Eddie Vedder and "unnecessary war"

redrock

Unsung - we don't usually see eye to eye but here, I agree with your post (well... most of it ) If we make our politicians more accountable, they wouldn't be so free with the lives of others.

Riotgrl - my father was a career military guy. He was sent to Korea, and did several tour of duties in Viet-nam. He was not a gun-ho let's go get'em guy. He was of a middle class family, 17 AND out of university. No job prospects for him (apart from the usual little jobs for 17 year olds) so he enlisted as he wanted to travel. He did - immediately went to Japan and loved it. Unfortunately, the rest came with it.

know1

I'm not sure I really get or totally agree with the anti-war but pro-soldier line of thinking.

We have not had a draft in a very long time. People are volunteering to become soldiers during a time period where we've been at "war" or whatever for 11 years now. If you volunteer these days, you know there's a good chance you might have to kill someone and I think murder is wrong. If someone joins during a time of war, they are pro-war and the anti-war side should oppose that.

During times of peace or when there's a draft, I think it's a slightly different story, but I will say that even if I was drafted I would refuse to fight and kill other people.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

During times of peace or when there's a draft, I think it's a slightly different story, but I will say that even if I was drafted I would refuse to fight and kill other people.

Would you refuse to fight if your country was under attack, or would you just refuse to fight in a bullshit war like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

know1 wrote:

During times of peace or when there's a draft, I think it's a slightly different story, but I will say that even if I was drafted I would refuse to fight and kill other people.

Would you refuse to fight if your country was under attack, or would you just refuse to fight in a bullshit war like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I would refuse to fight. Period.

I don't believe in killing. Who says my ideology or way of life justifies me ending the life of someone else.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

I would refuse to fight. Period.

I don't believe in killing. Who says my ideology or way of life justifies me ending the life of someone else.

Would you not fight to defend the lives of your friends and family?

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

know1 wrote:

I would refuse to fight. Period.

I don't believe in killing. Who says my ideology or way of life justifies me ending the life of someone else.

Would you not fight to defend the lives of your friends and family?

And so kill someone else's friends and family? Are mine more valuable or worthy to live?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

And so kill someone else's friends and family? Are mine more valuable or worthy to live?

Then you'd probably like this little book: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/hen ... rderer.htm

I can't find an online version, but I have a copy at home in England. I read it a long time ago, and it gives a pretty good case for turning one's back on war.
It's also available in his book 'Remember To Remember': http://www.amazon.com/Remember-Henry-Mi ... 0811201139

As for me, I'm not sure what I'd do. I think it would depend on the circumstances. I'd certainly never go and fight some bullshit foreign war in order to fill the pockets of the war-mongering fat bellies in the 1%.

cincybearcat

You know, after plenty of thought on the discussion, I do believe in "necessary war", but it is far more limited.

If your country is attacked on your land...war becomes pretty necessary.

Additionally, there are a few other instances where something, like an attack, could lead to you taking the war to them. Like Afghanistan in my opinion.

I can also see joining forces with others to help in their "necessary war" even if it isn't your war, depending on the circumstances.

But really, thinking that there is no necessary war (other than defending your own home/land/country) is a very reasonable position.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Additionally, there are a few other instances where something, like an attack, could lead to you taking the war to them. Like Afghanistan in my opinion.

When you say 'them', you mean the Saudi Arabian's that happened to be residing in Afghanistan at the time, right? The same Saudi's who the Afghan leadership offered to hand over to the U.S if the U.S provided proof that they were guilty, as is the case in any such situation involving international terrorism, or any other extradition request.

riotgrl

redrock wrote:

Unsung - we don't usually see eye to eye but here, I agree with your post (well... most of it ) If we make our politicians more accountable, they wouldn't be so free with the lives of others.

Riotgrl - my father was a career military guy. He was sent to Korea, and did several tour of duties in Viet-nam. He was not a gun-ho let's go get'em guy. He was of a middle class family, 17 AND out of university. No job prospects for him (apart from the usual little jobs for 17 year olds) so he enlisted as he wanted to travel. He did - immediately went to Japan and loved it. Unfortunately, the rest came with it.

I think the socioeconomic statistics have changed since Korea and Vietnam. My dad also joined because there were no job prospects for him in his town. I think more and more recruits today are coming primarily from the middle class - my brother joined the Army AFTER receiving a college degree which is probably typical of more recruits today than 40-50 years ago but greater education levels are also the norm for the population in general. However, I believe that when we break down the statistics amongst ethnic groups that we find a disproportinate number of poor blacks that serve while whites are primarily from the middle classes. DoD statistics are slightly skewed and cherry picked to state that it is not a poor man's army. However, we've discovered in the Truth thread that sometimes truth is a matter of perception

hedonist

supersonicyears wrote:

They deserve much more than they get.

Yep.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Additionally, there are a few other instances where something, like an attack, could lead to you taking the war to them. Like Afghanistan in my opinion.

When you say 'them', you mean the Saudi Arabian's that happened to be residing in Afghanistan at the time, right? The same Saudi's who the Afghan leadership offered to hand over to the U.S if the U.S provided proof that they were guilty, as is the case in any such situation involving international terrorism, or any other extradition request.

Well to be fair, Al Qaeda isn;t really part of anyone one nation. And so the fact that the people were Saudi isn't that compelling. But the fact that their leader was in Afghanistan and being helped by the "government" in charge there.....

But I do see your point.

brianlux

fear4freedom wrote:

You are telling me Hitler didnt need taken out? You are telling me that there is no evil. You are missing one major point, that there are evil men with armies who also need taken out. You didnt think to yourself on 9.12 that whoever did that needs taken out? North Korea hates South, what if they attack them? If you understand human nature well enough, as im sure you claim, you would also understand the need for war sometimes

Yes, there are "evil men with armies". What was it your Jesus said about casting the first stone?

brianlux

riotgrl wrote:

Of course, Hitler needed to be taken out BUT examine the history and tell me why it was allowed to even get to that point? Stronger wills could have prevented that war and the Holocaust if aggressive action had been taken before it ended in all out war.

Yes, riotgrl, and that was one of the points I- well, didn't make so clear. We let Hitler happen in the first place.

Smellyman

I think we should all give a listen to Howard Zinn about right now.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars

love listening to him talk on this subject.

we sent planes over Tokyo to set Tokyo afire with firebombs, and 100,000 people died in one night of bombing in Tokyo. Altogether we killed over half a million people in Japan, civilians. And some people said, “Well, they bombed Pearl Harbor.” That’s really something. These people did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Those children did not bomb Pearl Harbor. But this notion of violent revenge and retaliation is something we’ve got to get rid of.




more

Well, let’s first look at the cost of the war, on one side of the balance sheet. The cost of the war. In lives, I mean. Twenty-five thousand. Hey, that’s nothing, right? Twenty-five thousand? We lost 58,000 in Vietnam. That’s — 25,000 — did you even know how many lives were lost in the Revolutionary War? It’s hardly worth talking about. In proportion to population — in proportion to the Revolutionary War population of the colonies, 25,000 would be equivalent today to two-and-a-half million. Two-and-a-half million. Let’s fight a war. We’re being oppressed by England. Let’s fight for independence. Two-and-a-half million people will die, but we’ll have independence. Would you have second thoughts? You might. In other words, I want to make that 25,000, which seems like an insignificant figure, I want to make it palpable and real and not to be minimized as a cost of the Revolutionary War, and to keep that in mind in the balance sheet as we look at whatever other factors there are. So, yes, we win independence against England. Great. And it only cost two-and-a-half million. OK?

brianlux

Smellyman wrote:

I think we should all give a listen to Howard Zinn about right now.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars

love listening to him talk on this subject.

we sent planes over Tokyo to set Tokyo afire with firebombs, and 100,000 people died in one night of bombing in Tokyo. Altogether we killed over half a million people in Japan, civilians. And some people said, “Well, they bombed Pearl Harbor.” That’s really something. These people did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Those children did not bomb Pearl Harbor. But this notion of violent revenge and retaliation is something we’ve got to get rid of.




more

Well, let’s first look at the cost of the war, on one side of the balance sheet. The cost of the war. In lives, I mean. Twenty-five thousand. Hey, that’s nothing, right? Twenty-five thousand? We lost 58,000 in Vietnam. That’s — 25,000 — did you even know how many lives were lost in the Revolutionary War? It’s hardly worth talking about. In proportion to population — in proportion to the Revolutionary War population of the colonies, 25,000 would be equivalent today to two-and-a-half million. Two-and-a-half million. Let’s fight a war. We’re being oppressed by England. Let’s fight for independence. Two-and-a-half million people will die, but we’ll have independence. Would you have second thoughts? You might. In other words, I want to make that 25,000, which seems like an insignificant figure, I want to make it palpable and real and not to be minimized as a cost of the Revolutionary War, and to keep that in mind in the balance sheet as we look at whatever other factors there are. So, yes, we win independence against England. Great. And it only cost two-and-a-half million. OK?

hedonist

Attaway77 wrote:

"And deciding being a soldier is something I can not imagine coming from a sane mind and soul. And then I should feel sorry for their trauma? Well, apparently, the government gives a shit about their trauma. That is another problem, I see that. But on the other hand: You went to war for your country? Well, then deal with the consequences!"

What a shit thing to say.....

After re-reading this thread (initial and corrected posts, anyway - and don't ask me WHY I re-read), I have to echo this sentiment.

Whether anyone feels war is "necessary" or not, I find it a huge slap in the face of every man and woman who've literally put themselves on the front-line with the best of intent.

Deal with the consequences, my ass.

BinauralJam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ndqbIHqcLk

This

Cosmo

fear4freedom wrote:

If you speak to Vietnamese people today, they think we saved them.

...
Question: Are these Vietnamese people you speak of, living here in the U.S?
If YES, then... Question: Why aren't they back in their home country that we saved for them?
...
Thanx.

callen

Cosmo wrote:

A couple of things...
First off, I agree with your view, if there were no soldiers, there would be no war.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where greed is boundless and benefits from war. Since there are wars, we have to face the consequences of it. The main consequence, death and injury.
I understand the view that supports the soldier, but not the war. The soldier does not get to decide, the politicians make those decisions, based upon whatever their intentions. It is said that no one prays for peace more than the soldier who prepares for war.
Next, I don't think it is patriotism that causes war.... it is the misconception that militarism is patriotism. Politicians will use patriotism as justification for war, but so often, it in not rooted in patriotism and more likely a lust for power and resources to feed greed and selfishness.
Lastly... I wish there were no reason to fund organizations such as 'Wounded Warrior'. but, truth is, there is.

Taking it a bit further, politicians use patriotism as a tool to get humans to go to war. It’s a constant conditioning of its people and is very effective (President Cheney, Hitler) Having all school children reciting the pledge of allegiance is blatant brainwashing/conditioning. We are exposed to this conditioning on daily basis and few are able to see it for what it is. Control.