Pacivism vs Militarianism Which is better?

[ucw458]

We all would like to live in a peacfull society where the military is not nescesary but in our current global situation I don't belive that's possible. There are gropus across the globe (damn hippies) who advocate pacivism and world peace. Is that even a possibility in the future? Or are we as a race always going to have conflicts requiring military solutions?

 

They say the best defence is a good offence but does that really work in a military situation or is that just a football strategy? How fast would we become global bullies if we just invaded countries before they invaded us? Total pacivism I don't belive can be achived right now. Being neutral doesn't always work either. I think the Swiss have got it right at the moment. They are a neutral country but there everyone by the age of 17 has to enlist in the military. Everyone there owns a firearm. Firearm related crimes are low in that country. Why would you want to point a weapon at someone in a country where everyone owns a firearm and is military trained? Furthermore can anyone remember a time when the Swiss went to war?

 

 

So what are your thoughts on this issue? Please play nice and not turn this into a pissing match.

Edited April 12, 2010 by ucw458

[Guest]

No such thing as peace and harmony, it's not in human nature or "nature" for that matter. The circle of life requires there to be a dominant group (predators) and a subservient group (prey). It's just basic "nature". As advanced as humans would like to think they are or have become, we are still guided by basic laws of survival.

 

It's like in Terminator 2 when the kid makes the realization that are doomed to destroy ourselves, it's in our nature.

[garychoffmann]

1st pacifism is the correct term. Unfortunately, pacifists are generally seen as being week. "speak softly and carry a big stick"

[JustPaus_88TSi]

Having the means of violence does not make one violent.

[sexygomer]

Pacivism is good when you're not being attacked. no need to instigate, but, an example on a smaller scale, im not gonna shoot some guy that looks like he may break into my house or attack a memeber, but if he tries it ill d@mn sure blow his head off.

[Shelby]

no but not haveing it can make you a victum

[ucw458]

1st pacifism is the correct term. Unfortunately, pacifists are generally seen as being week. "speak softly and carry a big stick"

 

Spelling, lol. Yeah I screw that up from time to time.

 

 

For me personally, I would rather avoid a fight if possible. I don't see much point in it most of the time. Take a deep breath, calm down and you wont feel like fighting anymore. But some poeple you just can't reason with. All they understand is a good butt kicking. In those cases where you've reached the last resort I will and have thrown down. Never confuse kindness or reason for weakness. When backed into a corner with no other options I'm not a nice guy when I start swinging. I'll fight as dirty as I have to. But I still wont like doing it.

[Fanta]

The Swiss did engage in combat ( defense ) come WW2.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw

[Shelby]

personaly i beleave it takes a little of each

[Starfighterpilot]

I subscribe to Teddy Roosevelts philosophy of: WALK SOFTLY, BUT CARRY A BIG STICK.

 

I add to the above, "The Biggest stick in the neighborhood and I know how and when to use it."

 

For What It's Worth

 

KEN

[jolyrgr]

"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war." Albert Einstein

 

"From pacifist to terrorist, each person condemns violence - and then adds one cherished case in which it may be justified." Gloria Steinem

 

"The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer." Theodore Roosevelt

 

"Our most important task is to transform our consciousness so that violence is no longer an option for us in our personal lives, that understanding that a world of peace is possible only if we relate to each other as peaceful beings, one individual at a time." Deepak Chopra

 

 

There is a need for both and intolerance for either at any given time. Like most other things, the extremes are usually too radical. Most times it is better to have something closer to the middle.

 

JR

Edited April 13, 2010 by jolyrgr

[chiplee]

Your question kind of assumes too much; that pacifism and militarism are opposites, or that we must choose one or the other, but I'll go with it here for the sake of sqc's first "deep" thread in a little while.

 

I'm pressed for time so I dug through some old threads to find one of my posts on this subject. I'll paraphrase.

 

Pacifism is just a disproportionate response to fear and the natural human distaste for violence. Make no mistake, we've all wished there was no more violence at one point or another. But pacifists behave as if they're the only ones who have figured it out. Yes, pacifists. We get it. Killing sucks. War sucks. Violence sucks. You're sooo brilliant. They seem to think people who have killed or who order men and women to war don't also know that it would be better if there was another way. The irony is that their right to be this oblivious was afforded them by people who fought valiantly, and risked it all, all the while wishing it wouldn't have been necessary. I don't understand what separates pacifists from reality, or why they take it too far. I too would prefer it if we all just put down our guns and refused to go to war, but it takes me about .5 seconds to realize we're not ready for that yet. Any effort to end violence that includes a refusal to be violent constitutes an invitation to be beat down by someone who IS still willing to be violent. Inevitably though what happens instead is that someone defends you, and preserves your right to be ridiculous. All you have to do is ask yourself what would happen if all the able bodied men and women in a country decided to sit down and refuse to fight, and you should quickly come to the conclusion being a pacifist just isn't fair to the rest of us.

 

On a global scale, since you simply CANNOT get all of humanity to come to a simultaneous, and unanimous decision to never fight again, we still have to stand up a fighting force. Some argue we need reluctant warriors, vice eager killers, but when the time comes for killing, reluctance can get in the way and cost American lives.

 

 

I don't know what's wrong with pacifists, but it's pretty plain to see why people tend to think they are rationalizing their inaction with their high and mighty "war is wrong" mumbo jumbo, simply to cover up their fear of dieing in combat. It is probably conscious in some and subconscious in others, and perhaps some have sincerely decided to make and example of their lives and hope for the best. Not joining the military is one thing, but deep down any normal person should feel guilty for letting other's risk it all in their defense, and then turning around and using the "all killing is murder" trump card to magically place themselves in higher moral standing than those who gave them the freedom to sit idly by.

 

In a very real way though, these kinds of people have come to represent what true freedom is all about. The freedom to be utterly oblivious is perhaps the purest form of freedom. In many countries people are very aware of their military forces and how they came to be "free". The level of disassociation our citizens are given the freedom to have is truly remarkable. If you want to know about our military history it's there to learn. If not, no one is making you learn it. This is why I sincerely thank and then shake hands with the people who call me baby killer or murderer for being a Marine who has dropped bombs in combat. They are what it's all about for me, because I want my country's society to be able to go on about their lives so free, that they have absolutely no concept of the cost. It's like not telling your wife how much her Christmas present was because her knowing the price might make her feel guilty or impede her enjoyment somehow. Giving in its purest form is even anonymous, so there is no one to thank, no one to feel indebted to, just pure unencumbered receiving. To me that is what the pacifist embodies in our society, the innocent child whose been given a gift from a stranger who wants no thanks, and the gift is that you get to stay a child forever. In this way, I have come to love pacifists for their stupidity, because the fact that they can be that stupid proves the military is doing something right.

 

I do think there will be a distant future time when we do not need armies or weapons, but it won't be any time soon.

Edited April 13, 2010 by chiplee