[lit-ideas] Re: A Room of War's Own
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:31:12 EST
Re #'s of casualties in wars.
Does anyone else find it ironic (at best) that the number of U.S. soldiers
killed in the war on Iraq now equals the number of lives lost on 9/11?
I guess we showed them.
Julie Krueger
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] A Room of War's Own
Date: 11/18/05 9:14:15 AM Central Standard Time From: _pas@xxxxxxxxx
(mailto:pas@xxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Sent on:
>Andreas Mentioned: By the way, I saw Dr. Strangelove again a few days ago.
>I've not seen this since the mid-70s. It's extremely funny. George C.
>Scott does some great comical acting in it.
My favourite line [as Turgidson and Sadesky tussle] Muffley
says: "Genltemen, You can't fight in here... this is the war room."
In my [possibly objectionable] reading, this line by itself [and the movie
on the whole] displays the hypocrisy of a 'just war'. People have been
crying out about "war crimes" for the past few days.
On tuesday:
>AA: Neither do I. But that's not the issue. Eric is arguing not so much
that
>Saddam was a monster but that our soldiers are inherently good. By
>comparison yes, absolutely, but just about anything is better, and only
>because the system demands it. Even civilian Americans want secret
>executions. If Rumsfeld and Cheney weren't held back, if that inner
>monster weren't suppressed by law, let's all guess where things would be.
Well, for one thing, the war would probably be over because they wouldn't
have to play ther emperor's new clothes and they could be like Saddam --
like they really want to be. I don't understand why there are such things
as 'war crimes'. It's a fucking WAR!!! Every single soldier who ever pulled
a trigger and shot at someone is "guilty" of a crime in civilian times.
But, we forget, this is war.
In another scene from the same movie:
[Turgidson advocates a further nuclear attack to prevent a Soviet response
to Ripper's attack]
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a
moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our
nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now
to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but
nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got
twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and
fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our
hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops.
Uh, depending on the breaks.
This ridiculous conversation is NOT too far from the actual conversations
that take place in the upper echelons of government. The whole idea that a
lesser 'mass' is more acceptable is what the debate between Yoist and
Chaise is about -- I think.
We use terms like 'holocaust' and 'genocide' and 'mass murder' but
sometimes won't admit to differences between the methodical extermination
of > 5,000,000 souls and a few thousand people macheted for the same
reasons. A guy who kills 13 nurses is a "serial killer". A guy who
encourages hundreds to drink tainted kool-aid is a leader of 'mass
suicide'. People talk of 'atrocities' only when it's "really bad". Isn't
ONE guy being tortured and decapitated "atrocious"? Isn't ONE little girl
running out of a cloud of napalm on fire "atrocious"? These realities are
every bit as atrocious as people being systematically kidnapped, shipped,
starved and gassed. Never mind the fucking reasons. Underneath people can
be diabolical. The impediment to so-called "civilized" countries from
prosecuting wars is that they can't be diabolical.
But War is not only Hell, it's war... and war is a struggle to the death.
Why do people try to pretty it up? It just makes it more tolerable. I say
MAKE people watch 17 year old boys get their arm ripped off and bleed to
death. Film and broadcast the general public the atrocities of war and THEN
see how people feel about it. Putting carefully edited 'shock and awe' on
CNN is doing NOTHING but churning enthusiasm "Look how shocking and awesome
we are". People have said that one of the major problems with the Iraq war
is that Bush can't 'sell it'. No shit?
We should go into war situations ONLY after careful deliberation and with a
clear understanding that we are going to take weapons and grievously harm,
maim and kill other humans. Most people, [politicians included] simply
DON'T understand this and certainly, if they do, won't admit it to the
general public.
That being said, you can't do it cleanly. Your actual object in a war is to
pummel the other side into submission and surrender. You can't be nice at
the same time. Fuck the Geneva Convention!!! Gentlemen, you can't fight in
here. This is a war. Uh Huh!!! No wonder nothing ever gets finished. I'm
beginning to think that Hanson had something.
Did anyone see the piece on 60 Minutes this past Sunday? It was about
eco-terrorists. In a startling display of division, some of them were
staunchly saying "well, we've never hurt a single person... 4/5 of what we
plan does NOT go through as planned because there was a chance that there
would have been casualties." Then... other loonies as much as admit that
certain people who disagree with their activism need to be taken out. Well,
regardless of his 'beliefs' at least he's being honest. Because in his
eyes, it's a war.
My point is that you can't fight a non-diabolical war, so you might as well
pull out the stops. Ensuring your own casualties by limiting THEIR
casualties (in the name of political fairness) seems like a really stupid
thing to do. The US has the might to utterly CRUSH their opponents, but
they can't because "we're not like them". That's right, and that's the
problem. If you're not like them, then you shouldn't be in the fight --
you'll lose in the end. The only strategy is to wipe out the opposition.
Any other strategy is assinine. THE US is hated because it lies and chooses
its battles. The 'hated' part is going to be there regardless of what your
ostensible motives are. Why not be truthful and alive -- at least your
citizens will respect you.
When Konigsberg says "Hypocrisy lies at the heart of the institution of
warfare", I tend to agree with him in that insofar as we prosecute wars,
yes, it is extremely hypocritical to do it nicely. It's even WORSE to try
and fool people into thinking you CAN do it nicely.
p
##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
