Why I oppose war in general. (Gruesome)

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-27 09:34pm

Once again someone else has to pick up a gun or sword and protect Queebs, right to protest them.. Then they spit on the ones that do.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-27 09:35pm

Pacifism would only work if everyone agreed with everything and if there weren't any power hungry dictators in the world.

And, unfortunately, things aren't like that, nor will be for a long long long time.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 09:38pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
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.

I was not refering to the quality of the character of every pacifist. That's silly. It's like saying that all blondes are stupid. Sure, pacifists can be assholes. But they get things changed. Assholes get things changed. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, and preached non-violent resistence. Ghandi did the same. The boy in Tianamen square who stood up the tanks. Hippies who put daisies in the barrels of soldiers's M-16s.... The list goes on and on. They change society for the better. Name me a pacifist or a group of pacifists (and who expressly used that nomenclature; PETA doesn't count) who ever did anything to damage society besides block up traffic?

Besides, can you name for me a pacifist accused of any type of violent crime? Of course you can't. They don't exist. Posession of marijuana, maybe, but never violent crimes. They are law-abiding citizens, morally upright and passive. And, from what I know of my fellow pacifists, intelligent for the most part. You'd have to be to restrain yourself from that knee-jerk inclining towards violence when something doesn't go your way. In a sense, they deny their survival instincts. Well, no... I take that back. They don't deny them per se, they merely replace them. Instead of unconscious muscle reaction, they use conscious and calculated muscle reaction. It's just biology, I suppose.

("What do you think about Western Culture?"
"I think it would be a good idea." -- Ghandi)

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 09:39pm

Besides, why are you lumping pacifists in with anti-war protesters? Not all anti-war-minded people protest, and there are more non-pacifist protestors out there than there are pacifist protestors.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 09:42pm

theski wrote:Once again someone else has to pick up a gun or sword and protect Queebs, right to protest them.. Then they spit on the ones that do.

It's a damn shame that we can't use people like that for human sheilds.

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patroits and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson

They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.

It reminds me of the hypocrisy of those arch-pacifist assholes the hippies. They rioted and protested to bring our troops home and then spat on them when they got here. Thanks a lot you dirty long haired freaks.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 09:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.

You're absolutely right. And I'm damned proud to have the finest military in the world keeping those rights and civil liberties in tact. And I'm glad that when push comes to shove (which, it could be argued, didn't quite happen with Iraq... but that's another point altogether) we've got people brave enough to stand up against those who want to defeat our civil liberties. But I could never do it. And I don't understand the motives behind the people who do. So I ask questions and state my point of view, all the while becoming more and more horrified by what I see on TV and in the newspapers. It just happens. In peacetime, everyone likes pacifists. They're morally upright and some of the nicest and safest people you can hope to meet. But all of a sudden, in wartime, they're cowards. ::Shrug:: You tell me what's going on, 'cuz I don't get it.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-27 10:00pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.
You're absolutely right. And I'm damned proud to have the finest military in the world keeping those rights and civil liberties in tact. And I'm glad that when push comes to shove (which, it could be argued, didn't quite happen with Iraq... but that's another point altogether) we've got people brave enough to stand up against those who want to defeat our civil liberties. But I could never do it. And I don't understand the motives behind the people who do.

Maybe, just maybe, their motive is to protect this country and people like you.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-27 11:53pm

fgalkin wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.
You're absolutely right. And I'm damned proud to have the finest military in the world keeping those rights and civil liberties in tact. And I'm glad that when push comes to shove (which, it could be argued, didn't quite happen with Iraq... but that's another point altogether) we've got people brave enough to stand up against those who want to defeat our civil liberties. But I could never do it. And I don't understand the motives behind the people who do.
Maybe, just maybe, their motive is to protect this country and people like you.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Obviously. But from my personal perspective, the preservation of civil liberties should never come down to ending a man's life. Instead, the infringement upon domestic civil liberties, like the right to a feeling of security, should be pointed out to other countries. And if there is some kind of pact between nations that requires sacrifices from one country to benefit the civil liberties of another country, this world will become a lot less violent. If those kinds of standards were implemented in society, things would be dandy.

It's extreme, and it would never work. But that's the only argument you can make. Because arguing against this is to say that the soldiers in Iraq, who risk their own lives for our civil liberties, are wrong in making those sacrifices. If we are willing to risk our own lives for the preservation of our liberty, and if we agree that there is a brotherhood among ALL men, regardless of race, creed, code or cult, then we must NECESSARILY agree that it is right and good to make sacrifices to preserve the uniform and universal civil liberties granted to us by global society and common decency.

That's the point I was trying to make. Finally.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-27 11:57pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:Obviously. But from my personal perspective, the preservation of civil liberties should never come down to ending a man's life. Instead, the infringement upon domestic civil liberties, like the right to a feeling of security, should be pointed out to other countries. And if there is some kind of pact between nations that requires sacrifices from one country to benefit the civil liberties of another country, this world will become a lot less violent. If those kinds of standards were implemented in society, things would be dandy.

It's extreme, and it would never work. But that's the only argument you can make. Because arguing against this is to say that the soldiers in Iraq, who risk their own lives for our civil liberties, are wrong in making those sacrifices. If we are willing to risk our own lives for the preservation of our liberty, and if we agree that there is a brotherhood among ALL men, regardless of race, creed, code or cult, then we must NECESSARILY agree that it is right and good to make sacrifices to preserve the uniform and universal civil liberties granted to us by global society and common decency.

That's the point I was trying to make. Finally.

And maybe, if this were a perfect world, that would work.

And I would have a girl friend.

But, since this world isn't perfect, war is almost inevitable. Sad to say, but it's true.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-28 12:07am

RogueIce wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:Obviously. But from my personal perspective, the preservation of civil liberties should never come down to ending a man's life. Instead, the infringement upon domestic civil liberties, like the right to a feeling of security, should be pointed out to other countries. And if there is some kind of pact between nations that requires sacrifices from one country to benefit the civil liberties of another country, this world will become a lot less violent. If those kinds of standards were implemented in society, things would be dandy.

It's extreme, and it would never work. But that's the only argument you can make. Because arguing against this is to say that the soldiers in Iraq, who risk their own lives for our civil liberties, are wrong in making those sacrifices. If we are willing to risk our own lives for the preservation of our liberty, and if we agree that there is a brotherhood among ALL men, regardless of race, creed, code or cult, then we must NECESSARILY agree that it is right and good to make sacrifices to preserve the uniform and universal civil liberties granted to us by global society and common decency.

That's the point I was trying to make. Finally.
And maybe, if this were a perfect world, that would work.

And I would have a girl friend.

But, since this world isn't perfect, war is almost inevitable. Sad to say, but it's true.

I knew SOMEONE was going to pull out that old cliche. I just didn't know it was going to happen so soon.

Sure, world's not perfect. Fine. Whatever. But this doesn't require a perfect world. It requires a little bit of logic, and a little bit of humility. And if everyone can agree that these are qualities we'd like to see in world leaders, then we have a case for reform. All we need is to take this idea and run with it and make a logistical set of universal foreign policies. Bury hatches, burn the grudges, start over. Obviously that would never work in today's society. It's just an idea.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-28 12:13am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Sure, world's not perfect. Fine. Whatever. But this doesn't require a perfect world. It requires a little bit of logic, and a little bit of humility. And if everyone can agree that these are qualities we'd like to see in world leaders, then we have a case for reform. All we need is to take this idea and run with it and make a logistical set of universal foreign policies. Bury hatches, burn the grudges, start over. Obviously that would never work in today's society. It's just an idea.

If everyone can agree... I've been to many places in my lifetime, and I've served over 14 years in the military. You seem to be suffering from what many Westerners suffer. You think people all throughout the world think the way Westerners think. Don't try to deny it -- your posts smack of it. I had the priviledge to serve in the Middle East for almost a year, mostly in Kuwait, with a couple of months in Saudi Arabia. They do not think the way Westerners think. They do not hold our values. They do not hold dear that which Westerners hold dear. They may as well be on another planet. It is nearly impossible to explain the huge chasm between us culterally and otherwise. Go to the Middle East. Live there for a year. Then come back and say it again:

If everyone can agree...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-28 12:17am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:Obviously. But from my personal perspective, the preservation of civil liberties should never come down to ending a man's life. Instead, the infringement upon domestic civil liberties, like the right to a feeling of security, should be pointed out to other countries. And if there is some kind of pact between nations that requires sacrifices from one country to benefit the civil liberties of another country, this world will become a lot less violent. If those kinds of standards were implemented in society, things would be dandy.

It's extreme, and it would never work. But that's the only argument you can make. Because arguing against this is to say that the soldiers in Iraq, who risk their own lives for our civil liberties, are wrong in making those sacrifices. If we are willing to risk our own lives for the preservation of our liberty, and if we agree that there is a brotherhood among ALL men, regardless of race, creed, code or cult, then we must NECESSARILY agree that it is right and good to make sacrifices to preserve the uniform and universal civil liberties granted to us by global society and common decency.

That's the point I was trying to make. Finally.
And maybe, if this were a perfect world, that would work.

And I would have a girl friend.

But, since this world isn't perfect, war is almost inevitable. Sad to say, but it's true.
I knew SOMEONE was going to pull out that old cliche. I just didn't know it was going to happen so soon.

Sure, world's not perfect. Fine. Whatever. But this doesn't require a perfect world. It requires a little bit of logic, and a little bit of humility. And if everyone can agree that these are qualities we'd like to see in world leaders, then we have a case for reform. All we need is to take this idea and run with it and make a logistical set of universal foreign policies. Bury hatches, burn the grudges, start over. Obviously that would never work in today's society. It's just an idea.

Did you bother looking at the world today. Most people hate someone else's guts.

You can, of course, go to Kosovo, or Rwanda, or Chechnya, or Israel, or Kurdistan, and start preaching your noble ideals of peace. However, since most of these people hate America as well, I'm afraid you won't live long enough to finish your impassioned speech.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-28 12:26am

jegs2 wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:Sure, world's not perfect. Fine. Whatever. But this doesn't require a perfect world. It requires a little bit of logic, and a little bit of humility. And if everyone can agree that these are qualities we'd like to see in world leaders, then we have a case for reform. All we need is to take this idea and run with it and make a logistical set of universal foreign policies. Bury hatches, burn the grudges, start over. Obviously that would never work in today's society. It's just an idea.
If everyone can agree... I've been to many places in my lifetime, and I've served over 14 years in the military. You seem to be suffering from what many Westerners suffer. You think people all throughout the world think the way Westerners think. Don't try to deny it -- your posts smack of it. I had the priviledge to serve in the Middle East for almost a year, mostly in Kuwait, with a couple of months in Saudi Arabia. They do not think the way Westerners think. They do not hold our values. They do not hold dear that which Westerners hold dear. They may as well be on another planet. It is nearly impossible to explain the huge chasm between us culterally and otherwise. Go to the Middle East. Live there for a year. Then come back and say it again:

If everyone can agree...

This is true. Or at least I'll take your word that it's true. But pacifism is a condition of humanity, not a creation of Western thought. There are those who will fight at the drop of a hat, those who will fight if need be, and those who will not fight. I am one of the latter, and I would argue that if more people were like that, regardless of their culture, it would be much easier to come to an understanding. ("agreement" might have been the wrong word.) Unfortunately, such is not the reality of humanity. But people can learn pacifism. They can learn passive resistance and diplomacy. They can learn about ways to protest without egging cars or defacing buildings. They can all learn. People just need to teach them. Ghandi tried. King tried. Hell, both JFK and Bobby Kennedy tried. And it worked for a while. I want to know what happened to that kind of mentality. What happened to peace over violence, to love over hatred, to humanity over tradition, to revolution for the good of humanity over unwritten societal laws found deep in the faded pages of antiquated novels on social propriety? The world, or at least most of the world, has devolved into nothing more than a mechanical, hypocritical, volitile, self-destructive shadow of its potential.

I'm calling it a night. Someone please refute that logically that I might prove my point.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-03-28 12:28am

"Pacifism for the sake of pacifism is the utter height of selfishness when it prevents you from helping those in danger." -Tycho Celchu

This whole thread is reminding me of that quote.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-28 01:05am

Stormbringer wrote:
theski wrote:Once again someone else has to pick up a gun or sword and protect Queebs, right to protest them.. Then they spit on the ones that do.
It's a damn shame that we can't use people like that for human sheilds.

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patroits and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson

They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.

It reminds me of the hypocrisy of those arch-pacifist assholes the hippies. They rioted and protested to bring our troops home and then spat on them when they got here. Thanks a lot you dirty long haired freaks.

Thank you for saying that, Stormbringer.

The U.S. NEVER needs to forget about things like that (the Jefferson quote, the hippe traitors who spat on our soldiers [read: commie-jane]).

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-28 01:08am

Nathan F wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
theski wrote:Once again someone else has to pick up a gun or sword and protect Queebs, right to protest them.. Then they spit on the ones that do.
It's a damn shame that we can't use people like that for human sheilds.

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patroits and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson

They forget that freedom comes at a price and that not matter their own ideal the world is a dangerous. Our troops have fought bloody wars to defend your rights. They deserve respect for that.

It reminds me of the hypocrisy of those arch-pacifist assholes the hippies. They rioted and protested to bring our troops home and then spat on them when they got here. Thanks a lot you dirty long haired freaks.
Thank you for saying that, Stormbringer.

The U.S. NEVER needs to forget about things like that (the Jefferson quote, the hippe traitors who spat on our soldiers [read: commie-jane]).

Excuse me, but we're not talking about those hypocrit hippie bastards. We're talking about pacifists. Keep it on-target, please.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-28 01:09am

Hmm, good point, sorry for straying off tangent.

As to pacifism, my reply to that is a bit farther up.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-28 01:17am

IG-88E wrote:"Pacifism for the sake of pacifism is the utter height of selfishness when it prevents you from helping those in danger." -Tycho Celchu

This whole thread is reminding me of that quote.

Excellent quote. And I think that sums up most people's positions regarding Queeb's pacifism (at least my position anyway) quite nicely.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-28 01:21am

IG-88E wrote:"Pacifism for the sake of pacifism is the utter height of selfishness when it prevents you from helping those in danger." -Tycho Celchu

This whole thread is reminding me of that quote.

I agree.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-28 01:41am

I have seen interviews with the little girl from Life Magazine who grew up to be an emergency medicine doctor/surgeon after she survived the Napalm attack against the NVA who were using her village as human shields.

She's still dealing with kids torn apart by the land mines the NVA & the VC left for the U.S. and Southvietnamiese soldiers.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-28 01:43am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I have seen interviews with the little girl from Life Magazine who grew up to be an emergency medicine doctor/surgeon after she survived the Napalm attack against the NVA who were using her village as human shields.

She's still dealing with kids torn apart by the land mines the NVA & the VC left for the U.S. and Southvietnamiese soldiers.

Tragic, but how's that our fault?

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-28 01:47am

RogueIce wrote:Tragic, but how's that our fault?

Arg, still thinking in terms of Ymir's posts... Please disregard...

Anyway, in the pacifism stance. Yes, that is one of the tragic consequences of war. Without getting into a debate on Vietnam however, I'm not going to get into whether it was justified or not (our involvement anyway. The NVA and VC leaving land mines around villages and NEVER picking them up again is about on par with Saddam murdering his own population).

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-28 01:50am

RogueIce wrote:
RogueIce wrote:Tragic, but how's that our fault?
Arg, still thinking in terms of Ymir's posts... Please disregard...

That...entity...is screwing with our minds!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-28 02:17am

fgalkin wrote:
RogueIce wrote:
RogueIce wrote:Tragic, but how's that our fault?
Arg, still thinking in terms of Ymir's posts... Please disregard...

That...entity...is screwing with our minds!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, no kidding...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-03-28 02:47am

I was making refrence to the simularity between the two cases, also thinking about the little girl with green eyes from National Geographic's cover on the people of Afganistan, during the Soviet occupation, and how they found her again after the Taliban was ousted, how her family had suffered first at the hands of the Soviets, and later at the hands of the religiously intolerant.

War is never black and white, and the Civilians will always be caught in the middle. But, as long as we intend to be free ourselves we must do these things. There are wolves at the door and as the Roman's said "Those who seek peace must prepare for war"