Generally, do you consider yourself anti-war, or in favor of war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Generally, do you consider yourself anti-war, or in favor of war?

Poll result (133 votes)
I am a pacifist, there is no situation or circumstance that can ever justify war.	(4 votes, 3%)	Vote
I am anti-war	(103 votes, 77%)	Vote
War, peace, who cares?	(2 votes, 2%)	Vote
I am pro-war	(15 votes, 11%)	Vote
I am for unending war.	(9 votes, 7%)	Vote

[corporatewhore]

1. anti war and anti colonialism

[goddess40]

2. Still protesting this Iraq garbage every week

and will do so until things get better there.

[Supormom]

4. Me, too!

[truthspeaker]

3. not an option for me

I feel there are certain occasions when war is justified, but it should always be a last resort.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. That's the anti-war position, sorry I wasn't more clear.

[ibegurpard]

5. What a ridiculous, over-simplified, meaningless question.

Doesn't surprise me, however...that seems to be what passes for "discourse" here these days.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Well a lot of folks around here seem to think that a lot of other folks

around here are NOT anti-war. I wanted to see it that were true or not, because I am guessing that the overwhelming majority of DUers are anti-war.

I'm sorry that you consider the question of whether or not people are anti-war to be meaningless, and I hope I haven't upset you too much by posing it.

[ibegurpard]

9. What I object to are polls like this

that simply try to boil it down to "are you pro-war or anti-war?" Who in their right mind is "pro-war?" And as for "anti-war," does that not depend on the REASONS for the war and whether it is "just" or not? This poll reminded me of one of CNN's offensive polls on the subject that trivializes the whole issue by somehow implying that the issue is right or wrong depending upon public response.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. You are speaking specifically, I am speaking generally

As I said in my last message, and you so pointedly ignored, many on this board would like to claim the mantle of 'anti-war' and by implication, label others on the board as pro-war. I think that those people are living in a self-righteous fantasy world, and are being unnecessarily divisive, because I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of DUers are either pacifists, or generally anti-war, unless it is an unavoidable last resort.

I've never seen a CNN poll on the subject of people's attitude towards war, could you point me to the poll you are talking about? Usually they poll about specific news items, for example, "Should the United States stick to the June 30 deadline for transfer of power in Iraq?"

[kodi]

37. gracious, yet another poll question that has no context?

the a priori assumption on this site is that anti-war is equivalent to complete pacifism, and worse, a moral graduation has been made on site by those who declare that they are anti-war and thus pacifists with those who question such declarations without a cogent framework or context and also who are oft times accused of being anti- antiwar or pro war, and thus pro-aggression, pro-"bad" person.

it is absurd to mention warfare without context. warfare is aggression and each of us has a different idea of what aggression warrants as a personal, moral response, as a cultural response, and as a national response.

if one is truly interested in debating moral judgments, ask yourself how many people's lives you would sacrifice to save a million, or a thousand, or ten.......or two...or one?

and this is the exercise:

does one stand by as a pacifist and allow the murder of two children or if by one's own personal actions kill the murderer and save two "innocent" lives?

this is the basic, fundamental moral context with which each person frames their response to any question of war.

no one sane likes war. war is all hell. but acts of aggression towards our species is usually met with aggression itself, that's just lower brain functions acting.

to debate whether or not we can rise "Mr. spocklike" to rationality over emotion is moot for the overwhelming majority of humans who do face life threatening aggression.

not surprisingly, Olaf Stapeldon, in his seminal SF novel of 1937, Star Maker wrote of a superior pan-galactic civilization that yielded to its own complete pacifism and annihilation by a Borg/Klingon-like adversary. this superior civilization thought it a moral imperative to commit suicide rather than to take actions of aggression in self defense because they thought such actions of violence towards others to be more insane than allowing the killing of themselves.

and to give this example "context" Stapeldon wrote this novel looking on from england as Hitler rose in Germany and who Stapeldon himself had been an ambulance worker on the front during WW1.

perspective is context. what experience you bring to this debate is important, and we all have different experiences of the world.

if by an arm's reach one can stop two murders by one killing, what difference is there when, in a representative democracy where we delegate macro forces of aggression, the same is not also done in our name?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. You've done a good job of enunciating the proper context.

My apologies for just lazily posting such a vague and confusing poll.

[kodi]

40. not to worry my elven friend. you started a good discussion.

why not start a new one using a bit of the context i outlined and see where people stand? let us think clearly and to the nub of our morality and ethics. we need to be true and honest with ourselves and not delude ourselves about how saintly we are in a devilish world.

[sangh0]

6. DO you want a permanent US military presence in Iraq?

Maybe we can do something about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. War is only justified in response to a direct imminent threat to the USA

Iraq does not qualify. The Taliban did not qualify. Vietnam did not qualify. Korea did not qualify.

World War II did qualify, but without World War I (which did not) there never would have been the conditions in Germany which allowed the rise of Hitler.

Civil war could be argued either way. For one thing, we might have been much better off without such people as Lott, Helms, DeLay, Thurmond, etc. Let alone their bedsheet wearing ancestors.

Bottom line is, we have had only a handful of occasions in this country's history where there was ever a legitimate threat, and yet we seem to be perpetually at war. Why the Hell is that? Obviously those in power are using the US military for purposes other than defending the United States. And that needs to stop. Now. Immediately. Yesterday.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. 'Just', or 'defensive' war only.

I couldn't vote...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. That's anti-war, sorry I wasn't more clear.

[NightTrain]

14. Sad to say, I do believe there are times when...

...a government is justified in going to war. However, I also believe that before a leader commits his country's troops to a war, he better damned well have exhausted every non-violent alternative!

Needless to say, that was *not* the case with the cynically-named "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. So you are not a pacifist, but you are anti-war.

As I suspect, are most people who post on DU.

[MAlibdem]

16. Progressive Internationalism and Democratization!

There needs to be a new international body created similar to the UN with only DEMOCRATIC members allowed.

[ArkDem]

17. What about all of the Arab nations?

This sounds like it is anti-semitic.

[no name no slogan]

19. One's "Progressive Internationalism" is another's "American Imperialism"

n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. They are one and the same.

PPI is nothing but PNAC in a new wrapper, and it's author, Will Marshall is a traitorous PNAC shitbag who has no business writing foreign policy for any Democratic candidate

[no name no slogan]

41. Or, as is said, "Same Shit, Different Day"

This is exactly the same crap they used in the 60s to stifle legitimate democratic movements in the developing world, too-- Democrats AND Repubs.

Remember the "Alliance for Progress"? Basically, it was an aid program for third-world nations that promised them food and guns if they would not allow any leftist anti-colonial movements into their governments-- on the premise that they were "communist" and in league with China or the Soviet Union. This led to the repression of legitimate home-grown democratic-socialist governments in Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Argentina, and countless others during the 1950s--1980s.

"Progressive Internationalism" isn't really that much different: all we're saying to these countries is that you can be a democracy, but you have to be "our kind" of democracy if you don't want to be invaded/"liberated" (IOW, a "democracy" that allowed capital to be controlled by a small cadre of owners, many of whom were from outside the country). It's the same kind of bullshit that has caused most of the world to view us as the most beligerent nation on the planet, and has spawned terrorist movements of every stripe against us.

JUST SAY NO to an American Empire.

[Uzybone]

18. Unless you are a pacifist

you are basically pro war. You only decide what threshold must be passed to approve war. I think this whole pro war anti war stuff is bullshit.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. So those who labelled themselves as anti-war, but not pacifist

are wrong about their own position, and you know them better than they know themselves.

Personally, what I think is bullshit, is when 'Joe' thinks he is more qualified to characterize 'Frank's' position than 'Frank' is.

[Uzybone]

21. you fail to understand

but your probably a knee jerker on this subject so you didn't read deeply into my response. Almost all those who go around calling themselves anti war would have been pro war if Saddam had missiles pointed at US cities ready to fire. Your either pacifist (against war in all situations) or ready to accept war if you feel threatened or have other motives. Thats my point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. I understand your point perfectly, but I think it is wrong.

You stated it pretty clearly: "Unless you are a pacifist you are basically pro war"

That's pretty simple, and easy to understand, I just think it's wrong - nonsensical even - a false dichotomy.


Also I think we are all capable of expressing our own opinions, and that the (so far) 74 people who indicated they are anti-war but not pacifists are more qualified to express their own views then you are to decide what their views are.

[rasputin1952]

28. There's a couple of things inaccurate with that statement...

First, it is possible to be a pacifist, and engage in a war that is justified by survival. It is also possible to serve in a non-combat MOS if one wishes to still serve to protect ones country.

It is also possible to be anti-violent, but still protect ones family, w/deadly force if necessary. Problem is, each situation is inherently different. It may be possible to move forward to a goal w/o using force, and this is a good thing.

No one should be expected to just "roll over" and give in, just because they tend to be pacifistic.

What you have done in your post is place things at extremes, one you are either a pacifist, or two, you are 'for' war. There is no middle ground. What you have done, is use semantics, rather than allow room for discourse.

Either/or arguments serve little to advance the course of peace and understanding.

[buddhamama]

23. anti-war

but there are circumstances that call for military intervention.
WW2 is an example,
times of genocide...Rwanda.

[DaveSZ]

25. I favored the Afghanistan war (we had no choice really),

but am against this Iraq war (a war of choice).

[buddhamama]

26. disagree

on Afghanistan. we had choices, too bad Bush* made the wrong ones.
The way the "war" in Afghanistan was fought practically guaranteed failure, not only to catch Bin Laden but reverse the yrs of civil war.

good reading on Afghanistan

The Other War
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact

[rasputin1952]

29. I agree...

bin_laden was the target...not hundreds, or thousands of Afghans. With all of the "Gee-Whiz technology we have today, we could have gotten to bin-Laden w/o much of a problem IF that was the real target for the bush admin.

Iraq is an idiotic war that was pressed for those that would profit.

[arewethereyet]

27. in general or the current war on terror ?

in general, its needed from time to time.
Terror, for. There is no coming to terms with Jihadists.

[DoNotRefill]

30. It depends on the war.

If it's a "Good War", I support it. If it's a "Bad War", I don't. To decide, I have to look at it on a case by case basis.

I'd rather have peace, but not peace at any price, and CERTAINLY not peace now at the expense of slavery for my children later. Support every ally, oppose every foe, and all that...

[Piperay]

31. Same here

I'm in the gray area, it just depends on what the fight is about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Sounds like you are generally anti-war to me.

Most people that I know on the left are opposed to war in general, but believe there are some cases where it is justified as a last resort.

But the choice of how to label yourself is yours.

[MrSlayer]

33. I'm pro-war for the right reason. Iraq doesn't qualify.

If we are attacked we should definitely defend ourselves.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Did you miss the word 'generally' in the question? This isn't about Iraq.

Is a simple question of your overall attitude towards war. Do you think it is something that is best avoided, or embraced - in general.

If you are someone who believes there is no situation or circumstance that can ever justify war, you should choose the first option.

If you believe war is generally a bad thing that should be avoided but is sometimes justified, you should choose the second option.

If you are ambivalent about war and peace, you should choose the third option.

If you believe war is generally a good thing, you should choose the fourth option.

If you believe peace is a bad thing, that should be avoided at all costs, you should choose the fifth option.

[wyldwolf]

35. neither choice works for me

I'm for war as a last resort - for humanitarian reasons - for defense and not offense.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Well,

at the risk of repeating myself


If you are someone who believes there is no situation or circumstance that can ever justify war, you should choose the first option.

If you believe war is generally a bad thing that should be avoided but is sometimes justified, you should choose the second option.

If you are ambivalent about war and peace, you should choose the third option.

If you believe war is generally a good thing, you should choose the fourth option.

If you believe peace is a bad thing, that should be avoided at all costs, you should choose the fifth option.

[fujiyama]

39. Yeah go neverending war!

Peace sucks. How boring. I want death and destruction for all those brown skinned people over there! Kill them A-Rabs! /sarcasm off (don't worry I'm no freeper )

Honestly though, this is ridiculous. Every war is different. There is literally no way any person that calls themself liberal can be "pro war".

I am against war on false pretexts. I am against wars where there is absolutely no immediate humanitarian crisis and/or genocide
or immenent threat.

Iraq fails the threshhold and fails by a longshot.

Use of force was required in Afghanistan. However, I now feel like a fool to have given * the benefit of the doubt in handling that, as well as anything else.

I really have to say, the last major war a republican handled well was probably the civil war, and that doesn't even count, cuz the republicans were the liberals back then.

[LWolf]

42. I consider myself pro-peace.

I think there are better ways to solve disagreements and interact with the world than to bully, bluster, threaten, control, "punish," or destroy.

I am also pro-defense. As in, I have no problem engaging in defensive action to protect against an actual attack, at the time the attack occurs.

I do not consider offense and defense to be synonymous.