I have a very clear view: Starting a war of aggression is immoral and I would NOT participate in such war. I would rather go to prison. There is plenty of blame to go around: the soldiers that do the killing, the politicians who ordered the killing, the American people who supported the war, they are all culpable to a greater or lesser extent. I do not care to discuss the exact extent of each one’s responsibility but I do know that if I were an Iraqi I would consider them all my enemies. The only moral war is a war of defense. Anyone participating in any way in an offensive war is, in my view, participating in something immoral. Neither soldiers nor “corporate pawns” are allowed the benefits of being free from moral judgments.
I just want to note that, when I joined the Air Force, the TIs (drill sergeants) reminded us often that serving in the military means helping other people kill people, and that we should consider getting out if we’re not OK with that. It’s the single biggest reason I chose to seek an administrative discharge.
Now, that’s not the same as saying that everyone in the military is a murderer, but I just wanted to share that, yes, I have heard war veterans make the link between the support staff and the death inherent in armed conflict.
An argument that some pacifists come up with is that ex soldiers become mindless soulless order obeying automatons.
I’m curious about this,I was born in postwar Britain and every single person in the U.K. either physically served against the enemy,had family members and friends/neighbours/colleagues killed or wounded by the enemy, either in action or as a result of the Blitz,experienced bombing themselves or worked in the War Effort…
So why wasn’t postwar Britain awash with mindless psychopaths instead of ordinary decent people?
I’m not saying that there weren’t any headcases,my own father was one,but he was the only one I ever met.
The vast majority of Brits were perfectly normal, so I rather think that the theory “War removes Humanity from the man(and woman)” has been laid to rest unless of course us Brits are somehow superhuman when compared with other nationalities which is absurd.
Pacifists like to congratulate themselves on being morally superior to the general run of the population,as being more caring and in a way heroic in their beliefs.
Personally I believe that there are more then a few who have rationalsied themselves into Pacifism as an alternative to facing up to their real reasons for not wanting to risk their necks.
That there are more then a few of them who have never been in a situation where they would have to respond aggressively to defend themselves or their families and if actually placed in that situation their principles would turn out to be nothing more then so much hot air.
Dont get me wrong I am not making a blanket condemnation of all Pacifists,though not being particulary religious I cant help but admire the Jehovahs Witnesses who went to the Concentration Camps to die rather then lift a hand against their fellow humans.
But I think that many people who purport to be Pacifists are hypocrites and phonys who espouse their “beliefs” safe in the knowledge that other people are doing the things that allow them to pretend that their own hands are clean.
When those people take the same sort of physical risks and hardships that those they oppose do, but in a different but equal manner then I will be more convinced of their sincerity.
Until then I’ll more then likely consider them to be blowhards.
And more. The arguments mount and collate for the President Obama to divide the military into a defense force and an offense force. In that way those who join to aggress upon foreign peoples will not be burdened by serving with those who join to defend their country. Similarly the President can swear hand on heart to uphold defense spending and still implement the needed cuts to military expenditure.
Pacifists owe their entire ability to exist to those who are willing to kill to defend the rest of us. Not just Soldiers, but Police and common folk. Without others doing the ‘dirty work’, they’re only so many delusional victims in waiting.
Just as Vegans owe their entire ability to exist to those who do the animal and insect killing work of farming in their stead. Oh, even just fruits, grains and ‘raw food’ - the very act of farming means that animals and insects are going to be killed for your survival.
The self-aggrandizing ‘moral superiority’ of these individuals is merely self delusion. They “choose” not to engage in these acts, and thus hold themselves above those who do, forgetting that if it weren’t for those who do, they could not.
This guy is certifiable, and I’m not going to sit here and argue the insanity I’m hearing. However, for the sake of support, I will offer that yes, I’ve been taught it, I understand it, and I would absolutely hope that I’d have the awareness to follow it if the shit ever hit the fan for me. Would I mow down unarmed combatants standing in front of me with their hands in the air? Of course not, even if ordered to. However, I also acknowledge that this is only one end of the spectrum, and there may be a lot of gray area in the other direction. Delusional idiots like yourself, constanze, who spout nonsensical college-campus left wing rhetoric, are too stupid to see this.
Pacifism, IMO, is an extreme form of cowardice cloaked in idealism. Folks like chimera, Lust4Life, Fuji, FoieGrasIsEvil, The Tao’s Revenge, etc, seem to understand the basic principle that pacifism may be an ideology, but not a reality. As long as humans are around, there will be conflict, and because we’re a reasoning, emotional species, and can bear arms, there will be armed conflict.
I keep hearing different wars and actions within them thrown around as examples from from the pacifists, which I still don’t get. In my mind, it’s all irrelevant since it’s only a matter of perspective (I mean, really, don’t you think those Nazis, still sitting comfortably in Berlin, thought we and the Russians were agressors, invading their country and empire?), and not only that, but am I to understand that these same peace-loving people think that WWII was not a necessary and/or just war for the U.S.? Would they have had us disband our military and wait for the Germans and Japanese to conquer Europe, China, and then North America? I don’t get it.
It comes down to this: If you can point to just one single war in the history of the world and say, “Yes, that was justified,” then you’ve lost your argument. If you condone what the guys on Flight 93 did, you’ve lost your argument. If you can’t, then truly, you are insane.
Oh my, how did I miss this the first time I read the thread? Constanze, that’s idiotic. The Geneva Conventions are mandatorily taught and retaught on a yearly basis in the Army. I’ve sat through the same briefings every December in all my years in service. When I deployed, I got a special bonus briefing twice. Every time a soldier references an “unlawful order”, guess which laws they’re referring to?
How did that work when the police and army were the people I needed protection from? How delusional was I then?
I could not what, exactly? If someone attacks me, then I act as my morality dictates. Armed men aren’t stopping this - check where I live, it’s not exactly a place with an effective police system preventing crime. I run the risk of harm quite a bit. I’ve been attacked before, and had the chance to put my principles in action.
But anyway, I don’t advocate pacifism for everyone, anymore than I advocate, say, SF fandom for everyone. People are wired differently, and most people just don’t have it in them to be pacifists. I recognise this, and don’t hold myself morally superior just for my pacifism.
It’s my anarchism that makes me morally superior;)
I only speak for myself here but for me it is quite simple. First, I do not have to justify anything in the past because that is not the world I am living in. I have morals which I believe are fit for the world I live in today. I am sure my morals would be of little use had I lived 2000 years ago.
My morals are very simple: I do not condone or justify the initiation of any war for any reason. Period. And I allow the use of war as a defense to war which was inflicted upon my country or to help in the defense of another country. But that and no more.
My position is basically :
Thus, I believe the American war in Iraq is immoral and unjustified and I believe their resistance to it is moral and justified.
How fucking lucky we are that you are not in any position to “allow” or deny anything.
So if one country brutally invades another and begins slaughtering the people thereof - genocide with clear intent - you believe that no one has any right to intervene?
If your neighbor is raping, torturing and killing his own children, and you know about it, do you likewise sit back, plug your ears and sing “la la la”?
Because ignoring a crime you know about makes you a participant in that crime.
There are nuts preaching gibberish on every college campus in America. There are Hitler-lites all over the place. That’s easy to understand – many people are mentally ill. What is totally incomprehensible to me is how an obvious loon can gather 20 million followers ready to kill on command.
The loon is not the problem. The twenty million followers are.
There WILL be a standing army in the US. We tried doing without one very early on and it turned out to be a really bad idea.
Meaning, “Draft.” And just for the record, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone choosing a ‘just’ jail sentence over participating in what they feel to be an ‘unjust’ war. Get enough people on that bandwagon and the government will be forced to rethink the war plan or spin it in a more attractive light. In fact, I’m not a big proponent of war. My attitude was against 1) ignorant statements about the mindless nature of the soldier and 2) equating combat with murder. 3) Hi Opal!
Yes, I assert that no individual country has the right to invade any other country to change its government. That is what I believe and that is what the USA signed with the founding of the UN. If a country’s violations are so bad then the entire world community should act and I probably would not have a problem with a UN-sanctioned intervention. Probably. But the USA going against the entire community of nations, starting a war of aggression with bullshit excuses is totally unacceptable to me and a huge crime. I would never participate in such a war and I would rather be in prison. This war has not made the country a better place but a worse place. Now the USA asserts that any country has the right to invade any other country if it does not like its internal politics. This is not conducive to world peace. Should we condone an armed military intervention against the USA to stop the horror that is Guantanamo?
Besides, we all know the reasons given for invading Iraq are and were complete bullshit. There are many countries in the world with worse internal situations and the USA could not care less. Why isn’t the USA clamoring in the UN for a concerted intervention in Burma?
This is a serious problem in the USA which has a military spending out of all proportion to any real defensive needs. When you have a huge army, with not much to do but train for the next huge conflict, then you tend to find it a convenient tool to use when dealing with any and all problems. Rather than try diplomacy and understanding you say “fuck this shit; I don’t need to talk to anybody, I have a huge army in need of a small war for practice” and things go from there.
I am not opposed to defense forces reasonably sized to deter attacks and which can be built up as needed. But Americahas forces, not only for defense, but for playing world cop and world bully and this is not a good thing because when you have the tool you tend to use it.
