All militarists are for peace, in the abstract......only in the abstract.
I'm not sure about militarists, because that seems contradictory to the very definition of the word:
hyperdictionary.com
But Webster's 1913 version defined it as a military man, so let's take it from that approach.
As a military man, wars are fought by them. They are fought by all military men. And it those military men who have the greatest reason for not engaging in combat unless the stakes are high, and that a contrived peace now will only result in greater bloodshed later.
I don't know of too many military servicemen who actually want to go to war, and certainly not to sacrifice their lives for the whims of some madman, rather than principle.
But on matters of principle, such as international law, external agression, or in the case of Iraq, both, I think many militarists understand the job they are being assigned to do.
The problem is that people like you do not.
And the only reason you have a right to publicly voice your pacifist dissent is because militarists created, fought for, and preserved that right FOR YOU.
Being a pacifist, you certainly could not take up force of arms/blows to preserve that right..
Unless you're really not a pacifist, but merely someone who finds it politically convenient to be so when their country is engaged in a fight they don't approve of.
I wonder how pacifistic you would be if your family were endangered/threatened directly.
Yes, Jacob.. you have a right to be a pacifist. But that right was neither free, nor cheap. Nor was it won by any politically sympathetic predecessor of yours.
It was won by a military man (militarist) who fought opposing militarists who sought to deny you that right.
Hawk |
