I oppose *ALL* wars.

[Initech]

It doesn't matter who starts them. Using violence to solve violence gets you nowhere.

[Drale]

1. So had you been around during World War II

You would have opposed stopping the Nazi's and the Japanese? and you would like to still be a Citizen of the British Empire?

[Initech]

4. Ok - all modern war.

World War II was a cause to fight for. The civil war was a cause to fight for. I haven't seen a real justification for any war fought in the last 60 years worth fighting for.

[TorchTheWitch]

32. then you obviously don't oppose **ALL** wars

Which makes you one of the average folks. Average folks tend to believe war is only justified in extreme circumstances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Would you have supported war to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

Was leaving that alone the best option? And the DRC too?

[Xithras]

38. FWIW, there was a very active antiwar movement during WW2

In fact, the majority of the population considered themselves anti-war for much of WW2, and their opinions didn't change until Pearl Harbor. It was very different than the protests that came later, but many of the elements were similar...labor and student protesters on campuses, in DC, and around various large cities. In 1935 there was even a National Student Strike Against War, in which tens of thousands of students across the country engaged in a national day of protest against people trying to pull the country into the war.

There was no anti-war movement DURING the war for one simple reason. They banned it. The U.S. declared that anti-war protests were treason, and threatened to arrest and execute anyone protesting the war. There were even a few high profile arrests of radio and news reporters who simply QUESTIONED aspects of the war, or our treatment of the Japanese Americans. We went fascist to beat the fascists.

[Critters2]

2. +1 Agree completely. nt

[phleshdef]

3. Tell that to 6 million dead jews.

I oppose war until it seems to be the only way to stop party A from slaughtering countless individuals from party B. But its naively stupid to say that its never produced a result at certain times in history when the cause was noble and the decision to fight was made under thorough deliberation. We wouldn't even have been able to establish this country had we not at some point decided we had to fight to do so. Again, I'm antiwar as a rule, but like all my rules, there are exceptions.

[Initech]

9. Yes there's always exceptions. I do say that about WWII.

Had I been alive then I would have fought. There's like no cause now that I believe we have justification for. Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No. And I do not support going into Libya at all.

[elocs]

15. Where were the exceptions when your subject says *ALL* wars?

It sure was a short jump from *ALL* to exceptions.

[Initech]

23. Do I have to have an asterisk on everything?

:eyes:

[elocs]

28. Well, I've never seen an asterisk before and after the word.

So you mean you oppose all wars except the ones you don't oppose. Now I get it.

[timtom]

25. You got him that time. You got him good!

I guess he's the told-off kid. That'll learn 'em, durn 'em!

[phleshdef]

16. This guy just killed 8000 people and was about to go genocidal on an entire city.

Do you realize what will happen in that region in the coming weeks if he manages to successfully get that far?

[wtmusic]

21. OP only approves of intervention after it's successful.

Hard to be on the wrong side of the fence that way.

[themadstork]

40. Who intervenes upon the interventionists? nt

[bluestateguy]

I evaluate each war on a case by case basis

My conclusion in Libya was that the Europeans and other Arab states should take action, with the US sitting this one out.

I have been against the Iraq war for 8 years.

I favored the attack on Afghanistan in 2001, but now think it is time to wrap it up.

[Nye Bevan]

5. God Save Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second of the American Colonies!

Surely it's worth being British subjects if it means we avoid *WAR*?

[revolutionnow45]

6. Then go after Iraq and Afghanistan where military contractors are still looting the nation

then get back to us on Libya.


This is so freaking stupid!!! Bushco lied for months in the lead up to war, the Iraqis did not want 'help'

WE can now pursue exposing the crimes of the Bush administration:

Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et A-NOW is the time to go after them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x715679


I am sure you are still mad about those wars, and speaking out to end them, doing whatever you can to hold the people who started them accountable?

MILLIONS of Iraqis have been killed, and those numbers from years ago.

Iraqis still do not have power or water.

Iraqis are still protesting....for the US to GET OUT!

[wtmusic]

7. Do you oppose self-defense? nt

[cbdo2007]

8. And which planet do you live on???

[shanti]

10. right on, brother

:thumbsup: add me to the pacifists list.

[JuniperLea]

11. Do you also oppose the people of any given nation...

Taking up arms against their murderers and oppressors?

[Initech]

12. Don't get me wrong - I'm completely for ridding the world of murderous dictators.

But I think arrest and prosecution is a better way to deal with it. I quote Bill Hicks on Saddam: "CIA has a plot to get rid of him. It's the same plot they've used before. Trouble is getting him to fly to Dallas. Once there, they got him."

[JuniperLea]

13. Haha!

Yes, I'm all for police/CIA actions in lieu of military... people were being killed, and they cried out... that's hard to ignore, even for someone who leans toward pacifism.

[snooper2]

17. Kind of hard just to knock on the door and put cuffs on..

When the house is the size of say, a country. And the alarm system includes anti-aircraft weapons....

[CountAllVotes]

14. another person here to add to the ever growing list

Of people that JUST SAY NO TO WAR!

:kick: & recommend.

[ixion]

18. exactly. BIG K/R

:applause:

[whosinpower]

19. As a tool, war is a very poor choice

It is expensive. More money, time, effort and blood has been invested and wasted on making the tool of war more deadly...more effective....mankind spends more money on war making tools than any other endeavour on the planet. That is fact. It rarely, if ever works out the way planned. It is destructive. It is chaos.

And yet, leaders of all stripes keep it in their toolbox tucked in close and tight with their military to pull out when events don't go the way they want them to, or when those leaders want something tangible from another.

In the past, it was used to take resources away from other jurisdictions, to foster colonialism and growth of empire, for the obvious and clear reason....greed, religion, greed....did I say greed?

Now this tool....used and abused in the past has suffered a conscientious moral backlash...the grandeur of colonialism has been stifled, rejected...and so what will the armies and the militaries DO with all their spare time...and all these weapons that are already built, researched, invested and paid for? Ah - the flipside....security.

In order for your theory to prove true....that violence gets you nowhere...you would have to deny the entire history of humanity....for the entire history is cram packed full of violence. IT DOES get you somewhere....just not where you wanted to be.

I recall a colorful and heated discussion with a friend who was complaining of those who did not support Canada's role in Afghanistan. I told him that I was one of those people.
He said, "You are against war?"
me, "totally against war"
He pulls out the Hitler Canard...."What about the Nazi's and Hitler?"
me. "He never could have gotten as far as he did without ALLOT of help...and if those GREEDY folks had any conscience whatsoever...they never would of funded his war machine."
him,"what?"
me, "We always jump on the bandwagon saying Hitler was evil...and he WAS....but no one talks about the banksters who funded his game....and if they had denied him....there NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN A SECOND WORLD WAR. No one talks about THAT - do they? "

[Abq_Sarah]

20. I'm no pacifist

But that doesn't mean I support all war, all the time.

[Rowdyboy]

22. Glad Abe Lincoln didn't agree with you.... otherwise I'd be living in "Jesusland"

[Initech]

24. And that's different from today how, exactly?

[Rowdyboy]

27. Good comeback!

:toast:

[DevonRex]

26. So we should have let hitler murder all the Jews and gays and gypsies in Europe?

[Initech]

30. Correct me if I'm off my American history but didn't we help Hitler rise to power?

Didn't American businesses campaign for the Nazi party because they thought Hitler served their best interests?

[Nye Bevan]

31. Perhaps they didn't know that he was going to murder millions of people?

And once he started, wasn't it right to stop him, regardless of who "campaigned" for him?

[Initech]

37. What I'm getting at is his rise to power could have been prevented.

Along with the scores of other murderous dictators that big business has installed so they could utilize cheap labor to line their pockets.

[DevonRex]

34. "we?" Hell no. But the US govt was right to go to war to stop him.

[Modern_Matthew]

35. Yes. The Versailles Treaty contributed a lot to his rise in power. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

29. I sympathize and I used to be a strict pacifist, but I think force, while regrettable may sometimes

be the only option. I'm not sure though, I still have mixed feelings about the issue.

That being said I don't support a single US military actions since World War II, including the bombing of Libya or Clinton's Kosovo crimes.

[Modern_Matthew]

33. I oppose all wars that are not retaliatory. You won't guilt me into a different opinion. nt

[Nye Bevan]

39. Good. One example would be retaliating against a madman who is murdering his own people (nt)