Why I oppose war in general. (Gruesome)

[Queeb Salaron]

"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.

That quote is a bit faulty. Like I said, it's insane to say that you wouldn't help a person in danger. Obviously I would. But as I stated before, there is a difference between helping someone and lashing out against the people who attack them. For example, I fully support the troops in Iraq. I hope they do what needs to get done and get home quickly and safely. But I do not support the reasons for them being there. The logic behind sending soldiers to Iraq seems to me to be slightly flawed, but that's another string entirely. But because the soldiers are only acting out in the interests of peace, (and, honestly, because I can't do or say a damned thing that will end this war today,) I have no choice but to hope for more peacful conditions from here on out. But it still disturbs me. And it should. War is a terrible creation. Violence is a terrible creation.... But I digress.

[Coyote]

Queeb, here is where I have to question your stance on pacifism and the use of force. You claim to be a pacifist and claim a high moral ground because of this, yet you find nothing wrong with using other people to protect you with force.

Be it the military from an outside threat or a policeman from an immediate threat, you thrive in a society because other people are required to use force to maintain stability.

Your pacifist stance is, in my opinion, naive more than "stupid" or "cowardly" (although I do think there may be some element of fear in it). Why have you come to this conclusion; what events in your past bring you to the conclusion that pacifism is the answer-- while at the same time justifying your existence in a society that protects you through use or threat of force?

[RogueIce]

Queeb, here is where I have to question your stance on pacifism and the use of force. You claim to be a pacifist and claim a high moral ground because of this, yet you find nothing wrong with using other people to protect you with force.

Be it the military from an outside threat or a policeman from an immediate threat, you thrive in a society because other people are required to use force to maintain stability.

Your pacifist stance is, in my opinion, naive more than "stupid" or "cowardly" (although I do think there may be some element of fear in it). Why have you come to this conclusion; what events in your past bring you to the conclusion that pacifism is the answer-- while at the same time justifying your existence in a society that protects you through use or threat of force?

Agreed. And that, I believe, is the point behind the Celchu quote. If I remember the books right, that IS the context in which he made that statement, ie: "Why are you fighting?" or something along those lines.

[Soulman]

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.

How do you mean devolved? The world has always been wracked with war, conflict and suffering. From when man first arose in Africa we have fought each other. The very thing that has made us so successful (our tribal units) has made conflict between us inevitable.

Between peaceful democracies diaglogue works, but put Mugabe, Saddam, Mao or Hitler is in charge and diplomacy ceases to work. These 'people' only work to further themselves, thier lust for power and disregard for thier people makes force the only way to remove them for the good of thier people.

On pacifists:
Some pacifists are brave, courageous people. Many conciencious objectors served in both world wars as medics (an episode of Dad's Army illustrates this well), some reciving medals for valour.

[Queeb Salaron]

Queeb, here is where I have to question your stance on pacifism and the use of force. You claim to be a pacifist and claim a high moral ground because of this, yet you find nothing wrong with using other people to protect you with force.

Be it the military from an outside threat or a policeman from an immediate threat, you thrive in a society because other people are required to use force to maintain stability.

Your pacifist stance is, in my opinion, naive more than "stupid" or "cowardly" (although I do think there may be some element of fear in it). Why have you come to this conclusion; what events in your past bring you to the conclusion that pacifism is the answer-- while at the same time justifying your existence in a society that protects you through use or threat of force?

I wrote that post first thing in the morning, and I just re-read it. I forgot to make my point.

I tried to add on to my original justification of pacifism by stating that this war is an exception, in a tragic way. I have come to terms that regardless of how much I preach against war in Iraq, our fearless leader has already started the war. He's not going to pull out now; that would be sadistic and a HUGE waste of money. So I have to come to terms with the fact that there is violence in the world, and while it may not be right, it's something that I have to live with. As I've said before, the absolute best and most productive thing that I can possibly do is support the US troops and pray for a swift, effective victory with as little death and violence as is possible (which is strange to say, considering... you know... it's WAR). Essentially, because violence is inevitable, the best I can do is pray that it's not too bad.

That being said, I can still maintain a pacifist stance, because as I said before, pacifism is a personal endeavor. I personally choose not to use violence. And I prefer it when other people don't use violence. Personally, I could never (again) strike out in anger or passion. I advocate the use of non-violent means whenever possible to satisfy an objective. Some pacifists agree that there are certain situations wherein the use of harmful force is necessary as all other options have been exhausted. I am not of that opinion, but that may be because since I vowed to be a pacifist I have not come across such a situation.

The thing about pacifism is that it's a theory. Not even that. It's a hypothesis. It's a collection of rules of personal government that sit in your head and make sense when you're sitting in your living room reading a book in front of your fireplace. But when you walk outside of your home and wander the streets of the big city, things change. You're confronted with the rough, dark underbelly of American society. Suddenly you can hear Darwin's voice in the back of your head as you look down dark alleys at broken shards of liquor bottles and the homeless men sleeping between them. The ragged teenager on the corner glances your way, and your blood freezes when, for a split second, you can almost see him reaching for the gun tucked between the elastic band of his underpants and the malnourished flesh on the small of his back. Suddenly being a pacifist puts you at a distinct disadvantage, or so it would seem.

But what I have found is that in those dark alleys and crowded street corners, I see people. People can generally be reasoned with. And if they can be reasoned with, crisises can be avoided. As for those few who can't be reasoned with, well... I don't know how pacifism applies to them, as I've never really encountered a violent person who can't be talked to. But allegedly, Sadaam Hussein is one of those people. And so I am proud that I have someone (rather, the A,N,M,AF&CG) to protect me. This is where the hypothesis fails. Pacifism is not a good way to run a nation in a time of war. But in times of peace, I find that a pacifist stance goes a helluva long way.

[fgalkin]

Queeb, here is where I have to question your stance on pacifism and the use of force. You claim to be a pacifist and claim a high moral ground because of this, yet you find nothing wrong with using other people to protect you with force.

Be it the military from an outside threat or a policeman from an immediate threat, you thrive in a society because other people are required to use force to maintain stability.

Your pacifist stance is, in my opinion, naive more than "stupid" or "cowardly" (although I do think there may be some element of fear in it). Why have you come to this conclusion; what events in your past bring you to the conclusion that pacifism is the answer-- while at the same time justifying your existence in a society that protects you through use or threat of force?

I wrote that post first thing in the morning, and I just re-read it. I forgot to make my point.

I tried to add on to my original justification of pacifism by stating that this war is an exception, in a tragic way. I have come to terms that regardless of how much I preach against war in Iraq, our fearless leader has already started the war. He's not going to pull out now; that would be sadistic and a HUGE waste of money. So I have to come to terms with the fact that there is violence in the world, and while it may not be right, it's something that I have to live with.

So, there is no violence in the world other than the war in Iraq?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Queeb Salaron]

So, there is no violence in the world other than the war in Iraq?

I don't even believe I'm going to dignify that with a response...

Stop being ignorant. Of course there is violence in other places. But the things I stated before still apply universally. I used Sadaam as an example. Here, I'll summarize it for you:

Pacifism is a collection of ideas that seem to work in times of peace, but when threatened the ordinary person can easily see how pacifism fails.

The ordinary person, however, does not understand the basic principles of pacifisim. Pacifists agree that most people can be reasoned with, and if they can be reasoned with, violent conflict can be averted.

As for those who CAN'T be reasoned with (i.e. Sadaam Hussein), pacifism does not account for them. Which is why I'm glad that there are people who are willing to step up and defend us. If such people did not exist, we pacifists would be dead.

In summary, pacifism works wonders for society in times of peace. But in times of war, it is obviously lacking. But I can't just turn my pacifism off, and so war disgusts me. Is there anything I can do about this war, or any war? No, of course not. The government doesn't listen to pacifists, because as most people in the US agree (57%, as of the last FOX poll), some wars, like this one, are necessary. Pacifists are in the minority, and therefore their opinions are less effective. Fine. So the best I can do is pray for as little violence as possible, a swift and relatively painless victory for the US.

Now if I didn't beat you over the head with my points and their universality, I've got a big-ass pair of pliers I'll let you borrow to extract your head from your ass.

[fgalkin]

So, there is no violence in the world other than the war in Iraq?

I don't even believe I'm going to dignify that with a response...

Stop being ignorant. Of course there is violence in other places. But the things I stated before still apply universally. I used Sadaam as an example. Here, I'll summarize it for you:

Pacifism is a collection of ideas that seem to work in times of peace, but when threatened the ordinary person can easily see how pacifism fails.

The ordinary person, however, does not understand the basic principles of pacifisim. Pacifists agree that most people can be reasoned with, and if they can be reasoned with, violent conflict can be averted.

As for those who CAN'T be reasoned with (i.e. Sadaam Hussein), pacifism does not account for them. Which is why I'm glad that there are people who are willing to step up and defend us. If such people did not exist, we pacifists would be dead.

it seems that your current position (i.e. some wars are necessary) is quite different from what you posted originally (all war is wrong).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[theski]

Fgalkin, I quess when you beat about the head and shoulders for 2 or 3 pages you tend to modify your position..

[Queeb Salaron]

it seems that your current position (i.e. some wars are necessary) is quite different from what you posted originally (all war is wrong).

Sweet baby Jesus, boy, do you know how to read?! I SPECIFICALLY said that MOST Americans believe the war is necessary, and that pacifists were in the MINORITY. Meaning that I DON'T believe this war is necessary. But what is my bitching and moaning against it going to do? Nothing. So I have no choice but to... aw, fuck it. You're not worth the energy. Besides, that would be the THIRD time I repeated myself. Grow a brain and learn to read.

[fgalkin]

it seems that your current position (i.e. some wars are necessary) is quite different from what you posted originally (all war is wrong).

Sweet baby Jesus, boy, do you know how to read?! I SPECIFICALLY said that MOST Americans believe the war is necessary, and that pacifists were in the MINORITY. Meaning that I DON'T believe this war is necessary. But what is my bitching and moaning against it going to do? Nothing. So I have no choice but to... aw, fuck it. You're not worth the energy. Besides, that would be the THIRD time I repeated myself. Grow a brain and learn to read.

As for those who CAN'T be reasoned with (i.e. Sadaam Hussein), pacifism does not account for them. Which is why I'm glad that there are people who are willing to step up and defend us. If such people did not exist, we pacifists would be dead

A definite change.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Queeb Salaron]

it seems that your current position (i.e. some wars are necessary) is quite different from what you posted originally (all war is wrong).

Sweet baby Jesus, boy, do you know how to read?! I SPECIFICALLY said that MOST Americans believe the war is necessary, and that pacifists were in the MINORITY. Meaning that I DON'T believe this war is necessary. But what is my bitching and moaning against it going to do? Nothing. So I have no choice but to... aw, fuck it. You're not worth the energy. Besides, that would be the THIRD time I repeated myself. Grow a brain and learn to read.

As for those who CAN'T be reasoned with (i.e. Sadaam Hussein), pacifism does not account for them. Which is why I'm glad that there are people who are willing to step up and defend us. If such people did not exist, we pacifists would be dead

A definite change.

Are you even serious? The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. The first quote simply states that even though I am opposed to war, no one listens to me because I'm a pacifist, and we're unconditionally against war or violence of any sort. The second one states the fact that pacifism fails to deal with the concept of people who refuse to listen to logic. Or at least it does in the best of my experiences. So it's a good thing that others are around who don't have those kinds of convictions. That way, I stay alive.

Christ...

[Kuja]

As for those who CAN'T be reasoned with (i.e. Sadaam Hussein), pacifism does not account for them. Which is why I'm glad that there are people who are willing to step up and defend us. If such people did not exist, we pacifists would be dead.

This is where pacifism begins to break down. When a person says "No, I won't fight and die to protect anyone, even myself, but you can go ahead and do it," it pretty well ceases to be pacifism and becomes selfishness and hypocrisy.

In summary, pacifism works wonders for society in times of peace. But in times of war, it is obviously lacking. But I can't just turn my pacifism off, and so war disgusts me. Is there anything I can do about this war, or any war? No, of course not. The government doesn't listen to pacifists, because as most people in the US agree (57%, as of the last FOX poll), some wars, like this one, are necessary. Pacifists are in the minority, and therefore their opinions are less effective. Fine. So the best I can do is pray for as little violence as possible, a swift and relatively painless victory for the US.

Orangetext = That's why pacifism is good in theory and in some practice, but fails when somone crosses the line. It would be a nice world if n one was aggressive, but that's not reality.

There's a difference between trying to keep violence to a minimum and saying "All violence is wrong." I don't go around looking for a fight, but if I'm attacked, I WILL fight back.

Now if I didn't beat you over the head with my points and their universality, I've got a big-ass pair of pliers I'll let you borrow to extract your head from your ass.

I'm afraid YOU'RE the one with his head up his ass. Stop living in your fantasy world and come back to reality. Violence IS necessary at times.

[Kuja]

Another good quote on the hypocrisy of pacifism:

How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?...If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

-Jeff Snyder

[Nathan F]

So, it is OK for you to be a pacifist, as long as other people fight and die to keep you safe.

The idea that someone would think that sickens me.

[Queeb Salaron]

Another good quote on the hypocrisy of pacifism:

How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself?...If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

-Jeff Snyder

First of all, I NEVER called on another to protect me. Nor does any pacifist. The reality of my situation, and the situation of the world at large, though, is that there ARE people who resort to force in the name of protecting their people... even those who refuse to fight and think it is reprehensible to do so. I admire the signs of protestors that read "Not In Our Name," for example. In essence, while I do not condone violence in any situation, I realize that pacifism would have failed to reach a feasible solution in the case of Iraq. So my hypothesis of pacifism wouldn't have worked.

And for the record, I DO take responsibility for the lives of those around me. Like I said, I would take a bullet for those I love, but I would never fire one. It's passive resistence, and the war-minded don't always understand that concept.

So, it is OK for you to be a pacifist, as long as other people fight and die to keep you safe.

The idea that someone would think that sickens me.

No, it's OK for me to be a pacifist, even if others don't protect me. But as I just said, in this case, pacifism fails. And beisdes that, I never asked troops to go to Iraq to protect me. My pacifism is not conditional upon my protection. I would become a martyr to save the lives of the many. It's passive resistence. The thought that someone would go into another country and blindly kill someone they've never met because they were told that that person was bad... that thought sickens ME. So you can have it either way.

[Queeb Salaron]

This is where pacifism begins to break down. When a person says "No, I won't fight and die to protect anyone, even myself, but you can go ahead and do it," it pretty well ceases to be pacifism and becomes selfishness and hypocrisy.

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm admitting that pacifism fails in certain situations. And the humanistic side of me says that it's good that there's SOMEone to fill in the gaps of pacifism when I can't justify it myself. It's not selfish; in fact, it's just the opposite. I'd be willing to die to preserve my pacifist ideals, because I cannot justify murder or assault of any kind. And, as you said a bit later, that doesn't work in contemporary society. But because there are those who are willing to fight, I am alive. I recognize this, though I do not condone their actions. It's a bit warped, and a little paradoxical, but not contradictory. I recognize that there are essentiall two types of people when it comes to violence: Those can be violent, and those who can't be. Those who can be violent protect society from outside threats, and those who cannot be violent help to prevent violence from within society. It's a symbiotic relationship: One cannot exist without the other, lest we succumb to hedonism or placidity.

Orangetext = That's why pacifism is good in theory and in some practice, but fails when somone crosses the line. It would be a nice world if n one was aggressive, but that's not reality.

Exactly my point. Which is why I'm glad that there are others who can fill in where pacifism leaves off. The same way that career military men are often glad that there are enough pacifists (or pseudo-pacifists) in the world that they're often out of combat-mode.

There's a difference between trying to keep violence to a minimum and saying "All violence is wrong." I don't go around looking for a fight, but if I'm attacked, I WILL fight back.

And you should be proud of that the same way that I am proud of my pacifism. Fortunatly for you, you can swing both ways. Some people (like myself) cannot. I'm non-combative. And there are those who are pugnacious by nature, those who are constantly violent. And we all fill in where we are needed. It's how we as a society operate.

I'm afraid YOU'RE the one with his head up his ass. Stop living in your fantasy world and come back to reality. Violence IS necessary at times.

First of all, I apologize to fgalkin for being so harsh. Caught me in a bad mood. But to address Nathan's point, I never argued that violence was universally unnecessary. I just said that I've never come across a situation where violence was the only course of action. I believe that such a situation could, theoretically, exist, and Bush has argued that such a situation exists currently in the world in Iraq. And while I will never condone the actions of the military, I realize their necessity. Sadaam needs to go, and he will not go without a fight. I don't condone fighting, and so my state of mind would not solve anything. Bush sees this and decides that he wants to solve this problem quickly and ultimately. I can't blame him for that, I suppose. But I still do not support killing.

Most pacifists subscribe to the Just War Theory, which is vast and complicated, but which basically justifies war under the conditions that you all have provided: namely that there is absolutely no other way out, and that it is for the protection of onesself and the masses at large. I'm reading more into it, and perhaps at a later date I'll change my opinion a bit. But as for right now, I'm the purest of pacifists imaginable. If you so desire, look up the Just War Theory. I think it's a published document in the Catholic Church, if not doctrine.[/quote]

[RogueIce]

So it's a good thing that others are around who don't have those kinds of convictions. That way, I stay alive.

Christ...

Yeah, not selfish there. No, not at all...

[IRG CommandoJoe]

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?

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

Ghandi, King, and the boy in Tianamen Square were all good people. And to some extent, the hippies. But not ALL pacifists are. Blocking up traffic not only...blocks up traffic... ...but it distracts an unecessary amount of police officers from actually fighting REAL crime and protecting citizens from REAL threats. If that isn't damage to society, I don't know what else is. I couldn't care less if they protested out of the way. But to actually lay down in the streets and chain themselves to garbage pails and stuff (saw this in NYC recently)....is just absurd. Like police officers have nothing else better to do with their time. If they are intelligent people (as you claim later on in the thread), then they should realize that they are causing more harm than good for the city.

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.

I can name Chamberlain for appeasing Nazis. And buying illegal drugs funds drug dealers who kill people...so...indirect violence. And I don't personally know any pacifists....except maybe my aunt. But I don't know her opinion on the war, so...eh... Besides, pacifists by definition are only opposed to war. This means that pacifists could be dumbass fundies, racists, homophobes, etc. You could still be a bad person and not like war. Look at Woodrow Wilson. He was mostly a pacifist, yet he was a major racist.

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.

I don't buy into this unconscious muscle reaction stuff. The overwhelming majority of the members of this board are not pacifists but are intelligent as you describe your fellow pacifists. Rest assured that they think before they say and/or decide things.

[Queeb Salaron]

Ghandi, King, and the boy in Tianamen Square were all good people. And to some extent, the hippies. But not ALL pacifists are. Blocking up traffic not only...blocks up traffic... ...but it distracts an unecessary amount of police officers from actually fighting REAL crime and protecting citizens from REAL threats. If that isn't damage to society, I don't know what else is. I couldn't care less if they protested out of the way. But to actually lay down in the streets and chain themselves to garbage pails and stuff (saw this in NYC recently)....is just absurd. Like police officers have nothing else better to do with their time. If they are intelligent people (as you claim later on in the thread), then they should realize that they are causing more harm than good for the city.

Well, the argument that the war-protestors would make is that the government is going to get us all killed anyway, so having the police protect the people will be futile in a matter of weeks or months anyway. Which is why I dislike protestors so much.

There was a protest in Government Center in Boston that I was caught in (it seems that even when I go SHOPPING there has to be a protest ::sigh::), and it was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Anti-war protestors on one side of the street, pro-war people on the other side. There were anti-war people throwing things at pro-war people and calling for peace as they were doing so. Dodging the small rocks and sticks being thrown at them, the pro-war people shouted appalling pseudonyms at the anti-war people, among them "Peace Nazis." I couldn't help but laugh as a soccer mom leaned out of her car window and shouted at some pro-war people, inspiring one man to run after her in a threatening manner. Imagine the kids on their way to soccer practice. "Mommy, why is that man chasing after us?... What does THAT word mean?"

I can name Chamberlain for appeasing Nazis. And buying illegal drugs funds drug dealers who kill people...so...indirect violence. And I don't personally know any pacifists....except maybe my aunt. But I don't know her opinion on the war, so...eh... Besides, pacifists by definition are only opposed to war. This means that pacifists could be dumbass fundies, racists, homophobes, etc. You could still be a bad person and not like war. Look at Woodrow Wilson. He was mostly a pacifist, yet he was a major racist.

True true and true. I hadn't thought about the fundie pacifists (and let me say right now that fundies give a bad name to ANY group they represent), never mind the racists and homophobes. You're right. But those people exist on the pro-war side as well. And I know no one ever claimed that pro-war people are comprised of the best and brightest of American society, but the thing we have to realize is that these kinds of people exist in EVERY group. Maybe moreso among pacifists... But I don't know how a racist could OPPOSE this war. After all, "all dem dere sand n*ggers and doon coons and camel jockeys who tie their laundry to their heads with fan belts need to be erradicated from the face of the earth." (Lev. 8:24)

I don't buy into this unconscious muscle reaction stuff. The overwhelming majority of the members of this board are not pacifists but are intelligent as you describe your fellow pacifists. Rest assured that they think before they say and/or decide things.

Oh, I'm sure they do. But I would argue (with no biological evidence to back me up ) that pacifists repress the "fight" part of "fight or flight." It just seems logical to me that because violence is not a part of a pacifist's thought process, it can never hold sway in any instantaneous decision. If that makes sense.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Well, the argument that the war-protestors would make is that the government is going to get us all killed anyway, so having the police protect the people will be futile in a matter of weeks or months anyway. Which is why I dislike protestors so much.

As do I.

There was a protest in Government Center in Boston that I was caught in (it seems that even when I go SHOPPING there has to be a protest ::sigh::), and it was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Anti-war protestors on one side of the street, pro-war people on the other side. There were anti-war people throwing things at pro-war people and calling for peace as they were doing so. Dodging the small rocks and sticks being thrown at them, the pro-war people shouted appalling pseudonyms at the anti-war people, among them "Peace Nazis." I couldn't help but laugh as a soccer mom leaned out of her car window and shouted at some pro-war people, inspiring one man to run after her in a threatening manner. Imagine the kids on their way to soccer practice. "Mommy, why is that man chasing after us?... What does THAT word mean?"

LOL

True true and true. I hadn't thought about the fundie pacifists (and let me say right now that fundies give a bad name to ANY group they represent), never mind the racists and homophobes. You're right. But those people exist on the pro-war side as well. And I know no one ever claimed that pro-war people are comprised of the best and brightest of American society, but the thing we have to realize is that these kinds of people exist in EVERY group. Maybe moreso among pacifists... But I don't know how a racist could OPPOSE this war.

However, a racist could be an Iraqi as well as a redneck, couldn't one?

After all, "all dem dere sand n*ggers and doon coons and camel jockeys who tie their laundry to their heads with fan belts need to be erradicated from the face of the earth." (Lev. 8:24)

Oh, I'm sure they do. But I would argue (with no biological evidence to back me up ) that pacifists repress the "fight" part of "fight or flight." It just seems logical to me that because violence is not a part of a pacifist's thought process, it can never hold sway in any instantaneous decision. If that makes sense.

You mean in situations like a mugging or a murder? I thought you meant the thought processes in general. Well, then...(shrugs)...I dunno...

[IRG CommandoJoe]

True true and true. I hadn't thought about the fundie pacifists (and let me say right now that fundies give a bad name to ANY group they represent), never mind the racists and homophobes. You're right. But those people exist on the pro-war side as well. And I know no one ever claimed that pro-war people are comprised of the best and brightest of American society, but the thing we have to realize is that these kinds of people exist in EVERY group. Maybe moreso among pacifists... But I don't know how a racist could OPPOSE this war.

However, a racist could be an Iraqi as well as a redneck, couldn't one?

I might not have clearly made my point. My point is that a pacifist and racist Iraqi would be opposed to the war. So that's how this situation could occur.

[Queeb Salaron]

True true and true. I hadn't thought about the fundie pacifists (and let me say right now that fundies give a bad name to ANY group they represent), never mind the racists and homophobes. You're right. But those people exist on the pro-war side as well. And I know no one ever claimed that pro-war people are comprised of the best and brightest of American society, but the thing we have to realize is that these kinds of people exist in EVERY group. Maybe moreso among pacifists... But I don't know how a racist could OPPOSE this war.

However, a racist could be an Iraqi as well as a redneck, couldn't one?

Well... yes. But near as I can tell, there aren't many Iraqi pacifists. Those who are for Sadaam are obviously militant, and those who are against him want him taken out by force.

But to address your question, yes, Iraqis could be racist pacifists. And I would pity those poor souls terribly; imagine how enraged they must be! Not only are dreaded white men invading their country (and 200 Spaniards, as well. Let's not forget Spain ) but they are wreaking violent havoc on the cities of Iraq as well. Their pacifism is offended, as well as their racial bias. Such a sad state of affairs... But that's still only hypothetical. So yes, a pacifist and racist Iraqi would be opposed to the war. But like I said of pro-war people, pacifists are not necessarily comprised of the best and brightest.

[Tsyroc]

The Enterprise book Sarak's Soul that I read a couple of days ago deals with pacifism in the extreme. A species wouldn't even kill microbes (viruses, bacteria) to save their entire species.

The book mentions how Ghandi and his followers were able to push the British out of India by giving them the choice to do something horrendous (kill very large numbers of the unarmed protesters) or to leave. Personally I still consider what they did as using force since their methods pushed the British into doing something they didn't want to do. It's a much less agressive use of force but it's still force of a sort. They are just lucky that the Brits didn't just say "Fuck it" and whipe the lot of them out.

[Queeb Salaron]

The Enterprise book Sarak's Soul that I read a couple of days ago deals with pacifism in the extreme. A species wouldn't even kill microbes (viruses, bacteria) to save their entire species.

The book mentions how Ghandi and his followers were able to push the British out of India by giving them the choice to do something horrendous (kill very large numbers of the unarmed protesters) or to leave. Personally I still consider what they did as using force since their methods pushed the British into doing something they didn't want to do. It's a much less agressive use of force but it's still force of a sort. They are just lucky that the Brits didn't just say "Fuck it" and whipe the lot of them out.

Well here we see an example of where pacifism fails and where it succeeds. Obviously microbes and viri will not listen to reason (otherwise biotech would be filled with lawyers... moreso than it already is), and so there needs to be an alternative outside of pacifism. I speak from a third-person omniscient point of view: There MUST be something to fill in the gaps of pacifism, otherwise we all die. That's not to say that pacifism is bad, but like all social philosophies it fails in some respects.

In the case of the British in India, though, we see pacifism succeed where violence would have failed. Think about it: If India had launched a military campaign against the British in India, there would be a lot of dead Indians with the Union Jack flying over their graves. But passive resistance liberated India (maybe only because it gave England an ultimatum to either kill or move out, and England chose the lesser of what they considered two evils. After all, who wants to colonize a nation with a whole bunch of dead natives? It takes half the fun out of Imperialism. )