A life wasted

[Geggy]

Washington Post reporting this...?

Now I have seen everything...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010200974.html

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Geggy, it's an Op/Ed......

[AChimp]

The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.

I think Geggy has gone crazy in the past couple of weeks. Time to take a break, man...[/i]

[Kulturkampf]

"This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly."

Is that true?

and I would like to add... I liked what the Roman poet Horace said:

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

It is sweet and proper to die for one's country.

This is true because:
(a) Without sacrifice for the greater good against enemies, there is no unity of the people.
(b) This sacrifice is the largest embodiment of what it means for a collective force of people, and only when there is a collective force of people can there be safety for those who we want to shelter from the harm [the innocents]

And so both sides must always be commended on their dead, and it is always sweet and proper for th emen to fight and to die like this, because it is a representation of civic duty and government.

It was written in Nam-do, the way of men, the Confucian way of how we exist, as well as in the European codes of conduct and chivalry and the Roman Legion's SPQR, so this is a very universal concept that is representative of the very basis of civilization.

[ziggytrix]

Is what true? That speaking out against the war is viewed as unpatriotic? That's certainly how the current administration tries to paint it. Or are you asking if it's true that people are speaking out?

No, boy, dying's easy.
Ain't nothing heroic about dying.

But if you can take a stand
for something you'd kill for...

...that's something. Something special.

Dying for your country is civilization? Perhaps. If civilization is merely agreeing with another human not to kill each one another in order that you might both work toward killing a third party.

But I prefer to think that the goal of civilization is something other than military build-up.

You military, Kultur?

[ItalianStereotype]

military build-up isn't the goal of civilisation, it is the guarantor.

[ziggytrix]

War Is Peace · Freedom Is Slavery · Ignorance Is Strength


add:
Militarization Is Civilization

[ItalianStereotype]

which is exactly what I just said that it isn't.

[mozz]

War is fucking stupid, cant we live in harmony and dance round an infinate rainbow.

[ziggytrix]

As its guarantor it would be an indispendisble and integral component though. It is hardly a slippery slope from that integral component to goal.

Perhaps a goal, and not the goal. Would you concede that?

Personally, I think it's futile. Complete dominance is unachievable without abolishing ALL liberties. Acts toward that end only inspire rebellion, as evidenced by pretty much all our recorded history.

[ItalianStereotype]

it's true enough, I will concede, that militarisation must be a goal of civilisation.

as to the futility of it, I don't follow your reasoning. complete dominance of what? the world? the region? one's own civilization? if that is the case, why do you feel that complete dominance is the goal even though the necessity of it is dubious? can you cite historical precedent?

[mozz]

War is over power, revenge and religion.
Turn the world communist
Turn the world into mindless zombies
Boycott religion
It's not going to happen.
War will always be about.
Gay :/

[ziggytrix]

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish. However, I remain cynical, and believe that it would merely turn upon itself, with the usual petty power plays among the leaders and acts of terrorism from dissidents.

The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Is what true? That speaking out against the war is viewed as unpatriotic? That's certainly how the current administration tries to paint it. Or are you asking if it's true that people are speaking out?

I would have thought there would certainly be enough anti-war sentiment that no one would have to hide it. I do know that there are plenty of people who want to paint it one way, but it is at about fifty/fifty in the nation, if I am not mistaken (?).

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Dying for your country is civilization? Perhaps. If civilization is merely agreeing with another human not to kill each one another in order that you might both work toward killing a third party.

But I prefer to think that the goal of civilization is something other than military build-up.

You military, Kultur?

Yes. I did join out of such convictions I have.

And yes, there is more than military build up - naturally, the arts and literatures of a nation and the culture of its' people are more important than guns and ammunition, but to deny the honor of the military in its' service of the peopl would be a wrong philosophy.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

I would have thought there would certainly be enough anti-war sentiment that no one would have to hide it.

Depends where ya are. I'm sure if you cared to dig you could find people with claims that they lost their jobs due to being too vocal either for or against some politcal policy. The fact that we are "a nation at war" only intensifies this.

I do think the writer exaggerated the average person's fear of reprisal for speaking out against the war, but one need only look to specific tradationally unhawkish folks on the right or center-left in Washington to see real fear of speaking out against the war. This war was immensily popular when it began.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish. However, I remain cynical, and believe that it would merely turn upon itself, with the usual petty power plays among the leaders and acts of terrorism from dissidents.

The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness.

yes, one of the goals of civilisation is to advance the human race through its own development. another goal is to sustain itself and survive. remember one of the primary reasons that Rome fell was that it could not protect itself. Byzantium suffered the same fate at the hand of Islamic invaders.

civilisations do not stand on the good will of those around them, to believe that is the worst sort of ignorance.

jingoism. I love that word. JINGO JINGO!

so you have no taste for imperialism? I suppose I can see that, but I can't agree with it.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

So what is the goal of civilization? To progress the human species?

The American Heritage defines it as "An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

What part of that requires a military buildup?

Actually, when you look at most of the important advances in history (especially American history) scientific advances have been tied directly to military applications.

Space program: The German Vengance II rockets were the basis for shooting people into space.

Medicine: Gell pills were invented to get wounded soldiers to down their penicillin. The Civil War saw the greatest jumps in prosthetic technology until the use of robotics. The use of phosphorus and other incindiary chemicals during WWI led to the invention of skin grafts.

Internet: Product of DARPA, the R&D people for the Pentegon.

Is it to defend civilization from those who prefer barbarism? Hardly. It is so that a group of jingoes can impose their view of civilization upon dissimilarly minded group of jingoes. And feel free to put the word "patriots" in place of whichever group with whom you sympathize.

Did you know how Hellenistic culture spread through half the known world? A general spread it.

How did Rome unite the world and its cultures? Under the sword.

How did all those people learn to read one unified language(Islam) use Algebra, create art and literature and preserve Greak and Eastern culture while the barbarians you seem to underestimate were sacking and burn ing every damn thing in sight?

Do I have to tell you?

Frankly, I'd welcome a one-world government that claimed to cherish the same values America claims to cherish.

And how do you think that would come about? A big tea party and we ask real nice?

The human species is very succeptible to power-madness. The militaries of the world are ultimately a symptom of this sickness.

Its both the symptom and the cure. Kind of like a vaccine.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

civilisations do not stand on the good will of those around them, to believe that is the worst sort of ignorance.

1. quit spelling "civilization" like a foreigner.
2. none has to this point, but is the ideal society one that is full of good will or full of fear of the military/police?

In reality, modern society is in balance between control through fear and control through the inherent rewards of harmonious living.

Personally, I find the worst sort of ignorance to be blind faith in nationalism and one's leaders. It's that sort of ignorance that caused the Holocaust.

Centralization of power is not good. The altruism of the emporer is merely the expression of a fear of a coup. However, humans aren't very good at getting things done without a hierarchy, so don't think I'm suggesting anarchy.

I'm not claiming to have the answers. I don't know how we can go from "peace through superior firepower" to something sane, but I do believe that such hawkish philosophy is a path to our own annihliation.

What was that statistic from the cold war era regarding how many nukes the USA and USSR had combined? Something like enough to destroy the Earth 8 times over?

[glowbelly]

you know who used to do that all the time (spell words all british style?)???

rorschach

'member him?

[ItalianStereotype]

I don't like the letter "z"

ask jin!

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Personally, I find the worst sort of ignorance to be blind faith in nationalism and one's leaders. It's that sort of ignorance that caused the Holocaust.

I also find blind cynicism and distrust in the nation's leaders to be rather disgusting, and there seem sto be a plethora of youth who would rather endlessly condemn their home states than even try to understand the reasons for the things that we do.

Loyalty is a virtue -- disloyalty isn't. So I would prefer people who have more of an inclination to be loyal to their own states and to understand the pespective of their own nation than to fall victim to vain exoticism and perceived intellectual thinking (Marxism is the opiate of the teen-agers).

[Big Papa Goat]

What exactly did you mean by centralization of power not being good, and then human beings not doing well without a hierarchy? What would a hierarchy be without centralizaiton of power?
In any case, don't humans function pretty well without hierarchal organization? Look at Western civilization, with market economies and democracy. Arguably some of the best institutions for promoting civilization that human beings have thus far come up with. Certainly they seem to be quite succesful, and both seem to explicitly reject hierachal control as a means of organizing society. Interestingly, both still seem to require the centralizaiton of violent military power.

I do see your point though ziggy, and I can't imagine why the centralizaiton of military power would be neccesary for civlization. Unless human beings in general are suffering from some kind of power-madness that causes them to always want to take advantage of other people for their own benefit and others expense. I guess in that case, centralized military power might be useful to prevent people from fucking with eachother.

But since the only people that are power-mad are the American government and the Jews that control it, militaries are basically just a way for them to advance their interests and strange views of civlizaiton on the rest of the world.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

and I would like to add... I liked what the Roman poet Horace said:

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

It is sweet and proper to die for one's country.

I think I prefer what Wilfred Owen had to say about that.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Actually, when you look at most of the important advances in history (especially American history) scientific advances have been tied directly to military applications.

Space program: The German Vengance II rockets were the basis for shooting people into space.

Medicine: Gell pills were invented to get wounded soldiers to down their penicillin. The Civil War saw the greatest jumps in prosthetic technology until the use of robotics. The use of phosphorus and other incindiary chemicals during WWI led to the invention of skin grafts.

Internet: Product of DARPA, the R&D people for the Pentegon.

I'm not a huge fan of this argument. You often hear it made for why we should keep putting more and more money into NASA.

Okay, so after how many billions of dollars, we get how much innovation? Could we have simply directed those billions into the actual desired product itself (i.e. medicine, internet, blah blah)? I know, I know,perhaps innovation comes about from experiment and random chance, but it seems like a really roundabout way to improve on things.

[Big Papa Goat]

How do you direct these billions of dollars at 'actual products' and get innovative new products?