Pacifism and Memorial Day

[DaveBj]

But it doesn’t.

Our freedom to follow Jesus, whether that involves nonviolence or not, comes from Jesus and not from the state.

And how does American military activity give pacifists living in America the freedom not to engage in military activity?

You are assuming, without providing any evidence, that if Americans didn’t wage wars, then they would be taken over by some other government that would make everyone engage in military service, apparently. That’s a pretty big hypothetical. Even if true, this would actually give Christian pacifists a chance to witness to their faith more bravely and dramatically than is presently possible or necessary. But no one really knows if it’s true in the first place.

Your statement simply betrays the idolatrous way most Americans think about the state and the military.

Edwin

Bah. Not to mention humbug.

Within the Universal Church, one has the right to be a pacifist. The same is true within the USA (conscientious objector status).

However, your first statement appears rather naive. We live in the real world, not in some Christian Utopia, and in the real world, pacifism exists only by suffrage, both from the government that allows it to exist, and from the military forces that protect those who do not want to fight. In regimes like the old USSR and Red China, pacifism has a much harder time.

I will grant that America’s military history is not exactly filled with wars in which there was a direct threat to Americans in the CONUS. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor was not so much an attack on the American people as it was Japan’s failed attempt to take the U.S. Pacific Fleet out of the balance of forces, so that the Japanese military could have its own way in China, Southeast Asia, and the East Indies.

However, the fact that we here in the 48 states were not being directly attacked did not relieve us of what I perceive as a duty to come to the assistance of the people who were being beaten up (the peoples of Western and Eastern Europe). You said that the pacifist argument is not that we should not try to help, but in those circumstances, how else could we have helped, if military action had been excluded? Personally, I think that if we had stayed out, the Soviet Union would have eventually beaten the Germans, but millions more people would have died, and the entirety of the European continent would have come under the iron fist of Soviet Communism, a regime in which there was no suffrage for pacifism.

Your last statement is insulting in the extreme. I don’t know where you are from, but if you knew anything about American society, you would know that while the military is respected, it is not idolized in the way that it was in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia. Likewise, we are trying to shrink the American state, not worship it.

The OP’s question has been answered well by other posters. Stay home and pray for the fallen. It is very easy to avoid circumstances where there would be a clash between one’s pacifist opinions and the less pacifist opinions of others.

 

[Qoeleth]

I agree. Look at St. Boniface- when armed barbarians fell upon him, and his followers drew their weapons, he instructed them to put them away, and were slaughtered.

Better to die than to break the commandment. Better to let someone else die than to break a commandment.

If someone with a gun is about to shoot a loved one, throw yourself in front of the bullet by all means. But do not kill.

Fear not that which kills the body- fear that which condemns both body and soul.

And freedom? if the defence of so-called freedom forces our soldiers to kill, than what kind of freedom is it? The only true freedom is freedom from anger, violence, lust and sin.

But I attend memorial services where appropriate, to pray for peace, the humanity may turn from war, that I may turn from violence in my own heart, to pray for the souls who have died. If it appears to glorify war, or military strength, I would not go, though.

 

[Taestron]

While I never served or considered it, and am now overage, I have no problem with Memorial Day. It is not about paying homage to war, it is about paying homage to human beings, like you or me, who stopped being so their country – which is not just square mileage, it is principles and people – would be protected.

We can and should honor them ever if we cannot agree with or imitate them.

Thank-you for your response this makes sense.

OP: What is your understanding of the just-war theory?

My understanding is that a war has to be 1) fought for just reasons and 2) implemented in a just manner. Just to clarify, while I think many of America’s wars were fought for just reasons, they have often times failed at the second requirement. I should apologize for my OP; I didn’t mean any disrespect to the veterans who have died in America’s wars. The fact that America’s military leadership did not always make the best decisions does not take away from the sacrifice of the soldiers.

How can you refuse to honor those whose willingness to engage in military activity provides you with the freedom to choose not to engage in military activity?

My choice to be a pacifist has nothing to do with my freedom to be a pacifist. I would like to think that I would still choose to be a pacifist even if it meant imprisonment or worse.

The proper way to respond to something like Memorial Day is (a) accept that people want to celebrate it, (b) do not get snippy if someone rebuffs your extreme pacifism, and (c) do not draw attention to yourself for hating all wars. (c) also applies to giving the proper honor: the less you do to say they died in a worthless battle (your opinion, at least) the more honor they would retain.

Thank you for your thoughts. First, I do accept that people want to celebrate Memorial Day, and contrary to your impression, I do anything but draw attention to my pacifism around this time of year. But people do know that I am a pacifist, and sometimes the conversation comes up despite my best efforts to avoid it. I would like to know how to respond with charity in these situations, when people get offended over a battle they choose to pick. At the time of my OP, I just had come from one such discussion; I did not mean to be rude or “snippy” but I do apologize for my tone.

I am retired military. I sum up my career in one word: AGAIN.

By the time I was 12, I understood what my life would have been had we lost World War II. I HAD to serve because, for me, that was the only way I could properly express my appreciation for the entire line of those who fought to give me FREEDOM.

Yet I also respect honest pacifists. There is honor in taking heat because one believes sincerely that it is always wrong to take other life. Wrong to the point that they would be willing to be killed themselves or allow their loved ones to be killed or accept subjugation, often very brutal, for perhaps an entire life or for generations.

Thank-you for your understanding. I do wish to honor you, your fellow veterans, and those in the military who gave their lives. Thank-you for your service.

We are citizens of another Kingdom…all that being said. The Society of Friends went thru some difficult struggles in seeking to find the balance of how we treat those who chose to ignore the Peace Testimony and engage in war or join the military.

They made difficult choices of conscience…and payed the ultimate price in laying down their lives. I don’t have to “glorify” the violence they engaged in to honor them as people of conscience.

This makes perfect sense (I went to a Quaker college).

Just keep your mouth shut, your opinions to yourself and say a prayer for the souls of the deceased military people.
You have the right to your opinions, paid for with the blood of the dead of all our past wars. You don’t have the right to be rude and upset other people on what is one of the most serious public holidays in the US. Doing so, is not only un-Christian, it is un-wise. If someone bopped you on your nose because of an egregious pacifist statement made on Memorial day, I doubt even the police would side with you…and I would probably be the one who dotted your nose!

I am sorry if I offended you. My OP was… not charitable. Please understand though, that when someone asks me for my opinion on Memorial Day (it happens more that I would like) I am obligated to give an honest answer. In these situations I try my hardest not to be rude or dishonorable to the deceased members of the military.

The OP’s question has been answered well by other posters. Stay home and pray for the fallen. It is very easy to avoid circumstances where there would be a clash between one’s pacifist opinions and the less pacifist opinions of others.

It is not as easy as it would seem. My friends and acquaintances know about my pacifism, and the knowledge spreads to those that would defend the honor of soldiers by challenging my pacifism.

The crux of the issue for pacifists, I would venture, is one of appearances. By honoring the fallen veterans, a certain segment of the population (one with a worrying amount of members) would take this for approval of a brand of blind nationalism. This is an appearance I cannot allow due to my quasi-anabaptist beliefs. I think that soldiers who fall in battle are worthy of respect, and I wish to give them this respect. But how do I give respect to someone if I know my actions would be saying something I do not wish. I cannot explain my beliefs to these people (I have found out through experience that this always ends badly). So what am I to do? I want to celebrate Memorial Day, but to do so would violate my pacifism. BTW, I would have to check with my pastor, but I believe praying for the deceased is considered a sin in my denomination (or at least pointless), and so this option I cannot do.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t know about Nazarenes per se; however, Protesants generally do not pray for those who have died. Such prayers are connected to the Catholic teaching of Purgatory (which belief, and prayers, are shared by Orthodox Christians and by Jews, though under other names). The prayers cannot release someone from death or secure their salvation, but they can redeem them from Purgatory.

Since almost all Protestants reject the teaching of Purgatory, there is indeed no reason for those churches to pray for those who die.

God Bless, ICXC NIKA

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

My understanding is that a war has to be 1) fought for just reasons and 2) implemented in a just manner. Just to clarify, while I think many of America’s wars were fought for just reasons, they have often times failed at the second requirement. I should apologize for my OP; I didn’t mean any disrespect to the veterans who have died in America’s wars. The fact that America’s military leadership did not always make the best decisions does not take away from the sacrifice of the soldiers.

How can a war be implemented in a “just manner?”

Thank you for your thoughts. First, I do accept that people want to celebrate Memorial Day, and contrary to your impression, I do anything but draw attention to my pacifism around this time of year. But people do know that I am a pacifist, and sometimes the conversation comes up despite my best efforts to avoid it. I would like to know how to respond with charity in these situations, when people get offended over a battle they choose to pick. At the time of my OP, I just had come from one such discussion; I did not mean to be rude or “snippy” but I do apologize for my tone.

The best response, and an easy way out, is to say, “You have your point-of-view, I have mine. They happen to not be aligned here, and there is likely no changing either of our stances. How about the formerly-Supersonics now-Thunder? Think they can win it all?” You cannot let their statements bother you and allow the conversation to get heated. If the person continues against your wishes, walk away.

 

[GEddie]

How can a war be implemented in a “just manner?”

I am not at all convinced that it can be.

Normally, that concern has to do with “not hurting women and children” and similar chivalrous cliches. But a war cannot be won under those conditions. Apart from the fact that women have been deadly fighters since at least the Book of Judith, and modern weapons allow even children to be lethal combatants; the unjust side can resort to “human shielding” to deflect attack from the just side.

In any case, war results in physical suffering for everybody, as commerce is disrupted and land that normally grows food becomes torn up for battlefields and trench lines.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Taestron]

How can a war be implemented in a “just manner?”

I believe this sums up the general framework for just war theory, at least in contemporary theories. Source: iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H3

just war theory offers a series of principles that aim to retain a plausible moral framework for war. From the just war (justum bellum) tradition, theorists distinguish between the rules that govern the justice of war (jus ad bellum) from those that govern just and fair conduct in war (jus In bello) and the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum). The three aspects are by no means mutually exclusive, but they offer a set of moral guidelines for waging war that are neither unrestricted nor too restrictive. The problem for ethics involves expounding the guidelines in particular wars or situations.

If you look at the jus In bello section you can find standards for judging whether or not a a war is conducted in a just manner. The bottom line is that wars can be fought for just reasons and still not be considered just wars (on the whole).

 

[St_Francis]

Jesus only helped people who were not sinning?

Just what New Testament are you reading?

C. S. Lewis’s argument, which I used to find persuasive, is that Jesus praised the centurion’s faith without telling him to give up his calling–the implication being that he approved that calling.

When dealing with sinners, Christ acted differently. Since CS Lewis’s explantion happens to align with the explanation of the 2000-year-old Church which Christ founded, I go along with that rather than something some not in that Church comes up with on their own.

I don’t find this very persuasive any more. Logically, we would have to conclude that the centurion had no sins at all, since Jesus doesn’t single out any of his sins.

Again, I accept the interpretation of the Church.

That assumes that war is not an intrinsic evil.

Well, who are you to decide what constitutes intrinsic evil?*

Therefore, it is not an argument against the pacifist position at all (unless you reject Catholic teaching that it is always wrong to commit intrinsic evil, even if a “greater good” is in view).

Since the Churcg does not see war or acts of defense of by an intrinsic evil and in fact sometimes considers those types of acts to be necessary, you argument doesn’t hold any water. You cannot on the one hand propose something contraryto what the Church teaches and then rest it atop of Church teaching!

I am myself not a pacifist, though I’m close. I’m not convinced that war is intrinsically evil. But I also think it’s pretty hard to find wars that clearly prevented “greater evils” than they brought about.

Since the war changed te outcome of events, we will never in this world know what would have been had the war not occurred.

War also brings about good things: the sacrifices made, the conversions, the prayers. These appear on the supernatural level and are often not considered.

If violence is not intrinsically evil (and I’m not convinced it is), then you are right. If it isn’t, then you aren’t. You’re starting at the wrong end–the “consequentialist” end–and that’s incompatible with Catholic ethics.

Not at all. I am starting with already established Church teaching. I am not justifying Church teaching by the results, but simply explaining that sometimes war and acts of defense are necessary in this world of power-hungry bullies.

There are times when physical action against an aggressor is necessary, when this situation exists, it is not wrong to act in self-defense.

St Thomas Aquinas says that it can be a vice to refrain from action needed to defend someone else. iOW, if you see someone beating a defenseless person and you refuse to help *as you are able, *that could be vice. Yes, a trick of yelling that the police are coming to get them to stop may suffice, but it is the threat of violence on the part of the police which makes that trick work, isn’t it?

Straw man. The pacifist argument is not that we shouldn’t try to help.

What are the pacifist suggestions for dealing with this type of situation?

 

[Contarini]

When dealing with sinners, Christ acted differently.

Do you mean that sometimes He called them out and sometimes He didn’t?

In that case, you can’t base anything on the fact that He didn’t call out the centurion’s participation in war.

QED.

Since CS Lewis’s explantion happens to align with the explanation of the 2000-year-old Church which Christ founded, I go along with that rather than something some not in that Church comes up with on their own.

So you’ll accept even a patently illogical explanation if it confirms your beliefs?

Where in the past 50 years has pacifism been condemned by the Church?

Have prominent Catholic pacifists, such as Dorothy Day, ever been censured by the Vatican for their pacifism?

Well, who are you to decide what constitutes intrinsic evil?

You’re missing the point.

You and others are using consequentialist arguments to refute the claim that war is intrinsically evil. You can’t do that, by Catholic teaching. You have to address the claim itself before you even bring up the question of what consequences will follow.

I suppose you could argue that God wouldn’t allow a situation in which great evils would follow a refusal to commit intrinsic evil. But apart from the fact that it’s actually fairly hard to prove that great evils will follow a principled, Christ-following pacifist approach, I think that there’s no reason to think that God makes life that easy for us. Horrible things have happened to people for doing the right thing. So, again, the question of intrinsic evil has to be solved first.

Since the Churcg does not see war or acts of defense of by an intrinsic evil and in fact sometimes considers those types of acts to be necessary, you argument doesn’t hold any water. You cannot on the one hand propose something contrary to what the Church teaches and then rest it atop of Church teaching!

First of all, I deny that pacifism is contrary to Church teaching. As far as I can tell, it’s a legitimate option for Catholics, though not the majority position.

Second, of course I can appeal to Catholic teaching when arguing with a Catholic. You are purporting to defend Catholic teaching. You have to do so in accord with Catholic teaching. If you use consequentialism to defend just war, you’re violating a fundamental principle of Catholic moral theology in supposedly defending Catholic teaching. That’s incoherent and obviously false.

Catholicism certainly teaches that if war were intrinsically evil, it would not be right even if horrible consequences followed from a failure to engage in it. I can appeal to that teaching.

Furthermore, I am not myself convinced that war is intrinsically evil. So I don’t actually disagree with Catholic teaching on this. I agree with just war as Catholic teaching outlines it.

I don’t, in fact, think that just war as Catholic teaching outlines it is very practicable. So I wind up siding with pacifists on the practical question.

Since the war changed te outcome of events, we will never in this world know what would have been had the war not occurred.

Precisely. But you are the one resting your case on consequentialist grounds, so this is a devastating argument against your position.

You can’t say “we must fight or else terrible things will happen” and then say “but we will never know what would have happened if we hadn’t fought.”

War also brings about good things: the sacrifices made, the conversions, the prayers. These appear on the supernatural level and are often not considered.

First of all, this is only relevant if pacifism is rejected, in the first place, and if all the other criteria for just war (apart from the criterion of not causing greater harm) are met. But in the second place, since supernatural goods can’t be evaluated, I don’t see how they could be set against palpable physical evils when weighing the “not causing greater harm” criterion of just war.

So, for instance, reasonable people could tell (and did tell, but were not listened to) that the Iraq war would kill thousands of civilians and would probably increase the power of religious fanaticism in Iraq, severely harming the ancient Christian church there as well as other religious minorities. By your criterion, one could always say “well, but all that suffering may produce great spiritual goods, so let’s go ahead.” That gives us an out to do whatever the h*ll we want (the profanity is necessary and appropriate here) with the excuse that God will bring some great spiritual good out of it.

What are the pacifist suggestions for dealing with this type of situation?

Here’s an article on the subject by one of the most famous pacifist theologians of the past century.

 

[Contarini]

Within the Universal Church, one has the right to be a pacifist.

Other posters on this forum seem not to agree.

However, your first statement appears rather naive.

It’s naive to say that our freedom comes from Jesus?

Interesting that a basic statement of Christian faith would be called “naive” by an apparently devout and orthodox Christian.

That’s the real issue here, making the pacifism/just war debate (important and difficult as it is) pretty trivial by comparison.

We live in the real world, not in some Christian Utopia

We live in a world shaped by the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus was nailed to a cross, and in baptism we promised (or it was promised for us, which is a pretty scary thought) to follow Jesus on the way to the Cross.

Nothing naive about that.

and in the real world, pacifism exists only by suffrage,

If you mean that it is theoretically possible that a government could kill all pacifists if it wanted to, then sure. That’s possible. Probably harder than it looks, but in principle possible.

The same is true for everyone and everything. A sufficiently brutal and effective government can kill a lot of people. So we all exist “by suffrage” of the government. And your point is? We’re supposed to honor that and live in fear of it and shape our lives by it? What kind of craven life is that? If Jesus is too hard for us, perhaps we should listen to Socrates!

both from the government that allows it to exist, and from the military forces that protect those who do not want to fight. In regimes like the old USSR and Red China, pacifism has a much harder time.

And just where in Scripture or Tradition were followers of Jesus promised an easy time?

However, the fact that we here in the 48 states were not being directly attacked did not relieve us of what I perceive as a duty to come to the assistance of the people who were being beaten up (the peoples of Western and Eastern Europe).

Yes, but that’s a different argument entirely, negating the point about freedom originally made.

However, I’d sooner focus on the question of whether our freedom comes from Jesus or the government!

You said that the pacifist argument is not that we should not try to help, but in those circumstances, how else could we have helped, if military action had been excluded?

Well, the problem with this argument is that folks start too late. It would have been pretty easy to help the Jews, for instance, if we hadn’t had unjust immigration policies in the first place. If unjust peace terms hadn’t been imposed on Germany, Hitler would have had less of an audience. And so on.

The argument assumes that “we” are in control of national policy at the outbreak of war, but can’t do anything about what led up to it.

That’s a highly selective set of circumstances.

Nation-states are limited in the good they can do, anyway. For some odd reason, this seems more obvious to many folks today when it comes to domestic than to foreign policy. But war is a very blunt instrument–perhaps even blunter and more prone to unintended consequences than a bloated, bureaucratic welfare system!

Many conservative Christians are quite happy saying that we should help the poor through private charity and not through government programs. But somehow it becomes completely uncompassionate to say that we should help the victims of war through charitable action rather than through waging war ourselves, even though it’s obviously true that Allied action in WWII itself created thousands, maybe millions of innocent victims.

I don’t get this.

I’m not sure that charitable action is the only thing that could have been done. But arguably all government action has some kind of threat of force behind it, so I’m not sure that a strict pacifist has any business saying what a government should have done.

As a non-pacifist who thinks that WWII was not waged justly, I can say that I think the unconditional surrender policy was wrong, as was the policy of bombing cities.

Personally, I think that if we had stayed out, the Soviet Union would have eventually beaten the Germans, but millions more people would have died, and the entirety of the European continent would have come under the iron fist of Soviet Communism, a regime in which there was no suffrage for pacifism.

There were pacifists under the Soviet regime, in fact.

You put far too much stock in what governments allow or don’t allow. We don’t have to live our lives in that kind of craven fear.

And it is at least possible that our actions in WWII caused the Soviets to rule more of Europe than they otherwise would have.

Again, we don’t know.

Your last statement is insulting in the extreme. I don’t know where you are from, but if you knew anything about American society, you would know that while the military is respected, it is not idolized in the way that it was in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia.

I have lived in the U.S. since I was six years old. I know what I’m talking about. You’re creating a straw man by setting Nazis and Soviets as the standard. I’m setting faithfulness to Jesus as the standard.

If you think that your freedom comes from the government and not from Jesus, you’re worshiping it.

Likewise, we are trying to shrink the American state, not worship it.

Depends who “we” are. Consistent libertarians like Ron Paul, sure. But Ron Paul agrees with me, not you, on the question of foreign military intervention.

Do you support slashing the defense budget? Do you support withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you stand against the push toward war with Iran?

If you don’t, then you aren’t trying to “shrink” the state in the ways relevant to the present discussion. I find it extremely baffling that some folks can claim to be suspicious of the “state,” while supporting such things as “enhanced interrogation,” foreign wars, detention of alleged terrorists without trial, etc. The language strikes me, frankly, as hypocritical. A talk I read a few months ago in Hillsboro College’s publication “Imprimis” was more honest, saying that conservatives want a limited government, not a small government. In other words, government’s job is coercion.

If the choice is between worshiping a false god who feeds the poor, and worshiping a false god who kills your enemies, then I know which false god I think is more demonic. (I’m not actually convinced that liberals do worship the state with regard to welfare and similar things–not the way supposed “conservatives” do. They may be far too naive about its ability to do good, but that’s not the same thing.)

Edwin

 

[TheDoors]

Ahh, one of my favourite topics. Pacifism.

A pacifist is one who believes that violence should be the last recourse. About half of the pacifists I know believe that there is absolutely no reason to engage in violence of any sort. The other half believe in the “Just War” idea.

The greatest difference between these groups has, in my experience, been their own experience. Those who are “strict” pacifists tend to be very political, rather liberal and have been brought up in an enviroment which promotes this kind of pacifism.

The other group tends to be vets. Men and women who have seen combat, and what it does to people. They have also seen what happens when good men and women stand aside and let evil happen. I’m a vet. I’m also a pacifist. I believe that violence should be the very last recourse. I also believe that when violence becomes nescicary, it should be delt out swiftly, cleanly and as surgically as possible by a group of people dedicated and trained to be moderate in their violence. This is why American soldiers are trained so deeply in target recognition. This is why American soldiers will often be wounded or killed rather than attack a target that they are unsure of.

Now, as to the “career I disagree with” and “unjust wars” bit.

Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, police and firemen all sign up and go to work every day to serve you. They raised their hands and swore to defend you with their own lives. We don’t choose the war. We don’t choose to go. We’d like very much if the world got together around a bar and discussed it’s problems over a pint rather than the way they choose to do things. But wars are the result of politicians, not soldiers. If you don’t like the war, go vote. And rather than look down on the men and women who want nothing more than to make their homeland safe, how about you take a look at those beacons of peace in the capital. I’ve still never seen a senator’s son over there.

 

[mgoforth]

How can you refuse to honor those whose willingness to engage in military activity provides you with the freedom to choose not to engage in military activity?

I got into a debate with my wife and father-in-law on Memorial Day for this very reason. My opinion is that they are NOT fighting to preserve our freedom…not in this current abomination we call the War on Terror. I love the soldiers who are over there, and at the same time I can’t help but feel that their deaths are tragic and pointless. We’re not fighting to preserve American freedoms. If so, tell me how militant Islam is any real threat to my personal freedom here in America?

Isn’t it obvious that we’re fighting to gain a foothold in a region of the world with energy reserves?? Consider Dick Cheney’s statement when he was still VP that “the American way of life is non-negotiable”. Well, without abundant, cheap oil flowing to the US from the middle east, that way of life goes bye-bye very quickly.

I think it’s sad that we (Americans) can’t separate and acknowledge these two thoughts at once: 1) I respect and love members of the military, and 2) the wars we’re fighting now are evil. The answer of course, is to bring all our soldiers home…end the wars.

I think the military victims of Vietnam and all wars since then deserve their own National Day of Pity for being tricked into sacrificing themselves for a noble ideal, when the politicians in charge know full-well that it’s BS.

 

[TheDoors]

I got into a debate with my wife and father-in-law on Memorial Day for this very reason. My opinion is that they are NOT fighting to preserve our freedom…not in this current abomination we call the War on Terror. I love the soldiers who are over there, and at the same time I can’t help but feel that their deaths are tragic and pointless. We’re not fighting to preserve American freedoms. If so, tell me how militant Islam is any real threat to my personal freedom here in America?

Isn’t it obvious that we’re fighting to gain a foothold in a region of the world with energy reserves?? Consider Dick Cheney’s statement when he was still VP that “the American way of life is non-negotiable”. Well, without abundant, cheap oil flowing to the US from the middle east, that way of life goes bye-bye very quickly.

I think it’s sad that we (Americans) can’t separate and acknowledge these two thoughts at once: 1) I respect and love members of the military, and 2) the wars we’re fighting now are evil. The answer of course, is to bring all our soldiers home…end the wars.

I think the military victims of Vietnam and all wars since then deserve their own National Day of Pity for being tricked into sacrificing themselves for a noble ideal, when the politicians in charge know full-well that it’s BS.

Ah. So servicemembers don’t have the brain power to know that a politician is “tricking” them.

Do me a favor. Hop on google and check who has built the most oil rigs in Iraq since the war started. Here’s a hint. It rhymes with “China”.

And you obviously have no regard for servicemen and women. You think they’re ignorant, gullible and worth only pity. But hey, you have that right. Just like every other tea-drinking, scarf-wearing, record-listening hipster who has no idea what they’re talking about.

I say good day sir.

 

[mgoforth]

Ah. So servicemembers don’t have the brain power to know that a politician is “tricking” them.

Do me a favor. Hop on google and check who has built the most oil rigs in Iraq since the war started. Here’s a hint. It rhymes with “China”.

And you obviously have no regard for servicemen and women. You think they’re ignorant, gullible and worth only pity. But hey, you have that right. Just like every other tea-drinking, scarf-wearing, record-listening hipster who has no idea what they’re talking about.

I say good day sir.

Please tell me what they’re fighting for then.

I’m sorry if my post comes off as harsh towards servicemen/women, but please help me understand. Why would someone join the military to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan unless they genuinely believed the propaganda put forth about terrorism? Let me be clear…I don’t consider terrorism to be an immanent threat to our country. I think a lot of the supposed terrorist plots since 9/11 have either been greatly exaggerated or were cooked up by undercover FBI/CIA agents and never would have been carried out anyway. So tell me how I’m supposed to feel other than to have pity on young men and women dying over oil and political power struggles.

I don’t hate the military or think they’re stupid. But there has certainly been a long period of state-sanctioned brainwashing that’s taken place in America, and people in the armed forces are no more immune to that than anyone else.

 

[GratefulFred]

Please tell me what they’re fighting for then.

I’m sorry if my post comes off as harsh towards servicemen/women, but please help me understand. Why would someone join the military to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan unless they genuinely believed the propaganda put forth about terrorism? Let me be clear…I don’t consider terrorism to be an immanent threat to our country. I think a lot of the supposed terrorist plots since 9/11 have either been greatly exaggerated or were cooked up by undercover FBI/CIA agents and never would have been carried out anyway. So tell me how I’m supposed to feel other than to have pity on young men and women dying over oil and political power struggles.

I don’t hate the military or think they’re stupid. But there has certainly been a long period of state-sanctioned brainwashing that’s taken place in America, and people in the armed forces are no more immune to that than anyone else.

Your theory is dreary.

What is YOUR EXPERTISE to determine whether threats are imminent or not? What access do you have to classified intelligence reports?

What evidence do you have that plots are greatly exaggerated?

Had we NOT gone in to kill Al Qaeda leaders, just HOW do you know they would not have carried out the plots? Do you not recall the increasing terrorist attacks against us in the 90s that were ignored until the huge one on 9-11? Had the President, in the 90s, taken out Bin Laden when he had him ID’d within sniper range, but refused to give the order to fire, would 9-11 have ever happened? Opting for hope of a peaceful resolution eventually cost nearly 3,000 innocent lives on 9-11.

Define brainwashing and how it has been accomplished in other countries. Please cite specific examples of state-sanctioned brainwashing in America?

It is a fact that you have opinions. But your opinions are not based in facts. Your assertions, without crediable facts, are totally unbelievable.

I too say, “Good Day, sir.”

 

[mgoforth]

Your theory is dreary.

The world is dreary too sometimes, what’s your point?

What is YOUR EXPERTISE to determine whether threats are imminent or not? What access do you have to classified intelligence reports?

What evidence do you have that plots are greatly exaggerated?

msnbc.msn.com/id/32501273/ns/us_news-security/t/ridge-says-he-was-pressured-raise-terror-alert/#.T9nuRLRYttI

*"Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claims in a new book that he was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet to raise the nation’s terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election.

Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge’s publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004."*

Is this claim credible…who knows? I don’t know what to believe anymore when it comes to the government…so I default to skepticism when the announcement of another foiled terror plot seems to support political ends.

Had we NOT gone in to kill Al Qaeda leaders, just HOW do you know they would not have carried out the plots? Do you not recall the increasing terrorist attacks against us in the 90s that were ignored until the huge one on 9-11? Had the President, in the 90s, taken out Bin Laden when he had him ID’d within sniper range, but refused to give the order to fire, would 9-11 have ever happened? Opting for hope of a peaceful resolution eventually cost nearly 3,000 innocent lives on 9-11.

I’m sure this will make me sound like even more of a nut…but I just don’t believe the official 9/11 story. Too many holes. For instance, what the heck happened to World Trade Center building 7?? I do know that it was the first steel framed building in history to collapse from “fire damage”. And also the first building in history to collapse “on it’s own” and perfectly mimic a controlled demolition… Again, who knows? All I can say is that I smell something dirty.

Define brainwashing and how it has been accomplished in other countries.
Please cite specific examples of state-sanctioned brainwashing in America?

Does it matter what I say? If you don’t see it already, you’ll just mock whatever examples I give you. How about “They hate us because of our freedoms.”? Or this whole “see something, say something” campaign of ridiculousness? They have us spying on each other now. Remember “Freedom fries” about a decade ago…what nonsense. How about TSA at the airport frisking toddlers and old people? We’re supposed to believe that everyone is a threat and only our brave, uniformed government officials can be trusted… I just don’t care for the climate of paranoid patriotism anymore. Feels too much like Germany in the 1930s to me.

 

[mgoforth]

Sorry if I’ve totally derailed the thread or been un-charitable. This topic carries too many strong emotions for me…obviously.

 

[mary_bobo]

Please tell me what they’re fighting for then.

I’m sorry if my post comes off as harsh towards servicemen/women, but please help me understand. Why would someone join the military to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan unless they genuinely believed the propaganda put forth about terrorism? Let me be clear…I don’t consider terrorism to be an immanent threat to our country. I think a lot of the supposed terrorist plots since 9/11 have either been greatly exaggerated or were cooked up by undercover FBI/CIA agents and never would have been carried out anyway. So tell me how I’m supposed to feel other than to have pity on young men and women dying over oil and political power struggles.

I don’t hate the military or think they’re stupid. But there has certainly been a long period of state-sanctioned brainwashing that’s taken place in America, and people in the armed forces are no more immune to that than anyone else.

I hope you are not posting this OPINION as FACT. You and Rosie O’Donnell have been drinking the same Kool-Aid. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, please give us facts to back this up. You may not consider terrorism to be an immanent thread, but many of us do.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’m sure this will make me sound like even more of a nut…but I just don’t believe the official 9/11 story. Too many holes. For instance, what the heck happened to World Trade Center building 7?? I do know that it was the first steel framed building in history to collapse from “fire damage”. And also the first building in history to collapse “on it’s own” and perfectly mimic a controlled demolition…

Wow. Really? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Or are you just miming what you read and hear on 9/11 conspiracies? Here’s a nice video explaining WTC 7’s collapse youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8. Please watch it.

Here’s another video explaining how it is a physical impossibility that 9/11 was done via controlled demolitions:youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k (about 2 minutes in). The basic point is that the explosions for the controlled demolitions would be audible from several blocks away, yet all the raw footage of 9/11 contains no such explosions.

Here’s another video that shows that ‘first building in history…’ claim is completely bogus: youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_MRSr1MnFuk.

Again, who knows?.

Apparently, not you. But most rational people with some level of physics knowledge know.

 

[mgoforth]

Wow. Really? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? Or are you just miming what you read and hear on 9/11 conspiracies? Here’s a nice video explaining WTC 7’s collapse youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8. Please watch it.

It still strikes me as an odd way for that building to fall on its own. If 25% of the lower structure was scooped out by the debris damage (which I don’t dispute), then the tower should have fallen to that side. To my eye it crumples neatly on its own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demo. I just haven’t seen a lot of buildings collapse like that from other causes.

Here’s another video explaining how it is a physical impossibility that 9/11 was done via controlled demolitions:youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k (about 2 minutes in). The basic point is that the explosions for the controlled demolitions would be audible from several blocks away, yet all the raw footage of 9/11 contains no such explosions.

Well, physically impossible using high explosive charges.

Thermite charges? I know, I know…it’s been “debunked” (not very well). But they would be much quieter.

Here’s another video that shows that ‘first building in history…’ claim is completely bogus: youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_MRSr1MnFuk.

Yep, I’d have to say I was wrong on that one. Good find.

I’m sorry, though…it doesn’t change my view that there’s a lot of holes in the official story.

And I still see no evidence that we’re fighting for anything but oil. That seems very simple to me. Read the Hirsch Report and tell me the US government doesn’t know full well the consequences of running out of cheap oil. We’ve found a convenient excuse in terrorism to get our foot further in the door in the middle east. My prediction is that we never leave voluntarily.

Here’s a youtube video back at ya: youtube.com/watch?v=pMgOTQ7D_lk&t=49m52s