CDZ HackSaw Ridge: Is Pacifism in the face of evil virtuous?

[2aguy]

Another thread discussed the new Mel Gibson movie, "Hacksaw" ridge...a movie about a conscientious objector who became a medic and then was awarded the Congressional Medal of Action for saving lives during the battle of Okinawa....

The question is this......the national socialists in Germany, and the Japanese in Asia...were not going to be stopped by good intentions, or polite requests to return the land they had conquered and to stop murdering innocent people....is pacifism in the face of that kind of evil virtuous....

I am not saying that the medic who is the focus of this movie isn't a hero...he obviously is......and though he refused to fight, he used his bravery and skills to aid those who did do the actual fighting....

But.....in a larger context......is Pacifism okay if it allows an evil act to succeed?

This is about true Pacifism...where you would have the means to fight and very possibly defeat another person committing an evil act, but you refuse to stop that act because it would require fighting...

Thoughts?

 

[GaryDog]

The thing is, Germany and Japan didn't rise up in a vacuum. There were actions by others who induced them to act, and induced others with powers of persuasion to cause the army to act in evil ways. So if your question is, could pacifism work? Sure, if it's practiced across the board. And if it's always practiced. But the way you couch the question is to cast Germany and Japan as evil that fell from the sky, when in fact there was much prior to WWII that induced those actions.

 

[2aguy]

The thing is, Germany and Japan didn't rise up in a vacuum. There were actions by others who induced them to act, and induced others with powers of persuasion to cause the army to act in evil ways. So if your question is, could pacifism work? Sure, if it's practiced across the board. And if it's always practiced. But the way you couch the question is to cast Germany and Japan as evil that fell from the sky, when in fact there was much prior to WWII that induced those actions.

the socialists in Germany and Japan are not the issue......how they came to power is not the issue...the issue is...if you have the ability to resist evil...but are a pacifist....can you be considered virtuous if you do nothing? That is the question....

If you are a pacifist and stumble upon a man trying to murder a woman......and there is no time to wait for the police....are you virtuous if you do nothing to stop it......

 

[GaryDog]

That wouldn't be pacifism.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I was an Army medic in Vietnam in 1970. I acquired a Combat Medical Badge and a few scars there. The short answer to your question is "no". Maybe not often but sometimes in real life there comes a time when you have to choose to act one way or the other. Failing to act becomes an act in itself. Sometimes to fail to confront evil is to condone it.

 

[alang1216]

Another thread discussed the new Mel Gibson movie, "Hacksaw" ridge...a movie about a conscientious objector who became a medic and then was awarded the Congressional Medal of Action for saving lives during the battle of Okinawa....

The question is this......the national socialists in Germany, and the Japanese in Asia...were not going to be stopped by good intentions, or polite requests to return the land they had conquered and to stop murdering innocent people....is pacifism in the face of that kind of evil virtuous....

I am not saying that the medic who is the focus of this movie isn't a hero...he obviously is......and though he refused to fight, he used his bravery and skills to aid those who did do the actual fighting....

But.....in a larger context......is Pacifism okay if it allows an evil act to succeed?

This is about true Pacifism...where you would have the means to fight and very possibly defeat another person committing an evil act, but you refuse to stop that act because it would require fighting...

Thoughts?

I'm not a pacifist but I do think the majority of wars mankind has fought were unnecessary. We fought the British for our freedom while the Canadians did not. Are we more free than they are? Even if you think we are, how many lives was the difference worth? We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives? I like to take the long view, how many of our former enemies, that we didn't defeat in war, are now our friends (or at least no longer military threats)?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Another thread discussed the new Mel Gibson movie, "Hacksaw" ridge...a movie about a conscientious objector who became a medic and then was awarded the Congressional Medal of Action for saving lives during the battle of Okinawa....

The question is this......the national socialists in Germany, and the Japanese in Asia...were not going to be stopped by good intentions, or polite requests to return the land they had conquered and to stop murdering innocent people....is pacifism in the face of that kind of evil virtuous....

I am not saying that the medic who is the focus of this movie isn't a hero...he obviously is......and though he refused to fight, he used his bravery and skills to aid those who did do the actual fighting....

But.....in a larger context......is Pacifism okay if it allows an evil act to succeed?

This is about true Pacifism...where you would have the means to fight and very possibly defeat another person committing an evil act, but you refuse to stop that act because it would require fighting...

Thoughts?

I'm not a pacifist but I do think the majority of wars mankind has fought were unnecessary. We fought the British for our freedom while the Canadians did not. Are we more free than they are? Even if you think we are, how many lives was the difference worth? We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives? I like to take the long view, how many of our former enemies, that we didn't defeat in war, are now our friends (or at least no longer military threats)?

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

 

[alang1216]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

 

[GaryDog]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

Ask your average Iraqi right now, and I'd wager you're "absolutely" wrong.

 

[alang1216]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

 

[GaryDog]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. Our invasion created the fertile hotbed for extremism, and ISIS. This is really not a controversial position, either.

 

[GaryDog]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

 

[GaryDog]

"We got rid of Saddam, a terrible dictator but was it worth so many Iraqi lives?"

Absolutely and also an example of why a failure to fight may condone evil. By allowing an evil dictator to lead their country rather than fighting to depose him they became our enemy just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII. In war you kill the enemy as necessary to accomplish your goals. Just reality.

I admire you moral certainty but it really scares me.

If the US may wage war based on our assessment of a country's leader, is it morally acceptable for other countries to do the same?

We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was an asshole. He was-but that's beside the point. Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait (an ally) and showed every sign of intending to conquer Egypt (and they actually did cross that border). Saddam was also himself a terrorist and a hugh financial supporter of terrorist groups and a direct threat to the American people. After 9-11 the American people were not at all fond of terrorists and their supporters and were overwhelmingly in favor of canceling the threat posed by Iraq.

Nevermind that Saddam had absolutely ZERO connection to the 9/11 attacks in particular or al qaida in general?

The US Government NEVER claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Bullshit:

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed

 

[alang1216]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

Assuming everything you said is true, how many lives ended by the US would have been too many to be considered justifiable?

 

[9thIDdoc]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. Our invasion created the fertile hotbed for extremism, and ISIS. This is really not a controversial position, either.

If it isn't controversial it would because it is well known to be bullshit.

 

[GaryDog]

So all the dead from all the years no one acts are acceptable?

It's possible we killed more Iraqis removing Saddam than he killed while in power. Are those deaths acceptable?

No we did not, the lie that a million people died has been debunked so many times it is a laughing stock. Iraq has the figures available for how many people died during and after the invasion and the on going war, by the way we are not responsible for the dead due to the efforts of terrorists to over throw the Country.

Assuming everything you said is true, how many lives ended by the US would have been too many to be considered justifiable?

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.