Comments on: War and peace

By: Phil Anderson

Phil Anderson — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:52:23 +0000

It’s not entirely clear to me whether your anti-conflict stance is specific to ‘external’ conflict, ‘internal’ conflict, or some mash-up of the two.

I tend to agree that pacifist means of resolution to external conflict (ie; between two nations/states/economies) are ideal, but you need to keep in mind that ‘peaceful’ solutions might involve trade barriers or closed borders – which don’t give the media ’sexy’ images of blood, decay and destruction – but can ultimately be even more destructive.

By: Blog Bits | Kiwiblog

Blog Bits | Kiwiblog — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:02:35 +0000

[...] Phil Twyford blogs on war, peace and pacifism. [...]

By: Patrick A

Patrick A — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:05:59 +0000

There are a lot of people in eastern Europe that would have preferred Hitler to Stalin. Why did England enter World War 2? – to protect Poland. At the end of the war Poland is still occupied, just replace the Germans with Russians. The Allies didn’t invade Europe to stop the death camps, they did it to stop German hegemony in Europe.

By: Spud

Spud — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:59:05 +0000

“It’s also funny how the proponents of war are always the ones the longest distance from the actual fighting.” – the Nazis would have taken over the entire world, and then evil would have been at everyone’s doorstep.

By: Patrick A

Patrick A — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:11:03 +0000

History is written by the victors. England had tin mines in Kenya during WW2 which involved forced labour resulting in thousands of deaths. Strange how no one sent troops to help out Kenya.

It’s also funny how the proponents of war are always the ones the longest distance from the actual fighting.

Good on you Phil.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:21:25 +0000

Phil, I’m glad you clarified your position. I thought the attacks against you in Tumeke and The Standard were unfair, and your latest post confirms my view.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:39:52 +0000

“…the direct result of America’s Imperalism and that is why I am very dissapointed at our cuurent Governments decision to re deploy the SAS.”

Labour’s change of heart on sending troops to Afganistan indicates they understand fully how American Imperialism is a lot worse now than it was a year ago.

By: Spud

Spud — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:13:52 +0000

I hate war and would never want to see one, however I believe that WW2 was necessary. Imagine what kind of world would exist if the Nazis weren’t defeated, it doesn’t bear thinking about. Evil on that scale has to be fought, if the same circumstances were to come up again, then I’d support a war.

By: Jack McDonald

Jack McDonald — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:07:07 +0000

Phil, I respect you for the issues you bring up. But respectfully disagree with the notion that some war is nessicary. Governments don’t intefere for moral obligation. All war is economically driven. I would also like to add that my great-great grandfather was Archibald Baxter who was a contientious objector in WW1 and his story is outlined as you probably know in David Grant’s book. I believe that terrorism is the direct result of America’s Imperalism and that is why I am very dissapointed at our cuurent Governments decision to re deploy the SAS.

Given that that you think some war is nessicary, if another WW broke out to fight facism or something of the like, would you vote for a conscription bill if it came before the house?

War is one thing, forcing young men to kill young men they dont know on the whim of the State is another.

Nga mihi,
Jack McDonald

P.S You can be anti-militarist without being a pacifist. A pacifist in theory does not commit violence in any form. An anti-militarist person opposes war and the military machine in all its forms.