Why is the Monkey Confused ?
What is a just and what is an unjust war ?
After reading millions of articles about the validity of a just versus an unjust war it's time to finally tell you what I think about this..
You've heard it all: "World War II was a just war", "Vietnam was an unjust [or just] war", and "The first Gulf War was a just war" A plethora of arguments regarding the legitimacy of engaging in a technologically and terminally enhanced street fight that leaves thousand, and sometimes millions, of fellow human beings dead or, to a lesser extent, missing a vital organ.
Now, before getting into the specifics, let me state this as bluntly, and at the same time, as diplomatically as possible:
"You can talk all you want about a war being 'just' or 'unjust'. Personally, I don't think the word 'war' and 'just' should exist in the same context.
Does that make it bad ? Definetly not ! Whether you like or not (you hippie!) the great civilizations that gave us such great innovations such as democracy, communication and mathematics were built on the blood of thousands killed during myriads of 'unjust conquest and brutal wars. But the important thing is how you run the goddamn war !" (I put the last statement between quotes; but I really don't know why!) You name it: ancient Greece, the Romans, the British, the Spanish, the Portugese, the French, the Arabs, the Turks, etc..
These were all major cilizations that nurtured on wars and would have quickly withered and died otherwise.
Now, a lot of people are thinking this right now: "The U.S. went into World War II and it was a just war"
No one would argue that the U.S. engagement in World War II was justified. It was for self-defence ! There is nothing wrong with that ! If you're attacked by some thug while you're walking down the road, and you beat the shit out of him, there is nothing 'holy and noble cause' about this but there is nothing wrong about it either. Wars, throughout history, have been waged for reasons that seem quite prepostorous in light of our contemporary values, but seemed justified at the time.
The British empire fought two wars for Opium against China (lookup the Opium Wars) and the Dark Ages' Europeans went on numerous religious crusades because they were promised Heaven by the Pope. At the time, that seemed like a justified cause and was perceived as justified. It's really all relative when you enter the time dimension. Some of them did it to secure their borders (contemporary term: pre-emptive wars) and some of them did it simply for the financial value (contemporary term: secure the oil supply.
So where do you draw the line ? I guess the eternal unanswered question between those who supported the war in Iraq and those who didn't is this: "When is an attack on some certain country considered self-defence ? and when is it not ?" When I here people debating the war on Iraq on T.V. I tend to think that they all agree to disagree: they agree that on the basic premise that pre-emption is conceptually justified if homeland security is involved, but they disagree on whether Iraq was a real impending danger. Neither of these sides have any divine or concrete and solid knowlege of the Absolute Truth. Hence, the only reason why each side supports their own hypothesis is based on faith and belief in their own corresponding political leaders. It is definetly not a logical debate; it is purely an ideological debate, where no side could win over the other using pure reason !
I guess that, historically speaking, the examples of Germany and Japan have definetly served as an example, and even as a premise for the Iraq war. I really hope things had turned differently. Democracy in Iraq, theoretically speaking, is inevitable, but the question is when and whether it was worth the thousand American soldiers dying plus the myriads of Iraqi civilians who have died for the abstract idealistic pursuit of freedom. Had they been given the option of voting and the knowlege of what was going to be, would they have supported the U.S.-led war ?
On a totally different but perhaps related notion, I'd like to quote this line from a song that I have been listening to during the past weekend (in case you're curious: the song is by Roger Waters, who used to be the main Pink Floyd vocalist and songwriter, and it's on his extremely genuine album: 'Amused to Death'):
"Monkey looked up to the stars and thought to himself....
Memory is a stranger...
History is for fools...
Hold on Soldier...
And the Germans killed the Jews, and Jews killed the Arabs, and the Arabs killed the Hostages...
That is the news...
And is it any wonder ? That the monkey is confused ?"
Don't be confused and remember another one of my most favorite quotes. It's by the comedian George Carlin:
"When you're born into this world, you earn yourself a free ticket to a freak show"
My advice is: sit back, watch the news and try your best to relax !
After reading millions of articles about the validity of a just versus an unjust war it's time to finally tell you what I think about this..
You've heard it all: "World War II was a just war", "Vietnam was an unjust [or just] war", and "The first Gulf War was a just war" A plethora of arguments regarding the legitimacy of engaging in a technologically and terminally enhanced street fight that leaves thousand, and sometimes millions, of fellow human beings dead or, to a lesser extent, missing a vital organ.
Now, before getting into the specifics, let me state this as bluntly, and at the same time, as diplomatically as possible:
"You can talk all you want about a war being 'just' or 'unjust'. Personally, I don't think the word 'war' and 'just' should exist in the same context.
Does that make it bad ? Definetly not ! Whether you like or not (you hippie!) the great civilizations that gave us such great innovations such as democracy, communication and mathematics were built on the blood of thousands killed during myriads of 'unjust conquest and brutal wars. But the important thing is how you run the goddamn war !" (I put the last statement between quotes; but I really don't know why!) You name it: ancient Greece, the Romans, the British, the Spanish, the Portugese, the French, the Arabs, the Turks, etc..
These were all major cilizations that nurtured on wars and would have quickly withered and died otherwise.
Now, a lot of people are thinking this right now: "The U.S. went into World War II and it was a just war"
No one would argue that the U.S. engagement in World War II was justified. It was for self-defence ! There is nothing wrong with that ! If you're attacked by some thug while you're walking down the road, and you beat the shit out of him, there is nothing 'holy and noble cause' about this but there is nothing wrong about it either. Wars, throughout history, have been waged for reasons that seem quite prepostorous in light of our contemporary values, but seemed justified at the time.
The British empire fought two wars for Opium against China (lookup the Opium Wars) and the Dark Ages' Europeans went on numerous religious crusades because they were promised Heaven by the Pope. At the time, that seemed like a justified cause and was perceived as justified. It's really all relative when you enter the time dimension. Some of them did it to secure their borders (contemporary term: pre-emptive wars) and some of them did it simply for the financial value (contemporary term: secure the oil supply.
So where do you draw the line ? I guess the eternal unanswered question between those who supported the war in Iraq and those who didn't is this: "When is an attack on some certain country considered self-defence ? and when is it not ?" When I here people debating the war on Iraq on T.V. I tend to think that they all agree to disagree: they agree that on the basic premise that pre-emption is conceptually justified if homeland security is involved, but they disagree on whether Iraq was a real impending danger. Neither of these sides have any divine or concrete and solid knowlege of the Absolute Truth. Hence, the only reason why each side supports their own hypothesis is based on faith and belief in their own corresponding political leaders. It is definetly not a logical debate; it is purely an ideological debate, where no side could win over the other using pure reason !
I guess that, historically speaking, the examples of Germany and Japan have definetly served as an example, and even as a premise for the Iraq war. I really hope things had turned differently. Democracy in Iraq, theoretically speaking, is inevitable, but the question is when and whether it was worth the thousand American soldiers dying plus the myriads of Iraqi civilians who have died for the abstract idealistic pursuit of freedom. Had they been given the option of voting and the knowlege of what was going to be, would they have supported the U.S.-led war ?
On a totally different but perhaps related notion, I'd like to quote this line from a song that I have been listening to during the past weekend (in case you're curious: the song is by Roger Waters, who used to be the main Pink Floyd vocalist and songwriter, and it's on his extremely genuine album: 'Amused to Death'):
"Monkey looked up to the stars and thought to himself....
Memory is a stranger...
History is for fools...
Hold on Soldier...
And the Germans killed the Jews, and Jews killed the Arabs, and the Arabs killed the Hostages...
That is the news...
And is it any wonder ? That the monkey is confused ?"
Don't be confused and remember another one of my most favorite quotes. It's by the comedian George Carlin:
"When you're born into this world, you earn yourself a free ticket to a freak show"
My advice is: sit back, watch the news and try your best to relax !
posted by Mourad at 3:23 AM
<< Home