I have to correct myself. The article in which the sentence "soldiers are murderers" is from, was written in 1931. But it doesn't really matter at all. Because it's true anyway.
I mean, I am not blind. I know about people going to the army because they think they can feed their kids with the salary and promote themselves for a better future in college or for whatever. It's just human wanting to live a good life and do what you can to make it good with the opportunities you get. - But, let's be honest. This whole fucking thing called manhood and what it's worth and where it's heading to is based on the little decisions made by everyone every second of their lifes, over and over again. 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! A country is nothing that is worth to kill someone for. Don't tell me you believed that in the first place...please. ... "I am a patriot, and I love my country, because my country is all I know" - And everything you don't know you just blow away. Well done. Suicide is also an individual decision. It's not sadder than what they've probably done abroad in the wars they were engaging in. Maybe it's an equation they solved for themselves by subtracting their 'bodies of war' out of this world. But I am sure: (Self-)Forgiveness is better than a bullet. Everyone is making mistakes. Admitting is a start. But, Eddie, if you are reading this, please don't fool me with this term "(un)necessary war". No one will ever learn from history if we keep disguising the ugly truth with words like that.
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
do you really think your son is there to fight for freedom?
I gotta ask, because I forget, but do you have kids? Because the way you pose your question tells me hell no, but maybe I'm wrong.
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
I hope you wake up and realize that your son is over there for absolutely nothing but to make a select few people a lot of money.
Your son is not protecting our freedom's at all... killing people and sticking up embassies is not how you protect freedom in this country. I'm sorry if you can't come to that realization.
These "wars" are expensive and cause a great deal of suffering.
I love the troops, I just don't like to see them out nation building and policing the globe. I have friends that are in the service, I have a friend that just served a tour.
My mom was in the military, my dad was for 22 years, my uncle was killed in Vietnam, my grandpa was in WWII...
At least my dad agrees with me that these wars are fucked up.
I gotta ask, because I forget, but do you have kids? Because the way you pose your question tells me hell no, but maybe I'm wrong.
no ... i don't ... i'm sorry if the question appears to be insensitive ... but the reality is much of the war perpetrated around the world has nothing to do with humanity or peace or freedom ... and it's this cone of silence we employ as it relates to the troops that allows gross violations of human rights to continue to happen ...
the fact of the matter is nothing in the US most recent history indicates a military that purpose is altruistic ... and if people realized this - i would suspect there would be a lot less people "volunteering" ...
I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
I am always amazed when people spout off the old "this soldier makes it possible for you to speak freely" bit.
Its a ludicrous thing to say and it comes off very childish.
Hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night? :? Like one of these folks: http://www.ivaw.org/about (Veterans against Iraqi war)
I gotta ask, because I forget, but do you have kids? Because the way you pose your question tells me hell no, but maybe I'm wrong.
no ... i don't ... i'm sorry if the question appears to be insensitive ... but the reality is much of the war perpetrated around the world has nothing to do with humanity or peace or freedom ... and it's this cone of silence we employ as it relates to the troops that allows gross violations of human rights to continue to happen ...
the fact of the matter is nothing in the US most recent history indicates a military that purpose is altruistic ... and if people realized this - i would suspect there would be a lot less people "volunteering" ...
Yeah it does appear that way. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can only wonder what kind of answer you expect to get from a mother with a son currently serving.
Yeah it does appear that way. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can only wonder what kind of answer you expect to get from a mother with a son currently serving.
in the grand scheme of things - it really doesn't matter ... my sensitivity to her will only go so far when taken in the context of what war has done to the many suffering in these war zones ... at the end of the day - if people continue to blindly follow along some myth about freedom and what not - all it is doing is extending the license by which more suffering will be sanctioned ...
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
do you really think your son is there to fight for freedom?
I think he's there because he joined the military and is doing his duty for that position. Do I think having a military is necessary and protects our way of life? Yes, I do.
I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
I am always amazed when people spout off the old "this soldier makes it possible for you to speak freely" bit.
Its a ludicrous thing to say and it comes off very childish.
Hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night? :? Like one of these folks: http://www.ivaw.org/about (Veterans against Iraqi war)
Ludicrous to say? Tell that to the soldiers who died fighting the British and helped to create the US.
I think you have missed the point of my comment. I still think that those Veteran's wouldn't appreciate being told they signed up for the trauma so tough shit if they have problems.
Whether the Iraq war or World War II were necessary or not has nothing to do with my comments. It's the disdain and lack of support for the individuals fighting that I have a problem with.
Yeah it does appear that way. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can only wonder what kind of answer you expect to get from a mother with a son currently serving.
in the grand scheme of things - it really doesn't matter ... my sensitivity to her will only go so far when taken in the context of what war has done to the many suffering in these war zones ... at the end of the day - if people continue to blindly follow along some myth about freedom and what not - all it is doing is extending the license by which more suffering will be sanctioned ...
I'm really not going to get into a discussion on the "is any war necessary" and all that jazz around here. I just found the OP's comments about not wanting to help soliders because they signed up for a little upsetting.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
do you really think your son is there to fight for freedom?
I think he's there because he joined the military and is doing his duty for that position. Do I think having a military is necessary and protects our way of life? Yes, I do.
I'm curious, do you find it objectionable to question the wisdom of our way of life?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
I think you have missed the point of my comment. I still think that those Veteran's wouldn't appreciate being told they signed up for the trauma so tough shit if they have problems.
Whether the Iraq war or World War II were necessary or not has nothing to do with my comments. It's the disdain and lack of support for the individuals fighting that I have a problem with.
Agreed on your "tough shit" comment, and good thoughts that your son (all the sons and daughters) are kept safe as can be.
Yeah it does appear that way. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can only wonder what kind of answer you expect to get from a mother with a son currently serving.
in the grand scheme of things - it really doesn't matter ... my sensitivity to her will only go so far when taken in the context of what war has done to the many suffering in these war zones ... at the end of the day - if people continue to blindly follow along some myth about freedom and what not - all it is doing is extending the license by which more suffering will be sanctioned ...
I'm really not going to get into a discussion on the "is any war necessary" and all that jazz around here. I just found the OP's comments about not wanting to help soliders because they signed up for a little upsetting.
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%.
Another great book is "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. He was the most decorated Marine ever at the time of his death and received the medal of honor TWICE!
I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
I am always amazed when people spout off the old "this soldier makes it possible for you to speak freely" bit.
Its a ludicrous thing to say and it comes off very childish.
Hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night? :? Like one of these folks: http://www.ivaw.org/about (Veterans against Iraqi war)
Ludicrous to say? Tell that to the soldiers who died fighting the British and helped to create the US.
I know right. The US could've ended up like Canada or Australia.
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
do you really think your son is there to fight for freedom?
I completely agree. I'd rather my tax money go to help soliders than give deadbeats free cell phones. And I know with all the peace, love and happiness over here (won't even fight to protect your own family???) I'm sure this comment will get me blasted (or banned) but as the mother of someone in the Middle East right now protecting the OP's right to be voice his opinion, I hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night.
do you really think your son is there to fight for freedom?
I gotta ask, because I forget, but do you have kids? Because the way you pose your question tells me hell no, but maybe I'm wrong.
I have kids and I agree wholeheartedly with polaris, peacefrompaul, brianlux, jp, and whoever else is calling the freedom statement a joke.
staceb has been here a long time (wasn't she part of the amt's pro-Bush team in the mid-90s?) I'm sure she expected criticism of her point. Her second statement; that US soldiers are' protecting our way of life' is MUCH more accurate than 'protecting freedom'.
I think we should all give a listen to Howard Zinn about right now.
love listening to him talk on this subject.
One of my fav pieces by Zinn:
Published in the December 2001 issue of The Progressive A Just Cause, Not a Just War
by Howard Zinn
I believe two moral judgments can be made about the present "war": The September 11 attack constitutes a crime against humanity and cannot be justified, and the bombing of Afghanistan is also a crime, which cannot be justified.
And yet, voices across the political spectrum, including many on the left, have described this as a "just war." One longtime advocate of peace, Richard Falk, wrote in The Nation that this is "the first truly just war since World War II." Robert Kuttner, another consistent supporter of social justice, declared in The American Prospect that only people on the extreme left could believe this is not a just war.
I have puzzled over this. How can a war be truly just when it involves the daily killing of civilians, when it causes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to leave their homes to escape the bombs, when it may not find those who planned the September 11 attacks, and when it will multiply the ranks of people who are angry enough at this country to become terrorists themselves?
This war amounts to a gross violation of human rights, and it will produce the exact opposite of what is wanted: It will not end terrorism; it will proliferate terrorism.
I believe that the progressive supporters of the war have confused a "just cause" with a "just war." There are unjust causes, such as the attempt of the United States to establish its power in Vietnam, or to dominate Panama or Grenada, or to subvert the government of Nicaragua. And a cause may be just--getting North Korea to withdraw from South Korea, getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, or ending terrorism--but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.
The stories of the effects of our bombing are beginning to come through, in bits and pieces. Just eighteen days into the bombing, The New York Times reported: "American forces have mistakenly hit a residential area in Kabul." Twice, U.S. planes bombed Red Cross warehouses, and a Red Cross spokesman said: "Now we've got 55,000 people without that food or blankets, with nothing at all."
An Afghan elementary school-teacher told a Washington Post reporter at the Pakistan border: "When the bombs fell near my house and my babies started crying, I had no choice but to run away."
A New York Times report: "The Pentagon acknowledged that a Navy F/A-18 dropped a 1,000-pound bomb on Sunday near what officials called a center for the elderly. . . . The United Nations said the building was a military hospital. . . . Several hours later, a Navy F-14 dropped two 500-pound bombs on a residential area northwest of Kabul." A U.N. official told a New York Times reporter that an American bombing raid on the city of Herat had used cluster bombs, which spread deadly "bomblets" over an area of twenty football fields. This, the Times reporter wrote,"was the latest of a growing number of accounts of American bombs going astray and causing civilian casualties."
An A.P. reporter was brought to Karam, a small mountain village hit by American bombs, and saw houses reduced to rubble. "In the hospital in Jalalabad, twenty-five miles to the east, doctors treated what they said were twenty-three victims of bombing at Karam, one a child barely two months old, swathed in bloody bandages," according to the account. "Another child, neighbors said, was in the hospital because the bombing raid had killed her entire family. At least eighteen fresh graves were scattered around the village."
The city of Kandahar, attacked for seventeen straight days, was reported to be a ghost town, with more than half of its 500,000 people fleeing the bombs. The city's electrical grid had been knocked out. The city was deprived of water, since the electrical pumps could not operate. A sixty-year-old farmer told the A.P. reporter, "We left in fear of our lives. Every day and every night, we hear the roaring and roaring of planes, we see the smoke, the fire. . . . I curse them both--the Taliban and America."
A New York Times report from Pakistan two weeks into the bombing campaign told of wounded civilians coming across the border. "Every half-hour or so throughout the day, someone was brought across on a stretcher. . . . Most were bomb victims, missing limbs or punctured by shrapnel. . . . A young boy, his head and one leg wrapped in bloodied bandages, clung to his father's back as the old man trudged back to Afghanistan."
That was only a few weeks into the bombing, and the result had already been to frighten hundreds of thousands of Afghans into abandoning their homes and taking to the dangerous, mine-strewn roads. The "war against terrorism" has become a war against innocent men, women, and children, who are in no way responsible for the terrorist attack on New York.
And yet there are those who say this is a "just war." Terrorism and war have something in common. They both involve the killing of innocent people to achieve what the killers believe is a good end. I can see an immediate objection to this equation: They (the terrorists) deliberately kill innocent people; we (the war makers) aim at "military targets," and civilians are killed by accident, as "collateral damage."
Is it really an accident when civilians die under our bombs? Even if you grant that the intention is not to kill civilians, if they nevertheless become victims, again and again and again, can that be called an accident? If the deaths of civilians are inevitable in bombing, it may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident, and the bombers cannot be considered innocent. They are committing murder as surely as are the terrorists.
The absurdity of claiming innocence in such cases becomes apparent when the death tolls from "collateral damage" reach figures far greater than the lists of the dead from even the most awful act of terrorism. Thus, the "collateral damage" in the Gulf War caused more people to die--hundreds of thousands, if you include the victims of our sanctions policy--than the very deliberate terrorist attack of September 11. The total of those who have died in Israel from Palestinian terrorist bombs is somewhere under 1,000. The number of dead from "collateral damage" in the bombing of Beirut during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was roughly 6,000.
We must not match the death lists--it is an ugly exercise--as if one atrocity is worse than another. No killing of innocents, whether deliberate or "accidental," can be justified. My argument is that when children die at the hands of terrorists, or--whether intended or not--as a result of bombs dropped from airplanes, terrorism and war become equally unpardonable.
Let's talk about "military targets." The phrase is so loose that President Truman, after the nuclear bomb obliterated the population of Hiroshima, could say: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
What we are hearing now from our political leaders is, "We are targeting military objectives. We are trying to avoid killing civilians. But that will happen, and we regret it." Shall the American people take moral comfort from the thought that we are bombing only "military targets"?
The reality is that the term "military" covers all sorts of targets that include civilian populations. When our bombers deliberately destroy, as they did in the war against Iraq, the electrical infrastructure, thus making water purification and sewage treatment plants inoperable and leading to epidemic waterborne diseases, the deaths of children and other civilians cannot be called accidental.
Recall that in the midst of the Gulf War, the U.S. military bombed an air raid shelter, killing 400 to 500 men, women, and children who were huddled to escape bombs. The claim was that it was a military target, housing a communications center, but reporters going through the ruins immediately afterward said there was no sign of anything like that.
I suggest that the history of bombing--and no one has bombed more than this nation--is a history of endless atrocities, all calmly explained by deceptive and deadly language like "accident," "military targets," and "collateral damage."
Indeed, in both World War II and in Vietnam, the historical record shows that there was a deliberate decision to target civilians in order to destroy the morale of the enemy--hence the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, the B-52s over Hanoi, the jet bombers over peaceful villages in the Vietnam countryside. When some argue that we can engage in "limited military action" without "an excessive use of force," they are ignoring the history of bombing. The momentum of war rides roughshod over limits.
The moral equation in Afghanistan is clear. Civilian casualties are certain. The outcome is uncertain. No one knows what this bombing will accomplish--whether it will lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden (perhaps), or the end of the Taliban (possibly), or a democratic Afghanistan (very unlikely), or an end to terrorism (almost certainly not).
And meanwhile, we are terrorizing the population (not the terrorists, they are not easily terrorized). Hundreds of thousands are packing their belongings and their children onto carts and leaving their homes to make dangerous journeys to places they think might be more safe.
Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a "war against terrorism."
We might examine the idea of pacifism in the light of what is going on right now. I have never used the word "pacifist" to describe myself, because it suggests something absolute, and I am suspicious of absolutes. I want to leave openings for unpredictable possibilities. There might be situations (and even such strong pacifists as Gandhi and Martin Luther King believed this) when a small, focused act of violence against a monstrous, immediate evil would be justified.
In war, however, the proportion of means to ends is very, very different. War, by its nature, is unfocused, indiscriminate, and especially in our time when the technology is so murderous, inevitably involves the deaths of large numbers of people and the suffering of even more. Even in the "small wars" (Iran vs. Iraq, the Nigerian war, the Afghan war), a million people die. Even in a "tiny" war like the one we waged in Panama, a thousand or more die.
Scott Simon of NPR wrote a commentary in The Wall Street Journal on October 11 entitled, "Even Pacifists Must Support This War." He tried to use the pacifist acceptance of self-defense, which approves a focused resistance to an immediate attacker, to justify this war, which he claims is "self-defense." But the term "self-defense" does not apply when you drop bombs all over a country and kill lots of people other than your attacker. And it doesn't apply when there is no likelihood that it will achieve its desired end.
Pacifism, which I define as a rejection of war, rests on a very powerful logic. In war, the means--indiscriminate killing--are immediate and certain; the ends, however desirable, are distant and uncertain.
Pacifism does not mean "appeasement." That word is often hurled at those who condemn the present war on Afghanistan, and it is accompanied by references to Churchill, Chamberlain, Munich. World War II analogies are conveniently summoned forth when there is a need to justify a war, however irrelevant to a particular situation. At the suggestion that we withdraw from Vietnam, or not make war on Iraq, the word "appeasement" was bandied about. The glow of the "good war" has repeatedly been used to obscure the nature of all the bad wars we have fought since 1945.
Let's examine that analogy. Czechoslovakia was handed to the voracious Hitler to "appease" him. Germany was an aggressive nation expanding its power, and to help it in its expansion was not wise. But today we do not face an expansionist power that demands to be appeased. We ourselves are the expansionist power--troops in Saudi Arabia, bombings of Iraq, military bases all over the world, naval vessels on every sea--and that, along with Israel's expansion into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has aroused anger.
It was wrong to give up Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler. It is not wrong to withdraw our military from the Middle East, or for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, because there is no right to be there. That is not appeasement. That is justice.
Opposing the bombing of Afghanistan does not constitute "giving in to terrorism" or "appeasement." It asks that other means be found than war to solve the problems that confront us. King and Gandhi both believed in action--nonviolent direct action, which is more powerful and certainly more morally defensible than war.
To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists.
The United States could have treated the September 11 attack as a horrific criminal act that calls for apprehending the culprits, using every device of intelligence and investigation possible. It could have gone to the United Nations to enlist the aid of other countries in the pursuit and apprehension of the terrorists.
There was also the avenue of negotiations. (And let's not hear: "What? Negotiate with those monsters?" The United States negotiated with--indeed, brought into power and kept in power--some of the most monstrous governments in the world.) Before Bush ordered in the bombers, the Taliban offered to put bin Laden on trial. This was ignored. After ten days of air attacks, when the Taliban called for a halt to the bombing and said they would be willing to talk about handing bin Laden to a third country for trial, the headline the next day in The New York Times read: "President Rejects Offer by Taliban for Negotiations," and Bush was quoted as saying: "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."
That is the behavior of someone hellbent on war. There were similar rejections of negotiating possibilities at the start of the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Yugoslavia. The result was an immense loss of life and incalculable human suffering.
International police work and negotiations were--still are--alternatives to war. But let's not deceive ourselves; even if we succeeded in apprehending bin Laden or, as is unlikely, destroying the entire Al Qaeda network, that would not end the threat of terrorism, which has potential recruits far beyond Al Qaeda.
To get at the roots of terrorism is complicated. Dropping bombs is simple. It is an old response to what everyone acknowledges is a very new situation. At the core of unspeakable and unjustifiable acts of terrorism are justified grievances felt by millions of people who would not themselves engage in terrorism but from whose ranks terrorists spring.
Those grievances are of two kinds: the existence of profound misery-- hunger, illness--in much of the world, contrasted to the wealth and luxury of the West, especially the United States; and the presence of American military power everywhere in the world, propping up oppressive regimes and repeatedly intervening with force to maintain U.S. hegemony.
This suggests actions that not only deal with the long-term problem of terrorism but are in themselves just.
Instead of using two planes a day to drop food on Afghanistan and 100 planes to drop bombs (which have been making it difficult for the trucks of the international agencies to bring in food), use 102 planes to bring food.
Take the money allocated for our huge military machine and use it to combat starvation and disease around the world. One-third of our military budget would annually provide clean water and sanitation facilities for the billion people in the world who have none.
Withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, because their presence near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina angers not just bin Laden (we need not care about angering him) but huge numbers of Arabs who are not terrorists.
Stop the cruel sanctions on Iraq, which are killing more than a thousand children every week without doing anything to weaken Saddam Hussein's tyrannical hold over the country.
Insist that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, something that many Israelis also think is right, and which will make Israel more secure than it is now.
In short, let us pull back from being a military superpower, and become a humanitarian superpower.
Let us be a more modest nation. We will then be more secure. The modest nations of the world don't face the threat of terrorism.
Such a fundamental change in foreign policy is hardly to be expected. It would threaten too many interests: the power of political leaders, the ambitions of the military, the corporations that profit from the nation's enormous military commitments.
Change will come, as at other times in our history, only when American citizens-- becoming better informed, having second thoughts after the first instinctive support for official policy--demand it. That change in citizen opinion, especially if it coincides with a pragmatic decision by the government that its violence isn't working, could bring about a retreat from the military solution.
It might also be a first step in the rethinking of our nation's role in the world. Such a rethinking contains the promise, for Americans, of genuine security, and for people elsewhere, the beginning of hope
I can't help but think of the RATM line whenever this topic comes up:
"a yellow ribbon, instead of a swaztika"....I thought of it as hyperbole when I was young...not so sure any more.
This website has a TON of info on just war theory...just starting to go over it myself:
staceb has been here a long time (wasn't she part of the amt's pro-Bush team in the mid-90s?) I'm sure she expected criticism of her point. Her second statement; that US soldiers are' protecting our way of life' is MUCH more accurate than 'protecting freedom'.
Well it wasn't the mid-90's but more like 2004ish but yes I was around during the Bush/Kerry election. This place can be brutal and I absolutely expected criticism. I think there was a thread about how negative this forum is and I completely agree. If you don't follow the more liberal way of thinking, then people tend to write you off as some neo-conservative war-mongering greedy idiot.
I think "protecting freedoms" is a term that would be included in "protecting our way of life" Just semantics. I am obviously not an left-leaning person who feels that all war is unnecessary but I wasn't trying to get into a debate on if its freedoms or way of life or just our actual lives that the soldiers are protecting. The point is that they are protecting us in some way and deserve some respect.
I'm really not going to get into a discussion on the "is any war necessary" and all that jazz around here. I just found the OP's comments about not wanting to help soliders because they signed up for a little upsetting.
have you considered holding your gov't accountable for that? ... the treatment of war veterans is astoundingly embarrassing for a country that has so much "support the troops" PR everywhere ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,088
staceb has been here a long time (wasn't she part of the amt's pro-Bush team in the mid-90s?) I'm sure she expected criticism of her point. Her second statement; that US soldiers are' protecting our way of life' is MUCH more accurate than 'protecting freedom'.
Well it wasn't the mid-90's but more like 2004ish but yes I was around during the Bush/Kerry election. This place can be brutal and I absolutely expected criticism. I think there was a thread about how negative this forum is and I completely agree. If you don't follow the more liberal way of thinking, then people tend to write you off as some neo-conservative war-mongering greedy idiot.
I think "protecting freedoms" is a term that would be included in "protecting our way of life" Just semantics. I am obviously not an left-leaning person who feels that all war is unnecessary but I wasn't trying to get into a debate on if its freedoms or way of life or just our actual lives that the soldiers are protecting. The point is that they are protecting us in some way and deserve some respect.
Who or what are we being "protected" from?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
I know my post is not directly related to the current discussion, but i wanted to share this excellent documentary i just came across re: the failure of the war on drugs. It mentions that since the war in Afghanastan began, they have become the largest supplier of heroin to the US in the entire world. Same thing happened during Vietnam, which resulted in the past 40-year war on drugs (which has failed miserably - we have the most incarcerated in the entire world, and one can get any drug they desire in maximum security prisons, even easier than on the streets. It's clearly out of control).
I support most soldiers (except the ones who participate in smuggling hard drugs to the US and the ones who rape or assault people overseas, which does occur. The majority of soldiers, however, are just trying to survive and do what they know).
i think from my following the band since 1991 and trying to get deep into the beliefs ed and the guys talk about in song and in countless interviews, I think they clearly are antiwar. They were against the Kosovo war in 98 when Clinton was running the show, and I think they still are antiwar now, even though they voted for Obama. I think on some issues, Ed is a radical, chomsky/Zinn advocate. Advocating really radical left wing ideas. And on other issues it seems like the band and Ed are maybe liberal Democrats.
I remember some interview Ed did following the 9/11 attacks. It was a big deal on the board. Essentially he said something like for a brief time after 9/11, he felt angry and wanted revenge against the people who did that. Meaning he was pro-military agression in terms of afghanistan. I think that faded, but it caused a big discussion on the boards when he said it.
Bruce and Neil both came out pro-attacking afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. I remember clearly Bruce on MTV promoting The Rising and talking about while he disliked the Patriot Act, he ultimately supported the Afghanistan War. Neil, was pro patriot act, and pro war in afghanistan.
But lets face it, even Chomsky is not completely antiwar. He readily admits, although he has fought for peace, and nonviolence all his life, he believes some wars are just. I assume he means WWII.
I think thats pretty common though. In the lead up to the Iraq war, I took steps to prepare if a Draft took place, and seriously considered being a conscientious objector had it happened. And in my discussions with experts on it, and in pamphlets, even conscientious objectors can admit that they arent antiwar in all cases. So you could say "im against this war and want to be a conscientious objector, but I do believe some wars are necessary".
I also think this is something that isnt discussed enough. There probably was a good portion of the antiIraq war movement who would have been okay had Bush only gone into Afghanistan, or would have been okay had the US been forced to intervene say in a Hitler type situation, if that arose.
For me personally, im opposed to all wars. All wars are unneccesary and pointless.
While i agree that militarism is bad, and have personally done tabling at events to discourage people from joining the military and trying to expose people to facts about what the military culture means and does.
And of course, any soldier, in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that tortured, abused, beat, raped, murdered, etc.. civilians should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of course the war brings nothing good, its pointless and only causes suffering and death.
That said, there is a grey line in terms of soldiers. Most are naive 18 year old kids, from poor backgrounds, suckered by a recruiter into believing they can 1. choose where they are stationed (hawaii is a big request, i'll let you guess how often that soldiers actually get to serve in hawaii), and 2. that the military is something you can serve for a little while, get out, and have the military pay for college (the military demands a committment of 6 years I believe, and few if any people get the full 50,000 for college).
Secondly, the vietnam war was a perfect example of how grey the line can be. It wasnt uncommon for soldiers in vietnam to be antiwar kids who were forced to serve or be put in jail for desertion. Peace signs on helmets were common and the soldiers themselves were actively involved in the counterculture, blasting hendrix and the animals music, smoking pot, doing drugs.
For me, I see the 18 year olds who serve in the military right now as victims. Just as much as those innocent Iraqis and afghanis. The 18 year old soldiers are forced to behave in inhumane ways, and once that switch is flipped, it cant be set back to normal. PTSD in soldiers coming home is common, and treatment for this, acceptance by family and friends, and a good support system rarely is in place. How many times during the 2012 election did Obama or Romney mention how we can help those soldiers coming home, how we can treat and assist and help those individuals who fought in a war and now cant sleep, cant function and have PTSD? I dont think it was mentioned once. Thats the real tragedy.
We sent them to die in the desert, exposing them to death and losing their innocence. When they come home, if they come home alive, they are relagated to being some sort of ghost, not seen or acknowledged, not treated as human or real.
Im sensitive to the wrongs that have been committed by u.s. soldiers. The murder, rape, destruction, etc... But its a mistake to paint all the soldiers that way.
Any soldier will tell you, they serve and protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic. they didnt sign up to lose their innocense, to kill innocent civilians. Imagine, serving once, staying alive, even though you lost friends. And you try to start anew. A deal with your wounds and loss and your PTSD. Then you get called up. And you have to serve. Again and again. 5 or 6 or 7 times, you are recalled. Thats a criminal action that should be punishable by prison.
Comments
I Think this is Awesome!!!
I gotta ask, because I forget, but do you have kids? Because the way you pose your question tells me hell no, but maybe I'm wrong.
I hope you wake up and realize that your son is over there for absolutely nothing but to make a select few people a lot of money.
Your son is not protecting our freedom's at all... killing people and sticking up embassies is not how you protect freedom in this country. I'm sorry if you can't come to that realization.
These "wars" are expensive and cause a great deal of suffering.
I love the troops, I just don't like to see them out nation building and policing the globe. I have friends that are in the service, I have a friend that just served a tour.
My mom was in the military, my dad was for 22 years, my uncle was killed in Vietnam, my grandpa was in WWII...
At least my dad agrees with me that these wars are fucked up.
no ... i don't ... i'm sorry if the question appears to be insensitive ... but the reality is much of the war perpetrated around the world has nothing to do with humanity or peace or freedom ... and it's this cone of silence we employ as it relates to the troops that allows gross violations of human rights to continue to happen ...
the fact of the matter is nothing in the US most recent history indicates a military that purpose is altruistic ... and if people realized this - i would suspect there would be a lot less people "volunteering" ...
I am always amazed when people spout off the old "this soldier makes it possible for you to speak freely" bit.
Its a ludicrous thing to say and it comes off very childish.
Hope a veteran catches you in a dark alley one night? :? Like one of these folks:
http://www.ivaw.org/about (Veterans against Iraqi war)
Yeah it does appear that way. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I can only wonder what kind of answer you expect to get from a mother with a son currently serving.
in the grand scheme of things - it really doesn't matter ... my sensitivity to her will only go so far when taken in the context of what war has done to the many suffering in these war zones ... at the end of the day - if people continue to blindly follow along some myth about freedom and what not - all it is doing is extending the license by which more suffering will be sanctioned ...
I think he's there because he joined the military and is doing his duty for that position. Do I think having a military is necessary and protects our way of life? Yes, I do.
Ludicrous to say? Tell that to the soldiers who died fighting the British and helped to create the US.
I think you have missed the point of my comment. I still think that those Veteran's wouldn't appreciate being told they signed up for the trauma so tough shit if they have problems.
Whether the Iraq war or World War II were necessary or not has nothing to do with my comments. It's the disdain and lack of support for the individuals fighting that I have a problem with.
I'm really not going to get into a discussion on the "is any war necessary" and all that jazz around here. I just found the OP's comments about not wanting to help soliders because they signed up for a little upsetting.
I'm curious, do you find it objectionable to question the wisdom of our way of life?
I don't find it objectionable to question anything.
And I agree with that
Another great book is "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. He was the most decorated Marine ever at the time of his death and received the medal of honor TWICE!
I know right. The US could've ended up like Canada or Australia.
Horrible.
staceb has been here a long time (wasn't she part of the amt's pro-Bush team in the mid-90s?) I'm sure she expected criticism of her point. Her second statement; that US soldiers are' protecting our way of life' is MUCH more accurate than 'protecting freedom'.
One of my fav pieces by Zinn:
Published in the December 2001 issue of The Progressive
A Just Cause, Not a Just War
by Howard Zinn
I believe two moral judgments can be made about the present "war": The September 11 attack constitutes a crime against humanity and cannot be justified, and the bombing of Afghanistan is also a crime, which cannot be justified.
And yet, voices across the political spectrum, including many on the left, have described this as a "just war." One longtime advocate of peace, Richard Falk, wrote in The Nation that this is "the first truly just war since World War II." Robert Kuttner, another consistent supporter of social justice, declared in The American Prospect that only people on the extreme left could believe this is not a just war.
I have puzzled over this. How can a war be truly just when it involves the daily killing of civilians, when it causes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to leave their homes to escape the bombs, when it may not find those who planned the September 11 attacks, and when it will multiply the ranks of people who are angry enough at this country to become terrorists themselves?
This war amounts to a gross violation of human rights, and it will produce the exact opposite of what is wanted: It will not end terrorism; it will proliferate terrorism.
I believe that the progressive supporters of the war have confused a "just cause" with a "just war." There are unjust causes, such as the attempt of the United States to establish its power in Vietnam, or to dominate Panama or Grenada, or to subvert the government of Nicaragua. And a cause may be just--getting North Korea to withdraw from South Korea, getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, or ending terrorism--but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.
The stories of the effects of our bombing are beginning to come through, in bits and pieces. Just eighteen days into the bombing, The New York Times reported: "American forces have mistakenly hit a residential area in Kabul." Twice, U.S. planes bombed Red Cross warehouses, and a Red Cross spokesman said: "Now we've got 55,000 people without that food or blankets, with nothing at all."
An Afghan elementary school-teacher told a Washington Post reporter at the Pakistan border: "When the bombs fell near my house and my babies started crying, I had no choice but to run away."
A New York Times report: "The Pentagon acknowledged that a Navy F/A-18 dropped a 1,000-pound bomb on Sunday near what officials called a center for the elderly. . . . The United Nations said the building was a military hospital. . . . Several hours later, a Navy F-14 dropped two 500-pound bombs on a residential area northwest of Kabul." A U.N. official told a New York Times reporter that an American bombing raid on the city of Herat had used cluster bombs, which spread deadly "bomblets" over an area of twenty football fields. This, the Times reporter wrote,"was the latest of a growing number of accounts of American bombs going astray and causing civilian casualties."
An A.P. reporter was brought to Karam, a small mountain village hit by American bombs, and saw houses reduced to rubble. "In the hospital in Jalalabad, twenty-five miles to the east, doctors treated what they said were twenty-three victims of bombing at Karam, one a child barely two months old, swathed in bloody bandages," according to the account. "Another child, neighbors said, was in the hospital because the bombing raid had killed her entire family. At least eighteen fresh graves were scattered around the village."
The city of Kandahar, attacked for seventeen straight days, was reported to be a ghost town, with more than half of its 500,000 people fleeing the bombs. The city's electrical grid had been knocked out. The city was deprived of water, since the electrical pumps could not operate. A sixty-year-old farmer told the A.P. reporter, "We left in fear of our lives. Every day and every night, we hear the roaring and roaring of planes, we see the smoke, the fire. . . . I curse them both--the Taliban and America."
A New York Times report from Pakistan two weeks into the bombing campaign told of wounded civilians coming across the border. "Every half-hour or so throughout the day, someone was brought across on a stretcher. . . . Most were bomb victims, missing limbs or punctured by shrapnel. . . . A young boy, his head and one leg wrapped in bloodied bandages, clung to his father's back as the old man trudged back to Afghanistan."
That was only a few weeks into the bombing, and the result had already been to frighten hundreds of thousands of Afghans into abandoning their homes and taking to the dangerous, mine-strewn roads. The "war against terrorism" has become a war against innocent men, women, and children, who are in no way responsible for the terrorist attack on New York.
And yet there are those who say this is a "just war."
Terrorism and war have something in common. They both involve the killing of innocent people to achieve what the killers believe is a good end. I can see an immediate objection to this equation: They (the terrorists) deliberately kill innocent people; we (the war makers) aim at "military targets," and civilians are killed by accident, as "collateral damage."
Is it really an accident when civilians die under our bombs? Even if you grant that the intention is not to kill civilians, if they nevertheless become victims, again and again and again, can that be called an accident? If the deaths of civilians are inevitable in bombing, it may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident, and the bombers cannot be considered innocent. They are committing murder as surely as are the terrorists.
The absurdity of claiming innocence in such cases becomes apparent when the death tolls from "collateral damage" reach figures far greater than the lists of the dead from even the most awful act of terrorism. Thus, the "collateral damage" in the Gulf War caused more people to die--hundreds of thousands, if you include the victims of our sanctions policy--than the very deliberate terrorist attack of September 11. The total of those who have died in Israel from Palestinian terrorist bombs is somewhere under 1,000. The number of dead from "collateral damage" in the bombing of Beirut during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was roughly 6,000.
We must not match the death lists--it is an ugly exercise--as if one atrocity is worse than another. No killing of innocents, whether deliberate or "accidental," can be justified. My argument is that when children die at the hands of terrorists, or--whether intended or not--as a result of bombs dropped from airplanes, terrorism and war become equally unpardonable.
Let's talk about "military targets." The phrase is so loose that President Truman, after the nuclear bomb obliterated the population of Hiroshima, could say: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
What we are hearing now from our political leaders is, "We are targeting military objectives. We are trying to avoid killing civilians. But that will happen, and we regret it." Shall the American people take moral comfort from the thought that we are bombing only "military targets"?
The reality is that the term "military" covers all sorts of targets that include civilian populations. When our bombers deliberately destroy, as they did in the war against Iraq, the electrical infrastructure, thus making water purification and sewage treatment plants inoperable and leading to epidemic waterborne diseases, the deaths of children and other civilians cannot be called accidental.
Recall that in the midst of the Gulf War, the U.S. military bombed an air raid shelter, killing 400 to 500 men, women, and children who were huddled to escape bombs. The claim was that it was a military target, housing a communications center, but reporters going through the ruins immediately afterward said there was no sign of anything like that.
I suggest that the history of bombing--and no one has bombed more than this nation--is a history of endless atrocities, all calmly explained by deceptive and deadly language like "accident," "military targets," and "collateral damage."
Indeed, in both World War II and in Vietnam, the historical record shows that there was a deliberate decision to target civilians in order to destroy the morale of the enemy--hence the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, the B-52s over Hanoi, the jet bombers over peaceful villages in the Vietnam countryside. When some argue that we can engage in "limited military action" without "an excessive use of force," they are ignoring the history of bombing. The momentum of war rides roughshod over limits.
The moral equation in Afghanistan is clear. Civilian casualties are certain. The outcome is uncertain. No one knows what this bombing will accomplish--whether it will lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden (perhaps), or the end of the Taliban (possibly), or a democratic Afghanistan (very unlikely), or an end to terrorism (almost certainly not).
And meanwhile, we are terrorizing the population (not the terrorists, they are not easily terrorized). Hundreds of thousands are packing their belongings and their children onto carts and leaving their homes to make dangerous journeys to places they think might be more safe.
Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a "war against terrorism."
We might examine the idea of pacifism in the light of what is going on right now. I have never used the word "pacifist" to describe myself, because it suggests something absolute, and I am suspicious of absolutes. I want to leave openings for unpredictable possibilities. There might be situations (and even such strong pacifists as Gandhi and Martin Luther King believed this) when a small, focused act of violence against a monstrous, immediate evil would be justified.
In war, however, the proportion of means to ends is very, very different. War, by its nature, is unfocused, indiscriminate, and especially in our time when the technology is so murderous, inevitably involves the deaths of large numbers of people and the suffering of even more. Even in the "small wars" (Iran vs. Iraq, the Nigerian war, the Afghan war), a million people die. Even in a "tiny" war like the one we waged in Panama, a thousand or more die.
Scott Simon of NPR wrote a commentary in The Wall Street Journal on October 11 entitled, "Even Pacifists Must Support This War." He tried to use the pacifist acceptance of self-defense, which approves a focused resistance to an immediate attacker, to justify this war, which he claims is "self-defense." But the term "self-defense" does not apply when you drop bombs all over a country and kill lots of people other than your attacker. And it doesn't apply when there is no likelihood that it will achieve its desired end.
Pacifism, which I define as a rejection of war, rests on a very powerful logic. In war, the means--indiscriminate killing--are immediate and certain; the ends, however desirable, are distant and uncertain.
Pacifism does not mean "appeasement." That word is often hurled at those who condemn the present war on Afghanistan, and it is accompanied by references to Churchill, Chamberlain, Munich. World War II analogies are conveniently summoned forth when there is a need to justify a war, however irrelevant to a particular situation. At the suggestion that we withdraw from Vietnam, or not make war on Iraq, the word "appeasement" was bandied about. The glow of the "good war" has repeatedly been used to obscure the nature of all the bad wars we have fought since 1945.
Let's examine that analogy. Czechoslovakia was handed to the voracious Hitler to "appease" him. Germany was an aggressive nation expanding its power, and to help it in its expansion was not wise. But today we do not face an expansionist power that demands to be appeased. We ourselves are the expansionist power--troops in Saudi Arabia, bombings of Iraq, military bases all over the world, naval vessels on every sea--and that, along with Israel's expansion into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has aroused anger.
It was wrong to give up Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler. It is not wrong to withdraw our military from the Middle East, or for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, because there is no right to be there. That is not appeasement. That is justice.
Opposing the bombing of Afghanistan does not constitute "giving in to terrorism" or "appeasement." It asks that other means be found than war to solve the problems that confront us. King and Gandhi both believed in action--nonviolent direct action, which is more powerful and certainly more morally defensible than war.
To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists.
The United States could have treated the September 11 attack as a horrific criminal act that calls for apprehending the culprits, using every device of intelligence and investigation possible. It could have gone to the United Nations to enlist the aid of other countries in the pursuit and apprehension of the terrorists.
There was also the avenue of negotiations. (And let's not hear: "What? Negotiate with those monsters?" The United States negotiated with--indeed, brought into power and kept in power--some of the most monstrous governments in the world.) Before Bush ordered in the bombers, the Taliban offered to put bin Laden on trial. This was ignored. After ten days of air attacks, when the Taliban called for a halt to the bombing and said they would be willing to talk about handing bin Laden to a third country for trial, the headline the next day in The New York Times read: "President Rejects Offer by Taliban for Negotiations," and Bush was quoted as saying: "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."
That is the behavior of someone hellbent on war. There were similar rejections of negotiating possibilities at the start of the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Yugoslavia. The result was an immense loss of life and incalculable human suffering.
International police work and negotiations were--still are--alternatives to war. But let's not deceive ourselves; even if we succeeded in apprehending bin Laden or, as is unlikely, destroying the entire Al Qaeda network, that would not end the threat of terrorism, which has potential recruits far beyond Al Qaeda.
To get at the roots of terrorism is complicated. Dropping bombs is simple. It is an old response to what everyone acknowledges is a very new situation. At the core of unspeakable and unjustifiable acts of terrorism are justified grievances felt by millions of people who would not themselves engage in terrorism but from whose ranks terrorists spring.
Those grievances are of two kinds: the existence of profound misery-- hunger, illness--in much of the world, contrasted to the wealth and luxury of the West, especially the United States; and the presence of American military power everywhere in the world, propping up oppressive regimes and repeatedly intervening with force to maintain U.S. hegemony.
This suggests actions that not only deal with the long-term problem of terrorism but are in themselves just.
Instead of using two planes a day to drop food on Afghanistan and 100 planes to drop bombs (which have been making it difficult for the trucks of the international agencies to bring in food), use 102 planes to bring food.
Take the money allocated for our huge military machine and use it to combat starvation and disease around the world. One-third of our military budget would annually provide clean water and sanitation facilities for the billion people in the world who have none.
Withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, because their presence near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina angers not just bin Laden (we need not care about angering him) but huge numbers of Arabs who are not terrorists.
Stop the cruel sanctions on Iraq, which are killing more than a thousand children every week without doing anything to weaken Saddam Hussein's tyrannical hold over the country.
Insist that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, something that many Israelis also think is right, and which will make Israel more secure than it is now.
In short, let us pull back from being a military superpower, and become a humanitarian superpower.
Let us be a more modest nation. We will then be more secure. The modest nations of the world don't face the threat of terrorism.
Such a fundamental change in foreign policy is hardly to be expected. It would threaten too many interests: the power of political leaders, the ambitions of the military, the corporations that profit from the nation's enormous military commitments.
Change will come, as at other times in our history, only when American citizens-- becoming better informed, having second thoughts after the first instinctive support for official policy--demand it. That change in citizen opinion, especially if it coincides with a pragmatic decision by the government that its violence isn't working, could bring about a retreat from the military solution.
It might also be a first step in the rethinking of our nation's role in the world. Such a rethinking contains the promise, for Americans, of genuine security, and for people elsewhere, the beginning of hope
"a yellow ribbon, instead of a swaztika"....I thought of it as hyperbole when I was young...not so sure any more.
This website has a TON of info on just war theory...just starting to go over it myself:
http://www.justwartheory.com/
Well it wasn't the mid-90's but more like 2004ish but yes I was around during the Bush/Kerry election. This place can be brutal and I absolutely expected criticism. I think there was a thread about how negative this forum is and I completely agree. If you don't follow the more liberal way of thinking, then people tend to write you off as some neo-conservative war-mongering greedy idiot.
I think "protecting freedoms" is a term that would be included in "protecting our way of life" Just semantics. I am obviously not an left-leaning person who feels that all war is unnecessary but I wasn't trying to get into a debate on if its freedoms or way of life or just our actual lives that the soldiers are protecting. The point is that they are protecting us in some way and deserve some respect.
have you considered holding your gov't accountable for that? ... the treatment of war veterans is astoundingly embarrassing for a country that has so much "support the troops" PR everywhere ...
Who or what are we being "protected" from?
I support most soldiers (except the ones who participate in smuggling hard drugs to the US and the ones who rape or assault people overseas, which does occur. The majority of soldiers, however, are just trying to survive and do what they know).
Anyway here's the link to the documentary, and it's narrated by Morgan Freeman:
http://www.waywire.com/v/f68c076a62e7e5 ... 39102031ff
I remember some interview Ed did following the 9/11 attacks. It was a big deal on the board. Essentially he said something like for a brief time after 9/11, he felt angry and wanted revenge against the people who did that. Meaning he was pro-military agression in terms of afghanistan. I think that faded, but it caused a big discussion on the boards when he said it.
Bruce and Neil both came out pro-attacking afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. I remember clearly Bruce on MTV promoting The Rising and talking about while he disliked the Patriot Act, he ultimately supported the Afghanistan War. Neil, was pro patriot act, and pro war in afghanistan.
But lets face it, even Chomsky is not completely antiwar. He readily admits, although he has fought for peace, and nonviolence all his life, he believes some wars are just. I assume he means WWII.
I think thats pretty common though. In the lead up to the Iraq war, I took steps to prepare if a Draft took place, and seriously considered being a conscientious objector had it happened. And in my discussions with experts on it, and in pamphlets, even conscientious objectors can admit that they arent antiwar in all cases. So you could say "im against this war and want to be a conscientious objector, but I do believe some wars are necessary".
I also think this is something that isnt discussed enough. There probably was a good portion of the antiIraq war movement who would have been okay had Bush only gone into Afghanistan, or would have been okay had the US been forced to intervene say in a Hitler type situation, if that arose.
For me personally, im opposed to all wars. All wars are unneccesary and pointless.
And of course, any soldier, in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that tortured, abused, beat, raped, murdered, etc.. civilians should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And of course the war brings nothing good, its pointless and only causes suffering and death.
That said, there is a grey line in terms of soldiers. Most are naive 18 year old kids, from poor backgrounds, suckered by a recruiter into believing they can 1. choose where they are stationed (hawaii is a big request, i'll let you guess how often that soldiers actually get to serve in hawaii), and 2. that the military is something you can serve for a little while, get out, and have the military pay for college (the military demands a committment of 6 years I believe, and few if any people get the full 50,000 for college).
Secondly, the vietnam war was a perfect example of how grey the line can be. It wasnt uncommon for soldiers in vietnam to be antiwar kids who were forced to serve or be put in jail for desertion. Peace signs on helmets were common and the soldiers themselves were actively involved in the counterculture, blasting hendrix and the animals music, smoking pot, doing drugs.
For me, I see the 18 year olds who serve in the military right now as victims. Just as much as those innocent Iraqis and afghanis. The 18 year old soldiers are forced to behave in inhumane ways, and once that switch is flipped, it cant be set back to normal. PTSD in soldiers coming home is common, and treatment for this, acceptance by family and friends, and a good support system rarely is in place. How many times during the 2012 election did Obama or Romney mention how we can help those soldiers coming home, how we can treat and assist and help those individuals who fought in a war and now cant sleep, cant function and have PTSD? I dont think it was mentioned once. Thats the real tragedy.
We sent them to die in the desert, exposing them to death and losing their innocence. When they come home, if they come home alive, they are relagated to being some sort of ghost, not seen or acknowledged, not treated as human or real.
Im sensitive to the wrongs that have been committed by u.s. soldiers. The murder, rape, destruction, etc... But its a mistake to paint all the soldiers that way.
Any soldier will tell you, they serve and protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic. they didnt sign up to lose their innocense, to kill innocent civilians. Imagine, serving once, staying alive, even though you lost friends. And you try to start anew. A deal with your wounds and loss and your PTSD. Then you get called up. And you have to serve. Again and again. 5 or 6 or 7 times, you are recalled. Thats a criminal action that should be punishable by prison.
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
This could be the understatement of the year...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon