War Is Bad!

[Bodhisattva]

Well, folks, the war in Iraq is underway. It seems like war is the only thing on anybody's minds right now. If you don't talk about the war, you're seen as irrelevant. So I'd better talk about the damned war.

For starters, I do not agree that the conflict in Iraq is the only thing worth discussing. Since I estimate a very small number of readers of this page are Iraqis or military people stationed in the Middle East, there are certainly far more relevant things in all of our lives. We'll all be affected by events in Iraq to some extent. But it won't be that great. This is not the beginning of World War III. Jesus is not about to return from the sky.

Am I saying that just because they're thousands of miles away we should not care about those poor innocent Iraqi children who our American fighters are about to blast out of existence? Certainly not. But I am questioning whether we really do care about them at all. I hear a lot of people making a lot of noise about the horrors of war, but I have to wonder if they really give a shit about the horrors of war. I have to wonder very seriously how many of those who cry out against the attack really have the guts to do what it takes to actually destroy war completely once and for all.

(By the way, don't even get me started on the degenerates who actually openly revel in childish patriotism, who fly flags and feel the delicious rush of being a true red-blooded American -- or Englishman, or Iraqi or whatever god-awful imbecility you want to align yourself with -- whenever a bomb knocks down some factory or office building in a foreign land. Those psychopaths are beyond help and thank God not too many of them read this website.)

A decade or so ago, the last time America attacked Iraq, there was hardly a peep of protest. Oh a few whiny liberal peaceniks (like me, for example) got their knickers in a twist about it. But the vast majority thought it was a terrific adventure. Operation Desert Storm! Cool! Just like a video game! Now it seems like everyone's a war protester. I feel like it's 1968 or something whenever I step outside. The difference now is everyone's afraid that now that America has attacked Iraq there's going to be more terrorism. It's not those poor Iraqi children we're all worried about, it's ourselves. Let's at least be honest there. But do terrorists really need concrete reasons for what they do? What exactly were those brain dead blockheads responding to on September 11th?

Look. I do not like George W. Bush. I do not like the American Military Industrial Complex. I am not a patriot. And yet I am not out there protesting the war on Iraq. I won't go so far as to say I support it. War is bad. OK? No two ways about it. If there is ever an alternative it has to be pursued. But wars happen. We haven't matured enough as a species to be free from war.

And that is what I hate. The real tragedy of war is the fact that people all over the world are so utterly stupid that it still has to happen sometimes. And it is the very attitudes held even by those who cry out for peace that make this so. Both the war-mongers and the peaceniks don't have the slightest clue what the real situation is. None of them have the courage to look deeply into themselves, to find the source of war itself and to rip it right out of their very own guts. Because that is more difficult than marching with picket signs or firing guns and dropping bombs. It's far more repulsive to us to really face up to who and what we really are than it is to face the prospect of fires and bombs and blood and misery. We would gladly choose war any day of the week over that. Quite literally. I say this without reservation and 5,000 years of recorded history backs me up. And that is the real tragedy. That's what makes me cry. You can get all self righteous and pretend that there's a big difference between the hatred you feel for George W. Bush and Colin Powell and the hatred they feel for Sadaam Hussein. But is there? You need to find out. You really, really do.

War will not end until we can actually face ourselves without flinching, without turning away, until we can really find the true source of war. All other solutions are like sticking Band Aids® on a fatal bullet wound. The best you can hope for is to buy yourself a few more seconds of life in searing agony. It takes real courage to go right to the very source and root it out of yourself. Because it's there in you, and I do mean you, pal. You are the cause of the war in Iraq. You right there reading this piece and thinking how wonderful you are for being all concerned over the tragic bombing of those poor suffering innocent people. You are causing this misery.

We love those banners running over the top of CNN News, "America Goes to War" or whatever cheezy slogan they're using (I don't get CNN and I'm not about to subscribe). Whether we're for the war or against it, we lap it up like hungry dogs. Our eyes are glued to TV reports and newspaper stories that never tell us anything worth knowing. Whether we're protesting the war or cheering on our valiant soldiers it all makes us feel so alive, so very present, like we're finally part of something big. Maybe a war is the only thing terrible enough to pierce through the numb exterior we've built up to shield ourselves from ever actually participating in our own lives. And let's not forget about fear. Everybody loves a good scare and war is one of the best. Don't kid yourself, you just love that chill you get up your spine every time some terrorist threatens reprisals. It's all so cool and scary these days!

We love the pageant and the spectacle and the drama of it all. We love having those poor, sad barefoot Iraqi children to pity and feel superior to. We love having George W. Bush to hate, to be against, to define ourselves by our staunch opposition to war and violence -- or our unwavering patriotism. Having a war to be against makes us feel so self-righteous and superior and so inflates our own egos. And that's what it's really all about, isn't it? Our own self-important, self-existent, selfish little Self. And we'd never, ever dream of giving that up no matter how many little kids get burnt alive for the cause.

As long as you fail to see that the sick, twisted, miserable little toad who actually loves war and wants to perpetuate it forever and ever is you (and me, by the way, if you must know), there is no hope at all for humankind.

Why do I even bother talking at all?


-Brad Warner

[kitch]

ever read the bhagivad gita? what makes war 'bad'? what makes it any worse or better from anything going on then human perception? is it wrong for a soldier to fight for his lord, king, or general if that is his honorable duty? or is it simply the acts which occur on innocent civilians that are 'bad'? if that is the case why is it any worse than say an animal killing a human? or a human an animal for that matter? or from an animal killing another animal? the only reason war is bad is because humans are involved?

[Rayzor84]

I agree. War is not unnatural, and sure deaths aren't a great thing to rack up. Unfortunately, war is a completely natural part of life. This is human nature, no, animal nature, the likes of which we won't be able to evolve past for a long time. War isn't fun, but it is in our blood.

[Bodhisattva]

Kitch,

I think it was aiming more for 'whats the real cause/solution to war'

Certainly you don't disagree a world of total peace is better than any lesser sort of almost-peace, why? like you said, human perspective dictates.

Whether tis nobler in the mind to blah or blah is a individual matter.

And part of the problem.

[Ego Tripping]

War doesn't perptuate existnance and thus it's a lower form of thought. Animals do it, but out of instinct, not grudge or hate and thus it's for survival. We take the 'kill or be killed' idea and use it as an excuse to murder thousands for personal gain. If we're so evolved, why don't we show it?

[snapshot]

I agree. War is not unnatural, and sure deaths aren't a great thing to rack up. Unfortunately, war is a completely natural part of life. This is human nature, no, animal nature, the likes of which we won't be able to evolve past for a long time. War isn't fun, but it is in our blood.

Blood is in our war, not the other way around.

Humans create these unnecessary obstacles such as capitalism, which essentially is an economy based on unlimited resources, and for the good of the humans' followers, or citizens, take over the lives of others not paying them royalties. Once the others are essentially "pwned" they pay royalties to the owners and must do as they command or they will be put into jail.

Wars, as it has been said before, is a chess game of the ruling elite and we are all pawns for economic growth. There must be war to keep the capitalistic war machine running smoothly, otherwise, the system collapses and we're right back in a 1930's depression.

People do not kill out of necessity like animals do. It is often suggested that they do it because they "feel" it was necessary, but their lower brains (hind brain, midbrain) got in the way of their working forebrain, that used for intelligence and abstract thought (which has been proven that that is what it is used for in humans) and by becoming emotionally overwhelmed, they acted on instinct and emotion rather than logic, something which they are capable of and which would have a better outcome.

If someone cannot control their emotions or do not have a working forebrain, they need to be placed either behind bars or in a hospital because the majority of humans who have realized that killing is not necessary for survival should not be subject to such abuses.

I don't think anything done by humans can actually be considered "human nature" because you have how many thousands of years to draw your conclusions from. Perhaps a moralist or creationist could use the argument because they do not believe in the evolution of being, but from a scientific perspective, human nature can not be defined definitively. Using "human nature" as an argument for anything is merely presenting circumstantial evidence towards a biased opinion. Every number of things are a part of human nature, and there are many contradictions when speaking of human nature, such as greed and charity, giving birth and killing, loving and hating...

All of these contradict each other so we can't use them to define us but merely help us realize that we are humans, souls, beings, and we are not our defining characteristics. There is no perfect human. There are no standards.

The thing is humans have no need to kill other humans. In fact, it's most detrimental to our existance to kill other humans. For a leader, a perfect world wouldn't be War All The Time, it would be unquestioned loyalty. But it's not a perfect world for them so instead to coerce other to be loyal they use fear. One tactic to get fear into the hearts and minds of the innocent is to kill others.

Another reason leaders kill is in self-defense. But as soon as self-defense comes into play you always have to look at the human on the other side of the equation and look at what their motives are. If you don't look at both sides you can't make a valid argument. One side is never just killing out of pure "human nature." There is always a motive. Greed is usually the main one. In the case of terrorism, they believe that their very way of life is being threatened by "evil" Americanism. They respond the most effective way they know how.

You see, for me to make my point, I only have to dig as deep as I need to to make it. I don't have to have the ultimate truth or ultimate anything. I just need to look at both sides and see why something is and why something shouldn't be. My point against killing is that it doesn't feed any innate need. It is merely a tool for gains. The gains mask the guilt of the killing and that is enough to justify. But this is a bad and degenerative cycle. From greed comes war. From war comes greed. It doesn't end. Breaking the cycle, evolution, is what needs to happen. On our current path, the only way to true peace is ultimately the destruction of the entire human race.

(All of this shit came from another thread that I wrote motherfucking today.) to those that think that killing and war are "natural"

[Real Corona]

War in generally a product of two things.


Greed

or

Resentment

[I KickedKennedy]

War in generally a product of two things.


Greed

or

Resentment

i agree with you 50%.

what war was ever started by resentment?

[snapshot]

The terrorists attacked us because of resentment, partly, because of our greed.

[sherlockholmes]

I can understand how people view war as bad.

But it is also important to understand that every successful civilization, every society, every group out of which came progress, the entire foundation for anything you can think of that humanity uses today, was war. Everything we have had thus far has been the product of an empire asserting its power through force. But why? What reason does humanity have to revert to this?

For one, it is by far the easiest way to gain power and establish anything. Simply take everything by force and destroy what doesn't agree with you.

For two, it is the glue which holds a society together. Having a common enemy to fight against essentially unites a people in a common cause. People feel they have a stake in their society, or that their society is better, or they feel threatened, so force is deemed necessary.

It is somewhat the same thing that drives people to religion. Nietzche called it a "will to stupidity", a desire to lose onesself in something greater than onesself, a self-sacrifice for a greater cause, an eternal comfort which opiates the soul with essentially stupid ideas.

War requires the same sort of self-sacrificial drive that most popular religion does. It requires you to tell yourself, "I am not important, this is important, therefore, I give myself to it." As long as there exists people in this world who are willing to accept ANYTHING without questioning it, there will exist war.

However, despite this peculiar history of humanity, we have still created things which transcend it. Without this past, without these developments, without these things we deem idiotic and stupid and hateful and cruel and destructive, we would not have the knowledge and wisdom we do have.

There is no logical reason to get rid of war. There MUST be limits on population growth, why not allow people to be killed in wars? Humanity cannot continue expanding physically forever, things must come to a halt eventually. Any argument I have seen thus far to create world peace has been at heart based in morals, or ethics, or utopian optimism, and all of these things have no logical basis.

[Real Corona]

i agree with you 50%.

what war was ever started by resentment?

Situation 1.



There is a mine on my people's land. It can make us alot of money.


The government from a long ways away comes and takes it. Tells me to fuck off.


I get a bunch of my friends together with rusty shotguns and samarui sword, go and fuck some Aussie's up.

[Bodhisattva]

THE ROOTS OF WAR

A friend of mine sent me an impassioned e-mail about stopping the war in Iraq. I thought some of you might enjoy reading the reply I sent. So here it is. I've rewritten it a little and added some stuff. I'm a cheat.

What are the real roots of war? That is the question that interests me. I'm not interested in politics. Politics only perpetuates fear and conflict.

You say you would be thrilled if the US pulled out right now. Why? Is it because of the compassion you feel for the suffering people of Iraq? Or is it more because if that happened you could feel that your side won and the bad guys lost? Is the best thing for the world the thing that thrills you personally? You need to ask yourself these questions very seriously. And you need to be able to be perfectly honest about the answer. If you say it's all of these and that this is OK, you're not really interested in peace at all. If there is even the slightest degree of your wanting to feel the thrill of winning against the "other guys" you are only interested in perpetuating conflict. This will never put an end to war. What are the folks in the anti-war rallies all over the world really aiming for? What are all the slogans and the chants and the signs and the die-ins all about? Is it about putting an end to conflict? Or is it a desire to turn conflict in a different direction? Is it possible to produce real peace by turning the conflict in a different direction? Will it help anything if you add your voice to the thunderous cacophony of noise that already exists?

I do not find the Bush administration's rhetoric about freedom for the Iraqi people the least bit convincing*. On the other hand, I find the arguments offered up by the so-called "peace movement" just as hollow and empty. If you are truly interested in making the world a better place you have to start with yourself. If you stand on the basis of wanting conflict, wanting to win, wanting others to lose -- whether those others are Saddam's Republican Guards or the American Republicans who want to drop bombs on poor innocent Iraqis -- then you cannot possibly make any kind of positive change. In fact you do more damage.

Don't be so hasty to try and solve the problems of Iraq. You have to look first at how this affects you personally and what it does to your behavior and how that behavior affects those around you. Does it make you happy to hold on so tightly to the hatred you feel for the Bush administration, to keep telling yourself "they are evil," to fill your head with all the reasons you can find to support that position? Does it help your life in any way at all to hold on to the fear you feel that you might someday be affected by terrorism related to this war, to worry about whether people from other countries might hate you for being an American? Does that make your interactions with those close to you better or worse? Do the thoughts churning constantly in your head refining and defining themselves more and more sharply, giving more and more strength to that part of you which wants to prove that 'I am right and they are wrong,' do these thoughts do anything that really helps anyone at all? Or do they only make you bitter, sad, unpleasant? Will adding more hatred to an already hate-filled world help or will it make matters worse? These are very important questions. It is vital that you ask them of yourself and it is vital that you are absolutely honest with your answers. Don't be too quick to respond. It is very difficult to look at matters like this with real honesty. Some people find it nearly impossible.

Where does anger come from? Not just your anger right now about the war, but anger itself. What is it? Is it caused by Bush's actions? Or is the real cause of anger something deeper? What is hatred? What is fear? What is evil? What is the need we feel to prove to everyone around us that we are right and they are wrong? Why is it important to us that others agree with what we believe? Isn't this the same thing the Bush administration and their supporters are trying to achieve? Where does that desire come from? Why do we do that? Does that help? Or does that just begin a chain reaction which will inevitably lead to more bombs falling and more people being killed?

Am I implying we should all happily swallow what our leaders say and adopt an empty headed "don't worry, be happy" attitude as if nothing's the matter? Not for a minute. You know me better than that. Society is offering us two options both of which are completely wrong. The hawks are wrong and the doves are wrong because both sides only want to see more conflict, more wars, more suffering. What's wrong with the hawks is far too clear to bother stating. But the doves cannot be happy unless there are hawks for them to fight against. The "peace movement" is only happy when there are wars to protest. They don't have the slightest interest in peace. I will not align myself with either side. These are not the only ways to deal with the problem. What am I suggesting you do? I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest anything at all. That's for you to discover. I only ask you to look at the matter very carefully.

Perhaps you find this difficult to accept. Perhaps you believe that it is too idealistic. But I don't think so. I am not talking about just ending this war in Iraq. I am talking about the ending of all war for all time. This is much harder and will take a lot longer. But the action you take right now will determine whether it can happen or not. This will not be achieved within my lifetime or yours. But I'm not concerned with that. If you're only interested in what can be achieved in your own lifetime your attitude is far too self-centered. I will continue to do what must be done, to vigorously tear away the roots of conflict itself from my own body and mind.

*But just because Bush and friends are a bunch of greedy shit-heads doesn't mean that the rest of us can't insist that they be true to their own rhetoric. If there's anything the peace movement can achieve it would be to work to force those guys to live up to their words.

-Brad Warner

[Pitfall]

sherlockholmes - life is easier when we have something to fight against, but i don't believe every single successful group or civilisation has gone to war. that's unless by war you meant arguements.

[Real Corona]

sherlockholmes - life is easier when we have something to fight against, but i don't believe every single successful group or civilisation has gone to war. that's unless by war you meant arguements.

Name one long standing and stable civilisation in history that has never fought a war.