Can some one tell me...

[Whatssnew]

Can some one tell me why certian people who so strongly believe that war is evil, will at times turn to violence themselves? For example: Many people who hated the Vietnam War would engage in violent riots. Manny soldiers were injured by protesters, I personaly know one who had to use lethal force to keep a riot from attacking a navel base in Washington. Another soldier I know recently told me it wasn't safe at times to advertise you were in the army in public. I recall a while back having a disscussion with a devoted Democrat about the use of violance. He was strongly against the use of violence in any case, so I drilled him, I buged him, insulted his beliefs, and then he hit me. I have my convictions of why this is, but I want to know what you think.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Force is seductive, it is a way to compel another to do what you want. That and violence seems part of the human races' genetic makeup, no matter how much you claim to hate it, because you fear the draft or otherwise.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Whatssnew Can some one tell me why certian people who so strongly believe that war is evil, will at times turn to violence themselves? For example: Many people who hated the Vietnam War would engage in violent riots. Manny soldiers were injured by protesters, I personaly know one who had to use lethal force to keep a riot from attacking a navel base in Washington. Another soldier I know recently told me it wasn't safe at times to advertise you were in the army in public. I recall a while back having a disscussion with a devoted Democrat about the use of violance. He was strongly against the use of violence in any case, so I drilled him, I buged him, insulted his beliefs, and then he hit me. I have my convictions of why this is, but I want to know what you think.

They're shooting protesters to keep them from tearing up naval bases? That definitely wasn't on the news.

Very very few people believe violence is never justified. The rest are content with keeping violence down as much as possible.

Do you understand what has happened? In Vietnam we burned villages to save them and killed more people than the oppressive regime that took over after we gave up trying to stop said oppressive regime from taking over. In Iraq the U.S. government made up intelligence as an excuse to bomb people who were not bothering us for their own good. Yes, they really are that evil and yes, I think that if you work for them being slapped by a protester is really rather minimalist.

[SoylentGreen]

Whatssnew He was strongly against the use of violence in any case, so I drilled him, I buged him, insulted his beliefs, and then he hit me. I have my convictions of why this is, but I want to know what you think.

That there is a big difference between holding a political debate and behaving like an asshole till someone gets seriously annoyed enough to hit you.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Whatssnew Can some one tell me why certian people who so strongly believe that war is evil, will at times turn to violence themselves? For example: Many people who hated the Vietnam War would engage in violent riots. Manny soldiers were injured by protesters, I personaly know one who had to use lethal force to keep a riot from attacking a navel base in Washington. Another soldier I know recently told me it wasn't safe at times to advertise you were in the army in public. I recall a while back having a disscussion with a devoted Democrat about the use of violance. He was strongly against the use of violence in any case, so I drilled him, I buged him, insulted his beliefs, and then he hit me. I have my convictions of why this is, but I want to know what you think.

I can tell you from my perspective, since I feel that war is a great evil AND can imagine myself punching an obnoxious, insulting jerk.

First of all, few people who think war is evil believe that defending against aggression is evil. The Viet Nam War and the Iraq War are viewed as evil, not so much because they are wars, but because they are almost perfect examples of unnecessary and unjust wars. It is the difference between abhorring cold blooded murder and accepting as unfortunately necessary, killing in self defense. Is that really so difficult to understand? War is always tragic, filled with ugliness and unnecessary suffering, and bound to scar the guilty and the innocent. It should always be the last of all possible options. I believe this in the same way I believe you should only kill in self defense as a last resort. I would sit on a jury and convict a person who shot a burglar running from his house with his VCR of murder. It is an issue of necessity. If you are not in real danger of losing your life, you have no justification for taking the life of another. The difference is a difference of scale.

But almost any individual human can be pushed to the point of a violent lashing out in anger. Though not a Christian in the sense that I believe in the redemptive power of the death of Jesus to wash away my sins and secure an everlasting blissful afterlife, I still view the Passion story as fundamentally awe inspiring if true in basic presented facts. That a man could undergo the kind of torment related, and still offer forgiveness to those who tortured him, is beyond impressive to me. But, most humans "fall short of the glory of God" and would curse those who mistreat them. Most humans, no matter what their intellect tells them is good and proper and right behavior, can be induced to some level of violence. You pushed and prodded and incited, and got what you damn well should have been expecting.

[Nono]

Well said, Skins!
Obviously there's a gargantuan difference between hurling a rock at a cop and napalming a village of innocent rice farmers. You're barking up the wrong tree there Whatssnew.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Nono Well said, Skins! Obviously there's a gargantuan difference between hurling a rock at a cop and napalming a village of innocent rice farmers. You're barking up the wrong tree there Whatssnew.

Only in scale, not in principle.

[Nono]

Fair enough. But reasonable application of principle obliges us to avoid, as Dick Gregory once put it, "worrying about dandruff when you have cancer of the eyeballs". And that's what Whatssnew is doing.

[Whatssnew]

THANK YOU!!! You were right, I got just what I expected. And that's my point! It is strange that you can sypathize with a preson who uses violence in responce to a damaged ego. But so manny of you reject removing a murderous, mental, Hittler like man from power in the Middle East, who also can play havoc on world economy

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Whatssnew THANK YOU!!! You were right, I got just what I expected. And that's my point! It is strange that you can sypathize with a preson who uses violence in responce to a damaged ego. But so manny of you reject removing a murderous, mental, Hittler like man from power in the Middle East, who also can play havoc on world economy

I didn't say I was sympathising with a person who uses violence. I said I understood why he would use violence.
What murderous, mental, Hitler like man do you mean.
Would that be the one who refused to back down to the murderous, mental, Hitler like man who invaded his country under false pretenses.

It's not so strange that you might hit a person for being severely annoying. It is strange that you can liken a normal response to a political situation when the two have nothing in common

[Technosoul]

A peaceful protester does not ever use violence other then in absolute self defense.

A violent protester however is just fed up and full of anger about a war for reasons other then that they love peace and sanity.

Some people hate any kind of authority with a violent passion, that does not mean they are pro-peace by any means.

Some think they can attain peace through power and with guns, such as Nixon who said "peace through power" and he was planning to nuke North Viet Nam but someone talked him out of it.

A true anti-war person does not hate war, they act out of a love that respects innocent life and because there are better ways to solve problems then by shooting at people to make them rest in peace.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Whatssnew THANK YOU!!! You were right, I got just what I expected. And that's my point! It is strange that you can sypathize with a preson who uses violence in responce to a damaged ego. But so manny of you reject removing a murderous, mental, Hittler like man from power in the Middle East, who also can play havoc on world economy

That was the wind-up and the swing.... and you're still out of there!

You think the U.S. was really trying to help the good people of Vietnam? or Iraq? If you can be brothered watch "Evidence of Revision (2 of 5):The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ"

Evidence of Revision (2 of 5):The "Why" of it all referenced to Viet Nam and LBJ

[Gods_Mercenary]

Vietnam was obviously a power play, Johnson would have loved to pull out, but he feared appearing weak and vacillating to the Soviets and the third world. Iraq cwas probably fought for a myraid of reasons, but a similar dynamic was almost certainly going on. At any rate, it's impossible to really judge until we have the insight of a few decades seperation.

[Whatssnew]

You think the U.S. was really trying to help the good people of Vietnam? or Iraq?

No, just that it is a positive in a field of negitives. I think we should foucus our efforts on the positives, and stop worrying about how we got here, just don't screw up the end game.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Whatssnew THANK YOU!!! You were right, I got just what I expected. And that's my point! It is strange that you can sypathize with a preson who uses violence in responce to a damaged ego. But so manny of you reject removing a murderous, mental, Hittler like man from power in the Middle East, who also can play havoc on world economy

I don't object to removing a murderous, mental, Hitler like man from power in the Middle East who can play havoc on the world economy. I object to doing it in such a way that simply opens a power vacuum in the same Middle Eastern State that will only be filled by someone just as bad and in the meantime brings more misery and pain to innocent Iraqi citizens, causes even more havoc in the world economy, makes our country even less safe and enriches a select few while uselessly killing American soldiers in a war of attrition that we are bound to lose in the end. I object to the cowboy mentality that foolishly believes peace can be forced at gun point with no need to deal with the geopolitical problems that gave us the problem in the first place. I object to a government that tells me that the only way to defeat evil is to become more like the evil you claim to be fighting. See the difference?

[Jack]

stop worrying about how we got here

Someone needs to worry about it. Those who don't learn from history tend to repeat it. "How we got here" is what's damaged our image with so many other countries and has increased our insecurity. If we want to be secure and productive in the world community, we need to figure out how we got here and how to avoid getting here in the future.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Whatssnew But so manny of you reject removing a murderous, mental, Hitler like man from power in the Middle East, who also can play havoc on world economy

The world is full of little Hitlers, dood... shall we invade Myanmar because of how they're currently treating their citizens? How about North Korea? They're vastly more dangerous than Iraq ever was... they just don't have any oil. Or how about Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? Or Egypt or Saudi Arabia... oh wait, that's right, they're our friends.

We opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was wrong, on a variety of levels...

First it was wrong because it violated every principle America stands for. Iraq was a sovereign, defeated nation essentially at peace; they were not attacking anyone, they weren't threatening to attack anyone or even capable of attacking anyone. Hussein was sticking his tongue out at us, that's all. We don't kill tens of thousands of people for that.

Second, it was wrong because it was a really, really bad idea. Invading and occupying a large, hostile nation, halfway around the world that's surrounded on three sides by hostile populations that hate us even more than the Iraqis, smack in the middle of a part of the world where religious terrorism is a practiced artform, is an invitation to a hopless quagmire.

It's as if we hadn't learned a gawddam thing from history... Vietnam, Bierut, Somalia, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

As to your whines about liberal violence in the 60's, I'll offer two phrases.

BABY BOOM

THE DRAFT

By the late 60's, the massive majority of spoiled, over indulged baby boomers were coming of age, and in their youthful arrogance they were very, VERY unhappy that the draft could pluck them off the streets and force them into the never-ending, murderous Black Hole that was the war in Vietnam. That combined with the heightened emotions of the tectonic changes brought about by the civil rights movement led over-hormoned, overly self-righteous young people to go a bit crazy,

I know, cuz was there, Whatsnew. Were you?

.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Whatssnew No, just that it is a positive in a field of negitives. I think we should foucus our efforts on the positives, and stop worrying about how we got here, just don't screw up the end game.

In life how far do you think you'll get with that kind of logic?


Is the novel "1984" outlines the strategies used today by the government and media (if you still think they're seperate groups) on how to dupe people into thinking positive and forgetting the past mistakes. By re-wording bad news it becomes good news... it sounds rediculous but it works on people everyday as you have pointed out in your post.

[stardust]

When you provoke public, public upheavel and exhibition of hate in the form of violence and riots, is at times inevitable. I have no particular stance on that because it's somewhat uderstandable. I also understand that one can't fight terror with violence and bloodshed, but there are brain drains out there in the government.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: stardust When you provoke public, public upheavel and exhibition of hate in the form of violence and riots, is at times inevitable. I have no particular stance on that because it's somewhat uderstandable. I also understand that one can't fight terror with violence and bloodshed, but there are brain drains out there in the government.

Hmm? a fairly new poster here at Volconvo, welcome.

When situaitons in the world or here in this country get out of hand then people get irriated and want to voice their concerns. Protesting has become a way to do that if you want people to listen to those concerns, you organized a group and protest for a change to that situation.

Protesting can result in a peaceful march, a sit-in, or it can take the form of a riot or even civil war. The thing is that it is pointless to protest nowadays if you do not get news coverage because no one will listen unless you can first get their attention. And the news is interested in reporting about violent situations more then they are in covering some peaceful event, which they would see as being uninteresting and not newsworthy, unless they got naked as a way to get attention. But toss a few rocks, and the news is there in mass. If the protest can get the police to club and abuse them, the press gets excited and shows that on TV, and sometimes the viewer can see the protest sign or get a few words in with some reporter. When the riot police move in to control a otherwise peaceful protest sometimes the portesters will fight back in defense. And so it looks like people are advocating violence.