Are you a pacifist?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

I'm more of a cautious hawk myself, but I'm curious. By pacifist, I mean opposed to all war.

On edit: I've tried to broaden the poll. It was admittedly one-dimensional. (Thanks mike_c)

[amazona]

1. no I am violent by nature

However, the world would be a better place if all were pacifists. I am not proud that in my youth I committed crimes of violence.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Seabiscuit]

2. I'm no Neville Chamberlain and never will be.

That doesn't make me a war monger either.

Dumb question.

[Mike Niendorff]

3. very close, but no.

I believe there are just wars, but these are VERY few and far between. Most wars are simply organized murder and theft, promoted to the various nationalist publics under whatever pretenses those in power think they can sell.


MDN

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Self defense (in the LITERAL sense) and human rights

And by the literal sense I mean if the British are invading. Of course it's very hard to define war these days.

[blondeatlast]

15. "Very hard to define war." Exactly, and those who have the most difficulty

with this are the ones that cause them.

[RC]

5. From what I understand about wars

they are either wars of convenience for one or more parties or they are because one side or the other has a greed/arrogance problem. bu$h's wars have the greed/arrogance problem.

To answer the question - Yes. But do not make the mistake of thinking I will not defend me and mine with all the force I think necessary.

[jdots]

6. voted yes

but now I am not time to kick some greedy ass because they have become too greedy to forgive.

[mike_c]

7. this poll is seriously flawed....

There are degrees of pacifism. You qualified your own hawkishness, but your poll gives no way to distinguish your "NO" from neo-con "nuke their ass and take their gas" war-mongering. I'm much too close to being a pacifist to vote comfortably "N0," but I likewise cannot say that I oppose all war.

[Career Prole]

8. I guess there's no such thing as pragmatic pacifism

although if I had to pin myself down that's how I'd best describe it.
I'm opposed to war, but I'm not opposed to defense. At least not until some new enlightened age hopefully yet to come when the entire world finally realizes that money and/or religion aren't worth killing or dying for.
Is all war avoidable? I believe it's possible but it will require reasonable and reasoning populations because that's how reasonable and reasoning leaders are chosen.
When the population is stupid and aggressive they'll choose leaders who fit their ideal...sort of like where we find ourselves now.
Damn! That kind of puts the lie to the chimp's idea that peace springs from democracies, doesn't it?

[Grace]

9. nope, but...

could you consider an "anti-war activist" a pacifist?
OR
If you agree with the war and do nothing to support/oppose it, would you be called a "pro-war pacifist" (for being passive and not active)?

Yeah, I read too much of William Safire's Sunday column.

[blondeatlast]

16. Reading William Safire is dangerous to your health.

Citing or quoting him here is dangerous, too.

[IronLionZion]

10. Hell no!

We should hunt down and kill the terrorists. We need a standing army and strong defense, intelligence,

That doesn't make me a warmonger like the Republicans.

[rockymountaindem]

11. I'm with you.

I enjoy being a citizen of the most powerful country on earth, and I want America to stay there. However, our power and prestige doesn't give us the right to decide what's best for everyone.

War is sometimes necessary (WWII of course, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War as well), and sometimes it is not. However, to rule out all war only means that someone will rise to take advantage of everyone else's goodwill.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

28. Exactly.

[FrenchieCat]

12. only as a

last, last, last resort.

[zebra]

13. Yes

Yes I am a pacifist and I enjoy trying to defend the position intellectually.

I think that Jesus and Gandhi were not true pacifists (at least the way history records them) as they seem to have had subconscious masochistic streaks.

So psychologically you could define pacifism as having no habitual tendency to sadism or masochism. Therefore a pacifist is not emotionally moved by the hypothetical "What if...'s" --

eg What if someone busted into your house? What if a phalanx of Chinese soldiers was heading towards your city? etc.

My answer is I may react violently but even that is giving too much power to that thought scenario - losing my sense of detachment and humour and letting myself get entangled in passive-aggressive psychological tension.

Am I being smug or naive? I would argue not but that shouldn't surprise you if you see where I'm coming from:)

Okay but what about the battles and fights which are going on right now as opposed to future 'what-ifs'? Should the people involved not defend themselves? Well I would say they should as much as possible pay attention to their opponent(s), such that the conditions for resolution are maximised; and try to centre themselves in a non-agressive and non-victim posture.

The thing is I've heard and read the most horrible things about eg both Bush and Bin Laden, but I don't personally know them and haven't personally been a victim of them (though I've felt fear towards them). And even if I saw one of them on live TV victimising someone I identify with, I would try to see them with a blank slate if I ever met them in the future (Of course I might reactively attack them, but what good would it do? )

Now if I lost a loved one to an attacker I would probably never resolve that, until perhaps I died and discovered life was just a dream. So I am aware that to be a pacifist would mean being superhuman, but I won't affirm that I'm not superhuman even if I'm not - because I'm stubborn and perhaps delusional:)

The litmus test is humour. If I'm losing my sense of humour and detachment I know I'm going off beam in my thinking.

Am I saying I'm a perfectly accomplished pacifist? Yes I am, or I'll fake it til I make it anyway.

Ironically the 'violent' person in Post #1 may be more of a pacifist than someone who has never done serious violence but who flinches at the pacifist question; and may be a safer person to be with in a crisis:)

[newyawker99]

17. Hi zebra!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DerekG]

22. Welcome, but could you explain this one quote

"I think that Jesus and Gandhi were not true pacifists (at least the way history records them) as they seem to have had subconscious masochistic streaks."

True, both seemed to extoll the notion of redemptive suffering (which may or may not apply to all situations), but masochism may be stretching things. Bear in mind, I'm not saying you're wrong, but what leads you to believe that Christ and Gandhi weren't wholly wedded to nonviolence?

Now, it could certainly be said that there is an edge to the aforementioned men--to follow either is unfathomably demanding (there was nary a trace of sentimentalism to be found in their ethos, a fact lost to the New Age crowd), but I can't recall any figures who were more strident in the ways of pacifism.

[zebra]

34. Jesus and Gandhi and MLK

Thanks for the welcome newyawker and DerekG,

I was being a bit provocative to get people to read my longish post, but what I meant:

I used to be an evangelical but now I don't believe in redemptive suffering or 'sacrifice theology', whatever the religion.

Not that suffering or war can't accomplish things, but I believe there is always a better way of accomplishing the same things (and even if there isn't, making a belief system around redemptive suffering and sacrifice is foolish).

The 'hero-victim archetype' seems core in the human psyche and needs to be transcended if we don't want to always have victimhood and drama. I don't think Jesus and Gandhi and MLK wanted ultimately to be heroes, they just wanted peace and no suffering.

Idealising pacifists or anyone can be counterproductive. Like a child thinking, "If I fall off my bike like my sister did, I'll get special attention and admiration from my parents like she got"

I can't presume to know Jesus' and Gandhi's psyche at every point in time but I think that the theologies around Jesus' crucifixion reinforce this 'hero-victim archetype' in the human psyche; and Gandhi and MLK replayed this somewhat (consciously or subconsciously), though ofcourse they were great examples of sensitivity, kindness and conflict resolution who softened peoples hearts to eachother.

If Jesus was speaking now he might say "I moved on from the cross experience a long time ago and frankly what does that have to do with now?" Or he might say he was never crucified, I don't know, but I doubt he would say "I suffered for your sins, take up your cross", except maybe ironically and humourously! Maybe he even meant "turn the other cheek" as a judo maneuvre bluff lol

The principle I believe in is that if that one integrates one's subconscious sadomasochistic impulses and fears then one would never find oneself a victim or a perpetrator. I haven't proved this but it seems right.

[Swamp Rat]

31. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

"Am I saying I'm a perfectly accomplished pacifist? Yes I am, or I'll fake it til I make it anyway." - :D

I've been a pacifist thus far... :)

[lojasmo]

14. Not a pacifist, but a conscientious objector

Not opposed to all violence, but I believe war is wrong. For instance, I would attack an intruder into my home if the lives of my wife and child were threatened, and I would fight millitia style if my country were invaded.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. The second one

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. As to war..yes.

Over the years and the study of history, I've become convinced that war is never justified. There are only victims.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Not entirely a pacifist, but opposed to senseless wars...

....which have nothing whatsoever to do with the security of the United States of America. Of course, that would include every single conflict since World War II.

World War II itself would not have existed without WWI, and the Bush Criminal Empire funding Hitler, so technically, it was avoidable.

World War I? What the HELL did that mess have to do with the United States anyway?

Before that, the revolutionary war and it's sequel the war of 1812 were neccessary, I suppose.

Civil War? I don't believe it was neccessary to pay that high of a price just to convince certain states that it is not right for one human being to own another.

The US military should exist only to defend the United States of America, and in extreme cases such as Hitler, where the threat to the entire world is clear. They should not be used as pawns of corporations and foreign interests, as is the case in the so-called "war on terra"

[IndianaGreen]

21. I am a hawk that hates war!

I also have a great deal of respect for pacifist groups such as Quakers and the Catholic Pax Christi, but I am not a pacifist (A Palestinian Gandhi would have been killed by an Israeli bullet just as quickly as his Palestinian counterpart would have been killed by a Palestinian terrorist).

Rather than turn the other cheek, I prefer to tear off the cheeks of the opposition.

[XemaSab]

23. I'm not a pacifist

But I think war (between two states) is a moronic way to solve conflicts.

It's all about who can afford fancier bombs, not who's morally right. If Hitler had had more money and more resources, we'd be speaking Deutsch. If Saddam had more bombs (hell, ANY bombs at all would have made a difference), he'd still be sitting in his palace right now, counting his Kuwaiti oil money.

Were Hitler and Saddam fighting the good fight? No, they were assholes.

If the good ol' USA decides to take over East Allahstan and steal their oil/gold/coltan/benjamins, does that make us right because we're the USA and they suck? No, that makes us assholes. Even if they're assholes too.

Might never makes right.

(Violent civil disobedience has a proven, effective track record, however, and violent peasant rebellions may accomplish positive things.)

[ulysses]

24. not really, no.

I'm only opposed to the really stupid wars. That those make up 99.9% of all wars isn't my fault. ;-)

[Zynx]

25. In most cases, war is not a solution, but there are some cases.

I think we were right to intervene in WWII even if Japan had not attacked us.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

30. Japan's attack was the wake up call.

We should have dealt with Germany and Japan in the 1930's, just like Churchill said. Hitler shouldn't have been allowed to invade Poland.

[anakie]

26. I would classify myself as a radical pacifist

in that I believe that all spending on all military should be redirected to humanitarian causes, ie access to fresh water, adequate medicines, food, shelter etc, as well as the total disbanding of all branches of the military. Humanitarian brigades to be set up in their stead.

I firmly believe that the root cause of terrorism is twofold. Firstly economic inequality and secondly as a reaction to imperial type agression. Address these two problems at the base level and the world will be a better place.

Of course none of this will happen as the world is ruled by the military-industrial machine.

[MrSlayer]

27. No. War is necessary sometimes, just not this time.

If we were ever invaded or whatever I'd be out there fighting too. I'm against unjustified aggressive war 100%.

[underpants]

29. No

[durutti]

32. There are 2-3 wars in American history I think were justified:

The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and maybe WWII. I'm no pacifist, but wars I'd support have to meet a high standard.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Pacifist, I can't help it

I come from a long line of Quakers and Church of the Brethren. It's in my blood.

[Piperay]

35. No, I'm not a pacifist

but war should always be the very last choice, never jumped into.