The year is about to end so I'll do some bashing

[Pekka]

Well, because US is in constant state of war since forever, so it is the country I am talking about, of course.

The idea is to debate about the idea of constant war.

[SlowwHand]

Constant peace would be cool.

[Pekka]

Of course, and also impossible.

But it is an interesting thing, when you'd ask from anyone in the streets 'who should we fight next' and I bet all my belongings, that less than 1 out of 10 will answer 'no one'. And also, that over 5 out of 10 will give a different country as an answer, and that over .. 3 out of 10 will give you more than one country.

I bet, that in the top 10 of countries that should be fought next, half of them are some weird locations, that have nothing to do with anything.

So this is rather interesting. War is the default setting, it's not the option to be used, it's the default setting.

[notyoueither]

Anti-American terrorist sympathiser!

[Harry Tuttle]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's because our country is one of the few who give a damn?

[Shogun Gunner]

America should declare war on war....and declare war on non-peace while we are at it. Its an axis of something or other...

[Pekka]

Why do people still insist defending US actions? This is about challenging the idea of CONSTANT STATE OF WAR.

now, if anyone still has some difficulties with the concept, I suggest signing up to the next frontal assault as the human mine sweeper

[TCO]

We're just not Finlandized. We were the good guy marshall during the HIGH NOON of the Cold War.

[Pekka]

Since when did challenging the idea of constant war, the opposite of peace, become the opposite and enemy of caring, setting things right, fixing the wrongs, and doing what's right? The definition of doubletalk. And no, it's not positive, it's a dystopia, and by definition, it's not good, and not good is the opposite of good, pretty simple, so let's get on with the program.

It's when critique is dismissed as an attack, better yet, a personal insult, because the critique is targeting an issue that people feel differently about. On the other hand, that's critique, vital component of starting discussion, debate, exchange of ideas, finding alternatives, an important component of freedom. Freedom isn't your freedom or my freedom, it's the freedom for us all to live in.

When I speculate that one of the big reasons why constant state of war is accepted is because deep inside we do like war, we like kicking asses. To deny this, is in my mind pretty naive. It's only normal human behaviour.

On the other hand, and this is crossing the line with the sandbox of this debate, but since it's been brought up, to have a world view, where one side is good, the other side is bad, and that's the way it goes, how come that is not naive and pretty simple minded?

After all, war is at its core always about power, always. The power to be projected on someone else. Extra-territorial policy making. That's exactly what it is. War is institutionalized, legalized way of projecting power across the borders. It's foreign policy making. It is accepted, if generally we feel the policies we are about to force are better policies than they currently have.

It's not a coincidence they call war an extension of politics. So, by definition, it is politics. That's ok, and sometimes you need to do war. But to never question the idea of war, and framing it with slogans, and to question the whole process.. well well, that's not an attack on anyone's lifestyle, family or well being. It's a no BS debate. And it is benefitial, or at least can be.

Since when did challenging the idea of constant war got to be a bad thing? Was it during the same time when war equaled peace? That kind of logic is so superbly high abstract eastern philosophy, that I will demand my money back on this ying and yang crap.

[Pekka]

TCO, So when are you going to join the human mine sweeping forces? Is it not clear what the discussion is about, after numerous times I pointed out, that it's about the idea of constant state of war? Better yet, why not just NOT get it, and try to insult the person with an off remark, that has got nothing to do with anything. That sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?

[TCO]

I was responding to your question. There is a point mixed in with the snark. Don't be so sensative. It's a legit question. I'm answering it. Sit and learn, grasshopper.

[Aeson]

Speaking from the perspective of my own up-bringing here in the US...

There seems to be a prevalent notion in the US that our military might is something to be proud of, a defining trait even. (To go along with the notion that we are the land of the free... "home of the brave"). I remember often having discussions with other kids (and sometimes adults) about the prowress of our military, how it could beat other nation's militaries, how it had "saved the world" from Nazis and Commies. As a kid raised in that environment, I naturally just took on the same viewpoint as everyone else seemed to hold. And I remember even day-dreaming about serving the country, being a war hero... that sort of thing. Even in something silly like the Olympics I'd cheer for people I had no idea existed a minutes before... just because of a symbol they wear. And of course it was a great victory to beat the USSR... our "enemy".

As I grew older, and especially as I grew detached from that community, I started having differing ideas about the whole that, as is to be expected. If I had fit in better with those around me, I'd probably still have much the same mindset as those who wave the flag, think our foreign policy is for the good of the world, and that freedom is something Americans have and the rest of the world needs us for.

You stand up in class every day, put your hand over your heart, and swear an oath to your country. Then some ******* politician who can't do his job properly (keeping us safe first and foremost) gets us into an unnecessary war, and it happens because of the instilled idea that unquestioning loyalty is a good thing. Anyone who speaks out against the war is unpatriotic. At least until it's going really badly, and has become obvious we never should have been there (at least in that manner) in the first place... even then though you get labelled still. That's how it happens. Mental conditioning. Mob mentality. (And not just in the US... virtually any war is founded upon the same principles of unquestioned loyalty to the group.)

--------------

We definitely did some good in WWII. Some individual decisions during the war were questionable, some worse, but our involvement (once it happened) was mostly good. But since then the rationale behind our wars has often been sorely lacking, and the results very poor. To some extent I think this has left us with a national ego that's hungry to be filled. It's been over half a century since that ego has really been fed.

I think the war we need to fight is the war on that ego. It isolates us, gets us into messes we don't need to be in, and sometimes even contributes to those messes forming in the first place.

[Drake Tungsten]

There seems to be a prevalent notion in the US that our military might is something to be proud of, a defining trait even.

Countries that don't take pride in their military and martial accomplishments are full of pussies. They also don't tend to last too long...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Countries that don't take pride in their military and martial accomplishments are full of pussies. They also don't tend to last too long...

I clearly explained the nature of the pride I was refering to. Are you suggesting that we should use our military might unnecessarily just to fill a void in our national ego?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't even know what a national ego is, let alone how one could have a "void" in it.