War and peace

[Mathman]

A soldier who puts himself out there, for a good cause, is brave to me, whether they are a remarkable soldier or not.

I think the problem is that the typical soldier or citizen often has no idea as to what cause he is fighting for, except for the propaganda and facile slogans of the government.

What was the "good cause" for U.S. participation in World War I? The immediate spark of hostilities was the assassination of the Arch-duke of Austria by a Serbian radical. I am pretty sure that most Americans did not know that Austia had an Arch-duke, nor could they locate Serbia on a map. But President Wison says we must "make the world safe for democracy" and fight "the war to end all wars."

At least the wars of the nineteenth century were straightforward. In the war with Mexico in 1840, it was clear what we wanted -- to seize Texas from Mexico. And while we’re at it, we might as well take California, too. (It all worked out for the best. Millions of Californians today are happy they are not Mexicans. On the other hand, millions more are Mexicans, so either way...)

In the Spanish-American War what we wanted was Cuba -- temporarily. That part didn’t work out so well, but we picked up the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico in the bargain and crushed Spain forever as a world power. Take that! (The American occupation of the Philippines actually worked out pretty well, all things considered. Eventually the Philippeans got their independence and were probably better off in the long run for having been an American colony instead of a Spanish one.)

When we come to the battles of the Cold War, the part where – in my humble opinion – we were on shaky moral ground is this. Yes, the Soviet Union was bad and we were good. Therefore – good versus evil – away we go and hurray for our side. So far so good.

But we never actually fought Russia. Instead we sent troops to Korea. We killed a bunch of people in Viet Nam. We used our influence to topple left-leaning governments in the third world.

All quite necessary. But beating up the bully’s kid sister does not exactly show bravery. We stopped fighting in Korea immediately when China started making noises about joining in. We never did get around to fighting Russia (the Russians actually did have weapons of mass destruction, so they – unlike Iraq – were off limits.) Eventually we beat Russia by hitting them with our purse. We spent so much money on the military that Russia went bankrupt trying to keep up.

Not as macho as a nuclear war, but still. :yes:

 

[Blades of Passion]

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.

Risking being killed via being in the military is not inherently brave. Have you considered that the thought of such a thing actually excites some people? The thrill of putting themself in such a position and possibly coming out of it with heaps of "glory" is a driving force.

Then there are the people who don't really care about life. They are bored and/or depressed and don't truly care one way or the other if they keep living or not (or perhaps would even rather die than live, but aren't able to bring themselves to suicide).

And then there are the people who are in the military because the possibility of dying seems better than whatever their current life was. They'd rather take that risk and be cared for and given a purpose by the government.

Bravery is not defined by any specific thing. Bravery is standing up to something you are personally afraid of. Everyone has different fears and motivations.

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

I am indeed American and have been my entire life. Thankfully I am not blind like the majority of the isolationist country.

The most American thing someone can ever do is protest. The country was founded on standing up for what you believe in and having freedom from oppression. Unfortunately, along the way, America decided that something which hinders its overabundant wealth is a threat to its freedom.

 

[janetfan]

But we never actually fought Russia. Instead we sent troops to Korea. We killed a bunch of people in Viet Nam. We used our influence to topple left-leaning governments in the third world.

All quite necessary. But beating up the bully’s kid sister does not exactly show bravery. We stopped fighting in Korea immediately when China started making noises about joining in. We never did get around to fighting Russia (the Russians actually did have weapons of mass destruction, so they – unlike Iraq – were off limits.) Eventually we beat Russia by hitting them with our purse. We spent so much money on the military that Russia went bankrupt trying to keep up.

Not as macho as a nuclear war, but still. :yes:

Actually your views on the end of the Korean war are quite revisionist. Chinese miltary forces were actively and openly involved in the Korean war and their casulaties were estimated to be close to a million dead.

The now legendary "dogfights" between American and Soviet fighter pilots in the Korean war resulted in major losses for both sides - but there was never a doubt the fight for air supremacy over Korea was between the USA and the Soviet Union.


When General Eisenhower became President Eisenhower he let it be known immediately the Korean war was over. It took several attempts but finaly Eisenhower's threat to use nuclear weapons brought the open hostilities to an end.


From Wiki:
"Eisenhower's presidential campaign was noted for the simple but effective slogan, "I Like Ike", and was a crusade against the Truman administration's policies regarding "Korea, Communism and Corruption."
"Eisenhower promised during his campaign to go to Korea himself and end the war there."


At the moment I feel the same way about Afghanistan as Eisenhower felt about Korea.
Not worth any more loss of American blood & treasure and there comes a point when nations have to determine their own destinies. Unfortunately the effort in Afghanistan seems futile to me and our involvement for so many years seems to make that clear.

In the case of the Korean conflict - thinking of what prettykeys has said - one only has to look at the two Koreas today to see the difference US & Allied involvement had on the future of Korea. When we hear of "the Korean miracle" it has to do with the successful emergence of S. Korea as an economic power and a stable, responsible nation.

Sadly the North remains an enigma to most of the outside world and hopefully there will be a peaceful reunification in the future. But what a price the S. Koreans will have to pay to lift their northern brothers out of poverty and to bring them culturally into the 21st century.


BTW, people from Philadelphia are called Philadelphians (and sometimes worse names ) and people from the Philippines are known Filipinos or Filipinas.

 

[seniorita]

At the moment I feel the same way about Afghanistan as Eisenhower felt about Korea.
Not worth any more loss of American blood & treasure and there comes a point when nations have to determine their own destinies. Unfortunately the effort in Afghanistan seems futile to me and our involvement for so many years seems to make that clear.

Afgan war started to correct the political destiny of the country?:think:

from wiki as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

sometimes maths are more clear in my opinion.

Casualties and losses
Afghan Security Forces:
5,500+ killed (Oct 2009)
Afghan Northern Alliance:
200 killed
Coalition:
Killed: 1,989 (US: 1,200, UK: 331, Others: 458)
Wounded: 12,523+ (US: 7,819, UK: 4,091 Canada: 400+, Australia: 126,Romania: 44,Estonia: 43)
Contractors:
338 killed
2,428 wounded (March 2007)
Taliban and Insurgents
Killed: 30,000+
Wounded: unknown
Civilian deaths: 14,000-34,000 approx.

but yes, i agree it doesnt worth it.

I think the problem is that the typical soldier or citizen often has no idea as to what cause he is fighting for, except for the propaganda and facile slogans of the government.

I m a little A LOT frustrated you sum up something that I couldnt put across in two pages, in just two lines. :

Eventually we beat Russia by hitting them with our purse.
Not as macho as a nuclear war, but still.

since i read it I have this image in my head

 

[chloepoco]

I am indeed American and have been my entire life. Thankfully I am not blind like the majority of the isolationist country.

The most American thing someone can ever do is protest. The country was founded on standing up for what you believe in and having freedom from oppression. Unfortunately, along the way, America decided that something which hinders its overabundant wealth is a threat to its freedom.

As a fellow American, all I can say is that your freedom and your right to protest is, in part, due to the very soldiers who you have so much disdain for.

My father is a retired military officer. My sister will be graduating from college in a few months, and will be commissioned as a 2LT in the U.S. Army. And let me tell you, they joined the Army not because they don't care about life, or get excited or thrilled about killing or being killed, or because death is better than what they were/are doing now. They chose to join the military because they want to serve their country.

If you feel so oppressed living in the United States, there are other places you can go.

 

[janetfan]

Afgan war started to correct the political destiny of the country?:think:

]

I am not sure what your point was here. I did not compare the start of the Afghan war to that of the Korean war. I did offer an opinion about the ending of those two wars. I believe at this time the Korean confict is not even officialy over and a cease fire has been in place since the end of open hostilities.

Eisenhower's point was that the Korean war had gone on long enough. If the other side was not willing to end hostilities he was prepared to nuke the Chinese and he also had put the Soviets on alert.

It was interesting reading different povs about this subject. IMO no one is right or wrong here about too much. Just some differeing opinions which is normal based on our different life experiences.

I haven't seen this movie that was mentioned but plan to rent it tomorrow.

It is my experience that movies are fine and can be for much more than entertainment. The best films, whatever their genre can make us think, see things differently and inspire us.

But I assure you I have never seen a film that compares to being in a live firefight or on an active battlefield.
It is not the same and never will be because one is a film - and tragically, the other is real.

People do not get their guts blown apart or s_ _t their pants watching a film. Atleast not any people I ever met.

 

[demarinis5]

This topic should be moved to the political section, just saying.... Peace.

 

[janetfan]

This topic should be moved to the political section, just saying.... Peace.

I certainly agree with you and thanks for sharing such a nice thought.......PEACE!

Maybe Johnny is such a deep thinker that it is natural his thread would have such serious discusion.

Can anybody imagine Johnny reading this thread and saying something like this:

“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”

Sorry, not Johnny - but another quote from General George S. Patton, Jr.

 

[Mathman]

I have to admit that the war in Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack. The Taliban are so dreadfully awful -- they think it is admirable to attack a girls' school and kill all the children because Allah doesn't want girls to get an education -- it makes me think twice about what our moral responsibilty is.

 

[janetfan]

I have to admit that the war in Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack. The Taliban are so dreadfully awful -- they think it is admirable to attack a girls' school and kill all the children because Allah doesn't want girls to get an education -- it makes me think twice about what our moral responsibilty is.

Have you ever read "The Kite Runner" and "A Thousand Splendid Suns" ?

I would recommend both books but "A Thousand Splendid Suns" tells a tale so unbearably sad with regard to the treatment of women/girls under the Taliban it makes it easy for me to agree with you.

 

[Layfan]

Woah. I imagine Johnny Weir has something to do with the last eight posts... What are Earth did he say to start this intense debate? Leave it to him...

For me, I go to Goldenskate to get away from this kind of thing for a bit ... I think I'll go see what everyone is saying about Adelina's flutz ...

 

[janetfan]

Woah. I imagine Johnny Weir has something to do with the last eight posts... What are Earth did he say to start this intense debate?

I was kidding and trying to make a point at the same time - the posts are way off topic, and talk of moral responsibilty and war is always a difficult subject that can be full of differing views and opinions.

 

[prettykeys]

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...

To be honest, I didn't get anything out of your posts.

I think the problem is that the typical soldier or citizen often has no idea as to what cause he is fighting for, except for the propaganda and facile slogans of the government.

My God, don't even get me started...it's not exactly the golden era of American society. I love the foundations/principles and history of the United States, but although I wouldn't say it's completely in the pits right now, I do consider it to be "sick". I don't understand how GWB was a candidate--let alone the elected leader (ignoring vote-counting controversies)--to hold that office, when the US surely has more intelligent and well-meaning individuals. It's sad to see that a country with some of the most prestigious learning institutions and which continues to rank at the tops in innovations is slipping in overall educational standards, and where popular culture is full of decadent celebrities whose jobs are...to be celebrities, and where being rich is awesome because you're rich. Let me take a moment to temper my U.S.-lovefest with saying that I love Canada, and there are many other amazing countries and cultures.

Just consider my love of the U.S. like my love for YuNa. It's not that I think they are perfect or the best in every single thing...but they are special for reasons that strike me deep in the heart and are thus irreplaceable.

Break the U.S. down with a magnifying glass and you'll see things that are unpleasant, tragic, or just plain awful...but how is that different from any other country? And I see a lot worse in many others.

Risking being killed via being in the military is not inherently brave. Have you considered that the thought of such a thing actually excites some people? The thrill of putting themself in such a position and possibly coming out of it with heaps of "glory" is a driving force.

Then there are the people who don't really care about life. They are bored and/or depressed and don't truly care one way or the other if they keep living or not (or perhaps would even rather die than live, but aren't able to bring themselves to suicide).

And then there are the people who are in the military because the possibility of dying seems better than whatever their current life was. They'd rather take that risk and be cared for and given a purpose by the government.

Bravery is not defined by any specific thing. Bravery is standing up to something you are personally afraid of. Everyone has different fears and motivations.

I am reminded of a quote from someone or something that said something similar, that "bravery" is not the lack of fear, but rather, doing something in the face of fear. I think it's partially true, but I don't agree wholly with it.

At the simplest level, a survey of dictionary definitions of "bravery" and the related term "courage" include fearlessness in several dictionaries. Courage: "the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery" says dictionary.com.

Furthermore, if in a hypothetical scenario we had two well-intentioned soldiers fighting for a cause we both believe in (unless you believe no cause is worth fighting for then let me know and we'll ignore this) and could hook their brains up to functional MRI machines and map their cognitive traits and fear responses...if they carry out the same actions, is it right to say one is less brave than the other if one is less afraid? I don't personally think so. Not just because I disagree with the requirement of "fear", but also because when we praise people for bravery, it's not just the facing of a fear, it's tied to some action that we consider worthy of praise for exposing oneself to pain or harm.

Secondly, maybe one person's resolve and cognitive orientation allowed them to banish initial fears. Does that person become less brave and thus, less worthy of praise? (My answer: no.)

Thirdly, even the most depressed/suicidal person has the choice to become a soldier (hopefully for a good cause) or to be a bum on the street. Their mental state does not take away from the benefits you or I receive. I would still choose to honour them. (By the way, if we want to cut a more philosophical line here, we could also take the deterministic stance that no one is capable of making a "choice"; we're all products of a billion different factors that we had/have no control over. So there's no true bravery or altruism, just people acting in ways aligned to their nature. But I disagree with that, too, because I continue to want to differentiate between acts that yield benefits more to the individual, or more to other persons. Furthermore, cut it in another way, and you can say well, everyone just acts in ways that give them pleasure. Murderers aren't evil, they just like murdering, just like the way I like to eat ice cream and figure skaters like to skate. We all didn't choose to be that way, so we shouldn't judge them--but you know what? I think I'll just judge. Doctors who go into their profession because being in the emergency room "excites" them...well I'll still give them thanks when they save a loved one.) There should be a balance of gratitude that hinges not only on how costly it was to give, but how valuable it was to receive. And related to that is that I may value someone's life even more than that individual values their own. Is that wrong?

The most American thing someone can ever do is protest. The country was founded on standing up for what you believe in and having freedom from oppression.

...and I hope somewhere along those lines, advocacy on behalf of others whose freedom is oppressed is OK.

As a fellow American, all I can say is that your freedom and your right to protest is, in part, due to the very soldiers who you have so much disdain for.
...
If you feel so oppressed living in the United States, there are other places you can go.

As someone whose family (as far as I know) has no military personnel and is mostly scholars, academics, and businessmen, I totally agree with the first line. The last line, however...I hope that any American unhappy with the United States addresses his dissension with protests, discussion and suggestions of a better way. Criticisms can be a good thing--I sure wouldn't want to live in a society where they are discouraged or even banned.

Sadly the North remains an enigma to most of the outside world and hopefully there will be a peaceful reunification in the future. But what a price the S. Koreans will have to pay to lift their northern brothers out of poverty and to bring them culturally into the 21st century.

Sigh...yes.

I have to admit that the war in Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack. The Taliban are so dreadfully awful -- they think it is admirable to attack a girls' school and kill all the children because Allah doesn't want girls to get an education -- it makes me think twice about what our moral responsibilty is.

I agree. I can't decide whether the Americans should pull out or stay.

 

[seniorita]

I have to admit that the war in Afghanistan is not an easy nut to crack. The Taliban are so dreadfully awful -- they think it is admirable to attack a girls' school and kill all the children because Allah doesn't want girls to get an education -- it makes me think twice about what our moral responsibilty is.

And when they dont kill them, we do?

United nations (starting from Russia invasion years) had 3 arguments to support the isolation of Afganistan during the years, Bin Landen was the final and 3rd one and the one whcih caused the war. The first argument was the opression of women (not sure about if this word is correct ), the second is the cultivation of opium and these two were used afterwards to support the excuses of a war that started because of the third one.

As for the oppression of women. This is a problem inside Afganistan, it is a form of social and political dictatorship apllied by a system to a part of population. It is not an international affair to justify a war, i hope you get what I mean (I dont say it should not be our concern, I ll explain). It is not the only country, we meet it in all super conservative or dictatorships like in parts of china, tazikistan, burma, iran, sudan and nigeria and there is maybe 10 times more brutal than afganistan. Places that united nations seem to neglect. What Taliban did is to expand in all female population in their society what was already applied and existed to a large percentage of women of Afganistan already. Women that cannot stand out socially, be educated or work. Talibans are the cruelst face in what it was already cruel in the world of islam.

My objection to wars that target to change this state that seem inexcusable for west civilisations is that it cannot be changed by the apply of an external hand, bombs, wars or because someone implied it to them by guns and intorduced a new political scheme acceptable by west and ideas that have not been cultivated in their own society, their world to change need an inside revolution or war or call it how you want from the people involved to change their place in society when they are ready to face the roots of it, they dont need a war from us, they need peace. Otherwise the scene will not change. I really dont have a solution how this could happen as I dont live in such environment, but history has shown that these kind of revolutions happen eventualy.
Im not disagreeing with you mathman, please from all people i think you understand, dont get my words wrong about usa or anything, it is not what I am commenting at.

To be honest, I didn't get anything out of your posts.

well you quoted lots of them but thankfully the board can provide you with the option that you dont even have to read them.

 

[janetfan]

.

As for the oppression of women. This is a problem inside Afganistan, it is a form of social and political dictatorship apllied by a system to a part of population. It is not an international affair to justify a war, i hope you get what I mean (I dont say it should not be our concern, I ll explain).)

I recall comments US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made about this.

She said denying basic human rights to any segment of a population based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender is not cultural behavior but criminal behavior.

I agree with Hillary on this.

 

[Mathman]

As a fellow American, all I can say is that your freedom and your right to protest is, in part, due to the very soldiers who you have so much disdain for.

Of course all Americans are grateful for these freedoms and for the men and women of the armed services who protect them.

But by the same token, we cannot avoid asking if all wars accomplish that aim. 60,000 Americans died fighting in Viet Nam. Did these deaths. however heroic, enhance our freedoms, and in particular our right to protest? (Well, maybe so -- people certainly protested like the dickens about that U.S. adventure. Not that the government encouraged these protests or liked them very much.)

In the late 1990s we sent soldiers to fight in the Kosovo wars. I think we supported the Albanians against the Serbs, or was it the Montenegrins against the Croatians? -- I forget. I do not feel any more free than I did before.

I think we can support our troops, while at the same time question the wisdom of the politicians who send them to their deaths halfway across the world. This, in my opinion, is neither inconsistent nor unpatriotic.

 

[Blades of Passion]

As a fellow American, all I can say is that your freedom and your right to protest is, in part, due to the very soldiers who you have so much disdain for.

Who makes the clothes for the soldiers to wear? Who makes the food for the soldiers to eat? Who provides medical care for the soldiers? Who researched the technology so they can travel so easily? Who builds the vehicles they travel in? Who deals with foreign diplomacy so the soldiers hopefully won't have to fight in the first place? Who provides entertainment and art so that they feel like their country is something worth fighting for?

Soldiers are no more important than anyone else. That is simply what they have chosen to do. There are thousands of necessary roles within society and choosing to join the military isn't any greater of a contribution than a vast number of other careers.

My father is a retired military officer. My sister will be graduating from college in a few months, and will be commissioned as a 2LT in the U.S. Army. And let me tell you, they joined the Army not because they don't care about life, or get excited or thrilled about killing or being killed, or because death is better than what they were/are doing now. They chose to join the military because they want to serve their country.

You've missed part of the point. Or, actually, I didn't word it as well as I could have. Although those cases are all certainly motivations for some people, it's also generally about the glory and/or honor of being in the military that causes people to join. Ask your father what he wanted to do in life if he hadn't joined the military. See if he had any viable career paths he was passionate about, that he decided to give up in order to be in the military.

There are ways to serve the country outside of being in the military. It's a completely false argument to say that is the sole reason anyone joins. Anyone who joins (if not by draft of course) does so because they feel it is a very good way to apply themselves in life and/or because they think it will allow them obtain success in life. Your sister who is graduating college in a few months, I'm sure she is quite happy that the military is helping to pay for the tuition.

There is also the sense of adventure the military promises. "It's a one-of-a-kind experience." Those who are depressed or confused about their life can be attracted to this, but even if you merely don't know exactly what you want to do with your future, that kind of guidance and excitement is a welcome thought. Or some people even want to do specific things only the military can provide - flying an air force jet, or voyaging in a submarine, or writing code with government supercomputers, or operating high-tech surveillance devices, or commanding a squad of soldiers. It sounds so thrilling.

 

[Mathman]

I agree with Hillary on this.

But Seniorita still makes a good point -- how can we bring about change. Yes, we could nuke them. But that would not accomplish our goal.

To me, the problem is not just that there are all these criminals on the loose, but that a very large segment of the Afghan society -- very likely the majority -- sides with the Muslim fundamentalists. When a Palestinian radical blows up a school bus in Israel, killing 40 children, everyone in a dozen countries in the Middle East cheers.

The radicals I can understand -- they are criminally insane. It is all the ordinary folks who cheer that make me despair of a military solution.

 

[janetfan]

But Seniorita still makes a good point -- how can we bring about change. Yes, we could nuke them. But that would not accomplish our goal.

To me, the problem is not just that there are all these criminals on the loose, but that a very large segment of the Afghan society -- very likely the majority -- sides with the Muslim fundamentalists. When a Palestinian radical blows up a school bus in Israel, killing 40 children, everyone in a dozen countries in the Middle East cheers.

The radicals I can understand -- they are criminally insane. It is all the ordinary folks who cheer that make me despair of a military solution.

Good points which I am sure many would agree with.

I don't believe Hillary's comment suggested nuking anyone, but rather was meant as a statement of moral force. I don't think seniorita's thought was wrong either but somewhere between what Hillary thinks and what seniorita said might be an answer.

Maybe back to Nadine's comment ........for good people to just look away .....solves nothing.
Hillary's comments came after a few men threw battery acid into the faces of a couple of young girls just because they went to school.

That can't be justified away as "cultural behavior" when it is so obvioulsy a cruel and criminal act.

Now imagine it was your own daugter if that is what it takes for anyone to see the difference between what is morally right and wrong.

 

[Mathman]

Who makes the clothes for the soldiers to wear?

China.

Who builds the vehicles they travel in?

Japan.

Who provides (their) entertainment...

Bob Hope.