5 ms·

I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I su

by scrrr 11y ago

I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I suppose especially us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. We also think uniforms look good. And we dream of being heroes, especially when we are young. It is, of course, nonsense. All these machines, while technologically interesting, are basically just ugly tools to end lives of other humans. I suppose the glamour and pride only work as long as you believe it does. And so forth. Of course we need some weapons to defend ourselves, (one might argue our nuclear weapons are more than enough already), because who knows may come and attack, sure. But, yea, I think I just want to say, stop glorifying all this stuff. It gives me hope that one of the most popular computer games ever, Minecraft, is not a war game. :)

cmdkeen 11y ago
No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention followed up by nation building. Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention. The cause of peace allows Rwanda, Bosnia and a hundred other regional conflicts and genocide to claims the lives of millions and blight regions. We should not let Afghanistan and Iraq - and really the root problem is Iraq detract from the potential to affect positive change in the world. Finally it's worth saying that military capability gives humanitarian capability. The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief.
- lentil_soup 11y ago
  "The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?
  - serge2k 11y ago
    The need/want of the US to have their guns all over the planet means they often have people in a position to help. If they weren't out there defending people/enforcing US interests then they wouldn't be there at all.
    - lentil_soup 11y ago
      Sure, but then it's a bad argument as defense of the military. Their purpose is not to help in disasters, that they happen to be there is secondary.
- Htsthbjig 11y ago
  "Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention." Successful? You must be joking or only talk about US and UK side. First Gulf war was a disaster. The US and UK invaded a country and asked the locals to support them, but then they went away. So Saddam took all the people that supported US and UK and simply killed them. First GW only served one purpose, to claim hegemony of the US military on the war after the cold war and fall of the wall, that there was only one military ruler in the world. But it was a disaster form an strategic point of view, killing all your supporters in one country, then killing the other side,thus creating a power vacuum as no educated elite is left, creating a failed state. Remember that Saddam was a US ally and now we know he asked US what will happen if they invaded Kuwait. The US said it was none of their business. Of course it was.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    GW1 militarily was a huge success, Kuwait - a "five feet high nation" in the Lloyd George sense, was defended from aggression from its much bigger, nastier neighbour. The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. It was our business, and should be our business. That's the whole point of things like the UN charter - remember there were a series of UN resolutions condemning the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Without recourse to more powerful countries keeping the peace what defence do smaller nations have? That was the real tragedy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the undermining of that moral authority. You're also trying to have your cake and eat it by saying we shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs and then laying the failure of an internal uprising on the West. It wasn't an invasion where we asked the locals to support us, it was a national revolt (also in the North) as a result of the dictator being seen as weak following his failed invasion of Kuwait. The USA made a few radio broadcasts, that's not enough to kick off an entire revolution. Iraq was in social turmoil after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, it was a powder keg waiting to go off.
    - lgieron 11y ago
      > The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. Let's be honest, the US cares about those only in there's oil or other goodies involved (see the lack of response to the current situation in Ukraine, where there's little to gain and much to lose for the US).
- vasac 11y ago
  Well, you didn't seem so upbeat when your ex-allies practiced some 'nation building' on 9/11. Things don't look so heroic when happen in your own backyard, do they?
- lostlogin 11y ago
  I'm not sure that 1 or 2 successful interventions make a heroic period. And the First Gulf War was a farce. What has occurred in Iraq since is directly related and the stationing of troops in Saudi during the conflict had a profound influence on many, including Bin Laden. Intervention is always complex but this was a disaster.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    I'd hardly call over a decade of regional stability a farce. It checked any expansionist tendencies of other regional powers. It helped make a very powerful point to Iran who didn't cause any problems with the Straits of Hormuz for a long while after, to Libya who had been invaded Chad only years before etc. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq that kicked off the nightmare and heightened regional and global instability. It was that massive miscalculation which hugely multiplied the number of jihadists and gave victories to radical Islamists. Remember Iran had been chanting death America for years by that point, religious zealots already hated America and the West.
    - lostlogin 11y ago
      Regional stability didn't make for a very good time in Iraq if you were a Kurd, had supported the U.S. in any way or if you wanted to eat. Infant mortality went through the roof and the death toll from coalition bombing civilians was also a problem. Regional stability is a phrase that gets used to justify support for vicious dictatorships that suit foreign powers.
honzzz 11y ago
This reminded me of the article "The Jihad Cult: Why Young Germans Are Answering Call to Holy War" [1] - after reading it, I got the impression that at least some young men became jihadists because they are basically narcissistic losers whose attempts to be cool via normal and non-destructive means (like becaming famous rapper or kickboxer) failed so they convinced themselves that joining ISIS is the cool thing - they perceive it like courageously fighting with their 'brothers' to enforce God's will... or something like that, they perceive this concept as cool and some of them desperately want back home when they get to Syria and see the grim reality of real ISIS. The whole article is worth reading. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-young-germany-are-answering-call-to-war-in-syria-a-1003468.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-young-germany-...
- gaius 11y ago
  Post-modern Western journalists and politicians are spectacularly ill-equipped to understand and hence deal with, people who actually believe in something, whatever that thing may be.
  - Retric 11y ago
    That's a ridiculous statement. Any sort of Group of people X is Y statement is very unlikely to be true, but this is more so than most. Western Journalists regularly risk life and limb for what they believe in. In many ways it's like saying the clergy are atheists sure some of them are, but there is strong !atheist selection pressure going on. EX: Let's cover an Ebola outbreak!
    - gaius 11y ago
      You appear to have skipped a word or two in what I wrote.
      - Retric 11y ago
        Like many people, I don't feel the need to defend politicians ;)
antocv 11y ago
> us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. Speak for yourself only. As a child Ive seen artillery in action, MiGs XX dropping bombs close to basement "us techies" were hiding it, those things are not fucking cool. It would be so fun one day for you to experience an F15 dropping its load on your village or an M1 Abrams tank, firing its guns towards your house, then lets see if you think those are cool. In general Americans are far far far from any war, and far far back in history to have any meaningful experience of it. Hollywood takes it lightly, it is entertaiment, for Americans, but "not so much" for lets say Europe.
- pauleastlund 11y ago
  I get what you're saying, but your tone here is pretty hostile here and you don't seem to acknowledge that the point you're making is in perfect agreement with the post you're responding to. You quoted him just before he said, "[This] is, of course, nonsense."
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Stating something first and then negating it in the same comment is a pretty weird way to make a point.
    - treerock 11y ago
      Basically an oxymoron. Shakespeare loved them [1] [1] http://kerbev.hubpages.com/hub/shakespeare-oxymorons http://kerbev.hubpages.com/hub/shakespeare-oxymorons
  - nothrabannosir 11y ago
    Did he edit his comment after you replied? I totally agree with what he said to GP: "don't include me in your 'we think war machines are cool.'" That's bad form in general, doubly so on this touchy subject.
    - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 11y ago
>If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars It's not that wars are seen as heroic, or religious differences and other such BS. A lot of modern wars can be explained as the results of colonialism (either traditional or in its current covert form). Larger countries have interests in exploiting less powerful countries, to get control of trade areas, cheap oil and labor, etc. Of course they say the bring "democracy" etc, even when they leave chaos and hell on their way out (plus some profitable contracts for them). Before the 60s the did it directly, literally enslaving 7/10 of the world in their "colonies". After that they do it by proxy (e.g. by drawing borders in such a way that establish countries and "nations" that will fight between them so that they can more easily control the area, install lackeys in power, etc.
- orkoden 11y ago
  Wars were fought before western colonization too. Lots of current conflicts have nothing to do with colonization.

by scrrr 11y ago

cmdkeen 11y ago

No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention followed up by nation building. Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention. The cause of peace allows Rwanda, Bosnia and a hundred other regional conflicts and genocide to claims the lives of millions and blight regions. We should not let Afghanistan and Iraq - and really the root problem is Iraq detract from the potential to affect positive change in the world. Finally it's worth saying that military capability gives humanitarian capability. The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief.

lentil_soup 11y ago
"The recent Philippines disaster saw HMS Illustrious deliver all the spare rice in Singapore in a short space of time along with a number of helicopters as well as fit, motivated, organised and well led teams to assist in disaster relief." Then you can have the same efficient result with a non-military organization. What's so special about them having guns?
- serge2k 11y ago
  The need/want of the US to have their guns all over the planet means they often have people in a position to help. If they weren't out there defending people/enforcing US interests then they wouldn't be there at all.
  - lentil_soup 11y ago
    Sure, but then it's a bad argument as defense of the military. Their purpose is not to help in disasters, that they happen to be there is secondary.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
"Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention." Successful? You must be joking or only talk about US and UK side. First Gulf war was a disaster. The US and UK invaded a country and asked the locals to support them, but then they went away. So Saddam took all the people that supported US and UK and simply killed them. First GW only served one purpose, to claim hegemony of the US military on the war after the cold war and fall of the wall, that there was only one military ruler in the world. But it was a disaster form an strategic point of view, killing all your supporters in one country, then killing the other side,thus creating a power vacuum as no educated elite is left, creating a failed state. Remember that Saddam was a US ally and now we know he asked US what will happen if they invaded Kuwait. The US said it was none of their business. Of course it was.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  GW1 militarily was a huge success, Kuwait - a "five feet high nation" in the Lloyd George sense, was defended from aggression from its much bigger, nastier neighbour. The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. It was our business, and should be our business. That's the whole point of things like the UN charter - remember there were a series of UN resolutions condemning the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Without recourse to more powerful countries keeping the peace what defence do smaller nations have? That was the real tragedy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the undermining of that moral authority. You're also trying to have your cake and eat it by saying we shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs and then laying the failure of an internal uprising on the West. It wasn't an invasion where we asked the locals to support us, it was a national revolt (also in the North) as a result of the dictator being seen as weak following his failed invasion of Kuwait. The USA made a few radio broadcasts, that's not enough to kick off an entire revolution. Iraq was in social turmoil after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, it was a powder keg waiting to go off.
  - lgieron 11y ago
    > The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. Let's be honest, the US cares about those only in there's oil or other goodies involved (see the lack of response to the current situation in Ukraine, where there's little to gain and much to lose for the US).
vasac 11y ago
Well, you didn't seem so upbeat when your ex-allies practiced some 'nation building' on 9/11. Things don't look so heroic when happen in your own backyard, do they?
lostlogin 11y ago
I'm not sure that 1 or 2 successful interventions make a heroic period. And the First Gulf War was a farce. What has occurred in Iraq since is directly related and the stationing of troops in Saudi during the conflict had a profound influence on many, including Bin Laden. Intervention is always complex but this was a disaster.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  I'd hardly call over a decade of regional stability a farce. It checked any expansionist tendencies of other regional powers. It helped make a very powerful point to Iran who didn't cause any problems with the Straits of Hormuz for a long while after, to Libya who had been invaded Chad only years before etc. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq that kicked off the nightmare and heightened regional and global instability. It was that massive miscalculation which hugely multiplied the number of jihadists and gave victories to radical Islamists. Remember Iran had been chanting death America for years by that point, religious zealots already hated America and the West.
  - lostlogin 11y ago
    Regional stability didn't make for a very good time in Iraq if you were a Kurd, had supported the U.S. in any way or if you wanted to eat. Infant mortality went through the roof and the death toll from coalition bombing civilians was also a problem. Regional stability is a phrase that gets used to justify support for vicious dictatorships that suit foreign powers.

honzzz 11y ago

This reminded me of the article "The Jihad Cult: Why Young Germans Are Answering Call to Holy War" [1] - after reading it, I got the impression that at least some young men became jihadists because they are basically narcissistic losers whose attempts to be cool via normal and non-destructive means (like becaming famous rapper or kickboxer) failed so they convinced themselves that joining ISIS is the cool thing - they perceive it like courageously fighting with their 'brothers' to enforce God's will... or something like that, they perceive this concept as cool and some of them desperately want back home when they get to Syria and see the grim reality of real ISIS. The whole article is worth reading. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-young-germany-are-answering-call-to-war-in-syria-a-1003468.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/why-young-germany-...

gaius 11y ago
Post-modern Western journalists and politicians are spectacularly ill-equipped to understand and hence deal with, people who actually believe in something, whatever that thing may be.
- Retric 11y ago
  That's a ridiculous statement. Any sort of Group of people X is Y statement is very unlikely to be true, but this is more so than most. Western Journalists regularly risk life and limb for what they believe in. In many ways it's like saying the clergy are atheists sure some of them are, but there is strong !atheist selection pressure going on. EX: Let's cover an Ebola outbreak!
  - gaius 11y ago
    You appear to have skipped a word or two in what I wrote.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Like many people, I don't feel the need to defend politicians ;)

antocv 11y ago

> us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. Speak for yourself only. As a child Ive seen artillery in action, MiGs XX dropping bombs close to basement "us techies" were hiding it, those things are not fucking cool. It would be so fun one day for you to experience an F15 dropping its load on your village or an M1 Abrams tank, firing its guns towards your house, then lets see if you think those are cool. In general Americans are far far far from any war, and far far back in history to have any meaningful experience of it. Hollywood takes it lightly, it is entertaiment, for Americans, but "not so much" for lets say Europe.

pauleastlund 11y ago
I get what you're saying, but your tone here is pretty hostile here and you don't seem to acknowledge that the point you're making is in perfect agreement with the post you're responding to. You quoted him just before he said, "[This] is, of course, nonsense."
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Stating something first and then negating it in the same comment is a pretty weird way to make a point.
  - treerock 11y ago
    Basically an oxymoron. Shakespeare loved them [1] [1] http://kerbev.hubpages.com/hub/shakespeare-oxymorons http://kerbev.hubpages.com/hub/shakespeare-oxymorons
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Did he edit his comment after you replied? I totally agree with what he said to GP: "don't include me in your 'we think war machines are cool.'" That's bad form in general, doubly so on this touchy subject.
  - 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 11y ago

>If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars It's not that wars are seen as heroic, or religious differences and other such BS. A lot of modern wars can be explained as the results of colonialism (either traditional or in its current covert form). Larger countries have interests in exploiting less powerful countries, to get control of trade areas, cheap oil and labor, etc. Of course they say the bring "democracy" etc, even when they leave chaos and hell on their way out (plus some profitable contracts for them). Before the 60s the did it directly, literally enslaving 7/10 of the world in their "colonies". After that they do it by proxy (e.g. by drawing borders in such a way that establish countries and "nations" that will fight between them so that they can more easily control the area, install lackeys in power, etc.

orkoden 11y ago
Wars were fought before western colonization too. Lots of current conflicts have nothing to do with colonization.