07-02-2003, 06:33 AM
Quote:It sucks because at the end of the day, what they do is kill people.
Ah, but if those people were involved in the killing of 3000 of my neighbors, then that's a great way to end the day!
Quote:OCCHII didn't see him actually jump onto the Peace Train, just stand at the platform and wonder if it was going where he wanted to go.
look at yourself for your enabling bullying by your pacifism stance,
Anyway, Occh, I believe you're equating pacifism with capitulation. They aren't necessarily the same. They just seem the same to the guys holding the swords.
(Chamberlain, tho a capitulator, may not have been a pacifist. And when the U.S. paid off the Barbary Pirates in the early years, it was not so much pacifism as capitulation "enabled" by the fact that there was nothing we could do about them at the time.)
Quote:Who and what enables your pacifism? Think about that.
I hear this one a lot-- most visibly from one of the Pentagon generals during the "war" part of the Iraq War (as opposed to the current "not war" part of the war). He was commenting on some of the anti-war protesters and saying "Isn't it great that they can protest? Iraqis can't." ("Rummy" hits this theme a lot too.) Yep, we have it better than they did, and yep, the people's ability to protest is being protected by the Constitution which in turn is protected by the military.* Yep, such irony that war protesters are enabled by military.
However, and this is a big big big however in my book, it is these protesters that make the country great, and THEN BY EXTENSION the military is great for protecting that greatness. If the protesters weren't there, the military would still be there, but then it would be no better in principle than, for example, the Iraqi Republican Guard. It is the ability for Joe and Jane Citizen to publicly and very vocally protest our country's actions, and NOT suffer reprisals**, that makes this country great. Our country is not great because the military is so fearless and self-confident that it allows such behavior, it is great because that behavior is considered to be sacrosanct. Our military is great because it defends that sacrosanctity, uh, sancronicity, uh, supersynchrofragilisticity... and so far has defended it quite well. BUT it annoys me when some people get it backwards and smirk "Isn't it wonderful that they can protest? It's wonderful they live in a peaceful country protected by a strong military." No, what's wonderful is that they have a Constitution that gives them that right and that we have a military that willingly defends that Constitution.
That said, I will agree with you that having the ability to wage war is, at least for the next millennium, necessary. However, it's generally better to let the pacifists try to settle things first, before getting force involved-- but you still need that strength to handle the what-if. (begin lame analogy) If a diner in a restaurant is unruly, the server may remind the diner of the rules of the establishment. If the diner does not comply, the manager will re-iterate. If that didn't work, the manager may ask the diner to leave. If the diner just laughs, or becomes abusive to the manager, then comes the very large and serious man behind the manager saying "I believe he asked you to leave NOW." And if that doesn't work, they call the guys in uniform. (end LA)
Van d'
*Tho it sometimes seems to me that many that are pro-military seem to believe the military's purpose is to follow the commander-ever-in-chief rather than protect the Constitution. This was most observable during the Clinton Era, when there was a lot of grumbling about whether Mr. C was a capable leader or not. But this is a side-topic, and just an impression I have sometimes .... especially when I hear the name Oliver North.
**Except of course to be called "traitors" by a certain political party and its snide proponents.