The day against war
There is also the argument that the mere fact the Abu Ghraib incidents actually surfaced shows the depth of openess and more fundamental health of the US system.
You will never see the horrors of a truly repressive regime until it falls. And remember the official Chinese line that "not a single person died" on Tienamin Square ?
How about this little scenario then: Your aircraft has crash-landed in Iraq and you're wandering through the desert looking for help. You see a group of people approaching, but can't make out who they are. Now who are you hoping to see ? A truckload of Arab 'freedom fighters' or a truckload of US Marines ?
And to broaden things out to a more historical context: torture and atrocity are a part of war. Sure, war is a horrific, terrible thing, and to be avoided and abhored, but war is horror. And the people who fight wars don't do so in a Star Trek environment and retire to the ready room to discuss moral dilemmas. The combatants are brutal, brutalised, numbed, and trained to kill without hesitation.
WWII was full of massacres and killings, exceutions of prisoners by all sides.
I think western methods of war have advanced in the most humane way possible. Western powers don't use nukes, chemical agents or biological weapons. We don't attempt to wipe out entire populations, or ethnically cleanse areas. There are no more "1000 bomber raids" to level cities. Billions are spent on non-lethal weapon systems. We've made volumes of 'rules of war' to attempt to limit the horror.
When our troops break the rules, such as at Abu Ghraib, the crime is discovered and some are punished.
Given that war is historically the "normal" state of human affairs on this planet, and that warfare has been a constant throughout history, I think we're not doing too badly at present.
You will never see the horrors of a truly repressive regime until it falls. And remember the official Chinese line that "not a single person died" on Tienamin Square ?
How about this little scenario then: Your aircraft has crash-landed in Iraq and you're wandering through the desert looking for help. You see a group of people approaching, but can't make out who they are. Now who are you hoping to see ? A truckload of Arab 'freedom fighters' or a truckload of US Marines ?
And to broaden things out to a more historical context: torture and atrocity are a part of war. Sure, war is a horrific, terrible thing, and to be avoided and abhored, but war is horror. And the people who fight wars don't do so in a Star Trek environment and retire to the ready room to discuss moral dilemmas. The combatants are brutal, brutalised, numbed, and trained to kill without hesitation.
WWII was full of massacres and killings, exceutions of prisoners by all sides.
I think western methods of war have advanced in the most humane way possible. Western powers don't use nukes, chemical agents or biological weapons. We don't attempt to wipe out entire populations, or ethnically cleanse areas. There are no more "1000 bomber raids" to level cities. Billions are spent on non-lethal weapon systems. We've made volumes of 'rules of war' to attempt to limit the horror.
When our troops break the rules, such as at Abu Ghraib, the crime is discovered and some are punished.
Given that war is historically the "normal" state of human affairs on this planet, and that warfare has been a constant throughout history, I think we're not doing too badly at present.
Sorry but I don't accept this for a second. The US is trying to make out that it was a few rogue elements that perpetrated these crimes. But with the evidence that's been leaking out from Guantanamo etc, it's pretty obvious that this brutalising technique was officially sanctioned and a crucial element in dehumanising their prisoners.On 2005-03-24 08:23, Spirit wrote:
There is also the argument that the mere fact the Abu Ghraib incidents actually surfaced shows the depth of openess and more fundamental health of the US system.
I have no time for any repressive regime which strains to uphold its system at all costs. I think we should wake up and see the implementation of western democracy for what it is instead of just accepting it as a free society.You will never see the horrors of a truly repressive regime until it falls. And remember the official Chinese line that "not a single person died" on Tienamin Square ?
I'm sorry but your scenario is utter nonsense. If you create a warzone then obviously it's dangerous - that has been my whole point all along.How about this little scenario then: Your aircraft has crash-landed in Iraq and you're wandering through the desert looking for help. You see a group of people approaching, but can't make out who they are. Now who are you hoping to see ? A truckload of Arab 'freedom fighters' or a truckload of US Marines ?
Yes, but what you fail to see is that it was political ambitions that caused them. Leaders of countries willingly sending 1000's if not millions to their deaths in order to uphold their power. The sooner people start to reject this kind of dehumanization outright, the sooner we might see things change. After WW1 and WW2 the common people in Britain were pretty pissed at the upper classes, who sent them to their deaths by the millions, in an ignorant fashion. The authorities knew that this could lead to socialist revolt, so what did they do? They started to import immigrants - the official line is that it would give the working classes someone else to hate other than the upper classes.And to broaden things out to a more historical context: torture and atrocity are a part of war. Sure, war is a horrific, terrible thing, and to be avoided and abhored, but war is horror. And the people who fight wars don't do so in a Star Trek environment and retire to the ready room to discuss moral dilemmas. The combatants are brutal, brutalised, numbed, and trained to kill without hesitation.
WWII was full of massacres and killings, exceutions of prisoners by all sides.
Utter bullshit I'm afraid. What about depleted uranium weapons? Gulf war syndrome? We not only contaminate warzones away from our own back yard, but we expose our own soldiers to these kind of toxic substances. All in the name of economically efficient warfare. The kind of advanced technological warfare the west engages in is like taking candy from a baby. And what's depressingly hilarious is that they can't even get this right - you'd think they would have learned after Vietnam.I think western methods of war have advanced in the most humane way possible. Western powers don't use nukes, chemical agents or biological weapons. We don't attempt to wipe out entire populations, or ethnically cleanse areas. There are no more "1000 bomber raids" to level cities. Billions are spent on non-lethal weapon systems. We've made volumes of 'rules of war' to attempt to limit the horror.
The crime was discovered because of a few peoples' stupidity in taking pictures, then the US authorities made them convenient scapegoats, saying they were a rogue element unrepresentative of the overall force.When our troops break the rules, such as at Abu Ghraib, the crime is discovered and some are punished.
Open your mind and start to think a bit differently, and things might start to change for the better.Given that war is historically the "normal" state of human affairs on this planet, and that warfare has been a constant throughout history, I think we're not doing too badly at present.
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6683
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
As long as war will exist within each one of us, so as long war will still exist in the outside world.
If you don't want more wars, destroy the war within yourself, and it will desapear from the world.
If you don't want violence in the world, destroy your violence within yourself.
If you don't want egoism in the world, destroy egoism withing yourself.
If you don't want ignorance in the world, destroy ignorance withing yourself.
Nothing can change the waters of the ocean without changing first every single individual drop in it; as the best way to change the world is to change yourself!
If you don't want more wars, destroy the war within yourself, and it will desapear from the world.
If you don't want violence in the world, destroy your violence within yourself.
If you don't want egoism in the world, destroy egoism withing yourself.
If you don't want ignorance in the world, destroy ignorance withing yourself.
Nothing can change the waters of the ocean without changing first every single individual drop in it; as the best way to change the world is to change yourself!
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
Well, since we've now got to the point where you are merely saying certain things are "utter bullshit", I'll forget about attempting debate on the finer points.
However, the following comment of yours deserves to be highlighted. Is there any evidence at all for this truly bizarre claim ?
[quote]
On 2005-03-24 08:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
After WW1 and WW2 the common people in Britain were pretty pissed at the upper classes, who sent them to their deaths by the millions, in an ignorant fashion. The authorities knew that this could lead to socialist revolt, so what did they do? They started to import immigrants - the official line is that it would give the working classes someone else to hate other than the upper classes.
[quote]
However, the following comment of yours deserves to be highlighted. Is there any evidence at all for this truly bizarre claim ?
[quote]
On 2005-03-24 08:39, dArKr3zIn wrote:
After WW1 and WW2 the common people in Britain were pretty pissed at the upper classes, who sent them to their deaths by the millions, in an ignorant fashion. The authorities knew that this could lead to socialist revolt, so what did they do? They started to import immigrants - the official line is that it would give the working classes someone else to hate other than the upper classes.
[quote]
I would very much like to see your evidence for this, it is a pretty radical claim. I would say while at least the first half might be true in terms of WW1, I just can't think of any evidence that this was the case after WW2 - Winston Churchill was a hero, even if he was elected out for a more left-wing government that would rebuild our shell of a country.
After WW1 and WW2 the common people in Britain were pretty pissed at the upper classes, who sent them to their deaths by the millions, in an ignorant fashion. The authorities knew that this could lead to socialist revolt, so what did they do? They started to import immigrants - the official line is that it would give the working classes someone else to hate other than the upper classes.
The idea that imigrants were 'imported' is strange too. Surely the main factor was that the migrants of the 60s were british citizens with british passports many of whose countries were breaking away from colonial rule. The had both a right and a choice to come to this country.
In general the most important thing about class in the last 100 years has been the perception of class. The civil service and the house of commons are solidly 'middle' class (to persist in the game) and have been for at least that long.
The idea that britain's governance has been at the hands of a posh back-slapping oligarchy in any sort of recent past is just a really wierd illusion !
One of our planes has been shot in Bagdad. The crew managed to put it on the ground with loss of all hydraulic systems, they got medals all over the globe for such unique recovery (all flight controls are pure hydraulically power). The captain of that flight and other crews who went there, all tell me how shocked they are about what the soldiers tell them. Not about what they've seen or been through, but of the hatred that lives in them and simplistic computer game vision they have, in short how fncked up they are. And these crew have lived in war before, for example in Central Africa. Not to say UN operations there go without incidents either, I remember the 10 death for which Belgian troops were responsible, and pictures of soldiers humiliating locals for fun. These incidents were investigated and punished. The difference with Iraq, is that such abuse is orchestrated remotely, it's not a couple of nutcases that you will always find when you bring thousands of people together. Guantanamo is illegal, everyone knows, but nothing's changing.
How about Saoudi Arabia? Any WMD there? Or do they have too much on Wallstreet eh. If you fly into Dubai or Bahrain, you see how relative money is. Price per barrel doubled, any idea where these dollars are going? A bit of tax reduction ye, but we'll double the petrol price
How about Saoudi Arabia? Any WMD there? Or do they have too much on Wallstreet eh. If you fly into Dubai or Bahrain, you see how relative money is. Price per barrel doubled, any idea where these dollars are going? A bit of tax reduction ye, but we'll double the petrol price
Yes, these facts were revealed in official papers released under the Official Secrets Act (which dictates that secret papers must be revealed after 30 years... I'm not sure for how much longer this law will still exist, due to the wholesale changes to the law in order to "combat terrorism") here in the UK.
The papers were revealed in the late 80s I believe. I remember seeing it on the news when I was a wee lad (it stuck in my memory, because I found it rather disturbing, even though I had little understanding of political mechanics at the time).
And please, if you want to debate, be prepared to see your arguments exposed as rubbish. I'm sorry if the language offended you, but we are all adults here. I didn't insult you, I simply exposed one of your arguments for what it was.
The papers were revealed in the late 80s I believe. I remember seeing it on the news when I was a wee lad (it stuck in my memory, because I found it rather disturbing, even though I had little understanding of political mechanics at the time).
And please, if you want to debate, be prepared to see your arguments exposed as rubbish. I'm sorry if the language offended you, but we are all adults here. I didn't insult you, I simply exposed one of your arguments for what it was.
Please don't mistake it for a lack of empathy or a lack of appreciation for the horrors that humans inflict on each other. I just don't believe humanity will reach true peace by one-liners on a protest placard. I think it will happen by degrees, by international debate, by mediums such as the internet, by forums such as this with people talking calming from all countries, and by a progression of our current systems.
The world's a bit of a mess, but it's *always* been a mess. War is our natural state. But I look around and see progress. I think the future is looking extremely rosey.
The world's a bit of a mess, but it's *always* been a mess. War is our natural state. But I look around and see progress. I think the future is looking extremely rosey.
Well touche then, I must remember to use the line "utter bullshit" to disprove opposing viewpoints more oftenOn 2005-03-24 09:04, dArKr3zIn wrote:
I didn't insult you, I simply exposed one of your arguments for what it was.
Seriously though dArKr3zIn, it's been interesting, but I think it's time I left this before anyone gets too excited. Meet you again in another thread
-
hubird
@Nestor, saying 'As long as war will exist within each one of us, so as long war will still exist in the outside world.
'...
hm, tell that to any surpressed people, Nestor.
Words like these hardly can explaine anything, they are only true in a very specific and abstract way.
They sound like priest talk, or at best as buddhist wisdom...
To me they have a high ritual character in a religious way, you can't even imagine someone saying, that is not true.
They're always true, how could they not be?
So they don't differentate, and don't have much of practical or political meaning.
Tell a guy in a trench to fight the war in his heart, while his family got killed or tortured by his surpressor...
The US would still be in Vietnam if the Vietnamese would have followed your introspection advice.
And, alas, the chinees still are the surpressors in buddhist Tibet...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-03-24 09:27 ]</font>
'...
hm, tell that to any surpressed people, Nestor.
Words like these hardly can explaine anything, they are only true in a very specific and abstract way.
They sound like priest talk, or at best as buddhist wisdom...
To me they have a high ritual character in a religious way, you can't even imagine someone saying, that is not true.
They're always true, how could they not be?
So they don't differentate, and don't have much of practical or political meaning.
Tell a guy in a trench to fight the war in his heart, while his family got killed or tortured by his surpressor...
The US would still be in Vietnam if the Vietnamese would have followed your introspection advice.
And, alas, the chinees still are the surpressors in buddhist Tibet...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-03-24 09:27 ]</font>
I've made all the points I wanted to make. Please have a read through my posts again, and try not to take what I said personallym, but just try and see the situation from a different perspective than the black and white scenario presented on the news media.
The main thing that really worries me is that private companies are involved in this huge war industry now.
Peacekeeping forces are simply American/European security companies contracted to work in some of the most brutalised places on earth. They regularly are prone to corruption, getting involved in sexual abuse, prostitution/smuggling rackets and much more.
I don't even have to go into the arms industry/construction industry symbiotic relationship, which is truly puke-inducing.
Just look at our extremely capitalistic society. We're taught to increase profits at all costs. With this economic environment, and the sheer profitability of war, how can you possibly see a bright future? I really really wish I could share your optimism (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with this, as some people would simply call it blind ignorance).
The main thing that really worries me is that private companies are involved in this huge war industry now.
Peacekeeping forces are simply American/European security companies contracted to work in some of the most brutalised places on earth. They regularly are prone to corruption, getting involved in sexual abuse, prostitution/smuggling rackets and much more.
I don't even have to go into the arms industry/construction industry symbiotic relationship, which is truly puke-inducing.
Just look at our extremely capitalistic society. We're taught to increase profits at all costs. With this economic environment, and the sheer profitability of war, how can you possibly see a bright future? I really really wish I could share your optimism (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with this, as some people would simply call it blind ignorance).
Very Interesting, I'll see if I can find anything more about it (and let you know if I do). And yeah our f**ked up terrorism bills might well make such honesty a thing of the past ...On 2005-03-24 09:04, dArKr3zIn wrote:
Yes, these facts were revealed in official papers released under the Official Secrets Act (which dictates that secret papers must be revealed after 30 years... I'm not sure for how much longer this law will still exist, due to the wholesale changes to the law in order to "combat terrorism") here in the UK.
it is very disturbing ...The papers were revealed in the late 80s I believe. I remember seeing it on the news when I was a wee lad (it stuck in my memory, because I found it rather disturbing, even though I had little understanding of political mechanics at the time).
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or to Spirit here, but ...And please, if you want to debate, be prepared to see your arguments exposed as rubbish. I'm sorry if the language offended you, but we are all adults here. I didn't insult you, I simply exposed one of your arguments for what it was.
I am a philosopher, hence very used to heated debate ! My job is to sort the wood from the trees (as it were) and I still can't make sense of what 'no to war' is really meaning. And I still think a just war can be fought unjustly (WW2 down to a tee, surely)
Again if this was about me, which argument did you see yourself as exposing as rubbish ? Not sure ...
Anyway, the general moral is that it is debate which is important ... for my part you can rest assured I am taking it all in good spirit
he heW
Well, I'll attest to one thing (as I am a US Army veteran). The Military is trained to act professionally and within the agreements set forth by the Genevea conventions. When soldier(s) act outside of those rules, there are often consequences. You cannot stop a person from breaking the rules at any time, even a time of war. And as much as a soldier may disagree with the war he's fighting, he's still in it and cannot 'leave'.
That being said, I also disagree in the US's foreign politics, including the war in Iraq. Friends of mine have died, and worse than that, a HUGE number of iraqi's have died.
My opinion and beliefs about whats going on will be left at that. I've been terrorized by my government, and I fear getting in trouble for talking too loudly about it.
8
That being said, I also disagree in the US's foreign politics, including the war in Iraq. Friends of mine have died, and worse than that, a HUGE number of iraqi's have died.
My opinion and beliefs about whats going on will be left at that. I've been terrorized by my government, and I fear getting in trouble for talking too loudly about it.
8
/**/ 8-Bit /**/
Liquid Mathematics
Liquid Mathematics
-
Liquid Len
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Home By The Sea
Actually, I think these words are quite practical in the long term. In the short term, you can protest, revolt, whatever... even if you're temporarily successful in overcoming tyranny, etc, the same laws of human nature will create the same old situations. This may sound strange - but I believe everyone here (myself included) is just as responsible for the mess of this world as anyone else.
Very interested in what Mr Swim can dig up on the intriguing views / bizarre claims. Dark politics are much older than Machiavelli. Not that there's really much to do but watch from the sidelines.
Very interested in what Mr Swim can dig up on the intriguing views / bizarre claims. Dark politics are much older than Machiavelli. Not that there's really much to do but watch from the sidelines.