Funny thing about war

[WinkOsmosis]

I realized some things thanks to an example used by the professor in my Anthropology class (No I am not parroting him, he was just using general examples, and war in general, not the current political situation)...
The theory is this:
~The people who want to go to war are civilians who have never seen real war. On the other hand, warriors know that war is hell, and want peace.~ Amazingly simple when you think about it, but this simple fact of human nature is the cause of alot problems .

Some background info, the topic was the influence of language on peoples' way of thinking. We were covering metaphors and how they sneak meaning in, and war metaphors were convenient. For example, accounting metaphors are used for war. Words like "cost". The real costs being death, rape, torture, and destruction. We all know that these are the costs of war, but we ALL tend to put them out of our heads just like we do death.

Of course, there is the game metaphor. Of course there is a winner and a loser, but when was the last time the winner of a war was anything like the winner of a game? The trophies are dead bodies. As dramatic as this may sound, it does make you think about the way we view war.

And all that stuff about stabilizing effects of war. We are still reeling from WW2, proof being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Stability doesn't come from war! (Only economic stability, SOMETIMES)

{Edited out a bunch of nonsense I just added in as an example and doesn't fit in anywhere}
Now to connect with the current situation. Civilians who have never held a gun, and have NO desire to ever fight, are talking about overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

EDIT: I've drastically edited my post to make some things more clear. If I changed any major ideas, let me know.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Oh yeah, the civilian war hawks can be called "chickenhawks".

 

[Lucky]

nm

 

[Fatt]

You're over-generalizing in an effort to make your point and the result is dishonesty.

BTW, most active and former military personell favor going into Iraq now, BEFORE he gets his hands on nukes.


And here's another funny thing...
Funny how each succeeding generation seems so infatuated with the idea of re-living the 60's that they try to latch onto any excuse to live out their "stop the war" fantasies.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I realized some things thanks to an example used by the professor in my Anthropology class...
The people who want to go to war are civilians who have never seen real war. On the other hand, warriors know that war is hell, and want peace. Amazingly simple when you think about it, but this simple fact of human nature is the cause of alot problems .

Some background info, the topic was the influence of language on peoples' way of thinking. We were covering metaphors and how they sneak meaning in, and war metaphors were convenient. For example, accounting metaphors are used for war. Words like "cost" (the real costs being death, rape, torture, and destruction). Of course, there is the game metaphor . And all that stuff about stabilizing effects of war. We are still reeling from WW2, proof being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Stability doesn't come from war!

So anyway, now we have congress Democrats supporting Bush's war so as not to appear bipartisian. And we have Republicans opposing war because that isn't an issue for them, and they know better. What a world we live in. Why? Because subconsciously, people think war is like StarCraft. We have this idea that our troops go in, kill the enemy, and fly home on helicopters like in Rambo movies.

I can't tell if your last paragraph just has typos or if you have totally lost it.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Fatt
You're over-generalizing in an effort to make your point and the result is dishonesty.

BTW, most active and former military personell favor going into Iraq now, BEFORE he gets his hands on nukes.


And here's another funny thing...
Funny how each succeeding generation seems so infatuated with the idea of re-living the 60's that they try to latch onto any excuse to live out their "stop the war" fantasies.

Former military personnel is one thing... veterans are another.
Yeah I was overgeneralizing.. but anyone who has lived through a real war like the Vietnam knows that war IS hell. So I wasn't talking about miniwars like the Gulf War. Remember the song "born in America"?
Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.. I'm not talking about the liberal leaders like the Saudi royal family, but the people.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

I can't tell if your last paragraph just has typos or if you have totally lost it.

No typo there . Republicans are the ones questioning war with Iraq. Not enough to say that republicans are antiwar, but so far, where are the left wing dissenters?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I realized some things thanks to an example used by the professor in my Anthropology class...

Try doing your own thinking for once. Instead of parroting your anthropology teacher's opinion, look at all sides of the issue: If war is so bad (and yes, it is), why does it exist? Your answer is simply because the people who want to go to war are the civilians who don't have to fight it, which is incrediby naive and doesn't take into account such factors as economics, politics, ethnic conflict, nationalism, ideology..

 

[gopunk]

have you ever seen a rambo movie? if people thought each individual soldier's experience would be that of john rambo, i don't think we would have any more wars. at least not the sane ones... maybe some really sadistic people would still want wars...

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I realized some things thanks to an example used by the professor in my Anthropology class...

Try doing your own thinking for once. Instead of parroting your anthropology teacher's opinion, look at all sides of the issue: If war is so bad (and yes, it is), why does it exist? Your answer is simply because the people who want to go to war are the civilians who don't have to fight it, which is incrediby naive and doesn't take into account such factors as economics, politics, ethnic conflict, nationalism, ideology..

I'm NOT parroting my anthropology teacher's opinion. The way I worded my post, it may have looked like that's what he told us, but 90% of what I wrote was MY OPINION.
And I was pointing out a facet of this thing. It's obviously not that simple, but the fact is that the people who say "take down Saddam" aren't the ones who have to fight. War exists because it's human nature to fight. But it's not looked at as human nature, but as an abstraction, because this we haven't experienced real war for 30 years.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: gopunk
have you ever seen a rambo movie? if people thought each individual soldier's experience would be that of john rambo, i don't think we would have any more wars. at least not the sane ones... maybe some really sadistic people would still want wars...

Okay not Rambo, bad example. I was thinking of the endings. But Commando. Arnold goes in, kills 50 soldiers, and flies away. Why do you think it's such a shock when 5 American soldiers die?

 

[capnyoaz1]

The people who want to go to war are civilians who have never seen real war. On the other hand, warriors know that war is hell, and want peace. .

huh? have you talked to anyone thats been in a combat zone? at least the marines i know that have seen action love it and are eager to go back for more, thats what they live for, more civilians want peace than people who serve do, theres nothing wrong with war its the way the world works, deal with it

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.. I'm not talking about the liberal leaders like the Saudi royal family, but the people.

Oh.. and please quit using the word "aggression". It's been used so much by the Arab world, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, and so forth that it's become a buzzword lacking in real meaning. Instead of saying "...is an act of aggresion", you will sound much more intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful if you can explain what you mean in more detail.

Secondly.. Funny thing about that label, "liberal". You make it sound as if "liberals" in Saudi Arabia would welcome (or accept) escalation of conflict between the US and Iraq while the "conservative" citizenry wouldn't; here in the US, the definitions would be reversed and conservatives would tend to support any operation while liberals do nothing productive and protest, bitch, whine, bleat, complain, moan..

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
I realized some things thanks to an example used by the professor in my Anthropology class...

Try doing your own thinking for once. Instead of parroting your anthropology teacher's opinion, look at all sides of the issue: If war is so bad (and yes, it is), why does it exist? Your answer is simply because the people who want to go to war are the civilians who don't have to fight it, which is incrediby naive and doesn't take into account such factors as economics, politics, ethnic conflict, nationalism, ideology..

I'm NOT parroting my anthropology teacher's opinion. The way I worded my post, it may have looked like that's what he told us, but 90% of what I wrote was MY OPINION.
And I was pointing out a facet of this thing. It's obviously not that simple, but the fact is that the people who say "take down Saddam" aren't the ones who have to fight. War exists because it's human nature to fight. But it's not looked at as human nature, but as an abstraction, because this we haven't experienced real war for 30 years.

and what, desert storm was a fake war?

btw, when people talk about stability, they're talking about economic stability... which does occur during wars, traditionally.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: gopunk
have you ever seen a rambo movie? if people thought each individual soldier's experience would be that of john rambo, i don't think we would have any more wars. at least not the sane ones... maybe some really sadistic people would still want wars...

Okay not Rambo, bad example. I was thinking of the endings. But Commando. Arnold goes in, kills 50 soldiers, and flies away. Why do you think it's such a shock when 5 American soldiers die?

because we spend 360 billion dollars a year on our military? because we're 2-3 generations ahead of any potential enemies?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.. I'm not talking about the liberal leaders like the Saudi royal family, but the people.

Oh.. and please quit using the word "aggression". It's been used so much by the Arab world, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, and so forth that it's become a buzzword lacking in real meaning. Instead of saying "...is an act of aggresion", you will sound much more intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful if you can explain what you mean in more detail.

Secondly.. Funny thing about that label, "liberal". You make it sound as if "liberals" in Saudi Arabia would welcome (or accept) escalation of conflict between the US and Iraq while the "conservative" citizenry wouldn't; here in the US, the definitions would be reversed and conservatives would tend to support any operation while liberals do nothing productive and protest, bitch, whine, bleat, complain, moan..

I meant liberal as in nontraditional. The leaders of these countries don't want to go on a jihad, but the uneducated people may.


I didn't mean economic stability. I meant stuff like "bringing stability to the region". Unless Iraqis decide they like Americans, there isn't going to be an stability in Iraq. About the economic stability... stability for whom?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: gopunk
have you ever seen a rambo movie? if people thought each individual soldier's experience would be that of john rambo, i don't think we would have any more wars. at least not the sane ones... maybe some really sadistic people would still want wars...

Okay not Rambo, bad example. I was thinking of the endings. But Commando. Arnold goes in, kills 50 soldiers, and flies away. Why do you think it's such a shock when 5 American soldiers die?

because we spend 360 billion dollars a year on our military? because we're 2-3 generations ahead of any potential enemies?

That is exactly my point. The 2-3 generations are of course a huge advantage, but lead to a false sense of security.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: gopunk
have you ever seen a rambo movie? if people thought each individual soldier's experience would be that of john rambo, i don't think we would have any more wars. at least not the sane ones... maybe some really sadistic people would still want wars...

Okay not Rambo, bad example. I was thinking of the endings. But Commando. Arnold goes in, kills 50 soldiers, and flies away. Why do you think it's such a shock when 5 American soldiers die?

because we spend 360 billion dollars a year on our military? because we're 2-3 generations ahead of any potential enemies?

That is exactly my point. The 2-3 generations are of course a huge advantage, but lead to a false sense of security.

why do you think it is false?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

why do you think it is false?

Sorry I left out the word "can". I was going to edit, but figured it would be understood. Anyway, superior tech can lead to a false sense of security because there's more to war than technology. Look at Vietnam for example.

One could also argue that if the sense of security was more than a sense, we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq in the first place. The fact that we are afraid of Saddam shows that we are not invincible to Iraq. So logically, getting rid of Iraq's power would be nice.. but I am doubtful of this whole "overthrowing Saddam" thing. If it's that simple, he should have been overthrown in 1991.

Edit: So on the one hand, there is this idea that it will be a quick and clean war, but on the other, there is the fact that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.. I'm not talking about the liberal leaders like the Saudi royal family, but the people.

Oh.. and please quit using the word "aggression". It's been used so much by the Arab world, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, and so forth that it's become a buzzword lacking in real meaning. Instead of saying "...is an act of aggresion", you will sound much more intelligent, knowledgeable, and insightful if you can explain what you mean in more detail.

Secondly.. Funny thing about that label, "liberal". You make it sound as if "liberals" in Saudi Arabia would welcome (or accept) escalation of conflict between the US and Iraq while the "conservative" citizenry wouldn't; here in the US, the definitions would be reversed and conservatives would tend to support any operation while liberals do nothing productive and protest, bitch, whine, bleat, complain, moan..

I meant liberal as in nontraditional. The leaders of these countries don't want to go on a jihad, but the uneducated people may.


I didn't mean economic stability. I meant stuff like "bringing stability to the region". Unless Iraqis decide they like Americans, there isn't going to be an stability in Iraq. About the economic stability... stability for whom?

The problem in Iraq isn't the Iraqis, but the tyrant who's got them under the heel of his boot. It's not about whether the Iraqis like us or not; given a chance to express themselves, the people there would probably be just fine with Americans, but who knows?

I didn't make any comments regarding economic stability, so what are you asking me there?

 

[Lucky]

The fact that we are afraid of Saddam shows that we are not invincible to Iraq. So logically, getting rid of Iraq's power would be nice.. but I am doubtful of this whole "overthrowing Saddam" thing. If it's that simple, he should have been overthrown in 1991.

That was NOT authorized by the UN. They very same UN who now demands any current "agression" against Iraq involving a regime change must by authorized by the Security Council. Jesus, its like you're dammed if you do, dammed if you dont.

 

[Fatt]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer


Former military personnel is one thing... veterans are another.
Yeah I was overgeneralizing.. but anyone who has lived through a real war like the Vietnam knows that war IS hell. So I wasn't talking about miniwars like the Gulf War. Remember the song "born in America"?
Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.. I'm not talking about the liberal leaders like the Saudi royal family, but the people.

a) "Former military personnel is one thing... veterans are another."
Do you even know what a veteran is?

b) "Remember the song "born in America"?"
I remember "Born in the USA" which is about disaffected vietnam veterans in the 1970's. What the heck are YOU talking about?

c) "Attacking Iraq is an act of aggression and will be seen as such by the rest of the Arab world.."
LOL, do you REALLY think the other arab states have any love for saddam? They're mostly worried that we'll do another half-assed job like we did in 1991. Don't confuse public statements made for internal political reasons with actual reality.



Now let me tell you something as a veteran of war:

The longer you wait to attack an enemy, the higher the cost will be. War isn't fun and it isn't pretty.
However, if someone had stepped up in 1938 and told hitler NO, then ww2 wouldn't have occured, 20 million people wouldn't have been executed in death camps, japan wouldn't have been nuked and the cold war wouldn't have occured, meaning that most of the nonsense we are dealing with now wouldn't be happening.

Saddam is a loose canon with a lot of deadly weapons, including biological and chemical weapons. He is trying hard to get nukes. Why do you think that is? So he can hang one over his fecking fireplace?

There are TWENTY THREE documented instances where Iraq used poison gas against the Iranians.
There are several (I don't recall the number) of instances of him using it against his own citizens.

He needs to go. Period.
The sooner the better.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

The problem in Iraq isn't the Iraqis, but the tyrant who's got them under the heel of his boot. It's not about whether the Iraqis like us or not; given a chance to express themselves, the people there would probably be just fine with Americans, but who knows?

I didn't make any comments regarding economic stability, so what are you asking me there?

I wasn't directing the economic stability responses at you, I just didn't want to do another quote.

The problem in Iraq IS Saddam Hussein, but the Iraqis like him don't they? In general, these poor people don't know anything other than what he wants them to know, so they have no choice to be fine with Americans.

 

[Lucky]

Unless Iraqis decide they like Americans, there isn't going to be an stability in Iraq.

It's not like we are going to make Iraq the 51st state.

The problem in Iraq IS Saddam Hussein, but the Iraqis like him don't they?

no! they absolutely hate him!

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

why do you think it is false?

Sorry I left out the word "can". I was going to edit, but figured it would be understood. Anyway, superior tech can lead to a false sense of security because there's more to war than technology. Look at Vietnam for example.

One could also argue that if the sense of security was more than a sense, we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq in the first place. The fact that we are afraid of Saddam shows that we are not invincible to Iraq. So logically, getting rid of Iraq's power would be nice.. but I am doubtful of this whole "overthrowing Saddam" thing. If it's that simple, he should have been overthrown in 1991.

well yes, we can look at vietnam.... and i think 9-11 showed us how vulnerable we were... most of us are aware of that...

no, i think we are worried about iraq because we do not have that false sense of security that you just talked about. you dont' think we can overthrow saddam? no doubt in my mind we can. and we *could* have overthrown him in 1991. but it's my understanding that the terms of surrender were negotiated a little... prematurely... by stormin' norman.