Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The reality of war is death and suffering


It's easy to push the reality of war to the back of our minds when it's reduced down to series of short blurbs running along the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen.

Car bomb explodes in Baghdad...six killed...two Italian soldiers injured by roadside bomb near Fallujah...Paris Hilton to be charged with misdemeanor DUI...

It's not so easy when we see photos of the carnage that is war. The destroyed lives, destroyed bodies, destroyed families - staring at us point blank.

Sipping on a Starbucks latte, we wonder why anyone wouldn't think we're doing a great thing for the Iraqi people. Trying to live on the war-torn streets of Baghdad, maybe they wonder why we're doing these things to them.

The Pulitzer prize winning series of photos from the war that remains nearly invisible to us here in the U.S. are eye opening and heart breaking. Anyone not moved by the images is perhaps beyond hope - beyond humanity.

War is terrible. It's not noble. It's not holy. It's not justified. It's a failure of humanity and mankind. Every time we wage it we've failed. War is never a success and it's never truly won.

As we argue and justify our actions in Iraq in the comfort of our own homes, with Desperate Housewives in the background, maybe we should stop and realize - actually realize - that there are desperate people living through hell. And no matter what our motivations, no matter our justifications and reasons, they are suffering in part because of us.

That's the reality of war.

There's blood and guts and bodies being shredded in Iraq today and yesterday and tomorrow. People are dying every single day. Some of them are American soldiers, or Italian, or British, but most of them are simply Iraqi. All of them are - or were - human beings...people we've failed.

We should all look hard at the images of this war. Look hard at them and then look hard at ourselves. And ask ourselves how we would face the parents of a dead child, or the children whose parents are nothing but pieces of broken flesh and what would we say to them.

What could we possibly say to them?

That's the reality of war and we should all face it.



34 comments:

Scott said...

Every time we wage it we've failed.

Every time? Really? By "we" are you referring to the United States specifically?

I can't agree with that at all.

Shawn said...

By 'we' I'm referring to humanity.

Did you look at any of the photos? Just wondering. If so, what did you think?

I'm not surprised to hear you can't agree that war is ultimately a failure of humanity. What I can't figure is whether you really believe war is a-okay super and perhaps one of mankind's crowning achievements or if you just like to argue even if there's no reason to?

I don't know, perhaps you're just a 'might-is-right' kind of fella.

Laura said...

You hit it right on the head Shawn. People who sit back and wonder why the Iraqi's don't "appreciate" what we're doing for them obviously don't understand what those people are living through right now. I can't purport to know what it's like, but I cam empathize.

What do you say to someone who has lost several family members to misguided bombs or factional violence? At least you got to vote this year?

Scott said...

By 'we' I'm referring to humanity.

Well "we" as humanity never really wage war. It's always individuals acting on behalf of countries or in some, usually less severe cases, groups of individuals acting on behalf of small groups.

I simply did not know if you were referring to the US or everyppl as a whole, which is why I asked the question. Yes I looked at your pictures. Yes, of course they're very sad. Just as sad as the natural devastation that occurs through the force of tsunamis or hurricanes, or the man made devastation of mass starvation caused by democide.

There's a lot of bad shit in the world.

I'm not surprised to hear you can't agree that war is ultimately a failure of humanity.

First off, I didn't say that. Secondly, that's just a huge simplification of things and really doesn't address anything. As long as there are people, there are going to be individuals who seek to exert their values on other people. Some of them will use force. Some of them will enlist other men, even nations, to help them violently exert that force on others. Is that act of an individual the failure of humanity on the whole? Once that violence is commenced is it a failure of humanity as whole for other people to stop it with counter-violence?

It'd be great if we could live in a World where there were no wars, but as long as people have the ability to think for themselves there will be wars.

Your assumption of me, that I think war is "mankind's crowning achievement" is completely false. I am, in fact, anti-war. But I am also a realist and I know there is certainly no escaping it.

Shawn said...

We vary in our outlook on our fellow man then. I believe that people want to be kind and decent to one another and the war is a failure of that.

I'm an idealist and believe that man, oddly enough, has the ability to live without war just like a man can live without violence.

thephoenixnyc said...

Of course the Bush-connected, republican funded BIG MEDIA comanies in the US NEVER show these images.

If the press and media were really liberal as the wingnuts claim these inages would be on the front page everyday.

Scott said...

I'm an idealist and believe that man, oddly enough, has the ability to live without war just like a man can live without violence.

Well I agree that man can live without war, I've just noticed he has an overwhelming propensity to choose not to.

Sadie Lou said...

I believe that people want to be kind and decent to one another and the war is a failure of that.

Well, first, you have to look at some of the situations that bring about war. Adolf Hitler was a failure at being "kind" and "decent" and he bred this attitude of hate and fear to the point where war was the outcome/solution. So, how can you say that war never solved anything--wait--you said "succeed"?
What about the situation in Darfur?
Sometimes war is the only thing a dictator will respond to when that dictator is out of control and killing thousands if not MILLIONS of people--it has nothing to do with the failure of mankind to be kind a decent and absolutely everything to do with putting a stop to men that HATE.

Shawn said...

PNYC - If we're willing to wage a war and not willing to look at the effects of that war, something is wrong.

Scott - Agreed. That is perhaps something I was trying to convey somehow. We choose to wage wars.

Sadie - True, many dictators respond only to war or the threat of war. But having to wage a war is a failing. A success would have been not allowing a dictator to gain power. Most don't take power through huge violent revolutions, but take power a piece at a time. First a small personal liberty is taken, then another, then another and eventually that dictator is in a position to take near total control.

Hitler was an example of that. He took more and more power into his own hands and the society of the time allowed him to have it. And yes, he bred attitudes of hate and fear, but people allowed that hate and fear to grow in themselves. Ultimately that led to war.

Winning a war isn't the same thing as waging a successful war.

On a personal level, I can get in a fight at the bar and maybe even win it, but that would hardly be a successful evening - even if the guy was a total bully and who deserved it.

Ultimately, wars aren't waged by a leader of a country alone, they are waged by the society of that country. So really it's about stopping societies that hate - or allow hate to rule their actions.

Sadie Lou said...

Shawn,
I hear what you're trying to explain to me and it makes sense--it does. I guess I'm having a hard time with the reality, or lack there of, in your reasoning. Yes, of course it would be ideal to stop an evil dictator before he gets going on his evil agenda but people who are rational and logical and able to think clearly for themselves and are even in a position to think freely, are not every where all at once.
You're dealing with whole countries of people who are not in a position to prevent evil dicators from coming into power. Look at Suddam. What could the people do to prevent his political position? Saddam slaugtered any man that opposed him politically. His rise to power was founded on fear and then once he knew he could control people in this fashion--he did whatever he wanted--including the geneocide of the Kurds.
What should have been done to STOP him before we had to resort to war tactics?

Shawn said...

What can anyone ever do in the face of evil? A good question indeed. The answer seems to be that only violence is the answer.

All these dictators must be superhuman to have risen to power. Clearly an entire society was no match for a clever corporal living in the Bavarian Alps.

How could a towering, all-powerful giant with the equivalant of a G.E.D. have ever been stopped from becoming the terror of the entire Iraqi nation? Surely Saddam Hussein was born to power and there was never a point when someone could have said, 'Hey, this dude is a whack job...maybe we should stop promoting him.'

I'm not advocating a bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is unicorns and rainbows philosophy.
But, I am saying that war is the ultimate failure of humanity. And as such, we should be confronted by the reality of the course we've chosen.

If we're to argue that waging war in Iraq is the right thing to do because we're removing a greater evil, then we should at least be willing to look at the other side of the equation and see the pain, suffering and destruction that we're causing.

If we're fighting to overthrow a tyrant, we should look at the destruction we're causing and balance that against the benefit of having a tyrant removed. If we're fighting for oil, we should see the anguish we're causing and honestly balance that against the cost of gas at the pump.

Maybe the death of children, men and women because of our war is better than the alternative of many more deaths of children, men and women at the hands of a tyrant and those who support him. But, we should be willingly face the reality of that.

Maybe those deaths are a price we as a society are willing to face to ensure that the vast oil supplies of Iraq are available to keep not only our economy but the world economy moving. If so, then we should be willing to face that too. And be willing to face what that would say about our society.

Miranda said...

War is not, itself, always a failure of humanity. Sometimes it is, rather, a response to a failure. When we entered World War II, humanity had already ceased to exist for Nazis in Germany. Hitler's treatment of jews was inhuman. That failure was eventually addressed by allied soldiers.

I would argue also that in Iraq, Hussein's treatment of his own people and neighbors is much like Hitler's.

I would also argue that World War II was a success, that it was noble and that it was justified.

Are people suffering? Yes they are. But, then, they were under Hussein as well. The truth of the matter is that the absence of the United States would in no way guarantee the absence of war in Iraq. Hussein wasn't known for his peaceful nature. And even though this war might seem terrible to you, it may,
if we are successful, keep others from being waged. Right now we're trying to make a nation that hasn't been just or stable just and stable. And I think that's noble.

Shawn said...

Since Hitler and WWII seem to be everyone's favorite examples to show the nobility of war, maybe we should address the fact that WWII can in no way be described as a war against an evil tyrant who was killing millions of innocent Jews, Gypsies and other 'undesirables'. We didn't even know the horrors of Nazi Germany until the 'detention facilities' were liberated.

Was there a good outcome? Sort of. It was good for those who were released and survived. I wonder how many survivors didn't ask how such a thing could have been allowed to happen in the first place?

The wonder is that so many people could have something like that happen in their own backyard and never once question what the hell was going on. I'm sure they just found it easier to believe that their leader knew what he was doing and he would never condone such torture to be allowed to happen, much less be the cause of it.

Then there's the just war being waged in Iraq right now - the war to ferret out those weapons of mass destruction...ummm...fight the terrorists...er...remove an evil leader...um...protect the oil fields...er...instill democracy...um...stop Al-Queda...nah, let's go back to that instill democracy one. People seem to like that one.

Again, good may come out of it - good can come out of cancer too - but let's not pretend that the either the leadership of this country or we the people give a rat's ass about whether Iraqis get to vote or not. Clearly we don't, but it's a nice by product and a great reason for us to stay.

I guess it's not surprising, as I've said before, to hear such a rallying cry go up against the claim that war is bad and the ultimate failure of society. There is an interesting phenomenon about it though...and it's reflected in the tiny sampling found here in the comments. I wonder if anyone else sees it?

Sadie Lou said...

Shawn--we don't have to be on the opposite side of the fence. I think that you're idea that situations can be solved in a non violent manner is worthy of notice but to what end?
I think that violence cannot be avoided and that if America adopted a non violent attitude like yours, we'd be the sacrificial lamb.
I seriously doubt that any of the countries that wish we would knuckle under and collapse, would stop to applaud our non violent stance.
They would just steamroll over us and take advantge of our waving the white flag of peace.
On a small scale, it's like the playground.
I can take my son aside and tell him that violence is NEVER the answer.
That even if another child is pounding him or pounding other people--my son should never protect or defend himself using violence.
He has plenty of other options right?
He can scream for help.
He can run and get a teacher.
He can try to talk the aggressor down.
Anything BUT hit or punch.
Right?
But to what end? I can't teach this same message to all the other children. Those kids might be taught to punch first and ask questions later.
So basically, I'm not equipping my son with the tools to protect himself against a violent attack.
My son goes down as the victim but at least he has honor and dignity because he didn't fight back. My son will come home with a fat lip and a black eye but I will praise him because he "took it" and didn't respond with violence, right?
Hell no.
I taught my son that if the teachers are not paying attention and if some kid is pounding on him--he should protect himself.
He knows that if the kid is not allowing him to run and get help from a teacher and if none of the other kids are helping him out--he needs to put his fists up in front of his face and try to make the other kid stop punching him. Sometimes, the fighting back is what will make the other child realize that violence is not worth the cost of getting hit.
Sometimes.
I think this can directly be applied to war.
Sometimes, the only way a situation will come to a head is if the threat of violence looms in the balance.
Also, America is safe because history shows that Americans will fight back and hit back stonger and harder.
What's wrong with that?

Shawn said...

If violence couldn't be avoided nothing would ever get done because everyone would be fighting all the time.

I once got in a fight at school. The class weasel knocked my books out my hand in the hallway and then ran off. I was pissed.

Then the class bully walked by and started kicking them down the hallway. I was super pissed. I shoved him into the wall and cursed at the top of my lungs.

He turned around started punching me. He was good at it and I wasn't. But he did gash his hand on my braces.

Afterwards, I got suspended for a day. He got suspended for a week and had got stitches.

Who won that one? Neither of us. He was still the bully and I was still afraid of him. Neither of us changed. Did I become a better person? Did he?

No matter how you slice it, I got into a fight because my pride was hurt. I knew then that fighting wasn't really the answer and I know it now.

I'm sure there were some nerds and dorks that cheered for me standing up to a bully, but ultimately it doesn't even matter a little bit.

And while it's easy to relate my round of fisticuffs with waging a war, there's a rather large difference. I fought the bully myself, I didn't send someone else to do it while arguing the merits of my position on the internet and I certainly wasn't catching innocent cheerleaders and drama geeks with my errant swings.

But back to the point at hand...

If violence can't be avoided and life is like the playground, you're essentially saying that the playground is a violent, dangerous place. If that's the case, then I guess I would wonder why any parent would allow their kid to go to school at all, much less play on the playground.

But you do make a good point with the playground analogy in that it is exactly the mentality and philosophy espoused by the current administration. Playground politics with life and death outcomes. It's amazing that so many people really do want a bunch of 10-year olds running our country.

And, once again, the point is lost. War is the ultimate failure of humanity.

Sadie Lou said...

*laughing*
It WAS an analogy and not to be taken literally. I was making the point that on a VERY small scale, the dynamic is the same--if a bully is allowed to continue to pick on people that are smaller and weaker than they are and if the bully is getting the Big Payoff from the power trip they get from it and if nobody stands up to said bully--who wins? Obviously the bully wins and wins all day long.
If one weak individual stands up against the bully and by this example, other kids are encouraged to stand up against the bully--who wins?

According to your logic--nobody wins. The kids getting picked on have compromised their morals by fighting back and the bully is still a fear inducing jerk.
Fine. But I'm glad we don't live in your world.
I'm glad that people can unite for a common cause that there are many "fighters" that go out and defend their country--even when there are a bunch of people back home who wouldn't life a finger.

Shawn said...

So far all I can figure is that some people find war to be a failure of mankind and some others feel that war is inevitable and just a natural extension of man's nature and as such can't be considered loathsome.

So far, only Scott has said he's gone and looked at the photos of the carnage that is the war in Iraq. A quick check of the ol' stat tracker seems to bear that out.

Interesting how easy it is to support the concept of war, but not face the reality that is war.

Might makes right...

Wake up, we are the bullies on the playground.

Peace out.

Shawn said...

If one weak individual stands up against the bully and by this example, other kids are encouraged to stand up against the bully--who wins?

Does that mean that the only way to stand up to a bully is to punch him?

tshsmom said...

Unfortunately, there are societies, in this world, who have lived with those images for thousands of years.

Yes, war is a failure of mankind. We need to educate, not destroy. Will the aforementioned societies agree to learn how to live peacefully? Probably not.

Do we belong in Iraq? Absolutely not! We can't fix this situation. The minute we pull out, another Saddam will take power, and the genocide will continue. There is no "exit strategy" for Iraq. Our leaders should have known this, before we got involved! Apparantly they didn't do well in history class.

Humankind will always suffer from greed and insanity. Wars are inevitable, no matter how much we wish it wasn't.

LOVE is the only solution. I do my part, in my corner of the world, by spreading love, to the best of my ability. I've raised loving children, I practice random acts of kindness, I support organizations that lovingly dispense aid to those in need.
It's not much, but it's all I can do.

Shawn said...

It's more than most and certainly all any of us really can do. I'm not even Christian and I know that's the Christian ideal...

Cheers to that.

Miranda said...

I disagree. World War II can _certainly_ be described that way.
Those may not have been the goals of everyone
involved in the war, but they certainly were
the goals of many who fought in that war. One
of my grandpas signed up when he was too young
to serve because those were things he felt
strongly enough about to fight for. You can
claim there's nothing noble about that if you like.
But I know better, because I've met the men
who fought for freedom. I challenge you to show
what actions of yours are more noble than theirs.

Yeah. There was a good outcome from World War II.
Not only for those who survived, but for their
families and for future generations. In earlier
years I might have said that the lessons the world
learned from World War II were worth learning.
I used to think people would never be as complacent
as Neville Chamberlain again. That they would stop
a Hitler before he marched. That they would save
the next group from genocide, instead of insipidly
hoping for "peace in our time." But no.
Many still want to lie down and pretend that
"peace in our time" is more noble than those
who would stop genocide.

Did World War II have negative results? Yes it did.
But to be a success something doesn't need to be
perfect. It needs to be better than the alternative.
And it was.

Here's what you said:

"The wonder is that so many people could have something like that happen in their own backyard and never once question what the hell was going on." What? Did you want them to fight against it? But that might have started a civil war, and war is "never noble". They adopted your way
of doing things. They avoided conflict. And look where it lead.

Those pictures you show to shock everyone could just as easily have
been shown before we entered Iraq, because Saddam was no peacenik.
He was a killer, a torturer and a rights violater, but I guess
he can't be THAT bad because his last name isn't Bush.

Well, hey. Embrace your Chamberlains and complain about the war all
you want. Men like Patton made it possible for you to do that. I'll
be the one embracing men like him.

Shawn said...

Edakrusen o ihsouv.

Lacrimatus est Iesus.

Josh said...

I feel like you guys are unfairly coming to the conclusion that because someone calls war a failure, he's also saying we should just always roll over in the face of unjust violence. (Look at me, opening with an "I feel" statement! So good for encouraging healthy communication!)

And while I don't presume to speak for Shawn (and while I'm sure he wouldn't ever intentionally leave out part of his argument in an effort to spur further discussion or because he wanted to see how far beyond knee-jerk responses we could stretch ;-) ), I would quietly submit that he might be suggesting that refusing to respond to unjust violence with further violence can be a courageous, moral response. Or that at minimum, for a violent response to be just, by definition it needs to be tempered with wisdom and courage - and that one crucial aspect of said wisdom and courage is the understanding that war is never a good thing, even when it's become necessary.

It's interesting to see Neville Chamberlain's name dropped, because I think Shawn's exact point was that if, say, Chamberlain and the other European leaders had done a better job, then they would have moved politically or economically to stop Hitler and the Holocaust before it came down to war. Or that if American leaders hadn't been making deals with Saddam twenty years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have had to go to war to depose him.

I'm not pointing fingers here - we don't know what would have happened in either situation, and maybe some things are more or less inevitable. I'm just saying that all I see Shawn saying is: If any person or group doesn't start taking action until war is the best option, then by that time the pointer on the gauge has already entered the Red Zone of Failure.

I feel like a lot of you are arguing that because something is the best choice at a given time, then it must be a morally successful choice, too. But choices are always limited, so the best choice can just be the best of a bunch of crappy choices. Example: You let your house fill up with old newspapers and overflowing ashtrays, and you smoke while you're sleepy. And then you wake up and discover the house is on fire. You have limited time, so you need to choose whether to rescue the baby (too small and young to save himself) or Grandma (too old and bed-ridden to save herself).

Is saving the baby the best choice? Sure, I think you could make a pretty good argument for that. But is the whole thing morally successful? I would submit that no, you failed long before Grandma died. You failed when you let the situation become so combustible that by the time you had to make a choice, your options were between bad and worse.

Please note that I am not drawing an analogy between the combustible house and either of the wars we've been discussing, or any war, for that matter. I'm just demonstrating that calling war a failure and being noble are by no means mutually exclusive.

>>Also, America is safe because history shows that Americans will fight back and hit back stonger and harder.<<

Sadie Lou, my only objection to this statement is that I live in Manhattan, and I am pretty sure I do not feel safe every day. ;-) And I am pretty sure that our ability to hit anybody is not going to be what makes me feel safer. I mean, no matter how hard we hit any group, the nature of terrorism is such that it's just all too possible that someone will drive or float some high-grade explosives into Midtown and blow part of it up.

Now, that's not to say I don't think our military efforts haven't hampered terrorism. But being the toughest guy on the block does not make you safer. In fact, it means you have to watch your back all the time. This is the lesson of every single mobster story ever told. ;-)

No, the safest person is the one who's building as many friendly relationships as possible. Now again, that doesn't mean that by having a bunch of friends, you're completely safe, or that you even can be friends with everyone. The nature of life (sadly, perhaps) is such that we can never be completely safe. But I would certainly feel (and be) safer if we and the rest of the West were on more amicable terms with a significant chunk of a certain religious demographic - and I hope we can all agree that finding a way to get along amicably without sacrificing the best ideals of either side should be the ultimate end of our efforts in the Mideast and everywhere else.

>>"The wonder is that so many people could have something like that happen in their own backyard and never once question what the hell was going on." What? Did you want them to fight against it? But that might have started a civil war, and war is "never noble". They adopted your way of doing things. They avoided conflict. And look where it lead.<<

C'mon, Miranda - there's some middle ground between civil war and world war. ;-) I mean, "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out..." and all that. The people in Germany who didn't speak out against the Nazis did avoid conflict, but had they owned up to their moral responsibility, it seems likely that there was a point before which it would have been possible for them to stop Hitler without outright physical violence. And while the situation in Iraq is probably not analogous because of the governmental differences between the Mideast and the West, it seems unlikely in that case that our government was completely blindsided by all that Saddam's rise to power entailed.

I am not trying to make a partisan argument here, and I think it's worth noting that although even he seems to have eventually jumped to his side of the fence, Shawn's original point was that humanity fails by waging war - which means Saddam and his people failed just as hard as we have. And we can natter over "degrees of failure" if it makes us feel better (although I'm pretty sure an F is an F is an F), but the reality is still going to be that if our fellow human beings are hurting, anywhere at any time, then all of us, everywhere and at every time, still have work to do.

Shawn said...

Subrisum est Iesus.

...and while I'm sure he wouldn't ever intentionally leave out part of his argument in an effort to spur further discussion or because he wanted to see how far beyond knee-jerk responses we could stretch ;-)

Oh how I miss chatting about quantum physics, morality and burrito wrap girls with you Josh. You know me well.

...one crucial aspect of said wisdom and courage is the understanding that war is never a good thing, even when it's become necessary.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. And part of that is owning up to the damage we do in the name of good or evil.

But I would certainly feel (and be) safer if we and the rest of the West were on more amicable terms with a significant chunk of a certain religious demographic - and I hope we can all agree that finding a way to get along amicably without sacrificing the best ideals of either side should be the ultimate end of our efforts in the Mideast and everywhere else.

Well put.

the reality is still going to be that if our fellow human beings are hurting, anywhere at any time, then all of us, everywhere and at every time, still have work to do.

And that would, indeed, be noble and just. It's a worthy ideal to aspire to - helping to end the suffering and hurt of all human beings, even our enemies.

Scott said...

For the record, I don't disagree with your asserion that war is a failure of humanity. I just think it's a useless point that doesn't address anything of value. It's like saying famine is failure of humanity. Or muder. Fine, but what do you propose we do about it?

Edakrusen o ihsouv.

‏וַיְהִי֩ כָל־הַנֹּ֨פְלִ֜ים בַּיֹּ֤ום הַהוּא֙ מֵאִ֣ישׁ וְעַד־אִשָּׁ֔ה שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָׂ֖ר אָ֑לֶף כֹּ֖ל אַנְשֵׁ֥י הָעָֽי׃

Same book. Same God.

Josh said...

C'mon, Scott, you're old enough to remember the guys who rightly pointed out that knowing is half the battle. And they knew a little something about war.

Seriously, I think it's apparent just from this page of comments that even the idea that war is a failure of humanity is contentious. So mightn't we argue that step one is to successfully convey to the bulk of humanity Isaac Asimov's idea that "violence is the last resort of the incompetent"?

Shawn said...

"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil."

I don't disagree with your asserion that war is a failure of humanity. I just think it's a useless point that doesn't address anything of value

So, it's possible that war is a failure of humanity, but it's not of any use to recognize that? Then, I suppose, it's not really worth trying to seek ways to avoid it in the future.

Sad.

Shawn said...

And...you're going to bust out some Old Testament on me? Talk about a useless point.

I do appreciate the irony of it being the Book of Josh though.

Scott said...

So, it's possible that war is a failure of humanity, but it's not of any use to recognize that? Then, I suppose, it's not really worth trying to seek ways to avoid it in the future.

Huh?

You seem to be addressing more what you think I'm thinking rather than what I'm saying?

You've basically painted me as a war mongering, argumentative, 'might-is-right' kinda fellow who is opposed to thoughtful discussion about preventing war.

Relax friend, I'm not entirely against your points. Just because someone doesn't chime in with an, "AWESOME POST DUDE YOUR SO RIGHT ACTUALLY!" doesn't mean they're trying to argue with you. I'm just saying "war is wrong" while correct is not an entirely productive statement. I think it's simplistic and I think that's part of the reason that people are have a hard time finding common ground here.

Josh said...

Shawn, I would call Scott's assessment accurate. You seem to be ascribing levels of antagonism to him that I'm not reading in his comments. I think maybe you've got some sand in your vagina, Kyle.

Shawn said...

Scott - I've noticed it often takes a couple rounds of argumentativeness to get to the thoughtful debate with you. Once we're there, you make some great points.

That said, I'm glad you don't just drop by with the 'good post dude' comments.

Josh - I thought I told you about my little problem in confidence...now all the internets know about my sandy vanginitis syndrome. Thanks a lot.

Josh said...

This is the appropriate response, Shawn.

Shawn said...

There's not you know. None. You're just trying to tarnish my reputation.

Miranda said...

Josh: Had what you said
been what hesaid, I might have responded differently.

But he said this:

"War is terrible. It's not noble. It's not holy. It's not justified. It's a failure of humanity and mankind. Every time we wage it we've failed. War is never a success and it's never truly won."

And those things are simply not true.