4 ms·

> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and

by wtbob 11y ago

> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. Truly, a fine thing to conscientiously object to. > In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. That is a detachment from reality so extreme that it's difficult to imagine that he is able to tie his shoes in the morning. Some folks say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; that's true, but only because the competent turn to it before it's their last choice. Yes, violence is wrong and evil; yes, it is brutal and merciless. It is horrible to see violence, and more horrible still to engage in it. But — and this is the key point — violence is often unavoidable: the choice is not between violence and nonviolence (that choice is easy!) but between violence now and violence later. Which is worse? That's hard to say. The only thing which enables pacifists to survive is non-pacifists who protect them. Calmly reasoning with (or emotionally pleading with) someone intent on stealing from, raping or killing one does not succeed with anywhere near the reliability of of stopping him with violent force. It's the police and the military which dissuade one's fellow citizens and external powers, respectively, from exercising violence upon one. 'I won't take up arms myself, but I will enjoy the peace and security provided by those who do' makes as much moral sense as 'I won't kill animals, but I'll eat meat.' It's a free country; he's free to free-load on the sacrifice and hard work of his fellow-citizens, and we're free to think that behaviour fundamentally irresponsible.

mikeash 11y ago
What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was imperfect. > You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason. Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it. I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence & pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    A less bad ruthless dictatorship is a pretty long way from "freedom and democracy," even softened with imperfection. And if that's what you're using to justify years of war, enslaving young men and forcing them to fight, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, you're going to have a really tough road to travel. I don't think it's a surprise that disagreement with you is focused on Vietnam. True pacifism is pretty rare. Most people will agree with the broader point that war is sometimes necessary.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    "I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war,..." The argument that Vietnam was an unnecessary war for the US is heavily bolstered by the fact that we lost and nothing really bad happened.
qntty 11y ago
Did you read the article? You are debating a straw man.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > Did you read the article? Did you read my post? I read his entire article and quoted it. Pacifists are to violence as anti-vaxxers are to medicine: freeloaders.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Wow, that's rather strong language, especially given the context. Even in the most strident defenses of US involvement in Vietnam, I have never once seen anyone argue that the safety of the United States itself was at issue. Even if we accept that this war was a fight for freedom and democracy, is it "freeloading" for someone to refuse to fight for the freedom of people thousands of miles away in a completely different country and culture? In addition, a relatively small proportion of Americans are ever involved in the military these days. Is the vast majority of the population freeloading? Or does it somehow only qualify as freeloading when you avoid the military because of principle?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 11y ago
>Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. So, the US killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people to save them from being killed later in post-war executions? Let's put it in real terms: a last-ditch attempt to preserve control of the SE area region and US strategic interests, by people who couldn't not care less about human lives and bad regimes, as evident by the fact that they supported (armed, financial support, good diplomatic relations, all the way down to staging coups for them etc) all kinds of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Latin America and elsewhere. The same people, for example, didn't have much of a bone with Suharto, for example, killing 500.000 to 1.000.000 people around the same time. Actually, they've helped him, and had him in good standing for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#Anti-communist_purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#An... As for the human toll in post war vietnam, besides the bad regime, those things happened following a bloody civil war, with people collaborating with this or that side, what did you expect? Hugs and flowers from those who won but had seen relatives, cities etc perish because of the other side (including people collaborating with the enemy)?
specialist 11y ago
preserve some freedom and democracy Right. Even Robert McNamara, with the benefit of hindsight, finally figured out we got stuck in someone else's civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War I'd hope that your world view permits that there's some room between Christ's pacifism and Genghis' genocidal rampaging. For those of us who simply don't want to be a tool in someone else's war profiteering machine, pacifism (even if only in word) is a nice counter point to our society's doctrine of total war.

by wtbob 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.

wtbob 11y ago
> What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was imperfect. > You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason. Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it. I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence & pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.
- mikeash 11y ago
  A less bad ruthless dictatorship is a pretty long way from "freedom and democracy," even softened with imperfection. And if that's what you're using to justify years of war, enslaving young men and forcing them to fight, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, you're going to have a really tough road to travel. I don't think it's a surprise that disagreement with you is focused on Vietnam. True pacifism is pretty rare. Most people will agree with the broader point that war is sometimes necessary.
- mcguire 11y ago
  "I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war,..." The argument that Vietnam was an unnecessary war for the US is heavily bolstered by the fact that we lost and nothing really bad happened.

qntty 11y ago

Did you read the article? You are debating a straw man.

wtbob 11y ago
> Did you read the article? Did you read my post? I read his entire article and quoted it. Pacifists are to violence as anti-vaxxers are to medicine: freeloaders.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Wow, that's rather strong language, especially given the context. Even in the most strident defenses of US involvement in Vietnam, I have never once seen anyone argue that the safety of the United States itself was at issue. Even if we accept that this war was a fight for freedom and democracy, is it "freeloading" for someone to refuse to fight for the freedom of people thousands of miles away in a completely different country and culture? In addition, a relatively small proportion of Americans are ever involved in the military these days. Is the vast majority of the population freeloading? Or does it somehow only qualify as freeloading when you avoid the military because of principle?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 11y ago

>Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. So, the US killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people to save them from being killed later in post-war executions? Let's put it in real terms: a last-ditch attempt to preserve control of the SE area region and US strategic interests, by people who couldn't not care less about human lives and bad regimes, as evident by the fact that they supported (armed, financial support, good diplomatic relations, all the way down to staging coups for them etc) all kinds of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Latin America and elsewhere. The same people, for example, didn't have much of a bone with Suharto, for example, killing 500.000 to 1.000.000 people around the same time. Actually, they've helped him, and had him in good standing for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#Anti-communist_purge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#An... As for the human toll in post war vietnam, besides the bad regime, those things happened following a bloody civil war, with people collaborating with this or that side, what did you expect? Hugs and flowers from those who won but had seen relatives, cities etc perish because of the other side (including people collaborating with the enemy)?

specialist 11y ago

preserve some freedom and democracy Right. Even Robert McNamara, with the benefit of hindsight, finally figured out we got stuck in someone else's civil war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War I'd hope that your world view permits that there's some room between Christ's pacifism and Genghis' genocidal rampaging. For those of us who simply don't want to be a tool in someone else's war profiteering machine, pacifism (even if only in word) is a nice counter point to our society's doctrine of total war.