I was p.m.ing with Stip (okay, p.m.s.ing with Stone's Bitch) about the thread comparing WWS and Insignificance, and I remarked that there doesn't seem to be anything on the board that allows for a dialogue about the Iraq war or about war in general.

My suspicion is that many of you--maybe most? are of that age where you would be cannon fodder if the draft were reinstated.

Me, I'm a tree-humping hippie refugee from the sixties who was a conscientious objector during viet nam. I don't get my 1-Y status to avoid the draft: I simply will not go and shoot at other people. Yeah, yeah: what if their guns were pointed at my kids? Who knows. But there are no Iraqui guns pointed at them now. My sons are 16 and 19 and I sure don't want to see them get blown up for a war that simply doesn't make sense on any level.
If they did serve, I would be proud of them, regardless, just as I support our troops for doing what they agreed to do. But I hope they are smart enough not to fight for Mr. Bush's personal agenda.

Bring them home now, and not in a "box or a bag."

Jump in: is this war justifiable? Is any war justifiable? We know what Eddie thinks--what do you think?

News and Debate

News and Debate seems like a good place to bury a thread. Besides, it seems too general. Yes, this is a political topic, but I'm starting it apropos of the underlying ethos of "Avocado" and fan reaction to the stance taken on the war.

But feel free to move it there if it doesn't fit here. Just be sure to reply.

As the Ramones said: I'm against it.

You're right, the underlying ethos of 'Avocado' is very much anti-war, and this one in particular. I don't have a problem with this thread in this section, as it is very much a part of PJ's music these days. That said, it'll probably get moved

As an Australian, I'm very disappointed in our oligarchy...I mean, democratic government... for blinding following Mr Bush's lead. May as well put another star on the flag for us...

Anyone can justify just about anything. It's rather subjective. To be justified, you have to be "right" about it. All sides in war think they are "right".
I think a better question is weather war can be condoned, not justified. To some, war may be forgivable, or regretable, but it is far from harmless and hard pressed to say it's acceptable in most cases. So, I dont think war can be condoned, either.

But what about those instance when a country i under attack; or, in the case of WW2, the ends do seem to justify the means? Unfortunately, war seems to be an ongoing mainstay of life around these parts.

Ed sings, "There's got to be another . . . way." What is that way--does Ed have any ideas on the subject? Is "Marker in the Sand" his approach?

that would ruin the symmetry. Maybe if we can convince missisippi to secede again we can fit you in

Everyone will have a different feeling about war and how to answer. There is no difinitive right way to respond. My personal feeling is that war should be avoided at all possible costs, and only after exhausting every other possible resource and avenue of compromise and non-violent approach should war even be remotely considered as an option.

My problem with pacificsm (as a political philosophy, not a personal one) is that it ignores the reality of power and violence in political life. you can reject it as a tactic of choice while still recognizing that there are times that violence IS the only way to solve a problem in that sometimes the only way you can get someone to lay down their arms is to take them from them. Eleanor roosevelt was really smart on this sort of stuff.


Ed's take on Iraq (and it seems to be the right one, certianly with hindsight) is that the war is unequivicoally bad and that the costs are just too high (world wide suicide is a heavily loaded phrase) and that works given the wars we are dealing with. he's pretty solid on the costs of war and his moral critique, but in a different time (WWII for instance--howard zinn's arguements notwithstanding) they don't work.

Dalton Trumbo wrote Johnny Got His Gun (the greatest pacifist novel I've ever read, and maybe the best book I've ever read) after WWI. It was banned during WWII but he has said that even if it wasn't banned he would have probalby halted publicication and distribution of it during that war. there are times when violence, for all its evils, IS the only way to stop an even greater evil. It sucks that those are the choices given to us, but real leadership involves the willingness to do what is necessary, even if it isn't always what is right. Ed mgiht be a bit too reflexivley anti war to get that

stand behind the stripes, there will be order so give up your mind.

I think that there are alot of people that have the same position. War is a horrible thing. But when our future is at stake (i.e. my children) you take the actions necessary.

Certainly WW2, WW1, our own War of Independence, other Wars to overthrow dictators, etc. Some can even justify dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary to ending the war before thousands more U.S. soldiers died. Of course, we did kinda drop it on a civilian population. Preaching Pacifism does not necessarily exclude reality or defense--at least not to sane pacifists. But, certainly, we can see that sometimes war can lead to a worsening of things in many instances. Iraq is one of them. Sure Saddam was a horrible criminal. There is no justification for him. But this poorly thought out, personal agenda endowed war has made things worse with no end in sight.

Yes, the war has taken over.

I don't really go into N+D much but I would assume there aren't really many war supporters left.

The polls are dropping. Regardless of why we went in, this is another guerilla war like viet nam. Who is the enemy? The look and dress the same as everyone else. You can't win that type of war. And even if you do--what then? Democracy amid factional/tribal warfare? I see . . . .

Maybe we could send a few of them House Republicans over there to show them how it's done.

Settle down, Doc. This is PJ Chat.

Lets move this to N+D. That'll calm things down

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... php?t=6710

WW I was an absolutely ridiculous war. We shouldn't have aided the allies and we shouldn't have jumped in as soon as one of our ships was sunk. It had nothing to do with us and everything to do with imperial ambitions. Sure, Germany can be shouldered with most of the responsibility as they violated neutral territory, blah blah blah. However, France is nearly as equally at fault for goading Russia to mobilize. This was especially silly seeing how impotent the Russians Army was. Morally of the story is: Europe was itching for a fight and we should have been content to let them kill off as many men as they wanted.

As to World War II, I can't imagine how we could have justifiably jumped in earlier as again, it was none of our business. We were perfectly justified in halting the shipment of war materials to Japan and we should have taken a more agressive stance towards Germany and Italy. They were all belligerent nations and although they didn't immediately threaten us, I don't imagine that one should feel compelled to maintain normal relations with a belligerent nation.

I for one can't help but feel a bit disillusioned by the American Revolutionary War. We claim that it was about civil liberties and equal representation but I can't help to think that it was above all about taxation. American colonists didn't want to share the financial burden of pushing back the French and the Native Americans and the Crown would have none of it. If I recall correctly, unfair taxation was the rallying cry of the Revolution, which would make the American Right is the true inheritors of the founding fathers' spirit.

c_b started this same thread:

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... hp?t=37275

We're fighting the wrong damn war. If we really need to fight evil, we should be in Africa.