Why I oppose war in general. (Gruesome)

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 05:48pm

SPOOFE wrote:So, Queeb, you admit that you have no idea where that picture came from. What if it was the result of Saddam's tyrannical reign over his own people? What about the hundreds of Kurds that Saddam killed? What about the public execution parades that Saddam instituted? What about Saddam's sons, who routinely go on joyrides of barbarism, such as raping a bride on her wedding night and killing her newlywed husband?

It's things like THAT that make ME support a war. To me, pacifism is short-sighted and only looks at one end of the equation. Pacifism only works when you're dealing with rational opponent. Pacifism is a luxury for those who aren't involved in a nasty situation, a means of making them feel morally superior while at the same time shirking their duty to do everything they can to end an abominable tragedy.

So forgive me if I scoff at your pacifism, and your flimsy excuses.

Scoff away. My pacifism is personal, and I understand that on a multi-national level it only works to some extent (though for some reason it's called "diplomacy" when applied to a global audience). I suppose the point I was getting at was that I would be utterly ashamed to be involved in any operation that caused results such as those, or death of any kind. And for those reasons I cannot support the war. Logically, of course, I cannot oppose war either, because as you said, there NEEDS to be a change in Iraq. Anyone breathing recognizes that, or at least they should.

At very least, though, Bush could have come out and said that THAT was the reason for the war, not the posession of WMDs. THOSE are the atrocities that need to be publicized, not these alleged and fuzzy claims of links to terrorism and a lack of compliance with UN resolutions. This war would have a lot more support if they concentrated on Iraqi offenses against humanity. I haven't seen nearly enough evidence of that kind of thing, or at least I hadn't until the whole televised hostages thing.

So I'm torn. While I would never personally fire a weapon at anyone, nor would I raise my hand to anyone in anger (ever, EVER again), I suppose I'm glad that there are people out there who would, and who are. Call it cowardly, sheepish, timid, whatever. I have my reasons for pacifism. It's not an excuse. All I can say is this: Thank the powers that be for men with the courage to end another man's life in the name of the safety of his own people (maybe) and the liberation of people he's never met.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 06:29pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:So, Queeb, you admit that you have no idea where that picture came from. What if it was the result of Saddam's tyrannical reign over his own people? What about the hundreds of Kurds that Saddam killed? What about the public execution parades that Saddam instituted? What about Saddam's sons, who routinely go on joyrides of barbarism, such as raping a bride on her wedding night and killing her newlywed husband?
snip

Ah, diplomacy! When has it ever worked without war or the threat of it?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-27 06:48pm

Too people like Queeb, Bush could give any reason for the war and it would not be the right 1.. Please no more bullshit.. You don't want this war FINE but quit saying "IF ONLY BUSH SAID THIS"

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 07:01pm

theski wrote:Too people like Queeb, Bush could give any reason for the war and it would not be the right 1.. Please no more bullshit.. You don't want this war FINE but quit saying "IF ONLY BUSH SAID THIS"

"Stop saying"? I don't ever recall anyone ever saying "If only Bush had said..." before this. And you're right. George Bush could walk in the door of my dorm room right now with Condoleeza, Colin and Donald in tow, and start reciting all the possible reasons for going to war, no matter how extreme or moderate, and list all the moral and ethical reasons why war is right, and I would still refuse to participate in it. You're absolutely right. I might tell them to go have a good time blowing the shit out of yet another race of little brown people with towels on their heads, but I would never put my name on it.

If you want to break it down into an analogy, pretend Bush and I and a couple of our friends were peers standing on the side of a dirt road and we came across a beehive. George tells an awful tale about how a bee stung his brother from New York, and the awful working conditions that bees are subjected to, working 18 hours a day for the explicit benifit of the Queen Bee, and how he believes that it is his duty to seek revenge on the deadly bees and kill the queen to liberate the worker bees because no one else was doing it. So he picks up a rock and takes aim at the hive. Some of his other friends pick up rocks, too, and take aim. I look at them all, look at the fantastic stupidity of the situation, shake my head and calmly walk away. "Do what you will," I say, "you're just in it for the honey anyway. I'll have no part in it."

...That was probably the most elaborate metaphor I've ever conjured up. I feel so proud.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-27 07:17pm

While I would never personally fire a weapon at anyone, nor would I raise my hand to anyone in anger

I find the likelyhood of such a belief winning out over any other factors to be extremely unlikely. If your life was threatened, or the lives of others, you would take no action to protect them, or you?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 07:19pm

Now that Queeb has gone to depths that are this tasteless and childish to make a point about his/her opinion on the war, I am suggesting that s/he get's a custom title.

And not a good one.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-27 07:23pm

Nathan F wrote:Now that Queeb has gone to depths that are this tasteless and childish to make a point about his/her opinion on the war, I am suggesting that s/he get's a custom title.

And not a good one.

I agree. And I still haven't seen sufficient proof that he is not spaceluigi.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 07:27pm

fgalkin wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Now that Queeb has gone to depths that are this tasteless and childish to make a point about his/her opinion on the war, I am suggesting that s/he get's a custom title.

And not a good one.
I agree. And I still haven't seen sufficient proof that he is not spaceluigi.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

He has been going down this road for a while now, but has now hit the bottom of the bucket.

I don't think village idiot is appropriate in this case, maybe something like 'Propaganda Sheep'?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-27 07:35pm

Nathan F wrote:
fgalkin wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Now that Queeb has gone to depths that are this tasteless and childish to make a point about his/her opinion on the war, I am suggesting that s/he get's a custom title.

And not a good one.
I agree. And I still haven't seen sufficient proof that he is not spaceluigi.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
He has been going down this road for a while now, but has now hit the bottom of the bucket.

I don't think village idiot is appropriate in this case, maybe something like 'Propaganda Sheep'?

Stas Bush was the original propaganda sheep. However, he is becoming increasingly sane, especially after the stomping he recieved in the media thread ( a bit of self-praise:D ). Either he actually came to his senses, or he realized that he can't pull that bullshit here. Either way, the brainwashed moron title is now up for grabs, so I say stick it to spaceluigi.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-27 07:38pm

Queeb, war is terrible, however pacifism should not excuse inaction in times in which people are already suffering. Would you argue that the Americans should never have attempted to save the Jews? Through the avoidance of violence, it is sometimes unfortunately possible to condone the violent acts of others.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-27 07:42pm

I don't see why someone should be titled moron because of hating war in any form. Real politik aside, I prefer him a tenfold over someone in the other side of the spectrum. Also, he has already concedeed that his views aren't valid in all situations.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 07:51pm

Nathan F wrote:Now that Queeb has gone to depths that are this tasteless and childish to make a point about his/her opinion on the war, I am suggesting that s/he get's a custom title.

And not a good one.

It's "he."

And I did nothing that MSN didn't do. Calling me tasteless is calling them tasteless. And regardless of taste, the posting of that picture is in no way representative of my personality. I was as sickened as you were by that picture, and decided to write about it. And if that's not what these boards are here for, then I'd kindly ask you to explain what they ARE here fore.

As for being childish, the childish thing to do would be to not concede to valid counterpoints made. Which I have done. What's childish is calling for someone to brandish me with a foolish nickname: A name of which you deem me worthy based on the OP in this string alone. Thank you for demonstrating your own idiocy.

Now, back to INTELLIGENT conversation.

HemlockGrey wrote:I find the likelyhood of such a belief winning out over any other factors to be extremely unlikely. If your life was threatened, or the lives of others, you would take no action to protect them, or you?

There is a difference between not taking action and taking non-violent action. If someone were to pull a gun on someone I loved dearly, I would take the bullet. Let the murderer rot in his own guilt. Let him rot in jail. I have at least that much faith in the American criminal justice system.

There's also a difference between taking violent action and taking non-harmful violent action. If force needed to be used in any situation, it is entirely possible in most situations to disable or deter an assailant without using harmful force. A shove or a restraint goes a long way in a fist fight. I've been there. I won't get into the technical aspects of certain martial arts forms, but such practices exist that will effectively and harmlessly deter someone who intends to assault you.

Such are the basic tenets of pacifism as they relate to conflict.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 07:59pm

I consider using images of children who have been hurt in a war (possibly by their own leaders to use as propaganda) to push your own agendas to be somewhat tasteless.

Now, this might not be true, but it really makes you look bad. I am not saying that to insult you or anything, just make you aware that spreading images that are most likely Iraqi propaganda makes you look less than intelligent.

Again, I am not saying that as an insult, only to educate you about the image you are spreading of yourself.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 08:04pm

Nathan F wrote:I consider using images of children who have been hurt in a war (possibly by their own leaders to use as propaganda) to push your own agendas to be somewhat tasteless.

Now, this might not be true, but it really makes you look bad. I am not saying that to insult you or anything, just make you aware that spreading images that are most likely Iraqi propaganda makes you look less than intelligent.

Again, I am not saying that as an insult, only to educate you about the image you are spreading of yourself.

Fine, it's propoganda. I don't care WHO hurt the little girl, I just care that the little girl was hurt. Regardless of who did it, it is fundamentally wrong and outlandisly evil. Evil seems to abound during war, and thus I hate war. Simple as pi.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 08:29pm

Pacifism is a cowards way of renouncing moral responsibility for his fellow man.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-27 08:32pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Queeb, war is terrible, however pacifism should not excuse inaction in times in which people are already suffering. Would you argue that the Americans should never have attempted to save the Jews? Through the avoidance of violence, it is sometimes unfortunately possible to condone the violent acts of others.

True. Has anyone performed a serious humanitarian cost/benefit ratio analysis of this war? I suppose that is arguably difficult in light of the fluidity of casualty projections and uncertainty about the aftermath.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-03-27 08:36pm

This reminds me of something. There is a walk out being plan at a local school, and their was something mentioned by the people about "Bloodless Freedom"

Nice contradiction their ain't it?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 08:38pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I consider using images of children who have been hurt in a war (possibly by their own leaders to use as propaganda) to push your own agendas to be somewhat tasteless.

Now, this might not be true, but it really makes you look bad. I am not saying that to insult you or anything, just make you aware that spreading images that are most likely Iraqi propaganda makes you look less than intelligent.

Again, I am not saying that as an insult, only to educate you about the image you are spreading of yourself.
Fine, it's propoganda. I don't care WHO hurt the little girl, I just care that the little girl was hurt. Regardless of who did it, it is fundamentally wrong and outlandisly evil. Evil seems to abound during war, and thus I hate war. Simple as pi.

Do you or do you not agree that Saddam must be removed, by force if the need be?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 08:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:True. Has anyone performed a serious humanitarian cost/benefit ratio analysis of this war? I suppose that is arguably difficult in light of the fluidity of casualty projections and uncertainty about the aftermath.

Three hundred dead Iraqi civilians at most by reliable sources. Contrast that to the enormous number of dead at Saddam Hussiens orders the numbers come out in favor of war.

Of course the objective numbers don't tell the half of that story though.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 09:06pm

Stormbringer wrote:Pacifism is a cowards way of renouncing moral responsibility for his fellow man.

Warmongering is a display of testicular fortitude and a lack of problem-solving skills. "If the square peg doesn't fit into the round hole, SMASH THE FUCKER IN THERE!" You can have it either way you like.

Nathan F wrote:Do you or do you not agree that Saddam must be removed, by force if the need be?

I agree that he needs to be removed, yes. I don't believe the US needs to douse the world in testosterone to do it, though. Like I said, from the eyes of a pacifist, there's always another route. You just need to look for it and think about it. And gain support for it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 09:13pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Pacifism is a cowards way of renouncing moral responsibility for his fellow man.
Warmongering is a display of testicular fortitude and a lack of problem-solving skills. "If the square peg doesn't fit into the round hole, SMASH THE FUCKER IN THERE!" You can have it either way you like.

If people like you who believe that they should never fight a warm no matter how justified, had been in charge 1939 Hitler would be running the world. You can't talk to someone who won't listen.

Not all wars are just and none are pleasant but it's stupid to assume anyone that would fight one is a warmongering murder is incredibly stupid.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2003-03-27 09:15pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:If you want to break it down into an analogy, pretend Bush and I and a couple of our friends were peers standing on the side of a dirt road and we came across a beehive. George tells an awful tale about how a bee stung his brother from New York, and the awful working conditions that bees are subjected to, working 18 hours a day for the explicit benifit of the Queen Bee, and how he believes that it is his duty to seek revenge on the deadly bees and kill the queen to liberate the worker bees because no one else was doing it. So he picks up a rock and takes aim at the hive. Some of his other friends pick up rocks, too, and take aim. I look at them all, look at the fantastic stupidity of the situation, shake my head and calmly walk away. "Do what you will," I say, "you're just in it for the honey anyway. I'll have no part in it."

...That was probably the most elaborate metaphor I've ever conjured up. I feel so proud.

WTF? You compare Iraqis to insects? Your analogy is screwed up, man.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 09:15pm

Stormbringer wrote:If people like you who believe that they should never fight a warm no matter how justified, had been in charge 1939 Hitler would be running the world. You can't talk to someone who won't listen.

Which is why people like me don't run things. We're shitty soldiers, but we're damned fine members of society.

Not all wars are just and none are pleasant but it's stupid to assume anyone that would fight one is a warmongering murder is incredibly stupid.

And it's stupid to assume that anyone who refuses to fight is a coward. Again, you can have it both ways if you like.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2003-03-27 09:25pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:Which is why people like me don't run things. We're shitty soldiers, but we're damned fine members of society.

Since when are pacifists damned fine members of society? Are the anti-war protestors damned fine members of society, despite the fact they block up traffic (especially in Chicago and New York City, the jackasses) and piss off the majority of society? Just because you are anti-war doesn't mean you can't still be an asshole. I am not accusing you personally of being an asshole, but I am accusing you of generalizing when you say pacifists are damned fine members of society.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 09:28pm

Which is why people like me don't run things. We're shitty soldiers, but we're damned fine members of society.

Until it comes time to actually defend society you guys are as good as anyone.

And it's stupid to assume that anyone who refuses to fight is a coward. Again, you can have it both ways if you like.

Any one that refuses to fight, no matter the circumstances is a coward. They feel it's better to do nothing to fight a tyrant, that is cowardice to me.

This isn't a debate on the ethics of the Iraqi war but with the notion of absolute pacificism.