The Violent Utopia

[chevysoldier]

My friend posted this on FB. I told her I'd post it on here so she can get some feedback.

The Violent Utopia

"If you want peace, prepare for war." This was coined by an anonymous person some time ago, but it applies to any discussion where war is being questioned. War is not a pretty thing. Rather, it is ugly, bloody, and many people wish there was another way to deal with conflict rather than pulling out guns and shooting one another in order to bring about peace. They want complete peace. They want to live in a society where there is no famine, war, destruction, sickness, or oppression. They want what writers everywhere have named the "Utopia", the perfect society that relies on itself and doesn't rely on or have to worry about outside oppresive forces. Unfortunatly, history shows us that this is not possible. In order to preserve a perfect, peaceful society, that society has to be prepared to fight for its rights and peace against outside forces.

A peaceful nation must be prepared and arm itself in case of an attack. There is an unknown author who wrote an article for the database, VnutZ Domain, and he writes,

"Any conflict that stirs passions to engage in war cannot be settled bloodlessly because there is no loss to prevent further fighting. Therefore, a critical aspect to ending and preventing war is the loss of a society's ability to fight and the loss of a society's will to fight."

In other words, a nation has to realize that they may need to go to war in order to prevent not only an outside force taking over their livelyhood, but also to prevent further deaths. During the Vietnam War, the communist threat from China and Russia was greatly influencing Vietnam and America could see it slowly becoming a bigger threat to the livelyhood of America. They stepped in and attempted to stop the growth before the dictorial communism completely took over the world and they had to stop World War III from happening. The entire conflict was convoluted and many people died and were injured and gave so much, then came back and were mistreated by their own fellow citizens, but in the simplest terms, America had to step in and stop it before the threat got too big and took over the world.

Men and women from the nation must be prepared to die for the good of the nation. In order to have a decent attempt at defense, men and women from the society have to step up and defend the country and the way of life that they love so much. They have to understnad that they may lose their life, but they also have to understand that it is for the young mother waiting for her child from preschool, a young college graduate starting her first job, a young boy learning baseball from his dad, and more. But it still is not a very pretty job. Imoudu Iziokhai wrote an essay on the necessity of war, and mentions the military and what they have to go through. He states, "Most troubling are young men and women who have lost their dear lives in this “war venture,” others mentally and physically maimed for life." (Iziokai). Many is the difficulties of the soldier. Not only to they have to worry about IED's, being shot or seeing one of their buddies being killed, but also they worry about life back home, and they miss their husband or wife, or girlfriend, their kids, who stand proudly behind them during the deployment, patiently waiting as they serve and defend their country. They also have to deal with the horrid realization that what they are doing can effect their beliefs and rock their very foundation, especially if the soldier is a very strict follower of a Christian religion. "Therefore, some soldiers will be called upon, to commit ghastly acts of immorality. However, the majority of soldiers will never endure the need to engage in atrocious styles of combat."(Unknown). They need to be reassured that what they are doing is for the society, and for a better tommorow. And the society has to realize, respect them and honor them for their sacrifice to the country. As many people are saying, all gave some, but some gave all.

In the event of an attack, the nation has to be prepared to fix the damage and beat back the oppressing force. When 9/11 happened, many people in America, and some in other countries, were shocked. No one had attempted to cross American borders and attack innocent citizens since the beginnings of World War II, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 41. The people back then and on 9/11 were scared for their lives, they did not know what was going to happen next, then in a matter of months, they were at war. Most did not agree with the war and many others critisized George Bush for throwing them into a war that most did not even agree with or understand. But now some people are retracting the negative comments and looking at it from another perspective. Like one critic for the free online artice database, Articlesbase, named Imoudu Iziokhai, who wrote an essay on war and the necessity of it. He writes,

"After the 911 attack, the message became very clear that the texture of open dialogue within the Middle East part of the world was too narrow or possibly none existent to be over looked any more by those concerned with the existence of humanity in free, cordial, and positively agreeable and disagreeable complexities of the world. What this means was that the composition of open society, which is not totally embraced in that part of the world was no longer a comfortable atmosphere to live with. The clear message from 911 was the frightening realization that action needs to be taken now to address this critical issue or neglect it and pay the price of annihilation in future." (Iziokhai.)

His point is clear. America had to go to war with the Middle East in order to preserve their way of life and rights. Many did not agree but the critics can go around in circles all they want. They can still go around in circles because America decided to beat back the growing oppressing force instead of roll over and accept defeat.

The nation has to be ready to step in when international negative forces are brewing and they, with other peaceful nations, see it as a threat to the peaceful livelyhood. When 9/11 happened, America was forced to see that there are people out there that hated the way of life that they lived, and they needed to act fast in order to protect it and still be able to live it. To fight a war jsut to fight is not necessary, however. The society has to realize if the war is moral and if the threat can be diminished in any other more peaceful matter. The unknown author from VnutZ Domain comments,

"It can therefore be concluded that somewhere between these extremes lies a level of morality that must be observed to sustain the human race. On the same note, it is apparent that a certain degree of immorality is necessary to shake society's enough to force the end of war."

There is a point where war become's a necessary evil in order to diminish evil forces and opressors in order to preserve a better, peaceful environment. It is a necessary evil, like a forest fire or praire fire is necessary to burn away the excess dead in order to let room for a better, new, bright life and future.

And many believe that war is not a necessary evil and that conflict can be resolved in peaceful matters. Many are Christians and believe in a peaceful society with no conflict and that killing is wrong regardless of the reason. Ruth Messinger is the president and executive director of the American Jewish World Service and comments on the war. She states,

"The Bush plan would set a new and dangerous standard for future war making - the right of the United States to launch a preemptive war when not under direct attack. To do this without the support of the United Nations, at a time when an alternative strategy for forcing disarmament is still being pursued and is reported to be making progress, is foolhardy." (Messinger)

She goes on to state that not only does the U.S. have not told the American public how long the conflict is going to last, how much it will cost, and more. She has several good points. War is expensive, and the society that is engaging in it needs to asses if it can go through with it without sending their citizens into a depression or worse. To not tell the public important facts about the conflict is another good point. The government has to be up front about how long, how mch money, and what the plan of action is. And to go against other nations who are working on a more peaceful solution is not the smartest way to go about business, but if the society believes in the cause, then go for it. In all honesty, war should be the last option. If the society is at the end of its options and war is the only thing left, then there should not be any doubt in anyone's minds when they go to war, that war was a necessary cause in the first place.

No matter what side a person is on, on can all agree on needing violence, in any degree, in order to preserve peace and harmony within a society. A nation has to be ready to defend its people and rights from outside forces and oppressors, in whatever level of violence is needed. It needs to be ready in case of an attack.....

[chevysoldier]

....

The people have to be ready to stand up to defend their country, or to support and love the people that stand up in defense. The country has to be ready to pick up the peices should another one attack, and they cannot rely on only international policies and appeasment tactics alone. Even though it is a necessary evil, it has to be the last option has to be the last option and has to be thought through completely. There has to be a moral obligation and responsibility of the country to suppress violent dictators that are hellbent on taking over the peaceful society. And men and women of the society have to be ready to stand up for the defense of the society, and the rest of the people need to love and support them and back them for all that they do. In some cases a war was not necessary. But when one takes a step back and takes away whatever political agenda of the war, and looks at the reasonings, most of the time the conflict will be necessary. The necessary evil to burn away the evil, hate, and death in the world so that new life and beauty can grow. Peacefully

[Disclaimer]

Exactly what feedback...?

[chevysoldier]

Exactly what feedback...?

Just any thoughts on the subject. It was a paper for a class in school.

[Disclaimer]

This was a good paragraph.

She goes on to state that not only does the U.S. have not told the American public how long the conflict is going to last, how much it will cost, and more. She has several good points. War is expensive, and the society that is engaging in it needs to asses if it can go through with it without sending their citizens into a depression or worse. To not tell the public important facts about the conflict is another good point. The government has to be up front about how long, how mch money, and what the plan of action is. And to go against other nations who are working on a more peaceful solution is not the smartest way to go about business, but if the society believes in the cause, then go for it. In all honesty, war should be the last option. If the society is at the end of its options and war is the only thing left, then there should not be any doubt in anyone's minds when they go to war, that war was a necessary cause in the first place.

[chevysoldier]

But the general public shouldn't know all the facts sometimes. That could jeopardize the mission. And how do you put a timeline on going into a war? Oh we are going to fight Al Qaeda for a period of two years. That should be enough time.

[Disclaimer]

But the general public shouldn't know all the facts sometimes. That could jeopardize the mission.

I understand, but don't necessarily agree. Any savvy counter-intelligence agent would know what is bullshit and what isn't. And fact through observation of multiple sources.

And how do you put a timeline on going into a war? Oh we are going to fight Al Qaeda for a period of two years. That should be enough time.

The same way you put a timeline on bringing a new product to market. You list the steps in the plan, and make an educated guess on how much time each step will take based on known information from employees (or military) along with past experience.

The timeline is never CONCRETELY set, just a general guideline for planning that shows people aren't just 'winging' it and wasting resources because they failed to plan and set dependencies. If some portion of the timeline runs long - you note it, along with the reason why, so lessons can be learned on future projects. It's not rocket science.

[chevysoldier]

I understand, but don't necessarily agree. Any savvy counter-intelligence agent would know what is bullshit and what isn't. And fact through observation of multiple sources.

The same way you put a timeline on bringing a new product to market. You list the steps in the plan, and make an educated guess on how much time each step will take based on known information from employees (or military) along with past experience.

The timeline is never CONCRETELY set, just a general guideline for planning that shows people aren't just 'winging' it and wasting resources because they failed to plan and set dependencies. If some portion of the timeline runs long - you note it, along with the reason why, so lessons can be learned on future projects. It's not rocket science.

In Iraq there were numerous missions we knew very little details but we knew someone had everything planned out. Some details were not given to many of the soldiers because that could ruin the mission. If you made public that we had planned to go in for about 2 years, what would that do to the enemy? You ever waited to go on vacation and counted down the days? That gives you something to focus on and ride it out. If we tell the bad guys were are going to be there until we complete our mission that can be demoralizing.

[Disclaimer]

Why were we in Iraq, again? Is 'Iraq' some slang term for Afghanistan? WMDs, what?

And no, "ride it out" (which, being a dumb strategy to begin with) does not conflict with setting a timeline... like I just said, you set a timeline and complete the project when the steps are complete - not sooner. If one of the steps is "kill Osama" and the military thinks that'll take 3 weeks, then you plan for 3 weeks, but the project isn't complete until that happens - it might take 3 years. And, you can communicate that, but the politicians don't want to take the political hit when the timeline slips because the general public doesn't understand how shit works because they have the average intelligence of a high school graduate. "But, you said it'd take 2 years and we're still there. You're a liar and all politicians are evil lying bastards"

The more intelligent rational people would say, "You said it'd take two years, we're still there, why? What is the plan? What milestones have been complete, are there any additional resources needed to clear the project roadblocks? What information do you have to show these additional resources are what you really need to make progress?"

...but those people are few and far between.

[ReconRat]

Military Intelligence gained to prevent or shorten a war, isn't always available. In times of peace, that asset of warfare is often neglected or discarded. That in turn, makes decisions of war difficult to judge. And therefore, possible to err on the side of caution, and go to war unnecessarily. The lesser of two evils. Fight or lose liberty.

An alternative, is to constantly prepare for a war, which will always come to be. By advancing technology beyond what the opponent will be capable of, a measure of success is guaranteed in part.

History has plenty of examples, of waiting and hoping a war won't happen. A general result, is often more suffering and effort and cost than what would have occurred had the decisions been made earlier. But either way, there is no hind sight. There is no actual way of knowing what would have happened if a different course of action had been taken.

The judgments are made based on what has happened historically. By comparision of the present to the past, a country has to decide what their fate will be for the future, based on their actions in the present.

Be aware that for every correct decision, another country (the opponent) made the wrong decision. One wins, and one does not.

[chevysoldier]

Why were we in Iraq, again? Is 'Iraq' some slang term for Afghanistan? WMDs, what?

And no, "ride it out" (which, being a dumb strategy to begin with) does not conflict with setting a timeline... like I just said, you set a timeline and complete the project when the steps are complete - not sooner. If one of the steps is "kill Osama" and the military thinks that'll take 3 weeks, then you plan for 3 weeks, but the project isn't complete until that happens - it might take 3 years. And, you can communicate that, but the politicians don't want to take the political hit when the timeline slips because the general public doesn't understand how shit works because they have the average intelligence of a high school graduate. "But, you said it'd take 2 years and we're still there. You're a liar and all politicians are evil lying bastards"

The more intelligent rational people would say, "You said it'd take two years, we're still there, why? What is the plan? What milestones have been complete, are there any additional resources needed to clear the project roadblocks? What information do you have to show these additional resources are what you really need to make progress?"

...but those people are few and far between.

I said Iraq because I was there. Used it to show why everyone knowing all the info isn't always a good thing. We went through commo blackouts all the time so information wouldn't get out.

Right, politicians don't want to fight the public. And the media doesn't report the good that we have done over there either. How much have you read or seen on the elections, schools, bringing water and food, playing soccer with the kids, helping with farms and bringing medical care. The media doesn't want you to here about that. But when someone dies from a car bomb, you'll hear about that right away.

How long do you think it should have taken to get bin Laden? You have no idea because you have no idea of what goes into that. You think the rest of the public would? We say two years and it takes longer now the public is really pissed because they were lied to. No they weren't really lied to they just don't understand how war works.

[Disclaimer]

When the president says, "We need to get those WMDs" and there are none. How is that NOT a lie? You're saying that we (the public) just don't understand how war works, and that wasn't really a lie? I may not know "how war works", but I do know a thing or two about psychology, economics, and history... I'd call that military propaganda to sway public opinion.

I don't know how long it takes to get bin Laden. I'm not an expert in that field and don't pretend to be, but I do know what's logical - and even if you SWAG'd a timeline it'd be better than just saying - "we'll get to it, when we get to it". Timelines, at the very least, hold people accountable.

And according to you if we published a timeline and they just "waited it out"... you could easily bluff them to come out of hiding after the timeline was over, right? If they think we're dumb enough to hold to a timeline, they're probably dumb enough to come right out of their desert caves the day after we promised to leave...

[ReconRat]

JRM, there is still convincing evidence of the military intelligence sort, that says the WMD were there, and were the first items smuggled away for a later fight. There are still bunkers in Iraq, that no one has been able to get into. The surrounding area of one of them, has an unusual amount of gas masks in everyone's houses. The bunker is under a river, where no one can get at it, and was flooded. Satellite intelligence, saw that a convoy of "something" in trucks, left Iraq and went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, and parked in a deep trench, and were buried, trucks and all. What was that? We're not about to go find out, without starting a war in Lebanon and Syria. Not happening. Israeli intelligence, says a similar convoy went from Iraq into Syrian desert, and was buried there. No one is quite sure where, it's all sand and desert and hard to figure out where. That area is still under constant watch to see if anyone tries to retrieve whatever it was. The UN inspection teams, while in Iraq, managed to find both nuke weapon parts and tools, along with documents detailing the use. They almost died trying to get out of Iraqi at the airport, and they never went back. No trace of those items were found later in Iraq. This is all history that is ignored. It's also not well published, since it amounts to an admission that the mission failed in that part. Or conversely, amounts to an admission that the WMD were there.

This is all public information, true or false for what it's worth, and I'm sure there is other military intelligence that we will never hear about. It would possibly put us into a war that we aren't ready for. Those are the types of wars that are lost, instead of won.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ReconRat

[fusion]

It reads like a high school paper that hasn't even been run through spell check.

[chevysoldier]

JRM, there is still convincing evidence of the military intelligence sort, that says the WMD were there, and were the first items smuggled away for a later fight. There are still bunkers in Iraq, that no one has been able to get into. The surrounding area of one of them, has an unusual amount of gas masks in everyone's houses. The bunker is under a river, where no one can get at it, and was flooded. Satellite intelligence, saw that a convoy of "something" in trucks, left Iraq and went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, and parked in a deep trench, and were buried, trucks and all. What was that? We're not about to go find out, without starting a war in Lebanon and Syria. Not happening. Israeli intelligence, says a similar convoy went from Iraq into Syrian desert, and was buried there. No one is quite sure where, it's all sand and desert and hard to figure out where. That area is still under constant watch to see if anyone tries to retrieve whatever it was. The UN inspection teams, while in Iraq, managed to find both nuke weapon parts and tools, along with documents detailing the use. They almost died trying to get out of Iraqi at the airport, and they never went back. No trace of those items were found later in Iraq. This is all history that is ignored. It's also not well published, since it amounts to an admission that the mission failed in that part. Or conversely, amounts to an admission that the WMD were there.

This is all public information, true or false for what it's worth, and I'm sure there is other military intelligence that we will never hear about. It would possibly put us into a war that we aren't ready for. Those are the types of wars that are lost, instead of won.

Interesting, I didn't know a lot of that.

It reads like a high school paper that hasn't even been run through spell check.

I think she retyped it on FB, didn't copy and paste it.

[John]

And how do you put a timeline on going into a war?

how do you win a war on an intangible concept like "terrorism"?

will there EVER be a point where its... BANG "got him!" "good job jones, that was THE VERY LAST TERRORIST" terrorism has been defeated!

[Disclaimer]

"What Tom said"

I'm sure there were legitimate political reasons for going into Iraq, but they were still of lesser importance than Afghanistan. Regardless, we were told there were WMDs, and there are none. "But they were smuggled away" - how convenient. For me, there are too many excuses and "convenient coincidences" for me not to raise the bullshit flag. If they had intelligence they were being smuggled away, why weren't they stopped then, while they were still in Iraq? There are military actions that can be taken short of a formal declaration of war.

If they had the intelligence you suggest they had and were tracking all this stuff -- they should be able to find it now. You can't keep doing the CYA-thing without proof -- it's like how a 5yr old would lie to his parents.

"There are WMDs -- we need war"

"Uhh, OK, there were no WMDs that we found, but they WERE there - the evildoers smuggled them out -- we know because we have satellites tracking them."

"But, we can't get them now because they're not in Iraq or we can't find them."

How can you KNOW they're there, use the 'fact' that you have satellite intelligence that they're smuggling WMDs out, and then proceed to say you don't know where the WMDs are after you just told me you have satellites tracking the convoys. Doesn't make sense.

[Aerik]

I think if Saddam had had WMDs, he'd probably have tried to use them before he got to the whole "hiding in a spider-hole and getting captured and executed" thing. I would certainly use whatever means I had at my disposal to save my own ass. If having the US military chasing you isn't a serious situation, what is? Was he saving them for a really rainy day?