War and peace

[chloepoco]

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.

And that is why I said "in part".

 

[seniorita]

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.

did it look anywhere near like i said we should deny human rights or look away? It took me two paragraphs to explain it, it must be my english. Apologies...Also I didnt meant it is cultural behavior what I mentioned about their acts rooting in islam laws. This is not culture customs. They grow up with this like we learn to walk on feet and not on hands.

Yes I agree with Mrs Hilton as well, but where were her words applied in this case that went to courts, embassies were involved, supposdely educated people concerned and still this woman was killed having to apply to zillion courts. How many wars can prevent these cases that we only hear 1% of? But on the other hand, if we dont do war what will happen to our arm supplies?

To apply the human rights like the way it is done these days, we should kill half of population of earth instead of using the same money for forcing these countries' economies instead of ours, nurtured them, solve their basic needs so that there is room to educate them so they might react. Only thinking people can turn their own situation upside down, not feared people who either fear external guns or their country's government. And it would need more than one generation to see resutls.

 

[chloepoco]

Blades of Passion, I started writing a response to you that got quite long. But, I decided, what's the sense--you believe in what you want to believe in, and I'll believe in what I want to believe in.

 

[Daniel5555]

Was is this thread about?

Well, whatever... I actually find the topic about military interventions very interesting and important (if it's the topic of the thread now).
I am convinced, that most of the still ongoing and long conflicts were initially caused by the interventions of "third parties", or rather the countries that originally had nothing to do with the territory they went on.

prettykeys

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.

The Korea situation is actually one that really shows a lot of things.
First of all, the whole division of Korea was done without consulting the Koreans themselves. It was decided by United States, USSR and Britain. That already can be considered as intervention, because 3 biggest powers at the moment decided what to do with the territory that was not theirs (in fact, it even had the government). It was basically a lottery. If you live in North, then you'll get to live in a really bad country for the rest of your life. If you live in South, then you'll live a little bit better.
The whole idea is actually stupid. Basically you divide the country into two different zones, which had different ideology, heavy propaganda machine on both sides, and basically they were two different countries. Communism and capitalism are not compatible, so how in the world they pretended to create a stable country with this? Well... I don't think that was their intention.

Most likely Soviets wanted to have their little zone of power and Americans their zone, and Koreans themselves can... Just can.

So both of them actually left in 1948 and 1949 respectively leaving behind a really unstable zone, a country with two governments. Obviously when a country has two governments it will end with the war, which really happened.

The US action was a supporting action against North Korea/USSR. That action, obviously, was vital to the surviving of South Korea.
But you should be well aware that the war and the miserable life in North Korea is partly the responsibility of the United States as well as of the Soviet Union. And the responsibility is not small. I mean, the Koreans were just victims of the political game between two empires.
Had the Americans and alike left them in peace from the start, no one knows what kind of country Korea would be, but, mostly likely, it would not be divided.

Now, it doesn't mean I'm pacifist. In Afghanistan, as it stands now, Americans should not leave, I think. The situation is just too unstable there and they should not leave until it stabilizes, which won't happen soon, by the way.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Blades of Passion, I started writing a response to you that got quite long. But, I decided, what's the sense--you believe in what you want to believe in, and I'll believe in what I want to believe in.

I believe in the truth. I await your father's response if he ever talks to you about it though.

My grandfather wanted to be in the military. He was too tall. He become a police officer instead. There is no doubt he wanted to serve the greater good through providing physical force. There's nothing wrong with that either? But, again, there are driving motivations aside from just "I want to serve my country, rah rah rah" that apply to everyone who joins up. That same need for physical exertion which may cause one person to be attracted to the military might cause another person to be attracted to building houses. I don't think the former has any right to be automatically seen as more important or honorable.

Other military related stories from my life experiences:

As a young teenager I remember visiting a submarine with my stepfather and being given a tour by one of the navy officers. After we left the ship, my stepfather remarked "Wow, I wish I had seen this when I was your age, I would have joined."

He didn't specifically care about defending the lives of Americans, he cared about how much being in a military setting interested him and how much glory it could have brought him. Another friend of mine who served in Iraq later recounted how confused he was about life when he joined the military. He was doing poorly in college because the studies bored him and he was struggling with his latent homosexuality and also his ties to religion. My group of friends were all incredibly surprised when he announced he would be joining the military, as he was essentially a modern-day hippie at the time. And yet, the allure of joining the armed forces seemed the cure for his burgeoning discontent with life. (thankfully he came back alive)

 

[chloepoco]

I believe in the truth. I await your father's response if he ever talks to you about it though.

My grandfather wanted to be in the military. He was too tall. He become a police officer instead. There is no doubt he wanted to serve the greater good through providing physical force. There's nothing wrong with that either? But, again, there are driving motivations aside from just "I want to serve my country, rah rah rah" that apply to everyone who joins up. That same need for physical exertion which may cause one person to be attracted to the military might cause another person to be attracted to building houses. I don't think the former has any right to be automatically seen as more important or honorable.

Other military related stories from my life experiences:

As a young teenager I remember visiting a submarine with my stepfather and being given a tour by one of the navy officers. After we left the ship, my stepfather remarked "Wow, I wish I had seen this when I was your age, I would have joined."

He didn't specifically care about defending the lives of Americans, he cared about how much being in a military setting interested him and how much glory it could have brought him. Another friend of mine who served in Iraq later recounted how confused he was about life when he joined the military. He was doing poorly in college because the studies bored him and he was struggling with his latent homosexuality and also his ties to religion. My group of friends were all incredibly surprised when he announced he would be joining the military, as he was essentially a modern-day hippie at the time. And yet, the allure of joining the armed forces seemed the cure for his burgeoning discontent with life. (thankfully he came back alive)

Sure, whatever.

 

[prettykeys]

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.
...
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.

Agree.

I am convinced, that most of the still ongoing and long conflicts were initially caused by the interventions of "third parties", or rather the countries that originally had nothing to do with the territory they went on.

Very true.

prettykeys

The Korea situation is actually one that really shows a lot of things.
First of all, the whole division of Korea was done without consulting the Koreans themselves. It was decided by United States, USSR and Britain. That already can be considered as intervention, because 3 biggest powers at the moment decided what to do with the territory that was not theirs (in fact, it even had the government). It was basically a lottery. If you live in North, then you'll get to live in a really bad country for the rest of your life. If you live in South, then you'll live a little bit better.
The whole idea is actually stupid. Basically you divide the country into two different zones, which had different ideology, heavy propaganda machine on both sides, and basically they were two different countries. Communism and capitalism are not compatible, so how in the world they pretended to create a stable country with this? Well... I don't think that was their intention.

Most likely Soviets wanted to have their little zone of power and Americans their zone, and Koreans themselves can... Just can.

All mostly true--but the reason why they were able to go in and "claim zones" is because just prior to that, Korea didn't belong to the Koreans, either--it had been occupied by yet another foreign country (Japan) which lost WW2 and had to give it up.

So both of them actually left in 1948 and 1949 respectively leaving behind a really unstable zone, a country with two governments. Obviously when a country has two governments it will end with the war, which really happened.

Yes. It's a Catch-22: Leave --> chaos. Stay, and continue to receive resentment and criticism from people who believe you should get out. It's a very common situation, unfortunately.

The US action was a supporting action against North Korea/USSR. That action, obviously, was vital to the surviving of South Korea.
But you should be well aware that the war and the miserable life in North Korea is partly the responsibility of the United States as well as of the Soviet Union. And the responsibility is not small. I mean, the Koreans were just victims of the political game between two empires.
Had the Americans and alike left them in peace from the start, no one knows what kind of country Korea would be, but, mostly likely, it would not be divided.

I'm sorry Daniel, but I don't agree. When Japan invaded and took over Korea, it was bound to be left in some sort of chaos when they--or some other temporary foreign country holding the territory left (USSR + US, mostly). I blame Japan for invading what had been up until that point an autonomous nation, and dismantling its political/social structures. I don't blame the U.S. here; it made the most of a bad situation.

Now, it doesn't mean I'm pacifist. In Afghanistan, as it stands now, Americans should not leave, I think. The situation is just too unstable there and they should not leave until it stabilizes, which won't happen soon, by the way.

I am still undecided what should happen in Afghanistan.

 

[prettykeys]

I appreciate you sharing your stories, BoP. (Well, I like storytime in general. ) The truth is that I don't think well of physical/military conflict, but it's important to be able to defend yourself from others who are not benign. Look what happens to those who aren't able to.

It is much harder to build and create than it is to destroy. However, it is near-impossible to build and create when you don't have your own space/resources/autonomy.

If people are excited at the prospect of joining the military, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. There are also certainly a number of American interventions that I question--both on principle and by execution.

In other news on the Canadian front, you have Tamil communities openly protesting and demanding that Canada get more involved in their problems in Sri Lanka.

 

[seniorita]

Other countries were invaded and captured during ww2 and when war ended were left on unstable political ground for many years until they figured it out on their own.

It was basically a lottery. If you live in North, then you'll get to live in a really bad country for the rest of your life. If you live in South, then you'll live a little bit better.

yes it is a lottery and history repeated itself years after in Cyprus.

 

[Daniel5555]

prettykeys

All mostly true--but the reason why they were able to go in and "claim zones" is because just prior to that, Korea didn't belong to the Koreans, either--it had been occupied by yet another foreign country (Japan) which lost WW2 and had to give it up.

I'm sorry Daniel, but I don't agree. When Japan invaded and took over Korea, it was bound to be left in some sort of chaos when they--or some other temporary foreign country holding the territory left (USSR + US, mostly). I blame Japan for invading what had been up until that point an autonomous nation, and dismantling its political/social structures. I don't blame the U.S. here; it made the most of a bad situation.

Well, you don't have to be sorry, it's ok to disagree
Of course, the Japanese invasion was the start of all problems.
But I am not sure that the situation right after WWII was so chaotic that the intervention by US and Soviet Union was really necessary. Providing aid and protection is one thing, establishing control and ideology is very different thing. it is certain that Koreans already had some sort of self-established government... I didn't study this situation very much, so I can't tell if it was stable and reliable, but it existed. As I understand Soviet Union and United States were already enemies back then... In fact communism was supposed to be the ideology to the whole world to adopt, pacifically or not. United States as another power couldn't just stand and observe. In fact, I consider that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially atomic bomb testing without any real military necessity. I mean, they already bombed all Japan with normal bombs, so another two, even atomic, weren't that necessary anyway.
During the time they were controlling the region it is absolutely sure that some kind of huge ideological action was done, because it can't be that what was once a unified country suddenly started to separate from each other even without external forces.

I don't want to blame someone, but the thing is that the fate of Korea was decided without asking Koreans. United States didn't insist on that they should have at least some kind of vote there, neither Soviet Union did. It turned out that in South it is a great country now, and in North is really something very alike of Soviet Union, but even worse. Probably the main cause of this is that communism doesn't work and simply can't work. But of course, 60 years ago they didn't realise that.

 

[janetfan]

. 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.

Since you bothered to move this topic and rename it "War and Peace" I wanted to share a quote from Tolstoy's epic novel.

"Nothing is so necessary for a young man as the society of clever women."

I couldn't agree with him more!


Ready or not - here is an excerpt from a letter General Patton wrote to his wife during the N. African campaign:

"Just finished reading the Koran—a good book and interesting."
"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab."



If a man as macho and gung-ho as Patton made that observation it might seem even more apparent to those of us who might be considered more sensitive.

I think it helps explain how easily so many young Muslims can be led into a life of hatred and fanaticism. If the males in a society or culture are raised to treat their women as objects it is easy to see how unbalanced their views about life can become.

I know the whole "culture thing" and "religion thing" is much bigger than these quotes.

But still, I can't help feeling a society that permits and even celebrates such harsh treatment of their women is never going to see the world the way Westerners do. Or most Asian cultures as well.

I can't imagine the horror of seeing a bus of innocent people blown up right in front of me.
And yet the incident about the young school girls having acid thrown in their faces bothers me even more. As bad as a random act of violence against a perceived enemy might seem I have a harder time imagining throwing acid on the face of a young girl simply because she wanted to go to school.

I believe General Patton's use of the term "arrested developement" regarding the treatment of women was a very insightful. A culture that so willingly assigns their women to second class status will always have trouble accepting - let alone respecting - those from other cultures with different values.

 

[seniorita]

Mr Mm it seems that an off topic inside an Edge thread is more popular

Just wanna say that despite what we see in those societies, it is not all muslim countries that do not respect the women and have so harsh laws. It would be unfair to generalize, the problem comes from the countries that religion has messed with politics and they have used it to excuse their authoritarian status, not from the religion itself. What I read recently and my jaw dropped is that Quran has based its views partly in Aristotle and Platon writings. Islam as a religion is just different from what I am used to for example (by the way I didnt know islam means to obey) but countries like Turkey and Tunisia do not have these kind of reactions among people. There are places in Africa were Muslims and Christians live together, there is a great movie showing these from Cannes festival, it is called Des hommes et des dieux and presents exactly this plus the cruelty of a war, it is about a true story, not just a movie, I strongly recommend it.

There are a lot of islamic countries that people have a critic thought, have broadened their mind and the women have demanded their rights. Also in the middle east countries there are people who have a healthy thinking but it is not the majority, they disappear in the political state of their country and the wars and as I said there people need to upgrade their level of living before any hope for change. Have you watched Persepolis (the animation?)

 

[janetfan]

Mr Mm it seems that an off topic inside an Edge thread is more popular

Just wanna say that despite what we see in those societies, it is not all muslim countries that do not respect the women and have so harsh laws. It would be unfair to generalize, the problem comes from the countries that religion has messed with politics and they have used it to excuse their authoritarian status, not from the religion itself. What I read recently and my jaw dropped is that Quran has based its views partly in Aristotle and Platon writings. Islam as a religion is just different from what I am used to for example (by the way I didnt know islam means to obey) but countries like Turkey and Tunisia do not have these kind of reactions among people. There are places in Africa were Muslims and Christians live together, there is a great movie showing these from Cannes festival, it is called Des hommes et des dieux and presents exactly this plus the cruelty of a war, it is about a true story, not just a movie, I strongly recommend it.

There are a lot of islamic countries that people have a critic thought, have broadened their mind and the women have demanded their rights. Also in the middle east countries there are people who have a healthy thinking but it is not the majority, they disappear in the political state of their country and the wars and as I said there people need to upgrade their level of living before any hope for change. Have you watched Persepolis (the animation?)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear - my thoughts were directed at radicalized Muslim factions such as the Taliban.
I agree with your thoughts about more moderate Muslims and the need for many in the Muslim world to "upgrade the level of their living."

The point of my post was that when half of a society's population as we see in radicalized Islam is assigned to second class status and denied a chance for education and other freedoms that society as a whole will suffer the consequences. I understand that this does not apply to the entire Muslim world.

I agree with Tolstoy's observation and also with General Patton's.
Your original post on this (about "Redacted") more or less said that all war is wrong. I would like to agree with you on that. But when mathman cites a terroist act such as a bus bombing what is supposed to happen next?

What if one side is so radicalized they refuse to negociate in good faith - or to follow guidleines of a treaty they signed (Iraq)? Remember it was the Iraquis who invaded and occupied Kuwait.

I wish I knew the answers but it is such a complex situation. We know that if the recent elections in Iran had been fair those imposing Sharia would have lost. I think that most dictatorships whether miltaristic or religious (Iran is both) would have a hard time winning fair elections. We only have to look at the collapse of the Soviet Empire which included areas of Europe and Asia to see that given the chance most of the former Soviet "republics" voted to be free of Russian rule. Those who couldn't vote or whose vote was not recognized are fighting to this day.

 

[seniorita]

I just realized i have a pet peeve , I dont like when someone is quoting ALL my post, and i have to re-read all my mistakes again
sorry!

 

[janetfan]

I just realized i have a pet peeve , I dont like when someone is quoting ALL my post, and i have to re-read all my mistakes again sorry!

Well if it makes you feel better you just did the same thing to me

I just went back and corrected the name of the film to "Redacted" which I originaly wrote as "Redaction." Still have never seen it and will pick it up next time I pass a movie rental store.

BTW, mm should have called this topic "War and Peace, and Harry Potter too"

I have never read any of the books or seen any of the movies. Am I missing much :think:

 

[seniorita]

I didnt quote a whole post did I?? :think:
Nevermind I can live with my pet peeves, I just have lots of english mistakes and see them doubled afterwards

 

[Mathman]

I read recently and my jaw dropped is that Quran has based its views partly in Aristotle and Platon writings.

I don’t think that this influence can be found in the Quran itself. The Prophet Muhammed was a desert merchant of no particular education or scholarly aspirations He lived two hundred years before the great flowering of Arabic culture and the rediscovery by the Islamic world of the philosophy and cultural achievements of the Greeks. Muhammad received the Quran verbatim from the Archangel Gabriel over a period of years ending in 632 (much as Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon on golden tablets from the Angel Moroni 1200 years later.) The text of the Quran was written down in its definitive form only a few years after Mohammed’s death, and has not changed since then.

I think it was the great scholars of the 9th century that brought the ideas of Aristotle and Plato into Islamic thought. (In Christianity, this process occurred around the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas being the most influential of the new “Christian Aristotelians.)

One of the great Arabian scholars of this period, by the way, was my favorite guy, Al-Kwarizmi. (The modern word “algorithm” means “reasoning in the manner of al-Kwarizmi.”) Al-Kwarizmi introduced (from India) the “ten Hindu symbols” – i.e., “Arabic” numerals and modern decimal-based arithmetic -- into the Islamic world, and thence into Europe. He also invented a method of mathematical reasoning which he called “al-jabr and al-muqabala” – algebra! :respec:

Anyway, there is a huge difference between the world-views of revealed faith-based religions like Islam and Christianity, and Aristotelian rationalism. In my humble opinion these attempts by theologians and philosophers to find common ground is mostly after-the-fact sophistry. (Just my opinion. )

 

[Tonichelle]

I have never read any of the books or seen any of the movies. Am I missing much :think:

IMO, no. After being forced to sit through two of the films I can safely say the story stinks.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I haven't seen the movie so I don't feel up to commenting on it. I would presume it is a well made film.

As to invaders of countries, as we have seen Bush invade a peaceful Iraq (there are so many tyrants in the world), what is the underlying cause of setting off the rise of AlQuaida? That is what Bush accomplished. His aim to get an oil deal with a new more responsive leader than Saddam. Bush is the single cause of the hatred towards America by the middle east countries.