|
Point
of view:
We believe that the only way to a better world can be the one without
violence. We cannot believe that a peaceful society can be reached with
arms. We think that armies are organizations that train the blind following
of orders and prepares people for battle. Because of that we oppose armies.
Argument:
Soldiers save us!
Counterargument: Did the German soldiers in World War
II fought for the safety of the German people? Did the American Soldiers
in Vietnam helped the civil people there? And what about all the civil
wars where normal people fight against normal people? Soldiers do not
save us.
In wars are usually the people who are not involved in the war, the Innocent,
the ones who are most affected. Soldiers get food and clothes from the
army, while the houses of civilians are bombed and destroyed. Just look
at the result of the civil war in Ex-Yugoslavia: Lots of houses were completely
bombed, families destroyed, but the soldiers always had enough food and
weapons to fight 'till the end. Isn't that strange? If there were no armies,
there would be nothing to protect us from.
Argument:
With todays weapons you can fight controlled against the enemy.
Counterargument: Despite better aim techniques, infrarot
search machines and other military equipment can not be avoided that the
weapons hit the wrong targets. Even an anti-tank mine cannot difference
between a tank and a school bus. Again the example of earlier wars. With
the invention of guns, then machine guns and finally the atomic bomb was
made only ways to kill more people with less work. And then there is still
the question who sees who as enemy? Not even ten years ago people in East
Germany saw people and West Germany as enemies and the other way around.
But today the live united in one country. Just imagine: Leipzig in war
with Stuttgart.
Argument:
Without an army other countries would immediately attack us.
Counterargument: Which other countries? Tell
us some countries who threat Germany right now? Why somebody should try
that with a much bigger country?
Argument:
But soldiers also help with other things.
Counterargument: The help of soldiers after flood
disasters, hurricanes or other nature disasters is a good things, but
the Red Cross, the fire department, the civilians and other civil services
helped as well. Even without soldiers but with more Red Cross, fire fighters
and so on would the situation be helped.
Argument:
Soldiers fight for peace.
Counterargument: Did we hear the word peace in a sentence
with the word soldier? How does that match? Soldiers fight, that is finally
why they have guns, and that means battle. Up to now there was never a
battle that was peaceful. Do not think so abstract, peace cannot be fought
for! To save the peace, new weapons must not be developed and more money
must not go to the military. No, more the opposite, the armies must be
reduced and then finally abolished.
more
information and links:
the Nonviolence Web
Meeting point of many nonviolent groups
War Resisters
League
US Army army in the
USA
|
