Also let’s focus on the actual events.
I don’t think it’s useful to think of people as war hawks or doves because for most people it depends on the circumstances: few people (now) would condemn the US joining the european theatre in WWII.
It’s better to point out that things like the current moves to war in Iran just make zero sense and are going to cause needless slaughter. Make fun of the view that there has been any basis whatsoever for attacking Iran, not general pro-war sentiment.
But I think “general pro-war sentiment” is a huge part of the problem and shouldn’t be considered acceptable, IMO. I think this sort of social shaming could be a part of changing that.
That’s because I personally don’t care what people say to me.
However, many people DO care how society sees them, and will change behavior to garner societal respect.
Shaming is different from belittling. Belittling is personal judgment from me to you. Shaming is letting someone know that they’re breaking a social rule that might get them ostracized. Shaming is important and it works because it’s the only way to get some people to be good citizens. Whether it actually sticks is the question… it gets rebranded as persecution or posturing or moral signalling… anything, anything at all to avoid shame. But shame is the tool for that job.
That’s why on the subject in this thread, we don’t see anybody proudly standing up and saying “If I’m a coward, so be it”. Instead we see people arguing that cowardice doesn’t exist, or it doesn’t really matter, or the other side is is wrong for calling it out. That’s why Republicans crow about the virtues of military service while voting in shitbird chickenhawks like Trump every chance they get. For them, only 2 things matter: First, their right to compel others to pay the price of their wars before (or instead) of themselves, and second, that they be excused from any public shaming in doing so.
I think this is wrong. War hawks are always going to say “no no, this slaughter is quite needful.” You cannot trust anyone’s opinion that a slaughter is needed until you know how they feel about they or their children being at risk in said slaughter. When we look at Republican war-hawk politicians, it always seems to rain draft deferments or excuses for themselves or their children.
Let me change that phrasing; I wasn’t alluding to someone being pro-war always. I meant pro-war in the abstract.
If you’re saying someone who is pro-war some of the time is a jerk, then the vast majority of people are jerks (I knew it!), because most people think there are circumstances where war is justifiable, such as self-defence. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to attack “pro-war” in the abstract absent any context.
Right, so then you talk about why it’s needful and what concrete evidence there is of an imminent threat. That’s a perfectly reasonable conversation to have, and if both parties are thinking logically and rationally, they would conclude there’s FA evidence of a threat.
Meanwhile if either side is unwilling / unable to think rationally, then all bets are off. Arguing about the lack of threat may not work but nor may arguing about “What if it was your kid?” or whatever.
To boil it down to its essence for me, I specifically don’t trust anybody to be completely rational about war, because the bare facts of war tend to emerge from emotionally stressing events or possibilities. And from propaganda. (Somebody got killed. We might get killed. They hate you and they want to kill you!). By the time we add reason to our toolbox of discourse, it’s already full of other sharp and rusty edges.
So by the time it comes down to that, I like the moral clarity that comes from asking the question: Do you have skin in this game? Do your children have skin in this game? Are you willing to put skin in the game, and do you even understand what that’s like?
I’ve done my military service, during time of conflict, and I have children at risk of military service in a war that lasts as long as Iraq or Afghanistan. The potential costs are crystal clear to me. I have no respect for people who refuse to put themselves in harm’s way who insist on their right to say “Americans should die in this war for my safety, but not me or my children, because I don’t prefer it.”
You have the right to say that and I have the right to say that’s shameful and cowardly.
Maybe it’s my imagination, but if I am reading correctly (and my knowledge of Dopers is correct), all the veterans in this thread appear to be on one side (my side ;)) of the issue. I find that very interesting, if it’s accurate.
I assume you don’t advocate for starting fires because you support an able and willing firefighting force.
If anyone actually said that, a sucker punch would be well justified. I know that is not my position. I might say “In my opinion, Americans must die in this war to ensure the safety of our nation, though I will not be enlisting unless my service is required.”
I have some skin in the game, because I am a citizen of this country and a war could very well affect me - if not directly, then through taxes at the very least. That being said, my stake pales in comparison to someone with a loved one in the military. You are free to call me out for being insensitive to the human costs of war, and I can try and convince you that it is still necessary. Those are all valid lines of argumentation. But you have no basis to call me a coward because I express an opinion on the matter while still intending to remain a civilian.
~Max
Another poor analogy. Not every able bodied person is qualified to be president. (As evidence plainly shows.) Also, there isn’t enough room for more than one president at a time. Also, imagine a field of 2,000,000+ presidential candidates. On the other hand, imagine a military force of 2,000,000+ qualified and able bodied persons. I suspect the latter is far more plausible (actual).
You think most people who callously advocate for war spend a lot to time considering those factors?
This is equivocating. Yes war is different. Red is different than blue, but they are both colors. Saying they are different elides over ways they are similar. You still haven’t explained why war is different than the many counter examples that you’ve dismissed as not really true scotsman. It’s blatant special pleading.
Yes the office of the president has the capacity to do massive harm through military action, but that’s not nearly the limit. The office of the president has the power to inflict massive harm through its exercise of prosecutorial discretion and law enforcement. The strength of the US and world economy could arguably be toppled if there was intent to do so by the President. There’s a whole hell of a lot that the office of the president can do to inflict massive harm outside of military actions. By your calculus unless a person runs for president then they are a coward, or if they don’t vote, then they are a coward and disgusting. The rubric doesn’t work very well.
A distinction without a difference. Enlistment is voluntary, and all the things you describe are part and parcel of that enlistment.
It’s important to bear in mind that OP is specifically addressing wars of choice, not necessity.
I think a corollary would be if you don’t support the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration or the flood of “refugees” being detained, but have the money and resources to host such a family or group of people then I think you’re full of shit.
It’s not the same as war but it’s the same as being all talk and not willing to put your money/welfare where your mouth is. I don’t see nearly as many people clamoring to open their homes to illegals as there are very vocal advocates about how somehow they have the right to violate national borders.
Whether the war is necessary or not is exactly the debate in which these accusations of cowardice arise.
~Max
Yes, military personnel have for some reason come to the belief that they should be privileged. Being able to support wars without being called a coward is another privilege they want to enjoy.
This is really great… you argue that firefighters and military are equivalent degrees of risk and coercion. We point out that they aren’t. You retreat to “that’s what they signed up for”. So there we have it.
When’s the last time we talked about sending fireman into a burning building under penalty of jail or firing squad if they refused? I can’t think of any recent reports of that, can you?
I have actually, as have several other posters. You either don’t like those differences (even though you appear to actually agree that it’s different) or you missed them.
This is a different “rubric” than mine. Running for President is not comparable in any way to fighting a war, in terms of necessity (i.e. additional people volunteering necessarily helps a war effort, but additional people running for President does not necessarily help the ‘president-ing’ effort), risks/sacrifices, and much more. I seriously don’t get how these are in any way comparable, and you haven’t really even bothered to try and explain it. You’ve just said it is so over and over again.
But it’s okay, we don’t have to go on and on about it. Plenty of posters clearly understand my point – you are free to disagree.
You’re mistaken. I’ve not asserted that firefighters and military are equivalent degrees of risk. Nor that they share in equivalent degrees of coercion. It is literally what they signed up for, so that part is right.
He also appears to be arguing that running for president is equivalent. If I’m reading him correctly. I don’t get it at all.
I’d also like to point out that the primary thrust of my argument is “it would be good for society and our country if these folks were shamed as cowards” much more than “it’s entirely perfectly logical that these folks should be considered cowards”. I don’t really care nearly as much if people disagree with the latter – I’m interested in what folks think about the former.