Pacifist fantasy

[Durr]

You cant paint all liberals with the same brush, they come in all flavors, just like conservatives.  Just because the pacifists fall generally into the liberal side of the equation doesnt mean that all liberals are pacifists.  I am very conservative on pretty much all issues, both fiscal and social, and you wont hear me saying that liberals in general are unpatriotic or anything like that.  I disagree with the liberals on the positions they hold, but most of the time I can at least see the point that they are arguing for, even if I disagree with it completely.

For example, I believe that rent controls do not and cannot work, the way they are usually structured.  I understand what liberals are trying to do with rent controls (keep housing affordable for lower class people) and it is a noble effort, but it just wont work.  Rent controls invariably cause a shortage of housing for the very people that the liberals are trying to help.  

This is common among most issues.  Both sides are trying, in the best way they know how, according to their beliefs and experience, to do something.  In  many cases, both sides agree on the general objective that they want, (less poverty, crime, cleaner environment etc etc) the disagreement is on how to get there.  When you understand this fact, you will be less likely to hate the other side.  The liberals are not interested in ending the American way of life as we know it (well maybe a few of them are, but most of them I mean) and conservatives do not want to see the world polluted into a giant trashcan or anything like that.  In many cases, both sides have valid points and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  

Nonetheless, I believe that on most issues, there is a definite right answer, and I believe that the conservative position is the right one obviously or I wouldnt be a conservative.  This doesnt make me hate liberals, or call them names, I understand that they are mostly trying to do good in the best way they know how.  

The peace movement is in this category to some degree.  I think everybody would agree that peace is a worthy objective, and like somebody said earlier, those that love peace the most are war veterens.  I agree with the point that humans have a competitive/hunters even somewhat violent nature and that is why so many of us love games like AH, football, paintball, hunting/fishing etc.  The difference between somebody that is a pacifist type, and me is, in my opinion, a difference between somebody that is either not realistic in their view of human nature and the world, or being intellectually dishonest, and somebody that has a optimistic but realistic view of the way things really are.  

I believe in the goal of peace, but I believe that the way to get peace is to be strong.  The notion that violence never solved anything is wrong.  Violence is deplorable, and certainly a last resort, but there are times when it is the ONLY option.  To believe that somehow there will be an end of violence here on earth and that people will somehow learn to get along peacefully is to be deceived.  Long periods of peace are only possible when enforced by a great strength.  The country that has had peace probably the longest of any country (Switzerland) has done so by riding on a fearsome military reputation built hundreds of years ago, and backed up by currently having a strong military as well.  Of course they are helped by their geographical location to some degree, and being strong doesnt always guarantee peace, but it does provide the best chance of it.  The truth of the matter is, there are very few things that are worse than war, but there are a few.  Some things are worth fighting for, and some things are worth dying for.

[easymo]

Good post Durr. It did answer some of my questions. And I am one of those people that makes the mistake of lumping pacifists in with libirals. The funny thing is I am in the same boat in reverse.  I do not consider myself a hard line conservative, though I think I am perceived this way. For example, you rightly, point out that anyone with any sense wants to stop warfare.  We just differ greatly, at times, on how to stop it.  I think some here consider me a racist.  The truth is I am saddened, and disgusted, when any American is abused for no reason other than their race.  We just differ on how to stop it. When I was a solider I was surrounded by black men.  They were treated like men, no different then anyone else.  And they responded as men.  Extraordinary men at that.  Having learned this lesson as a boy, I belive the way to stop the abuse of black people, is to stop treating them like children.  No special programs, no, so called, helping hands. I have good reason to belive that if they are treated no different than aanyone else, they will respond by becoming one of this nations greatest asscets.  In many cases they have done this already. So, like war, we all agree that this is bad.  We just disagree about how to stop it.

10bears. Geopolitical position?  We were teenagers.  The only position we had any real interest in, could only be achieved in the back seat of a 57 chevy with a teenage girl.

 Most arrived in Vietnam thinking they were going to play cowboys and Indians.  They left knowing that the world was a much darker, and more dangerous place, than they ever could have imagined.

[Toad]

"Did George Orwell ever say: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?" Or: "We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us?"

All the a.b.g-o regulars agreed it was something he might have said in one of his more truculent moods. But if he did say it, where? If so, why can't any of us find it? (It is not, apparently, mentioned in the recent Complete Works, edited by Peter Davison).

The nearest version is contained in Orwell’s essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942): "[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them." (Thanks to Keith Ammann for this).

Unless someone finds a source for the ‘rough men’ quote, it seems to be an Orwellian piece of disinformation."


Orwell or not.. these phrases pretty well sum it up for me.

Rough Men

[midnight Target]

Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier.
--Samuel Johnson--


True enough.

The draft for the War in Vietnam ended 1 month before I turned 18. At the time I was relieved, for I would have gone (not to Canada, to Vietnam). Later in life I regret that I never served, and I always have a greater respect for those who do.

[Karnak]

I'm a Liberal, but make no mistake, I'll fight.

Most Liberals that I've talked with, the vast, vast majority as a matter of fact, will fight.

I think that the "pacifist at any cost" Liberal is a propaganda creation of the Conservatives.  The same kind of crap propaganda that has led Right wingers in this country to wrap themselves and their ideas in the flag, calling everyones else unamerican.

[Sandman]

Bingo.

This liberal served ten years in the U.S. Navy.

[CH3]

"But it is a sincere question for our liberal brethren..........Winston Churchill had a hell of a time dragging the British out of their Pacifist fantasy. "

Actually, the British and French left wing were screaming blue murder about the rise of fascism from about 1935 onwards. I guess it was "pacifistic fantasist liberals" who fought in the Militias and in the International Brigades vs Franco, Hitler, Mussolini et al in Spain huh?

Our president had to wait until the Japanese BOMBED us before the U.S. came out of its fog

Yep, a liberal President right? You should give up trying to use historical examples to support your flag-waving anti liberal hysterical diatribes, as the facts don't support you.

IMHO reducing your countries ability to wage war INVITES attack, though the appearance of weakness, and hastens the very thing you guys claim you want to avoid.

Agreed, although I haven't seen anyone on this board actually advocating the weakening of our ability to defend ourselves. What I would actually question are the current motivations for events in Afghanistan, West Bank etc.  Afghanistan is the US making a grab for long term strategic control of central asian energy reserves; the moneymen who pull the Bush family's strings are on record as stating this is what they want. Sharon and the Likud is again on record as coveting the entire West Bank; again this is why some "liberals" question his current motivation.

[GRUNHERZ]

Where are yoy from Dowding? Some sort of long useless coal mining town?

[Dowding (Work)]

CH3 - do you take your name from the CH3 in 'A Piece of Cake'?

Where are yoy from Dowding? Some sort of long useless coal mining town?

I left at the first opportunity at 18, and have since returned to the area working in the nearby city.

It seems strange that you of all people should assume the area is useless. It seems packed with your compatriots these days - the government has chosen (in its infinite wisdom) to put several thousand assylum seekers in the local towns, mainly from the Balkans and Eastern Europe. They are very useful - standing around in their cool leather jackets sneering at passing women.

I've had personal experience with Kosovans, and frankly many English people around here think they are the scum of the Earth. The British Nationalist Party is quite active around here, for instance. My ex-girlfriend ran a support group for women and a couple of them had been raped by these so called assylum seekers. Her mother was mugged by three of the bastards. People resent their presence, considering how poor the general population is. They get the best houses (fully furnished) for instance in preference to British citizens.

Those I met were ok however. But I can't help but think most of them have no place over here - especially in such a deprived 'useless' area.

[Fatty]

My pacifist fantasy involves Hanoi Jane (at a younger age), her Barbarella spacesuit, and a giant trampoline in a pool of jello.

[Wotan]

join the bnp you may help in changing all that I think Tyndall was saying the same stuff back in the 70s when the national front was marching through the streets beating up hippies



bogus asylum seekers flooding into Britain  cant be a good thing..or is it?

[ZOSO]

You won't find a Hawk who's seen war up close and personal.

[Dowding]

I dislike the BNP more than the bogus assylum seekers, Wotan. I consider them to be hijackers of national pride and patriotism. They are opportunistic fascists, pure and simple.

I think Britain is a soft touch on assylum and things need to change. There also needs to be few more sent to the home counties instead of the deprived areas, whose local authorities are struggling with the 'natives' as it were.

Assylum is something I support. But freeloading? Definitely not.

[GRUNHERZ]

I agree 100% Dowding most people from the former Yugoslavia are lazy criminals who got used to living with no responsibility or accountability under the loving protection of communists (socialists to you) like yourself.  and I think the Kosovars are scum of the earth too, rank criminals and degenerates like the dirty gypsies, who are known to kidnap children ,  and the like.

So I was right you were from one of those UK govt welfare sponsored useless coal mining towns?

And I must applaud you on you strong anti-freeloader anti lazy "asylum" welfare hound status! There is hope for you yet!!!

[easymo]

"You won't find a Hawk who's seen war up close and personal."

Where do you guys get this crap?  My father went through hell as a POW in Korea.  And he was not thrilled about me going to Vietnam. But he understood my reason for doing it.