Why I oppose war in general. (Gruesome)

[Coyote]

But Queeb... you would, because of pacifist beliefs, allow another person's life to be taken? By refusing to enter into conflict with another person (or gov't), others would most certainly die, innocent people... how can sitting back and allowing their deaths be considered a moral act?

Sure, a person can protest all they want but we all know that a killer or a dictator will just laugh at such displays and continue to rampage with impunity. It seems a morally untenable position-- a theory doomed to failure, its adherents using this as a blanket excuse for inaction in the face of evil.

Remember,
"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing".

[Queeb Salaron]

But Queeb... you would, because of pacifist beliefs, allow another person's life to be taken?

Obviously I would try to talk them out of it. But that's not always an option. And in the case of war, the best I can do is protest people going over there in the first place. Which I did. And it obviously didn't work. So now it's too late to "allow another person's life to be taken" because they already did it of their own free will

By refusing to enter into conflict with another person (or gov't), others would most certainly die, innocent people... how can sitting back and allowing their deaths be considered a moral act?

Hey, I tried to stop them. But they didn't listen. Bush himself said that he would not be deterred by protestors. What was I gonna do, make clones of myself and stand on military runways and sea ports and physically keep 250,000 military-minded (read: JACKED) men from going overseas? ::Shrugs:: I didn't LET them go, the just went regardless of whether or not I (and other protestors) told them not to.

Sure, a person can protest all they want but we all know that a killer or a dictator will just laugh at such displays and continue to rampage with impunity.

That's what we've been discussing: The shortcomings of pacifism. I realize that when people fail to listen to logic, pacifists lose their edge. But in times of peace, pacifists are some of the best citizens (as far as crime and justice go) that any country could hope for.

It seems a morally untenable position-- a theory doomed to failure, its adherents using this as a blanket excuse for inaction in the face of evil.

How can you say that advocating for unconditional peace is a morally untenable position? If you would argue that pacifists call on others to defend them in times of crisis, you're mistaken. Again, soldiers join the army with the pretense of possibly having to kill people. That's a part of the job description. We pacifists neither send them to defend us, nor do we advocate for their actions. But OBJECTIVELY (that's the key word), I personally realize that if it weren't for these men and women, I would probably be speaking another language, be it French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, Portugese, whatever.

Remember,
"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Well, yeah, but pacifists don't "do nothing." They protest, the state their opinions... they're kind of like career diplomats. Can you just as easily say that Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Bobby or John F. Kennedy did NOTHING? I protested, I waved my signs spouting anti-corporate slogans, I chanted things like "Exxon, Mobil, BP, Shell / Take you war and go to Hell!" But unlike King or Ghandi or the Kennedy brothers, I was not successful. Just because my actions (and the actions of pacifists worldwide) didn't WORK doesn't mean we didn't DO anything.[/i]

[RogueIce]

Remember,
"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Well, yeah, but pacifists don't "do nothing." They protest, the state their opinions... they're kind of like career diplomats. Can you just as easily say that Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Bobby or John F. Kennedy did NOTHING? I protested, I waved my signs spouting anti-corporate slogans, I chanted things like "Exxon, Mobil, BP, Shell / Take you war and go to Hell!" But unlike King or Ghandi or the Kennedy brothers, I was not successful. Just because my actions (and the actions of pacifists worldwide) didn't WORK doesn't mean we didn't DO anything.[/i]

Yes, but what about true evil? Someone like Saddam, Hitler, or the Imperial Japanese Guy in WWII (name escapes me) wouldn't have given a flying fuck about people protesting...if they're in another country, they'll just laugh; if they're in their own country, they'll quietly disappear.

Only reason MLK and Gahndi worked was because those governments were NOT going to quietly execute them, and would NOT have committed mass murder. Hitler, Saddam, etc, would have no compunctions whatsoever about it.

[Queeb Salaron]

Yes, but what about true evil? Someone like Saddam, Hitler, or the Imperial Japanese Guy in WWII (name escapes me) wouldn't have given a flying fuck about people protesting...if they're in another country, they'll just laugh; if they're in their own country, they'll quietly disappear.

Only reason MLK and Gahndi worked was because those governments were NOT going to quietly execute them, and would NOT have committed mass murder. Hitler, Saddam, etc, would have no compunctions whatsoever about it.

Well now you're raising a very different point. The supreme irony to pacifism, as I've stated before (I think), is that it is, on its most basic level, anti-war... But in America, it was war and revolution that let us have the right to BE outspoken pacifists. But it is frequently argued that those revolutions fit within the ideas of the Just War Theory, something I have not researched enough to fully understand. That aside, the point you're trying to make still stands; pacifism works only in non-oppressive governments. And historically, that stands up when you're talking about pure evil such as Hitler, Sadaam, Stalin, Jong-Il (brainwashing triplets?! WTF?!), etc. But NO anti-government group works in those countries, within the country. They all get killed, usually institutionally. And when other countries protest the actions of those oppressive countries, they are called infidels or heretics, pseudonyms that become cause for a propoganda-driven war. And I will admit that in the case of this pure evil, fire must be fought with fire, at least when diplomacy fails. I will not contest that point that is frequently made by pro-warsies. Yes, pacifism fails in some respects. Sure. But so do most theories. At least I'm man enough to admit it.

[RogueIce]

Yes, but what about true evil? Someone like Saddam, Hitler, or the Imperial Japanese Guy in WWII (name escapes me) wouldn't have given a flying fuck about people protesting...if they're in another country, they'll just laugh; if they're in their own country, they'll quietly disappear.

Only reason MLK and Gahndi worked was because those governments were NOT going to quietly execute them, and would NOT have committed mass murder. Hitler, Saddam, etc, would have no compunctions whatsoever about it.

Well now you're raising a very different point. The supreme irony to pacifism, as I've stated before (I think), is that it is, on its most basic level, anti-war... But in America, it was war and revolution that let us have the right to BE outspoken pacifists. But it is frequently argued that those revolutions fit within the ideas of the Just War Theory, something I have not researched enough to fully understand. That aside, the point you're trying to make still stands; pacifism works only in non-oppressive governments. And historically, that stands up when you're talking about pure evil such as Hitler, Sadaam, Stalin, Jong-Il (brainwashing triplets?! WTF?!), etc. But NO anti-government group works in those countries, within the country. They all get killed, usually institutionally. And when other countries protest the actions of those oppressive countries, they are called infidels or heretics, pseudonyms that become cause for a propoganda-driven war. And I will admit that in the case of this pure evil, fire must be fought with fire, at least when diplomacy fails. I will not contest that point that is frequently made by pro-warsies. Yes, pacifism fails in some respects. Sure. But so do most theories. At least I'm man enough to admit it.

Yellowtext: If nothing else, that puts you one step up on DarkStar...

[Queeb Salaron]

Unfortunately, I never had the (dis)pleasure of meeting DarkStar. Joined a bit too late.

[Coyote]

It seems a morally untenable position-- a theory doomed to failure, its adherents using this as a blanket excuse for inaction in the face of evil.

How can you say that advocating for unconditional peace is a morally untenable position?...

Well, unconditional peace will, in truth, be peace on someone's terms since there will always be someone out there who will take what doesn't belong to him. And these people will force anyone who disagrees into subjugation or death. A refusal to get involved --with concrete, real action-- is a statement of ambivilance or compliance.

Would you, as a pacifist, go "like sheep to slaughter" and get aboard the boxcars to the camps, or would you be the one that turns his head and walks on, saying "there's nothing I can do"? Waving a sign and chanting a slogan that you know will be ignored... you do it anyway, to make yourself feel good? This seems to be the position you take, and I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, Queeb, seriously, but none of these stances strike me as particularly moral...

Remember,
"All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Well, yeah, but pacifists don't "do nothing." They protest, the state their opinions... they're kind of like career diplomats. Can you just as easily say that Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Bobby or John F. Kennedy did NOTHING? I protested, I waved my signs spouting anti-corporate slogans, I chanted things like "Exxon, Mobil, BP, Shell / Take you war and go to Hell!" But unlike King or Ghandi or the Kennedy brothers, I was not successful. Just because my actions (and the actions of pacifists worldwide) didn't WORK doesn't mean we didn't DO anything.[/i]

But what really did anyone DO? You told me the actions you took but remember, those activists you list as heroes were willing to confront and interpose themselves in order to make their point. They formed human chains and they formed phalanxes to break through others' human chains. They took the risks and got on the busses and went to the schools and dared to order their coffee in the honky's restaurant.

Maybe you should have formed human chains on the tarmacs of the runways if you really felt this way-- and while you were at it, why not protest Saddam's killing of civilians or send protesters to stand before the tanks rolling out of Baghdad, like the Chinese man at Tienanmen?

Shouting, scolding, or reiterating bumper-sticker slogans about wars for oil are just things you do, not stances taken. You blow off your steam and salve your conscience but don't take the truly important step of confronting what is wrong. And that means confronting both sides with this. When a pacifist or protester attacks only the one side it is quite naturally seen as a preference for the other side. Like it or not, deny it or not, but that is how you come across.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am asking you if you really have this conviction or is it a cover for inaction? Have you thought through the responsibilities of your position?

[Queeb Salaron]

For the record, I protested outside the hotel where a group of Iraqi diplomats (paradox?) were staying in Boston overnight. I did protest that. They don't like Americans going to Iraq any more than they like them going to Cuba, so I COULDN'T go there.

As for your statements about someone always taking what is not theirs, I have more faith in humankind than that. I believe that it is theoretically possible to imagine a state of humanity in which morality prevails. I honestly do. That's not to say that immorality is erradicated. Not by any means. Heavens no. That's impossible. But I do believe that some kind of VERY BASIC and VERY HUMANISTIC morals could be implemented worldwide and enforced without complaint. And on that basis I make most of my pacifist claims, because if everyone can do it, everyone can become a bit more peaceful.

As for making myself feel good by protesting, how can I feel good knowing that A) I'm not being listened to, and B) I'm seen as a coward? It's strangely hypocritical of the military-minded folks to say on the one hand, "We're fighting for your right to be a pacifist," and then in the same breath say, "You disgust me, you fucking pacifist coward." I have to laugh at the pro-war activist's power to glorify himself and his colleagues and berate all who do not support him at the same time. I suppose it all goes back to the difference between supporting what someone says and supporting their right to say it. Even so, to condemn someone for making use of a right that people had to die to preserve is simply wrong.

Pacifists never made human chains or phalanxes. Those were just normal protestors. People get hurt when they try to break human chains. And, in fact, those attempts have led to more than one bloodbath.

You blow off your steam and salve your conscience but don't take the truly important step of confronting what is wrong.

YOU tell ME how I go about "confronting what is wrong" short of attending these protests. Writing strongly-worded letters, perhaps? Or will you not be satisfied until I take up a gun and have Uncle Sam fly my over to Iraq to kill a nation of little brown people when our grudge is against one man?

When a pacifist or protester attacks only the one side it is quite naturally seen as a preference for the other side. Like it or not, deny it or not, but that is how you come across.

Excuse me, but I do not come across like that. At least I should hope not. I DO attack both sides. I have in the past. And I will continue to do so. Hell, read the posts. I recognize the fact that Sadaam murdered his own people. It's horrific. But violence only begets more violence, as the old cliche goes, and because I am an American, not an Iraqi, it is easier for me to protest against military action on the USA's part than on Iraq's part. I could, theoretically, DO something about the war in my own country. What could I, an American, do about a fascist dictator in Iraq? I have no means of protesting there, and any protest here would be futile.

As for questioning my intentions in being a pacifist, I will tell you this: I've been a pacifist by name for two years, give or take. I actually have more scars from AFTER I stopped fighting with people than I did from BEFORE when I WAS fighting them. It's not easy. And if I didn't have these convictions, and if I hand't taken on the responsibility that comes with them, it would have been MUCH easier than keeping them. But, as the scars on my arms and chest will verify, I stuck it out. So yeah, I've accepted well the responibility that comes with pacifism. And I like to think I'm better for it.