Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/index.php:1) in /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/wp-content/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack/app/Common/Meta/Robots.php on line 87

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/index.php:1) in /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: An Insight (Not the Car) https://stonescryout.org/?p=343 If they keep silent... Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1544 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:01:55 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1544 Well, that is what I’ve stated. Although I’d probably refer to it as “military intervention in some circumstances can be the least worst thing on rare occasions.” or something like that.

If a people are being killed by their gov’t or by a rogue group of anti-gov’t guerrillas, there are no great answers. People are dying and will continue dying – whether we try to solve the problem with a military/police force or by other methods.

What’s important is having plans and systems in place for dealing with such problems – something which does not currently exist in an effective, consistent format.

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1543 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:50:01 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1543 Dan,
The Bottom Billion, establishes the problem of the billion people held in poverty in this world, then enumerates the “traps” keeping them down and lists the remedies.

Military intervention in some circumstances is the best thing for a country. Just as are “aid is one method. Discussion and debate is another. Holding people accountable, having clearly defined and followed rules, economic pressure, societal pressure, global pressure… these are all other methods.” All of these methods have a best time to apply and can in fact in other situations be harmful.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1541 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:35:07 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1541 contact me at my email paynehollow at yahoo with your address (if you feel comfortable doing so) and I will mail you a copy of Sab. Ec (gratis).

I’m quite sure that Strong Man is a great book (haven’t read it yet) on the topic of Biblical peacemaking, and you could surely be blessed by it, since we’re talking about economics, the Sab Ec book would make more sense.

I’m curious that you bring up the Collier book in this discussion – does it also deal with war-making? I thought it was a treatise on economics.

Our library has a copy that is due back this week. I’ll see if I can get a copy of it when it is in.

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1540 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:27:53 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1540 Dan,
I only find “Binding the Strong Man” by Ched Myers via inter-library loan. Would that work?

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1536 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:54:45 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1536 How do you suggest we resolve the violence in the world today? Rwanda? Congo? Sudan?

And I’ve said I’ll read your book if you’ll read mine (Ched Myers’ “Sabbath Economics”).

You’ll be getting the better end of the deal, most likely. Myers’ book is a booklet, probably 100 or so pages on the Bible and wealth and poverty (although, if you follow through and read all the scripture references, you’ll have a MUCH bigger job, because it is very heavy on biblical references).

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1533 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:39:57 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1533 Dan,

The point is, if as you suggested 50% of our resources were allocated to “peacemaking” then … it wouldn’t have been close. We’d have lost outright. Again it depends on the situation.

You’re making an assumption that you can’t know. You’re assuming that the allocating of resources to wise peacemaking efforts would have borne no fruit.

What are you talking about? Are we talking about the same conflict? At what point would you suggest having done what things. Stop being so vague.

I’ve told you what I advocate for the “bottom billion”. Read that book. Really.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1527 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:25:24 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1527 Finally, what do you advocate for dealing with Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, S. Africa, Nan King and, sadly, on and on? How many armies will it take to end the killing?

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1526 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:24:24 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1526 You are wrong that peace/aid is the only solution

I have not said that because I don’t believe it. Peace is a goal AND a method. Aid is one method. Discussion and debate is another. Holding people accountable, having clearly defined and followed rules, economic pressure, societal pressure, global pressure… these are all other methods.

As is – sometimes – defensive actions using police or military action. I’ve said that I have not ruled that out for truly defensive actions.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=2#comment-1525 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:18:21 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1525 Before you keep assaulting straw men, I have never ever ever advocated “war” as the only solution. I fail to see how you might get that from me!

And you would be absolutely right, IF I had said that you had said that. I didn’t.

I said you believe in war-as-solution. Not “as-the-only-solution.” I’m just using that phrase to differentiate those like you from those like me who place a stronger emphasis on peacemaking and who view war as a failure of peacemaking.

What phrase or title would you like for me to assign your position? I’ll be glad to comply as long as it’s reasonably descriptive.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1524 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:15:05 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1524 The point is, if as you suggested 50% of our resources were allocated to “peacemaking” then … it wouldn’t have been close. We’d have lost outright. Again it depends on the situation.

You’re making an assumption that you can’t know. You’re assuming that the allocating of resources to wise peacemaking efforts would have borne no fruit.

Again, as we’ve seen in Nicaragua, in S. Africa, in the Civil Rights movement, in India, a little energy and resources wisely dedicated to resolving conflict can have a powerful impact.

“Overcome evil with good.”

Not just empty words, to me.

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1523 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:54:09 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1523 Dan,
Before you keep assaulting straw men, I have never ever ever advocated “war” as the only solution. I fail to see how you might get that from me!

What I have advocated is the kind of thing described by Paul Collier in The Bottom Billion.

You are wrong that peace/aid is the only solution and those who advocate only war as the solution (which is not me!!!!) are also wrong. Both have their specific place and time and both can be implemented wrong. Read the book. Really. I can’t emphasize that enough. I named that book as the most influential book I read last year. I stand by that. Read it.

War can at times save lives. So can aid. War can cause harm and horror. So can aid.

However, in the “can the peacemaking” vein I was only referring to the notion that during WWII the free world was in a close fought struggle, which very well could easily have lost. Analysts have pointed to a number of key points at which the war could have gone the other way. The point is, if as you suggested 50% of our resources were allocated to “peacemaking” then … it wouldn’t have been close. We’d have lost outright. Again it depends on the situation.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1522 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:46:26 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1522 Let me put this another way, as I don’t think you’re getting my gist.

Right NOW, and in the past few years, we have had genocides and serious oppression happening in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo and Darfur, not to mention an ongoing war in Iraq, just to name a few of the worst cases.

What do those who believe in war-as-solution propose to do about it? It’s happening right now. What are you proposing?

The thing is, if a people are intent on being violent, there are no easy answers. We can try to send militaries into these situations (although that will get real expensive in terms of people and money REAL quick – if Iraq is costing us ~$1 trillion, for a country with no great defense in place that is mostly defeated already – how much is the war-as-solution going to cost?) but how effective is that? How many lives will that cost without effectively stopping the violence?

We need better solutions. The way you’re putting it, you are suggesting that we can try that nutty peacemaking stuff and people will die, or we can send in the military and save the day. But, as WWII horrifyingly shows, THAT solution costs lives, too.

The question is, what are the best answers? We can’t afford to send in a military to every Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, etc. We need better solutions.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1521 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:27:38 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1521 And you are free to guess that such is how things would have turned out if we had tried different methods. But you can’t prove that, you don’t know that. It is a hunch.

Similarly, I can’t predict “what might have been” if we tried something different. I’ve made several general suggestions on how to deal with threats of this sort. Including the use of reasonable force.

For the record, I did not say that WWII could have been adverted. You asked me what might have done to deal with nan king. I said I don’t have the time nor inclination to research the possibilities.

Your response suggests that you have not really studied nor given much thought to what NVDA nor JPT is about nor how it works. But I can clearly point you to real world situations where it has in fact worked.

Even if you wish to hang on to war-as-solution (which I’m not suggesting abolishing), if you truly believe in being a peacemaker, it would seem you would want to avail yourself of the alternatives out there and educate yourself on them.

I repeat: NVDA and/or JPT require planning, investigation and information, which I do not have time to do right now. I apologize that I don’t desire to research a unresolvable question to please you. I have pointed you to some real life suggestions on how to deal with current problems more peaceably.

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1519 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:12:10 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1519 Dan,
That’s silly.

Non-Violent Direct Action and/or Just Peacemaking Theory is a planned means of dealing with problems. It requires good information and research.

The notion that WWII could have been avoided by the allies if we were just a little smarter. What “means of peaceableness” do you use to confront Hitler, Auschwitz, Dachau, Nanjing and the rest?

Again for the umpteenth time, don’t just keep making the empty claim that “a better solution” should have been found. Name one. Suggest what you think that “better solution” would have been. Suggest one plausible means of confronting Hitler and the Empire of Japan that didn’t involve war! One. Suggest something that gives an inkling that you have anything resembling a realistic view of the world.

Can you offer some support for your belief that the tens of millions killed and trillions spent during WWII (not to mention the trillions upon trillions spent and lives lost in the Cold War era) is accurately called a victory?

Uhm … do you think generations of rule by a Nazi party in Europe would have cost less? Do you think there would be a Jew outside of the America’s (if America still was independent)? Don’t you think the “Aryan” race theorists Slavs and Blacks would not have been exterminated as well? Do you think the Japanese, in the wake of Nanjing, were on the path to killing less Chinese than Mao? I don’t. The Nazis preached a thousand year Reich, a reign of Aryan terror. If nobody resisted … they’d have gotten it. Isn’t their vision of the future that “higher cost” than what was expended?

Do you seriously think that the Allies entered into WWII to make money. Get real. You need to be just a little more charitable toward those you disagree with.

I do. And so did those who committed to the war against the Axis.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1515 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:13:26 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1515 When the forces are more evenly matched … your options become more limited as was in the case of WWII.

That’s the beauty of JPT and NVDA: While they definitely require investments of time and money, they remain cheaper by manyfold the investments for war-as-solution.

What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness.

We have, for example, several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.

~Wendell Berry

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1514 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:06:33 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1514 The question does not call more than High school knowledge of history, to whit was the US right in being drawn into an arguably non-defensive war against Japan and Germany in WWII?

And this is the problem with war-as-solution. It requires no serious thinking or planning. You don’t like the enemy? You bomb ’em. (That, of course, is an oversimplification itself – it requires a whole different field of study and planning – as I believe I’ve quoted here before: “Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we’re taught to read.”)

Non-Violent Direct Action and/or Just Peacemaking Theory is a planned means of dealing with problems. It requires good information and research.

As to your Nicaragua response, the stronger side was the side that “lost,” at least initially.

The Contras had the wealth and support of the US and were able to bleed the already poor Nicarguan people and gov’t dry. Just Peacemaking allowed the David of the Nicaraguan people to overcome the Goliath of the US-supported Contras in spite of overwhelming resources.

Can you offer some support for your belief that the tens of millions killed and trillions spent during WWII (not to mention the trillions upon trillions spent and lives lost in the Cold War era) is accurately called a victory?

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1513 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:58:41 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1513 Dan,
The rape of Nanking (Nanjing) was the sack of the southern capital of China during the Sino-Japanese war. 300,000 people were murdered in the space of about a week by invading Japanese forces.

The question does not call more than High school knowledge of history, to whit was the US right in being drawn into an arguably non-defensive war against Japan and Germany in WWII?

If not, what “peaceful” means would you have used to confront atrocity and aggression from Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.

For if there are none, then you realize by choosing (or being forced into war) you are knowingly admitting that the killing of innocents is part of your chosen path … but that the alternative means the death and enslavement of more innocents. I submit that there is and was no imaginable peaceful means to confront the Axis forces and aggression in WWII.

I think your choice of Nicaragua is a poor example in that the powers in conflict are highly asymmetrical in capability and the stronger side does indeed have a wide range of options. When the forces are more evenly matched … your options become more limited as was in the case of WWII.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1511 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:29:21 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1511 As to your Nan King question, I’ve answered it the best I can without knowing the information specific to that circumstance. I’m not sufficiently informed to know all the circumstances around that particular incident in history and all the options available to them.

I have suggested that when, in Nicaragua, the villagers were being killed and otherwise terrorized by the Contras, the solution involved sending people there that the Contras were not willing to kill. We’d want to do something along those lines.

Sorry I don’t have time or energy to search out the full story and try to find the best solution to an incident that is already long past, but I don’t.

]]>
By: Dan Trabue https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1510 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:25:54 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1510 That is, for example, no choice possible (in the spectrum available) that will not result in the death of the innocent.

But there are choices we make as to whether or not WE choose to kill innocent people. You’re saying, as best I can understand you, that you think circumstances can force us into choosing to commit an evil act (killing an innocent). I’m saying we may FEEL that way (as if we have no choice) but we always have choices.

If someone were to kill Little Tommy and then say to Tommy’s family, “I had no choice. If I didn’t kill Tommy, Genghis had said he’d kill two children. It was the only way to save those two children!”, do you think that Tommy’s family will be convinced that it was NOT an evil action? Would you if little Tommy was your beloved child?

]]>
By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=343&cpage=1#comment-1509 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:11:56 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=343#comment-1509 Dan,
It seems we disagree, you I think dwell in an ivory tower on this one. You say In the real world, it doesn’t happen that someone offers you THIS option or THAT option, both of which are horrifying. We agree that binary options are not real world. However I disagree on the existence of choices which you term the “lesser of evils”. That is, for example, no choice possible (in the spectrum available) that will not result in the death of the innocent.

Second, you haven’t indicated whether you understand my approach to ethics. I’m not asking you to agree it, the question is, do you understand it?

Finally, you still haven’t indicated what you would advise regarding US policy in Asia in the early 1940s.

]]>