the war debate

[powder]

having a debate with some members over at another forum over the remembrance day (veteran's day) - "honoring the heroic soldiers who died for our freedoms"  kind of thing.  

 

the bottom line used by the defenders of war and the military always comes down to how would you stop genocide - WWII and Hitler is the trump card example that is always played.  as well as crazy muslims terrorists.  

 

what do you say to these people?  

[Emanuel]

They're contradicting themselves. They say you need to use violence in order to stop the use of violence. And their actions are no better, if you look at the war in Iraq, the sanctions, Vietnam, etc. By keeping these ideas and acting on them, they are creating these mass murders called wars. It's truly disgusting and cowardly. I wouldn't debate with these people though, I think if you tried to point out their contradictions and express the anger that you feel when they advocate violence, they would only attack you and not look at their own irrationality.

 

I don't think it's possible to change these people's minds. You can do whatever you like, but know what you have to gain from your actions. Have a good day my friend.

[King David]

It was war itself that created Hitler .  It was war itself that created the Red Communist Revolution that created fanatical anti-Semitism in Germany.  The allies never scorned Stalin for committing genocide on his own people, it was merely convenient for them to exploit Hitler's genocide in the media, Canada, and USA had internment camps of their own.  The common thread with all these atrocities is that they were committed by governments.  They cannot, and will not ever behave ethically.  What ever you do, do not ever join the army.

 

King David

[Guest e Yer]

Ever since the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese and the subsequent use of it as a propellant in the firearm (which the Chinese also invented) the Europeans have embraced the firearm and explosives like the holy grail. It became a solution for gaining power, acquiring slaves in Africa, winning diplomatic arguments, colonizing countries and stealing their resources and for building an empire. This violent firearm solution was also promoted by the founding fathers, the second amendment to the Constitution -- the right to bear firearms,  as a solution for defending one's self against the tyranny of the government. Violence, firearms, and weapon usage and threats proved to be quick, fast track solutions to win dispute for westerners. This violent quick solution was really the west and the U.S.'s blessing in disguise. Violent behavior, violent language, violent relationships, school shooting, workplace violence, the lack of humbleness or respect for individuals, all flowed from the poison of embracing violence as a tool and winning solution. One group of people I feel very uncomfortable  being around are U.S. troops. If you are in a store and standing in their way, they show little patience will say, "excuse me" in a tone that essentially saying, "get out of the way." When the police, a non-military soldier, asks you for your driver's license, they say, "let me see your driver's license, sir" or step back, sir." As if the word "sir" makes all that rudeness and violent degrading language suddenly o.k. Domestic violence between husband and wife in the U.S. always escalates from the use of sarcastic, disrespectful, downgrading, and humiliating violent language and attack on one's person instead of an open discussion on the issue. I agree with Stefan that we need to stop spanking our children but additionally, we need to end U.S. military presence throughout the world and end the development of more, and more sophisticated, and deadly weapons justified on the insane belief that it is the answer to our continued peace and safety. As long as U.S. citizens justify and believe in the violent approach, this country will falter and other non-violent cultural nations will rise both economically and socially, having learned that if you live by the sword, you will die by it as well.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I've been having some exchanges on this topic yesterday and using the following points:

 

1) our freedoms have reduced over the last 100 years of war, if soldiers believe in freedom why do they fight for the institutions that takes our freedoms away?

2) Is there any compelling evidence Hitler was and could take over mainland Britain? 

3) WWII was too late to prevent most of the genocide and what about the millions subject to genocide in the UUSR, and China - no help for those victims because the perpetrator was too powerful?4) The Swiss and others managed to preserve their independence without getting involved in warfare.5) If people really feel so passionately about defending a remote underclass from genocide/oppression they are free to go and do so as mercenaries on the side of their choosing. There's no need to compel everyone else's involvement via the state.6) wars should not be detached from the madness of the people who make them possible or from the financial and poltiical benefactors who agitate for them

[powder]

...we need to end U.S. military presence throughout the world and end the development of more, and more sophisticated, and deadly weapons justified on the insane belief that it is the answer to our continued peace and safety. As long as U.S. citizens justify and believe in the violent approach, this country will falter and other non-violent cultural nations will rise both economically and socially, having learned that if you live by the sword, you will die by it as well.

I completely agree with everything you are saying, I just wince when I hear phrases like 'we need to..."  It sounds so statist to me.  Like we can somehow control governments or that we can or should collectively enforce some sort of social policies.  

Ok, here are some of the responses that I got to similar statements like yours:  

I've been having some exchanges on this topic yesterday and using the following points:

 

1) our freedoms have reduced over the last 100 years of war, if soldiers believe in freedom why do they fight for the institutions that takes our freedoms away?  

 

"I used to travel all over the world without a passport before 911."

 

2) Is there any compelling evidence Hitler was and could take over mainland Britain?

 

"So we are just supposed to wait and see how far he wants to go, how many more will be slaughtered and enslaved?  Aren't we supposed to help others who are being murdered and oppressed?  What do you propose, that we sit and let it happen?"

 

3) WWII was too late to prevent most of the genocide and what about the millions subject to genocide in the UUSR, and China - no help for those victims because the perpetrator was too powerful?

 

"Like Patton said, we should have taken out the Russians while they were weak at the end of the war"  How do you propose we stop genocide then ?"

4) The Swiss and others managed to preserve their independence without getting involved in warfare.

 

"that didn't help the others very much did it?"5) If people really feel so passionately about defending a remote underclass from genocide/oppression they are free to go and do so as mercenaries on the side of their choosing. There's no need to compel everyone else's involvement via the state.

 

"that is not realistic.  National defense cannot be voluntary or we wouldn't be able to fend off crazy dictators like Hitler.  Sometimes you have to all buy into a program to make it efficient and powerful enough to effective."6) wars should not be detached from the madness of the people who make them possible or from the financial and poltiical benefactors who agitate for them

[FreedomPhilosophy]

"I used to travel all over the world without a passport before 911."

 

repeat the process carrying a bag of cocaine - there is no freedom

 

"So we are just supposed to wait and see how far he wants to go, how many more will be slaughtered and enslaved?  Aren't we supposed to help others who are being murdered and oppressed?  What do you propose, that we sit and let it happen?"

 

Interesting use of the word "help" - if there are some serial killers living in your basement, is it ok for me to "help" their potential future victims by dropping a bomb on the whole house and so killing many innocents? Indiscriminate killing is always morally reprehensible. I think a better example of helping victims of oppressive regimes would be given by people such as Oskar Schindler.

 

"Like Patton said, we should have taken out the Russians while they were weak at the end of the war"  How do you propose we stop genocide then ?"

People should have the right and perhaps even a duty to be able to arm and protect themselves. Those who fail to do so have some element of responsibility if they are unable to defend themselves, and likewise those politicians and peoples who disarm or allow themselves to be disarmed are open to easy invasion and oppression. I do not think there is any duty to rescue other people, particularly if they are disarmed and would have no way of returning the favour if you were in their position.
 

"that didn't help the others very much did it?"

war isn't equivalent to "help"
 

"that is not realistic.  National defense cannot be voluntary or we wouldn't be able to fend off crazy dictators like Hitler.  Sometimes you have to all buy into a program to make it efficient and powerful enough to effective."

I think a well armed and determined population would be very well able to put off or resist invaders, think how the USSR got a butt kicking in Afghanistan. Once a significant proportion of any given population are armed well enough, invasion loses its appeal.

Best way to end tyranny is to stop the child abuse that generates tyrants and dissuade people from joining their armies.
 

[powder]

yeah, thanks FreedomPhilosophy, I used all those same arguments and that is where it ended, I got no response after that except things like, "we will never agree, so this is pointless..."