Are We All "Radical Pacifists" Here At DU?

[kpete]

03 Jan 2010 07:10 pm
"Radical Pacifists"

That's what Marc Thiessen http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDMzNzk4YzM5YWY1ZmU3MTg2YjIwYzNmNjcyNWQ5ZDU=labels people who oppose torture. Friedersdorf notes:

Those who argue that we should not used enhanced techniques even on the KSM’s of the world are effectively arguing from a position of radical pacifism. They are opposed to coercion no matter what the cost in innocent lives. We should respect their opinion, they way we respect the right of conscientious objectors to abstain from military service. But that does not mean we put pacifists in charge of decisions on war and peace. Same should go for decisions when it comes to interrogation.
http://theamericanscene.com/2010/01/02/torture-and-pacifism

Even the most cursory reflection on history demonstrates how blinkered this argument is. Were the Americans who fought World War II but objected to torturing knowledgeable German and Japanese POWs therefore radical pacifists? Are decorated combat veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq suddenly transformed into pacifists when they raise objections to waterboarding? The obvious and incontrovertible fact is that plenty of people who demonstrably aren’t pacifists oppose it.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

[StarfarerBill]

1. I can only speak for myself...so no, I'm not a pacifist.

I believe in self-defense for individuals, groups of people, and countries.

But I oppose torture without reservation.

[caitxrawks]

2. i think radical extremism in any case

is kind of scary, really. I know war has its time and place, but I'm really opposed to just going after whoever we want--especially for political or business reasons.

[timeforpeace]

3. We were until Jan 20. Now, not so much radical pacifists as radical warmongers. Same diff.

[KoKo]

39. lols...if it wasn't so sad, but true, it seems. Getting us "used to endles wars"

is what is going on. Little by little we are becoming worn down. We are led to believe it's "police actions" to take out terrorists wherever they have cells. Using drones run by folks with "gaming skills" who have no connection to the "collateral damage" seems better than sending our soldiers into battle. Yet, the killing goes on and soldiers and civilians die...and the drones go on with gamers at the controls.

It's inhuman. It needs to stop. But, they wear us down. Soon we will all think it's just what it is and we need to do this to "be safe." Meanwhile our freedoms and the freedoms of others across the globe are just more collateral damage in a world where the mighty rule and the rest of us are just targets if we get in the way.

[The Straight Story]

4. I don't think anyone can apply that def. to me - but I also think torture is pretty dumb

We get people to tell us what we want to hear by hurting them. How is that working out?

If you really want to torture someone, subject them to some of our TV shows - they will sing like birds :rofl:

[Odin2005]

5. great, I'm a "radical pacifist" now even though I make fun of "radical pacifists"? DUMBASS!!!

[cali]

6. "enhanced techniques". He's a frickin' coward. He doesn't even have the guts

to call torture what it is.

[Bigmack]

7. At DU, we've all run into...

Gen. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket", and I know I've posted Gen David Shoup's quote about staying out of wars.

Three Medals of Honor between them. Purple Hearts and other medals up the ass.

Guess they must have been "radical pacifists", too.

[BeFree]

8. Nothing new

We Pacifists have always been called dirty little names. Its because we get under their skin, because they know pacifism is the right way to live. But since they just have to hate, and fear, and react, they can't be peaceful. It bugs the shit out of them that they can't make us be like them.

Hell, they most famous personal story in the history of the world ended in the crucifixion of a pacifist.

[vadawg]

9. problem is its okay for you to be a pacifist because there are other people who are willing to deal

with the idiots who would take advantage of your pacifism, now if the whole of mankind was pacifist then it would be okay but as long as there are people who are willing to put people on cattle trucks and murder enmasse in killing fields then pacifism is a luxury that only a minority can feel superior about...

[BeFree]

14. feel superior?

If you knew pacifism you would know pacifists don't feel superior. That is why we don't feel that violence is required. Only someone who feels they are the utmost would stoop so low as to use violence.

Imagine a world where everyone was a pacifist.
Now imagine a world where everyone believed violence was the amswer.

Now choose which world you would want to live.

We hope someday yall will join us. Then the world can be as one.

[vadawg]

20. total unrealistic and claptrap, whilst you put yourself up there as superior due to your pacifism

the only reason you can go through life without being put onto a cattle truck or a million other ways mankind has come up with for killing others is because there are people who stand between you and the idiots who would kill you simply because you are different, or because you have something they want. The world were everyone is pacifist is never going to happen as it goes against what makes mankind a species that has come out of the ooze and striven to the stars...

[BeFree]

21. heh

Your slip is showing! Your slip toward the violence you say you fight against.

The people were loaded into cattle cars. So violence failed to save them. It failed.

There have been people who wanted to kill me. And I still live. How'd that happen?

Now we are using violence in Afghanistan. Your creed is, in effect, loading people into cattle cars. And you think that's an answer? Bzzzzzt!

Try, for once, to examine being a pacifist. Just try it. You may like it! Go for 2 or 4 days without imagining using violence to get your way. Many cops can and do. In fact, they make the best cops.

[vadawg]

24. no slip, i use violence and the threat of it every day to protect others

the people who were loaded into cars went along with the program, the ones who fought had some who died and others who lived and most importantly if the allies hadnt of used violence in quantity then a lot more people would of died. the people who were trying to kill you obviously were not trying hard enough, due to experience if someone wants to kill you then they pretty much have to be the dumbest dude in the world or the unluckiest not to succeed.

[BeFree]

26. well

People who want to kill people are the dumbest, eh?

I see there isn't much point in discussing this with you. You just keep spewing the same crap without any thought of my posts in your replies.

So, I will leave you with this: I am the kind of pacifist (Jesus inspired) who would raise a hand to protect someone else from grave danger. Myself, not so much. Diplomacy and quick feet is more my style.

Good day.

[vadawg]

28. the irony of it, you chastize me for not reading your post whilst its pretty obvious you didnt read

mine or you are intentionally miss quoting me in regards to people who really try to kill others and fail as being dumb...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkana]

17. Not everyone listens to diplomacy.

Not everyone is open to negotiating terms.

I ask you: In 1941, a couple days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on America. What would you have done? Hitler had conquered much of Europe at that point and England was the only major European country standing in his way. You think he'd have wanted to sit down at the negotiating table?

I don't like war. I abhor torture. I believe in diplomacy first and war as an absolute last resort.

But I'm not Dennis Kucinich and I don't support some stupid "Department of Peace".

[BeFree]

19. Oh

If I was dropped out of the sky and given the power to do whatever at that point in time, I would.... I dunno.

However, what I do know is that because there were so many in power before Hitler who were not pacifist, it enabled Hitler into doing what he did.

Today, the Chinese could produce a Hitler. And pacifism is working diplomatically to keep that type of situation from occurring. Keep your fingers crossed that they are successful.

[KoKo]

40. War with Who? This isn't Hitler's Germany we are talking about, here.

This is endless wars against people from other countries who aren't murdering Jews and Christians within their borders in massive amounts putting them in concentration camps. These are pockets of people who really do have a beef with US for what we've done meddling in their internal political affairs of their sovereign countries.

[vadawg]

42. WTF not sure if you are saying its ok for these guys to kill people who are not christians or jews

problem is how would you negotiate with the extremists, what exactly do you think you would have to sacrifice in order to have peace, and the people you are willing to sacrifice would have to go along with letting themselves be slaughtered or ruled by the extremists in order for you to achieve peace. Sometimes the only way for that peace to be achieved is to kill the guys trying to kill you whether people like it or not..

[tabasco]

10. Nope. I'm an infantry combat vet and support justified military action.

But I will always consider torture barbaric, un-American and counterproductive.

[vadawg]

33. yup sometimes there are bad guys that wont stop until they are killed

[TreasonousBastard]

11. This guy's a complete idiot and some pacifist should be radical enough...

to beat some sense into him.

I'm a pacifist, a Quaker, and have 350 years of nonviolent tradition behind me if he wants to learn something about pacifism.

But, he doesn't-- he just wants to whine about how we're all going to die because we're afraid to torture some wild-ass Arabs who might want to blow us up.

He might want to get some input from Israel, which has had a lot more experience in dealing with wild-ass Arabs wanting to blow them up. Torture is illegal there.

He might also want to ask British police and military interrogators how well torture worked in Belfast.

And he could even ask some people in this country how "enhanced interrogation" has been used to force confessions from the inocent when a case had to be closed.

And last, he can talk to the generals actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan-- the UCMJ isn't big on torture and the military isn't big on any results it gets.

[quaker bill]

30. This Friend speaks my mind.

from another Quaker named Bill.

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. I believe Barack Obama was correct in 2002 when he said there are wars, and then there are DUMB wars

I do part company with him on the definition of a DUMB war though.

Basically, any war not fought in the direct and actual defense of the United States of America is a DUMB war.

And you would have to go back to 1945 to find one of those.

[undeterred]

13. I am totally against torture, but not against war.

Being in favor of the Geneva conventions does not mean you're a "radical pacifist". It means you're civilized.

[Arkana]

16. No, I'm not opposed to all war.

I'm opposed to preemptive war.

[New Dawn]

18. I am opposed to illegal Neocon wars for global empire.

But not war as a concept. There have been progressive wars (i.e. to end slavery in the Civil War or to defeat fascism in World War II).

[Edweird]

22. Not. Even. Close. Torture is wrong.

[kentuck]

23. "...no matter what the cost in innocent lives" ?

Do we know how many "innocent" lives were saved by waterboarding and torture and inhumane actions? Is there a record somewhere of how many lives were saved because we tortured folks?? I have yet to see that?

[PufPuf23]

25. I am radical pacifist but believe in rational self defense

and avoid violence and bullying in any context.

These positions are not self-contradictory.

Did not read the links (for time mgmt).

Was raised in a hunting culture but quit hunting in my late teens when I was subject to Vietnam draft but had a fortunate draft lottery number. I am well armed and trained but have not fired a weapon since 1986 (and only then to collect biological specimens from the tops of trees). I do not like to be around gun fire at all nor physical nor emotional violence not do I think such techniquies are moral policy.

With the recent CIA bombing in AfPak, I question if our intelligence "professionals" are icompetent as perhaps we have been lead to the wrong targets.

[Unvanguard]

27. That's really, really stupid. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to wage war.

Recognizing this is not "pacifism" of any variety.

[Raine]

29. No, I'm not. nt

[liquid diamond]

31. I oppose torture, but I'm no pacifist.

I believe in wars of self-defense and stopping the genocide of the defenseless.

[quaker bill]

32. Opposing torture alone

is insufficient to even claim the term pacifist and not even close to radical. It is little more than common humanity and a committment to abide by the law.

It is also important to distinguish pacifism as a personal commitment and ideology from passive-ism. Pacifism is the active seeking of just and equitable relationships. It is action taken to avoid war and is best taken well before the killing starts.

Folks who take issue with pacifism truly love to cite WWII, Hitler, and Pearl Harbor and ask how pacifism would solve that. Let me be brief, it wouldn't. By the time war is fully materialized and the killing has begun, it is far too late for a pacifist approach. True pacifism would have been working hard in the decades before war arose to create the just and equitable conditions to avoid it. Hitler rose to power in a response to massive economic injustice made worse by the great depression. The right answer is to create conditions where such lunatics never rise to power. Once they have done so, the chances to avoid war become few and far between.

[Iggo]

34. No such thing.

[MisterP]

35. well, discussions of pacifism always raise the question of "self-defense"

but when was the US really attacked at home before 2001--and by "at home" I don't mean CIA operatives overseas helping prop up local regimes? Lebanon 1958? Vietnam 1964? Dominican Republic 1965? Laos and Cambodia 1970? Afghanistan 1979? Iran 1980? Libya, Lebanon, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua 1981? Grenada 1983? Iran 1987-88? Panama 1989? Iraq 1991? Afghanistan 2001? Iraq 2003? Haiti 2004? Somalia and Pakistan 2007? Yemen 2009?

[vadawg]

37. question is do you only defend your own, or do you defend others

if you witness a stranger being attacked on the street do you walk the other way or take some action, self defence only can end up biting you on the ass, as when you are the one needing help others will walk away from you too.

[jotsy]

36. Response #35, many comments, no recs?

something about that not quite right IMO, rec'd it, which I would have done anyway.

I say resist trying to make sense of notions from minds so small they need to label and categorize so as to dismiss or demean whatever might not fit in their limited image of the world.

[Iggo]

38. More unrecs than recs is more likely.

[Kurska]

41. 100% against torture, not a pacifist at all. n/t

[katsy]

43. It doesn't matter what I'm called.

What matters is what you call the person who believes torture is acceptable at any time. Human or sociopath?

My vote is sociopath.

To think that torture is acceptable is to forget the horrors of the Holocaust.

Whatever excuses are brought forth to justify torture are, IMO, brought forth by sociopaths seeking relief for their own demented satisfaction. It doesn't matter if the interrogators of today are looking to save lives or the nazis were looking to purify the race. If you are capable of torturing another living creature, you are a twisted human being. Something is wrong with you, not me.