(no subject)
Mar. 31st, 2003 11:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avadLengthy Thoughts on *sigh* war.There seems to be no question that the common people of Iraq do not want to
be under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. That was never in my argument.
There just seems to be some kind of absurd glossing over and simplification
of the idea of war, and I am disgusted that at this late age, with all our
possible learning from past experience, it is still thought of as the clear
answer to anything. We have this vague notion of 'World War II= good- we rid
the world of an evil dictator.' Let's do it again and be heroes. End of
story. As if every bit of the war, the losses, the devastation was
inevitable exactly as it happened, and necessary for the final result. It
is the easiest mental picture , we look at a series of events and a
(chosen) 'final' event and believe that it is the only way that 'final'
event could have been reached. Of course mathematically, there are numerous
other equations that could have yielded the result. But we don't see them so
they are as good as impossible. I think calculations are made..which always
seem to exclude/ignore the more negative or unpredictable parts of human
nature. 'War-time scenarios' are not natural everyday events. I think the
very training of military is perhaps the cause of our endless cycles of
violence. There is a required and abstract 'self vs. other' that must be
defined for any action to be taken. The boxes are imposed around groups with
human leaky sides. Self as troop, as army, as nation, as immediate family
etc. Other as another military group, government, culture, religion, etc. If
damages and loss occur on the 'other' side they may be abstracted and
accepted. If damages and/or loss occurs to what we deem as 'Self', we tend
to become mentally unstable, and a retaliating action tends to occur. In
everyday life, these reactions are usually subverted, and take form in
behaviors that are unhealthy but not necessarily fatal. In 'war' these
reactions take place within individuals who are heavily armed, on the
'defensive' literally, and in charge of all sorts of weaponry. We have
countless stories to learn from in which these humans (not abstracted
robotic forces) have devastated areas and civilians in a 'loss of control'
emotional reaction. Retaliation breeds retaliation. The mine-fields are also
within.
Hypothetical situation: A soldier shoots an offensive soldier. The
offensive's soldier's son, (a 12 year old 'civilian' lurking nearby,
understandably irate) shoots the first soldier, who happens to be your best
buddy.
What do you feel? Are you clearheaded on your mission? Of course. You're a
US trained soldier. right?
I don't think human beings are actually capable of war without severe
psychological damage as a result. Then these damages must find their
'nonwar' logic...and the mental offspring is handed down through the
generations.
I have a larger concern/worry now that we as a nation, are also such a
precarious, emotional minefield. That all it would take is one bomb on US
territory that would allow us to abstract the 'offensive area' in
retaliation. September 11th is the prime example. But now what happens if
something similar occurs? The emotional response would surely be increased
bombing in Iraq....regardless of who the actual aggressor was (perhaps
another Al-Qaeda member).
And well...I seem to remember the US as the ones who felt justified with the
Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima.
Ah, but maybe war is simpler and more efficient than that. (It just never
has been so I guess I'm a skeptic).It will be all over tomorrow and the
healthy, happy Iraqis will thank us.
Fittingly, I'm now reading 'Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth
Century":
World War II
The Early Phase: The Ban on Civilian Targets
be under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. That was never in my argument.
There just seems to be some kind of absurd glossing over and simplification
of the idea of war, and I am disgusted that at this late age, with all our
possible learning from past experience, it is still thought of as the clear
answer to anything. We have this vague notion of 'World War II= good- we rid
the world of an evil dictator.' Let's do it again and be heroes. End of
story. As if every bit of the war, the losses, the devastation was
inevitable exactly as it happened, and necessary for the final result. It
is the easiest mental picture , we look at a series of events and a
(chosen) 'final' event and believe that it is the only way that 'final'
event could have been reached. Of course mathematically, there are numerous
other equations that could have yielded the result. But we don't see them so
they are as good as impossible. I think calculations are made..which always
seem to exclude/ignore the more negative or unpredictable parts of human
nature. 'War-time scenarios' are not natural everyday events. I think the
very training of military is perhaps the cause of our endless cycles of
violence. There is a required and abstract 'self vs. other' that must be
defined for any action to be taken. The boxes are imposed around groups with
human leaky sides. Self as troop, as army, as nation, as immediate family
etc. Other as another military group, government, culture, religion, etc. If
damages and loss occur on the 'other' side they may be abstracted and
accepted. If damages and/or loss occurs to what we deem as 'Self', we tend
to become mentally unstable, and a retaliating action tends to occur. In
everyday life, these reactions are usually subverted, and take form in
behaviors that are unhealthy but not necessarily fatal. In 'war' these
reactions take place within individuals who are heavily armed, on the
'defensive' literally, and in charge of all sorts of weaponry. We have
countless stories to learn from in which these humans (not abstracted
robotic forces) have devastated areas and civilians in a 'loss of control'
emotional reaction. Retaliation breeds retaliation. The mine-fields are also
within.
Hypothetical situation: A soldier shoots an offensive soldier. The
offensive's soldier's son, (a 12 year old 'civilian' lurking nearby,
understandably irate) shoots the first soldier, who happens to be your best
buddy.
What do you feel? Are you clearheaded on your mission? Of course. You're a
US trained soldier. right?
I don't think human beings are actually capable of war without severe
psychological damage as a result. Then these damages must find their
'nonwar' logic...and the mental offspring is handed down through the
generations.
I have a larger concern/worry now that we as a nation, are also such a
precarious, emotional minefield. That all it would take is one bomb on US
territory that would allow us to abstract the 'offensive area' in
retaliation. September 11th is the prime example. But now what happens if
something similar occurs? The emotional response would surely be increased
bombing in Iraq....regardless of who the actual aggressor was (perhaps
another Al-Qaeda member).
And well...I seem to remember the US as the ones who felt justified with the
Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima.
Ah, but maybe war is simpler and more efficient than that. (It just never
has been so I guess I'm a skeptic).It will be all over tomorrow and the
healthy, happy Iraqis will thank us.
Fittingly, I'm now reading 'Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth
Century":
World War II
The Early Phase: The Ban on Civilian Targets
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-31 09:48 am (UTC)but i just want to say that i hate this war, and it's hard to point out what i most hate about it because there are so many things.
i was born under a dictatorship government. it was, years later into it, the actual army who raised itself against the government, with the backing of the people. it was a revolution that belonged to the people of that country. when outside countries come and do that for them, disrupting the citizen's lives, killing many, not fully understanding the culture they are "liberating", then it all seems like a huge disgusting exercise in hypocrisy.
and i'm scared that one of worst fears will come true: muslims getting together against western europe, israel, america, etc.
with all the progress, the technology, the history, the protests, and these "big grown up" decision makers can't do anything other than itch for the trigger.
at least i'm glad that a lot of people in the UK are against this nonsense, otherwise i'd feel like i was living in some nightmarish parallel universe, which seems to be more and more.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-31 12:55 pm (UTC)But your comments about it being better for a revolution from within the country as opposed to an outside force helping seems a stretch to me.
I don't think either one are better than the other. If you look back, historically, the largest loss of life has come primarily from civil wars.
Even in the US, more people died in the Civil War than died in the the Vietnam war. Granted, the technology of war has changed a lot, but I still think there is often more violence and death in a civil war.
I also disagree with your fear of "muslims getting together against western europe, israel, america, etc." 1 out of every 5 people in the world is Muslim. The largest percentages of Muslims are NOT in the Middle East and are NOT even of Middle Eastern heritage. It's fear and ignorance of Muslims that is the main cause for this war.
Radical Christian groups have been known in the past and present to be just as violent as the Radical Muslims that the media loves to report on. Every group has its radicals that claim to follow the path of the religion, but instead contradict that with every violent act they do. Overall, Muslims (and Christians, and Jews, and......) are peaceful.
I hope it all ends very soon before Iraq OR the "Coalition" steps up the scale of violence to chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons. I hope the same for the aggressions building between India and Pakistan, and between North and South Korea.
Re:
Date: 2003-03-31 02:24 pm (UTC)no, dear, it's oil and power. let's not kid ourselves here.
if bush & blair are so worried about iraquis, why aren't they worried about so many other oppressing powers, including their own?
i was imagining this and i think it is quite funny:
luxembourg & belgium invade the UK and start shooting the big ben, the tower of london, winsor castle, etc, cause the governement in power is attacking another country and possesses weapons of mass destruction.
in the meantime, whilst "accidentally" killing some english people, it throws leaflets on the cities to explain to the citizens what is going on.
in french.
Re:
Date: 2003-04-01 09:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-01 01:04 pm (UTC)as if it were as simple as that. yeah, genius, it don't look pretty when someone's filming the play-by-play. that's the whole freakin' point. free press and all that...
i think our planet has outgrown the need for a terrestrial military; these testosterone-pumped hierarchical power-structure-addicts need their outlets. the solution? develop a moon base. military people are often adreneline junkies and thrill seekers - what is more exciting that space? priorities are all mixed up...
Re:
Date: 2003-04-01 06:37 pm (UTC)I'm your groupie