"War will exist until that distant day

[rateyes]

when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

~John F. Kennedy

[moodforaday]

1. To that I would add

this line from Howard Zinn:

"Historically, the most terrible things - war, genocide, and slavery - have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience."

I think they go together.

As long as we condemn those who give orders to war, we should likewise be condemning those who execute the orders, and those who cheer them on. Blackwater may be Satan's spawn and Erik Prince is certainly a deranged, dangerous individual - but he only hires people to pull the trigger. Nothing will change until whole masses people refuse to participate. Obedience kills.

[KG]

9. +infinity

[Cid_B]

2. Hmmm...

The conscientious objector depends on the warrior for his safety while the warrior depends on the objector for nothing.

[Earth_First]

3. -1

[gratuitous]

4. If my safety depends on the warrior, then I'm not safe

And all the times I've had the cops curtailing my rights and freedom, not once has a soldier arrived to defend my freedom.

[cliffordu]

7. WELL PLAYED....

:rofl:

[Cid_B]

28. I'm sorry...

You must have mixed up the words... if you saw baby sitter in there I think you should read it again.

Pop a few posts down for the benefits you do receive from those who at one point decided something was worth fighting for.

[cliffordu]

5. HMM.....

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

6. who asked you for shit?

Seriously. Who asked you for "protection"? I think it's a racket you use to make yourself feel like a he-man. Take it somewhere else, Chumley.

[Cid_B]

10. Pacifists and Objectors have the luxury...

of choosing which path they wish to follow. If the political and military power of the US was removed in its entirety that choice would very likely vanish when someone else's warriors and power came to call.

My point stands in that the objector needs something from the fighters and the warrior gains nothing from the objector.

Also, whether or not you asked for the benefits you still receive them. You benefit through the enforcement of laws, the extension of political and military power. Hell, even the land you are on right now was fought for by somebody at some point.

[Bonn1997]

13. The warrior depends on objectors to pressure politicians into ending unjust wars

[Cid_B]

24. Does it follow then there are just wars?

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. How do you know the objectors give them nothing? They may have been their third grade teacher, their

doctor, or their clergy person.

While I respect the people who are willing to lay their lives on the line, I don't think it's right to disrespect people who choose other paths that are just as valuable in other ways.

[Cid_B]

36. That's fine..

but in that example they gave them something in their role of the teacher, doctor or clergy person. If they gave them something in their role as an objector and it actually stuck...? Well then that would detract from the role of the fighter.

[asdjrocky]

8. You are a joke my friend.

Just because I won't willingly kill someone does not mean I will not defend myself. Don't come to my neighborhood talking that shit goober.

[Cid_B]

12. The point at which you defend yourself you change paths..

from pacifist or objector when something you do care about (i.e. yourself) is "threatened".

See how easy that is?

[BeFree]

15. Threats

I have eliminated many threats by using my intelligence rather than my guns.

IOW, using intelligence rather than force is easier.

Had Bush used the intelligence available to him on August 6, 2001, we wouldn't be making war on Afghanistan.

[Cid_B]

20. All well and good...

but at some point words can and do fail and there is a need for force. Certain things cannot be talked to. I've seen them and I will also bet that if you think hard enough you can think of some too.

I have as little respect for someone who uses brute force with no intelligence as I do for those who can only talk but have no strength to support their cause.

[BeFree]

26. So

You are trying to tell me that because Bush did not use intelligence to avert a problem, it is now ok to support the war on Afghanistan?

That might makes right?

I have no respect for someone who thinks brute force deserves any respect.

War is the result of failed diplomacy.
War is the lack of the use of intelligence.

Brute force is not intelligent. No matter what you may think.

ETA: The neocons, however, only respect fellow travelers who get funny feelings in their pants when they think about war, people who really get off on the idea of watching other people get blown up.

[spoony]

33. Great points. The poster seems to be under the impression

that intelligence and diplomacy are just words. Maybe that's why they accept it inevitably fails, if empty words make up the whole of pre-war "diplomacy".

[Cid_B]

35. Silly at best...

Words have whatever meaning we attach to them... It's the actions that follow that make a difference (good or bad)

Blind brute force is just as bad.

Intelligence is knowing which words to use to reach the actual outcome that you want and also knowing where and how to apply force to achieve the same goal. People who can only talk are only working with half their tools.

Diplomacy does not ALWAYS fail but it does fail sometimes and at that point you need force if you want to achieve your goal. Also I might add, how far do you think our diplomats would get in the world if the people on the other side of the table knew there was nothing across from them but talk?

edit: In my haste to mong some war I missed a word...

[spoony]

38. You say it's silly, then you prove my point.

"if the people on the other side of the table knew there was across from them but talk?"

What you are describing is NOT diplomacy, which is not merely talk and CAN have teeth especially when practiced by the international community or even just several nations in concert. There are alternatives to war that are not talk, but the quickness with which you dismiss the value of talk also points to a serious problem with your basic approach to the matter.

[Cid_B]

39. Please clarify...

What has teeth but does not involve force?

Also, if you took the time to read, instead of just blindly assuming your ethical superiority, you would see that I also value words and diplomacy but not to the exclusion of everything else.

Don't forget that first question... What has "teeth" but does not involve force or the threat of force?

[spoony]

41. How about sanctions and embargoes?

Do I really need to explain that? Who doesn't know these options exist?

[metalbot]

43. But aren't sanctions and embargoes enforced...

...by force?

[spoony]

45. Force of will, you mean?

Force is not required for economic sanctions or trade embargoes between countries. You seem to be thinking of some full-blown naval blockade or something. And even so, surely you don't think the mere presence of military makes it equal to war? In any case I'm getting nowhere with you.

[Cid_B]

47. In what way is it not required?

Nation X says "You have to cut down your supply of widgets by 40% and you can't receive any more"

Nation Y says "Go fuck yourself"

Now what?

Secondly who is talking about war being the only exclusive use of force?

Do you want to try again?

[spoony]

50. How many nations are industrially insular?

My idea of diplomacy, being collective, enables nation X to go to nation Y's trading partners in a forum like the UN and reach sanctions against Y. And again, even if it came to it: a blockade situation is NOT war, it IS part of diplomacy and it's goal is to AVOID war.

I can only imagine that you're being intentionally obtuse here by insisting on your own limited scope of actions that I do not subscribe to. Again, I'm getting nowhere and since you clearly enjoy arguing I already know you're going to wear me out with dense reply after reply and declare he-man victory when I inevitably give you the last post, so I'll just skip to the chase and let you do that.

[Cid_B]

51. Enjoy yourself...

Again.. it is the exercising of force that we are talking about here and not full blown war.

Sleep tight and crack a book sometime...

[metalbot]

54. Not equal to war, but certainly still force or threat of force

I'm not disagreeing that there are many intermediate steps between sitting at a table and talking with your adversary and going to war with him, and that in most cases it is better to exhaust intermediate steps before going to war.

However, to suggest that economic sanctions are not enforced by force is fundamentally dishonest. Go to Florida and start shipping things to Cuba. Guys with guns will come and make you stop. If you take it up a level (to a military blockade), then there are definitely guys with guns boarding ships and turning them around. That's force. Granted, it's not the same as carpet bombing, but economic sanctions and embargoes are only effective when they are backed up by guys with guns.

[Cid_B]

44. I was trying to lead you in the previous post...

so you didn't embarrass yourself but I guess that's out the window...

Who exactly enforces that embargo? Who patrols the waters? Boards boats? Conducts raids? Patrols the sky? Which enforcement agency freezes assets? Who protects the inspector as he goes through your sanctioned area and makes sure that he gets where he needs to go?

[spoony]

46. Yes, that sure was a clever trap!

Except it wasn't since you're focused, still, on one sort of action and ignoring all other types. Getting together with other countries and enacting sanctions against someone does not requires manning the machine guns.

[Cid_B]

48. So tell me...

how is the will of the "other countries" enforced upon the sanctioned nation? Sternly worded letters?

Take a second and think about it. I'll call on you later...

[spoony]

11. The warrior depends on the objector to save the warrior

from being deployed carelessly and dying for nothing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. +1,000,000

[Greyhound]

29. Complete and utter crap.

Thanks for playing.
:thumbsdown:

[Cid_B]

34. Wow...

What a deeply thought out and coherent response. Praise baby Jesus! I have seen the light of my wicked war mongering ways!

Seriously though, if you actually have an argument or would like to point out something feel free to play any time.

[Greyhound]

37. OK, the very actions you advocate are the cause of the imagined insecurity you claim

to want to protect us from.

There is no government nor group of people capable of "conquering" the U.S., even our own military couldn't manage it. Too big, too varied, too well-armed.

Now of course, 6 or 7 other nations could nuke us, and kill the world in the process, but you "tough guys" are as helpless against that as the rest of us.

If you want to know what military might we could use, I'll refer you to General Smedley Butlers book(let) "War is a Racket". Completely effective for alleviating your inner fear of imagined enemies and wouldn't bankrupt the nation either.

ETA; You should also probably avoid making the potentially fatal error of assuming because we won't fight for corporate profits, we are not some very dangerous adversaries if it comes down to it.

[Cid_B]

42. I'll let you take a look at that again...

... and delete as needed.

"Too big, too varied, too well-armed" So your point is that there are lots of people with weapons and the will to use them that would in case of actions taken against them respond with ... wait for it... force?

Let's say for funsies that the military and police forces go *poof* and vanish. Let's also say that you are correct and that it is impossible to conquer the entire US. It is possible to take some of it if there is no one to guard it. Know anyone in a coastal area? Maybe on a border somewhere? Who get's sacrificed in your little thought experiment here?

I like that use of the word dangerous. Please explain exactly how you are dangerous. In what way are you going to enforce your will upon those you consider your enemies?

[Greyhound]

49. No explanations are needed, some are bright enough to learn from others mistakes and some

need to learn for themselves.

You address none of the issues raised, just as I predicted you wouldn't and so posted the original reply. It was curt and dismissive because the depth of your post warranted such.

The dark and dangerous fantasy world you like to live in has no relevance beyond your right hand. So go and enjoy your war porn now.

[Orsino]

58. The warrior depends on the antiwar activist...

...to help bring him home sooner. Wouldn't you agree with JFK: that this is worthy of something like equal status?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Being against killing is no longer popular in a "tough guy" society.

One of the reasons I became a pacifist is because I spent 4 years the marines. The idea that I should kill people I didn't know, might even have liked, because politicians and generals want to wear XXL jockstraps is downright insulting.

[G_j]

16. registered as a CO

in 1969,
now, it seems, we're just "purists" who "want a pony"....

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. A pink pony, with shiny faerie wings. Sucks to be a "purist" around here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Albert Einstein

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. Albert Einstein

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. I had no idea he felt that way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. He was a pacifist.

[Cid_B]

23. ...

whose birth nation was freed from some of the most awful people this world has ever seen by an entire generation of warriors.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. So?

My birthplace is California. But, I had no desire to "free" Vietnam when they asked me to. So, I refused.

[Cid_B]

32. Good on you...

My point was in reference to Einstein. It seems like he should have a been a bit less spiteful towards those who had done something for his benefit or even for someone else's benefit if he was such a humanitarian.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. He was talking, as he did many times, about the responsibility of the individual.

If I choose to kill other people in the name of ideology, religion, or country, then I'm as responsible for the killing as the commanders,(who always have some grand justification for it), who order it.

I believe it is the responsibility of every individual to decide whether he/she will kill and participate in the madness.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I wish all the people who want to fight wars could have it out somewhere

that no one else lives. That way there are no civilian casualties, no scorched earth, but the ones who want to fight can still do that.

[spoony]

52. Happily, I don't think most "warriors" are as fond of war as their internet counterparts

We should send the leaders and gung-ho war enthusiasts to that place and watch how quickly they rediscover the art of negotiation.

[Cid_B]

53. I'm currently in that place...

... so do you have anything else to add?

[spoony]

55. I'm not taking your baiting

Find someone else to argue with you. Or clean your guns. Either way, I'll not be involved.

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. I know my father, a Navy vet, isn't.

[Orsino]

59. How many innocents were also killed by that generation of warriors?

I might cheer their sacrifices and accomplishments, but not without counting the cost.

[Greyhound]

31. Wow... conviction...

when was the last time you saw one of those?

The current economic draft makes them mercenaries as well.

[OnyxCollie]

56. War is a racket.

"HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

Well, it's a racket all right.

A few profit- and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parlays at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war." -Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler

[G_j]

60. +1