General question to any pacifists.

[Jin-Roh]

It regards the War on Iraq. Evidence of WMD have been found, we know saddam is an Ill-tempered man, and the the testimony of escaped iraqi scientists gives us a clearer insight then the scientists in iraq, who can probably only say what Saddam will let them say.

All that established I would have to say that, yes, we have a problem. Even if it is an "oil war" the problem still exists. Now war is always bad, and should never be the solution to any conflict. "Make love not war", "Give peace a chance" ad nausem.

So if not military action, what is you suggestion to dealing with this problem?

Food for thought.

[flipper]

It regards the War on Iraq. Evidence of WMD have been found, we know saddam is an Ill-tempered man,

I am not a pacifist, but I have tend towards the idea of war as a last resort, and only as 'just war'.

The US has instigated more wars than Iraq has in the last 30 years. Furthermore, the US has a much larger arsenal of WMD than Saddam will ever own. So these same arguments could be made towards the United States.

I don't think that such a collossal gamble regarding mid-east (and even global) stability should be taken over what Saddam Hussein might do. I think that a war with him would make the use of any WMD he has as an absolute certainty. Worse, he might make what he has available to other groups before his fall, and the links that the Bush regime has repeated alleged but have completely failed to prove might then become a reality.

However, it's a moot point. Such posturing over Iraq has ensured Iraq's polar emnity, given them reason to kickstart any covert WMD purchasing or development and to build dangerous links with far more radical groups to ensure their survival in the future. Therefore, we might as well follow through on this highly risky gambit and cut the serpent's head off before it builds up enough venom to seriously hurt us. I believe that this either/or situation could have been avoided and any comparisons between Iraq today and Germany in the 1930s are so simplistic as to be moronic.

Other unforseen consequences of this gamble will also include much poorer relations with our NATO allies, more global anti-american feeling, and more candidates for Islamic terror groups who believe that the US is trying to destroy islam. Not to mention widespread step-ups of other dangerous regimes to get nuclear weapons. It's pretty obvious that the US is afraid of proliferation, and less likely to challenge countries that are known to possess them (North Korea, for example).

So the downside of this action is that it is likely to make the world a less safe place, not more so, with more radical anti-american enemies, more nuclear weapons in the hands of smaller states, and weaker alliances with our traditional partners, even assuming Taiwan and South Korea remain intact.

The upside is that we at least we demonstrated that just the mere presence of WMD in an enemy state is not sufficient deterrent should we wish to project our power. It also is likely to ensure one more pro US regime in the region who are likely to consider us a preferred oil customer. I believe that this will become very important 10 years from now.

To reverse policy at this point would be to display extremely dangerous vacillation. I hope that this war is a fast and resolute one.

[Alden]

Flipper, I think that you raise some very interesting points. I agree, to reverse now would be dangerous, and would create more problems.

The US has instigated more wars than Iraq has in the last 30 years. Furthermore, the US has a much larger arsenal of WMD than Saddam will ever own. So these same arguments could be made towards the United States.


Do you mean overtly, covertly, or both?

I don't think that the US having WMD is a valid point. This is mainly because, unless I have my facts wrong here, Iraq was supposed to have scrapped all of their programs and destroyed their biological and conventional weapons stockpiles after the Gulf War was over. This was the result of their having made war on Kuwait, etc.

Furthermore, I know that the US has done some pretty messed-up things, but we've never gassed our own.

What are your thoughts?

[BohemianXQueen]

There's a difference between going in to a country and taking out some military base or a secret government building and all out total war. I'd like to give you my take on war. What I don't agree with is the all-out war that involves citizens. When citizens have to fear for their lives or are put in danger somehow, that's unfair to them and a really really scary and sad thought. I know that peace will NEVER come, because it is in human nature to fight. Infact, I don't even concider myself a pacifist, more like an idealist when it concerns war and peace. The only time I can accept war is when both sides are willing to fight and possibly be killed (i.e.-no citizen involvement)

As soon as what we're doing in Iraq starts to involve citizens getting killed (namely by US soliders and weapons), it's gotten too far and I no longer agree with it. I think we should definately help the opressed people in Iraq because everyone deserves the right to live a free life. Revolution in Iraq, however, seems like it would be difficult because the people there were raised not to questions anything. I'm sure there are Iraqis that have thought to themselves "this isn't right, we should rise up" but until the majourity thinks that, revolution will never come. In a way, it seems like America is trying to force it, but I don't really know.

If we're going to have this war, we should have it for the right reasons. Helping the citizens of Iraq. Not fighting for oil. All human actions have intentions, and sometimes the intentions behind the acts have the power to make the acts just or unjust.

[Queen]

First of all....All wars are bad, there are always innocent people and children who suffer the most from it. Yes, I know in WW2 we were saved from tiranny but at what cost? And how many people died before this war ended. My Dad fought in this war in the US army. He still suffers from it....How? Phycological. He saw friends die while he had their bowels in his hands. He saw the horror of the concentration camps where so many innocent people died because of their religion their inheritish their mental ability or just because the existed.

And I can name so much wars that killed so many people. We are a species that seem to thrive on war. Name one year without war. How many young souls suffered and were harmed during the Vietnam war...on both sides. How were the US soldiers treated when they came back? Because they did what they were ordered to do and if you refused?

How is it possible that we treat each other with such evil? What if soldiers started to refuse orders from the big man or woman? Anyone who is sitting safe in their houses, palaces and so on?

Is war not bad? Always bad......

Should we be there fighting this war? I guess not, but how to solve the problem? I have no idea. How can you safe suffering and a tortured land? And why Iraq? There are so many countries that suffer from these kinds of dictatorships. Tibet is one of those countries, monks and nuns are beaten and raped, people that are pure Tibetans have to marry a chinese man or woman. They are eradicating Tibettan people in this way...slowly, step by step and so on. They even have a Chinese Lama put on the thrown, because the tibettan boy is not acknowledged by the chinese goverment. They abuse a child for their evil plans....

But Tibet is just a rock and not worth to be safed. When is a human being worth to be safed? Because he is smart or handsome or rich.

War is about money....dictators are after money....Power...money gives power to those who have it, but want more.

Those soldiers in Iraq are fighting a guerillia war right now and it is absolutely wrong.........all wars are...

My two cents.....I have no solution. I wish I had, I would stop all the wars in the world right now.

Queen

[BohemianXQueen]

Queen, if you will notice, I said that if both sides realize they could possibly be killed and are still willing to fight, let them. I also said that when it reaches innocent people that don't want the war, it's not ok. If I had my wish, there would be no war, but that just can't happen.

I think this war we're having right now is insane and I think Bush is a horrible president for dragging America into it, mainly because he's only fighting for oil and power. He's basically asserting America's authority and that's just plain...stupid. But American people eat it up and he knows it so he keeps feeding them what he knows they want, all the while, he gets what he wants, not caring who he has to hurt along the way. If he looks good, that's all that matters to him.

Because 90% of governments are like that, you know it, I know it. You really can't change it.
Ah how my little pointless speach reminds me of the Orwell novel Animal Farm.

[nomad]

from a christian perspective, the pacifist would probably say 'pray, and let God take the vengeance that is His.'

i must admit my faith isn't quite that strong :) but it is a compelling line of thought...

[Cowthulu]

Infact, I don't even concider myself a pacifist, more like an idealist when it concerns war and peace. The only time I can accept war is when both sides are willing to fight and possibly be killed (i.e.-no citizen involvement)

Yes that is truly idealistic. I often wonder if Idealism should be the thing of myth. Some people have such a propesity for evil. Such are the men who will hide among civilians and make war from there. Why build walls, when you can hide behind a child?

[BohemianXQueen]

People as a whole are...evil. There are good and righteous ones amoung the crowd, but they are some times hard to find.

[trueseeker]

I was raised in the Society of Friends, more commonly referred to as Quakers. We did not use the term, 'pacifist' to describe ourselves. The groups I was involved with called it, 'a peace stand,' some other Friends groups called it a, 'non-violence' stance. Although I still interact with a number of those groups I am no longer a member, and I have changed my perspective on the issue slightly. Unfortunately, the percentage of Christians in the traditionally pacifist churches has shrunk to where it is often the minority belief even in them.

My personal perspective now, is that as Christians everything we do should be done in love. That doesn't mean sitting pacifially back and doing nothing. Many pacifists believe that if somone is attacked, they should stand back and stay out of it. I now believe that the loving thing to do for both the attacker and the victum is to try and subdo the attacker, to prevent him from doing a serious crime.

Some of the groups that believe in total non-violence, don't even believe in any kind of physical discipline of their kids. I think it is non-loving to not slap your toddlers hand, when they try to touch the burners, heater or fireplace. It's un-loving not to give your young kids a couple swats if they keep running out into the street.

Regarding worldly countries going to war with each other, I think it is inapproprieate for Christians to get involved as combatants. IMHO this is one place where we could really be light to the world. I don't believe we should try to force what we are called to do as Christians, that is above a fairness, eye for an eye standard, on non-Christians. I think we should just live the additional standard that Jesus has called us to, so that we can be an example to those around us.