The facts are, no matter how pure the ideal of pacifism sounds, it is in fact nothing but moral and intellectual cowardice.
Pacifism had lead to slavery in the U.S. during the 1700's and 1800's, the slaughter of millions under Hitler during WWII, the slaughter of millions in Rwanda and the slaughter of potentially millions under Saddam. We may never know the real numbers.
The article then has this one sentence about the War In Iraq and what would happen should we pull out. He could have went into a little more detail.
| "The pacifist, if they desire, only need look back to the atrocities that occurred in Vietnam after the United States withdrew to see the folly of their ideology" |
Thanks John.
The Only Thing Necessary For Evil To Triumph
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
6 comments:
Bullshit on many counts.
It was aggression that led to slavery. Aggression that led to Hitler and Saddam slaughtering so many.
You want to be able to be able to be aggressive yourself, but you don't want those people above to be aggressive. THAT's hypocritical.
As to your quote Vietnam was caused by American aggression. You always seem to forget that don't you - America starts something, but "pulling out would be bad". GOING IN WAS WHAT CAUSED THE CRAP TO HIT THE FAN.
Here, I'll quote the article:
It is impossible to “support” the troops and at the same time call, their mission one based on lies and an unjustified war of imperialist aggression.
Please tell me then, how advocating sending the troops into combat is "supporting" them?
Do you honestly want to tell me that the soldiers WANT to go out an risk their lives? That they'd PREFER to be in combat to staying at home?
Please - this is so much bullshit it's not funny.
For a few more responses to the article:
Pacifists live in a delusional world where violence is violence.
And the people who believe this article live in a delusional world where violence ISN'T violence. Please explain to me how killing a rapist IS NOT KILLING? Only an immoral idiot who devalues people based on their past (rather than valuing them for their potential) would say that killing anyone is a good solution.
For the pacifist the proper answer to the attacks of 9-11 would have been to reach out and understand our attackers. This would, of course, only led to more attacks, more dead Americans, and would have provided a tremendous victory for our enemies.
Yeah - because the fact that they did that BECAUSE YOU SCREWED THEM OVER has nothing to do with it. Making reparations to them and fixing your UTTERLY FUCKED foreign policy OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have helped. *rolls eyes*
You call pacifism cowardice? I say that violence is cowardice. If you don't have the balls to stand your ground in the face of oncoming danger, without having to pull a gun out and shoot at it, then you're gutless.
If what YOU say is true; then why are not Pacifist's a majority of people in the world? Because they die rather quickly and easily.
John K - I believe pacifists *are* a majority of the people in the world! The ones who look to higher intellect and reason to communicate with each other, rather than blowing things up first, asking questions later.
But John of course likes to characterise the world by minorities.
Tell me John - how many nations hopped into the Iraq war with the US? 22 was it? That leaves... oh... 169 nations who didn't. [sarcasm]Clear aggressive majority there![/sarcasm]
Would you like me to demonstrate this again and again, or will I assume that you have enough brains to consider yourself suitably humiliated and run away? Or will you pull a gun on me? *rolls eyes*
You use World politics of the Iraq war to demonstrate Pacifism? That in itself shows what a Moron you are. I would not pull a gun on you unless you were threatening me. Defending oneself and family is not aggressivness.
You used world politics on the Iraq war first - BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR FECKING ARTICLE.
Hypocrite.
Post a Comment