[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:07:47 -0700
Andreas,
Once again I'm having to guess at what you mean. I have always thought that
world peace was a desirable goal. With Phil Enns, however (but possibly for
different reasons) I'm not sure that World Peace is possible. Fukuyama and
Barnett paint a convincing plausible picture, but then so does Samuel P.
Huntington for his theory. Nevertheless we must live in the here and now
where Rogue states brandish their megalothymos and dare the rest of the
world to do anything about it. Paramilitary groups, like bandits of old,
terrorize neighborhoods, even neighborhoods where they have never operated.
So in this here and now the martial spirit is still a desirable attribute
for any nation wishing to avoid depredations of the Rogue.
Now what should be our attitude in the here and now. You may be referring
to that. Yes, world peace is desirable and may be achievable in the distant
future, but here and now that isn't the case; so should our young grow obese
(as they seem to in increasing numbers) or should they train to be a
soldier? We are a big nation, we can afford for huge numbers of our
children to be obese (setting aside whether that is good for them), but we
need some who are willing to be soldiers and Marines. Any nation in this
here and now who doesn't produce young men willing to defend it, is in
potential trouble. It isn't prudent to become incapable of defending
yourself.
But what about this soldiering process, what ought our attitude be toward
that if we become a soldier? You may be referring to that. Well it isn't
very effective for someone who volunteers to be a Marine to hate the entire
experience. I must confess that I didn't like boot camp hardly at all, but
all Marines must go through that experience and after it is over Marines
realize how valuable it is. They have been forced to levels of suffering
and demanding physical testing most civilians never know. They have been
trained with a variety of weapons and have learned to fight as units.
Furthermore the esprit de corps of a well-trained Marine unit is an
enjoyable experience. We could deal with anything we were asked to deal
with and we could do it with aplomb.
But as it turned out I hadn't lost sight of the fact that I enlisted to
carry out our nations responsibilities in Korea. I managed to get there for
the last two battle seasons but then the truce was signed. It turned out
that I didn't really enjoy regimentation just for the sake of regimentation,
and so decided to get out of the Marine Corps and go to college. I think I
made that decision after the truce was signed and we got a new commander who
had never been to Korea who decided we needed to be whipped into shape. He
had us raking the gravel around our huts. All gravel had to be raked in the
same way. Gravel lines had to all be parallel to each other. Well, I
suppose, but I didn't want to devote my life to that, and I had visions of
doing that forever if I stayed in. That wasn't why I joined.
I was what might be called a "citizen soldier," rather than a "career
soldier." I joined for the current emergency. Could I have been a career
Marine? It is possible under different circumstances. If after the Korean
War wound down some other crisis occurred and I was in the group that was
sent over there, and a few years went by in the fighting and occupation, and
I discovered I had been in the Marines ten years. What the heck, I might
have said. I could get full retirement after twenty years of service, so
why not stay in.
But what about the enjoyment of using guns? You may be referring to that.
Well, I was a good shot as it turned out and after I got back from Korea was
sent to Camp Pendleton as a Rifle Instructor. I am good with guns, but I
don't think I qualify as a "gun nut." I like having guns for defensive and
hunting situations, and I do periodically like to keep up with what is new
in the gun world, but for the most part I'm concerned about other things.
How could I write this many notes about the Middle East if I was spending
each day off in the desert shooting guns? I have enough trouble remembering
to keep them oiled and in good condition. Periodically I'll go off in a
nearby canyon to see how well I can still shoot -- and decide well enough.
Guns are tools and I was trained in the use of them. I have not needed to
use these tools (except for hunting) since I got out of the Marine Corps,
but they may come in handy at some point. Things tend to go wrong and then
you need a tool in a hurry, whether a pipe wrench or a screw driver. Better
to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
But what about the camaraderie that ex-military people always seem to feel
for each other? They obviously enjoyed something about the military
experience. You may be talking about that. Well, we have been through
something similar. We have been willing to risk our lives for the greater
good. We feel automatic respect for each other and readily joke, for
example, about whether the Army or the Marines had the toughest training. I
once worked for a former naval something or other, whatever is equivalent to
Colonel. He had a zillion jokes about the Marines and delighted in telling
me every one. But I wasn't for a moment mad at him. His hobby was
rebuilding old motorcycles and I rode a motorcycle so we talked much more
about motorcycles than anything pertaining to the military (if one excludes
the weapons systems we were building. :-) )
As to what the future will look like. It will be whatever the entrepreneurs
build and however citizens use their freedom. I don't feel pessimistic
about that.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:05 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
From: "Lawrence Helm"
> No, no, no. That's not true.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. The problem, Lawrence, is
that you won't
state clearly what you want. You oppose what others say, or you constantly
change the
issue. To me, it's obvious why you do this: you can't come out and say that
you want war.
So, you say you want peace, but it'll take a nice little war to get that.
C'mon, Lawrence. Say it loud and say it proud. Tell us what you want and how
you expect to
get there.
Do you really want eternal peace? One day, eveyone on earth will be
Californians, and we can
get rid of weapons and the miltiary forever? Or do you hope there'll be more
wars? Do you
think it's human nature to have wars?
And this liberal society: is that what you really want? You really want a
world filled
wall-to-wall with Mike Gearys? Don't give me that "liberal societies are
free to choose",
because you don't like it when people choose to be liberals, leftists,
marxists, or
whatever. Tell me what this future global society will be like.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
