Hypocrisy?

[Recidiva]

That's great, Pure. Glad to see that story. I wasn't saying just Amish women get victimized, though.

There are many communities that aren't as strict as the community I'm mentioning, in Lancaster County, PA, or some in Wisconsin.

There are any number of reformist groups with different strategies, and I still support all their rights to do as they please.

I just don't have to agree that it's a viable and useful strategy for the long-term health and vitality of the community in question.

My types of hypocrisy come from anecdotal cases and my own experience.

Say Christian Science adherents. There's a story of a guy who had two children who died of a horribly brutal disease, and he stood by and watched and got them no treatment. Whereas later on in his life, he developed some back pain and suddenly converted, getting surgery.

My case is specifically about children and a group's attitude toward their rights to choices.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Is it hypocritical for those who abhor violence in all forms to rely on others to do violence for them, even as they look down sanctimoniously on their protectors? I think so.

Yes, I think that is hypocritical. But I also think that all violence is to be looked down sanctimoniously.

To get to the point you were trying to make, I abhor violence (to use your words) in all forms, while at the same time regard with high respect police and military forces. Neither of them are supposed to act violently - i.e. with disproportionate force, against subjects who constitute no significant risk. When the police or military stop acting as civilised armed contingents at the service of peace and security of the citizens that pay their salary and start acting violently, they are no longer police or military. They're common thugs and should be treated no differently than any other criminals.

 

[3113]

There are certainly people who do look down on them and then rely on them, and I don't mean because they are unusually corrupt or something. I have heard at least one person do this on the Internet, but I won't mention her username.

So what you're really saying is that ONE hypocrite on the internet, who was disrespectful of police/military, pissed you off. Is that about right?

You see, Sev, you can't throw out a seemingly hypothetical question, "Is it hypocritical for those who abhor violence in all forms to rely on others to do violence for them?" if you then go on to make exception. "Oh, and I don't mean the Amish, Quakers and Ghandi folk..."

And I assume Martin Luther King, jr. and the folk who offered passive resistance in protest of segregation don't count either? How about Buddist monks? Nuns in Hitler's Germany? How many exceptions do you get to make?

If you want us to agree with you that a CERTAIN pacifist is being an asshole, by all means, post what this person said and we'll judge THIS PERSON. But don't bring out the hypocrite paintbrush, color all pacifists with it, and then say, "Oops, didn't mean to paint those and those and those pacifists. They're okay. It's just all the others...."

What others? Any group is going to have it's assholes and hypocrites. But when you ask questions like this, you're asking if the group at large is full of assholes and hypocrites. And so far, the Amish, Quakers, and those following Ghandi and such seem to prove otherwise. So either stop with the generalizations and give us that one specific person who has pissed you off...or give us better proof that pacifist organizations, in general and with very few exceptions, are santamonious to and reliant on those you claim theyr'e santamonious to and reliant on.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I strongly suspect that she isn't alone. And I can recognize the difference between those who actually look for protection and those who didn't (in most cases, the Amish keep to themselves and don't ask for protection). Neither did Gandhi, come to think of it. He took his blows like a man. And I recognize those who make some exceptions, or who accept personal differences. Take, for instance, the Quakers. They seem to allow for people within their ranks to dissent, for the most part, on the basis of mystical intuition ("The Inner Light").

That being said, the vast majority of radical, left-wing "peaceniks" who constantly harp on how evil the military is, and who spit on soldiers and fail to distinguish between them and the policymakers in power who send them to war, are the sort who disgust me. The sort who made life hard on Vietnam Vets. The sort who claim that soldiers do not deserve public recognition for their brave defense of this nation. The sort who call them "babykillers" and denigrate the armed forces for doing their job. The sort who attack the police at every opportunity and call them "pigs", constantly make false accusations and never apologize for them (like Rev. Al Sharpton did).

This is the group to which I allude. The group that thinks it awful that colleges have ROTC programs. I have a big beef with them, and consider them hypocrites, especially when they push for all kinds of legislation that relies on the coercive powers of the State, the very powers that they consider evil. At least anarchists are consistent. They oppose violence, therefore they oppose the State. For the State inherently means coercion and violence.That is the nature of Law. That is the nature of government.

 

[Recidiva]

Citizenship is hereditary in this nation. I would prefer if an Armed Service stint were required by law, even for those who consider themselves pacifist, where they can serve in a support position.

Many nations do it, and I'd support the measure if it were to come up. Education is required before having an educated opinion.

Of course first our military would have to undergo a huge overhaul, but that's beside the point.

No, really, it isn't. The military is noble and it is horrible at once. People have a right to their opinions, just as they do the right to being stupid and destructive. It's hereditary.

 

[3113]

That being said, the vast majority of radical, left-wing "peaceniks" who constantly harp on how evil the military is, and who spit on soldiers and fail to distinguish between them and the policymakers in power who send them to war, are the sort who disgust me. The sort who made life hard on Vietnam Vets.

Ah-HA! I KNEW this is what we'd come to. Yeah, the peaceniks are going to have to live with that shame of that terrible mistake they made in their youth. But frankly, that's a bad example Sev. They didn't want ANYONE going to Vietnam. It wasn't like they said, "Violence is bad, the army is bad, but oh, please, protect us from those evil communists in Vietnam!" They weren't relying--as you CLAIM they were--on those vets to protect them from violence. They weren't relying on the police to protect them from volience either as during the original, PEACEFUL protests, they were the ones getting hit over the head by police.

If you want to re-hash the whole Vietnam peace movement and what elements were hypocracy and which were not, we can, but frankly, I'd like to move on. And I think that if you want to hold a grudge against people protesting a war that happened before you were born, then you really should talk to those involved and find out how they saw it, felt about, what motivated them, etc. We're talking about a certain time and place and situation--one with a lot of tension and a lot at stake. I really think you should avoid a snap judgement on how people acted and thought until you've really researched it.

This is the group to which I allude. The group that thinks it awful that colleges have ROTC programs. I have a big beef with them, and consider them hypocrites, especially when they push for all kinds of legislation that relies on the coercive powers of the State, the very powers that they consider evil. At least anarchists are consistent. They oppose violence, therefore they oppose the State. For the State inherently means coercion and violence.That is the nature of Law. That is the nature of government.

Okay. So now we've got the ONE group you are mad at. Good. Now we can ignore all those othe pacifists, past and present, who should NOT be painted with your brush. So what is this group? Where are they? What EXACTLY are they saying?

And clearly, what pisses you off isn't that they're relying on the military or the police. It pisses you off that they're trying to change state law. That's an interesting thing to call "hypocritical."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ah-HA! I KNEW this is what we'd come to. Yeah, the peaceniks are going to have to live with that shame of that terrible mistake they made in their youth. But frankly, that's a bad example Sev. They didn't want ANYONE going to Vietnam. It wasn't like they said, "Violence is bad, the army is bad, but oh, please, protect us from those evil communists in Vietnam!" They weren't relying--as you CLAIM they were--on those vets to protect them from violence. They weren't relying on the police to protect them from volience either as during the original, PEACEFUL protests, they were the ones getting hit over the head by police.

If you want to re-hash the whole Vietnam peace movement and what elements were hypocracy and which were not, we can, but frankly, I'd like to move on. And I really think you should get over something that happened before you were even born.


Okay. So now we've got the ONE group you are mad at. Good. Now we can ignore all those othe pacifists, past and present, who should NOT be painted with your brush. So what is this group? Where are they? What EXACTLY are they saying?

And clearly, what pisses you off isn't that they're relying on the military or the police. It pisses you off that they're trying to change state law. That's an interesting thing to call "hypocritical."

Actually, I am annoyed with the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the very coercive powers that they despise are the same ones stuck with enforcing their laws. But I DO remain convinced that it is hypocritical for people to condemn their protectors. The protestors may not have wanted to admit this, but the very men that they labeled "babykillers" were protecting them.

And I think that it is quite clear that the same people would rely on the police and the army. And that most police DIDN'T engage in brutality, despite claims of that.

But in more present times....many of the same sort of people are surfacing. The same kind of attacks on the military, despite the fact that is the White House that makes the decision to start wars these days (unconstitutionally, I might add). The same sort are now pissed again about the ROTC at colleges. They are still refusing to acknowledge their debt to the brave souls defending them.

But my point was a general one. If you don't want violence, fine. Isolate yourself in a cave and avoid the world. Because it can be very dangerous out there, and you might need some cop or gun or soldier to protect you. Just a thought. Just speaking in generalities. I don't want to be misunderstood. But the world is not going to become a Garden of Eden, with lion and lamb together. It never has been one and never will be.

By the way, it's odd that the same generation that claimed brutality from the police now want people to give up their guns and let the police protect them. As if. I ain't giving up any weapons anytime soon. Not because I don't trust police, but because I can't trust their bosses not to legislate stupid shit that they expect the police to enforce for them. And because 911 might not get there in time.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And, for the record, I was referring to Svenskaflicka, in one of her comments on one of Zeb's threads. Full of vitriolic attacks on soldiers and such.

If she is in any way of representative of the peace movement, and I think so, the past has returned with a vengeance.

But their predecessors also anger me, yes, with their disconnect between legislation and the inherent coercive powers behind it. I respect that power, which is why I want to limit and restrict the number of laws. I don't want to legislate anything that I wouldn't be willing to send a cop to risk his life to enforce (and to use deadly force if attacked).

I suspect that when her generation are in power, there will be a similar disconnect. The future bodes ill in that regard.

And I didn't mean anything as a personal attack on you, in case you thought so. I respect you, but I disagree with your analysis of my position and your apparent defense of the pacifist mindset on force.

 

[Pure]

Sev,

Thanks for clarifying:

S: //That being said, the vast majority of radical, left-wing "peaceniks" who constantly harp on how evil the military is, and who spit on soldiers and fail to distinguish between them and the policymakers in power who send them to war, are the sort who disgust me. The sort who made life hard on Vietnam Vets. //

P: OK "peaceniks' and 'radical left wingers'--that's whom you have in mind.

I'd simply point out that the vast majority of these are not pacifists by any stretch of the imagination.

The one person you mention, Svenska flicka is, I suspect, not pacifist, though she may favor Sweden not being involved in any of the recents wars. I'm not commenting on her merits or demerits as a person, but simply saying she's probably not in the set whom this thread was set up to discuss.

Sev:And, for the record, I was referring to Svenskaflicka, in one of her comments on one of Zeb's threads. Full of vitriolic attacks on soldiers and such.

If she is in any way of representative of the peace movement, and I think so, the past has returned with a vengeance.

P: Do you have any reason for calling her pacifist?

As 3113 says, you have something about those who opposed the VIet war and maybe the present one. Fine. These are not pacifists, they are oppposed to a particular war. Many believe in 'peaceful demonstrations' and even 'passive resistance' (to launching of warships, for example.) That is still not a pacifist; there is not a general opposition to violence or war, even if the idea is to demonstrate about issues peaceably. (For them to be pacifist, one would expect them to demonstrate against almost any war.) Of course, a fraction of these movements, some subset, may be rascals, scum and hypocrites; i'll let you define your targets.

Hate to say this, Sev, but maybe you need to start a thread about 'protesters against the Iraq war' or if you're still stewing after 30 years, 'protesters against the Vietnam war.' (You're not still fretting over Jane F**, are you?)

Quakers have habitually dealt with police and soldiers on a respectful basis; indeed most anti war protesters had nothing personal against soldiers; many soldiers were recruited thus. If I may give you a clue: this is why in some cases Quakers, like Gandhians, have actually converted occasional policemen or soldiers to their way. Example is the finest way to spread one's beliefs.

---
** Jane Fonda was not then and is not now any kind of pacifist. In a recent interview she sounded very gung ho Christian-- and we know only a small minority of Xtians [i.e., no major Xtian denomination, counting by numbers] are pacifist.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The point was a general one, actually, as I said. I just used her as an example, because of her statements on Zeb's thread, "He Fought For This Country, But He's Not Worthy". Highly inflammatory ones about how evil the military is and such.

And Jane Fonda can never be forgiven, IMO. But she is not the point, although her movement certainly had its elements like her that were spoiled, pampered, sheltered trust-fund hypocrites.

I was speaking of radical fringe, of course. I'm not all that keen on this war myself, but I still respect the military who are involved in it.

 

[3113]

Actually, I am annoyed with the fact that they refuse to acknowledge that the very coercive powers that they despise are the same ones stuck with enforcing their laws. But I DO remain convinced that it is hypocritical for people to condemn their protectors. The protestors may not have wanted to admit this, but the very men that they labeled "babykillers" were protecting them.

And I think that it is quite clear that the same people would rely on the police and the army. And that most police DIDN'T engage in brutality, despite claims of that.

Sev, please. It isn't "quite clear" at all. It's quite clear to you and your bias view...but you're not presenting any concrete evidence here. You're only spitting out venom and prejudice and generalizations.

And that doesn't make your claims sound reasonable or valid. You haven't even got evidence that the "babykillers" were/are protecting anyone (the U.S.) from anything (invasion, perhaps?)--the only truth we can say is that these soldiers were/are protecting themselves and other soldiers from being killed. So please, stop saying such things. It makes you sound like YOU want such things to be true because you can't accept that the other side might have any validity. That's the way fundamentalists argue. "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's that!"

I don't think you want that comparison.

But my point was a general one. If you don't want violence, fine. Isolate yourself in a cave and avoid the world. Because it can be very dangerous out there, and you might need some cop or gun or soldier to protect you. Just a thought. Just speaking in generalities. I don't want to be misunderstood. But the world is not going to become a Garden of Eden, with lion and lamb together. It never has been one and never will be.

No, it's not. But things are not so simple on your side either. Soldiers are not always right, nor are they always blameless in a war because the government, not them, gave the orders. That kind of argument absolves every soldier who marched civilans into the ovens, because he was following orders and it was his government who decided to murder innocents, not him.

There is a terrible danger in any war that the men you train to view everyone of a certain race or color or nationality as the enemy will become not soldiers protecting their country, but murderers slaughtering civilians out of fear or anger. I don't think it's wrong to protest or question such training, especially if the war seems less about protecting the U.S. and more about conquest.

By the way, it's odd that the same generation that claimed brutality from the police now want people to give up their guns and let the police protect them.

Not odd at all given that 40 years have gone by and those same people, thanks to their experience with the police, have improved the police force in regards to non-violent methods of dealing with problems, sensitivity training, bicycle cops who talk to citizens, and multi-culturalism within the force. Not saying the police are perfect but you REALLY don't seem to understand what it was like back then. You are living in a new world, Sev. One where the police, as corrupt as they still can be, are far more sane and open minded.

There is, in logic, a thing called a "false accusation of hypocrisy" and this is what you're engaging in here. It's not hypocritical for a person to change their minds if circumstances have changed. If the cops that beat people up are now dead or retired, and those who have taken their place are far more enlightened, reasonable and honest then there is no hypocrisy in trusting them.

As for the rest, I'm still waiting for direct quotes. Much as I trust you, I'm not going to condemn any organization, past or present, of hypocrisy without hearing exactly what they have to say, or knowing exactly what they want, and what their arguments are for wanting it. It may well piss you off, and you may vehemently disagree, but that doesn't mean that anyone is being hypocritical.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Sev, please. It isn't "quite clear" at all. It's quite clear to you and your bias view...but you're not presenting any concrete evidence here. You're only spitting out venom and prejudice and generalizations.

And that doesn't make your claims sound reasonable or valid. You haven't even got evidence that the "babykillers" were/are protecting anyone (the U.S.) from anything (invasion, perhaps?)--the only truth we can say is that these soldiers were/are protecting themselves and other soldiers from being killed. So please, stop saying such things. It makes you sound like YOU want such things to be true because you can't accept that the other side might have any validity. That's the way fundamentalists argue. "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that's that!"

I don't think you want that comparison.


No, it's not. But things are not so simple on your side either. Soldiers are not always right, nor are they always blameless in a war because the government, not them, gave the orders. That kind of argument absolves every soldier who marched civilans into the ovens, because he was following orders and it was his government who decided to murder innocents, not him.

There is a terrible danger in any war that the men you train to view everyone of a certain race or color or nationality as the enemy will become not soldiers protecting their country, but murderers slaughtering civilians out of fear or anger. I don't think it's wrong to protest or question such training, especially if the war seems less about protecting the U.S. and more about conquest.


Not odd at all given that 40 years have gone by and those same people, thanks to their experience with the police, have improved the police force in regards to non-violent methods of dealing with problems, sensitivity training, bicycle cops who talk to citizens, and multi-culturalism within the force. Not saying the police are perfect but you REALLY don't seem to understand what it was like back then. You are living in a new world, Sev. One where the police, as corrupt as they still can be, are far more sane and open minded.

There is, in logic, a thing called a "false accusation of hypocrisy" and this is what you're engaging in here. It's not hypocritical for a person to change their minds if circumstances have changed. If the cops that beat people up are now dead or retired, and those who have taken their place are far more enlightened, reasonable and honest then there is no hypocrisy in trusting them.

As for the rest, I'm still waiting for direct quotes. Much as I trust you, I'm not going to condemn any organization, past or present, of hypocrisy without hearing exactly what they have to say, or knowing exactly what they want, and what their arguments are for wanting it. It may well piss you off, and you may vehemently disagree, but that doesn't mean that anyone is being hypocritical.

My point was that people don't seem to realize, not all of them, anyway, that the soldiers are protecting them. Even in a faulty war. And, no the SS/Death's Head group was not made up of soldiers. They were not even Waffen. They were a separate division. The point is that these soldiers are fighting and dying with the idea of protecting people, and flawed or not, their efforts are dealing with some real assholes. People that might be trouble later.

I'm no fan of the war, but the soldiers are not the enemy. Nor do they dehumanize the enemy. They do kill the enemy.

But I don't wish to belabor that point. My view was a general, philosophical one. It is that if you dismiss all uses of violence, including those used to protect you, as evil, but then turn to those same sources, then you are a hypocrite.

The world isn't to become a peaceful place where everyone joins hands and sings "Kumbaya". It will never be that. War is a permanent human reality. And those hypocrites will be protected by the next generation of soldiers, police, and law-abiding, gun-owning citizens that they despise, demonize, and dehumanize.

And my other point was that government is inherently coercive. That includes legislation. When you pass a law, you are using force. It relies on the violent, coercive power of government. So, even if you are a hard-core pacifict opposed to all forms of violence and force, you are employing such tools yourself by pushing legislation. That IS hypocrisy, IMO. Not a false accusation.

Not meant to be personal. Just my take on the issue.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And that comparison to Bible-thumpers is hardly accurate. I was simply basing things on my knowledge of human nature. People have an instinct of self-preservation.

 

[cloudy]

If you want to re-hash the whole Vietnam peace movement and what elements were hypocracy and which were not, we can, but frankly, I'd like to move on. And I think that if you want to hold a grudge against people protesting a war that happened before you were born, then you really should talk to those involved and find out how they saw it, felt about, what motivated them, etc. We're talking about a certain time and place and situation--one with a lot of tension and a lot at stake. I really think you should avoid a snap judgement on how people acted and thought until you've really researched it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Sev, hate to say it, but she's right. Regurgitating the same old "babykillers" thing doesn't even BEGIN to scratch the surface of the issues surrounding Vietnam, or what the atmosphere in this country was like then.

It always amazes me that people can pounce on something like that without knowing what they're talking about - not even a little bit.

Please.....don't go there. I remember Vietnam. If all you know about it is what you've said until now, you're not showing yourself favorably.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Admittedly, my impression of the anti-war movement is largely impacted by the more negative behavior, but damn! I largely saw the movement as one run by trust-fund people with sheltered lives and inconsistent attitudes about the role of government and the use of force.

If you have different memories or input about it, certainly share it. I don't mean to ignore anyone else's take on it. The ones that I tend to respect more are those who loved their country but disliked the war. Such statements are more understandable, given recent events (such as a certain war that I think was founded on a lie). However, it is the radicals that get the most notice, I grant you that.

P.S. Yes, I know about more moderate movements. They aren't the ones who, in any protest movement, then or now, tend to annoy me. The ones that bug me are the ones who think that every soldier engages in something like Mylai or Abu Graib.

So, yes, I am well aware of Lt. William Calley, the Kent State shooting, the invasion of Cambodia, the bombing of North Vietnam, the use of Agent Orange, Vietnam Veterans Against The War, Ron Kovic, the Peace Talks In Paris, the 1973 cease-fire, George Wallace's rather dubious suggestion of jailing all protesters who advocated a complete pull-out, the corruption of the Saigon regime of Nguyen Van Thieu, the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, the DMZ, the Tet Offensive, Eugene McCarthy's campaign, George McGovern's campaign, Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run again, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, etc.

And in more recent times, of the Abu Graib atrocities, the absence of WMDs, the White House leak....

In both cases, the war was flawed but I thought the protests sometimes went to extremes as well, and the soldiers were not evil.

 

[cloudy]

Admittedly, my impression of the anti-war movement is largely impacted by the more negative behavior, but damn! I largely saw the movement as one run by trust-fund people with sheltered lives and inconsistent attitudes about the role of government and the use of force.

If you have different memories or input about it, certainly share it. I don't mean to ignore anyone else's take on it. The ones that I tend to respect more are those who loved their country but disliked the war. Such statements are more understandable, given recent events (such as a certain war that I think was founded on a lie). However, it is the radicals that get the most notice, I grant you that.

P.S. Yes, I know about more moderate movements. They aren't the ones who, in any protest movement, then or now, tend to annoy me. The ones that bug me are the ones who think that every soldier engages in something like Mylai or Abu Graib.

All I can tell you is to do your research.

Yes, there were a lot of college-age people that participated in the demonstrations at the time, but that doesn't mean "trust fund." In all honesty, your bias seems to get in the way of your understanding. I went to college, but I certainly didn't have a trust fund. Why do you assume that people that protested did?

What about the four college students that were killed by the police at Kent State?

What about the demonstration at the democratic convention in Chicago when the mayor authorized the use of deadly force against unarmed protestors?

By coming out and stating that you believe that everyone that protested the Vietnam war were spoiled trust fund kids, you not only show your lack of understanding, but you also clearly show a bias that's, quite frankly, very unattractive.

Talk to people who were actually IN Vietnam, get their take on it. I have a couple of friends that were THERE - one of them has already died from Agent Orange poisoning. It was a conflict we shouldn't have been in to begin with, much like we are now. It was also one that our military was not allowed to win. The people of that country didn't want us there...sound familiar?

The soldiers that fought in Vietnam, for the most part, have my sympathy, but, had I been at the right age, I'd have been protesting too - not the soldiers, but the ridiculous reasoning behind them being there in the first place.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

All I can tell you is to do your research.

Yes, there were a lot of college-age people that participated in the demonstrations at the time, but that doesn't mean "trust fund." In all honesty, your bias seems to get in the way of your understanding. I went to college, but I certainly didn't have a trust fund. Why do you assume that people that protested did?

What about the four college students that were killed by the police at Kent State?

What about the demonstration at the democratic convention in Chicago when the mayor authorized the use of deadly force against unarmed protestors?

By coming out and stating that you believe that everyone that protested the Vietnam war were spoiled trust fund kids, you not only show your lack of understanding, but you also clearly show a bias that's, quite frankly, very unattractive.

Talk to people who were actually IN Vietnam, get their take on it. I have a couple of friends that were THERE - one of them has already died from Agent Orange poisoning. It was a conflict we shouldn't have been in to begin with, much like we are now. It was also one that our military was not allowed to win. The people of that country didn't want us there...sound familiar?

The soldiers that fought in Vietnam, for the most part, have my sympathy, but, had I been at the right age, I'd have been protesting too - not the soldiers, but the ridiculous reasoning behind them being there in the first place.

For the record, I never painted them with the same brush. Like I said, I know that most protesters were not that extreme. I was mainly citing the more radical ones. And, yes, I know that not all were rich. But many of the most extreme ones were. It's the radicals, who attacked the soldiers and called them names when they came home, who annoy me. I sincerely hope that part of the protest is not repeated, that people have learned their lessons in the meantime.

And, yes, I know about Mayor Daley and the Chicago Convention in 1968.

But my overall point was not about Vietnam. It was a general, philosophical question. I have given my answer as a matter of ethics and philosophy. And then we all got sidetracked. Myself included.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And I never meant to make any ad hominem attacks. It was mainly a rant/tirade with a lot of broad philosophical statements. Of course, I could have generalized a little too much, creating the impression of attacking all anti-war protestors, past or present. If so, well, that was not my intent.

 

[Pure]

and just for the record, your average 'anti war' protester has a problem with certain wars only. s/he is, except in rare cases, NOT a pacifist, of any of the stripes we've been describing.

Dave Dellinger, a well known anti war activist, one of the Chicago 7, was in fact a longtime pacifist and continued to work for the cause after Vietnam. A bio is at

http://www.neravt.com/left/dellinger.html

technically a sincere and principled (and not sudden) opposition to war in general (not just a particular one) should get you CO status [in the US], though it was much harder if you were not a longterm member of an established pacifist group, like Quakers, Brethren, and so on. however, active agitation would cause you to lose that status and be charged with various offenses, as was Dellinger (travelling across state lines to incite a riot)

 

[3113]

Admittedly, my impression of the anti-war movement is largely impacted by the more negative behavior, but damn! I largely saw the movement as one run by trust-fund people with sheltered lives and inconsistent attitudes about the role of government and the use of force.

Let's get some clarity here:
1) Going to college in the 60's was far cheaper. I mean FAR cheaper than now or even 10 years ago. It was outragously reasonable, so much so that you didn't need a trust fund. You could go to college with a little help from the parents and a part-time job. And most of the kids who went to college did just that--part time job. So just because these kids were going to college doesn't mean they were trust fund babies.

2) Even if they were trust fund...what has that to do with anything?

I had a good friend who was a history treacher. Died of brain cancer, I'm sorry to say. He use to teach about the 60's by going through his arrest record One thing he always pointed out at the beginning of his lecture was this:
"No one was able to stay neutral about the Vietnam War. There was a draft. This meant that you or your brothers or your friend or your boyfriend was going to be drafted. That someone you knew and cared about was going overseas to fight and might end up wounded, crippled or dead. It meant that everyone had to decide if they wanted not only to die for this cause, but kill people in a foreign land over it. It meant they had to decide if they believed if their country was right to fight this war. EVERYONE had to make this decision. No one could stay neutral. And once they did, they had to decide what they wanted to do about it."

This is the most important point. Trust-fund or no trust-fund, college education or no...every male of a certain age in the 60's had to make this decision--and so did their girlfriends/sisters/wives. Even if they, themselves weren't to go, someone they knew was.

So enough with denegrating and type casting and straw-man-bias about who and what these protesters were. They were young people forced to make a terrible decison because their government had gotten involved in a very bad foreign war. And you have no right to make assumptions about why they made this very important, very difficult and very scary decision. A life and death decision. A deeply moral and ethical decision.

Did some of they run because they were cowards, of course. Were there asshole and hypocrites and folk who took advantage of the suitation. Absolutely. But most of them were just trying to decide what was right for themselves, their friends, and for the country they loved. And there were plenty willing to go to jail for their beliefs, suffer beating and abuse for them, even die for them. They decided which war they wanted to fight, and they fought it.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

For hypocrisy post see other thread. In that I merely followed an abstract while keeping myself fairly removed. That being done, it's time for the "what's all this then" about your hidden meaning and backhand slap about anti-war protestors.

First is the shocking news that not all or even most anti-war protestors are anti-MILITARY protestors. Most would agree that a military force or a method by which militias can be dispatched for the defense of one's homeland. I've gotten so sick of the diverse layer of non-military serving shit telling me that a failure to support a dumb war is the same as failure to support a military's function of defense or that I must be a coward because I refuse to put a magnetic yellow ribbon on my car to "support" (that isn't support by the way).

Okay, anger back in the cage. I've mentioned the hypocrisy of those who support a military without being willing to serve or even suffer the slightest disruption in their normal life while my friends get shot in the other thread. I'm good.






No anger, we can start from here for civility. Scratch above like a record you want to turn into an overpriced DJ tool. Most anti-war protestors are not anti-military. Most anti-war protestors are against a specific war. Usually because they believe it does not perform the function of protection and those who wanted it want them to fight it for them and suffer the costs. Some anti-war protestors (and it isn't many) of course are anti-military and are true 100% pacifists. They would be willing to bear the costs of a lack of military and would not defend themselves. They should not run a country. The smart pacifists support violence in defense, self-protection, or even bloodless intimidation. Having a big military tends to keep ground troops from landing after all.

A tiny fraction of the anti-war movement are pure morons. They have no hard-set willingness to die for their beliefs, they cannot distinguish between a war and those who have to fight for it, and mistakeningly believe that some random force can make everyone nice. We'll say these are naive morons, pat them on the head and distance ourselves. They are not the anti-war protestors. They are a by-product like the guy on the pro-war side who masturbates to tracer fire while wearing a plastic vietnam combat hat. In other words, I hate them.

I am an anti-war protestor, but it is because of my beliefs. I support my military and country for services of protection. In time of need, I will gladly stand up and serve to defend my homeland from invasion. If refused, I will serve as random militia defending those near me to the bitter end. I rather suspect that end would occur because like my personal hero I have a soft spot for the heroic sacrifice. It is my belief, my strongest belief that the only just war is a defensive war and only a just war is worth fighting. I do not support misadventures, invasions, and other offensive wars regardless of the bullshit they try and season it with. I will support the souls sent there and have including gifts, money, correspondance, and 1/64th of an air ticket home (long story) and I will not begrudge their attempts to survive. However, the politicians who sent them and the war itself if it is offensive are not owed respect and are misuse of a property entrusted to the sacred duty of protection in times of need.

These are my beliefs and my actions do not commit hypocrisy. My stone cold refusal to support a war merely because it's a war is not an act of begrudging the service of protection. Nor is it a refusal to (in time of need) fill the role of protection. In my mind that puts me on far more solid ground than those who seem to support a military offensive war but seem to be recalcitrant in serving in one or even in a defensive war. Ones who would merely flee the country rather than defend their homes who denigrate both those overseas who are defending their homes and those over here who refuse to support destroying those homes.

The "babykiller" story gets passed around everywhere here in America among the pro-any-war faction. A rare case in the 60s turned into an everpresent picture that gets superimposed over every anti-war parade. "Those people hate our military" is what they hear. "Babykillers is what they called them." And from there it becomes hypocrisy.

It's bollocks. Even if the worst pro-war nightmare was true and each anti-war protestor held every single soldier personally responsible for the crimes committed in that war, they would not be entirely in the wrong. Yes, such disgrace for people given the ultimate fucking over is disgusting, but it would be the risk the politicians ran when taking a force promised and paid by the people to serve the duty of protection, removing them from that duty in order to meddle with the affairs of another state. It's what the politicians paid when they let that protection get slaughtered in that meddling and its what they ordered when orders and presence begin to create tragedies and crimes. The politicians sully the honor of the protecting force by involving them and idiots will strike the tangible expression of that. If every man in the anti-war squad was such an idiot then that would be the fate. It would be the physical feeling of disgust for both the acts committed and the unneeded disgrace burdened on a now-weakened defense force built on the corpses of many of the anti-war's friends.

And that paragraph will be misquoted for fun for years to come but we'll give that a miss. I refuse to blame military for how they are sullied in these offensive misadventures. Even personal responsibility can be waived by the nature of the chaos. Those who sent and those who support owed an apology for their role. I stand by my beliefs and will die in defense if need be. I refuse to play hypocrite.

And yet here I am defending my views yet again and frankly when the war is clearly invasion and I've been called a traitor or a coward or unamerican one time too many and the war crimes and abuse of military and overall irony is cranked a little too high, I really start to get tetchy and I really start to wonder.

Why am I defending my beliefs? Why must I prove why I'm not a hypocrite? That my position on the matter is what needs to be scrutinized for morality?









Eh, sorry. My irony overload has been kicking into high gear what with the current government pissing on my country and all and I've been a bit high strung. That and real life demands esceeding safe capacity means rants for the whole family. Scratch everything, I guess. You probably didn't mean to demean me or anyone I even respect.


Scratch it all Jim and replace it all with Space Commando Captain Pirate reruns.


"Arggh I will fight you to the ends of the galaxy, Commander Kidd."
"Nevarr"





Arrgh.







<sigh> -

 

[rgraham666]

Was reading a book last night. It mentioned that 250 member of the Auxiliary Bomb Disposal Service in London during The Blitz were conscientious objectors.

And in another another, the commander of 3 Commando, on of Britain's most effective fighting units expressed awe at his stretcher bearers courage, their willingness to expose themselves in combat to recover the wounded. They were all conscientious objectors as well.

A little something to think about.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I've wondered about this.

If our Commander-In-Chief suddenly decided on a pre-emptive attack against Canada, say, and started bombing the cities and rolling tanks across the border, would you still support our troops? Would you look at the army as a heroic force defending the USA and Preserving our Freedoms?

Okay, that's a reductio ad absurdum of course, but it makes my point. In my view, there's nothing intrinsically noble or admirable in being a soldier, and putting on a uniform sdoesn't sudenly turn you into a hero. The moral standing of an army (or a police force) is entirely contingent on the purpoise it's used for. If they're truly defending their country, then there's nothing more heroic. But if they're engaged in an operation of more dubious morality, I don't see any reason for knee-jerk deification and parades. They're more to be pitied as the ultimate victims of misguided policy than enything else.

 

[cantdog]

I dunno. Canada said "no" to becoming one of the Coalition of the Willing. They have, in fact, failed to kiss ass, lots of times. And, y'know, if you aren't with us, you're against us, as the fella said. They probably are sending to Niger for yellowcake right this minute!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Let's get some clarity here:
1) Going to college in the 60's was far cheaper. I mean FAR cheaper than now or even 10 years ago. It was outragously reasonable, so much so that you didn't need a trust fund. You could go to college with a little help from the parents and a part-time job. And most of the kids who went to college did just that--part time job. So just because these kids were going to college doesn't mean they were trust fund babies.

2) Even if they were trust fund...what has that to do with anything?

I had a good friend who was a history treacher. Died of brain cancer, I'm sorry to say. He use to teach about the 60's by going through his arrest record One thing he always pointed out at the beginning of his lecture was this:
"No one was able to stay neutral about the Vietnam War. There was a draft. This meant that you or your brothers or your friend or your boyfriend was going to be drafted. That someone you knew and cared about was going overseas to fight and might end up wounded, crippled or dead. It meant that everyone had to decide if they wanted not only to die for this cause, but kill people in a foreign land over it. It meant they had to decide if they believed if their country was right to fight this war. EVERYONE had to make this decision. No one could stay neutral. And once they did, they had to decide what they wanted to do about it."

This is the most important point. Trust-fund or no trust-fund, college education or no...every male of a certain age in the 60's had to make this decision--and so did their girlfriends/sisters/wives. Even if they, themselves weren't to go, someone they knew was.

So enough with denegrating and type casting and straw-man-bias about who and what these protesters were. They were young people forced to make a terrible decison because their government had gotten involved in a very bad foreign war. And you have no right to make assumptions about why they made this very important, very difficult and very scary decision. A life and death decision. A deeply moral and ethical decision.

Did some of they run because they were cowards, of course. Were there asshole and hypocrites and folk who took advantage of the suitation. Absolutely. But most of them were just trying to decide what was right for themselves, their friends, and for the country they loved. And there were plenty willing to go to jail for their beliefs, suffer beating and abuse for them, even die for them. They decided which war they wanted to fight, and they fought it.

If you bothered to read the rest of the post and subsequent posts you will see that my intent was not to paint the entire anti-war movement with a broad brush.

My original intent was an abstract point, to use Luc's words. However, I also noted the worst offenders, because I tend to assume that they rely (and that is the key issue here, their active reliance on police and military protection that they despise, like a rebellious child who still expects his or her parents to protect, which of course they do as good parents) on the same protection that they deplore. It is a relatively small group, I hope. I would prefer to think that your characterization of the majority of the anti-war movement is accurate and most loved their country and didn't blame the individual troops for the behavior of the leaders.

Again, I regret any misunderstanding that you or Cloudy had regarding my intent, as I respect and like both of you and consider your input on this and other topics important. Same with Luc, whom I also like and respect.

Apparently, I was too vague, for which I apologize, not for my intent, but for its practical effect, the confusion. Luc puts the issue into more specific terms, which I appreciate terms. I sometimes assume that people catch my meaning exactly or precisely, which is not always the case if I happen to use too broad of a verb.

As for Tom Hayden, while I don't share his politics, I respect his willingness to face imprisonment for his beliefs. Same with Thoreau, who never asked for any protection, and made a point of not relying on society for anything. He was a true rugged individualist, a man who lived and died according to his own principles. He even refused to pay a tax for the Mexican War (because he viewed it as a war to expand slavery) and went to jail because of that.

To me, a willingness to face harm or danger because of principles negates any possible hypocrisy and reveals a nobility of character. That must be the Stoic in me, as the Stoics believed that a man or woman of virtue was best regardless of the consequences of that virtue.

So, that I can respect. Same thing with Gandhi or anyone else willing to face prison or death because of their principled opposition to something like war or a particular war.

It is really a very small group that raises my ire. The other issue, a side one, was regarding the essential nature of government, and it got us sidetracked and confused the issue. So I apologize for bringing it up, although I maintain the view that government IS force by its very nature.

In any case, I think that we have exhausted the issue. Probably best to move on to other topics, before all of the horses we have flogged on this thread are well past dead and Shang gets on all of our cases for that.