I have now read this entire thread over again and will post my complete thoughts, be they useful or no. I know noone will probably read all of this but here it is.
I must begin with a comment on some of the responses here. It's quite a sight to see such variety even within a specific perspective. Most people seem to disagree with Ash, but only some of you seem to have constructive points.
'The entire implications of war, killing, and human nature cannot be summed up in a 300 word half assed attempt by a teenage girl. It needs time, expirience and devotion to understand and judge. ' -Ski Hobo
This is an interesting way of looking at the author, but you have to take into account the fact that just as Percy Shelley and John Keats wrote some of the greatest and most influential truisms in the history of the english language while in their early 20s, Ash can make her assertions and have credibility. Do not discount what she says because she is young, apply it to your own beliefs; you may find it influences them, or you may find it inconsistent.
'I have stood up and have been serving with NATO's Stabilization Force in Bosnia for the last 2.5 mths.
You keep on writing your fictitious tales of a fantasy world because I see and hear about whats going on everyday'
-Flanker
'...he told me after seeing those kids and fighting to get them out of that saddam compound, 'IT MADE IT ALL WORTH IT' they know why they're there, they're happy with Pres. Bush. And they know more that we do and even more that Bush knows' -SkierDave
'i think it is completely disrespectful to everyone in society what you have written calling war veterans murderers...'
-Dfresh
There were a few other posts like this and this applies to all of them. You deserve everyone's respect for your experience with whatever atocities you may have born witness to. That being said, experience with war does not apply to the question of its necessity and its morality (or justifiability). That they know about the reality of war, what war is, does not make them students of the human condition, nor does it lend them some innate understanding of its ethicality. It's all very well to say that this subject should be taboo out of respect for those who are fighting, but it's unreasonable. What is under examination is why they are fighting, and is it enough reason. The use of murderers, it has been pointed out, was for dramatic effect, which seemed evident enough.
'if two people were lined up on a wall, me and some person i had never seen before in my life , and one of us had to die, no way out of it, and it was my decision, i would say let him die...' -Dfresh
Nobility and realism, it would seem, are mutually exclusive concepts. I am immediately reminded of Socrates in the Crito, who, after having been sentenced to death, elects to face his (underserved) punishment despite being given the chance to flee. One of his main arguments for this choice was that if he were to open his cell to leave, a murderer might follow him; if he claimed he was above the law, so could others, and so he sacrificed himself for the lives of others. Dfresh, you say you will not do this, and how many others would agree? I have little dout that many stand with you. What, then is the point of war? Is it not that the death of a few might benefit the many? The idea raises an interesting interpretation of that statement: 'Someone has to die for our way of life, but I will not do it.'
But enough of my musings on others' responses, and on to my own. The first thing that immediately sprung to mind was Lord of the Flies (by Golding). If left to ourselves, is man inherently peaceful, or violent? Golding suggests the latter, and, given our history, I am inclined to agree. There is something in us, our basest instincts, that will not allow for the ideal, utopian version of our world: we will inevitably destroy any vision of peace. Ash, who says she is against war, is in fact at her heart (figuratively speaking) utterly devoted to it. But, as she says, her perspective is evolving. Can we not do the same as people? I have no answer, I cannot forsee what might become of the race in future. I can only say that, as we are, we have not made any such step forward, any momentous leap away from what we have always been.
How many lives is nation-hood worth? This is rhetorical, I assume, since it is unanswerable; one cannto weigh the material against the abstract with any hope of success. So I ask in response, is 'Nation-hood' what we are truly fighting for when we go to war? To preserve borders or beliefs that will, inevitably, change nonetheless? For freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, as you mentioned? Perhaps that is what we tell ourselves, but I am inclined to think that we are somewhat deceitful in this respect. We are fighting because we have justified it, but we have justified it because we feel, we have some innate sense, that fighting is the appropriate response. Just as a child who is given one cookie when his brother is given two protests, we have some ingrained idea that some things are wrong, and the way to put them right is to forcibly effect change.
The legal argument, the question of why it is lawful for soldiers to kill, stems from a matter of social ethics. The idea is this: Murder harms society, soldiers kill, supposedly, for its protection. You might just as well have asked why it is lawful for the police to kill a man who is holding hostages at gunpoint. This is, in theory, your answer. The question that should immediately arise is, 'Are the soldiers who kill really protecting us, or chaining us within our conventions, and preventing us from evolving, from becoming a society without war?' This is a question to which I, not able to forsee the possibility should we abandon our ways, have no answer. Are we willing to risk anarchy and chaos to find out? Most are not. Perhaps they're right to be hesitant, perhaps not. In support of this I offer the same quote that you presented, this time with a note of caution:
'There is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns hisruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.' -Niccolo Machiavelli
You ask if we should, then, 'Lower ourselves to the level of those who ‘are not good’'. I ask if you would risk all civilization, or even the common good of mankind, for an elevated morality? Perhaps we should lower ourselves. It may be better than the alternative.
Havin said all this, I agree with your sentiments. I am, myself, no lover of war; I do not celebrate the 'triumphs' in Iraq, nor do I take any comfort in America's revenge upon its enemies. War is, as you say several times, an atrocity, an abhorrent part of reality. Yet, a part of reality it remains. I close this Response with a submission, an addition to those firsthand accounts that have been posted here by soldiers. I have never been so unfortunate as to have been subjected to the horror of war, but I present the words of one who has, in the hopes that others like myself might gain some perspective from it.
Dulce Et Decorum Est
by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned out backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori
(note: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori translates to 'It is proper and honourable to die for one's country', a proverb much used by the British army.)
