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."
![[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
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.