A belated response to Mr Orwell

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Where did you get the number?

Can't give you a source but I studied the subject as part of my history degree years ago.

Only about 10% of troops in WWII were in say rifle companies or tank crews etc.

Today the figure is even lower, around 5%.

[Ben Kenobi]

AH:

That's precisely the position of my church. They allow members to participate in non-combat services, likely medics, or something along those lines.

Patroklos:

These people would be the antithesis of your cowards, rather than running away from the war, they would instead choose to face the dangers, yet refuse to kill their fellow brothers and sisters. While there are certainly religious pacifists, is it only a religious idea that all men are brothers?

In the Christian sense, Ghandi had somewhat different justifications for his pacifism, it comes from the radical idea of loving your enemy, to do good to them rather than killing them. Another justification arises from the Sermon on the Mount where Christ instructs his followers that they are not to resist an evil person, that if he should strike them, they should turn the other cheek.

Again, it can be shown that the primitive church were staunch pacifists, preferring to endure persecution rather than responding in kind. It is only after the Emperor Constantine makes Christianity the official religion, does the church get away from this ideal.

One more point, Christians in this sense learrn to rely on God for their own security, I have heard many testimonies from Mennonite missionaries as to dangerous situations where they escaped unscathed, while many others would have gone missing.

[Patroklos]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

total active duty 2002 = 1,413,577 (5% = 70,678.85)

That number is redicuously small considering that anyone stationed on a Navy ship is frontline, all deployable personel of an infantry division, and all pilots and aircrews are as well. Though if you use what you said above, ie only infantry and tank crews proper them maybe.

I just read your rant up there East Street Trader, I think the flaws are self evident. I honeslty feel there is no need to even attempt to refute it, it does such a beautiful job itself. Beating the Nazis through civil disobiediance? That is just saving them the trouble of lining you up before they shoot you.

Anyway, that is the pacifist's answer. Do not resist by engaging in war. Instead resist by other, more individual, means.

Second definiton, "an attitude or policy of nonresistance." Pacifists DO NOT RESIT AT ALL. That means protests, sit inns, anything. Basically all they can do is talk.

[Patroklos]

Ben Kenobi, what is the primary purpose of non combatant forces. To help there frontline comrades KILL. That is like saying Hitler and his minions didn't want to get their own hands dirty, just run the paper trail (extreme example, but you all are going to the opposite). Absolve them of the overall responsibility of the entity they were a part of?

I do not doubt the bravery of these men, I am just saying they are not pacifists.

[Ramo]

This eventually led on to Orwell moving from being a left wing libertarian fighting for an anarchist militia in Spain in the thirties

It was actually a communist militia (POUM), but it was a left-wing commie militia (as opposed to the Stalinist PSUC) that fought along side the anarchists.

Don't make us gut math funding and science grants you egg-head!

Now get back into the room and do the math dance, math-mokey!

Sure,

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Pacifists are a breed of humans doomed for extinction.

Repeat it as often as you want. It won't make it true.

Anyways, what's wrong with extinction?

[KrazyHorse]

Patroklos and Ned have both shown themselves as complete nincompoops in this thread.

If the British refused to use force to enforce their sovereignty over India then the fact that most Indians wanted self-government would have assured that they lost sovereignty. Duh.

And Ned made the mistake of claiming that true pacifists need to be neutral as to the outcome of a war. If I want my friend to win a fistfight against a stranger but am unwilling to shoot anybody to make thm win then I'm not a coward.

That being said, I'm not a pacifist and believe strongly in the right to self-defense against tyranny and bullying.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Math majors, glorified service postions. I have lost what little respect I had for you before.

Math has little to do with the human condition

Well, Political science has little to do with any condition.

[Patroklos]

If the British refused to use force to enforce their sovereignty over India then the fact that most Indians wanted self-government would have assured that they lost sovereignty. Duh.

That would of course be exactly what I siad, READ the posts. Not responding to Gandhi in the way that did would have encouraged seperatists. And though the Brits might not have used force gains Gandhi in a scenario, there is no scenario where they British would not have used it against an armed uprising. Equals in India massive bloodshed.

All I said was that Gandhi, as much as he might have hoped the Brits wouldn't resort to violence, was smart enogh to know thy probobly would. He absorbed the brunt of it and turned what would have been myraid incidents of mindless violence into a few supremely symbolic acts agains him and his followers. He overted the wider war by manipulating violence. he esentially gave the Brits a no win situation. Attack him and look extremely bad and thus be forced into Gandhi's plan, or not and fight a full blown colonial war that they would lose.

And if you are going to sit there and watch your freind get his ass kicked, you don't have to shoot anyone just join in, I doubt you have any true freinds. Not participating because you don't want to get hurt may be pragmatic in a way, but it is bieng pragmatically cowardly. Unless you just don't want to help your friend, in which case you are just a bad person. But to really tell if your a pacifist, you have to ask yourself if you would fight back is someone was beating on you. A true Pacifist would turn the other cheek. A pacifist that is true to his guns and not cowardly would also not run away, but let them beat him to prove a point.

[KrazyHorse]

Huh? You've got the most ridiculous view of things ever. Why would the uprising have been armed?

If Gandhi refused to pay taxes and wasn't punished then nobody else would have payed taxes either. If he refused to obey British laws and wasn't punished then nobody else would obey British laws either. If nobody pays you taxes or obeys your laws then you are no longer in control. QED.

[Ben Kenobi]

To help there frontline comrades KILL. That is like saying Hitler and his minions didn't want to get their own hands dirty, just run the paper trail (extreme example, but you all are going to the opposite). Absolve them of the overall responsibility of the entity they were a part of?

The only response that can be given is that everyone in a nation at war contributes to the war effort, even the farmer who feeds the entire nation. By this definition, the only pacifists would be the ones willing to go to jail.

I agree that in one sense you sustain the war, but do not medics try to save lives regardless of the side they fight? Thus like Florence Nightengale, they have a higher duty to save lives.

[Patroklos]

The fact that the mission of medics is to save lives, all lives, does not detract from the fact that they are fundimental to the success of any military operation or organization (which you said). But you go find me a medic that will admitt that he in no way supports the mission of the military as a whole, that his contribution is not nessecary of vital, takes no responsibilities for the actions of the organization as a whole for which he is a voluntary member (ie killing) and that he takes no pride in the achievments of his comrades. Good luck.

If Gandhi refused to pay taxes and wasn't punished then nobody else would have payed taxes either. If he refused to obey British laws and wasn't punished then nobody else would obey British laws either. If nobody pays you taxes or obeys your laws then you are no longer in control. QED.

It is very easy to ignore one person not paying attention to authority. When 50 million try there will be an armed responce from that authority. It may not start that way but will escalate. Of course trying to convince so many people to follow such a retarded pseudo pacifist course is impossible. But what precident are you using? As it is the British responded violently when just ONE person acted as you suggest.

Gandhi is not the first one to advocate non violent means to effect government change, nor was he the last (though he did have his unique approach). However for every successful "Gandhi" figure several thouands in the past and present have been killed, tortured, exiled, mutilated, or converted. I would say their tract record for survival, let alone political success, is less than encouaging.

And after all their fuzzy talk, no matter what they intended, what is the trait that alows them to succed in their mission. The VIOLENCE of their oppressors. What is the means that most are defeated by? The VIOLENCE of their oppressors (and indifferance to their message sometimes). To maintain that these people do not understand the phenomena and how to expertly manipulate it to their needs is insane.

[Alexander's Horse]

All you are illustrating is that it is not a black and white issue. There are many different types of pacifist.

[Patroklos]

I have stated more than once it is not black and white, using those exact words. Why you all keep intentionally altering what I say I can't understand. I especially like when you repeat what I say, pretending it is your own arguement and somehow different from mine.

I disagree that there are many types of Pacifist. There is only one type of pacifist that very few are. However, there are many categories of people that display a limited set of similar traits. That is me just argueing over semantics. So yes...

There are many different types of pacifist.

[Alexander's Horse]

Right - There are many different types of pacifists. Not just your definition.