h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A she?!!! Really?!!! How sweet!!

So I didn't say you couldn't have your say and you, as a matter of fact, you've had your say too, SHE.

There was another SHE, not here of course, but in the news, defending her demonstration in support of the troops. It wasn't about war or peace, just supporting the troops, that's what SHE said.

So like her, it doesn't matter to you if it's right or wrong. If the president wants it, then it must be right, right? Get it over then! Isn't that what you said, SHE?!!!

Is peace so uncomfortable for you?

As long as your children don't have to die, that's the main thing isn't it? Long as your boyfriend or your husband or your brother or father doesn't have to to die or do the killing, who cares?

I admire your moral superiority, I really do. It's not too often I can speak with God on the internet. And as we all know, God blesses America because God is an American.

AMEN!!!

A couple of days ago Analiese said

<<>>

At the end of the day, I don't think that we are really in disagreement, except semantically. One of my favourite quotes is 'There is no good or evil, only a difference of opinion'. Perhaps that's because of my past experiences; I can no longer bring myself to make moral judgements on anyone, other than whether or not I happen to agree or disagree with them. 'Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face'.

But as to consequences: oh yes. My big issue with the current line of action is that the consequences cannot logically be that which they claim. It's a bit like karma, really, not exactly cause and effect but a grand dance in which each move is an inherent part of the overall pattern. They just don't seem to see the sort of pattern that they would be choosing for the world by doing what they are doing.

We're not observers of this universe; we are participants.

I won't dispute what you've said, Ravenbait, except to say I think the pattern is clear to them. It's not the pattern they're admitting of course, because to do so would make it seem like a bad thing for the people who they need to cooperate or collaborate.

So they misrepresent the pattern, casting the conflict as a defensive war, and unfortunately many people accept that notion. They accept the ostensible "threat" even though it's probably paranoid to do so. However, once paranoia is given official sanction, it seems many people no longer perceive it as insanity. They have permission to act stupid or crazy.

>> I can see that this is a losing battle, so I will talk to you "peace-loving" people later. <<

You are wise beyond your years young Chauncey. It is fairly obvious this thread has been taken over by raging peaceniks. I was just about to advise you to stand back a bit before these kind and loving 'peace-lovers' tear you to shreds. It would not be fair. War is hell. Emotions are running very high. I myself recently launched into a savage attack in the name of peace.

Others should note and applaud young Chauncey for her bravery. She is a young American teenager I have encountered elsewhere here at h2g2. She has a sense of humour and great wit. Her intelligence is not in question. Please, do not let the fact that she is young, still living at home, and has relatives going off to war, cause any of you 'peace-lovers' to think she is some rabid warmonger.

Like all of us she is caught in an emotional crossfire. Her presence here reminds me that there are many more like her who will be torn between loyalties. These innocents must not be criticised for circumstances well beyond their control or for holding onto beliefs that sustain the families they depend upon.

Of course there is no way most of you would have known the facts. Excuses like 'collateral damage' will not be accepted. Apologies wouldn't go amiss. If that makes me sound like a pompous ass so be it. But there is no point in beating up on teenage girls. It won't stop the war.

peace
~jwf~

<<>>

I'm not sure that it is fair to say that anyone would have accused her of rabid warmongery for these reasons. It might have happened for other reasons, such as her assertion that the war is necessary, but not for those ones

Is it necessary for anyone to believe that war is right because loved ones are going to war? I don't think it is. To soothe the conscience? To maintain faith that the Goverment isn't going to kill one's relatives in the name of acquisition? I would rather know the truth, and I would rather someone made Chauncey aware of what is going on and what the current Government of the US is doing to her kith and kin. I would rather she was aware of the game plan published -- what was it 5 years ago now? -- in which the US declared its intention for global military dominance by the use of several 'theatre wars'. I would rather Chauncey was aware that radioactive weapons are already being boxed up and shipped out, because depleted uranium may not be an atom bomb but it is still radioactive. I would rather that this intelligent and witty American teenager was given access to the facts rather than clinging to some mistaken belief that it is morally right that Iraq be littered with spent weaponry that will be causing birth defects and genetic illnesses in children for decades to come.

I was a youngster in Scotland when Chernobyl went up. I still remember being hurried indoors when it rained, and the rain coming down as a grey sludge that plastered everything. I remember the fear in my mother's eyes and being told as the child of a scientific family why my brother and I could not be outside when the rain fell. Imagine being inflicted with that fear because the Americans have made the very dirt of your country radioactive with their armour piercing shells.

I have no intention to rip Chauncey apart. That would gain nothing and be unnecessarily provocative, but facts are facts, and someone of intelligence and wit deserves to know the facts, not be fobbed off with the spin-doctoring of a rabid Government with an agenda it doesn't want to admit. I'm not a teenage girl any longer, but I remember being one.

I apologize to Chauncey for subjecting her to an attack that she probably didn't merit personally. It might be though that she will consider thinking this thing through a little more clearly.

Many resources have been cited here by others to help her maybe see that things aren't quite as simple as she asserts.

I'm deeply sorry she might have relatives going to participate in this "conflict". That makes it extremely difficult to know what's the right thing to do and I guess I shouldn't even attempt to answer that question for her.

Just thinking about how Bush and Company has put us all in this idiotic confusion makes me mad as hell. That the confusion will have adverse consequences that go well beyond confusion doesn't make it any easier to accept with equanimity or good cheer. In a word, it friggin' sucks.

And yes there will be consequences for all of us, win, lose or draw, and one thing that centuries of abuse has taught my people is that the representations of government can't be trusted to accurately describe those consequences.

If there's to be resolution for people like Chauncey, who probably appreciate that what is proposed is wrong, but still need to support their relatives in uniform, I would propose that peace doesn't hurt people in uniform anymore than it hurts civilians and maybe that's something to think about. Peace may not advance a soldier's career very well but it sure won't get she/he killed.

The morning after our (Canadian) soldiers were killed by the (American) National Guard pilot I went by the armoury down the road to find a soldier that I might shake his or her hand. I told the young man as I shook his hand that although I didn't support the reason they had been sent to Afghanistan, I respected and supported them, and that I had the greatest sympathy with them.
I find that what seems to be missed by the small "support or soldiers" crowds we see on CNN (which, I assume, are meant to counter the unnumber and rapidly dismissed anti-war crowds we also are shown) is this very distinction: just because we don't support the politicians that send the troops into war, doesn't mean we don't have the greatest sympathy and support for the individual troops. "Now is the time we have to support our troops" too easily seems to mean "my country, right or wrong."
I don't think that Canadians should have been ordered to Afghanistan. Once they were, I hoped that they would all get home alive and that they wouldn't have to kill anyone themselves. I never imagined who would really be shooting at them. "Bring them home alive" is the most supportive slogan there can be.

"It is fairly obvious this thread has been taken over by raging peaceniks."

That's like the pot telling the kettle, "This kitchen has been taken over by cookware."

I'm not entirely how to feel about soldiers, where to draw the line between supporting the war versus supporting the indentured servants forced to take part in that war. Part of me remembers the stories of Vietnam vets being called "baby-killers", getting spit on and treated horribly, when they were trained to behave that way and forced into insane, traumatic situations.

Another part of me thinks that Buffy Ste. Marie song "Universal Soldier" is true: if Hitler didn't have hundreds of thousands of obedient, compliant troops at his disposal, if Saddam didn't have them and Bush didn't have them, then none of their acts of aggression could have happened on a national scale. Soldiers should consider whether following orders would constitute "war crimes," and they should take some responsibility for their actions. The Nuremburg trials show that "I was just following orders" is no longer an adequate excuse.

I don't know how to stand on the shaky middle ground between those two positions, feeling sympathy for soldiers as victims of their war-mongering leaders, but still opposing the war. I was reading this article a few weeks ago in which a bunch of reporters and pundits briefly list their personal reasons for supporting or oppose the war. One of them was Eric Alterman, a columnist for The Nation (leftwing journal opposed to war). Before giving reasons that he opposed the war, Alterman wrote, "While I will support it once it begins, as a patriot, and in the belief that a quick victory will result in the most minimal loss of life, I continue to oppose its commencement for the following reasons."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078766/

That didn't make any sense to me. Tim Russert said almost the same thing on the Tonight Show a few weeks ago (although he didn't say he opposed the war currently, just that he must support the war once it begins).

Why would that make any difference? The killing begins, so suddenly we ought to support it? I won't support the war as long as it seems unjust. Now what do I say if I'm having a civil conversation with a soldier? I don't spit on him, but I don't want to let him off the hook for having partial responsibility in an unjust war. I'll probably have to do like Thumper in Bambi: if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

I still don't see how agitating for peace hurts soldiers.

"Not only do I think that this war needs to happen, but I know for a fact that if it doesn't happen now it will happen later."

Yes, that's what happened, pretty much. Shrub's father backed off, and look where it's gotten us to. If I was more paranoid, I'd think the '91 War was jsut an excuse for his son...who, of course, bought the election. After all, his brother ran Florida. But I'm not a paranoid person, so I'll let you take it from there.

"Those of you who said that Saddam Hussein was never linked to Al Qaeda try again. He was linked back to Al Qaeda. He provided funding and training to Al Qaeda operatives on nuclear weapons development."

Really? I find that hard to believe, given that bin Laden is a fanatic, and Hussein is everything he opposes, i.e., a westernized Arab. So unless you can back that up with something other than Rush Limbaugh...

"Another point that I hadn't brought up is that what is going to happen to the United Nations after this?"

The UN, funnily enough, will be seen as something of a voice for the majority of the world. I think it's quite possible that, in asserting the right of the US to "go it alone," Shrub is actually making a stronger case for taking no such action.

"And what about the Iraqi refugees that are in the United States speaking out FOR the war? Is this just another one of our government's tricks? I think not. These people lived in Iraq, they know what Saddam is capable of and is therefore speaking out towards the war."

What, then, would you say to the thousands upon thousands of Kurds who, given support and backing by the US, came within miles of Baghdad and controlled some 70% of the country, only to be slaughtered when the US pulled out at the last minute (sound familar?). What do we say to them? What do we say to the thousands of Palestinians who are left homeless because they come from the same village as a suicide bomber? How about the Kurds in Turkey, who are severely repressed, detained, killed? And why was it that for a decade, we ignored the plight of women in Afghanistan? Why should we listen to one voice in the wilderness when we ignore so many others?

"What about the thousands of military troops in the Gulf? I have quite a few friends and relatives over there. They beleive what they are doing is right. Many people are turning there back on them in a time when they need our support."

My husband is in the Army, and is on alert to go. He does NOT believe what the US is doing in Iraq is right. Most of his unit feels the same way. They will go, because they believe in the Constitution of the United States, and because it is their duty. "Ours is not to question why" remember. Orders are orders, regardless of personal feelings.

"Seriously as I said before this war will happen either now or later, why not make it now?"

Because the region is particularly unstable right now. Because Iraq's dictator is NO THREAT to the US. Because North Korea (the "regional problem of the Asians" as Shrub put it) actually IS a threat. Because this war is a cover for a faltering economy, widespread corporate scandal, and the fact that bin Laden hasn't been, and probably won't be, caught. Would you like more? I would be happy to give you more reasons, the least of which is that by doing this, the US is endangering Israel. That should be enough to stop any hawks in their tracks.

And maybe here's some economic benefits of the war you might want to consider. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F108445?thread=256130

well put ~jwf~, your post on Chauncey. and you're not really a pompus ass, are you?cheerup>

excellent points ravenbait. we live in a world that is ever more tightly woven, eh? it is imperitive we get to know each other and learn to learn so we can all get along.

soldiers have a moral obligation not to stop thinking critically.

there are a few brave souls in Palesrael, for example, where civil war has raged for almost all of the last century who have the courage to say so and walk the talk.

It's just this simple idea:

"what if they gave a war and no one came?"

it is imcumbent upon a rational being to consider the course of action.

"soldiers have a moral obligation not to stop thinking critically"
I think that's asking too much. Soldiers are trained to obey order without question. Commanding officers need to know they can rely on their troops to do what they're asked when they're asked and not to waste time arguing. If mistakes are made, it is the officers who are responsible. Sometimes a troop will commit cruel & unnecessary acts, as in My Lai, in which case the troop commander should be held accountable. Whether the individual soldiers can be held responsible for following orders in such circumstances is debatable. If it was a group decision, all are to blame, otherwise my view is that responsibility at every level lies with those giving the orders.

Dry.

'There is no good or evil, only a difference of opinion' (Ravenbait)

My opinion is different. Consider this:

"Evil is the propensity to ignore the suffering caused to others by one's actions."

According to my definition, anyone who can ignore the (unnecessary) suffering caused by bombing Baghdad before all other options have been exhausted (which is not yet the case) is evil.

Dry.

jwf, your comment about misreading memos, reminds me of a sign on a protest banner about Australia's John Coward - "Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo". Unfortunately, you'd have to be familiar with Australian kid's TV of the late 1960s, to really get the joke.. sigh.
The tension you mention is so real - I caught *myself* yesterday muttering 'just get it over with already!' I cannot believe that reporter said that! Sick.

"Commanding officers need to know they can rely on their troops to do what they're asked when they're asked and not to waste time arguing. If mistakes are made, it is the officers who are responsible."

I thought the Nuremberg trials put an end to that way of thinking. Weren't there people jailed or executed in the Nuremberg trials who correctly said, "I was only following orders", but who were still held responsible in part?

Actually I don't know the details of Nuremberg, this is just my vague impression of what I've heard about it. And anyhow, Chomsky has said that if the standards of the Nuremburg trials were applied consistently, then every American president since WWII would have been hanged as a war criminal. [We should start a separate thread if anyone wants to dig around that can of worms.] So debatably, it's not like Nuremberg matters anymore as a precedent, except to enemies of the West.