spending one pound/dollar in a million on powerful alternatives to violence, what would we get if we spent equal money? And, despite the failures, there have been successes - the crumbling of apartheid started from a campaign of violence but was finally achieved with *far* less bloodshed than anyone expcted. The eviction of the British from India was achieved by a bloodless campaign along peaceful lines.

Compared to pounds (or dollars) spent I'd say non-violent methods are rather successful.

River~~

btw - congrats to KR Jones if you are still reading this thread on being today's user of the day!

Well done Sir!

River~~

The UK spends hundreds of billions of pounds annually researching military options, and around a hundred thousand pounds on a single department of peace studies. How can anyone claim to understand whether and when non-military options would work when for every pound spent on those options a million pounds goes to military research & development?

It looks to me that our Ministry of Defense has no concept of peaceful response, *only* of the professional soldier (sailor, pilot, etc).

I am not sure that is completely true. And I base this on a few observations:

1) US and UK doctrine on war-fighting is similar with some national flavor of course
2) Both countries have significant special forces groups
3) Part of special forces doctrine is the "Hearts and Minds" type campaign. Though derided, the US was somewhat successful with these campaigns where conducted by the Marines and Special Forces groups in Viet Nam
4) The UK have been one of the few countries to successfully prosecute a campaign against an insurgency and win (Malaysia).

But, I also agree that there is not enough done to explore peaceful means of reducing the need for war. Toby said it well in one episode of West Wing, "Free trade stops wars." Simplistic, but a grain of truth. Prosperity, when lacking, leads to all sorts of bad things ...

At one time in my life I had high hopes for the UN, then for the EU. So far, well, lets just say I am underwhelmed. I would much prefer to be whelmed if it is all the same to you ...

But the sad truth is that the UN has become in large part a forum for Anti-US activities. I am not saying that the US is blame free (if you wish we can get into the historical truth about war crimes and if the US, UK, France, USSR, etc. are as guilt free as they would like us to believe - and just a warning - I read history for entertainment :)), but, much of what passes for activity there is sadly disappointing.

The other part I am somewhat saddened by much of the peace movements is their seeming unwillingness to ever say enough is enough.

And, we can even see traces of the problems within our own little world where a variance in belief becomes not a matter for discussion and thinking, but for yelling and screaming. I can agree with River that we perhaps do not look at the alternatives enough, but, there is a point where enough is enough and it is time to lock and load, pull the trigger and come crashing down like avenging angels with overwhelming force.

All wars are atrocities. Our current Iraq thing was probably done at the wrong time, certainly for the wrong reasons, absolutely against the available evidence, inadequately planned, executed "on the cheap" with no real thought for the follow on needed ... as such we now have grabbed the tar-baby and are stuck ... with no end in sight ...

---

"Free trade stops wars."
Prosperity, when lacking, leads to all sorts of bad things ...

Interesting statements. Free trade needs an infinite realm of like minds to exist.

Times have changed, methods have changed, but humanity has not changed much. Why invest buckets of money in weaponry and tactics of war when you can accomplish the task with money alone? Isn't that the real reason for prosperity?

---

read before you sign http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/013117.html

Lets all of us give peace A chance

Make Peace not War!