I am a pacifist who generally opposes any war. That is my political belief. That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to self defense and most definitely does not mean I’m opposed to our military. In fact, that’s why I have nothing but the deepest respect and gratitude for those that put their lives on the line to protect our freedom. Thank you to all Veterans, we are thankful to you for our continued liberty.
@Gambit_1 It's good to see a pacifist who recognizes there is nuance to the issue.
All-too-often I see catastrophically idealistic/naive pacifists who don't recognize the use of force is sometimes necessary in this world; the kind who don't understand that (paraphrased from John Stuart Mill) "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing".
Y'know, the kind of people who would uselessly stand around whining/gibbering if Nazis marched in & started snatching people.
@Gambit_1 I am far from a pacifist (For example, I support the use of force whenever refraining from using force could lead to more casualties / loss, which means I even support pre-emptive strikes under certain circumstances, and I also support punitive [not necessarily just proportional, either] use of force against aggressors to discourage future aggression) but I can respect your kind of pacifism.
@IrelandTorin yeah, we don’t see eye to eye on that, but I won’t say a preemptive is NEVER the right move because that’s how innocent people die. Every situation is different, but if a peaceful approach is available, I believe we are obligated to try (assuming the other side can be trusted).
@Gambit_1 Fair enough - most people don't see eye-to-eye with me there haha.
For me, it's all calculated - sure, a peaceful solution can be good where feasible, but there are occasions where the delay (& informational consequences) inherent in attempting a peaceful solution would result in more death/harm.
Other times, there's an aspect of deterrence/honor - where attempting a peaceful solution would embolden aggressive parties in the future, making "blood for blood" a better option long-term.
@IrelandTorin the aspect of this discussion that is the biggest variable for me is the opponent. There are definitely some countries/groups where I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
@Gambit_1 An example of my difference in philosophy: I don't think engaging in hostage negotiations is a good idea long-term.
If you negotiate, that shows them taking hostages can help them get what they want - so they're incentivised to do it again.
If you instead respond with force, attempting to kill (or capture/interrogate) those responsible without negotiation, you show them taking hostages just gets the kidnappers killed... which in turn should prevent others from copying that behaviour.
@IrelandTorin that’s a good example. I would agree that it’s a bag strategy to negotiate with terrorist, but at the same time I support prisoner exchanges.
@IrelandTorin unfortunately we live in an imperfect world and we need imperfect solutions. It’s a little like cancer. I’m opposed to anyone cutting any part of me away, but when you get the big C, cutting might be the only solution. Is an imperfect analogy, but the point is the same. But even if someone were to take an absurd absolutist position, they should still thank out Veterans. War is never the soldier’s fault.
@Gambit_1 🖤