Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

Uhmm, I remember USA lost the 'Nam war due to a lot of hippies at home, protested against it.

No the USA lost because they did not have a good reason for fighting a war in which they had no real interest, against a tougher smarter people who were defending their homeland against a foreign invader.

Just like the Iraq, and Afghanistan fiascos, the US like to look tough but don't really have the balls to do what is necessary and weak desolation on their enemies.

Hippies were dead right. They were pissed off with some moron in the White house dragging them out of their homes, chucking a rifle in their hands and shipping them to a foreign country.
It's a shame you haven't fucked off to Iraq and got a bullet in your head.
Each generation benefits by getting the violent members of society killed in war, so that normal people can get on with their lives.
When are you going?

Lev Muishkin wrote:No the USA lost because they did not have a good reason for fighting a war in which they had no real interest, against a tougher smarter people who were defending their homeland against a foreign invader.

Just like the Iraq, and Afghanistan fiascos, the US like to look tough but don't really have the balls to do what is necessary and weak desolation on their enemies.

Hippies were dead right. They were pissed off with some moron in the White house dragging them out of their homes, chucking a rifle in their hands and shipping them to a foreign country.
It's a shame you haven't fucked off to Iraq and got a bullet in your head.
Each generation benefits by getting the violent members of society killed in war, so that normal people can get on with their lives.
When are you going?

It was the commie North Nam that invaded South Nam. US wanted to prevent commies from spreading, thus went in an all out war.

It was pictures like the Nam girls burned all over her body that really was 1 of the final nails in the Nam coffin.

HexHammer wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:No the USA lost because they did not have a good reason for fighting a war in which they had no real interest, against a tougher smarter people who were defending their homeland against a foreign invader.

Just like the Iraq, and Afghanistan fiascos, the US like to look tough but don't really have the balls to do what is necessary and weak desolation on their enemies.

Hippies were dead right. They were pissed off with some moron in the White house dragging them out of their homes, chucking a rifle in their hands and shipping them to a foreign country.
It's a shame you haven't fucked off to Iraq and got a bullet in your head.
Each generation benefits by getting the violent members of society killed in war, so that normal people can get on with their lives.
When are you going?

It was the commie North Nam that invaded South Nam. US wanted to prevent commies from spreading, thus went in an all out war.

It was pictures like the Nam girls burned all over her body that really was 1 of the final nails in the Nam coffin.

Of course, the 'reds under the beds,' completely irrational, American paranoia. You see moronic yanks on the internet still ranting and raving about 'scumbag commies'. They can't get it through their thick heads that the world has moved on. What about Mai Lai? And the protests weren't really about empathy for the Vietnamese people, it was more about 'saving AMERICAN lives'.

Lev Muishkin wrote: If being anti-war is so rare it is a wonder that we are not fighting all the time.
I agree about what you say about politicians spouting patriotism, and people like to follow like sheep.
But for the most part people just want to get on with their lives.

True, but people need to start demanding that warmongering politicians be the first to line up for front line combat. See how many wars there would be then. No extra protection for them either. A moron like Bush would have been the first to have his head hacked off, or blown up.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:it was more about 'saving AMERICAN lives'.

Yes the majority wanted US to exit the war, that they didn't have any real interest in, and too many US soldiers died in that meaningless war, but still that picture of the Nam girl, really was the final straw.

Imo this is why the successive wars has been very limited with free press.

HexHammer wrote:Imo this is why the successive wars has been very limited with free press.

In war, the first casualty is truth.
Aeschylus. Another Greek.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Imo this is why the successive wars has been very limited with free press.

In war, the first casualty is truth.
Aeschylus. Another Greek.

You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.

HexHammer wrote:You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.

We have that in common, Mr Hammer.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.

We have that in common, Mr Hammer.

No, truly you speak out of your ass.

To lie isn't the same to limit the reporters and journalists ability to roam freely, and freely seend any information found.

HexHammer wrote:To lie isn't the same to limit the reporters and journalists ability to roam freely, and freely seend any information found.

I think many commentators would argue that reports of Saddam Hussain's military capabilities were, at best, exaggerated, for instance. Putting restraints on what reporters can tell the enemy is only sensible.

uwot wrote:Putting restraints on what reporters can tell the enemy is only sensible.

How so?

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

If you ask me, and since you didn't, I'll tell you anyway, if you look at nature, there are many strategies that are used to gain power, property and the attention of potential sexual partners. Many animals will fight, some will build, some will show off their artistic talent, some will display their beauty, some will dance, some will sing, some will do things that only makes sense to them. Human beings do all of these things; the tragedy is, when those that use violence get some power, they want more and everyone else gets dragged in. The vast majority of people who die in wars are not violent, they have very little to gain and rarely much to lose.

For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:

House of the Dead

Whoever has experienced the power, the unrestrained ability to humiliate another human being... automatically loses power over his own sensations. Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease. The habit can kill and coarsen. The man and the citizen die with the tyrant forever; the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible. It brings the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate...

Which is to say, perhaps it is not always people 'that use violence' and then get power who become the tyrants and murderers, but the power itself that corrupts.

About twenty years ago, there was a book called 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' by Daniel Goldhagen, which documented the extermination of Jews, not so much in the camps, but the equally extensive extermination of Jews behind the lines of the military front, especially into eastern Europe and Russia. The 'executioners' were not soldiers with guns to their heads, 'following orders,' but older civil servants past military age who were left behind (from the occupied countries as well as Germany) to 'mop up,' and did so with great efficiency, gusto and help from the populace. It is a well written, well documented and very disturbing book.

uwot wrote:

HexHammer wrote:To lie isn't the same to limit the reporters and journalists ability to roam freely, and freely seend any information found.

I think many commentators would argue that reports of Saddam Hussain's military capabilities were, at best, exaggerated, for instance. Putting restraints on what reporters can tell the enemy is only sensible.

Who gets to decide who the 'enemy' is then? So you are against free speech then.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:Humans are complex beings, and as well have being naturally violent, humans are naturally caring, loving and co-operative too.

If you ask me, and since you didn't, I'll tell you anyway, if you look at nature, there are many strategies that are used to gain power, property and the attention of potential sexual partners. Many animals will fight, some will build, some will show off their artistic talent, some will display their beauty, some will dance, some will sing, some will do things that only makes sense to them. Human beings do all of these things; the tragedy is, when those that use violence get some power, they want more and everyone else gets dragged in. The vast majority of people who die in wars are not violent, they have very little to gain and rarely much to lose.

Surely you mean 'really', much to lose, not 'rarely'.

I live in the US, and I take uwot's point, he meant 'rarely.'

HexHammer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:We only have to look at our entire history to know that. People who are anti-war are as rare as balls on a hen. Those arseholes with their poppy badges aren't anti-war, they are glorifying it. We also need to stop idol-worshipping inadequate cunts with the gift of the gab eg Hitler.

Uhmm, I remember USA lost the 'Nam war due to a lot of hippies at home, protested against it.

Nobody wins a war!