Maybe they should be sent to subdue the enemy with their "non-violence" theories?
2007-02-09 21:58:35 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree if they think pacification is the right way we should start a second army of pacifists we'll get 30-40 thousand of them send them to Iraq and see who's way works better. The insurgents would have plenty of human shields.
2007-02-09 22:12:02 · answer #1 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
hmmmmmm:
Personally I do not object to educated pacifists, however, most pacifists are really uneducated cowards.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist. I don't know of any since then, although there have been an awful lot of cowardly and uneducated people inciting violence around since then.
I have to say that since it is so difficult to tell a pacifist from a coward we have to leave them alone. I would put up with a thousand cowards (okay, so we have millions in the US) for the chance to have a single Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. around.
Now, when the pacifist gets older and their true values become obvious, I say kick them out without social security. Antarctica has no real immigration laws and they all want to live in a giant non-polluting, self supporting commune anyway :-)
2007-02-09 22:55:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow--the Puritans were saying the same thing about the Quakers back in the 17th century. Things really don't change much, huh? On the other hand, the Quakers were great with education (Thomas Paine, who wrote the "American Crisis" papers, was born Quaker) and established one of the first abolitionist societies in the country, so the pacifists have accomplished some stuff too.
Since the pacifists are as likely to suffer from any terrorist retaliations against this inadvisable war, they also get to live under the blanket of freedom.
2007-02-09 22:05:31 · answer #3 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
But what if a nation was built on pacifism and gained independence with it...like say India under ghandi?
The whole world is built on pacifism and non violent means, in the form of discussion, debate and diplomacy.
If America didn't go it alone - it still would be.
2007-02-09 22:54:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well dude, it is their freedom to chose non violent ways ;-)
So I say it with Isaac Asimov : Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Have a nice and peaceful day and don't forget to go to church on Sunday and sing "Peace in the Valley "
2007-02-09 22:15:19 · answer #5 · answered by willow, the yodakitty from hell 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
If they kept their mouths shut they might be tolerable because we wouldn't think about them, because they really don't matter!
Since they don't keep their pieholes shut, I say round them up and drive them into the ocean!
2007-02-09 23:29:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
they are American citizins. Granted they are not accepting the responsibilities of their citizinship, they still get their rights.
2007-02-10 00:01:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Naw,let them hang out on here and ask anti military and anti american questions.....gives us something to write back about
2007-02-09 22:01:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
no you fool,they will be protected.are they not AMERICANS.the military must do their job without questions...leave that to the decider,,,,
2007-02-09 23:12:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Great idea, and long overdue.
2007-02-09 22:01:28 · answer #10 · answered by Oscarthing 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋