|

War?

Byoliveridley

Way off topic, but war’s been on everyone’s mind of late, and the horribly devastating oil spill in Lebanon is but one example of the crazy devastation caused by war. An event that would be an international emergency by itself is only a footnote in the death of many innocent people, destruction of the happiness of entire communities and populations, not to mention all those blown up bridges, power plants and homes.

Los Angeles Times: Why Good Countries Fight Dirty Wars

The citizen-soldiers sent into the field by the United States or any other Western popular government are expected, by virtue of not so long ago having been free civilians themselves, to be more empathetic with the plight of the noncombatants with whom they come into contact. Certainly, brutal incidents like the My Lai massacre or the Abu Ghraib scandal occur from time to time, but they are widely viewed as cultural aberrations. This interpretation, however, is as simplistic as it is misleading. All too often the armies of modern democracies have tolerated and even initiated outrages against civilians, in manners uneasily close to those of their totalitarian and terrorist enemies. Israeli troops are currently demonstrating this fact in their response to the Hezbollah rocket offensive — a response most of the world community, according to recent polls, believes is taking an unacceptably disproportionate toll on Lebanese civilians. And there have been times when democratic leaders have been even more open about their brutal intentions: Speaking of the Allied bombing campaign during World War II that culminated in that consummate act of state terrorism, the firebombing of Dresden, Germany, Winston Churchill flatly stated that the objective was “to make the enemy burn and bleed in every way.”

Excellent article, there really is no moral war, no just war, no holy war, no noble war, no happy war, no easy war, and there really should be no war other than a reluctantly fought, and limited war. There are no noble warriors, no heros, only real people doing things to their fellow human beings that are for the most part, unspeakable horrors. Anyone who tries to argue with me that their war is somehow different because of a host of reasons is not going to convince me.

While history books can be cleansed to blind future generations to the actual costs of war on the people fighting it, and the damage that ensues, fighting affects everyone who fights significantly, and rarely for the better. Eventually, it dehumanizes you, how can you kill someone (except in close combat where there’s a clear survival motivation) except by dehumanizing them? You’d have to think that a whole neighborhood is somehow inhuman to drop a bomb on them that kills maybe one terrorist and 15 innocent humans.

The history we learn has a lot to do with our willingness to tolerate this much war. The science lessons we get in school are a culmination of centuries of accumulated knowledge, the mathematics we learn goes back 10-15 centuries, we are taught to be self-critical, to learn from our mistakes, to think, yet the history we learn is pure propaganda, none of these edicts seem to apply. Being a “pacifist” has gone from normal to “loony coward fringe element” in a few years. Oh well…

Similar Posts

  • Take that, economists!

    Byoliveridley

    Brownlee’s mistake was to put into practice something that worked only in theory.

    Meet the economists who know why we buy what we buy | Money | The Guardian

    Buried in an excellent article introducing the field of behavioural economics to a wider audience is that one line takedown of economics theory! I happen to believe that economists just aren’t scientific enough to understand how modeling works. A well behaved, rational human being who makes every decision independently of other decisions based solely on maximizing her economic utility is like (warning, quantum theory reference) a physicist reading about the particle in a box model and deciding to predict the behavior of all subatomic particles. Yes, it is a neat theory with some neat math, but it’s only the first step!

    Scientists try to be a little more humble with their modeling. They seem to know that the chaos and probability driven events in even the simplest of real world settings make models/simulation mostly exercises in trend seeking, not deterministic end points.

    To predict the economic behavior of people, you have to include the variables that make them people! Not assume that all people will follow all your assumptions of their behavior strictly, and to not call them names when they don’t act to maximize their short term utility!

    Anyway, apropos nothing, I like to rant about economists! The article also notes that Barack Obama is a follower of behavioral economics, good for him. I wonder if McCain even knows what that phrase means.

  • |

    The US guts Environmental Assessments

    Byoliveridley

    Environmental assessment in the U.S. was enshrined in law for the first time when President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970. Since then, however, the U.S. has slowly cast aside its role as a leader in the field of environmental assessments, as successive administrations have chipped away at the scope of NEPA, experts say. The cuts have reached a crescendo with President George W. Bush’s administration, and proponents of these assessments worry that pressure to develop natural resources with little oversight of the consequences will lead to an unsustainable future for the U.S.

    ES&T Online News: Environmental Magna Carta under siege

    Well, perfect. Now you can claim very factually that “you don’t know of any harmful effects of your actions”.

    The fact is, the attack on NEPA has come, chronically, from a relatively small group of commodity users—timber companies, highway builders—who simply oppose having the public and environmentalists get in the way of their plans and programs,” Houck maintains.

    Can’t say it any better. Information is very important and one thing this Bush administration has been very successful at is reducing the flow of information.

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: ,

  • Palin's E-Mail Practices and Accountability

    Byoliveridley

    McCain's vice-presidential pick apparently used the accounts to communicate with key aides about government business

    ABC News: Experts Don’t Yahoo Over Palin’s E-Mail Practices.

    If I were to use my gmail account for official company business, I would get into all kinds of hot water. Many companies would consider it a serious violation of policies and procedures. Yet Americans want these people running their country? No standards whatsoever.

  • |

    Republicans Block Renewable Energy Legislation

    Byoliveridley

    3 people stand between the US and a sensible energy policy, the radical notion that subsidies should support up and coming, good for the environment renewable energy instead of the oil industry.

    Wired News – AP News

    But Republicans complained that it was too harsh on the oil industry and could lead to oil companies reducing investments in new oil refineries and production. They also said that it could lead to higher prices for consumers.

    “When you put a tax on a business it gets passed on to consumers,” argued Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz. “Instead of reducing gasoline prices, this bill is going to add to the cost of gasoline.”

    Kyl had earlier sought to sidetrack the tax measure, but that effort failed.

    The bill’s supporters dismissed suggestions that the new taxes on an industry that has had record profits in recent years would cause either less oil production or lead to higher prices at the pump.

    Oil companies earned $111 billion in profits last year and at that rate stand to earn $1 trillion over the 10 years covered by the tax package, said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., rejecting suggestions that “this is an undue burden” on oil companies.

    Kyl claims that the point of energy legislation is to reduce the cost of gasoline to consumers. Really? I thought the point was to come up with a coherent policy that maximizes the efficiency of energy use and minimizes its impacts.

  • Compare and Contrast…

    Byoliveridley

    “(Our) stance is not limited to those who fight on the government’s side but applies to all Sudanese, including those who still bear arms and fight the government. They are Sudanese, and we will not let them be tried by any court outside Sudan.”
    — Sudan Justice Minister Mohamed Ali al-Mardi
    Sudan rejects ICC jurisdiction, says one suspect held | Reuters

    To wit…

    For a number of reasons, the United States decided that the ICC had unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty. Specifically, the ICC is an organization whose precepts go against fundamental American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. It is an agreement that is harmful to the national interests of the United States, and harmful to our presence abroad.

    —John Bolton, Ex US Envoy to the UN

    Nothing more to say, goose, meet gander, eat sauce!, insert other acceptable truisms, here. When Sudan uses the same language as the leader of the free world to “protect” perpetrators and apologists of genocide, you know that the world is a FUBARed place.

  • |

    Lasers shooting into irises

    Byoliveridley

    I did not think my first minor surgery would involve someone shooting lasers to make holes in my iris. It sounds like more fun than it actually was, but was mostly painless and here I am, looking at a computer screen 3 hours later. My eyes feel like they’ve had about 5 hours of sleep, which is good considering they’re now sporting two brand new drain holes.

    Laser iridotomy is also performed prophylactically(preventively) on asymptomatic individuals with narrow angles and those with pigment dispersion. Individuals with a narrow angle are at higher risk of an acute angle closure, especially upon dilation of the eye

    http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/La-Pa/Laser-Iridotomy.html

    I also just started reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, which is about the use and misuse of the banner of science by a large group of people including nutritionists, pharmaceutical companies and “alternative” treatment specialists. It has a great chapter on the “placebo” effect, how much of it is culturally mediated, and how much doctor demeanour and confidence in their skills and outcome affects results. The doctor shooting holes in my eye was extremely confident in their skills and their results, and normally, my brain would be sending off all kinds of hubris warnings. In this case, their confidence reassured me a bit, and Bad Science definitely helped. It was also interesting to see a large section on homeopathy in the book, since I’ve written about my contact with homeopathy and felt that the cultural practices of a good homeopath can be of some use to people as long as they don’t go too far. The book confirmed some of that.

3 Comments

  1. >>Anyone who tries to argue with me that their war is somehow different because of a host of reasons is not going to convince me.

    What about the wars of independence of so many nations? What does a population do when it is occupied and oppressed by another that’s immune to non-violent methods of resistance?

  2. Well Thojo, in that case, you’re dealing with an occupying power that is not gong to budge unless you inflict great harm. If the guilt building, the moral superiority, the support of the world, etc do not get you your independence/freedom, how is armed conflict going to help? Do you think Tibet has a chance even if the monks took up arms? For a revolution to succeed, you need to inflict enough harm on your enemy in a short enough period of time so they change their minds. In the very assymetric world we live in now, where the organized state has unlimited power and staying capacity at its disposal, the only hope of independence for you is if the world powers (read US) takes your side and exerts enough influence to make it happen. If you’re a lesser power (like Indonesia), the UN will suffice.

    My point is also this, you get compromise only if one side gets tired of the violence first. and, at least one side needs to say that the war is not worth it, and since this involves a lot of swallowing of pride, this will never happen unless the other side at least temporarily stops as well. So, back to my original point, stop fighting first, there can be no solution unless the war stops…

  3. Yes, I did think about that (that weaker parties can’t win without war anyways).

    But stronger ones can. Imagine if the US is attacked by armed forces from Nicaragua. Funny, but imagine it anyway. Or if Japan attacked China as it did. Would anyone suggest non-violent protest as the answer? China is strong enough now to kick the shit out of Japan but the threat of war must be on the table for it to serve as deterrence.

    Also, in some cases, non-violent protest is no less futile than war. For example, people sometimes complain “Why don’t Palestinians adopt non-violent methods of protest, like Gandhi?”. As if the Israelis have earned non-violent protest!

    My point is, a state of warlessness can’t be achieved without the threat of war on all sides (and a widespread distaste for it, where opinions like what you have posted, when aired, help a lot). Otherwise, whoever militarizes can take over the world. How can that be prevented. It’s so easy to create a small war loving bunch.

    This is why I dislike selective nuclear disarmament as well. As far as I know Peace Action is the only org. in the US that is asking for complete nuclear disarmament (including the US). So much for the great “left”. Atleast in the case of nukes, if everyone is in agreement, if someone starts up some shit secretly, there’s a good chance of detection.

Comments are closed.