War and peace

[Blades of Passion]

Yes, you must see Redacted. Everyone must. Very difficult to stomach (and if you're a conservative I'm sure you'll hate it, since every conservative seems to think "supporting the troops" is some kind of infallible loophole in the argument about why war is valid) but it's the best film ever made about 9/11 and the resulting war.

 

[seniorita]

There is no war excused, it is always the invaders and the ones who defend their life in their own country. Any other explicity why a war is done, is a joke, we all know why is done. It is beyond me if anyone thinks he will go to another country to "help" a nation ..with Bombs. But I always wonder if people had a choice not to go to Iraq, if they look at it a s a job. That movie was a punch in the stomach for me. It is things you know that they happen, but you dont wanna know about them.

 

[Nadine]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

 

[prettykeys]

^ Completely agree with you, Nadine.

Of course, we should always worry that the good men don't become the bad in the process of trying to do good. Yet, as far as the principle of involvement goes, I am with you on that one.

 

[Olympia]

Yes, this is the problem, prettykeys. Must the shepherd become like the wolf to protect the sheep? Or is there another way? Does the end ever justify the means? If there were an easy answer to that, we would be in better shape in the world.

 

[seniorita]

Of course, we should always worry that the good men don't become the bad in the process of trying to do good.

Depends what we can define as good. Good for oil companies, arm industry, air industry, chemical factories? Cause for the simple people a war can't be good. People, animals, nature that didnt ask for this war die in the process of the good. And it is not necessary for the good of humanity to rape, torture or kill even when the good war is over, right?

 

[janetfan]

Depends what we can define as good. Good for oil companies, arm industry, air industry, chemical factories? Cause for the simple people a war can't be good. People, animals, nature that didnt ask for this war die in the process of the good. And it is not necessary for the good of humanity to rape, torture or kill even when the good war is over, right?

"Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men."

The source of that quote might be surprising.

He also said:

“Live for something rather than die for nothing.”

 

[Tonichelle]

Depends what we can define as good. Good for oil companies, arm industry, air industry, chemical factories? Cause for the simple people a war can't be good. People, animals, nature that didnt ask for this war die in the process of the good. And it is not necessary for the good of humanity to rape, torture or kill even when the good war is over, right?

sometimes it's needed though... Civil Wars happen for a reason... be it revolutions... or civil unrest... etc.

Is it pretty? no, it's downright ugly. Sometimes it's the last ditch solution when those 'in power and influence' can't seem to get their act together.

Does that mean every war in history was right or just, no, but it's not fair to villify the soldiers by calling them evil and murderers. The Military is a defensive measure as much as an offensive one, if not more so. We may not send them off TO war, but what happens if the tables turned and we get bombarded by another military system, we better have guys in place.

 

[seniorita]

So a war must be done for precaution, just to make sure it wont happen to us later? I just think certain wars are not needed. I come from a country with a tone of wars since ever, there is a difference between geographical, political, social reasons to involve in a war etc. And certainly a revolution. I think long ago it is obvious why wars are done now and for that cause I just happen to think people are lost in vain, plus to any enviroment and social impacts of these wars .

I certainly didnt say anyone murder or evil thats why, if you see few messages back I asked if people actually have a choice not to parcipate in it , if they get the bigger picture of what they fight for, maybe they would be surprised it is not national pride or any good. Some people it seems that under the idea to fight for the country lose their humanity. When people bomb they bomb schools and hospitals in the excuse of defence. Do the high class military people get killed or the politicians during these wars? Or BP manager? No. They sit in their offices and send 20 year old people to kill 20 year old other people, making them believe they will die for a good cause. I concider each life unique, so I dont like either a soldier is killed neither a child being there is killed for that a certain part of people to get even more rich or promiment in society.

Actually the whole thing and even the part about killing raping or torturing came directly from the movie BoP mentioned and this is the image I was commenting about.

 

[Mathman]

The source of that quote might be surprising.

Things I learned by looking that one up.

More quotes from General George ('Old Blood and Guts') Patton:

"Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle."

"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."

"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war." (This was before the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, the War in Iraq, etc.)

"Battle is an orgy of disorder."

"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge."

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

I also learned that Patton was an Olympian, competing in the pentathlon in 1912. He caused a judging controversy in the pistol shooting stage. He used a larger caliber pistol than the other competitors, and when the judges said he missed the target completely, he protested that his bullets made such big holes in the paper targets that his later shots went straight through the old holes and were counted as misses.

But to support Seniorita's point about who benefits from a war... General Patton won prominence in World War II by leading the allied troops in the North African campaign. Since neither Germany nor Japan is located in North Africa, we might wonder why there was a "North African campaign" in the first place.

Answer: What British Prime Minister Winston Churchill mostly wanted out of the war was to maintain Britain's status as a great power by making sure that they still controlled the oil in the middle east after the war was over. What U.S. President Roosevelt mostly wanted was U.S. domination of the Pacific. What they both wanted was to make sure that the war on the eastern front continued long enough that Russia would not be able to emerge as a threat to the west afterward.

They partially got their wish. The U.S. got the Pacific, England got the middle eastern oil, and Britain remained a great power. Unfortunately for the Brits, the hydrogen bomb came along, Russia (along with the U.S. ) became a super-power, and the merely great powers were left in the dust.

(Well, that's one way to look at world history anyway. )

 

[prettykeys]

Depends what we can define as good. Good for oil companies, arm industry, air industry, chemical factories? Cause for the simple people a war can't be good. People, animals, nature that didnt ask for this war die in the process of the good. And it is not necessary for the good of humanity to rape, torture or kill even when the good war is over, right?

I am speaking about ethical concepts of good. Take your pick of Aristotelian "good", Kantian "good", utilitarian "good", Catholic "good", or whatever else.

From the perspective of someone whose family's survival and national preservation depended greatly upon the U.S.'s (and other countries') intervention during the Korean war, it is difficult for me to not get emotional and angry when I hear general arguments for pacifism. I am not defending every intervention and interference that the U.S. government has gotten involved in, but I am adamant that their participation in the Korean War was unequivocally good for South Koreans, even if they went in there for other reasons than just to save the South Koreans.

Yes, this is the problem, prettykeys. Must the shepherd become like the wolf to protect the sheep? Or is there another way? Does the end ever justify the means? If there were an easy answer to that, we would be in better shape in the world.

...or would we?

In the real world, we can't build fences to keep the wolves out.

In the real world, sometimes the sheep become wolves.

Perhaps the shepherd could pacify the wolves by throwing them meat...but doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Maybe that's why in the real world, shepherds don't sit down to have a chat with wolves and negotiate.

Most farmers shoot predators that attack their flocks/herds. As a matter of fact, a farmer would be an idiot to plant crops and raise livestock without some means of "warring" with pest insects, weeds, wild animals. There are usually casualties in one form or another.

Maybe we shouldn't give policemen guns and tasers. Let them take the "moral high ground" and engage with armed criminals in a "civilized" way.

Are those idealist pacifists kidding me? Be thankful your country wasn't repeatedly harassed, attacked and taken over by its neighbours. I for one am forever grateful to those "redneck war-loving Amurikan bullies" who prevented the whole Korean peninsula from being engulfed by the aggressor Communist North, backed by Communist China and USSR. I'm sure there was at least one innocent Korean civilian that was killed by friendly fire, but there are very few South Koreans who would argue today that they wish foreign nations hadn't intervened. Please tell me, seniorita, which American oil companies, arms industries, air industries and chemical factories benefited from the horrible suffering of the Korean people due to American intervention that ethically-speaking, they should have kept out.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Does that mean every war in history was right or just, no, but it's not fair to villify the soldiers by calling them evil and murderers.

Soldiers do commit crimes, though, and kill unnecessarily (or worse). They aren't all valiant heroes giving their lives for their country. In fact, I'd argue most soldiers aren't. I don't think people who want to be in the military are inherently more evil or anything, but I do believe most of them are there because it excites them and/or because they had no better options in life. Which is why the notion of "supporting the troops" gets very annoying - they are there by choice and just because that was their calling it doesn't put them on some kind of pedestal. American culture dictates that it's automatically an act of "bravery" which should be commended. I find that to be a barbaric ideal; bravery and respect should be earned. Wanting to join an organization where you are expected to kill other people is absolutely not an inherent mark of bravery, even if it is possibly in defense of the greater good.

Moreover, the validity of the war itself must be considered. I of course find 9/11 to be tragic but, when it happened, I always thought of it as something that was inevitable given the way America has treated other countries. The American persona is full of bullying and brutality. 9/11 happened because of how America has treated other countries - it was an act of retribution. The problem, of course, is that violence creates more violence. America was subjected to the malice it originated and therefore it creates an excuse for further acts of brutality. Given that America was not at ALL under threat of invasion, "supporting the troops" just for the sake of it makes even less sense to me. I don't support hate-mongering wars that are peddled by the most idiotic U.S. President of all time.

Which is part of why Redacted is a masterpiece (you can even watch it online; not the greatest quality, but still - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5734551070026840153&hl=en&emb=1#). No other film has examined the truth of the American persona and military in relation to the 9/11 war as well as this one has. The techniques employed in the film are masterful, although the manner in which all kinds of different media are used has caused many people to misjudge it (along with the acting style). That play on perception via using all kinds of different media is part of the point and it also showcases how we, the citizens who are denied information by the government, are able to digest the war in these modern times as it happens. One of the most striking statements has to be what happens at the end, though, and it won't spoil the film for me to talk about it:

An American solider comes home and is given a party by his friends. They ask him, "tell us a war story." He tells them about how he watched people get murdered, slaughtered really, and he starts crying. They respond with "you're a war hero! Hip hip, hurray!" It doesn't matter that he killed people who were mostly innocent, and that he himself feels guilty, it only matters that he displayed such amazing "bravery" and "masculinity" and "defended" his country. As the previous scene states (via Youtube video of all things), in one of most anger-inciting moments of film I have ever experienced:

"They think an American life is worth SO MUCH MORE than a Vietnamese, a Palestinian, a Lebanese, or an Iraqi life. Because, we, are the UBER-RACE. Sig Heil mother-****er."

I don't think any film has ever made me angrier than Redacted. Angry and moved to tears over how deeply it understands and feels the atrocity and cyclical misfortune of the situation.

 

[goldenpleasures]

entire post

Well said indeed.

 

[seniorita]

Please tell me, seniorita, which American oil companies, arms industries, air industries and chemical factories benefited from the horrible suffering of the Korean people due to American intervention that ethically-speaking, they should have kept out.

Please dont attack. I dont know much about the Korean War history, i really cant answer your question. But I read the casualties in wiki. But allow me to say this is kind of populist question, it simplifies what i wanted to say, a war in these days happen because of geographical, natural resources, economical and dominance application reasons, the end of any war is a goldmine for any country involved afterwards. Lets see, do we have a downfall in contruction industry? lets make a war and build from the ashes a whole country. It will feed us for decades. Really the benefits of a war for a third part country is endless. But maybe you can convince me about it that a third country uses its citizens, a tone of arms and billions money spent and involves for nothing but humanitarian cause in another country's inside civil war on the other side of the planet. Actually i dont wanna name countries, it is not only usa involved, i m speaking of any big force, european, usa or worldwide.

Are those idealist pacifists kidding me? Be thankful your country wasn't repeatedly harassed, attacked and taken over by its neighbours.

General comments of pacifism? You know where I come from right? Actually maybe because of that I estimate it differently, the side effects of a country in constant wars and captivation are visible in my generation too and it results in growing up people fed to have racist feelings against any neighbor and the inside fear that without "interference" and third party help a war might happen. As here and in Cyprus and Turqey. The fear controls a whole society, and hate helps that in the meantime there are army bases all over here because from here and Turkey Iraq is closer for supplies. Just an example because i really don't want to name countries and I dont have these ideas because of my nation, I thought it was common knowledge why a war begins in any part of earth now.

 

[janetfan]

Things I learned by looking that one up.

More quotes from General George ('Old Blood and Guts') Patton:

"Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle."

"Battle is an orgy of disorder."

"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge."

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

He also wrote this:

"War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula"


He was a religious man who could still say this:

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.”


He also wrote poetry and his belief in reincarnation is reflected in these words:

Through the travail of the ages,
Midst the pomp and toil of war,
Have I fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon this star

So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

So forever in the future,
Shall I battle as of yore,
Dying to be born a fighter,
But to die again, once more.


From a speech to his troops on the eve of battle:

"As I walk through the valley of death I fear no one, for I am the meanest mother ****** in the valley."

 

[prettykeys]

Soldiers do commit crimes, though, and kill unnecessarily (or worse). They aren't all valiant heroes giving their lives for their country. In fact, I'd argue most soldiers aren't. I don't think people who want to be in the military are inherently more evil or anything, but I do believe most of them are there because it excites them and/or because they had no better options in life. Which is why the notion of "supporting the troops" gets very annoying - they are there by choice and just because that was their calling it doesn't put them on some kind of pedestal. American culture dictates that it's automatically an act of "bravery" which should be commended. I find that to be a barbaric ideal; bravery and respect should be earned. Wanting to join an organization where you are expected to kill other people is absolutely not an inherent mark of bravery, even if it is possibly in defense of the greater good.

It seems both you and Tonichelle are arguing against making blanket statements "Soldiers are evil"/"Soldiers are heroes"...I agree with you both about that. And yes, while the military can be considered a defensive necessity, there are many people who glorify it without seemingly realizing the tragic realities of war. Still, I don't agree with your quote that I bolded. It's not just that soldiers are possibly expected to kill (sometimes for a contentious concept of "the greater good")--but that they are also at risk of being killed. A soldier who puts himself out there, for a good cause, is brave to me, whether they are a remarkable soldier or not.

Furthermore, are you not American? I'd say warmongering is one aspect of American culture, but American culture incorporates many other rational ideals as well; there are many sensitive, reflective, learned and intelligent Americans. If you consider yourself to be sensitive, reflective, learned and intelligent, does that somehow make you not American? Or not a product of "American culture"? I would beg to differ...

Moreover, the validity of the war itself must be considered. I of course find 9/11 to be tragic but, when it happened, I always thought of it as something that was inevitable given the way America has treated other countries [...] I don't support hate-mongering wars that are peddled by the most idiotic U.S. President of all time.

I agree.

An American solider comes home and is given a party by his friends. They ask him, "tell us a war story." He tells them about how he watched people get murdered, slaughtered really, and he starts crying. They respond with "you're a war hero! Hip hip, hurray!" It doesn't matter that he killed people who were mostly innocent, and that he himself feels guilty, it only matters that he displayed such amazing "bravery" and "masculinity" and "defended" his country. As the previous scene states (via Youtube video of all things), in one of most anger-inciting moments of film I have ever experienced:

"They think an American life is worth SO MUCH MORE than a Vietnamese, a Palestinian, a Lebanese, or an Iraqi life. Because, we, are the UBER-RACE. Sig Heil mother-****er."

Ew. This movie does not appeal to me. A little too Michael Moore. Plus, aren't they forgetting that "Americans" are a very mixed society/culture? There are Vietnamese, Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi Americans, I am almost sure of it.

Please dont attack. I dont know much about the Korean War history, i really cant answer your question.

That speaks for itself, then. And likewise, please don't attack (the Americans.)

General comments of pacifism? You know where I come from right?

No, but I have a strong suspicion that you are extrapolating from a specific case and making a generalized/blanket statement about how war is forever evil and full of bad intentions.

 

[chloepoco]

Blades of Passion, I only hope you are not an American.

 

[seniorita]

Well I happened to come from a country with back to back wars, inside wars, international wars, a dictatorship and 400 years of captivation by another country. Because you accuse someone of general pacific ideas. Well if you quote one sentence out of a whole post, that doesnt make it an argument. So I have one situation in my mind and make blanket arguments, but you dont take a specific case and generalise? so you can mention like 10 good wars because I couldnt know the history of korean war neither the circumstances it happened?

I dont attack the americans. That was childish comment. And flat thinking. I dont think USa soldiers are evil and X soldiers angels. And certainly I did not accuse citizen people, americans or not. I can blame political strategies but not people. You can read again my messages. I said war and the idea of fighting for an idea makes people unhuman. Maybe you choose to read what suits you but the first posts where about the movie which is about the specific war and specific soldiers and when conversation went further I think i underlined not to mention only USa but any european or worldwide arm power country. You think I have one situation in my mind? lets see, in ten seconds I can think of iraq, afganistan, serbia, gulf war, cyprus, yugoslavia wars and the genoktonie of armenians and kurds. None of them happened in Greece, that doesnt mean that as long as it doesnt happen in my house I m fine.

if you find the movie too Moore, there is a very open eyeing movie Pretty villages Pretty flame which has nothing to do with Usa, to avoid any stupid accusation.

 

[prettykeys]

Because you accuse someone of general pacific ideas.

There is no war excused

Well, if that doesn't qualify as "generally pacifistic", then I don't know what is. You make a sweeping statement with no acknowledgment of any possible exceptions, then I'm just calling it like I see it.

Well if you quote one sentence out of a whole post, that doesnt make it an argument. So I have one situation in my mind and make blanket arguments, but you dont take a specific case and generalise? so you can mention like 10 good wars because I couldnt know the history of korean war neither the circumstances it happened?

I didn't say every war is justified or excused, blah blah. All I did was give one example where I refuse to believe foreign intervention was unnecessary and unwelcome to refute your generalized claim. They did it with guns and bombs, and thank God (even though I'm an atheist.)

I dont attack the americans.

Then I didn't attack you. All I know is I had a specific example in my head where I agreed with Nadine and where I can attest to foreign intervention being good for the native people of a land...and you reply with:

Depends what we can define as good. Good for oil companies, arm industry, air industry, chemical factories? Cause for the simple people a war can't be good.

I requested arguments along any kind of ethical thought system, not rhetorical/sarcastic ones that are leveled at pretty much saying interference is due to selfish reasons and thereby implying that the American military involved here or elsewhere did not have something good to offer.

Making universal statements is childish and flat thinking. I can think of other examples where soldiers were welcomed and thanked (e.g. Canadian WW2 vets by the Dutch), but again, I'm not the one who is saying that engagement in war is never justified.

 

[seniorita]

not rhetorical/sarcastic ones that are leveled at pretty much saying interference is due to selfish reasons and thereby implying that the American military involved here or elsewhere did not have something good to offer.

S.Arabia wanting to completely change from dollar to euro is not what someone would call a selfish reason. But really the conversation is done in two different levels, if ALL you got from my posts is the above - and i never used this words by the way, i dont really care what you think i implied, i know what I think and what I wrote - there is no reason to debate anything. Besides the point of the first posts were in regard of a movie you have not seen. We have probably cultural and language differences, thanx for making me a star but lets drop it.