Thread: Was it worth it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. Sometimes it is a matter of opinion. I think the American Revolution was worth it, the American Civil War was worth it, and the Allied effort in World War II was worth it. The War of 1812 and our part in World War I seem unnecessary. I think World War I was a major WTF all around. Good things have come from our efforts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but in hindsight, I think we probably shouldn't have fought those wars.

What do you think?

My view is that when it comes to wars, we should not be so cavalier that we group every killed soldier in a vague hero category. Keeping a family in the dark about how their son or daughter really died may be comforting to them, but it only serves to perpetuate the idea that they died honorably and heroically, serving their country, fighting for freedom, etc. I agree with the author of the article that maintaining the public image of these heroic "fallen" soldiers only maintains the idea that the war being fought is actually just and the soldiers are doing justifiable work. This can have awful consequences, especially when it comes to what are almost certainly unnecessary and unjust wars like the U.S. in Iraq and Vietnam.

Soldiers often die for bullshit reasons. That will happen in any war, but the war itself should not end up being remembered for having a high body count and no real positive outcome. We can avoid that not by calling every killed soldier a hero but by avoiding the conflict altogether, if we can help it.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

That part where he addressed Obama kinda ruined it for me... He should be addressing the entire nation, or at the very least the higher ups who are in charge of military matters. Otherwise it seems like he's blaming it on the president, which sort trivializes the issue by turning it into another my-candidate-your-candidate shitfest.

I took his mention of Obama more as him speaking directly to the sitting president rather than just to a candidate he doesn't like. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, so I see the mention as justified.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I took his mention of Obama more as him speaking directly to the sitting president rather than just to a candidate he doesn't like. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, so I see the mention as justified.

I get that, I just feel it would have been hit harder had he left out the name of the president. Maybe it's just me, but I imagine quite a few readers seeing the article and pinning the blame on Obama, rather than seeing it as a systemic issue that's plagued the States since WWII.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I get that, I just feel it would have been hit harder had he left out the name of the president. Maybe it's just me, but I imagine quite a few readers seeing the article and pinning the blame on Obama, rather than seeing it as a systemic issue that's plagued the States since WWII.

It's hosted on the website of the Center for a Stateless Society, so I'm willing to bet its readers view it as a systemic issue instead. Plus, there's this line in the article:

But when we indulge in these rituals, we help animate their deeper purpose- the seduction of another group of young men and women by the mythology of the nation.

"Mythology of the nation" definitely refers to the system rather than who is leading it, I think.