# Pacifists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 15, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867 "2008-11-15T15:57:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/41 "2008-11-16T15:57:49Z")
I’ve been wondering, what’s the antonym of ‘pacifist’? Is it warmonger? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/42 "2008-11-16T16:41:17Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > If you have a problem with what happened to Calley you don’t have a problem with the military. He was convicted of murder. He was not pardoned. He did however win appeals at the Federal District Court. The Army appealled it higher. He had the right to appeal just like any other convict. He used it. I don’t agree with what happened but then again I don’t agree with the results of a lot of appeals and judges decisions. But it wasn’t a military judge. You are correct; I was mistaken. I knew there was some presidential involvement – Nixon transferred him from prison to “house arrest” pending his appeals, according to [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley). And no, my issue is not specifically with the military – their structure and rules are determined by civilians. My issue is really a sociological conundrum. How is it that society can maintain two such different sets of expectations for the same person in terms of their roles in the military and in civil society? How is it that the majority of religions can condone these same wildly different sets of expectations? I understand that it is expedient to do so, but it is certainly terribly destructive to the individuals involved. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/43 "2008-11-16T16:53:05Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > I think you are wrong. Man is exceptionally aggressive because of testosterone. It is not the species. It is the male of the species. Females are just as aggressive. The only difference is the way people are trained to handle it. Males are encouraged by society to be more physically aggressive. Women are expected to be more passive, but the aggression is still there and comes out in other ways. I’ve seen the social power games women like to play, and take quiet personal. Tell me that isn’t aggressive. Women raised in environments where they’re encouraged to be more physically aggressive like men turn out just as aggressive. Also you’re wrong about the species as a whole. Chimps are fucking aggressive. We’re pretty docile compared to them. Lions and other predators are alot more aggressive then us too. The difference is chimps have rocks to be aggressive with. We have tanks. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/44 "2008-11-16T17:11:24Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I wasn’t advancing it. My Lei is still relevant because the US Military didn’t learn anything about and from it, and so it’s being repeated. Really? Would you care to explain how we didn’t “learn anything from My Lai”? > [@](#): > > See Abu Ghrabi. Is this like a Tailhook Convention? Ghrabi? Grabby? Leadership mistakes were made. People were tortured. It was wrong, but far, FAR from My Lai. > [@](#): > > See endless reports out of Iraq about soldiers attacking and raping and killing civilians. Endless reports? Really? Not saying it hasn’t happened, because it has, and there’s no excuse for that behavior, but again…ENDLESS? Hardly. Probably no more or no less that to be expected during a five year occupation of a foreign country. > [@](#): > > And how many times are US Soldiers taught about the Geneva convention, for example? It IS taught, but we don’t often discuss it here because in the heat of the moment in a combat zone, you’re not continually second guessing yourself about the Geneva Convention because you’ll be dead. > [@](#): > > As for being mindless killers - I guess those reports I saw of US soldiers that play hard rock while firing on people from their tanks are all lies, or tendential, or something? Would it be more to your liking if they were blowing up stuff while listening to Mozart instead? I find the choice of music they listen to to be hardly relevant to anything. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/45 "2008-11-16T17:31:07Z")
The history of the United States viz a viz Military action is a matter of public record for anyone who bothers to look into it. In my not so humble opinion, the U.S has been a big belligerent bully for a long time. Past actions are a pretty good predictor of future results, so any potential enlistee is still to blame for signing up. Any sob stories by soldiers who just signed up for the college money and didn’t want to kill anyone will fall on deaf ears with this poster. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/46 "2008-11-16T17:40:31Z")
How often is the Geneva Convention taught in the military? When I was in the U.S.A.F., it was brought up once, in basic training, and discussed for a period of about ten minutes. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/47 "2008-11-16T17:42:08Z")
> [@Struan](#): > > No, just wedding parties and other innocent civilians but there again they aren’t real people - just “collateral damage” in modern warfare terminology. Having said that if you personally are Army, then at least you can see the consequences of your actions up close. Air Forces on the other hand…technology doesn’t stop AF personnel from being baby killers - it just insulates them from it. **Cowards flying high, bombing people who cannot fight back.** > > And well done on not carpet bombing cities full of civilians. _hearty handshake_ Been watching some M_A_S_H reruns, have we? Leaving aside the idiocy of the “cannot fight back” part of your post_, even if the AF personnel were totally invulnerable to counterattack, how does it follow that they are cowards? [Merriam Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward) defines a coward as “one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity”. The Air Force guy who does his job without unnecessarily putting himself and his colleagues at risk is displaying a disgraceful fear of whom precisely? \*I suggest learning a little about [SAMs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-Air_Missile) in the context of modern warfare, not to mention that in WW2, over 50,000 USAAF fliers were killed. Yes, the same USAAF that participated in the Bombing of Dresden. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/48 "2008-11-16T17:46:51Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Would it be more to your liking if they were blowing up stuff while listening to Mozart instead? I find the choice of music they listen to to be hardly relevant to anything. …but if it was Wagner, that would be cool;) ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/49 "2008-11-16T17:56:43Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > So whose fault was My Lai and Abu Ghraib? Who ordered the bombing with Napalm in Vietnam? Who ordered shooting at buses during road checks - the politicans or the Army officers? > > And there’s a big deal of difference (though you might not know that from your own army) as to how you train your soldiers, and how you decide to lead your war, once the politicans found it necessary to start one. If you see armies as a kind of “World Police”, there are differences to what cops do, too. > You can say beforehand, from politicans and from the constiution, that even in war, certain kind of methods won’t be used to win, that some costs are too high if you want to stay “good guys”. That’s things like the Geneva convention, which the US doesn’t seem to have heard about, judging from actions in the Vietnam war up until Iraq. > You can train soldiers to be effiecient at killing, and to obey their officers and the UCMJ, and nothing else. Then things like My Lai and Abu Ghraib happen, where two scapegoats are punished, and the rest goes on as usual. **You can promote boot camp and macho culture as being ultimate in soldiering to be hard and tougth and not have sentimental emotions for the enemy (who is after all really bad guy, otherwise you wouldn’t fight them).** > Or you can train soldiers to obey orders and what the Geneva convention means and that certain orders are not allowed. **You can tell them that the other side are people too.** Then you have a standing citizens army (since it sadly is necessary in todays world) of people who want to obey the constitution, not an army of professionals who sign up for money to possibly kill people. > Or From all that I have read, seen, and heard, most soldiers _already_ carry a heavy moral burden from the taking of human life, and you want to make it even _harder_ for them to do their jobs, jobs which _must_ be done? Their reluctance to kill the enemy will not necessarily lead to fewer overall deaths. Rather, the deaths will instead come disproprtionately from their side, rather than the enemy’s. To say nothing of how hobbling military efficiency can (and has) led to longer, more brutal wars. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/50 "2008-11-16T18:13:19Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Um, what? I must have missed that part where the US was invaded or in danger of being invaded in the last wars. WWI? **WWII**? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? Or do you believe that nonsense “If we don’t fight them over there, we fight them here?” Please tell me this was an oversight on your part. (And during WW1, thousands of American civilians were killed due to U-boat attacks, even if U.S. territorial integrity was never at stake, [desperate longshots](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_Telegram) not withstanding.) ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/51 "2008-11-16T18:36:41Z")
Let me see if I have the pro-2nd ammendment types’ arguments. You are keeping weapons in case the govt becomes facist and sets the troops against the people. The troops have a moral duty to obey the orders and wage war against their own people. Knowing that the troops are in a position in which they are forced morally, legally, and under penalty of death to carry out their orders you are still going to shoot them. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/52 "2008-11-16T21:18:23Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > jobs which _must_ be done? No-one \*must \*be a soldier. No-one _has_ to kill another human being. There is always another way. Sometimes, that way is to die (possibly along with a lot of other people.) That’s the price to pay for principles. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/53 "2008-11-16T21:31:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No-one \*must \*be a soldier. No-one _has_ to kill another human being. There is always another way. Well, sure - there’s always suicide. > [@](#): > > Sometimes, that way is to die (possibly along with a lot of other people.) That’s the price to pay for principles. The thing is, once the pacifists are all killed off, they don’t get any say in whether or not their principles are put into effect. You’ve already left the game. I am not hostile to pacifists as individuals. To the contrary, I think that it takes an incredible amount of raw physical courage to deliberately neither flee nor defend oneself in an extreme situation. However, I am extremely wary of pacifism as a political philosophy as I feel it ignores some basic realities. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/54 "2008-11-16T21:42:21Z")
I think pacifism is an ideal to work towards. I don’t think we can reasonably realize it in this age in a way that’d survive, but we can get closer to that ideal society where violence isn’t an issue. Learning to use war less and less. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/55 "2008-11-16T21:56:59Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I think pacifism is an ideal to work towards. I don’t think we can reasonably realize it **in this age** in a way that’d survive, but we can get closer to that ideal society where violence isn’t an issue. Learning to use war less and less. See, this is an example of why I have a problem with pacifism in political discussions. Not to pick on you, **TTR** , but I just can’t square the circle on this one. As long as people have free will (or the illusion of such - I’m not going to start _that_ debate), societal pacifism is untenable. The non-cooperation of even a minuscule part of that society forces either resistance or surrender by the majority, either of which leads to the ultimate extinction of pacifism. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/56 "2008-11-17T06:19:17Z")
I’m a soldier. I kill. So what? I’m an Us. They were a Them. What’s wrong with that? Will some pacifist please explain to me why I have to feel compassion for them just because they’re of the same species as me? I don’t and I won’t. It’s ok because my brain says it’s ok. I don’t feel bad. Someone please explicitly tell me why I should. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/57 "2008-11-17T07:07:42Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Well, sure - there’s always suicide. I don’t consider it such. > [@Fuji](#): > > The thing is, once the pacifists are all killed off, they don’t get any say in whether or not their principles are put into effect. You’ve already left the game. This reads to me like you think no new pacifists will arise. I don’t think that’s the case - I didn’t use to be a pacifist, I came to it gradually and late. I think the movie _Gandhi_ was a big impetus, as was Buddhism, but it only really gelled when my child was born, oddly enough. Made me think what kind of person I wanted to be, really. What did I want her to see? > [@Fuji](#): > > I am not hostile to pacifists as individuals. To the contrary, I think that it takes an incredible amount of raw physical courage to deliberately neither flee nor defend oneself in an extreme situation. However, I am extremely wary of pacifism as a political philosophy as I feel it ignores some basic realities. I don’t advocate it for everyone, but I do talk about my feelings and practice when it’s relevant. So it’s not so much a political philosophy as a personal code. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/58 "2008-11-17T07:21:26Z")
> [@IntelSoldier](#): > > I don’t feel bad. Someone please explicitly tell me why I should. You don’t _have_ to feel bad. Never be ashamed of what you are - you’re not the only broken person in the world. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/59 "2008-11-17T08:24:33Z")
> [@IntelSoldier](#): > > I’m a soldier. I kill. So what? > > I’m an Us. They were a Them. What’s wrong with that? > > Will some pacifist please explain to me why I have to feel compassion for them just because they’re of the same species as me? I don’t and I won’t. It’s ok because my brain says it’s ok. I don’t feel bad. Someone please explicitly tell me why I should. I knew we’d regret it when Andy Grove got the bomb. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867/60 "2008-11-17T09:53:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How often is the Geneva Convention taught in the military? When I was in the U.S.A.F., it was brought up once, in basic training, and discussed for a period of about ten minutes. Pretty often, especially premobilization. The Geneva Convention is taught as part of the Law of Land Warfare. It is basically a UCMJ class but the appropriate parts of that and other accords have been incorporated into the UCMJ long ago. Also the Rules of Engagement (ROE) are briefed prior to any mission. The ROE always takes into account the GC and UCMJ. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pacifists/472867.md?page=4)