Are there people that believe there country should not go to war no matter what (even if country got attacked)

Question

I wanted to fit the whole question in so people could see what I'm taking about which is why the question is grammatically incorrect.

It should say "Are there people out there in any country, who believes there country should not go to war no matter what happens to there country. That includes your country getting attacked. So are there people out there that believe your country should not go to war if you get attacked?

This is not based on any current or past political occurance I'm trying to see the thought process of people who like sociology. Are there people that would rather take a blow and not rebel because they believes violence might stop (I don't agree but maybe someone does) or that people would see that country (for what ever reason that may be) more favoringly (in the world), or something like: they may be more safe (the country) if they didn't start a war because they might be driven of the map (because other enemies would destroy your country)

P.S. Mention what country

Answer 1

That is precisely what the Dalai Lama is saying. No matter what, Tibetans should not try to fight the Chinese government. There must be, he argues, a possible agreement.

And I wouldn't agree that this attitude is based on religious reasons. Actually, the Israeli government has kept for years a policy that for every Israeli citizen that dies, ten Palestinians must die as well. And they keep their promises. Has that attitude solved anything?

Answer 2

Well, if the UK goes to war, I won't be fighting for it thats for sure!

To be honest, Im embarrised to be called British.

Answer 3

The simple answer is - yes. And it's not for any of the reasons you postulate. I don't believe that violence in response to violence, war in response to an act of war, will ever solve anything. Especially in our current world, where an attack on your country doesn't come in the form of a column of soldiers on horseback slinging arrows over your walls. Striking back at what you think is the source of a strike against you is no better than children fighting over their place in a line. The only answer is to start at the beginning and remake the arrangement so that nobody has any cause to attack anyone else.

So yes, though your question clearly doubts us, and your suppositions are a little insulting: there are plenty of us who do not think our countries should go to war for any reason. Period, no caveats.

I am from the United States, and I am deeply embarrassed over the behavior of my government in recent years.

Answer 4

When I first see the question I replied automatically "well of course if they attack my country and invade my country's territories, of course I'll support the war for self-defense". But then I thought about the question again and  to be honest, I got puzzled! Because I don't define myself as patriotic and definitely not nationalist, and I'm a total supporter of the anti-militarism and anti-war movement, yet my subconscious is still filled with stupid patriotic values I guess...

I think my automatic reply is related to the common consciousness of the country I'm living in. Living in a country whose recent history is filled with invasions, which you all the time hear paranoid conspiracy theories that every western power out there wants to invade or control us, it is just so normal to give this reaction I guess.

Yet when I think about the realities, it has nothing to do with my automatic reply coming from my subconscious. When turkish military used the excuse of the "kurdish rebellions" in Turkey to make a military operation to the Northern Iraq, I objected to this idea with all my being and hated the turkish military even more. The discourses of the military was exactly the same, that we have to eradicate the "terrorists" living in the Northern Iraq in order to protect "our country". However we also experience that the war going on for years between the turkish military and the kurdish rebellion in Turkey hasn't solved a thing but just build up more hatred towards each other within the both groups.

However, I'm also living in a country in which people speaking about peace is being silenced either by killing or by penalizing. We have this irrational,vague horrible law; "alienating people from the military", which you may imagine, is used in order to persecute anyone even criticising the politics of the turkish army. (Well yes, according to the constitution, we're a democratic country and army is under the control of the parliament, but the reality isn't like that)

So it is very tricky, I won't definitely believe a single word that the military says, however sometimes it is really hard to talk about peace in this region.

On the other hand, I'm thinking of the intervention of the USA to Iraq and remembering all the news and the images from the Abu Ghraib and now the possible threat to Iran...  talking about peace will really solve the problem and stop the US army and the terrorist attacks such as 9/11?? There had been tons of anti-war manifestations and increasement of the visibility of the consciencious objectors within every part of the world, yet these didn't stop the US army from intervening first to Afghanistan then to Iraq.

I really get confused at this point whether to fight back or just submit to it when the country you're living in is intervened or "invaded" by a super power.