I’ve been wondering, what’s the antonym of ‘pacifist’?
Is it warmonger?
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.
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.
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.
Really? Would you care to explain how we didn’t “learn anything from My Lai”?
Is this like a Tailhook Convention? Ghrabi? Grabby? Leadership mistakes were made. People were tortured. It was wrong, but far, FAR from My Lai.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Been watching some MASH 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 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 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.
…but if it was Wagner, that would be cool;)
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.
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 not withstanding.)
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.
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.
Well, sure - there’s always suicide.
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.
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.
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 don’t consider it such.
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?
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.
You don’t have to feel bad. Never be ashamed of what you are - you’re not the only broken person in the world.
I knew we’d regret it when Andy Grove got the bomb.
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.