Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[M.Dancer]

Why? He sounds to me like a hard-core pacifist, a la Gandhi. Do you think Gandhi had no credibility either for believing that there is no jsutification for war under any circumstances?

Ghandi? Ghandi? Wasn't he the scurilous fakir who was willing to allow the holocaust and the subjegation of Eurpoe and Asia for the sake of his pet cause?

Honestly I hope he being fed rancid pork in hell.

[Guest coot]

I see the level of debate here is getting better and better. I guess that's what happens when you solicit intolerance.

[M.Dancer]

I see the level of debate here is getting better and better. I guess that's what happens when you solicit intolerance.

\

Or start trotting out empty platitudes or authorities who are in fact morallt bankrupt.

That's the problem with people who's knowledge of personalities comes from a celloid source. They see the romantic side and are unconscious that the make up dept. has covered up the warts.

Ghandi saw the justifcation for war. He saw the defeat of England and the allies as India's free pass. And he didn't give a flying flock how many Engloish died.

But what I imagine what really must of irked Ghandi was that millions of Indians who Volunteered For their King/Emporer to fight the fascists and defend India from the Japanese threat.

[Guest coot]

If you had a better comprehension of what you read, you might have noticed I agree that pacifism doesn't work. You can go off on a tangent about how much you hate Ghandi, but it isn't making your point any stronger.

[M.Dancer]

If you had a better comprehension of what you read, you might have noticed I agree that pacifism doesn't work. You can go off on a tangent about how much you hate Ghandi, but it isn't making your point any stronger.

On the otherhand I'm not so silly as to suggest that Ghandian pacifism has "credibility"

I would say he has a lot more credibility than a passive warmonger who can't even make a coherent argument.

Your argument is empty, the reasaons it is empty have already been discussed. One does not need be a soldier to support a war, and if one did need to be a soldier, you would find a high level of support. Ergo, your argument is hollow.

[Guest coot]

On the otherhand I'm not so silly as to suggest that Ghandian pacifism has "credibility"

Your argument is empty, the reasaons it is empty have already been discussed. One does not need be a soldier to support a war, and if one did need to be a soldier, you would find a high level of support. Ergo, your argument is hollow.

Of course one doesn't need to be a soldier to support a war. Pretty much everyone on this board who supports the war isn't a soldier. I was just pointing out how hypocritical that position can be, and you and no one else have demonstrated why it isn't hypocritical. You've gone off on tangents about policing, which I think I have demonstrated to not be comparable to a situation of war. No one has given any rebuttal to that argument. You've gone off on tangents about how you feel the Afghanistan war is justifiable, which has nothing to do with the argument I'm presenting. You've gone off on tangents about how you hate Ghandi, which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. Unfortunately one has to battle considerably low reading comprehension when trying to make a point here.

But if you want to argue about Ghandi, I'm not a pacifist, but I'm game (we're not on-topic on this thread anyway). I would say that pacifism would have all the credibility in the world if everyone believed in it. Unfortunately there are too many warmongers (cowardly passive ones and otherwise) who make that reality impossible. But if were a tenet that gained universal acceptance, it would not only be credible but would save the human race considerable misery. Perhaps its possible to make that change, one person at a time. I commend those with the optimism and idealism to work towards that happening.

I wish them a lot more success than those who promote war from their basements.

[M.Dancer]

I was just pointing out how hypocritical that position can be, and you and no one else have demonstrated why it isn't hypocritical.

Sorry, you have failed to prove it is hypocritical. Unless you can show a CND who REFUSES to go and instead MAKES someone else....

But you can't.

[Guest coot]

Every morning when we able-bodied freedom-lovers get up, we are free to enlist. The vast, vast majority of us don't because we know it would be a real drag and would involve incalculable personal and economic sacrifice. Therefore we REFUSE that option and continue on with our lives.

But those who support the war and elect leaders to perpetuate the war create a condition where someone who has chosen to enlist is FORCED to fight in an army that is weaker than it could have been, making him all the more vulnerable.

The passive warmonger has not only ensured the war will continue indefinitely, but that those who are actually fighting it don't have all possible resources behind them.

[M.Dancer]

Every morning when we able-bodied freedom-lovers get up, we are free to enlist. The vast, vast majority of us don't because we know it would be a real drag and would involve incalculable personal and economic sacrifice. Therefore we REFUSE that option and continue on with our lives.

But those who support the war and elect leaders to perpetuate the war create a condition where someone who has chosen to enlist is FORCED to fight in an army that is weaker than it could have been, making him all the more vulnerable.

The passive warmonger has not only ensured the war will continue indefinitely, but that those who are actually fighting it don't have all possible resources behind them.

And here in your own words your logic escapes you. If someone enlists, they are not forced to fight. They have volunteered to fight. If the political will is lacking, it is because of those who do not support the war, not those who do.

Calling those who support the war hypocrites is just a lame insult because you have nothing better to offer.

[ScottSA]

Every morning when we able-bodied freedom-lovers get up, we are free to enlist. The vast, vast majority of us don't because we know it would be a real drag and would involve incalculable personal and economic sacrifice. Therefore we REFUSE that option and continue on with our lives.

But those who support the war and elect leaders to perpetuate the war create a condition where someone who has chosen to enlist is FORCED to fight in an army that is weaker than it could have been, making him all the more vulnerable.

The passive warmonger has not only ensured the war will continue indefinitely, but that those who are actually fighting it don't have all possible resources behind them.

This sorry attempt to take the moral authority to favour war away from anyone but the actual members of the combat arm is just inane, for lack of a less respectful word. You seem to think that it's perfectly fine to have an opinion against the war if one is willing to slack off and avoid service because it will be a "real drag," but morally wrong for someone who thinks there's a need for war to have an opinion, unless s/he is willing to join the forces. That's crazy. Either you're not putting your thoughts across very well, or you're totally befuddled.

The CAF is not engaged in a total war, like WW II, where the economy, social life, and virtually every national effort is directed toward winning the war. We don't need, or want, every able bodied individual to sign up, because that would destroy the economy that supports the forces. Herds of gung ho infantry isn't going to help. We are in a limited war, and that demands certain people...mostly strong men...who are willing to fight. That's the 'job' aspect of the war.

The political aspect of democracy allows that everyone have an opinion on the war, which explains why the gestapo is not at your door suggesting that you start supporting the war post haste. But the fact that the gestapo is not at your door certainly doesn't mean that your opinion is more morally fit than those who do support the war yet are not in the combat arm.

[Guest coot]

If someone enlists, they are not forced to fight.

Actually, yes they are. They voluntarily enlisted, but from that point on they have no say on whether or not they fight.

You seem to think that it's perfectly fine to have an opinion against the war if one is willing to slack off and avoid service because it will be a "real drag," but morally wrong for someone who thinks there's a need for war to have an opinion, unless s/he is willing to join the forces.

Yes, I believe that fighting has a higher burden of proof than not fighting. And I also believe that war is such a serious matter that if one believes strongly enough to cross that critical line of inflicting bloodshed (and accepting the likelihood of subsequently enduring the inevitable retaliation) , it must be something serious enough to demand action and sacrifice.

We don't need, or want, every able bodied individual to sign up, because that would destroy the economy that supports the forces.

You'll never know if they want or need you if you don't enlist. It's not politically feasible to have a draft anymore (phew!).

[M.Dancer]

Actually, yes they are. They voluntarily enlisted, but from that point on they have no say on whether or not they fight.

How many soldiers do you think voluntarily enlist to fight but don't want to fight? Really? Is simple logoc too hard? They voluntarily (now pay attention), They voluntarily enlist to follow orders. They voluntarily enlist to be told who and when and where to fight.

Anything beyond this is talking to a pylon.

[Guest coot]

Anything beyond this is talking to a pylon.

Yes, of course they voluntarily signed up to be forced to fight. That’s my point. We live in an age when it would be political suicide to reinstitute conscription and any attempt at reinstituting it would likely be a miserable failure. The army relies on volunteers to make up its forces. Who’s going to volunteer other than those who are able-bodied and pro-war? No one. So it is incumbent on those individuals to willingly make themselves available to defend our country when they feel our way of life is at risk.

I suppose you can take the attitude that the soldiers volunteered for it, they’re on their own, screw them (I certainly do), but, once again, I reconcile this position with my belief that the war was unjustified to begin with. I’m still not sure how you manage to do so. Apparently by resorting to insults and avoiding the question why you would never consider enlisting.

[Guest American Woman]

How many soldiers do you think voluntarily enlist to fight but don't want to fight?

I think a whole lot of young people enlist in the National Guard/Reserves not wanting to fight. Furthermore, I know I am right.

Edited November 30, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

I think a whole lot of young people enlist in the National Guard/Reserves not wanting to fight. Furthermore, I know I am right.

Then perhaps they ought not to have signed up; what do you think? Was it a surprise to them that they might have to fight? I wonder if that's a problem across the job spectrum? Just imagine all the babysitters out there suddenly finding out that they have to deal with smelly icky children, or police officers who suddenly find out there's more to being a cop than eating donuts. Something should be done.

[Guest coot]

I would imagine it’s not very encouraging for anyone to enlist these days when they not only have to deal with people who have contempt for the inherent violence involved in what they do, they also have to deal with the horrendous conditions of war, the enormous sacrifice of their families, and, to top it off, guys who would never consider enlisting themselves telling them to “Suck it up! Don’t you dare complain because, after all, you asked for it by volunteering.”

[Guest American Woman]

Then perhaps they ought not to have signed up; what do you think?

I think they ought not to have been enticed to sign up by those dangling money for college in their faces, never once mentioning fighting.

Was it a surprise to them that they might have to fight?

Yep.

I wonder if that's a problem across the job spectrum?

Not really, since most jobs don't send recruiters out to high schools.

Just imagine all the babysitters out there suddenly finding out that they have to deal with smelly icky children, or police officers who suddenly find out there's more to being a cop than eating donuts. Something should be done.

And something can be done in the case of the disillusioned babystter and police officer. They can quit.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then perhaps they ought not to have signed up; what do you think? Was it a surprise to them that they might have to fight? I wonder if that's a problem across the job spectrum?...

Yes, that would be shame, but it is not what's going on here. War's detractors have to rehabilitate the "duped" war mongers with attributions to ignorance or trickery on the part of recruiters. It simply wouldn't do for an individual to knowingly volunteer for service, especially knowing full well that humping in desert sand was a distinct possibility.

[Guest coot]

War's detractors have to rehabilitate the "duped" war mongers with attributions to ignorance or trickery on the part of recruiters.

Though I never made such allegations in this extended off-topic diatribe. I only pointed out how the posts above show how the passive warmongers are filled with contempt for those who would volunteer for service (as they clearly know better than to do something so stupid).

[bush_cheney2004]

Though I never made such allegations in this extended off-topic diatribe. I only pointed out how the posts above show how the passive warmongers are filled with contempt for those who would volunteer for service (as they clearly know better than to do something so stupid).

Then why did you reply with this explanation? What is a "passive warmonger"? The only contempt I have witnessed for any service member comes from "peacemongers".

[Guest coot]

A passive warmonger is someone who promotes war from his basement but wouldn't, under any circumstances, volunteer for service himself.

[bush_cheney2004]

A passive warmonger is someone who promotes war from his basement but wouldn't, under any circumstances, volunteer for service himself.

So it doesn't apply to women? On non-basement dwellers? Or quadriplegics? Or minors playing "Call of Duty 4"? That's a pretty sweeping generalization.

[raz395]

So it doesn't apply to women? On non-basement dwellers? Or quadriplegics? Or minors playing "Call of Duty 4"? That's a pretty sweeping generalization.

I like the concept. A passive warmonger could be all of those things. Why not? What does it take to sit in your basement at a computer and fill discussion boards with warmongering? Not much!

In my neck of the woods, though, we just call such people 'chickenshit' because they are usually socially incompetent, paranoid and afraid of their own shadows.

[Guest American Woman]

It simply wouldn't do for an individual to knowingly volunteer for service, especially knowing full well that humping in desert sand was a distinct possibility.

That's right. It wouldn't do. Which is why recruiters have to try so hard to get individuals to "volunteer" for service by offering money for college, downplaying the actual "service" part in the process.

I put "volunteer" in quotes because I think the term takes on a whole new meaning when volunteers are actively sought out by recruiters repeatedly waving offers that have nothing to do with "humping in desert sand" to our impressionable youth.

But since we have been at war, volunteers do realize that "humping in desert sand" is a distinct possiblity, which is why the military is not meeting recruitment goals and is lowering its standards.

Edited December 1, 2007 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right. It wouldn't do. Which is why recruiters have to try so hard to get individuals to "volunteer" for service by offering money for college, downplaying the actual "service" part in the process.

And you know this because you are a military recruiter? Or high school guidance counselor? Or a current or former service member?

I put "volunteer" in quotes because I think the term takes on a whole new meaning when volunteers are actively sought out by recruiters repeatedly waving offers that have nothing to do with "humping in desert sand" to our impressionable youth.

So now our youth are impressionable, while fully capable of voting or aborting babies with mature aplomb?

But since we have been at war, volunteers do realize that "humping in desert sand" is a distinct possiblity, which is why the military is not meeting recruitment goals and is lowering its standards.

Yes, it did the same thing during WW2....with conscription.