Why I'm Against War

[Otokogoroshi]

I tend to sleep at odd hours so today (er yesterday... Sunday... blarg!) I crawled into bed at about ten in the morning. A few hours later I was jolted awake when my Dad came into my room. He really respects my space so its rare for him to do anything but poke his head in the door after a good knocking to make sure he wont step in on any surprises.

He sat down and was crying... He'd seen something on Fox News about a Navy Seal who had saved the lives of other service men by jumping on a grenade. You see he served in the Vietnam war and clearly suffers from PTSD. I think he'd been drinking too...

But he talked a little bit about why he was upset. He spoke about how he'd killed people and did so with passion and how they hated him and wanted him dead. Clearly he did what he had to do to live but that doesn't mean its easy to deal with.

The thing that enrages me about Bush and his casual willingness to send young people off to war is what's going to happen to these people mentally and physically. The fucker never went to war himself but he's willing to destroy these people mentally and physically... for what? It just... is so upsetting. These people have lives, families, friends, children and their very futures are tainted by what happens to them in war.

How can people be so... casual. So unconcerned with the suffering of other people... Just because you survive doesn't mean you come home whole.



So... any thoughts on war?

 

[Homunclus]

If the people who declare war, were the same people who were on the front lines of battle, we would have achived world peace generations ago

 

[PuppetXeno]

Maybe you're familiar with Bob Dylans Masters of War, it really sums up your sentiments.

I feel roughly the same way.

(ok so it has religious reference in it but hey)

Come you masters of war
You that build the big guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch
While the death count gets higher
Then you hide in your mansion
While the young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes it's toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

 

[Neffi]

War certainly is a terrible thing. Lots of otherwise innocent lives get lost because they were either convinced to serve their country or drafted and forced to do so. It's sad. But human nature favors out-group hostility and territorial behavior. Compounded by modern economical issues, you just can't expect the modern world to get along without military defenses and the occasional need to fight. It's just how we are as a species. And how we'll continue to be for probably thousands of years. Passive protest by refusing to build a worthy military will either prevent you from becoming very powerful in the first place, or will ensure that if you do you're taken down quickly.

We can hope for two very promising things though: better conscious control of these hostile behaviors that progresses with the generations in most modern countries, and technological advancements that replace the living soldier with the robotic one.

The thing that enrages me about Bush

Everything. But he's gone now. Better not to dwell on past mistakes.

 

[Zylstra]

If the people who declare war, were the same people who were on the front lines of battle, we would have achived world peace generations ago

I cite Hitler as one example of how you're wrong

 

[Homunclus]

I cite Hitler as one example of how you're wrong

Hitler wasn't responsable for starting the first world war, but he fought on it. Then he started the second world war (not by himself of course) and never fought on it.

The whole point is that it's easy to suport a war if you are not gonna fight in it. Then again, I'm sure some people would manage it though...

 

[digitalbuddha48]

My opinion about war has changed very much over the years, taking into account my family history and my dad who has an uncanny ability to challenge what I say even if he agrees with me. Here are several views of war that I have come across:

1) Don't do it, it's never right!
2) Meh...ok
3) Who cares if we're wrong, it's the principle of the thing
4) I'll do it, but only to protect what I love.

The first view is very humanitarian and compassionate, but ignorant (sorry I don't want to offend anyone but this is what I believe). The next group are people who detest meaningless war, but are quick to jump on the bandwagon if a gram of interest is sparked. Next, is my personal favorite: let's blow shit up because we can. These people have no sense of goodwill, empathy, or any sense of a moral code; they do it because they like it (long live nazism). But finally is the group I consider myself.

Let me be clear when I say, I do not support war, but I do realize that it is an aspect of social interactions that can't be avoided. Let me give you an example. Let's say, the Vatican (sorry, but I had to even if it is quite outlandish) got so powerful that it established itself as the leading superpower in the world and that they had known intentions of either converting or killing the rest of the world. They then launched said campaign and began invading other countries. Would I fight to protect my country, my way of living, and my loved ones? Of course, I would.

The point I am trying to make is that war is a waste of time, energy, and lives but if someone directly threatens my way of living there is no alternative other than fighting back. Ghandi pointed out that this is not true, and that unconditional love can combat anything, but I disagree.

Something that I think everyone needs to understand is that yes love is very important as well as compassion, empathy, and all that good stuff, but also that we humans are animals. Some of us do not have common sense or rationality or a moral code and will do whatever it takes to impose their will on other people. It is for this reason I have not discarded war as something always detestable.

 

[Homunclus]

1) Don't do it, it's never right!
2) Meh...ok
3) Who cares if we're wrong, it's the principle of the thing
4) I'll do it, but only to protect what I love.

The problem with 4's of course is that they tend to easely be dissuated by 3's. The fact of the matter is that all wars are filled with 4's all fighting against each other.

In the example you mentioned I'm sure the vatican's troops would feel in a very similiar way as you do, in their minds you would be evil and they were actually fighting you to help you...in the end they too fight "to protect their country, their way of living, and their loved ones".

Not that I'm necessarely saying that you fighting is the wrong choice there...but I most definatly don't think that is "right". In the end no situation is limited to two choices, there are always other ways

 

[digitalbuddha48]

Well I see your point that there can always be a better choice, but I was trying to create a scenario where if you don't fight back you will either convert or die.

 

[WolfAU]

I'd like to preface this by saying several of my family have served (WWI and WW2 mainly) and have had a few career soldiers (including some of historical noteriety). I also intended to join the Australian Reserve when I was young. However my opinions have changed alot since then. I am I suppose what society would deam quite a 'brave' person, I am a good shot, quite a capable leader and would be prepared to die defending my country... however the likelihood of that being what I would be doing in the Reserve these days is really non-existant, I would instead be being put in harms way to achieve some political or economic goal, little else.

I agree strongly with the above statement about leaders who declared war served on the front lines... and feel there should be some kind of political 'sacrifice' made by people who do declare war (ie they may have to resign or give up certain powers, give up a large proportion of their financial assets and recieve no form of compensation, or their children were forced to serve etc).

Edit: To expand on the above idea, a leader who declares war, him and his family live in lower class housing, eating very standard lower/middle class food and give up alot of their luxuries. This continues for as long as there are troops deployed as a result of the conflict. If the war was truly justified they would do it... someone like Churchill would've I suspect as England at that point really had no alternative.

War achieves little that could not be achieved by diplomacy if all parties desired to reach a settlement (ie the above idea that resorting to military action would harm them personally). Military costs us so much in resources (arms buildup, arms races, war, having a large standing army during peace time), look at some of the costs of military hardware and munitions, the cost in missiles and bombs dropped in Iraq is insane. The of course you have the loss of life (not just from combat, but from acidents, disease, malnutrition, fatigue, exposure, friendly fire, suicide etc) and the severe physical and emotional damage done to those who survive.

And thats just for the victors, for the losing nation you have mass civilian casualties, war atrocities like rape, torture and murder of civilians by soldiers, looting, destruction of key infastructure. Then there are the political issues for both countries (ie usually the victor manipulates the other countries government to suit their agenda). Plus to have the issue of power vacuums, civil war, insurgency etc.

And thats just modern war, ancient war use to be alot worse, with it being not unheard of to just exterminate a populous if you captured their land or kill some and take the rest as slaves.

With this in mind war serves no real benefit to a society, except when war is inevitable (which is almost never, and again, if people who declared war were punished it would be even less common) or when the alternative to war is some great harm that cannot be solved through diplomacy (again, almost never).

The problem is most wars are about pre-emptive regime change in other countries (ie Communism is BAD!), controlling resources, displaying your military power and expanding a Nations borders, which sadly almost no modern country has their original borders (ie Australia was 'invaded', as was America, England, alot of Europe, Greece etc). Also for power groups there is the issue of their personal gain (ie trade, things like sweatshop labour in developing countries).

While 'conflict' in its loosest sense between nations is inevitable, and some will argue there are merits to war in the form of giving soldiers a chance to display heroism and earn glory and whatnot (which is simply because our fucked up societies claim government sanctioned killing is glorious and being blown to pieces on a battlefield is more heroic than dying of natural causes), all in all it is one of the greatest handicaps to human civilization and human progress.

Edit: I also want to bring up the issue of entitlement and a feeling of superiority, both play a role in causing wars, most notably in the form of religion, who the faithful believe themselves to be protected by God, and their cause as being sanctioned by God. Obviously this causes a breakdown of the logic behind a decision to go to war (the most important questions of which are 'is this just' and 'what are the risks').

 

[Espi]

I've sometimes wondered what would happen if I a so-called first world nation simply scrapped its army. Seriously, would all the neighbours be like. "... Let's invade them!"?

What would they do?

Would they roll in with tanks and make demands? What if no one paid attention to them? Would they start dragging off and/or killing the leaders who are minding their own business? Would the soldiers want to follow orders? With the leaders gone, what would they do to make the civilians follow them? Would they just kill or drag everyone off to camps or what?

Well, basically, could something like this be carried away by people who are just following orders in the modern world? They would know that they'd be attacking people who chose to drop their military.

 

[WolfAU]

Like everything in politics, it comes down to 'what are we risking by acting, what do we stand to gain from acting, or what do we risk by not acting'.

Obviously having no standing army would mean that there is a good chance of the invasion being quick and smooth militarily... however there is the possibility of allied nations sending their armies, and friendly nations responding diplomatically (ie trade embargo's). Also what is the nations non-conventional assets and strengths... ie if a nation had no real army to speak of but 200 ICBM nukes, I think they'd think twice before invading or in the case of China, the ability to completely destroy America's economy (here). There are also issues of insurgency and the issue that now in many countries eyes they would be an untrustworthy nation for invading without cause a nation simply for land and resources. There is also the aspect that thankfully, with democracy the political remifications of invasion are alot more serious than they were during say, the dark ages, where constant warring and mistrust were even more frequent.

Also a standing army is seen as useful for controlling certain civil issues (ie evacuations and responses to natural disasters) as well as general political 'oomph', ie they are taken more seriously in discussions because if you piss them off they may invade.

We can also use history as an example of what happens to those both without strong armies and without friends with strong armies, 90% of the time it ends very bad for them (extermination, enslavement or some mixture of the two). Though there are examples of it ending peacefully, though the one example I am thinking of, the expedition was given specific orders to make nice with the locals.

Also it was common practice in medieval times for countries to have no real standing army, and rely on Mercenary armies if attacked... the obvious benefit is its cheaper during peace time, the downside is you lose alot of political respect, you become a target and mercenary armies are notoriously unreliable.

Don't forget there are plenty of countries out there without any real defense forces to speak of (example Iceland).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#No_defence_forces

My political stance is give a group like the UN a considerable military, make clear regulations on when and how it can be used, and have a general disarmament of nations, with them being unable to spend say... more than 5% of their budget on defence, America currently spends around 21% (613billion of a 2.979 trillion dollar budget in 2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States