Human Shields and Choice

[ak404]

Actually, I was under the impression that most pacifists who entered wars did so as members of the Red Cross or any one of the international humanitarian organizations who did their best to ensure that casualties were kept to a minimum or as a member of the national guard. (For example, I believed Ghandi fought for the British Army as an ambulance driver. He even got a medal.) At least, this is the opinion of the pacifists I know and tallk to. Do not make the mistake of confusing pacifists for chickenhawks: pacifists know when they have to fight. Pacifists fight in self-defense, never in aggression, and they are certainly not anti-patriotic (whatever that idiotic emotive "patriotism" is supposed to mean), since patriotism is more than shooting at any foreigner your government says is a threat.

Oh, that reminds me. An earlier post gave three options for an American solider when given orders by the Commander-in-Chief: obey, quit, or be jailed for subordination. There is a fourth option: conscientious objection. You fill out a form listing your reasons of conscience for refusing to fight a war, and you don't fight. Simple. This is currently a common practice in Israel (with over 200 or so soliders objecting agaisnt what they see as the domination of Palestinians), and from what I've heard, a few American soldiers have already objected to a war in Iraq.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pacifists are not "more than willing" to let people fight and die in wars.

Really? Do a web search on "pacifist" and "conscientious objector". While not all conscientious objectors seem to be pacifists, nearly all pacifists seem to be conscientious objector. So, it seems the generality holds. Or did you not leave out the word "other" (as in "let *other* people") by accident. Because the reality has always been that the war the pacifists were trying to stop *did* come. And someone always had to fight in that war. And it usually wasn't the pacifists. They were either in a neutral country sipping aperitifs or back at headquarters fighting with a typewriter.

Given the slightest recourse, a pacifist is obliged to prevent war by any reasonable means.

Who gets to define "reasonable"? The extremist who sees everything he doesn't believe in as evil or the rational person who realizes that sometimes hard things must be done to achieve good objectives. How many extra deaths does it take to satisfy the pacifist?

that doesn't exactly leave a lot of room for maneuvering when two sets of people decide to punch holes in each other, or experiment with making people combust.

Right. And this is your deep analysis as to why wars happen? Because two groups of people wake up one morning and decide to fight? I expect more from you than that.

And, of course, how would you reconcile the thread topic with the idea that pacifists would rather other people take the bullets, when this is about people who are deliberately moving from safety to danger just to make a point?

I don't think this is at all the case. I think they believe that they can stop, or at least postpone the war. I believe they think that if the war comes, they'll be able to stay in places that are not going to be targeted. And I do, indeed, believe they are stupid. Stupid for not realizing that their lives mean no more than those of the Iraqi civilians already there. Stupidly arrogant for thinking, "We're Europeans. The USA will kill Iraqis, but we're too good to be harmed". Stupidly ignorant for thinking Saddam will not use them, as he has used his own people, as a shield for military installations. Stupidly confident in the fable of the "pin point" accuracy of modern weapons. Stupidly naive to think that if they survive the war, they will not face some form of punishment. Yes, I do indeed think they are stupid. Especially since there is no reason to target the Iraqi population, neither strategic nor tactical. So, all they are doing is putting their lives at risk and giving Saddam more shields to prevent something that the invading army is not trying to do in the first place. Yes, stupid. Very stupid.

But I think you're talking about cowards, not pacifists.

No. While I do think that many cowards are "pacifists", I do not think all pacifists are cowards. Many, when the time to prevent war was passed, picked the side they could support and supported it as best they could within their moral strictures.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

An act of war is not murder, and it was indeed an issue of word choice. If you commit murder in war, you will generally be court martialed by your own officers, by your own system, in most Western nations. War is a political act, murder is a personal choice. Manslaughter is neither, as it can be either accidental or intentional.

Of course, dead is dead, no matter the cause. That changes not one bit with words.

You too misunderstand what "100K civilians" is relevant to. Those civilians are the labor force that enables an army and a navy and an air force to stay in the field. They are thus an element of national strength. They too are part of a war effort when nations are at war, at total war. World War II was a total war. I am under no delusions about how much emotion was harnessed to get maximum support for the war effort on the part of any combatant. I do not doubt for a minute that American ethnic antipathy for Japan, and theirs for the hated 'round eyes,' played a part in how the War in the Pacific played out. The ethnic antipathy between Germans and Slavs was not new to WW II, and it also played a hand in how the Eastern Front differed from the Western Front. More recently, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda, back in 1993, had everything to do with why 500,000 died: Uh, Jarulf, ost of them were NOT soldiers, they were predominantly what you so blithely call 'civilians.'

The "Asia for Asians" sound byte represented Japan's racist policy when they started their conquest of Manchuria in 1931. How about looking past the blinders of the late 20th century Europe and getting your mind into why Japan wanted to replace all of the European powers as the Imperial exploiters of China? What say you to Chunking and Nanking? Total nationally powered war is ugly in the extreme, and has its own logic.

The same horrible allied leaders who ordered the bombing of Dresden were those who took down the SOB who wanted to put all of Europe under his thumb. Or would you rather live under the projected, thousand years of the Third Reich? Sweden's hands are not clean. They sold heavy water to Hitler's Germany, which was being used to develop a nuclear weapon. So, as my point was, the allied leaders too were influenced by the raw emotion that comes with total war. a war of national survival.

As to the Pentagon, I know good and damned well what the Pentagon is, I have friends who work there. Are they, in your eyes, a more valid target than the World Trade Center simply because a portion of those who work there wear uniforms? Have you any idea how silly that concept sounds? It was attacked because it is a Symbol of our ability to exert our influence on the Muslim world.

As I understand it, Al Qaeda feels they are at war with the whole U.S, and not just its soldiers. Were that the case, only at war with our soldiers, more USS Cole type incidents, or Khobar Towers bombings would be their method. Whether or not the U.S. honors that point of view, or treats them as criminals is a policy decision I do not get to vote on. A better case can be made for a terrorist as a criminal than as a combatant, since terrorists do no generally abide by the Geneva accords, nor are they necessarily representative of a nation.

Answer me this: how is the nightclub bombing in Indonesia anything but an attack on innocents? No war there, just a bomb that blew a bunch of people to shreds. It is killing to make a point.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two different decisions. Hiroshima was a continuation of the already extensive bombing of Japan, a combatant in a war with the United States, by a 'bigger and better bomb.' You don't win by dying for your country, you win by making the other sad SOB die for his country, or you win by getting him to quit. Why do folks quit after starting a war? They believe they cannot win. No one starts a war with the intention of losing, eh?

Nagasaki . . . given some of the under the table and third party discussions that were being accomplished with the Japanese, there is room to ask if Nagasaki was necessary. However, as the war was still in progress it was still an act of war, since Japan did NOT surrender. When you are at war, you tend to kill the folks on the other side until they surrender. That is how it works.

That war, by the way, the U.S. did not start. (Unless you agree that we were a proximate cause in letting Hitler go when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.)

The message in all of this?

Don't start a fight you can't finish, or you may pay dearly. (A lesson for any nation, not just for Japan.)

War, once started, has its own logic, its own momentum. Wars are destructive of life and infrastructure: it is in their nature. What is fantasy is the concept of a 'clean' or civilized war.

Which is a good reason to try other methods as a general rule.

[Dani]

Now, that's the whole paragraph.  So, to repeat Roland's question, "Since when does honor equate to stupidity"?  Is it "stupid" in your view to repay your debts?  Remind me not to lend you any money.  What else is "stupid" in your view?  Keeping your word?  Meeting your commitments?  Obeying the law if you can get away with it?  Telling the truth?

Please answer, I'm really interested in your view of ethics.  I feel like I've come to know you much better from that one paragraph.

--Pete

Quite a talent there with mincing words and making assumptions. But we knew that already didn't we.

Finland was attacked by Soviet Union. Finland lost. Finland was decreed devastating reparation payments to a totalitarian country which had attacked Finland. This is akin to a burglar entering your house, and holding a gun in your head to make you pay. It's naught but extortion. Until the 80's Finnish foreign policy was largely dictated from Moscow. There's a reason Finlandization is a word. The smart thing would've been to turn west for help. Help to thwart the Soviet puppetstrings, and help to avoid paying the ransom.

As for the misquote, it was a two snippets edited to look like a phrase I wrote. I misunderstood it to question the suggested integrity the Finns maintained in WW2. Paying or not of war reparations is not part of WW2, but it's aftermath.

[Chaerophon]

I know, that's why it was justified. But that fact doesn't make the murder of 100,000 "right".

A quote from one of my earlier posts. I believe that you are the one who is mistaking me.

I think what's happening here is quite simple - you are deeming that the right or wrongness of actions is dependant upon the social atmosphere and the nature of conflict. I do not. This sort of relativist memory implicitly denies the fact that human life is anything of value. Now, I am not some sort of flighty dreamer unaware of the realities of war and human strife. However, the fact that I can understand the concepts of "realism" and "political necessity" does not take away from the fact that the killing of over 100,000 civilians (I will make an important distinction in a moment) is a morally reprehensible act. "But it was necessary to prevent further loss of life", you may argue. Fine, arguable, but even if you accept this fact, fine. It doesn't lend moral justification to the act, only that of utility.

Soldiers engaged in war are involved in a much different situation from those of the citizens of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. While the soldiers of war are positioning themselves so as to kill or facilitate the killing of their opposition; the civilians of a city are not. Perhaps some civilian deaths are necessary so as to destroy strategical locations. Fair enough. Their deaths may, perhaps, be paired with those of the soldiers. They put themselves in harm's way, directly aiding the war effort, directly facilitating the deaths of the opposition's soldiers. Nonetheless, the deaths of hundred's of thousands of those who have no ability to defend themselves and those who have no direct ability to kill or injure the opposition or facilitate the killing or injuring of the opposition cannot merely be passed off as "casualties of war". There is a moral implication in their deaths that exists outside of utility. Many of them may not have even supported the war. Many of them, such as women and children, may not have possessed the political power to do anything about the war. All of them should have been free to live, regardless of their beliefs, or their facilitation of a regime that opposed that of the Allied/Axis powers. Their deaths may very well have been, according to your analysis, necessary, but that does not make their deaths 'just' or right.

The deaths of these civilians, let's face it, was for the sole purpose of blackmail. We'll stop killing your families if you stop opposing us. It happened on both sides, but I'm sorry, that doesn't make it morally right. Domestic terrorists bombed the government buildings in Oklahoma. They had an agenda that they wanted to be met, they had a message. It was still murder. These cases can be dressed up in many ways and with many facts. You can tell me that this is the nature of war, and I will understand that fact, but that will not change the fact that millions of civilians died unjustly in the war. For them and their families, their deaths, away from the front, away from the conflict, will never resonate any less than would any other cold-blooded murder.

In my opinion, you are making the mistake of blending morality with utility. Many immoral acts were necessary to win the war. They were still wrong in the moral sense, whether or not they were for the "greater" good. (Which in the case of Dresden, is very debatable).

[Dani]

Quotes from Occhi.

What say you to Chunking and Nanking?

The same horrible allied leaders who ordered the bombing of Dresden were those who took down the SOB who wanted to put all of Europe under his thumb.   Or would you rather live under the projected, thousand years of the Third Reich? 

Hmm, I thought we already got past the argument, that enemy attrocities somehow make your own acceptable.
Look, noone is saying, that the western allied were worse than the Nazis or Japanese. The point I made some pages ago was that also the west soiled it's hands. IE. that even the "good guys" in the "good war" were not that "good" after all.

[Jester]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

If you decide to fight, what can I do about it? Really, I can do very little. If you want to fight, and claim it on my behalf, I haven't got much choice in the matter. I can say you're not fighting for me, but that would just be wrong. I could remove my sanction, but I never gave it. I could kill or maim you, but that would be hypocrisy of the highest order. I could pass laws preventing you from fighting, but pacifists are seldom the majority. So you fight, and my liberty doesn't extend far enough to stop you.

And, if someone wants to fight you (which is usually why you'd want to fight them, I'd wager), and I'm not really able to convince him either, well, what then? Not much more I can do. We live in an imperfect world. If you were looking for an explanation of the causes of conflict among living things in two pithy paragraphs, and are going to pick at me for not providing one, this isn't going to go anywhere fast. I merely stated a truth, that in war (for whatever reasons), both (or all) sides want each other dead (or at least highly incapacitated).

If someone refuses to fight, then lauds your victorious return having done it for them, then they're a coward and a hypocrite. I don't like them, although I suspect you dislike them more. But if someone didn't want you (or anyone) to fight in the first place, and you went ahead and did it anyway, I can't see what they owe you.

Jester

[Tommi]

Finland was attacked by Soviet Union. Finland lost. Finland was decreed devastating reparation payments to a totalitarian country which had attacked Finland. This is akin to a burglar entering your house, and holding a gun in your head to make you pay. It's naught but extortion. Until the 80's Finnish foreign policy was largely dictated from Moscow. There's a reason Finlandization is a word. The smart thing would've been to turn west for help. Help to thwart the Soviet puppetstrings, and help to avoid paying the ransom.

As for the misquote, it was a two snippets edited to look like a phrase I wrote. I misunderstood it to question the suggested integrity the Finns maintained in WW2. Paying or not of war reparations is not part of WW2, but it's aftermath.

Technically yes we lost, because we had to buy weapons from Germany to be able to defend against the Russians. And IIRC we asked them to defend Finland, too, against this mutual enemy. When Germany lost, we lost too.

But I'd like to point out that the large scale Soviet Union assault was indeed stopped, and Finland was never conquered. They sent a commitee to oversee Finland for some time after the war, but it was recalled at some point. Perhaps after Stalin died, don't remember the history that exactly. We were an independent country the whole time, but had to keep good relationships to the Soviet Union, since we had some "mutual agreement" that if something strange would happen in Finland, the Soviets would come to "help" us. We ended that agreement when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 or so.

I don't believe that our foreign policy was dictated in Moscow, but it was a very good idea to keep good relationships to them. Although it could be called forced friendship, it's good to be friends with your neighbor anyway, right? We had to be careful for not upsetting the Soviets.

Cheers,

Tommi

[Jester]

I know what a pacifist is. And it's different from "generally passive realist". Pacifism means that, unless you are absolutely certain (a rare condition) that what you are doing is saving more lives than it is taking, you will refuse recourse to violence. (Even then, that's mostly just a provision for "would you have shot Hitler" thought experiments.) Subversion, resistance and non-cooperation are all fair game (and often required). Serving as a medic is admirable.

Chickenhawks are people who send other people off to fight without risking their own lives, or worse, while deliberately spiriting them and theirs out of harm's way. (See: Vietnam war, Bush family) A pacifist abhors a chickenhawk more than nearly anyone else on the planet, someone who is both violent and hypocritical. Personally, they make my skin crawl.

Gandhi was beaten several times in his career, and was often at the head of VERY large mobs. His satyagraha philosophy was that, even when you could reasonably defend yourself, it is better to forgive, to appeal to the humanity of your opressor and to speak from your deepest convictions rather than fight. That's not "it's okay in self defense". That's "there is a higher path". Whether he was right or not is up for debate. Whether he advocated violence even in self defence really isn't.

Nationalism can be positive or negative, yes. There's nothing preventing a pacifist (or obligating a pacifist) from being a positive nationalist. Negative nationalism is contrary to the philosophy, since the very core of the idea is reaching out to the "other", no matter how different they are from you. Negative nationalism feeds on "otherness", where you learn to hate and fear people who are different.

But that's mostly another barrel of fish.

Jester

[Dani]

I don't believe that our foreign policy was dictated in Moscow, but it was a very good idea to keep good relationships to them. Although it could be called forced friendship, it's good to be friends with your neighbor anyway, right? We had to be careful for not upsetting the Soviets.

Well, UKK had some dubious dealings with Kremlin. Remember "noottikriisi", probably the most public Soviet manipulation of Finn politics.

[Tommi]

Well, UKK had some dubious dealings with Kremlin. Remember "noottikriisi", probably the most public Soviet manipulation of Finn politics.

Yes, they re-elected UKK because of that, but that was an extreme example. Also, the communist party received funding from the Soviets but they never enjoyed a huge success. They had sold their souls to our enemy of war! Who could vote them? I believe that our politicians never trusted the Soviets but wanted to maintain good relationships at all times.

Cheers,

Tommi

[--Pete]

Hi,

If, as I understand it, you take pacifist to mean an utterly uncompromising attitude against war in all circumstances, then I will continue to scorn it as an unrealistic and dangerous (for others, mostly) viewpoint. And I reiterate that the attitude has failed in its purpose whenever it has been tried, even before the term itself was coined. Indeed, it often made the situation worse. As with most extremes, it is wrong.

If, OTOH, by "pacifist" you mean a person who desires peace, works for peace, seeks peaceful solutions, but is willing to fight when the situation warrants it, then that is but a rational person. However, I do not get the impression that that is what you mean.

A person who says "war is *never* necessary" is a fool. An evolutionary misfit who, were it not for the protection of society, would have been bred out of the gene pool. To fight for survival is basic, for without survival, there is no procreation. Those that are, are the descendent's of those that survived.

A person who says "war is evil" tells the self evident truth. But if that person goes on to draw the conclusions "thus it should never be allowed to happen" then that person is living in a black and white world. There are many evils, some greater, some lesser. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is simplistic thinking. Sometimes a second wrong is necessary to correct the evil of a greater wrong. Thus, The Allies fighting the Axis was a necessary evil to prevent the greater evil of the Axis taking over the world. The Cold War was an evil necessary to prevent the greater evil of world communism.

A rational person realizes both that war is a great evil that should be avoided and that war is sometimes necessary to stop or prevent a greater evil. A rational person weighs the cost of war against the misery that not going to war is bringing or will bring. And a rational person decides on the basis of the lesser evil when no greater good presents itself. A rational person knows when it is time to shoot his dog. And a brave person does it when it's necessary.

I can discuss the issue of Iraq with a rational person. As one who's seen first hand some of the ugliness of war, I am strongly opposed to it in all but the most dire circumstances. I've gone from opposing the war with Iraq to admitting the necessity of it over the past few weeks. The evidence that is coming out of Iraq, both as given by Powell and as given by the inspectors show a country led by a ruthless man with great ambition that is developing both weapons and delivery systems. That, to me, is a clear enough danger that it is the responsibility of the world to address.

I can see other opinions. Opinions that the inspection process should be given more time. Opinions that additional or stronger sanctions should be used. Opinions that intelligence agencies should focus on overthrowing Saddam, or even assassinating him. All those opinions I can respect and discuss.

But "there should be no war because there never should be war" is not an opinion. It is a pious fraud. It is a viewpoint based on prejudice. It is a simplistic and unrealistic attitude, contrary to history, contrary to observation and contrary to logic. It is, in short, a form of fundamentalist religion. There is nothing left to discuss, since the attitude is absolute.

But if someone didn't want you (or anyone) to fight in the first place, and you went ahead and did it anyway, I can't see what they owe you.

Depends on who I fought and why. You could be right. Or you could be wrong. They might owe me their lives or their freedoms. Pacifists can be enslaved, they can be killed. As a matter of fact in a ruthless world they are natural slaves, for if they won't fight for their freedom they only have it at the behest of those who will.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

That the lesson has been learned, as reflected in the policies in effect in most Western Nations.

What I find lame is the attitude that attempts to measure the WW II national leaders against a "Zero Defects" standard. Better than the enemy as a whole, yes, but never perfect. Good enough, in my book.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks. :) Met some Finns a few years back at work, and was most impressed with them.

The reality of how to deal with The Bear certainly created a need for balanced policy approaches.

[Occhidiangela]

Chickenhawks . . . (See: Vietnam war, Bush family) Try a fellow named Gore as well, a Senator's son who did about 4 months as a correspondent in country and . . . ran home to Daddy? John Fogerty sang about a bunch of Senator's sons? To his credit, he went, and at least got a taste of what was there.

But you see, friend Jester, the BIG war in 1960 -1973 was NOT Viet Nam. THE BIG WAR was . . . the Cold War and the 10 Division multi airwing reinforcement of Europe and NATO in the case of a Warsaw Pact attack. Take the blinders off.

The Presidents never mobilized the reserves for Viet Nam, but every reserve unit in America, a considerable portion of our strength, had mobilization plans on how to get to Europe in XX days and join the fight. My dad was in such an Air Force eserve unit for 30 years. Of course, he'd already served in Europe in 1947-48 during the Berling Airlift as a soldier before he got out and went to college.

The Reserve system, which was first developed by the nineteenth century Prussians in the form that is familiar to 20th century models, was very much a part of the Big War effort. Not every one need to have held a bayonet while walking point to have served, though I reserve an extra measure or ten of respect for those who went forth and did such in South East Asia. The non mobilization of the reserves and the use of the draft was and still is a bitterly debated matter of policy in this country, however, the strategic thought that makes sense is that your strategic reserve is not committed to a conflict that is NOT the Main Effort. ANyhoo, pick an expert and you will find a great variance of opinion as to the werefores and why's of both conscription and the reserve system.

Now, had the various folks in the reserves done what some of the cowards in 1990 did, earned twenty years of "weekend warrior" paycheck and then refused to deploy with their units, then perhaps your comment would have more weight.

OBTW, George Bush senior served as a carrier aviator in WW II. No chickenhawk there, he got the T-shirt, and more.

[kandrathe]

Hi,

Just a few thoughts.

The Cold War was an evil necessary to prevent the greater evil of world communism.

While communism was communicated as the threat, and surely it is a bankrupt economic philosophy, the real danger (IMHO) was global totalitarianism and subjugation of the masses by the State.

Pacifists can be enslaved, they can be killed.

Exactly, and in Iraq *ALL* dissent is crushed. That brings us back the the subject of this topic, "What use are the 'pacifists' in Iraq?" My answer is they are contributing only as Saddam's useful idiots.

On my drive to work today I was reflecting on the responsibilities of powerful nations. Understanding that there are crimes of commision, and crimes of omission (complicity if you will). Not that I believe the US can, or should intercede in every skirmish in the world. But, I think they should work toward making the UN into the forum in which to resolve conflicts. The US and other powerful nations should take a position that is consistent with international law and support their case. That is what I think the US *is* doing with Iraq. I think that closing your eyes to the crimes of tyrants only makes you guilty of complicity. We (the west, the US) are *guilty* of closing our eyes to the use of poison gas by Iraq against the Iranians and the Kurds. We should press the case that NO NATION should be dealing with criminal tyrants. But then, the 20th century is filled with atrocities that we chose not to stop, and worse not to acknowledge. Can we stop them all? I don't think so, but we have a duty and responsibility as a civilized nation to plainly state, then stand on our principles, and to hold tyrants and their criminal accomplices responsible for their crimes against humanity.

If talking doesn't resolve the conflict, then the UN needs to up the anty, and apply economic pressure (sanctions). They are in effect saying, "We think you are wrong, and so we won't deal with you until you make it right." We did that and it is not working. So, the UN ups the anty again, and applies the *credible* threat of force. Then saying "We feel you are wrong, and if you don't make it right, then we will." It does not seem to be working (and had very little chance in the first place). When that doesn't work, you need to follow through and go to war. So then finally the UN says, "We asked you to make it right, and you did not. Therefore, suffer the consequences."

[Jester]

"Chickenhawks . . . (See: Vietnam war, Bush family) Try a fellow named Gore as well, a Senator's son who did about 4 months as a correspondent in country and . . . ran home to Daddy? John Fogerty sang about a bunch of Senator's sons? To his credit, he went, and at least got a taste of what was there."

I don't think I said anything like "Well, now isn't that Al Gore guy swell?". Or at least I don't remember saying anything like that. Quit handing me arguments from the stock set. Al Gore also makes my skin crawl, although not quite so much as Joe Lieberman. Rather, I seem to remember pointing out that there are cowards amongst every group of people, from radical to reactionary to completely off the charts. What makes you think I believe differently? Something I said?

I'm not quite sure where you're going about the reserves. Are you saying that Bush sat out the Vietnam war only because he was performing the incredibly helpful task of sitting around and waiting for the Reds to march?

That was the "big war" only if you're counting wars that never happened. There's a serious difference between being ready and being shot at, and I don't think the Bush family was ignorant of that. Sure, maybe the Soviets would have walked in, and maybe Dubya would have been called out. But MAD was still a very well understood concept, and that means that when Dubya went to war, it would probably be too late to matter (for our whole race, likely).

And, of course, Bush I fought. He's not to blame in reference to himself, only to his son. Unless, of course, you think he was banking on that whole Southeast Asia thing not really panning out, and things getting real hot in Europe.

Jester

[Jester]

I think I was rather clear elsewhere about what I mean by a pacifist. And no, it's not "realist with passive tendencies". Someone who believes that fighting will lead to a better world is not a pacifist. I think that's not an unreasonable definition, although the other is possible. Indeed, it is admirable. It simply isn't who I am.

You seem to be ignoring the concept of passive resistance entirely, which is the recourse of the pacifist in a time of enslavement or conquest. A pacifist has no more need to be a slave than anyone else. How likely they are to survive, vis a vis someone who fights depends on who is trying to enslave you and how well armed they are, but usually your chances are much worse. That's the price you pay for a pacifistic principle; its utility, if it is ever realized, is in the long haul, not the immediate future.

This is not an easy road. It doesn't have a high success rate, and the only person whose blood you get to see is your own, or those with you. But that's the choice you make. You don't have to (as you seem to be implying) accept whatever someone with a gun tells you, simply because you refuse to kill him even if you can. He might shoot you. Depending on who he is, he'll probably shoot you.

But if you kill him, you can't claim I owe you anything. Both my freedom and my life are mine to give. So long as I'm willing to give them in the cause of peace, even in futility, you need not intervene on my behalf.

This takes convictions. Again, if I were simply not wanting to do the dirty work myself, and rejoiced at the death of my would-be opressor, then all I would amount to is a coward.

The biggest problem is when others are threatened. There, all you can do amounts to very little. You place yourself in the line of fire and save them at the cost of yourself, or, if this is impossible, you die trying. Hence, human shields. Buddhist monks have been doing this kind of stuff for centuries.

I'm not at all sure this philosophy is correct. It feels right, but also difficult, dangerous and impractical. Perhaps you consider it too impractical, that a billion pacifists couldn't change the path of one conqueror one iota. Maybe that's true. There are no experiments that could possibly prove this. If that's the case, then one can only hope that I don't convince very many people.

Maybe the time of wars is still with us, and to try to move past it will only sink us deeper into it. There probably was such a time, and I don't know when it ended, if it did, or if it ever will.

I just don't think it's at all certain. And, on the strength of that hope, I'm a pacifist.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

All very admirable, I'm sure. How far do you take it? Some people are criminals. They take advantage of society by using force or other unfair means to get what they want. To stop them often requires force and sometimes people get hurt or killed. Sometimes it's the criminal, all too often it's the cops. Should we stop enforcing laws because there is the possibility of violence, perhaps even death?

--Pete

[Skandranon]

Because the reality has always been that the war the pacifists were trying to stop *did* come.

Hard to say, Pete. People don't write about wars that don't happen.