I dont imagine I’ve made much of a secret that I disdain war as a practice and an institution – not in the vaguely ironic “war is hell” sense that people often cite, but that i think it’s most often a useless, cynical exercise that’s usually waged for reasons vastly different than those given – but the impression has been on my mind lately that really, it’s even worse than i thought. I’m coming to think that war isn’t a necessary or even an unnecessary evil... it’s a secret indulgence. It’s something many people secretly, privately enjoy, even as they outwardly pretend that it’s regrettable but unavoidable.

I think a lot of people secretly get a kick out of the whole thing. Putting the yellow ribbons in their yards and the flag decals on their cars, watching the hysterical apparently WWF-inspired cable TV coverage, admiring the the gee-whiz-that’s-swell high-tech tanks and planes. They like the warm feeling of pretending your country is heroically swooping to another nation’s rescue when in reality you’re secretly relishing watching your country kill the people you’ve been told are your enemies. I mean, it’s no secret how much anti-arab sentiment there is in this country – just look at how arabs and muslims are portrayed in Hollywood. Visit a message board like Free Republic sometime. I was always struck by the ease with which the last administration morphed Al Qaeda into Iraq and people largely bought into it, and lately I’ve gotten the impression we weren’t stupid or easily fooled. I think we just didn’t care. We figured hell, Iraqis reminded us of the 9/11 hijackers because they had a similar color skin and we wanted payback against someone, anyone, so if we couldn’t catch the actual guilty party since they’d committed suicide in attacking us, at least we could find someone innocent who reminded us of the people who attacked us. People scoff at the idea that Iraq was a racist revenge attack for 9/11 but to me it seems very obvious that was a huge component of it to a lot of regular people who supported the war.

I think in retrospect it’s really going to sink in how utterly reprehensible the attack on Iraq was, I think it will turn out in the history books to have literally and maybe permanently destroyed America’s reputation as a moral nation. But more broadly speaking, the human race as a species just seems to be deficient to me. We do endless horrible things to ourselves and to everything around us. We eat meat without thinking about what slaughterhouses are like (me included), we watch pornography without thinking about the rape and sexual slavery it encourages (me included), we buy cheap Wal*Mart products without thinking about sweatshop labor (ditto), we poison our own environment with complete profligacy and consume the earth’s resources with the self-indulgence of a glutton without an ounce of pride or dignity. But at least we have the sense to be somewhat embarrassed about these things. War is an indulgence we actually take pride in, which is amazing to me. We pretend there’s something courageous and noble about it, and we maintain this pretense with such fury – screaming down anyone who thinks otherwise, calling them anti-american and smearing them as traitors – exactly because it’s so prespammersitely obvious there’s nothing whatsoever noble about war, and in fact it’s quite the opposite.

War stains the soul of this species; the fact that we practice it is a mortal condemnation of the entire human race. It points to something deeply and intractably defective in how human beings are made. And what’s worst is the hidden reality that we love war. The Israelis don’t kill palestinians to preserve their own existence; they do it because they enjoy it. I really believe that. And everyone goes back and forth about why we attacked Iraq and pretends it’s a complicated question. But really it’s simple, it’s just too ugly to acknowledge. We attacked Iraq because we’re stronger than them, we want to control their resources, and we hate them as a people. We attacked Iraq because it felt good.

We all need to get our act together and improve ourselves as living things, on a basic level, or we’re going to destroy ourselves with our own pettiness and arrogance, and the whole time we’ll be telling ourselves lies about how wonderful we are. but if someone ever visits this planet after we’re gone and picks among our ruins, I think they’re much more likely to think we were intrinsically faulty as a species and the Earth is better off without us.

There. Amazingly depressing and rabidly misanthropic rant over.

Despite the ill-advised war that Bush II launched in Iraq, let's not forget that for most of his 8 years, Bill Clinton was lobbing bombs and cruise missiles into Iraq too.  Granted, not an all out invasion...

At the time I believed... and still do... that he was being "played" by Sodom Hussein. The missile attacks did not deter Sodom, and they simply earned some more enmity from the Iraqi people.

Interestingly we see Obama getting tough with the militants in Pakistan.  Despite his public omments about not sending troops into Pakistan, he has stepped up middle and precision bombing strikes both in number, and depth of penetration into Pakistani territory, than Bush II had.

i read somewhere clinton used the military more than any other president. don't know if it's true, but yes, clinton was quite free with the military; i'd like to pretend it's a partisan thing but i just can't.

he also nicely sums up the idea that we value our own soldiers' lives more than innocent civilians' lives; clinton gave us a casualty-free war in kosovo but he did it by ordering high-altitude bombing, which totally had to have increased civilian casualties. but there like in iraq we have no idea how many civilians we killed, nor do we seem to particularly care.

i read somewhere clinton used the military more than any other president. don't know if it's true, but yes, clinton was quite free with the military; i'd like to pretend it's a partisan thing but i just can't.

he also nicely sums up the idea that we value our own soldiers' lives more than innocent civilians' lives; clinton gave us a casualty-free war in kosovo but he did it by ordering high-altitude bombing, which totally had to have increased civilian casualties. but there like in iraq we have no idea how many civilians we killed, nor do we seem to particularly care.


My only beef with Clinton on Kosovo is that he waited so long to do it.  The locals were busy exterminating people and Clinton played the fiddle for quite some time.  That said, I do applaud him opening up a can of whoop ass over there.

My only beef with Clinton on Kosovo is that he waited so long to do it.  The locals were busy exterminating people and Clinton played the fiddle for quite some time.  That said, I do applaud him opening up a can of whoop ass over there.
well, of course, the standard -- and yet apparently unanswerable -- objection to the idea that the government's military interventions are humanitarian is, why did clinton care about kosovo but not rwanda? why does obama care about afghanistan but not darfur, sudan, congo? It's pretty obvious these interventions are utilitarian, not humanitarian.

well, of course, the standard -- and yet apparently unanswerable -- objection to the idea that the government's military interventions are humanitarian is, why did clinton care about kosovo but not rwanda? why does obama care about afghanistan but not darfur, sudan, congo? It's pretty obvious these interventions are utilitarian, not humanitarian.


Rwanda... an interesting question.  When Rwanda went down, I was studying International Politics at the University of Chicago.  Our professor taught us that if you wnt to figure out how a given issue is going to play out on the international stage, all you have to do is figure out "who cares?".

So when Rwanda hit the front pages, he came to our class with a newspaper and asked us "How do you think this is going to turn out?"  "Who cares?".  There was a complete silence in the room.

Prof then went on and said "You got it.  Nobody cares and nobody is going to intervene.  This thing is going to be a bloodbath of huge proportions.  But nobody is going to intervene because nobody really cares about Rwanda.  Certainly not any of the Western countries."

And it pretty much played out that way.

My view on war is mostly coldly practical.

I was against the War in Iraq not because of any moral reasons but because it really served no purpose other than to help contractors make mega profits.

With most wars, there is at least some practical objective.  To this day, I just don't see it with Iraq.

This is why I do support the War in Afghanistan.  It actually does serve a purpose in slowly defeating extremists and stabilizing a country in dire need of a different government.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is still culturally the @$$ end of the Islamic World, but at least their government is better than the one before it.

Still, I believe war is sometimes necessary.  Sometimes it also serves well as a way to stimulate the economy.  I often avoid the moral side of the issue because morals are often quite subjective.

For example, is it moral for us not to go to war with the forces killing Sudanese by the millions?  Is it moral not to liberate the people of Burma from their fascistic government?

Two can play the morals game, so it's much easier to look at it from the perspective of practicality.  Will entering a specific war actually benefit our country more than it costs us?  I believe the answer to that question was no for Iraq, but yes for Afghanistan.

Whenever this comes up, I am reminded of a quote by Philosopher John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Of course, that is the most famous version of his quotation.  Here is the full quote:

For these reasons I cannot join with those who cry Peace, peace. I cannot wish that this war should not have been engaged in by the North, or that being engaged in, it should be terminated on any conditions but such as would retain the whole of the Territories as free soil. I am not blind to the possibility that it may require a long war to lower the arrogance and tame the aggressive ambition of the slave-owners, to the point of either returning to the Union, or consenting to remain out of it with their present limits. But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other. I am far from saying that the present struggle, on the part of the Northern Americans, is wholly of this exalted character; that it has arrived at the stage of being altogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But there was from the beginning, and now is, a large infusion of that element in it; and this is increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will in the end predominate. Should that time come, not only will the greatest enormity which still exists among mankind as an institution, receive far earlier its coups de grâce than there has ever, until now, appeared any probability of; but in effecting this the Free States will have raised themselves to that elevated position in the scale of morality and dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices consciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of an inestimable benefit to all future ages, brought about by their own voluntary efforts.

Of course, I know it is pointless to try and explain to most in here what a "just war" is.  Just as it is pointless to try and explain to most in here why I choose to join the military (for the second time).  It would probably be easier to explain a blind person the difference between black and white. 

For anybody interested in reading the work the above quotes came from, I invite them to read The Contest In America, by John Stuart Mill.  It was written about another war.  One that was often unpopular, to many people about industiral might, money, greed, and many thought it was worthless to fight and a waste of millions of lives.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conam10h.htm

America is trying to be the World Police. When there's trouble, we get there on the double.

America is trying to be the World Police. When there's trouble, we get there on the double.
true, but only when there's money to be made.

i've worked with military contractors. they got it pee eff ay tee. nice big houses, fancy cars. they wear bling. literally. it's a decent racket, no doubt. not if you're freelance like me, but if you're a permanent employee with a beltway bandit doing defense contract, you will get crazy money. it's kinda sad because the people who enlist make 20, 30 grand a year, and i've seen how the other half lives. never saw a minute of combat, and they're pulling six, seven figure salaries plus bonuses and capital gains. it's AWESOME how they work the commoners over, and meanwhile the people who enlist go into combat with their heads full of swill about fighting for their country and democracy. they're fighting so some ultrarich character can affort to get his porsche serviced. and that ain't cheap; trustworthy porsche mechanics charge an arm and a leg.

so keep killing and dying, bros and sisters. the war-profiteer multimillionaires are behind you every step of the way.

Whenever this comes up, I am reminded of a quote by Philosopher John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Of course, that is the most famous version of his quotation.  Here is the full quote:

For these reasons I cannot join with those who cry Peace, peace. I cannot wish that this war should not have been engaged in by the North, or that being engaged in, it should be terminated on any conditions but such as would retain the whole of the Territories as free soil. I am not blind to the possibility that it may require a long war to lower the arrogance and tame the aggressive ambition of the slave-owners, to the point of either returning to the Union, or consenting to remain out of it with their present limits. But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice--is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other. I am far from saying that the present struggle, on the part of the Northern Americans, is wholly of this exalted character; that it has arrived at the stage of being altogether a war for justice, a war of principle. But there was from the beginning, and now is, a large infusion of that element in it; and this is increasing, will increase, and if the war lasts, will in the end predominate. Should that time come, not only will the greatest enormity which still exists among mankind as an institution, receive far earlier its coups de grâce than there has ever, until now, appeared any probability of; but in effecting this the Free States will have raised themselves to that elevated position in the scale of morality and dignity, which is derived from great sacrifices consciously made in a virtuous cause, and the sense of an inestimable benefit to all future ages, brought about by their own voluntary efforts.

Of course, I know it is pointless to try and explain to most in here what a "just war" is.  Just as it is pointless to try and explain to most in here why I choose to join the military (for the second time).  It would probably be easier to explain a blind person the difference between black and white. 

For anybody interested in reading the work the above quotes came from, I invite them to read The Contest In America, by John Stuart Mill.  It was written about another war.  One that was often unpopular, to many people about industiral might, money, greed, and many thought it was worthless to fight and a waste of millions of lives.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/conam10h.htm


While I agree with the general principle of your post, as a Southerner, I cannot say that the Civil War was necessary -- only that it was inevitable.

While I agree with the general principle of your post, as a Southerner, I cannot say that the Civil War was necessary -- only that it was inevitable.
the distinction between necessary and inevitable is a good one. the civil war was likely to have been fought one way or another. i think the same thing's true of world war ii; there was just no way around it. the nazis thought it was necessary. therefore, for the US, it eventually became unavoidable.

more recent wars -- like korea, vietnam, and iraq -- are strictly elective. though quite lucrative. there's a reason war is the solution of first resort for the government, particularly under republican administrations connected with weapons and oil -- because it makes them fabulously wealthy. of course, the myth that wars are always "necessary" whenever the government says they are, that's the fig leaf they hide behind. wars are never necessary, never good, but sometimes unavoidable. they are ALWAYS profitable for an elect few, however, which is why we keep fighting them, over and over and over.

more recent wars -- like korea, vietnam, and iraq -- are strictly elective. though quite lucrative.


So what should be our response then when an allied nation is attacked or invaded?  Do nothing?  Sit around and pass resolution after resolution and expect them to up and leave?

If that was the case, South Korea and Afganistan would be communist, and the Malvinas would be in the hands of a military junta.  Kuwait would be in the hands of Iraq, with them and Iran continuing to throw missiles at each other and every other neutral ship passing through the Persian Gulf.

It is sad, but most of the time when somebody acts with agression, the only response is to respond with equal agression.  Because to people like that, it is the only thing they fear or respect.  Attempts to "talk a solution" will always fail, and they simpy see that as being weak (because if you were strong like them, you would throw them out).

Sadly, most of the problems in the world are cause because of people with that kind of mentality.  They do what they do because they feel they have the might and power to get away with it.

And what is the option?  To ignore when some neighborhood bully attacks or tries to take over a neighbor?  Sit around and whine and cry about it because nobody else will do anything?  Hope they die of laughter or boredom as you make frantic hand waving gestures at them?

Or maybe they will all fall sway over countless singing of Kumbaya and embrace the Light Side of The Force.

i have to admit i'm having a bit of a chuckle at your "kumbaya" reference and the pacifist straw man you're fabricating to debate instead of me. i'm definitely not feeling sanguine or peaceful. in fact, i'm coming to think that the arms peddlers, bankers and propagandists who keep this perpetual motion machine of armed conflict going may actually turn out to be our enemies in the next truly unavoidable war.

i have to admit i'm having a bit of a chuckle at your "kumbaya" reference and the pacifist straw man you're fabricating to debate instead of me.


Actually, I am about the most pacifistic person you could ever meet.  I can't imagine ever raising my fist in anger.  Just the thought of striking somebody makes me ill.  People have called me names because I back down from fights.  But that is their problem, I refuse to lower myself to their level.

I ahbor violence, and wish that a peacefull solution was always possible.

However, I did not make the world.  I simply have to live in it.  And if that means fighting to keep my family, friends, or allies safe, then so be it.  I am even willing to fight to keep strangers who I will never meet safe.  And with little thought for my own safety.

So ironically, I am probably the "straw man" you are talking about.  I would much rather talk then fight.

But sadly, a great number of people in this world seem to consider anybody not like themselves to be "nonhuman", so to them there is no point in talking.  They simply react by attacking anybody not like them (or does not want to be like them).

And while a lot of people seem to blame nebulous people like "arms merchants", they are not the ones starting the wars.  North Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Iraq, Sudan, Soviet Union, Afganistan, Italy, the list goes on and on.  Nobody made these nations attack others, other then their own leaders.  In fact, I find it laughable that anybody could even suggest that this is the case.

we simply have inherently divergent world-views, i think.

more recent wars -- like korea, vietnam, and iraq -- are strictly elective. though quite lucrative. there's a reason war is the solution of first resort for the government, particularly under republican administrations connected with weapons and oil -- because it makes them fabulously wealthy. of course, the myth that wars are always "necessary" whenever the government says they are, that's the fig leaf they hide behind. wars are never necessary, never good, but sometimes unavoidable. they are ALWAYS profitable for an elect few, however, which is why we keep fighting them, over and over and over.


The last three 'wars' were wars by name only. They were merely conflicts.

The last three 'wars' were wars by name only. They were merely conflicts.
i'd say vietnam was a war they liked to call a police action, and iraq is a police action they like to call a war.

korea was just a clusterf&*k.

Whenever this comes up, I am reminded of a quote by Philosopher John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.



I think this quote is misleading. 

For me personally, it is not my safety that concerns me.  Especially in the current war that America is fighting.  I have a friend that was killed in Iraq, and to this day, I have no idea what he died for.  He didn't die for MY freedom.  No matter what Bush, or his administration, or any of this war's supporters say, there isn't one Iraqi out there that is threatening MY freedom.  There just isn't.  As far as I'm concerned, my friend died for nothing.  And that's what bothers me.  It's not so much a matter of a person having nothing for which he is willing to fight.  It is a person being forced to fight for nothing.  Maybe for the greed of others.  So that rich people can get richer.  So that oil contractors can get more oil.  Because at the end of the day, I think that is what they are fighting for in Iraq, and that, I have a problem with.  That is why my friend died.

I can understand having troops in Afghanistan.  That is more understandable to me.  But Iraq is a colossal mistake.  And we both know it. 



Of course, I know it is pointless to try and explain to most in here what a "just war" is.  Just as it is pointless to try and explain to most in here why I choose to join the military (for the second time).  It would probably be easier to explain a blind person the difference between black and white. 



Do I think that fighting the Civil War was unavoidable?  I do.  Do I think that WWII was unavoidable?  I do.  There are some wars that are more just than other wars.  But there is no such thing as a just war, as you put it.  So you're right.  You can't possibly explain it to any of us here on this board.  Because it doesn't exist.  I don't think that anyone here has any sort of issue with you joining the military.  I applaud you for that.  I revere our military and support our troops 100 percent.  And because I support them, I want them to live, not to die.  Their lives are worth more than this war.       

one good quote deserves another, particularly as they've been talking "defense" budgets in the news the last few days and though obama's got some useful cuts in unnecessary cold-war weapons, he's still talking about increasing the budget from bush's already over-inflated budgets. and this when the country is basically bankrupt! it's madness.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed 8,000 people.
so said well-known liberal socialist appeaser Dwight Eisenhower in 1953.

They should just set up a system like in that godawful movie "Robot Jox" where the superpowers send robots into like a NCAA-style tourney where the winner is crowned the champion and gets the gerrymander state lines and resources :P  Then only 63 people would die for our freedoms instead of 63000 :P

one good quote deserves another, particularly as they've been talking "defense" budgets in the news the last few days and though obama's got some useful cuts in unnecessary cold-war weapons, he's still talking about increasing the budget from bush's already over-inflated budgets. and this when the country is basically bankrupt! it's madness.
so said well-known liberal socialist appeaser Dwight Eisenhower in 1953.


Wow - that is really powerful. 


Here's another good one:
"Older men declare war, but it is the youth that must fight and die. "
- Herbert Hoover

the distinction between necessary and inevitable is a good one. the civil war was likely to have been fought one way or another. i think the same thing's true of world war ii; there was just no way around it. the nazis thought it was necessary. therefore, for the US, it eventually became unavoidable.

more recent wars -- like korea, vietnam, and iraq -- are strictly elective. though quite lucrative. there's a reason war is the solution of first resort for the government, particularly under republican administrations connected with weapons and oil -- because it makes them fabulously wealthy. of course, the myth that wars are always "necessary" whenever the government says they are, that's the fig leaf they hide behind. wars are never necessary, never good, but sometimes unavoidable. they are ALWAYS profitable for an elect few, however, which is why we keep fighting them, over and over and over.


Good points, but I'd like to point out that both parties have a long history of warfare and of connections to the military industrial complex.

For example, Kennedy was hardly a pacifist.

So what should be our response then when an allied nation is attacked or invaded?  Do nothing?  Sit around and pass resolution after resolution and expect them to up and leave?

If that was the case, South Korea and Afganistan would be communist, and the Malvinas would be in the hands of a military junta.  Kuwait would be in the hands of Iraq, with them and Iran continuing to throw missiles at each other and every other neutral ship passing through the Persian Gulf.

It is sad, but most of the time when somebody acts with agression, the only response is to respond with equal agression.  Because to people like that, it is the only thing they fear or respect.  Attempts to "talk a solution" will always fail, and they simpy see that as being weak (because if you were strong like them, you would throw them out).

Sadly, most of the problems in the world are cause because of people with that kind of mentality.  They do what they do because they feel they have the might and power to get away with it.

And what is the option?  To ignore when some neighborhood bully attacks or tries to take over a neighbor?  Sit around and whine and cry about it because nobody else will do anything?  Hope they die of laughter or boredom as you make frantic hand waving gestures at them?

Or maybe they will all fall sway over countless singing of Kumbaya and embrace the Light Side of The Force.


True, this is half of the problem.  Too much of the world depends on our action to end conflicts.  We have a massive military in part because of the world's unspoken expectation for us to be the world's police.  Sure, they complain when we get involved, but then they complain when we don't.

On the other hand, many conflicts are the result of our meddling.  Our support for the Shah is a large portion of why Iran became so radical after their revolution.  Had we forced the Shah to be more moderate in his policies and gradual in his changing of societal customs, Iran would probably be a more moderate and Western-friendly country today.

Had we never thrown our support to the Saudi regime, what we now know of as Saudi Arabia would probably be a very different country today (and probably less autocratic and dogmatic in their religious beliefs).  Had we never armed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably not even exist today.

The dilemma we face is that our intervention in world affairs is inevitable and expected of us, but the repercussions of our involvement are often very negative.

Thankfully the results have been more positive with Korea and WW2.

True, this is half of the problem.  Too much of the world depends on our action to end conflicts.  We haveour intervention in world affairs is inevitable and expected of us, i think you might be surprised at the extent to which this is not true. occaisonally foreign governments might expect american intervention, but this is for reasons just as cynical as the US government's real reasons for entering/starting the wars; foreign populations clamor for or value US intervention much more rarely.

for instance, i don't remember a big demand for US intervention in afghanistan, and in iraq, of course, we actually saw the biggest antiwar protests in history before bush decided to attack there.

Good points, but I'd like to point out that both parties have a long history of warfare and of connections to the military industrial complex.

For example, Kennedy was hardly a pacifist.
oh yeah, definitely democrats start and enter plenty of wars.

at the same time, weapons manufacturers and oil companies are a key part of the republican constituency just like unions and minority interest groups are part of the democratic party constituency, so the wars republican start/enter tend to be of a different character and directed toward different goals.

i think you might be surprised at the extent to which this is not true. occaisonally foreign governments might expect american intervention, but this is for reasons just as cynical as the US government's real reasons for entering/starting the wars; foreign populations clamor for or value US intervention much more rarely.

for instance, i don't remember a big demand for US intervention in afghanistan, and in iraq, of course, we actually saw the biggest antiwar protests in history before bush decided to attack there.


True, but our involvement in Bosnia was very popular except among the Serbs, of course.

You're right that many countries don't want our intervention.  However, even Iraq began as a situation that welcomed our involvement.

The first Gulf War was entirely funded by the Saudis because they didn't want Kuwait to get conquered.  The Kuwaitis were quite grateful as well.

During the late 90s, a lot of the world supported the possibility of U.S. intervention in Iraq.  Clinton lobbied hard for invading Iraq, but ironically, the Republicans treated it as a case of "wagging the dog" to distract people from Lewinsky.  They did the same with Bosnia.

Still, to later see Democrats do the same thing to Bush over Iraq seemed rather disingenuous.

I guess the easiest way I can say it is...  people support wars when their favored leaders are proposing them.

True, but our involvement in Bosnia was very popular except among the Serbs, of course.

You're right that many countries don't want our intervention.  However, even Iraq began as a situation that welcomed our involvement.

The first Gulf War was entirely funded by the Saudis because they didn't want Kuwait to get conquered.  The Kuwaitis were quite grateful as well.

During the late 90s, a lot of the world supported the possibility of U.S. intervention in Iraq.  Clinton lobbied hard for invading Iraq, but ironically, the Republicans treated it as a case of "wagging the dog" to distract people from Lewinsky.  They did the same with Bosnia.

Still, to later see Democrats do the same thing to Bush over Iraq seemed rather disingenuous.

I guess the easiest way I can say it is...  people support wars when their favored leaders are proposing them.
i'd agree with most of this, actually. i wonder about the wanting to invade iraq in the late 90s. i think people liked to talk tough about it but deep down everybody kinda knew it was a crazy idea. it was the flavor of the day to bark about saddam but no one was really serious about invading. that's just my theory. course, the fact we never did it until bush got in to office is evidence in my favor.

it's true the people getting occupied are typically happy to have the occupiers driven out, like in bosnia and kuwait. iraq seems to be the first recent instance where that's not true. well, the somalis don't seem to have really become ecstatically pro-west, either.

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (1935)

i'd agree with most of this, actually. i wonder about the wanting to invade iraq in the late 90s. i think people liked to talk tough about it but deep down everybody kinda knew it was a crazy idea. it was the flavor of the day to bark about saddam but no one was really serious about invading. that's just my theory. course, the fact we never did it until bush got in to office is evidence in my favor.

I think the only reason why things turned out as they did was that the Republicans fought Clinton most of the way in the buildup to the second Iraq war.  I'm guessing they wanted it to be Bush's glory, and boy was it ever...  lol...  It kind of backfired on them in the end.

The problem is that international support for invading Iraq faded away by the time Bush entered office.  Any hope we had in making the invasion of Iraq a conflict approved by the majority of the world was lost by this decade.  Of course, it didn't help that a lot of Europe was engaged in the Oil for Food Scandal.

For example, France didn't want us to invade because Saddam owed them a lot of money and France made a lot of money from the scandal.  So, while I also was against the war, I can't say most of the opposition was present over moral concerns.

Plenty of money is made by exploiting oppression -- possibly more than what's made from war.

it's true the people getting occupied are typically happy to have the occupiers driven out, like in bosnia and kuwait. iraq seems to be the first recent instance where that's not true. well, the somalis don't seem to have really become ecstatically pro-west, either.


Iraq was just a strange situation.  I like to compare it to Vlad Tepes's rule of Eastern Europe.  He was especially brutal to maintain control over various ethnic groups in conflict.  Saddam was the same way, and sadly, totalitarianism is often the only way to maintain order in a multi-ethnic state.

As evil as Saddam was, he kept a lot of conflicts from spreading throughout the Middle East.  Our stalemate with him involving air strikes was about the most practical compromise we could maintain.

As for Somalia....  well...  let's just say most of Africa is beyond hope.  I have a feeling Mother Nature will take care of a lot of that problem.

When it comes down to it...  natural disasters like tsunamis and famines often kill far more people than even war can.

First let me say that conflict in general, is the nature of the beast. Death is the cost of being alive. Life is the struggle to be the ultimate consumer in a dying universe. Sometimes we edge closer by allying ourselves with others, sometimes against others. Evolution is using these limited resources to constantly push and prod us against each other, in order to hammer out the ultimate being.

Saying that, there are different types of conflict with varying levels of relative justification. Causes for war can range from opportunistic,defensive, staged, idealistic, etc. I heard once an acedamic proclaiming that war was a modern luxury. But is that really so? I see war whenever two cats fight over territory, two guys fight over a women, or when a fisherman takes the life of fish and consumes it later. 

I've wonder how many people would be willing to abide by the outcomes, especially if it affected the lives of their loved ones? 



Our need for conflict has to be fought within ourselves instead of being encouraged and glorified since birth.Nature is a tricky word, we fight it constantly and only accept it when it's convenient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWRyMCxRs8

I think the only reason why things turned out as they did was that the Republicans fought Clinton most of the way in the buildup to the second Iraq war.  I'm guessing they wanted it to be Bush's glory, and boy was it ever...  lol...   It kind of backfired on them in the end.


Clinton largely wanted "bloodless wars".  He was not against making attacks against others, he simply did not want to dedicate troops on the ground after "Blackhawk Down".

It's ironic, in that one of his first acts was to destroy the molds for making cruise missiles, because he thought holding them was a waste of money.  Then by the end of his term he had to refabricate them because he had depleted the inventory.


Of course, it didn't help that a lot of Europe was engaged in the Oil for Food Scandal.

For example, France didn't want us to invade because Saddam owed them a lot of money and France made a lot of money from the scandal.  So, while I also was against the war, I can't say most of the opposition was present over moral concerns.

Plenty of money is made by exploiting oppression -- possibly more than what's made from war.


That is something a lot of people tend to forget.  Both Russis and France were neck deep in that scandal.  And they lost billions when the invasion happened and the embargo was lifted.  They literally made billions of Euros on the suffering and death of the Iraqi people.


Iraq was just a strange situation.  I like to compare it to Vlad Tepes's rule of Eastern Europe.  He was especially brutal to maintain control over various ethnic groups in conflict.  Saddam was the same way, and sadly, totalitarianism is often the only way to maintain order in a multi-ethnic state.


The US is probably the most multi-ethnic nation in the world.  And we do not resort to that kind of tactic.  Of course, we do not try to suppress our minorities, and kill or inprison those that go against the "status quo".  And those that fight the system violently are treated as the criminals they are.

Iraq was a case of a minority trying to hold power through force.  And the more they fought those not in power, the more embittered they have made them.


When it comes down to it...  natural disasters like tsunamis and famines often kill far more people than even war can.


They do all the time.  More people die in traffic accidents then through war.  The death rate in Los Angeles from murder is higher then that in Baghdad.  And the death rate in Iraq actually lower then that of a lot of European nations (like Italy and Germany).

But those kind of statistics don't sell books or newspapers.


it's true the people getting occupied are typically happy to have the occupiers driven out, like in bosnia and kuwait. iraq seems to be the first recent instance where that's not true. well, the somalis don't seem to have really become ecstatically pro-west, either.


In Iraq, the citizens are happy that Saddam is gone.  The all want their country stable and the US out.  But the problems are comming from other foreigners, like Iran, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, etc.  Less then 10% of resistance fighters are Iraqi.  In the last report I read, something like 45% are from Iran alone.  3-5% are actually from Europe.

In Somalia it was more a case of getting caught in the middle of fighting warlords.  The citizens supported the UN mission, but the warlords did not because it deprived them of one of their favorite weapons: starving to death any groups they did not like.

For me personally, it is not my safety that concerns me.  Especially in the current war that America is fighting.  I have a friend that was killed in Iraq, and to this day, I have no idea what he died for.  He didn't die for MY freedom.  No matter what Bush, or his administration, or any of this war's supporters say, there isn't one Iraqi out there that is threatening MY freedom.  There just isn't.  As far as I'm concerned, my friend died for nothing. 


I have lost friends over there also.  I lost 3 good friends in Gulf War 1.  I have lost at least 4 that I know of in the last 9 years.  One of them on my birthday in 2006.

But we all join the military knowing the risks and dangers.  Everybody in uniform today has joined (or re-enlisted) since the current fighting has started.  Nobody in the service today can claim "they did not know what they were getting into".

You may have no idea why your friend fought or was killed.  But they probably did.  We join and fight for various reasons.  To uphold family traditions, right of passage, to prove something to themselves or others, education benefits, training, to get out of a bad situation, employment, pride of service/country, belief in a cause, standing behind friends/family.  The reasons are many.

You may feel your friend died for nothing.  And that is your right.  But maybe he died for something he believed in.

I joined for many reasons, part of which my own personal belief that this fight is right.  And nobody has the right to tell me that I am wrong in my belief.  Feel free to disagree, but you do not have the right to tell me how to believe.

And all but 2 members of my family stand behind me in my choices.  They all worry for me, and that is fine.

And ironically, the only 2 that disagree happen to be the "black sheep" liberals (my paternal aunt and uncle).  And I am the only member of the family that either of them has contact with.  Go figure that out.  8)

Iraq was a case of a minority trying to hold power through force.  And the more they fought those not in power, the more embittered they have made them.

True, but the principle holds true.  If you look throughout history, most multi-ethnic nations have been run through force, with one group typically being on top of all the others.  Sometimes, this is the majority ethnic group, but in cases like Iraq, it involved a minority.

Even America began this way when looking at our relations with Native Americans and the African slaves.  Racial equality is a pretty recent concept relatively speaking.

i think you might be surprised at the extent to which this is not true. occaisonally foreign governments might expect american intervention, but this is for reasons just as cynical as the US government's real reasons for entering/starting the wars; foreign populations clamor for or value US intervention much more rarely.

for instance, i don't remember a big demand for US intervention in afghanistan, and in iraq, of course, we actually saw the biggest antiwar protests in history before bush decided to attack there.


I've heard some talk from Bill Clinton about Iraq and Afghanistan, but they never got their feet wet. But as for Bush, he nearly drowned himself with it!

Even the European 2nd world war was the result of our intervening in just another one of a series of aristrocratic meatgrinders that was the 1st WW. Most likely both sides during the 1st would've finally given up and called a truce. Instead a crushing peace was installed on Germany which allowed for the rise of the Nazi's.


Actually, the US entry into World War I was a non-issue.  The war was already winding down by the time we got involved.  Austria-Hungary was breaking up, the Ottoman Empire was floundering, Russia was having a revolution, France was having mutinies in it's army, and finally there was a revolution in Germany.

World War I did not end because of a military victory.  No allied soldier ever set foot on German soil.  The war pretty much disolved because the countries were having their own internal issues.  And with the breakup of Austria-Hungary, the main cause of the war was a country that no longer existed.

The US did not even need to get involved in Europe in World War II.  On 7 December 1941 a declaration of war was only asked for against Japan.  Germany and Italy took it upon themselves to declare war against the US.  If they had not done this, the US would simply have left them alone, concentrating all of it's might against Japan.

In fact, in a novel written in 1995 called 1945, the authors used a fictional plane crash to prevent Hitler from declairing war.  The US made short work of Japan, but without the US intervention, most of Europe (including the Soviet Union) fell to Germany.

Germany was basically given the "bad end of the stick" at the end was because they were basically the only country left.  Austria-Hungary was broken up and in shambles.  Turkey was in outright revolt.  Germany had already had it's revolution, and had declaired a Republic.  The Allied powers simply wanted to make sure that Germany was never again a military threat.

And right or wrong, such treaties were standard up until that time.  Most "Peace Treaties" before and since had such sanctions against the loosing party.  And all were expected to eventually be broken.  The hope was simply that by the time that happened, the winning side would have built up enough forces to counter the renewed enemy.

"But more broadly speaking, the human race as a species just seems to be deficient to me."

Bingo!

To make your post more depressing, you could have gone so far as to say that humans are an evolutionary mistake, or, for the creationists, a lab project that accientally got loose and is now destroying the world.

Humans are predators, omnivores, and with a lot of brain power compared to the next smartest animal on the planet. I'm sure if, say, tigers were as intelligent as us, they'd be using machine guns and landmines to take out gazelle instead of all that pesky running and biting them in the neck til they suffocate thing. They'd make their surroundings more comfortable, make life easier, which works for a while, until they depleted all of their resources and were too fat and lazy to do anything about it. That's kinda where we're at right now.

Humans have no natural predators, and we keep inventing new ways to circumvent the checks and balances that keep other species in a relative balance. We also keep inventing new ways to kill each other instead of living together.

That said, few of us as a species are that way. But, with nearly 7 billion people on this planet, even a 1% worthless douchbag rate means that there are 70,000,000 people on this planet who should be eaten by the other 99%... or put into a huge coliseum where they can kill each other all they like, while the rest of us watch and then live in relative peace.

Ant

Instead a crushing peace was installed on Germany which allowed for the rise of the Nazi's.


BTW, an even more "crushing defeat" was enacted on Japan after WWII.

Sure Germany lost most of their armed forces and had to pay reperations after WWI.

After WWII, Japan had both of those, and more...

-  Occupation Government for 7 years (1945-1952).
-  Occupation of a prefecture (state) until 1972.
-  The sale of a prefecture back to Japan for $320 million.

Germany never paid more then lip service to the Treay of Paris.  And every chance they took, they broke it.  Japan on the other hand developed a strong belief in peace, and even though they have been offered lifting of most restrictions, they still want them in place.

The difference is that Germany did not turn away from conquest.  Their loss in WWI only strengthened the national resolve to win the next war.  Japan on the other hand saw the devistation, and swore that they would never again be involved in such a war.

Somebody sent this to me today.  And it truely says what all of this is often about.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/images/2009/02/01/gratitude.jpg

Somebody sent this to me today.  And it truely says what all of this is often about.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/images/2009/02/01/gratitude.jpg


Spit on 'em and call 'em baby killers, then head over to the free love commune for a hashish brownie!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/elkgrin.gif

I made a post on another message board a few months ago, and thought I would post it here, since it relates to the topic.




War is horrible. It is also one of the most beautiful things done by man.

It can be the opression and death of millions of people in the mad grab for power. It can also be the jubilation of a people being set free after years (decades, centuries) of domination and oppression.

It can be hundreds of tanks rolling across a plain in Europe. It can be a wing of fighters closing in on an island in the Western Pacific. It can also be one man in South-West asia, crying with fear as he over-rides all instinct and rushes across a "no man's land" of shattered buildings to bandage a friend's arm.

And the effect on people is just as changing. One man war will destroy, turning him into a wasted figure even though he was never wounded. Drugs, inability to hold down work, he will die ignoble in a gutter.

But yet another will rise and go on to greatness. For in few other things can a person's true leadership be seen. Congressman, Senator, President. Parlaiment and Diet. Prime Minister and Premier.

Do not think that war is always a horrible thing. Or can anybody look back at slavery and tell me the American Civil War was not just. Or the horrible slaughter in Nanking and Poland, and say that World War II was wrongly fought.

I made a post on another message board a few months ago, and thought I would post it here, since it relates to the topic.




War is horrible. It is also one of the most beautiful things done by man.

It can be the opression and death of millions of people in the mad grab for power. It can also be the jubilation of a people being set free after years (decades, centuries) of domination and oppression.

It can be hundreds of tanks rolling across a plain in Europe. It can be a wing of fighters closing in on an island in the Western Pacific. It can also be one man in South-West asia, crying with fear as he over-rides all instinct and rushes across a "no man's land" of shattered buildings to bandage a friend's arm.

And the effect on people is just as changing. One man war will destroy, turning him into a wasted figure even though he was never wounded. Drugs, inability to hold down work, he will die ignoble in a gutter.

But yet another will rise and go on to greatness. For in few other things can a person's true leadership be seen. Congressman, Senator, President. Parlaiment and Diet. Prime Minister and Premier.

Do not think that war is always a horrible thing. Or can anybody look back at slavery and tell me the American Civil War was not just. Or the horrible slaughter in Nanking and Poland, and say that World War II was wrongly fought.
i.e., it can be Them. Then, it's horrible.

Or, it can be Us. Then, it's beautiful.

Of course, that's what most everyone in every nation thinks of their wars.

i.e., it can be Them. Then, it's horrible.

Or, it can be Us. Then, it's beautiful.

Of course, that's what most everyone in every nation thinks of their wars.



As Ben Franklin said in the movie 1776: A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.   Haven't been able to confirm whether he actually said it or not-but it still is a good quote.  :D ;D ;D ;D




Cat

I dont imagine I’ve made much of a secret that I disdain war as a practice and an institution ... “war is hell” ...


.....War stains the soul and the ice of this species; ......

... and the Earth is better off without us.

There. Amazingly depressing and rabidly misanthropic rant over.



I agree with Tia's statements above ::)

Amazing polar bear, I think he also agrees.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=110126&u=30981

The USS Connecticut (SSN 22)  was faced by a polar pacifist  up on the icefield
April 2003