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

[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.

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

Was that English? /\/\

 

[Correll]

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 will have to say, NO.

 

[Correll]

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.

Oh, so NOW you consider us experts?!

 

[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.

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

And I absolutely don't care what the average Iraqi thinks on the subject.

 

[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?

Conservative estimates put CIVILIAN VIOLENT deaths at 250,000.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

 

[2aguy]

"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?

It was more than him simply being a bad guy.......we had just suffered the worst attack on our soil in our history....every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMD and since the U.N. weapons inspection program was a joke, and was about to fall apart......there was no longer wiggle room for letting a nut like him threaten our country .....which he did as he supported terrorists around the world with money......

So please....use an accurate picture of the situation rather than pretending that we just decided to get rid of him because we didn't like him....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Wrong....our leaving the country before it was completely under control allowed that to happen....when Bush left both Iraq and afghanistan were stable...they crashed after obama got into office and pulled our troops out......we still have troops in Italy, Germany, South Korea and Japan...but for some reason we had to get out of the two countries that were actually dangerous to us...

 

[2aguy]

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.

It worries me no end that people are still defending our intervention there as positive and justifiable. There is no calculation that maybe our best interests are not worth the lives of any number of others and to hell with the long term consequences. It's like we're stuck in a B western.

I agree, there are various other was that we could have "disposed" of Saddam, other that war. Supporting his adversaries, black-ops assassination, crippling sanctions (though this would not work without global support), just to name a few. Now, I am not suggesting any of these options would be better, or even condoning any of them. I am simply giving examples of how we could have "disposed" of him, short of war.
I am not even completely convinced that we needed to get rid of Saddam, he was a powerful balance to the Iranian regime. Toppling his regime does seem to have had the effect of de-stabilizing the region, though there are other factors.

To answer the OP question, there are times when passivism is not virtuous. Take the example of the woman being murdered, doing nothing would not be virtuous, it would make one complicit in the act. You could have stopped it, but didn't, why? Because your passivism is more valuable that her life? Open aggression by a nation towards ones' own nation would be another potential example, it would depend greatly on the circumstances. In the case of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, passivism would likely have lead to further aggression and lost lives, and only served to delay the inevitable.

The sanctions weren't working ...he bribed just about every U.N. official there was and the U.N. weapons inspections were a joke....everyone always ignores what was actually happening over there when 9/11 happened....

 

[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.

Bullshit:

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

Case Closed

Be specific and quote where any member of the US Government said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And no wikipedia does not a source make since it can and is edited by anyone.

 

[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?

It was more than him simply being a bad guy.......we had just suffered the worst attack on our soil in our history....every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMD and since the U.N. weapons inspection program was a joke, and was about to fall apart......there was no longer wiggle room for letting a nut like him threaten our country .....which he did as he supported terrorists around the world with money......

So please....use an accurate picture of the situation rather than pretending that we just decided to get rid of him because we didn't like him....

An accurate picture would be one where Saddam is recognized as primarily concerned with his hold on Iraq and his image in the Arab world. He supported groups that would do his bidding but had no overarching ideology. In this he was no different from most other countries. He had no love for the US but was NOT an immediate threat as there were sanctions and no-fly zones keeping him boxed in.

The neocons decided to get rid of him because they didn't see him as a threat but an opportunity and we had the military might to do it.

Of course hindsight is 20-20 but this episode should be kept in mind when we think about using force in the future.

 

[2aguy]

"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?

It was more than him simply being a bad guy.......we had just suffered the worst attack on our soil in our history....every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMD and since the U.N. weapons inspection program was a joke, and was about to fall apart......there was no longer wiggle room for letting a nut like him threaten our country .....which he did as he supported terrorists around the world with money......

So please....use an accurate picture of the situation rather than pretending that we just decided to get rid of him because we didn't like him....

An accurate picture would be one where Saddam is recognized as primarily concerned with his hold on Iraq and his image in the Arab world. He supported groups that would do his bidding but had no overarching ideology. In this he was no different from most other countries. He had no love for the US but was NOT an immediate threat as there were sanctions and no-fly zones keeping him boxed in.

The neocons decided to get rid of him because they didn't see him as a threat but an opportunity and we had the military might to do it.

Of course hindsight is 20-20 but this episode should be kept in mind when we think about using force in the future.

No...the santions were collapsing.....the useless inspections were ending and he was in violation of the ceasefire agreement as soon as the ink dried.....allowing him to maintain a WMD program...which is what he was going to do after the inspectors left was not an option after terrorists from the barren country of Afghanistan attacked us.....his violations of the ceasefire agreement going back to clinton's failed Presidency allowed the use of force against him...

Try getting the history right....

 

[alang1216]

Wrong....our leaving the country before it was completely under control allowed that to happen....when Bush left both Iraq and afghanistan were stable...they crashed after obama got into office and pulled our troops out......we still have troops in Italy, Germany, South Korea and Japan...but for some reason we had to get out of the two countries that were actually dangerous to us...

Let's recall why Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq: Bush signed a treaty saying we would and set a date.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both far from stable. Iraq was led by Shia, a group that had been poorly treated by the Sunnis under Saddam. The Taliban still existed too.

Please don't rewrite history, some of us lived through it.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong....our leaving the country before it was completely under control allowed that to happen....when Bush left both Iraq and afghanistan were stable...they crashed after obama got into office and pulled our troops out......we still have troops in Italy, Germany, South Korea and Japan...but for some reason we had to get out of the two countries that were actually dangerous to us...

Let's recall why Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq: Bush signed a treaty saying we would and set a date.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both far from stable. Iraq was led by Shia, a group that had been poorly treated by the Sunnis under Saddam. The Taliban still existed too.

Please don't rewrite history, some of us lived through it.

No....obama pulled troops out of Iraq because he has no clue about history or the real world.....whatever Bush agreed to with the Iraqis had no weight in the face of a deteriorating Iraq.....but obama did not care...and isis was created....

 

[alang1216]

No....obama pulled troops out of Iraq because he has no clue about history or the real world.....whatever Bush agreed to with the Iraqis had no weight in the face of a deteriorating Iraq.....but obama did not care...and isis was created....

So a signed treaty should have been torn up? The Iraqi government at that time was all too happy to have us leave so what you're basically saying is that Obama should have just taken over the country. Yeah that would have solved everything, force is always a good answer.

 

[bodecea]

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......

You spelled "facists" wrong.

 

[bodecea]

No....obama pulled troops out of Iraq because he has no clue about history or the real world.....whatever Bush agreed to with the Iraqis had no weight in the face of a deteriorating Iraq.....but obama did not care...and isis was created....

So a signed treaty should have been torn up? The Iraqi government at that time was all too happy to have us leave so what you're basically saying is that Obama should have just taken over the country. Yeah that would have solved everything, force is always a good answer.

Drumpf said we should have just taken their oil.

 

[bodecea]

"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.

And I absolutely don't care what the average Iraqi thinks on the subject.

Yes...it's only their own country.....or is it?

 

[alang1216]

No...the santions were collapsing.....the useless inspections were ending and he was in violation of the ceasefire agreement as soon as the ink dried.....allowing him to maintain a WMD program...which is what he was going to do after the inspectors left was not an option after terrorists from the barren country of Afghanistan attacked us.....his violations of the ceasefire agreement going back to clinton's failed Presidency allowed the use of force against him...

Try getting the history right....

I don't think any of your history is accurate but let's just say it is. We now know that Saddam was mostly bluster and not a real threat to the US. Do you really think that if we knew then what we know now, the US would have supported Bush in his invasion of Iraq?

 

[2aguy]

No...the santions were collapsing.....the useless inspections were ending and he was in violation of the ceasefire agreement as soon as the ink dried.....allowing him to maintain a WMD program...which is what he was going to do after the inspectors left was not an option after terrorists from the barren country of Afghanistan attacked us.....his violations of the ceasefire agreement going back to clinton's failed Presidency allowed the use of force against him...

Try getting the history right....

I don't think any of your history is accurate but let's just say it is. We now know that Saddam was mostly bluster and not a real threat to the US. Do you really think that if we knew then what we know now, the US would have supported Bush in his invasion of Iraq?

No....we know he did not have WMDs at the time of the invasion...after we invaded and actually were able to look for the weapons without playing games with the inspectors...do you remember the games the inspectors had to play to do their jobs....? And if he was still in power he would have started his programs up again and then we would have faced him selling the weapons to terrorists....

That is the thing...we didn't know then what we know now...mainly because the inspection process was a joke......and the bribes that he paid to U.N. officials...remember the oil for food scandal?