<This is why the Marshall Plan model worked better than the model of the Versailles Treaty. This is why non-violence got India its independence and black Americans equal access to public facilities.

Responding with continued violence will only beget more violence. Violence is only a just response during an acute crisis when someone must defend a victim (themselves included) and make an attack stop.



When one can eliminate oppression without violence, it is a good thing, and should be lauded. But one has to be careful not to extend this to the belief that all violence is therefore unjustified.

You are reasonable enough to realize that at least there are circumstances where violence--in self-defense, which is the only place it is justified--is necessary. Many liberals are not.

Where we have controversy now is drawing the line as to when a threat warrants a violent response. It would be simplest to wait until Saddam actually has sufficient weaponry to mount an effective attack on the U.S. and/or Israel. The moral point then becomes crystal clear, but at what cost?

A policeman can legally shoot a man who is pointing a gun at him. He does not have to wait for the other guy to squeeze off a shot first. He cannot shoot a man who simply happens to have a gun in his pocket and is standing with his arms at his sides, making no sudden moves. Where do we draw the distinction between those who possess weapons of mass destruction, but are no current threat (like France, England, etc.) and those who are quite likely to use them if they get them? (Iraq, North Korea). And if such rogue nations are trying to get such weapons, should they be treated like a known ex-felon who has bought a gun--a crime punishable by arrest and jail?

The analogy between the behavior of nations and individuals is not perfect, for a number of reasons. But at least it points out some of the issues.

And it's worth pointing out that for the Marshall Plan to work, we had to beat the living crap out of Germany and Japan first.