The point is that North American culture looks on war and violence without regard for the realities. We are awestruck by war machines without regard for those that will die from them. We soak up the violence on TV and in movies without a perspective of the flip side. Then when someone, something, or some group that we associate with is on the receiving end we are outraged without wondering how it got to that point. An analogy of this is often quoted as "the chickens have come home to roost."
Your anecdote of Churchill is irrelevant and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the quote. The man lived in a time faced with the most evil aggression the world had seen. We do not have the same dynamics today. Churchill argued against appeasement as an arugment against war. His quote shows us the wisdom and fear of unleashing war. We have lost that appreciation due to the inundation of our media and entertainment.
Deja Vu; Canadian killed by US friendly fire in Afghanistan
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
I wasn't referencing your Churchill quote, I was referencing your comment above it, which does seem to advocate isolationism.gli77 wrote:he quote has nothing to do with isolationism. Isolationism was an approach of some Americans towards the war in Europe and has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
My post has nothing to do with entertainment, neither does my attitude towards the war in Afghanistan. There are certain evils in the world worth confronting at the cost of our country's children. The Nazis were one. I feel that the Taliban is another. Iraq wasn't, as is obvious now, and as was obvious to most before. Chamberlain's attitude of appeasement, which Layton seems to share, will do nothing at all to prevent or confront that evil.Take a step back and look at North American entertainment, culture and news. Then spend some time in Europe and see the stark difference.
You imply that several people here are naive, because we don't have a European view, because we haven't had a war at home in nearly 200 years. Most Europeans haven't had one in their lifetime either. We have had brothers and sisters die in war. We have had father not come home from overseas. We've had friends horribly wounded in hellholes the world over. Don't try to make out like we don't understand what war is simply because there hasn't been a major one on our soil. THAT is naive, beliving that simply because you can't conceive of something, that nobody else can either.
grimey,
Spend time abroad, you will understand.
The point that we have not had a war at home for 200 years means that the general population has not had their homes destroyed, their civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, and lives left in rubble.
Speak with an Asian, African, Arabic or European and there is a deep hesitation and heart felt feeling for what war and violence does in reality. Then turn on Fox news, CNN, channel surf or browse a video store and maybe you will get a sense of my point.
Your point of those Canadian Forces memebers lost overseas is again irrelevant to my point. They serve and of course deserve our respect but the point is about the reality of war and how serious our culture takes it. Trying to associate a lack or respect with those fallen indicates a lack of understanding of the point. Members of the forces volunteered for duty. The civilians murdered by Marines in Iraq did not.
Spend time abroad, you will understand.
The point that we have not had a war at home for 200 years means that the general population has not had their homes destroyed, their civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, and lives left in rubble.
Speak with an Asian, African, Arabic or European and there is a deep hesitation and heart felt feeling for what war and violence does in reality. Then turn on Fox news, CNN, channel surf or browse a video store and maybe you will get a sense of my point.
Your point of those Canadian Forces memebers lost overseas is again irrelevant to my point. They serve and of course deserve our respect but the point is about the reality of war and how serious our culture takes it. Trying to associate a lack or respect with those fallen indicates a lack of understanding of the point. Members of the forces volunteered for duty. The civilians murdered by Marines in Iraq did not.
And no my point is not steered towards isolationism. My point is that war and violence once engaged is uncontrollable and should be taken seriously with all factors and wisdom taken into account. The original post was Canadians killed by friendly fire, with perhaps an American to blame and perhaps not.
My point is, and Chruchills quote illustrates, the need to give a declaration of war and promotion of violence the utmost respect they deserve, as once these begin no one is at the wheel. As is seen in numerous friendly fire incidents.
My point is, and Chruchills quote illustrates, the need to give a declaration of war and promotion of violence the utmost respect they deserve, as once these begin no one is at the wheel. As is seen in numerous friendly fire incidents.
Does a Japanese person count? Ask any Japanese person about World War 2. If they're old enough they'll bow their head in shame, or if their young they have no idea what your talking about.gli77 wrote:grimey,
Spend time abroad, you will understand....
Speak with an Asian, African, Arabic or European ...
I am generalizing of course, but this has been my observation.
War is a nessesary evil. Pick a side.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
It would seem fairly obvious that a war, by definition is a disaster, like a large hurricane, earthquake, forest fire, etc.
However, the difference is that unlike the above so-called "natural" disasters, war is a man-made disaster. It is conducted by people, and (news flash) equipment breaks. People make mistakes. Ever heard of the "fog of war"? Guess not.
It boggles the mind that some people are so dumb, that they think you can have a large, error-free man-made disaster. Same sort of people that buy lottery tickets, I 'spose. They never took a stats course, and will pay for that omission for the rest of their lives.
Executive Summary: Shit Happens.
However, the difference is that unlike the above so-called "natural" disasters, war is a man-made disaster. It is conducted by people, and (news flash) equipment breaks. People make mistakes. Ever heard of the "fog of war"? Guess not.
It boggles the mind that some people are so dumb, that they think you can have a large, error-free man-made disaster. Same sort of people that buy lottery tickets, I 'spose. They never took a stats course, and will pay for that omission for the rest of their lives.
Executive Summary: Shit Happens.
I do see your point, I simply don't agree with it.gli77 wrote:grimey,
Spend time abroad, you will understand.
The point that we have not had a war at home for 200 years means that the general population has not had their homes destroyed, their civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, and lives left in rubble.
Speak with an Asian, African, Arabic or European and there is a deep hesitation and heart felt feeling for what war and violence does in reality. Then turn on Fox news, CNN, channel surf or browse a video store and maybe you will get a sense of my point.
Most of Europe hasn't had a war in 60 years, with the Balkans and Cyprus being exceptions. Most of the population under 50 hasn't seen much direct effect of war, due to the Marshall plan. So how is this significantly different from North America? They learn of war from their parents and grandparents, same as us, and rarely from direct involvement.
Given the frequency of wars in Asia and Africa, I get the sense that they have no hesitation about it, or are unable to see that the horrors of the past get repeated every time they declare one.
Nark,
Yes I have talked to Japanese people about WWII, spent a lot of time here. The older generation do have a different perspective than the younger. It is hard to take a stance against the younger generation in Japan since they are taught some different versions of history. One thing that is evident is the 180 shift from war machine to peaceful nation in a very short period of time. The Japanese society I have experienced is not violent nor beligerent.
Grimey,
What is different overall between Europe and N.A is in your post. You said they have not had a war for 60 years on there soil and most have not seen the effects.
Yet as a group they are much more hesitant to promote violence or go to war - case in point Iraq. Perhaps they are just more atuned to the realities of it. Violence is somewhat the taboo there, yet sex is not. In North America violence is everywhere and promoted but sex is the taboo subject.
In Asia and Africa the general population is not promoting war. The local warlord, dictator or aggressive government is. In N.A not the case. Actually I suppose it is the case in the US right now but so does the culture, and a good portion of the population.
The point of my original post was not to say that man kind will always live in peace and harmony. The point was that once begun it is uncontrollable. "War is a necessary evil" I suppose that is true of WWII. One can definitely argue it was not for WWI.
It is interesting how my original post sparked this debate of appeasement and isolationism. Originally when I read Churchills quote I thought it was brilliant and seemed to fit NA current culture. How would things change if there was a draft?
Yes I have talked to Japanese people about WWII, spent a lot of time here. The older generation do have a different perspective than the younger. It is hard to take a stance against the younger generation in Japan since they are taught some different versions of history. One thing that is evident is the 180 shift from war machine to peaceful nation in a very short period of time. The Japanese society I have experienced is not violent nor beligerent.
Grimey,
What is different overall between Europe and N.A is in your post. You said they have not had a war for 60 years on there soil and most have not seen the effects.
Yet as a group they are much more hesitant to promote violence or go to war - case in point Iraq. Perhaps they are just more atuned to the realities of it. Violence is somewhat the taboo there, yet sex is not. In North America violence is everywhere and promoted but sex is the taboo subject.
In Asia and Africa the general population is not promoting war. The local warlord, dictator or aggressive government is. In N.A not the case. Actually I suppose it is the case in the US right now but so does the culture, and a good portion of the population.
The point of my original post was not to say that man kind will always live in peace and harmony. The point was that once begun it is uncontrollable. "War is a necessary evil" I suppose that is true of WWII. One can definitely argue it was not for WWI.
It is interesting how my original post sparked this debate of appeasement and isolationism. Originally when I read Churchills quote I thought it was brilliant and seemed to fit NA current culture. How would things change if there was a draft?
