Militarism, Pacifism and War?

Post Reply New Topic

I am interested in why so many people believe there is only two options in this regard?
On one hand you have a group of people who apparently believe war is inevitable and ultimately somehow 'good' in the grand sceme of things, and on the other you have a group who see it as aberant and 'bad' and refuse to accept any 'valid' reason for violence.

Now, surely any sane person is not actually pro war in general, it goes against the grain to actually want death and destruction to be our first recourse in dispute resolution? Likewise to not defend yourself against an attack is equally absurd after you have tried all other methods to resolve the conflict.

Given that I at least see things this way there are situation by situation many different rational stances to take?

Personally I think it is natural for a group to defend itself and to maintain a basic ability to do so, however I think wars of aggression are morally indefensible, to actively leave your own country and attack another? well as soon as you do this you are to my mind in all likelyhood and quite simply in the wrong. Having said this if your neighbour who is not the aggressor calls upon you to help them defend themselves you may well find yourself in the 'wrong' to turn away and leave them to the mercy of their attacker.

I consider this to be a generally 'pacifist' stance but not purist in any sense, I have been around the block enough times and gotten into enough stoushes to know that some people cannot be reasoned with and to allow them free reign is to court dissaster, Hitler had to be stopped [the agressor], the rapist my flatmate stopped with several blows of a garden tool had to be stopped [the aggressor], the partner beater who besieged the same flat had to be repelled by myself [the agressor], this I concede to be just and right, but the extreme absolutism of the 'hawks' and 'doves' argument? come on? it is little more than the rhetoric of those who have made their fortunes and careers from warfare right or wrong - always managing to 'spin' it so they look like heroes not bullies

peace j

I doubt any war in history was not defended on the basis that it was committed in defense. The recent and seemingly endless war in Iraq was initiated on the basis that Iraq was planning to attack the USA and, as usual, had no basis, but the war continues.It seems more likely that the was is based on controlling the oil rich areas of the ME and, to some extent, on the monstrous profits of the military industrial complex where it was recently revealed that about 6 billion dollars casually disappeared without a trace.
Probably most wars are started to gain economic dominance but that requires a bit of digging to validate.

When our troops march into a country or attack it, we call it "liberation". When enemy troops march into a country or attack it we call it "invasion".

ruveyn

I don't know anybody that thinks defending yourself is wrong.

Perhaps I was not clear, I do not wish to debate past wars but to discuss the ethical path used to decide whether to go to war or not and give people a chance to register their own take on the issue without political bias or emotion clouding judgement.

None of the wars mentioned were/are actually defensive [except the air strikes in Libya which are being sold as supporting an oppressed neighbour], all involved leaving national boundries to attack another nation and could therefore be said to fit into the war of aggression/militay adventurism category?

peace j

I believe RedHanrahan wants to discuss militarism and pacifism as philosophies, without the specific real-world examples that rouse emotion and cloud logic.
Not THAT hard to grasp, is it?