Any of you CM fans pacifists?

[Major Tom]

Being insinuated at being an anti-semite just because I don't believe in all of Isreal's policies is pretty alarming. I never said that I agree with how Palestine, or the other arab states are handling the situation either, but, you just assume if I am against Isreal's policies I am for terrorist actions. Not so.

I really don't see the harmony that you portray in Isreal through any of my classes taught by professors who were/are actually in contact with political and cultural leaders in both the Isreal and Palestinian camps. There has to be some reason for these killings of 'average' people on both sides to still be continuing.

Yes, I know that both the US and Canada weren't very keen in massive Jewish immigrations. That is what I mean that it is too bad that they didn't come here.

In my mind, neither the Palestinian's nor the Isreali's have shown that either of them have the moral right to live there. They are both doing that they deem neccessary, but it cannot be seen as being moral.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

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.

You make a point regarding the Iroqouis but seem to disregard that the hispanic people living in what they consider occupied territories are treated at a lower standard than the whites.

Originally posted by Major Tom:

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?

We stomped Serbia because they have a lucrative mine in Kosovo, if I recall the largest coppermine in the region. If we were concerned with oppression, we'd be in there stopping the Albanians from slaughtering Serbs as well as all over Africa.

Originally posted by Major Tom:

And they will remain poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated if they stay in the un-funded and oppressive state that is Isreal today.

No, they will be poor, oppressed, mysoginist and under-educated under the rule of some form of religious or cultural totalitarianism, as is the wont of Arab cultures. Look to Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iraq or Iran if you want to fight oppression.

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Is your outlook on how the world should run, whoever win's win's and should be left at that?

Yes and it's a remarkably consistent world-view, unlike yours, which is full of inconsistencies and must require a great deal of willful ignorance to maintain.

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Gee, isn't it lucky that your nation never lost a war where they were faced with a crushing occupation?

Oddly enough, you're wrong here, as well. My nation was destroyed and obsorbed by the United States over 100 years ago.

------------------

"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

Edited because the QUOTE function seems to be broken and I wanted to remove the ugly little things.

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 01-26-2001).]

[Major Tom]

Since I have been called an anti-semite and ignorant for holding my views I think that I will quit posting in this thread. Holding a view different from the socially accepted or realistically practical may be wishfull thinking, but, doesn't deserve that I be deemed a racist or have no understanding how the world really works. What I state is not policy, nor is it really practical to implement, however, that doesn't mean what is in place should be seen as acceptable, or even optimal, but rather only as realistic. People are generally greedy, but that doesn't mean that greed should be accepted. What John and I are talking about is that the perception that the Western world is good, while everything else is evil (ie. Arab countries are all radically religious, which in reality they all AREN'T!) is not necessarily true. That people getting stomped on should, at at least, get what is happening to them acknowledged by the rest of the world, instead of them all being unfairly portrayed as evil unrelenting terrorists if they should dare rebel against the status quo.

[Rick]

This is a cool thread. Mark I was particularly fascinated by your response. I consider myself coming from a similar place except that I look at wargaming as an exercise in problem solving more than the psychology angle. However, I'm with you on looking at pacifism as an ideal to aspire to. Not only do I feel this way on a moral level but nuclear weapons have made total war obsolete.

Most of all though, is the fact that I just consider violence very wrong. I try to control my own violence and I simply will not tolerate physical violence towards myself or those the I love. This feeling thus extends into my feelings about politics.

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Since I have been called an anti-semite and ignorant for holding my views I think that I will quit posting in this thread

I haven't yet seen any anti-semitic statements from you or anyone. It's probably my fault for mentioning Israel in the first place. My only point was that pacifism is the preserve of those who already have peace. When the sirens which send the general populace scurrying for the shelters are a part of daily life, morality gets a little strained, particularly when the criticisms come from a people with nice safe borders and the nearest enemy is an ocean away.

One has to wonder what the American reaction would be to, say, Mexico shelling Texas towns.

------------------

When it's my turn to march up to Glory,

I'm gonna have one HELL of a story...

The Face of Evil

[Angus]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

There seems to be a historical cycle concerning the "sweatshop" problem. If you look back at Western history many of the Western countries had sweatshops as a result of the industrial revolution. I believe this is a phase that the Third World countries will go through as their economies mature, but eventually they will be much better off.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

I haven't yet seen any anti-semitic statements from you or anyone.

I have to exho Bab's sentiments, who, exactly is calling you an anti-semite? Also Tom, how did you ever decide that being a pacifist and supporting those poor oppressed people is the unpopular position? Christ, man, you're riding high on populism and claiming to be a rebel while doing 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

[Bullethead]

Martyr said:

Hmmm. The old saw that "humans are predators" just doesn't hold water. For one thing, most of the evolutionary evidence points to the fact that human animals developed social groupings and culture (not to mention intelligence itself) by exploiting tendencies to cooperation over tendencies to competition.

I disagree. Evolutionary evidence is in the form of bones and tools. All else is inferrence from these things and ranges the gamut from educated guesswork to self-delusion in support of a pet theory. But the solid (as it were) evidence, going back over a million years, points to highly carnivorous, and thus predacious, behavior, almost exclusively until just a few thousand years ago.

True, people are social animals, but so are wolves and lions. There is nothing that says predators can't be social and cooperative. Also, remember that also until just a few thousand years ago, all human social groupings were small: family, tribe, clan, etc. These were like troops of monkeys or packs of wolves, with members mostly cooperating with each other but waging bloody war on the rest of the world, both for food and in competition with other, similar human groups (IOW, war).

If hamsters could work together the way our primate ancestors did, they'd probably be on Mars by now.

I doubt it. They don't live long enough to acquire that sort of knowledge

Besides, have you ever noticed that, in general, the higher up the foodchain an animal is, the smarter it is? I suppose this is just a natural result of the natural war: offense is harder than defense. Our ancesters were predators, so that's why we're smart.

More to the point, however, is the fact that the main part of being human is having consciousness and a conscience; that is, having an awareness of consequences and a sense of right and wrong.

Don't tell me you've never seen a dog feel guilty about doing something it knows it shouldn't have. Consciousness and conscience are not unique to humans.

To say that "war is inevitable, so just accept any and all outbreaks of it" is to abdicate morality entirely.

You have a misconception here. You think that war is per se immoral. But war is simply the ultimate expression of natural competition between human groups. There's never enough of the stuff everybody needs to go around, so there is always going to be fighting over it. Fighting for what you and your group need is, IMHO, per se moral. If you don't fight for it, you won't get it or keep it others from taking it from you. If you don't get it or lose it, your group suffers. Letting that happen is immoral

The only difference between people and animals in this regard is that people are "smart" enough to have invented many new reasons for war besides bare necessity, such as religion, personal ambition, soccer games, etc.

But OTOH, these at bottom line are simply derivatives of the basic reaons. Getting and maintaining political or religious power simply allows you and your group to feed and breed better. In fact, you could argue that these other reasons for war are a direct result of the increasing size and complexity of human societies. How could you launch a jihad or crusade if not for multiple, pre-existing, large-scale, organized, and "heretical" religions?

The very facts of human society and culture show that, most of the time, we've been much better than that.

Most of the time, there are usually several separate wars being waged every single day in various places of the world. It is an illusion just to look at your own group's periods of relative peace and assume the same state prevails world-wide.

Besides, as mentioned above, I think human "culture" is responsible for more and bloodier wars than any other cause.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Holman]

I certainly won't try to argue the finer points of evolutionary biology, and neither will I dispute the fact that human animals are very good predators. Heck, I'll even admit that dogs are very sophisticated and sneaky manipulators. (Just offer one a piece of cheese...)

But I must call attention to the implications of the argument that goes more or less like this:

1) Humans are good at fighting, and have always fought;

2) Wars go on everywhere and in all times because humans are natural fighters;

3) Therefore, quit complaining about the miseries of war. War is here to stay. Sign up for your local military so that your clan has a better chance of winning more of those scarce resources.

The fact that a thing (killing, for example) is natural does not make the thing good. To follow this kind of argument is to abdicate the moral responsibility that comes with intelligence, which is to judge right from wrong and to act accordingly.

The moral step that defines maturity, social ethics and human reason is that of admitting that ALL suffering and misery is bad, rather than just MY suffering or the misery of MY clan. This means that acting solely for one's self interest (or the interest of one's group) is literally not good enough. It may feel natural, and it may even maximize your gains, but it is not ethically correct. If you and I could produce gold by torturing slaves, this would not make our torture of those slaves any less morally heinous.

Bullethead, I see the point that you are trying to make when you say that "war is simply the ultimate expression of natural competition between human groups." But I would go so far as to say that intelligence and moral responsibility preclude nature: there is no such thing as "natural competition" when humans are involved. You admit this yourself when you argue that culture has given us more incentives to fight. I agree, but I would go farther and say that the same high intelligence that has given rise to those incentives also burdens us with the responsibility of behaving more ethically than we might like. Sure, religions and governments have led to plenty of wars. That's the tragedy. But religions and governments exist not IN ORDER TO fight wars, but because our better impulses call us to devise social mechanisms that might allow us to be better people.

You've been describing the way human behavior IS at its basest (and least impressive) level. I'm pointing out that human consciousness forces us to compare the way behavior IS with the way it SHOULD be. There's no getting around this responsibility, as much as some groups and some eras might try.

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by Tankgirl:

Funny the world didn't see it Mr. Eban's way re: UN 242

Not surprisingly, UN 242 was so poorly worded that anybody can interpret it any way they want. This saves the UN from having to actually enforce anything.

------------------

When it's my turn to march up to Glory,

I'm gonna have one HELL of a story...

The Face of Evil

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

I disagree. Evolutionary evidence is in the form of bones and tools. All else is inferrence from these things and ranges the gamut from educated guesswork to self-delusion in support of a pet theory. But the solid (as it were) evidence, going back over a million years, points to highly carnivorous, and thus predacious, behavior, almost exclusively until just a few thousand years ago.

To talk about evolution, you should understand what evolution is. Evolution is not some god that just randomly gives species some irrational characteristics, although in discussions like this it is very usual just to pull it from hat to reason anything. In 19th century it mislead all human sciences, when darwinistic theories spread out of their original context and based on very little proof.

Does genotype cause wars? Let's take an example of a proven biological tendency, mating. From evolutionary standpoint it is normal to reproduce. Thus we have urges to make as many children as possible... or do we? Do you have a desire to raise 57 kids? No. The only urge we have is the urge for sex with opposite gender. The urge doesn't go anywhere with use of condom or pills, actually even masturbation does the same. It can also be argued that some gene makes us behave violently, but saying that this will inevitably cause wars, is like saying that our sexual needs will inevitably lead into large family size. If there is urge for violence, play Combat Mission, box, beat your children, but it doesn't mean that you would have to kill anyone.

Oh, and human is omnivorous. You should know that; just compare your teeth to that of your dog. Likewise, eat only meat and you get scurvy. Most of the food that primitive societies eat is berries, roots and such, which suggest that this was the normal diet for pre-farming era man too.

True, people are social animals, but so are wolves and lions. There is nothing that says predators can't be social and cooperative. Also, remember that also until just a few thousand years ago, all human social groupings were small: family, tribe, clan, etc. These were like troops of monkeys or packs of wolves, with members mostly cooperating with each other but waging bloody war on the rest of the world, both for food and in competition with other, similar human groups (IOW, war).

Actually, spreading your own genotype is more important than that. If there is an evolutionary basis for wars, then it must be the killing of other males and raping their women. The reason why herds form, is that they have a very close genotype, and that is also why family ties tend to be very strong. If wars had something to do with this, however, modern megalopolises would be impossible to form, as the people don't have any kind of connection, except for imaginary (romantic view of uniform origin of a people). Why would USA ever bother to attack anywhere else if the states could fill their urges by killing eachothers?

Besides, have you ever noticed that, in general, the higher up the foodchain an animal is, the smarter it is? I suppose this is just a natural result of the natural war: offense is harder than defense. Our ancesters were predators, so that's why we're smart.

Yeah, T-rex was a real genius, probably would beat Deep Blue in chess any time, claws down. And whales are intelligent because it takes wits to swim all the day with your mouth open (actually it's because they spend their time doing crossword puzzles).

Most of the time, there are usually several separate wars being waged every single day in various places of the world. It is an illusion just to look at your own group's periods of relative peace and assume the same state prevails world-wide.

Most of time, most of people live in peace. I have never been in war in my life. I have never killed anybody. I don't know personally anyone who would have killed another man in the last 50 years. Even of the generation that "was in war", less than half of them really were. It is obvious that wars, despite of how much attention they gather, are pathological, not normal.

Besides, as mentioned above, I think human "culture" is responsible for more and bloodier wars than any other cause.

Obviously, yes. If you really want to find out reasons for wars, you have to look into social causes. There is too much hullabaloo about Bill and Monica? Let's bomb the Serbs.

[von Lucke]

Any of you ever heard of Desmond Doss?

www.homeofheroes.com/profiles/profiles_doss.html

(Sorry about some of the overtly religious refrences, but this site gives more of his background than the simple CMH sitation does).

[rwcanuck]

Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

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.

What Aka Panzerleader says is true for me as well, but try telling that to your Wife. She thinks I am nuts!

My Brothers bought me toy soldiers and a wind-up tank when I was a kid and my love for anything Military just grew, but to this day I am a Pacifist at heart.

RW

[I/O Error]

Nobody should EVER "like" war. War is a terrible, horrible thing. There is no question, war should be avoided at all possible costs.

I mean, the whole point of a modern military these days is to pour BILLIONS of dollars into it, and PRAY that it NEVER has to be used. I mean, we would be ESCTATIC if it turned out we were just wasting our money!!

(Imagine the alternative... )

The only cavaet however, is that there ARE things worth killing and dying for.

To wipe out Hitler's thugs.

To protect or gain personal freedom.

To defend life and property.

(These are only examples, but the fact is, as horrible as war is, it sometimes MUST be called upon to solve the even greater evils we are sometimes presented with.)

Problem is, every generation we forget the lesson and costs of war...

------------------

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

------------------------

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Guest Madmatt]

Man, I must have been sleeping on the job or somefink. How did this thread get so big all of the sudden.

Okay, lets recap..

War is bad and people get hurt.

Seems rather simple doesn't it?

Oh wait, there is that damn human nature sticking it's head in again isn't there?

Yup, humans often turn to violence to further their goals, be that territorial or for just a scrap of meat.

That sort of muddies the water doesn't it?

Well as someone that puts myself into physical jeopardy every Saturday night to protect others (those that know of my past will understand, I have returned to my former vocation one night a week) I think I have a unique perspective on this whole issue revolving around human nature and it's preoccupation with violence.

Let me try and sum up this whole concept briefly for you:

There is nothing wrong with being a well armed pacifist just like there is nothing wrong with being an optimistic pragmatists.

Hope springs eternal and remember to keep the barrel well oiled.

Goonight all.

Madmatt