Two Things Worth Mentioning

[bludragon]

1.) As if "the Long War" wasn't tragic enough: articles from war correspondants about the culture divide."There's no point in saying 'I told you so.' It won't bring back the dead. I guess every generation just has to learn the hard way that nothing good can ever come of violence, and no military solution will ever achieve what it claims to

Comments

[little_e_]

Hitler may have been evil, but Stalin still killed more people.

I think it's pretty safe to say that attacking other countries is a shitty thing to do. So far, no one has ever yet made a reasonable, good attack on another country.

The closest thing I can think of was Vietnam invading Cambodia and ousting the Khmer Rogue. Definitely a good thing, although Vietnam was pariah-ed in the international community for it. (Yeah, they destroyed the Khmer Rhouge, and other countries started bitching about how it wasn't fair play. That's politicians caring about basic rights and liberties for ya.) But even then, the KR had been launching little mini attacks on Vietnam for a while--no Pearl Harbors, but enough to provoke a response.

[bludragon]

Fair point. Stalin does hold the record, doesn't he?

Again, fair point about Vietnam. The issue is not that there aren't causes worth fighting for in the world, it's just that military solutions tend to cause many more problems than they cure. Even if you successfully 'liberate' a country, you decimate the country's people and infrastructre, invoke the wrath of other countries, stir up a rebellion, and cause a national tragedy at home.

"War makes monsters of us all", if you will.

[little_e_]

Mao might actually hold the record. I'd have to check, honestly.

Of course, when it comes to percentages, Pol Pot blows them away--nothing like killing off a third of your own country.

Vietnam 'liberating' Cambodia sure beat the hell out of letting the KR rule it...

But when you go into a situation like that, you've got to really sit down and ask yourself if you're going to make those people's lives better. (One of the requirements of the 'just war' doctrine, anyway.) In the case of Vietnam verses the KR, it's pretty hard to be shittier than Pol Pot. This is no doubt a win-win situation for Vietnam and Cambodia.

But when we're talking about countries with a reasonable amount of infrastructure and peace and people going to college and not being massacred in large numbers, then you're completely right that 'liberation' is likely to do more harm than good.

[bludragon]

I think you got it right the first time with Stalin, but you clearly know your world history better than I. I promise to wait until you've verified before I quote you on this. ;-)

BTW see the next comment on my blog after this. Someone made a comment about your comment. (Not a bad one, mind you, so don't worry.)

[nebulablue]

What's news to me is that it was ever in style. I thought it was just geeky weirdos who did this thing called blog. In answer to your question: because I feel like it. (:

The above comments remind me of Eddie Izzard. 'Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people, and we can't even deal with that. We think that if someone kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital and they look at you through a small window forever. And over that, we can't deal with it. You know? If somebody's killed 100 thousand people, we're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100 thousand people?! You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym!"'

[bludragon]

Yep, one death makes you a murderer, 10,000 deaths makes you a conqueror.

Nebula Blue, this is little e. little e, this is Nebula Blue. I have yet to meet either one of you in person, but from the quality of our conversations and the eloquence of your respective journals, I can pretty confidently say you're both quality individuals, even though we are all worlds apart.

Funnily enough, this is precisely why I keep coming back to Livejournal and internet communities-- here you meet people from the inside out. It's typically a while before you get any real impression of what they really look like, but you get to find out all about what a person is like on the inside first. (I met Steapie in person about 5 years after I started talking with her. Hell, for that matter, I first met my wife Sparrow on Friendster.)

That's not to say I don't like IRL meetings and interactions. But it's nice to have non-shallow conversations once in a while. :-)

[little_e_]

Greetings.

I think over a certain amount, you're right, we can't handle it.

Hell, I can't even handle distances over a certain amount. People are like, 'How many feet long is the store?" and I'm like 'I have no idea! I just work there every day!"

We can't put it into any sort of context... 10 people, well, that's like losing all of your friends. 20 people is like your friends + your family (unless you've got a huge family or something.)

More than that, and you're getting beyond people's ability to empathise. it's like, 'Imagine you woke up tomorrow and the entire city were dead."

It's just really hard to do.

[bludragon]

I think it's worth mentioning that Hollywood has come close to giving you a feeling of what that would be like (that is, losing the entire city).

Specifically, "the Omega Man" and "28 Days Later" both come to mind.