Obviously, there are a lot of "Pacifists" in the world (not a term used too often in self description or branding others). They are really quick to be critical on the use of any military force in finding solutions to the international disputes but simply fail to present any sort of alternative. So, it there a viable option to military intervention (or for that matter the credible threat of military intervention) which yields results? If so, are there any verifiable examples?

The stage is yours. Let the song and dance begin......

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

Yeah.. seemed to work really well in the Coke commercial.


"I'd like to see a world..laaa laaa ummm...in puurfect harmony.."

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

Pure pacifism? No. It is too extreme to denounce violence as a necessary option, and is franky naive.

However I would like to point out that the '62 Cuban Missle crisis was settled diplomatically. JFK was under serious pressure to go to war by what could be called anti-pacifists. This would have of course resulted in our ultimate destruction. Still, this was still not pacifism in totality as we did threaten violence by creating a baricade.

If there is something to take from pacifist beliefs, it would be diplomacy first, war last.

__________________
lambaste me not

To quote TWD,

I wasn't disagreeing with TWD. I was merely commenting on the fact that we can take something from pacifist thinking and incorporate it into ours. This is why I said, diplomacy first, war last.

__________________
lambaste me not

Let me get this straight, you're looking for examples in which non-military methods have solved conflicts/crises?

Here is a great quote from Karl Von Clausewitz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Clausewitz

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," is perhaps his most oft-quoted point. The idea that war -- violent military action -- is only the "strong arm" of diplomacy, utilized when more peaceful means of persuasion are not sufficient.

Diplomacy is good but I believe diplomacy is only effective because there is a "Credible Military Threat" behind it. So, having a capable military and also be willing to use it certainly gives you a lot leverage in negotiations.

The Cuban missile crisis was a great example of this.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence

There are definately some good historical examples but it seems to be effective under very specific conditions.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......

I doubt you are going to find many people on this forum who subscribe to pacifism completely.

__________________
lambaste me not

Not to sure about that. There seem to be quite a few people on the forum and in the world who seem to buy into the "Peace at any price" theory.

I was reading about Gandhi and even he isn't a really good example of pure Pacifism since the Indian Independence movement had been practicing violent resistance for almost 70 years before he gained notoriety.

__________________
The Science of Brute Force......