what do anti-war people propose to do if their country is attacked?
i am against the idea of war, and fighting. I don't understand why in this world we train people to kill other people. War's just end up creating more problems and they always have. Killing people is never the answer.
However when i ask myself the question what would a country do if attacked, i don't know how to answer.
What do anti-war advocates say about this issue? If they think we should not have war's how would people defend their country in an attack.
And don't bring up the concept of "just" wars and "injust" wars. I'm talking about hardcore pacifists who don't believe in war whatsoever, what would they say about this issue.
2010-10-05T19:05:40Z
that didn't answer my question. I understand your point, but i asked what people who don't believe in war whatsoever would propose to do in this type of situation.
?2010-10-05T20:14:24Z
Favorite Answer
No one is against defending this country against attack but that is quite different from starting a war with faulty intelligence and killing hundreds of thousands of people. And arming ourselves with missile defense systems and ultimate weapons is not the right response to a loose band of confederates called al Quaeda who don't possess any weapons.
I am a pacifist, and only became one after we went into Iraq. When I saw that horrible, barbaric shock and awe, it was too awful to accept because I put myself in the shoes of those people in Baghdad who were getting killed and thought of myself as an infant in London during WW2 when my room shook from a German buzz bomb, and now my fellow Americans were doing the same thing.
Now the Pakistanis are being killed by remote controlled planes and they cannot defend themselves against that, so they are planning all these attacks in Europe in retaliation. I think it is too late to stop this war on terrorism at this point even if the US changed its strategy.
Some would say the 9/11 attacks were a justification for a war. In fact the amercian government , pursued a war, and went into other countries. With support of some or all of its citizens, putting aside an amount of people whou might have been againt it.
Anyway..............An anti war advocate would say however, america had the power to tackle the situation a different way. Instead of going into another country/countries. Instead of using military power. America also has the power to cripple a nation financially, through diplomatic means. Getting so many sanctions against them to the point NO country will TRADE with them or get them to make their products. Thus, putting the offending country, back into the stone age, where it would take them over fifty years to even recover the loss. So YES, there is a NON violent way of getting back at the offending country.
BUT.....................The citizens of that country, are not at fault, for the attack on america. So why should america cripple the country financially, when it would only hurt the little people. They were not at fault.
So instead, they go to war, they topple the government as they did with Saddam, and afghanistan. So the threat is diminished. And the little people in that country benefit from the new government put in place, by their vote.
In effect it goes two ways, Non violent means the little people get hurt. They have no jobs or food. If they choose the violent way and go to war, the little people still get hurt through bombs being dropped in the wrong place etc. Either way, they are screwed.
Except in the non violent way. You dont see people suffering on CNN or BBC. You would not even know about it.
When a country gets attacked. Citizens prefer some visual retribution , rather than non visual. Otherwise they lose faith in their government.
Oh, they would either blame the government, or just accept the situation for what it is. Regardless, both should take up arms (or not criticize others to) and defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Those who do nothing and still advocate peace will be ignored, since a person's life, or the continuation of it, is what people are more concerned about.
My principals may well go out of the window, who knows!
But I would hope that I could use my skills by working with the stress disorders and panic that accompany such a situation.
Also if we were invaded, I like to think that I am strong enough to commit acts of sabotage that do not include violence against people, but would make the oppressors job more difficult.
War and the violence that accompanies it is appalling and it would be difficult to hold dear to my principles, but I think that I could and not being beaten down is a way of winning after all.
War is and always will be around, it is a natural thing that has been going on since humanity fist started. Violence is not the answer isn't true, some people WILL use violence weather you like it or not and it is necessary to respond with lethal force. The point is there will always be people who want to use violence so we will always need good people to use violence back and keep them in check.