Argh... Right... let's be just as silly. Do you disagree with child slavery in all the countries it happens in around the world? Right, so, should you be forced to go and liberate all those children, fight the slavers, put yourself in to horrenous situations and risk your life, just because you expressed an opinion?
No? Right... same difference.
People have opinions, they're more than entitled to them. Say they're wrong, have reasoned debate with them, but don't wish harm on them, it's never a good idea.
While I respect and understand the perspective that you share in your reply to the original post, I find that a different reading is also possible...to wit, how much would our actitivist opinions be influenced (or not) if we knew we would be required to shoulder the front line responsibility for seeing them carried out? For example, would a person who is pro-death penalty be swayed in the strength of her or his conviction if it meant being the person who actually delivers lethal injections to condemned prisoners? A slighly skewed version of the same kind of reading might also lead to another question...how strong be our "deeply held" convictions if we are not willing to personally involve ourselve in ways(if capable)that share the same risks that front line participants are taking in the name of our cause?
Yes, I see what you mean and it's an extremely interesting point. I think that people would think a lot harder about their convictions if they did have to "put up or shut up" or which ever phrase one wishes to use. However I genuinely don't think they should have to. I think that people in a "modern" society should be able to debate and have opinions without having to actually go out and do the thing. There are limits and any such general statement is inherently flawed, but I think the core concept holds true.
Your original counter-example is flawed, because by not keeping child slaves, I am doing as I think everyone else should - the action is negative, not positive.
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle. I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war. I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate. I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.
One of the touchstone tests of fairness I learned in a philosophy class (utilitarianism? I'm not sure) is: what would be your judegement of a situation if you knew you were going to be in it after you decided, but you did NOT know in what role? To me, espousing-- and even more, actively working towards-- a war when you KNOW that you will not be required to fight in it but will force others to instead, is very very wrong.
To me, it's wrong to force others to shoulder the responsibilities of one's decisions, especially if one is not shouldering them oneself.
By the same token, some of us would be very willing to pay handsome salaries to war protestors if they would go to Iraq and actually fix the reasons we agree with action without the violence they deplore.
Currently, it's against US law for any Americans other than diplomats, politicians and journalists to travel to Iraq. I don't think Sean Penn was arrested, but his fame might have helped save him.
CARE is cutting back on its employees. A friend of mine in London just lost her job with CARE. It's too bad; at this point, CARE probably should be hiring more people since they're the only agency of its sort still in Iraq. And boy, they will be needed.
Ian went to Iran last summer to work. It's not Iraq, but it's nearby. He got along fine with the Iranians he was training. They were nice people. Ian is a nice person. Of course they got along.
People are people everywhere. I wish there was enough money so that people could travel more, could live in other countries for a while, could experience life in other places. I keep thinking of my former students at the international school. They're from all over the world and have lived all over the world. Some of them have lived in six or more countries in their short lifetimes. And their perspectives are very interesting. I want these kids to be running the world one of these days. I worked in a mini-UN with kids from all over -- representing every continent but Antartica and all of the major world religions -- working and playing together -- and after September 11th, wishing for peace amongst all of the peoples of the world.
I didn't know most of that... thank you for posting it. I would love to be able to live in other countries, and not just because Oklahoma sucks and I want to go to various places in Europe, but because different cultures fascinate me. I wonder, would I really survive in Greece, because they are so focused on family and comraderie, it's virtually unheard of to leave a person alone.
Hee hee. Driving home from work, I was living to BBC 5 Live. One of the presenters was mentioning how Rumsfeld is such a hawk that he'd go to war with UN backing. That he'd go to war without the UK. That he'd go to war without the US army -- he'd just take on Iraq himself. ;)
Bzzt, sorry. You're making an untestable proposition in order to attack the character - not the position - of those you disagree with.
You [i]know[/i] this can't happen, not least because we simply don't have the money or resources to draft, train, equip, and deploy fifty-plus percent of the American population. Furthermore, your assumption, obviously, is that they would shrink in terror and dodge the draft to Canada.
I call bullshit sir or madam.
With an impassioned plea on national television, I bet Dubya could get 60% of the high school class of '03 enlisted as soon as they graduate or otherwise turn 18. I'm certain that, were there a draft, very very few of those drafted who were in favor of the war would dodge it. And tell me, would the fact that they were willing to kill and die for their convictions magically make you reconsider yours? Of course not. You seek to deny that side credibility by casting them as cowardly chickenhawks, but even were they to proove the truth of the converse, they would gain nothing.
Seriously. Is it im-fucking-possible to just discuss the issue without one side screaming chickenhawk-racist and the other screaming raghead-loving damn dirty hippy? Would it kill you to disagree with someone without spitting in their face?
Actually no. You hit on a couple other salient points, entirely different from my own. And gave more of an out, because half my comment was just rhetorical cruelty, making it very hard for the other person to go "well, perhaps you're right" without feeling like they have lost the battle and soon the Ceasar will give the thumbs down.
My old landlord was the kind of person who would go around to the houses he was renting and slap flags all over them, saying we're just poor scum and can't do anything about it because he owns the houses. He's rabidly pro-war but has made it clear he thinks he is too above actually getting *sent* out to fight. He's too rich and important after all.
Also, you can join the military at 16 and a half years of age, they haven't changed that for a long time. Heh.
Not trying to start up a new part of the argument or anything, just pointing that out. Blah.
I'm anti-war, but I think it'll be a case if this country goes down the shitter thanks to the economy utterly shattering because no one's paying attention to it all the smart people will just move to northern europe or elsewhere.
I coulda sworn you couldn't sign up until you were 18. But, I took a look at their recruiting site, and either we're both wrong or you're right: it said between the ages of 17-35.
Your landlord sounds like a scumbucket. Sorry 'bout that. I could kick him in the nuts if you wanted. $20 fee, though. ;)
I think anyone with a soul is against war in general. War sucks. People die. Very young people die, and they do so in horrible, screaming ways. It's possible, however, to understand war, be a principled person, and still think your nation should engage in war. I don't think we should go to war, for various reasons, but I'm willing to sit down and talk about it without beginning the discussion by saying "you, sir, are a coward."
I think the perception of Europe - any part of Europe - as an enlightened wonderland is kind of strange. Ditto for Canada. I think economies move in cycles, and that if we don't panic, we'll come out of the current recession just fine. A number of viable alternative energy technologies already exist and are functional. If oil disappears to the extent that filling your tank becomes more expensive than refitting it with a fuel cell or whatever, I think we'll just switch. In fact, I've sort of figured that's how it'll work for a long time. The oil will eventually become so rare that fuel cells or CNG become cheaper than anything else, and everyone will go "sign me up!"
It's untestable, sure - I'm not proposing it as a serious thing, more a thought experiment. I do think it would make people think more about what a war actually is, which they're not doing right now - or so it seems from here. I had an exchange with one pro-war person, who I'm hoping is not representative of the mentality, which basically ended up in him saying that his comfort was more important than the lives of other people. If that guy had to go to Iraq and fight, I think he wouldn't be so pro-war.
The notion stemmed from an article I read elsewhere about rulers leading their people to war, not sending them.
But there's one line here of yours: Furthermore, your assumption, obviously, is that they would shrink in terror and dodge the draft to Canada.
I don't think that - first, I'm not advocating a draft; people should (there's that should word again) have enough honour to get up and fight for their country, home, family, or rights, when they need to.
Second, I think that many of these people would rethink the necessity for a war if they were going to actually be affected by it. Due to America's strong economy (admittedly weakening right now, but bear with me), they aren't going to see any effects of the war, beyond different TV coverage. I write this next sentence in full knowledge of its childishness and petulance: That's not fair. They're advocating killing people, destroying lives, land and so on, and they won't feel anything. It's meaningless to them.
Do you see where I'm going?
Finally: And tell me, would the fact that they were willing to kill and die for their convictions magically make you reconsider yours? Of course not.
I contradict you.
I am capable of changing my opinions when shown convincing enough proof; I've done so on two notable occasions. I used to think that voting was support of a corrupt system and so didn't, now I do vote, because if I don't, I have no control, corrupt or not. I used to be opposed to the idea of compulsory military service in defense forces, and have now decided they're not so bad, and would do service in Ireland or Finland if it became necessary. This may back into terrycloth's notion about "no downsides for me, personally", since agreeing in principle to something that shows no signs of happening doesn't take much - but the opinion has been changed.
It'll be an odd day, though, that I reconsider the notion that war is wrong.
"Second, I think that many of these people would rethink the necessity for a war if they were going to actually be affected by it."
"They're advocating killing people, destroying lives, land and so on, and they won't feel anything. It's meaningless to them."
You're doing it again. My whole objection is that you're categorizing and criticizing. "The people who disagree with me are weak-kneed cowards at best and robotic killmongers at worst so la! I have discredited them and don't actually need to answer the issues." Not least because you're just wrong. It's like you imagine this whole thing came out of nowhere. In fact, it came out of a decade-plus of violated U.N. Sanctions, demonstrable wickedness on the part of Saddam, allegations that he supplied funding for 9.11, a violation of the famed American mindset of invulnerability, and furthermore fears that since we're the guy Saddam hates, if we don't do this, then in two years it'll be a hundred thousand American civillians as opposed to 10 American soldiers and a few thousand Iraqi soldiers right now. You just ignore all that and say "hrumph well they're advocates of RAMPANT BABYRAPING." There's a whole zoo, a veritable menagerie of answers to the justifications for the war, but no, you're more comfortable shooting for character assassination.
Wow, worked up a little head of steam there. Sorry. I just start typing, and since the little "ding!" from Outlook signalled the ability to take a break from writing a PHENOMENALLY BORING philosophy takehome, I've got all the motivation in the world to just keep writing.
Allow me to repeat myself. You're not actually stating a disagreement. Well, OK, you're stating a very weak one: "war sucks, therefore, we shouldn't get into this one." Again, since the examples are used EVERY TIME, I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine a few just wars. There are valid reasons and/or justifications for going to war. The question being: do any of them apply in this case?
I have no interest in answering that question in this thread. I'd just appreciate it if people on both sides of the line (or any line, really) stopped the petty namecalling.
ALSO. If your opinion really could be changed by enough people going "well, were I called, sure, I'd enlist, I mean duh" then I guess it's time for an opinion change! Because really, I'd venture to say that a number of the guys and gals oiling their M16s and putting in a requisition for desert camouflage right now think this is Something That Needs To Be Done. These are people that enlisted after 9.11, they're fresh out of basic training and this really is what they enlisted for. You made the ultimatum and now the chips are down - and, shit, it turns out the opposition really is willing to fight and die on the front lines.
For the first few years of Viet Nam, the guys in the shit were in the ideological line. They were there to save the place from the fuckin' commies, and that was what they intended to do. Does that mean it was a good idea to step into a brewing civil war and prop up a corrupt, pseudo-democracy? Even if it was, does the fact that the guys doing the stepping thought so affect that? Of course not.
ANYWAYS. Wow too much text. I am a complete fucking dork.
My whole objection is that you're categorizing and criticizing.
Yeah, I know. Sorry for the first, but "pro-war" is one big chunk of people who I genuinely believe are misguided, and it's easier to look for one big cause (distance from the actual conflict) than a million small ones.
The whole mess over the French Fries pretty much proves that some of those people, at least, are not thinking clearly. Renaming a food just makes them look funny, but going to war is a different beast.
Criticising - well, yeah. I'll continue to do that until the situation goes away, or it starts to make sense to me.
There's a whole zoo, a veritable menagerie of answers to the justifications for the war, but no, you're more comfortable shooting for character assassination.
People who know more about the history of the region are dealing with the answers to justifications for the war; it's not having a whole lot of impact. It's particularly not having much impact on the pro-war bloc in the US. This leads me to believe that (restating here, possibly with more clarity):
The pro-war movement in the US is partly to largely composed of people who have not experienced war, and will not experience war. I don't think that can be denied.
I believe - and will likely continue to believe - that many of those people have misconceptions, and that these misconceptions, whatever they may be, are a large reason for their support. I believe that if they had these misconceptions challenged - by being exposed to the reality of war - they might well change their minds.
A large part of the population of the rest of the world has experienced war, and is therefore saying to the US, no, don't go to war. This seems to me to support my belief.
(Me? No, I've never been in a war. But I live close enough to people who have, and places that have had the effects of war, to see what it does.)
If you can tell me that a large proportion - I'm not going to insist on all - of the pro-war bloc in the US have thought the matter through, have considered what war will do, have decided that even if they were the ones getting shot at or doing the shooting, they'd still support the war... well, I'll have to concede.
But I'd like to think that a large proportion of the population of the US is, well, more human than that. I do know that the few pro-war folks I know have thought it through (although these folks express regret and reluctance, too), and I know a few more people who have thought it through, and aren't convinced one way or other.
ALSO. If your opinion really could be changed by enough people going "well, were I called, sure, I'd enlist, I mean duh" then I guess it's time for an opinion change!
No... there's half the population of the US supporting war, and only a tiny fraction of them signing up. It's not the mass enlistment in, say, England at the beginning of WWII. Are there numbers available anywhere for that, do you know?
Appreciate the discussion, btw, and my apologies if I'm coming across as unreasonable.
Just gonna return to my basic thing one last time. Your post was rhetoric - you were saying, in effect, that most of the people behind the invasion of Iraq would change their tune were they on the front lines. You are calling them [i]cowards[/i]. You are also [i]implying[/i] that since they're cowards, they are obviously [i]wrong.[/i]
This is indistinguishable from them calling you (or I, for that matter) anti-American or American-hating, and because we're haters, we're obviously wrong. This is bad.
Here's what I'd suggest you do instead. Frame your point like this: "Look, I understand your reasons. But I think that the true horror of war is such that, even with all those reasons, it isn't worth it to attack without knowing for sure that Saddam has both the capability and the will to strike civillian targets with WMDs."
Normally I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a joke, but people seem to be taking this seriously... let's see if I can clearly explain the fallacy.
Look, people, it's never a good thing for reasoned discourse to impose sanctions on one side of the debate -- it poisons the debate itself. And it's hypocritical to suggest that this 'universal' condition -- that just coincidentally happens to only effect one side of the debate -- be applied.
This suggestion is as valid as saying 'people who want to condone Saddam's use of terror and oppression should lose all their civil rights'. 'Pro-war' people are simply condoning the use of military force, not taking any action themselves, so it's almost exactly parallel.
And yeah, *neither* of these suggestions is the slightest bit valid, but that's sort of the point.
There's a voluntary military organization that exists to fight wars, and anyone currently in it knew when they signed up that the last-ditch defense of the American homeland was not the bar for wars (or at least 'military actions').
It's important for people not to be in favor of war *because* they're not in the military, sure, but it's equally important for people not to be against a war just *because* they themselves wouldn't want to fight -- there are reasons for people who aren't already in the military not to fight that go above and beyond 'is this worth risking peoples' lives over'.
It's important for people not to be in favor of war *because* they're not in the military, sure, but it's equally important for people not to be against a war just *because* they themselves wouldn't want to fight -- there are reasons for people who aren't already in the military not to fight that go above and beyond 'is this worth risking peoples' lives over'.
I want to think over this statement carefully. I'll be back to you in a bit - probably after the work day here, unfortunately. I think I disagree, and I want to figure out why.
Aside from the fact that that we all know it's impossible, may I point out that there is a tooth to tail ratio - and a guy on the front lines requires several people behind the lines to support him?
As for whether I'm pro-war or not, I'm female; I couldn't fight over there even if I wanted to. But while people around me scream about war and peace, I'll keep my eye on civil liberties, and continue to support my bro, who's stationed in the gulf.
I never understood the people who spit on soldiers and screamed at them in the vietnam war - when you serve your country, you don't get the option of saying "oh, I don't think this is a good idea, I'll skip this one." Save it for those who make the policies. In fact, skip the spitting and screaming altogether - people stop listening when the screaming starts.
I think that people have the burden of making informed decisions, when they become members of society. It's not so much "would I support it if I had to be in their place?" as, given the information and facts, knowing human nature and the nature and needs of our society, do I support it? Yes, idealism and moral responsibilty have their place in our world, along with practicality.
Would I still support abortion if I had to go through with one? Yes. If I were male - or, and this one is likely, sterile, so the decision would never affect my life, would I still support it? Yes. If, in that situation, I were the fetus? Of course not - it's human nature to want to survive, no matter the cost or consequences. I doubt you'll find many death penalty supporters on death row.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
No? Right... same difference.
People have opinions, they're more than entitled to them. Say they're wrong, have reasoned debate with them, but don't wish harm on them, it's never a good idea.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle.
I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war.
I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate.
I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
From:
no subject
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
From:
no subject
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.
From:
no subject
One of the touchstone tests of fairness I learned in a philosophy class (utilitarianism? I'm not sure) is: what would be your judegement of a situation if you knew you were going to be in it after you decided, but you did NOT know in what role? To me, espousing-- and even more, actively working towards-- a war when you KNOW that you will not be required to fight in it but will force others to instead, is very very wrong.
To me, it's wrong to force others to shoulder the responsibilities of one's decisions, especially if one is not shouldering them oneself.
From:
no subject
I can see the premise has flaws, but still think it's not a bad place to begin.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
CARE is cutting back on its employees. A friend of mine in London just lost her job with CARE. It's too bad; at this point, CARE probably should be hiring more people since they're the only agency of its sort still in Iraq. And boy, they will be needed.
Ian went to Iran last summer to work. It's not Iraq, but it's nearby. He got along fine with the Iranians he was training. They were nice people. Ian is a nice person. Of course they got along.
People are people everywhere. I wish there was enough money so that people could travel more, could live in other countries for a while, could experience life in other places. I keep thinking of my former students at the international school. They're from all over the world and have lived all over the world. Some of them have lived in six or more countries in their short lifetimes. And their perspectives are very interesting. I want these kids to be running the world one of these days. I worked in a mini-UN with kids from all over -- representing every continent but Antartica and all of the major world religions -- working and playing together -- and after September 11th, wishing for peace amongst all of the peoples of the world.
From:
no subject
I would love to be able to live in other countries, and not just because Oklahoma sucks and I want to go to various places in Europe, but because different cultures fascinate me. I wonder, would I really survive in Greece, because they are so focused on family and comraderie, it's virtually unheard of to leave a person alone.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
You're making an untestable proposition in order to attack the character - not the position - of those you disagree with.
You [i]know[/i] this can't happen, not least because we simply don't have the money or resources to draft, train, equip, and deploy fifty-plus percent of the American population. Furthermore, your assumption, obviously, is that they would shrink in terror and dodge the draft to Canada.
I call bullshit sir or madam.
With an impassioned plea on national television, I bet Dubya could get 60% of the high school class of '03 enlisted as soon as they graduate or otherwise turn 18. I'm certain that, were there a draft, very very few of those drafted who were in favor of the war would dodge it. And tell me, would the fact that they were willing to kill and die for their convictions magically make you reconsider yours? Of course not. You seek to deny that side credibility by casting them as cowardly chickenhawks, but even were they to proove the truth of the converse, they would gain nothing.
Seriously. Is it im-fucking-possible to just discuss the issue without one side screaming chickenhawk-racist and the other screaming raghead-loving damn dirty hippy? Would it kill you to disagree with someone without spitting in their face?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Actually no. You hit on a couple other salient points, entirely different from my own. And gave more of an out, because half my comment was just rhetorical cruelty, making it very hard for the other person to go "well, perhaps you're right" without feeling like they have lost the battle and soon the Ceasar will give the thumbs down.
And we are all special in our own special way.
From:
no subject
Also, you can join the military at 16 and a half years of age, they haven't changed that for a long time. Heh.
Not trying to start up a new part of the argument or anything, just pointing that out. Blah.
I'm anti-war, but I think it'll be a case if this country goes down the shitter thanks to the economy utterly shattering because no one's paying attention to it all the smart people will just move to northern europe or elsewhere.
From:
no subject
Your landlord sounds like a scumbucket. Sorry 'bout that. I could kick him in the nuts if you wanted. $20 fee, though. ;)
I think anyone with a soul is against war in general. War sucks. People die. Very young people die, and they do so in horrible, screaming ways. It's possible, however, to understand war, be a principled person, and still think your nation should engage in war. I don't think we should go to war, for various reasons, but I'm willing to sit down and talk about it without beginning the discussion by saying "you, sir, are a coward."
I think the perception of Europe - any part of Europe - as an enlightened wonderland is kind of strange. Ditto for Canada. I think economies move in cycles, and that if we don't panic, we'll come out of the current recession just fine. A number of viable alternative energy technologies already exist and are functional. If oil disappears to the extent that filling your tank becomes more expensive than refitting it with a fuel cell or whatever, I think we'll just switch. In fact, I've sort of figured that's how it'll work for a long time. The oil will eventually become so rare that fuel cells or CNG become cheaper than anything else, and everyone will go "sign me up!"
I guess I'm an optimist that way, though.
From:
no subject
The notion stemmed from an article I read elsewhere about rulers leading their people to war, not sending them.
But there's one line here of yours: Furthermore, your assumption, obviously, is that they would shrink in terror and dodge the draft to Canada.
I don't think that - first, I'm not advocating a draft; people should (there's that should word again) have enough honour to get up and fight for their country, home, family, or rights, when they need to.
Second, I think that many of these people would rethink the necessity for a war if they were going to actually be affected by it. Due to America's strong economy (admittedly weakening right now, but bear with me), they aren't going to see any effects of the war, beyond different TV coverage. I write this next sentence in full knowledge of its childishness and petulance: That's not fair. They're advocating killing people, destroying lives, land and so on, and they won't feel anything. It's meaningless to them.
Do you see where I'm going?
Finally: And tell me, would the fact that they were willing to kill and die for their convictions magically make you reconsider yours? Of course not.
I contradict you.
I am capable of changing my opinions when shown convincing enough proof; I've done so on two notable occasions. I used to think that voting was support of a corrupt system and so didn't, now I do vote, because if I don't, I have no control, corrupt or not. I used to be opposed to the idea of compulsory military service in defense forces, and have now decided they're not so bad, and would do service in Ireland or Finland if it became necessary. This may back into
It'll be an odd day, though, that I reconsider the notion that war is wrong.
From:
no subject
"They're advocating killing people, destroying lives, land and so on, and they won't feel anything. It's meaningless to them."
You're doing it again. My whole objection is that you're categorizing and criticizing. "The people who disagree with me are weak-kneed cowards at best and robotic killmongers at worst so la! I have discredited them and don't actually need to answer the issues." Not least because you're just wrong. It's like you imagine this whole thing came out of nowhere. In fact, it came out of a decade-plus of violated U.N. Sanctions, demonstrable wickedness on the part of Saddam, allegations that he supplied funding for 9.11, a violation of the famed American mindset of invulnerability, and furthermore fears that since we're the guy Saddam hates, if we don't do this, then in two years it'll be a hundred thousand American civillians as opposed to 10 American soldiers and a few thousand Iraqi soldiers right now. You just ignore all that and say "hrumph well they're advocates of RAMPANT BABYRAPING." There's a whole zoo, a veritable menagerie of answers to the justifications for the war, but no, you're more comfortable shooting for character assassination.
Wow, worked up a little head of steam there. Sorry. I just start typing, and since the little "ding!" from Outlook signalled the ability to take a break from writing a PHENOMENALLY BORING philosophy takehome, I've got all the motivation in the world to just keep writing.
Allow me to repeat myself. You're not actually stating a disagreement. Well, OK, you're stating a very weak one: "war sucks, therefore, we shouldn't get into this one." Again, since the examples are used EVERY TIME, I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine a few just wars. There are valid reasons and/or justifications for going to war. The question being: do any of them apply in this case?
I have no interest in answering that question in this thread. I'd just appreciate it if people on both sides of the line (or any line, really) stopped the petty namecalling.
ALSO. If your opinion really could be changed by enough people going "well, were I called, sure, I'd enlist, I mean duh" then I guess it's time for an opinion change! Because really, I'd venture to say that a number of the guys and gals oiling their M16s and putting in a requisition for desert camouflage right now think this is Something That Needs To Be Done. These are people that enlisted after 9.11, they're fresh out of basic training and this really is what they enlisted for. You made the ultimatum and now the chips are down - and, shit, it turns out the opposition really is willing to fight and die on the front lines.
For the first few years of Viet Nam, the guys in the shit were in the ideological line. They were there to save the place from the fuckin' commies, and that was what they intended to do. Does that mean it was a good idea to step into a brewing civil war and prop up a corrupt, pseudo-democracy? Even if it was, does the fact that the guys doing the stepping thought so affect that? Of course not.
ANYWAYS. Wow too much text. I am a complete fucking dork.
From:
no subject
Yeah, I know. Sorry for the first, but "pro-war" is one big chunk of people who I genuinely believe are misguided, and it's easier to look for one big cause (distance from the actual conflict) than a million small ones.
The whole mess over the French Fries pretty much proves that some of those people, at least, are not thinking clearly. Renaming a food just makes them look funny, but going to war is a different beast.
Criticising - well, yeah. I'll continue to do that until the situation goes away, or it starts to make sense to me.
There's a whole zoo, a veritable menagerie of answers to the justifications for the war, but no, you're more comfortable shooting for character assassination.
People who know more about the history of the region are dealing with the answers to justifications for the war; it's not having a whole lot of impact. It's particularly not having much impact on the pro-war bloc in the US. This leads me to believe that (restating here, possibly with more clarity):
The pro-war movement in the US is partly to largely composed of people who have not experienced war, and will not experience war. I don't think that can be denied.
I believe - and will likely continue to believe - that many of those people have misconceptions, and that these misconceptions, whatever they may be, are a large reason for their support. I believe that if they had these misconceptions challenged - by being exposed to the reality of war - they might well change their minds.
A large part of the population of the rest of the world has experienced war, and is therefore saying to the US, no, don't go to war. This seems to me to support my belief.
(Me? No, I've never been in a war. But I live close enough to people who have, and places that have had the effects of war, to see what it does.)
If you can tell me that a large proportion - I'm not going to insist on all - of the pro-war bloc in the US have thought the matter through, have considered what war will do, have decided that even if they were the ones getting shot at or doing the shooting, they'd still support the war... well, I'll have to concede.
But I'd like to think that a large proportion of the population of the US is, well, more human than that. I do know that the few pro-war folks I know have thought it through (although these folks express regret and reluctance, too), and I know a few more people who have thought it through, and aren't convinced one way or other.
ALSO. If your opinion really could be changed by enough people going "well, were I called, sure, I'd enlist, I mean duh" then I guess it's time for an opinion change!
No... there's half the population of the US supporting war, and only a tiny fraction of them signing up. It's not the mass enlistment in, say, England at the beginning of WWII. Are there numbers available anywhere for that, do you know?
Appreciate the discussion, btw, and my apologies if I'm coming across as unreasonable.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Your post was rhetoric - you were saying, in effect, that most of the people behind the invasion of Iraq would change their tune were they on the front lines. You are calling them [i]cowards[/i]. You are also [i]implying[/i] that since they're cowards, they are obviously [i]wrong.[/i]
This is indistinguishable from them calling you (or I, for that matter) anti-American or American-hating, and because we're haters, we're obviously wrong. This is bad.
Here's what I'd suggest you do instead. Frame your point like this: "Look, I understand your reasons. But I think that the true horror of war is such that, even with all those reasons, it isn't worth it to attack without knowing for sure that Saddam has both the capability and the will to strike civillian targets with WMDs."
Ok, done.
From:
no subject
Look, people, it's never a good thing for reasoned discourse to impose sanctions on one side of the debate -- it poisons the debate itself. And it's hypocritical to suggest that this 'universal' condition -- that just coincidentally happens to only effect one side of the debate -- be applied.
This suggestion is as valid as saying 'people who want to condone Saddam's use of terror and oppression should lose all their civil rights'. 'Pro-war' people are simply condoning the use of military force, not taking any action themselves, so it's almost exactly parallel.
And yeah, *neither* of these suggestions is the slightest bit valid, but that's sort of the point.
There's a voluntary military organization that exists to fight wars, and anyone currently in it knew when they signed up that the last-ditch defense of the American homeland was not the bar for wars (or at least 'military actions').
It's important for people not to be in favor of war *because* they're not in the military, sure, but it's equally important for people not to be against a war just *because* they themselves wouldn't want to fight -- there are reasons for people who aren't already in the military not to fight that go above and beyond 'is this worth risking peoples' lives over'.
From:
no subject
I want to think over this statement carefully. I'll be back to you in a bit - probably after the work day here, unfortunately. I think I disagree, and I want to figure out why.
From:
no subject
As for whether I'm pro-war or not, I'm female; I couldn't fight over there even if I wanted to. But while people around me scream about war and peace, I'll keep my eye on civil liberties, and continue to support my bro, who's stationed in the gulf.
I never understood the people who spit on soldiers and screamed at them in the vietnam war - when you serve your country, you don't get the option of saying "oh, I don't think this is a good idea, I'll skip this one." Save it for those who make the policies. In fact, skip the spitting and screaming altogether - people stop listening when the screaming starts.
I think that people have the burden of making informed decisions, when they become members of society. It's not so much "would I support it if I had to be in their place?" as, given the information and facts, knowing human nature and the nature and needs of our society, do I support it? Yes, idealism and moral responsibilty have their place in our world, along with practicality.
Would I still support abortion if I had to go through with one? Yes. If I were male - or, and this one is likely, sterile, so the decision would never affect my life, would I still support it? Yes. If, in that situation, I were the fetus? Of course not - it's human nature to want to survive, no matter the cost or consequences. I doubt you'll find many death penalty supporters on death row.
From:
no subject
I bow to you :)
From:
no subject
Just sayin'.
From:
no subject