The Peace Pledge! Calling all military types

[Zornhau]

I wonder if especially the soldiers on this board could help me with a specific point in a debate I've been having?

In the UK, somebody is selling White Poppies as tokens of the Peace Pledge:

War is a crime against humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore
determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to
work for the removal of all causes of war.
Link

I have problems with this, not least because it seems to criminalise all soldiers, including, e.g. those slain fighting the Nazis.

When I voiced such concerns on lj, I recieved a good rhetorical kicking from my various liberal friends: Livejournal

In particular find myself accused of willfully or stupidly misreading the pledge. Somebody even claimed that the one or two soldiers they knew had no problems with it.

So, am I really the idiot here?

To the military types or those whose relatives have served: how does the pledge make you feel?

To anybody else: How do you read this pledge? Who's it condeming?

Tags and Links fixed~Bean

[K. A. Pital]

Zornhau
Common sense is that wars of agression are criminal, and those who start them are criminals. Self-defense after an agression is by common sense just. Humanitarian intervention is a tricky subject because sometimes there's a thin line between that and a war of agression, but for most part it's also approved by our common sense unless it causes more harm than good.

But whatever, standing idly by is not an option. Britain, France and USSR tried to avoid war with Germany by all means possible. What they got - a war of agression despite all the horrendous concessions and idle-stand-by made. Inaction is the worst action possible.
Your liberal "friends" seem to forget the oh-so-true "si vis pacem para bellum".
The "pledge" logic seems definetely flawed, because working to remove causes of war sometimes requires... well, war. To remove the cause of war made by Germany, one had to smash Germany at an early stage of Nazi power, which involves war - even agressive war! - yet again, so that Hitler and his gang would have no means of attacking everyone around like mad. And yes, the rise of Hitler was a phenomena connected to previous war, but what the hell does that have to do with WWII? If ANYTHING, WWII was just a correction of a horrible mistake done earlier. And it's hypocritical too - could you ask of a Soviet citizen, whose whole family may have perished in those 20 million civilians horrendously slain by the Nazi in a war of agression, a war of anihillation, not to support the war? My relatives fought not in a criminal war, but in a very just war. Could you stand up and tell them "I don't support the Great Motherland War"? Or that "all wars are criminal, so are the Motherland Wars"? This so-called "pledge" does a huge dishonor to WWII and any self-defence war veterans.

The troops themselves generally have nothing to do with the issue being fought over, and in the war you mentioned (which was not avoidable, except it was the direct result of an earlier, avoidable, war), were conscripts.

Hiding behind a generality. WWII is exactly a case where troops have very much to do with the issue being fought over.

[Spoonist]

In theory the pledge is fine.
It portrays a wishful thinking of Utopia where we can remove war altogether.
It's certainly a nice thought to have.
But it is just that, a thought, an intellectual exercise, with no basis in reality.
It is just a generic claim that in a perfect world makes perfect sense, sort of like teenager logic , but in a disfunctional world makes no sense at all.

Having served in the military I can say that the pledge doesn't affect me either way. It's more of a "oh that's cute and naive, pat on the head" feeling.
I would equate that with this:

Mommy, I wish that all bad things would just go away.

So do I child, so do I.

[Spoonist]

(hit send too soon)

But an advice for you, to debate a wishful thought with reality will lead nowhere.
It will just make you look like a dick to people who like the thought, while people who don't agree with the thought wouldn't care either way.

It's like trying to argue against "I wish everyone would go to paradise". Even though I would hotly debate the pretext of that message (like the existance of a paradise) I wouldn't debate the message itself. By debating the message you would already have to accept the context (which is based on false assumptions), and within its own context wishful thinking is always correct.

[Zornhau]

Sage but belated advice! Thanks.

However, please tell me: Do you interpret the wording of the Peace Pledge to imply that you - as a former soldier - are a criminal?

[Spoonist]

However, please tell me: Do you interpret the wording of the Peace Pledge to imply that you - as a former soldier - are a criminal?

Yes of course. But that doesn't offend me one cent.
It is in the context of the thought and not in the real world.

As a soldier you have little choice about which wars to fight, so as soon as you decide to become a soldier you have implicitly agreed to follow orders, regardless if they are just or not.
Just because you fought for a just cause doesn't make you just, and vice versa, just because you fought for an unjust cause doesn't make you unjust.

[Spoonist]

I have problems with this, not least because it seems to criminalise all soldiers, including, e.g. those slain fighting the Nazis.

A few examples, Stalin also fought the Nazis, the Fins where allied with the Nazis. Commie resistance cells in nazi occupied europe where executed when the allied liberated their countries, etc.

War isn't a pretty thing.

[Zornhau]

>War isn't a pretty thing.
No shit, sherlock! Despite some of the semi-flames I recieved on my LJ, I'm not a gung ho hawk.

An argument for caring about the wording of the peace pledge derives from George Orwell's observation that trendy pacifism "makes it harder for intelligent young men to join the army". Also, it's usually a bad thing when society alienates its own military.

[K. A. Pital]

There's a simple observation done long ago about extreme anti-militarism.
It goes like this: "Whoever does not want to feed his own army will soon find himself feeding the army of somebody else".

[Zornhau]

Fantastic! Of course, some people would argue that that was a good thing.

[Edi]

Your liberal friends simply seem to have their heads up their arses. They did nothing but evade the point about the wording of the pledge leaving no wiggle room whatsoever when taken at face value. As stated, it's nothing but a useless Utopian intellectual exercise with no real redeeming value. Even if the sentiments are nice enough.

And yes, I've been in the military. As a conscript, no less, and I still hold much the same views as many of the professional soldiers I've met.

Edi

[Edi]

I tossed in a reply, but I don't expect them to actually answer the point directly.

Let's see what they make of it...

Edi

[Darth Wong]

In the UK, somebody is selling White Poppies as tokens of the Peace Pledge:

War is a crime against humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war.
Link

I have problems with this, not least because it seems to criminalise all soldiers, including, e.g. those slain fighting the Nazis.

Why does opposition to war itself have to mean that you hate soldiers? Take WW2 as an example; to say that you think the world would have been better off if it never happened is entirely different than saying that you think the soldiers who were ordered into battle are evil. Nor does it even necessarily mean that you oppose military action once the other side has initiated hostilities; after all, by that point, the war is already started.

[Zornhau]

Agreed. A broadly anti-war stance, or even full-blooded Pacifism need not imply hate for soldiers.

However, the Peace Pledge doesn't say "All war is regrettable and must be avoided", it says "War is a crime against humanity".

To me, that implies criminalising all soldiers. Can I take it you argue otherwise?

[Edi]

Why does opposition to war itself have to mean that you hate soldiers? Take WW2 as an example; to say that you think the world would have been better off if it never happened is entirely different than saying that you think the soldiers who were ordered into battle are evil. Nor does it even necessarily mean that you oppose military action once the other side has initiated hostilities; after all, by that point, the war is already started.

That's how I view it as well, but like Zornhau said, the Peace Pledge's explicit wording makes hash of such logical reasoning. It defines war as a crime, no matter how it started and who is doing the fighting for what reasons. And what do we call people who participate in crimes? Criminals. The problem is the overly broad labeling in the PEace Pledge without any qualifications. Taken at face value, it's senseless.

Edi

[Zornhau]

As I've just said in another forum: claiming war is a crime against humanity rather removes any wiggle room.

[Spoonist]

>War isn't a pretty thing.
No shit, sherlock! Despite some of the semi-flames I recieved on my LJ, I'm not a gung ho hawk.

I didn't imply that you where.
I just pointed out that even though those people died fighting the nazis that doesn't say anything about them being "just" or "criminal" at all.

After all my enemy's enemy is my friend, regardless...

>An argument for caring about the wording of the peace pledge derives from George Orwell's observation that trendy pacifism "makes it harder for intelligent young men to join the army". Also, it's usually a bad thing when society alienates its own military.

Society alienating the military I don't mind, but when the military alienates themselves from society that I have serious problems with...

[Zornhau]

>Society alienating the military
...as in the fall of the Roman empire. Bad idea, really.

[Zornhau]

...to everbody who helped out on this. It's reminded me why I didn't hang out with the cool countercultural types at Uni.

One thing I've noticed is that liberal/peaceniks always pull a switch half way through any exchange. It's as predictable as the key change in a bad C&W song, but I've not quite got it nailed down yet.

Goes a little like this:

Hawk: WWII was a just war since it was fighting the Nazis...
Dove: Ah but....
...Britain's record as an imperial power makes it just as bad as the Nazis
...WWII was the fault of the Allies etc

[Knife]

One thing I've noticed is that liberal/peaceniks always pull a switch half way through any exchange. It's as predictable as the key change in a bad C&W song, but I've not quite got it nailed down yet.

Goes a little like this:

Hawk: WWII was a just war since it was fighting the Nazis...
Dove: Ah but....
...Britain's record as an imperial power makes it just as bad as the Nazis
...WWII was the fault of the Allies etc

I believe thought process like these come from the misguided thought that there is, or should be, one overall moral code for all humanity throughout the world.

As demonstrated on this very forum, there are many. Though obviously some are objectively better than others, people who condemn all war think that if all people followed 'their' brand of moral codes, we would all sit around singing kum-bi-ya.

The sad part is; is even if you followed the best of moral codes, conflict in engrained in human behavior. Scaled up to nations, and you will still have war.

OT; I would be curious to see what 'means' they would use to end the 'causes fof war'. Obviously, that could mean quite a few things, from just making politicians more diplomatic and/or less militaristic throught protest or even organized campaigns to elect such men/women; to themselves engaging engaging in violence to prevent 'war' throught violent protest.

I believe their pledge boils down to a no limits fallacy, in that could the world lessen the amount of stupid silly wars? Absoluetly. Will mankind ever stop waring with each other? No.

If the pledge were to; eliminate the causes and harm of useless violence and the horrors of war. Then most people, I think could get behind it, but all war is asinine.

[Mal_Reynolds]

War is a crime against humanity.

War is an expression of humanity -- an unfortunate one, by anyone's reckoning, but the idea that it is a crime against humanity assumes that there is a higher authority than humanity, and I don't hold to that in light of a serious absence of evidence for it.

I renounce war, and am therefore
determined not to support any kind of war.

How do you renounce a fact of human history and human psychology? A man needs something bad enough, he'll bargain for it; that's diplomacy. But if diplomacy fails and the need persists, then comes the call to arms. That's how we work, always have and likely as not always will. Good for everyone else if you don't feel it's your thing -- we'll name you an honorary Mohican, bury you in the vineyard and tell our children stories about you.

I am also determined to
work for the removal of all causes of war.
Link

Here's the driving force behind the whole thing -- ask yourself, what are the causes of war? Competition for resources is generally the big one. Them as claim that competition can be indoctrinated out of a man are fools, but they do more damage than any war trying to prove their foolishness.

[Rogue 9]

Your IP address (***.***.***.***) is detected as an open proxy (a common source of spam) so comment access is denied. If you do not believe you're accessing the net through an open proxy, please contact your ISP or this site's tech support to help resolve the problem.

The hell? I'm not on a proxy.

[Surlethe]

OT; I would be curious to see what 'means' they would use to end the 'causes fof war'. Obviously, that could mean quite a few things, from just making politicians more diplomatic and/or less militaristic throught protest or even organized campaigns to elect such men/women; to themselves engaging engaging in violence to prevent 'war' throught violent protest.

War is fought over resources; to eliminate war, one must either

1. Find a way to overcome the scarcity of resources;
2. convince everyone to share; or,
3. convince everyone to let supply and demand handle the issue.

A is impossible; B is inconceivably difficult (not to mention contradictory; the only practical way to do so is through force); C is the least difficult. As long as discrepancies exist between demand and supply, the potential for war exists.

[Knife]

War is fought over resources; to eliminate war, one must either

1. Find a way to overcome the scarcity of resources;
2. convince everyone to share; or,
3. convince everyone to let supply and demand handle the issue.

A is impossible; B is inconceivably difficult (not to mention contradictory; the only practical way to do so is through force); C is the least difficult. As long as discrepancies exist between demand and supply, the potential for war exists.

D) Political reality.

While Japan attacked the US, Germany didn't. Yet the US made Europe the priority in WWII. When multiple nations are involved, it is usually more complicated than simple resources, or lack there of.

Plus, if you look at a lot of civil wars, the resource they're fighting over is food, or again lack there of. Some times it is just too many people (usually of a certain creed or ethnicity) threatening a power base.

Equal distrabution of resources won't solve the problem either, since human nature is greedy. So again, I wonder what the PB thinks would be the best way to go about 'removing' the causes of war.

[Surlethe]

D) Political reality.

While Japan attacked the US, Germany didn't. Yet the US made Europe the priority in WWII. When multiple nations are involved, it is usually more complicated than simple resources, or lack there of.

That's true. The causes are resources; the political realities affect the manner in which the war is prosecuted -- e.g., WWII was fought over land in Europe and land and oil in Asia, justified by militaristic creeds; but once both parties have entered the war, strategy takes over.

Plus, if you look at a lot of civil wars, the resource they're fighting over is food, or again lack there of. Some times it is just too many people (usually of a certain creed or ethnicity) threatening a power base.

Creeds tend to exist to lay claim to resources, or enhance claims thereto; take Zionism, for example: it exists to justify Israeli claims on Israel; or racism, which exists to lay a certain ethnic group's claim on resources occupied by another ethnic group.

Equal distrabution of resources won't solve the problem either, since human nature is greedy. So again, I wonder what the PB thinks would be the best way to go about 'removing' the causes of war.

I agree with you there.