Forever Babra Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 "If a man points a loaded gun at your head and threatens to shoot, is it an act of aggression to push the gun aside?" Abba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, 1967. You all talk like you have a choice. Must be nice to have choices. ------------------ When it's my turn to march up to Glory, I'm gonna have one HELL of a story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Ghandi felt that pacifism was necessarily the best course of action because resistance harms the resistor. The most common metaphor is the axe used to chop down the tree, because in the act it becomes dull itself. Such talk, of course, is hogwash. Violence is a tool, no more evil or wrong than any other. If you disagree with someone and they refuse to change their ways and the continuance of their actions will cause you some sort of hindrance, by all means displace them. If this means you need to kill 10 million people to free 1 billion, do it. People who are pacifists are too busy wanting to save everyone to actually save anyone. In reality, murder and destruction displaced Hitler's regime in Germany. Murder and destruction displaced the British regime in America (Some would argue India, as well, but the inherent contradictions of pacifism demonstrated in Ghandi's resistance is a different topic). I take the political correct road of supporting the toppling of ideals and regimes that disagree with the commonly held notion of freedom. In the ugly real world, this is also dynamic. One person's religion is another person's oppression. One man's freedom is another man's perversion. By all rights, half the nations of the world should be at each other's throats and we'd be better off for it. ------------------ "The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again. Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization." -Eugene Rabinowitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I guess you could consider me a pacifist in one sense: I think weapons are at their most effective when they convince the other guy not to shoot in the first place. ------------------ Two Rules to Live By: 1. Never Get Out of the Boat. 2. Charlie Doesn't Surf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I love wargames, wartime songs, war movies, war books, war veterans, big guns, big explosions, small guns, small explosions, fanatic soldiers, panicked soldiers,... I love everything about war except...war itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 The problem is, is one nation's idea of freedom is not corresponding to every nation's idea. For example, ideas of individual or group freedom. They do not mix. Also, active and passive freedom. Some nations believe that freedom is only important to retain things you already have, while others see freedom as something that should be open for everyone to gain. For example, the freedom to not be taxed (Capitialist) vs. the freedom of having affordable health services (Socialist). There is NO commonly held notion of freedom, just propaganda. Also, the idea of freedom conflicts. Japan went to war in 1941 because they felt that their freedom/sovereignty was being threatened by the United states' economic embargo's and ultimatums, while the US went to war because their freedom was affected by direct attack. Both nations were trodding on eachother's impression of freedom, so, in a way, if freedom is the only excuse you need then both sides have a moral excuse. Isreal is a bad example. The Isrealis (SP) used violence against the British to achieve their freedom, and now condemn the Palestinians for using violence to attain theirs. Freedom for Isreal means no freedom for Palestine, just like freedom for Palestine means no freedom for Isreal. Using freedom as an excuse for one nation to wage warfare over another one is not the best example, since, one nation's freedom usually infringes on another. Disagreeing with one nation on the way they run things does not justify using military actions. The US dissagreed with the democratic elections in Chilie and Guatemala, started insurrections to place bruital dictators in their place. As I said earlier, I believe that no wars are good. They may be justified through necessity, but, cannot be labled as being good (ie. the ends cannot elevate the means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WendellM Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I like CM and enjoy it as a game. However, to get serious for a serious issue: I'm not a pacifist, but I do hate war. If you don't hate war and instead truly enjoy it and all its related human suffering for its own sake (we're talking real war, not abstract simulation), please do the entire planet a favor and fatally shoot yourself right now. Thank you. That said, I quite enjoy studying the tactics and strategies of war. It's arguably the most life-altering man-made activity ever devised, and thus deserves a great deal of attention. To remain ignorant of such an important matter is almost to do a disservice to mankind. As fascinating as the concept of war is, however, I try never to forget how horrifically costly real war is. In my opinion: 1. Those sons-of-bitches who aggressively inflict it on their fellow human beings for their own gain deserve universal disgust for taking the easy way out by forcibly taking over something that others have built, instead of building for themselves. 2. However, those who want nothing to do with the military arts and who deliberately remain weak invite military destruction by others and deserve what they get. Thus, I view warfare as something necessary to prepare against but never something to prepare for (except, if you're so inclined, to stop another party who is waging war for his own benefit at the expense of others). - an unusually somber Wendell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Without getting too nervous about the meaning of the word 'pacifist', I'd have to say that I am one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Forever Babra: "If a man points a loaded gun at your head and threatens to shoot, is it an act of aggression to push the gun aside?" Abba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, 1967. You all talk like you have a choice. Must be nice to have choices. Ah, but if you bust into a guy's living room, beat up his wife and kids, and steal his life savings, and he holds a gun to your head and tells you to get out, what then? I don't much care for Zionism. And I HATE how the state of Israel was formed and how it's acted since. We're supposed to be a special people, an example for the nations. What good is it to have a Jewish state if we act just as poorly as the gentiles? -John ------------------ sometimes i'd like to kick your f-ing head but i guess you're just a human too -EMBRACE, "SAID GUN" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27ray Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I remember once my mom asking me why i didn't join the army like my brother (FO in Berlin 88-92) since always played all those war games and read all those WW II books with the black and white photos. One thing I learned playing all those games it that the battle field (and the modern one more so) is a very dangerous and violent place with little regard for your pain or suffering. (kind of like working for a dot.com) Sum it up to say i like the chess, the battle of wits, oh and the fact that i can walk away from the battle every time. -ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Well, I'd consider myself a pacifist. I enjoy playing CM though, and I don't say no to a good game of Quake either. I can differentiate between the computer screen and reality. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quenaelin Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 People should always live in peace. Army is always needed for defence and frightening purpose, but war is totally different thing since it is always easy to glorify it and think it is something honorable. But I think it is just killing and murdering in the name your country or other weak country who cannot defend for them self. I think diplomatic aproach should allways be in first position and if that is not helping things then it should be considered if it is right to begin to kill and murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurricane Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I´m pacifist in the sense that I believe there is no place for war in the world of today. The rules of economy have made wars too costly to fight, and the strong traditions of nation states have made conquering territory impossible. Take China for example. They have a massive army and lots of weapons. They have (in our western opinion) a political system which we don´t accept. Still, the risk of China fighting a war is minimal, because neither they or we can afford it. The reason we see wars in Africa is that they neither have a strong sense of nationality, nor a democratic tradition, and most important - their economy is already bankrupt. They (=the dictator) have nothing to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotcha Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Wow what a thought provoking topic. When I was a kid, I was into everything military. We played war games with sticks for guns and pine cones for grenades. I played many board games solo, because I couldn't find anybody interested in these long complex games. However, as I grew older I realized, as mentioned above, that I could get killed very easily and no matter what I did (on the battle field) my survival was only a matter of luck. I still enjoy war games, chess included, because of the strategy involved in solving the problem of beating you opponent. I am in awe of all veterans, because I know that I would never be able to do what they did to protect our country (and the world) from evil dictators. Just last night, when I was in my back yard throwing out the Christmas tree I imagined I was in the Ardennes on patrol. That must have been a terrifying experience. Every step on the frosty ground might reveal a hidden mine that blows you to bits or a German ambush. I do not know how the veterans and current soldiers do it. The fear must be paralyzing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by John Hough: Ah, but if you bust into a guy's living room, beat up his wife and kids, and steal his life savings, and he holds a gun to your head and tells you to get out, what then? Check the link in my sig. Pay special attention to the pic at the bottom left. Ponder it and its implications. That is the Palestinian agenda. I don't like the state of affairs either, but what is to be done? When the Union Jack came down in 1948 and seven Arab armies crossed the border within 24 hours, I suppose we should have rolled over and died? When Egypt blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, closed the Suez, and beseiged Eilat in the 1950s, we should have handed over the keys? When Jordanian artillery was shelling a beseiged Hierosalyim while Radio Cairo and Radio Damascus openly proclaimed a second Holocaust in 1967, and the U.N. Emergency Force quietly (and shamefully) abandoned its positions to allow them in, should we have gone quietly to the ovens? Perhaps we should have ignored the Syrian Katyushas firing into Northern Israel in the 1970s and 80s from Lebanon. There have been seven major wars since 1948. There will be peace when they stop trying to kill us, and not before. You don't like Zionism. Don't take your aliyah then. I have taken mine, and I lose no sleep over my time in the tzava haganah le'yisrael. Massada Lo Tipol Shenit. ------------------ When it's my turn to march up to Glory, I'm gonna have one HELL of a story... The Face of Evil [This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tankgirl Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Forever Babra: "If a man points a loaded gun at your head and threatens to shoot, is it an act of aggression to push the gun aside?" Abba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, 1967. Ha ha, I'm sure they said that about Poland in '39. Funny the world didn't see it Mr. Eban's way re: UN 242 --- "Snowpants are sexy!" http://www.geocities.com/wildhippychik/whp.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Forever Babra: Check the link in my sig. Pay special attention to the pic at the bottom left. Ponder it and its implications. That is the Palestinian agenda. I don't like the state of affairs either, but what is to be done? Ooh, a swastika, I'm scared. I'll admit the politics of victimization is powerful, but come on. The point of remembering you were a slave in Egypt is not to carry a chip on your shoulder and accuse the rest of the world. I don't see someone there who's going to exterminate the Jews, I see an angry, powerless man, screaming because he doesn't know what else to do. I'll admit, the Palestinians would likely do even worse to us than we've done to them, if they had the power, but they're not going to get that power, and that doesn't make what we've done any less bad. When the Union Jack came down in 1948 and seven Arab armies crossed the border within 24 hours, I suppose we should have rolled over and died? We were setting up tents in their living room. What do you expect? When Jordanian artillery was shelling a beseiged Hierosalyim while Radio Cairo and Radio Damascus openly proclaimed a second Holocaust in 1967, and the U.N. Emergency Force quietly (and shamefully) abandoned its positions to allow them in, should we have gone quietly to the ovens? Again, we shouldn't have been in their living room. Oh, but wait! They're attacking us, we're always the victim, we need to take the dining room and the kitchen, and oh, the stairs too, 'coz that's an advantageous position for them to attack OUR living room from. You don't like Zionism. Don't take your aliyah then. I have taken mine, and I lose no sleep over my time in the tzava haganah le'yisrael. I won't. I don't want my house to be a war zone. I don't want my kids to always be scared of the guy tied up under the dining room table. I don't want them to have to be escorted by men with assault rifles on school field trips. And I really don't want them to be forced to join the military. And I don't want to support a government engaged in opressing another people. Remember you were a slave in Egypt, yes, so you know what it's like, to work for freedom for all peoples. Next year in Jerusalem.... ::sigh:: -John ------------------ so you can stay cool behind your window and choose the view you want to see but as long as there's others held captive do not consider yourself free -EMBRACE, "DO NOT CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 What probably would have been the best situation for the world after WWII was for the European Jewish population to emigrate to North America. I don't believe in using a historical connection to a piece of territory not really in your control (based on population) as a basis for deeming it your rightfull land. The same situation is taking place in Kosovo. Traditionally it was a key Serbian territory, now it is 90% Albanian, however, the Serbs were and are willing to shed blood over retaining it even though their claim could only be enforced by military power. Isreal is vaguely comparable to South African Apartaid (SP). The smaller population controlls most of the wealth, even virtually all of the ability to move within the nation. Palestinains are always suspected of being a terrorist, they are definitely 2nd Class citizens. There has to be a limit to what Isreal can use the 1940's Jewish holocaust to get away with. Many other nations of people were also virtually completely erradicated in other holocausts (Central American Amerindians, Armenians, etc...). Using this as a viable excuse to do whatever you want in the name of real or imagined fear will only serve to cause antagonism, and if they should ever lose this power, a lot of retribution. The main problem with the analogy of pushing away the gun is you are just taking one segment of history. Like as John said what happened immediately before the Palestinain gun was pointed at Isreal's head was left out. I still stand by my statement that no military, or government sponsored form of violence is morally good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Gee, whiz, John, isn't all land occupied land? Do you agree with repatriation of California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona to Mexico? Do you think the Iriqouis should be paid, what is it?, $500 billion? So the Palestinians were on the wrong side of the ouch-stick, tough luck. So the Arab states are terrible at war and stupid enough to start them, tough luck. You lambast Bab's "Politics of victimization" and yet the Israelis aren't the victims, they are the victors. The people who are being victimized and acting like it are your poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated Palestinians, Libyans and Syrians. I suppose you thought King Hussein was a victim, too, right? ------------------ "The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again. Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization." -Eugene Rabinowitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Hi mom! ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rex_Bellator Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 My Uncle was a Centurion tank commander in Korea and was killed before I was born. When I was younger I used to think he was fighting in a worthwhile cause and made the supreme sacrifice for the common good of man. Now I'm older I just think what a waste it was, he's a man I never had the chance to know or laugh and share my life with. I suppose there are occasions where one must defend or die but for me that would be the only time to justify war. Thought I'd get in just before this one is locked due to all the politics! ------------------ "We're not here to take it - We're here to give it" General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TownsendVol Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I am ex military and no I am not a pacifists. I do think war is a terrible but sometimes necessary evil. God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iskander Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 How about this: if we all chipped in to buy enough laptops with CMBO preloaded, and then shipped them to all the "hotspots" of the world . . . everyone would be too busy fighting QBs to fight each other! Or, everyone in the world would realize the common enemy we have in the Cesspool ------------------ Continuing the fight from the secret command bunker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 I'm only a pacifist because I'm too fat to join the military !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Probably too fat even to be drafted as well!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Gee, whiz, John, isn't all land occupied land? Do you agree with repatriation of California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona to Mexico? Do you think the Iriqouis should be paid, what is it?, $500 billion? So the Palestinians were on the wrong side of the ouch-stick, tough luck. So the Arab states are terrible at war and stupid enough to start them, tough luck. You lambast Bab's "Politics of victimization" and yet the Israelis aren't the victims, they are the victors. The people who are being victimized and acting like it are your poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated Palestinians, Libyans and Syrians. I suppose you thought King Hussein was a victim, too, right? Unfortunately there is a difference that you haven't taken into account here. The Iroquois no longer live in the US, they live in Canada. The Palestinians live either in Isreal or were forcably dispersed to other countries. Your logic doesn't work. No where are we saying that these political leaders are victims, or that it was wrong for Isreal to defend itself when it was attacked. However, Isreal has done its share of attacking as well (Suez Crisis anyone!!). I am pretty sure that there are a few radical Jewish people in Isreal that are willing to exterminate all Palestinains just like the radical Palestinians are more than willing to kill all Jews. John and I aren't trying to elevate one over the other, we are just trying to put both in a realistic perspective instead of declaring whatever Isreal terrorists did to be ok and whatever Palestinain terrorists do is wrong. In my mind, both are/were wrong. You actually took the complete reverse argument for what we are stating. If we supported your post about giving back land (ala your Texas remark) to those who originally owned it then we would be supporting an all Jewish Isreal, not a new multinational state. I am fairly well versed in the goings on in Isreal, and most of what is called Isreal doesn't have a single Jewish person living there. It isn't a matter of giving back something taken, but a matter of recognizing that people who currently live there deserve to have some say in how they live their lives, to go and visit a relative down the street without having to go through checkpoints of what acts like an occupying army. What we are upset about is that this dispersal and land grabbing is CURRENTLY HAPPENING, not something which is long done. We stopped Serbia mistreating Albanians in Kosovo, why are we sitting back and letting Isreal do virtually the same thing to Palestinians? And they will remain poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated if they stay in the un-funded and oppressive state that is Isreal today. I am pretty sure that many people who endured the holocaust and ill treatment in Europe would look upon the way how Isreal treats its 'minority' with contempt. Is your outlook on how the world should run, whoever win's win's and should be left at that? Gee, isn't it lucky that your nation never lost a war where they were faced with a crushing occupation? [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-25-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts