I really enjoyed the title of this movie. I thought it was interesting how they agreed with the war but refused to fight it. I think in a way the experience that they went through were very sociological damaging as the ones fighting in the war. They had to deal with a lot of negative attitudes from their fellow country men. It is hard to image believe for something so hard and only have a few people back you up.
The thing I most appreciated was that they were trying to make a social change. When they were placed to work at the mental institutes that witnessed first hand they horrible conditions these people were placed in.
They one thing I question though is if all wars can be fought peaceful. Is there no need for violence and war. Is there always a peaceful option. I don't full agree with the idea behind Pacifism. Is it OK to use violence if the "ends justify the means".
There are some conflicts were hands down I believe their could have been a peacefully alternative. Some war I look at and think that they needed to be fought. My biggest Question is could Hitler be brought done with just peacefully negotiations. In all honestly I think not.
My point is that no two conflicts are the same so it is hard for me to agree that violence does not have to be used. I feel like sometimes the only way to stop conflict from spreading is the use of violence. Some leaders will only give up power if militarily strategies are used against them.
I don't agree with some critics when they say Pacifism is an act of cowardliness. These few men and women who choose these roots are usually a small percent of the population. The majority of people especially in WWI and WWII had support for the war. They were applaud that these men were not serving their country in a time to of need.
I think that the Pacifism has it pro/con. Sometimes war is not the answer, it really never should be the first choice of how to end a conflict. On the other hand sometimes war is the only answer at time of need.
The thing I most appreciated was that they were trying to make a social change. When they were placed to work at the mental institutes that witnessed first hand they horrible conditions these people were placed in.
They one thing I question though is if all wars can be fought peaceful. Is there no need for violence and war. Is there always a peaceful option. I don't full agree with the idea behind Pacifism. Is it OK to use violence if the "ends justify the means".
There are some conflicts were hands down I believe their could have been a peacefully alternative. Some war I look at and think that they needed to be fought. My biggest Question is could Hitler be brought done with just peacefully negotiations. In all honestly I think not.
My point is that no two conflicts are the same so it is hard for me to agree that violence does not have to be used. I feel like sometimes the only way to stop conflict from spreading is the use of violence. Some leaders will only give up power if militarily strategies are used against them.
I don't agree with some critics when they say Pacifism is an act of cowardliness. These few men and women who choose these roots are usually a small percent of the population. The majority of people especially in WWI and WWII had support for the war. They were applaud that these men were not serving their country in a time to of need.
I think that the Pacifism has it pro/con. Sometimes war is not the answer, it really never should be the first choice of how to end a conflict. On the other hand sometimes war is the only answer at time of need.
No comments:
Post a Comment