Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Sep 26 2004, 08:52 PM
Aside from that, are you saying if one person defines a particular conflict as a "good war" then they are within their rights to label a person refusing to fight in it a deserter/concientious objector?
And, conversely, if one person thinks a conflict is a "bad war," then they have the right to be a deserter/concientious objector?
Absolutely.
Every argument about war is going to be rife with moral analyses. Aren't you the one that labels the Israeli tactics as acceptable and the Palestinians as atrocious because of the comparative morality of their tactics? I'm definately going to put a different label on someone who refuses to fight against an agressive, atrocity committing nation bent on world domination compared to someone who refuses to fight for that nation.
That's a pretty nebulous world isn't it?
I happen to think the world is pretty nebulous. See my next answer.
It's not like the Nazi Party was unpopular. Defeating Poland in little over a month resulted in about 10,000 German dead . . . but there wasn't a lot of anguish about it. In fact, that "terror" campaign had much of the nation behind it as did the persecution of Jews. Does that make it "good" and it only became "bad" later? Does that mean if you were a concientious objector early in WWII on the Nazi side you were bad and if you were a deserter later you were "good?"
Lets face it, you're the guy deciding what's "good" and "bad."
I merely came along and said let's take personal opinion out of it and decide on a formula we can apply to all conflicts.
What it means is that if you were on the Nazi side and believed that the Jews were the root of all evil and Arians were destined to rule the world then those who fled to the west were cowards no matter when they did it, because the Nazi objective was noble and morally justifiable.
Trying to objectify things and take subjective opinion out of it isn't useful because each war is different based on it's motives, objectives and context.
Or can we do that? Does it depend on your personal point of view whether these guys are heroes worthy of a monument? Can we understand the millions of American veterans who think these people are traitors and criminals?
We can understand it (even if we disagree with it) if they believe that any war your government decides to wage is right. Again, the people on the low end of my totem pole were those that didn't believe in the war, but went to kill Vietnamese anyway, not those who fought because they thought it was just and necessary.
|
So, I think I hear you saying the winners write the history books and, as a consequence, are most frequently the good guys.
Meanwhile, in a small town in British Columbia, a group of people believe those who ran away to safety, for whatever reason, when their country called on them, are heroes.
That, of course, is their opinion. It goes without saying, a memorial like that could only be built outside the USA given the overwhelming majority of Americans, even today, would regard them with disdain.
Aren't you the one that labels the Israeli tactics as acceptable and the Palestinians as atrocious because of the comparative morality of their tactics?
Actually no. I said Palestinians are idiots because they continue to thump their head against the wall for no apparent purpose, engaging in a war that they can't possibly win while condemning their people to a perpetual cycle of poverty and repression in the process. Since the Israeli's have demonstrated in the past they will trade land for peace and have honoured those agreements, I suggested the Palestinians stop shooting and start negotiating seriously. In turn, they would probably get a lot more global sympathy from dickheads like me regarding Israeli tactics, which could only help them, and they would probably have a country by now if they had already done so. That is what I said. Basically, I said the Palestinians are morons.
We can understand it (even if we disagree with it) if they believe that any war your government decides to wage is right. Again, the people on the low end of my totem pole were those that didn't believe in the war, but went to kill Vietnamese anyway, not those who fought because they thought it was just and necessary.
At that particular moment in history, I would think most thought they were fighting communism. Had the objectors reduced it to "killing Vietnamese?" Sounded like it from Cassius Clay's comments. Let's face it, whether we were looking at it then or looking at it now, Vietnam was a worthless place that wouldn't attract anyone's interest, least of all a global superpower, unless put in the context of the global struggle of democracy versus communism.
A conflict of ideals. Right or wrong. Others viewed it differently and objected. Right or wrong.
Getting back to the original thought though, will there be statues and memorials in Germany for those who ran the other way? Or do we find that millions of Germans of that era consider them with disdain?
Cowperson