The Return

So I'm back, I guess. To be quite honest, I have no idea why I was gone, and how it happened. It just did. Anyway, I thought I'd outline my stance on something I haven't really looked at in-depth here. War.

I'm going to ask you some questions which I'll answer as well. What are your thoughts on these?

1. What are your thoughts on soldiers - heroes or enablers?

2. Is war necessary?

3. What's an ideal alternative?




My thoughts:

1.  I have a mixture of feelings for soldiers - pity and frustration. The thing is, most people don't join the army because they want to kill Arabs or gooks. They do it because they think it's the right thing to do. They want to serve their nation and protect its citizens. And that's a load of bollocks, because war more often than not ends with civilians everywhere being fucked over. Whether it's families disrupted because some poor sod got his legs blown off, or entire villages and cities getting torched or bombed. I don't think it's possible for war to exist and purely be between the armed troops. Thing is though, can you really blame the soldiers that much? That's where my conflicted feelings come into it. I feel sorry for them, because they're fed horse-shit about how they're doing a great service to the nation and how they're helping make the world safe. It's just that - horse-shit. What's war ever achieved that fierce negotiation couldn't have, aside from billions of dollars worth of damage and a shitload of corpses and debris to sweep up? (I speak, of course, with the exception of just war - WWII, for example, probably couldn't have been fixed without physical action). 

At the same time, it's frustrating to see so many people jumping on board with this whole concept. I'll outline the alternative later on, but this ridiculous cycle of war and slight peace can't end until we make that adjustment - stop volunteering to enable it. That said, I reiterate the point that the governments are to blame for misleading the citizens they're supposed to be protecting and serving into dying for them. I mean, look at those fucking recruitment ads. Have you EVER seen a soldier getting a bullet in the eye socket in those ads? They don't show you what you're signing up for. Instead, they take some photos of a bunch of guys with beers in their hands chilling out enjoying life - as though military life is regular life with a nice uniform and more people to socialise with. JOIN THE ARMY - VOTED AUSTRALIA'S #1 SOCIAL NETWORK!

Fuck right off. Check this ad out. Fucking bullshit.


2. No. War is not fucking necessary. I want to put this in perspective by using innocent eyes. Try to cast out of your mind all your knowledge and images of war. Pretend you've never heard the term before. Try your hardest. Or even better, try to type out how you would explain war to a child, without exaggerating or bending anything. Straight up. What would you say? That's the best way to really understand something. Here's my attempt. And God help me if my kid ever asks me what war is, because I don't want to lie, and I don't want to ever tell a kid this either.

War is how governments settle their problems. You know how we always tell you that violence is never the answer? That's not true sometimes. If one country's president has a serious disagreement with another country's president, they each lie and exaggerate to their country's citizens, and convince as many as possible to volunteer to join a team. Then they go and try to kill as many people from the other team as they can. Each of the teams gets a bunch of big guns and bombs, and they do whatever they can to kill the other team, and sometimes even people who didn't want to play. There are rules, but a lot of the time they ignore the rules, and they're only punished for it sometimes.

That's essentially war. A bit biased, I admit. But that's the gist, isn't it? A government's purpose is to protect and serve the community. They're meant to maintain order and stability, and maximise the quality of their citizens' lives.

So isn't it a bit out of order for them to lie and manipulate facts to convince people to offer their lives, and then take another person's from them? Why is it so fucking commonplace to imagine a 20-year-old killing another 20-year-old purely because they've been told to by their governments? The governments are the ones having the problems. Citizens have no connection whatsoever to them. How does it make sense for these citizens to be the ones killing each other over it?

I mean, seriously, think about it simplistically. What purpose could it possibly serve to solve a problem by just getting a bunch of guys to keep killing another bunch of guys? How the fuck does that end up settling official governmental disputes? Is it like chess, where they keep battling and killing each other until one side has no more pieces? Please, enlighten me as to how it helps. "Ah, yes, Mr Obama. I didn't agree with you before, but that attack really opened my eyes. Those 200 of my men dying just persuaded me." Or is it more like, keep going until one side gives in? Which is just plain sick. Using citizens' lives as a means of bargaining. "Do you give up yet, Obama? Or do I need to kill another 300? I'm doing it... Oh, shit, lost 150 in the process. But I have the stronger will. I shall not surrender yet! You there, go kill more of his guys!" "But we'll be slaughtered, sir!" "I SHALL NOT SURRENDER YET! DO IT!" Which leads me to the alternative...


3. I know this sounds stupid. But, if it's actually the case that negotiation just isn't plausible, then why isn't it the governments doing the fighting? Look at the fucking waste of lives, who had no relevance whatsoever to the actual issue at hand. Just pieces of garbage being lobbed at the other side of the table. Wouldn't it make more sense for the people having the disagreement to be the ones fighting it out, instead of the chess pieces they apparently own? Human citizens are not chess pieces. They should not be treated as such because their presidents decide to send them to battle. Especially the case when conscription happens.

I know it sounds ridiculous. But like I've established, wouldn't the current war system sound just as ludicrous to an outsider? Say, an alien? It's like when you think about what it would be like if "lemon" was pronounced "leemon". It only sounds so fucking dumb because we're used to it being "lemon". But if it had always been "leemon", then we'd find the idea of "lemon" to be absurd.

See what I mean? In reality, I think war as it is just doesn't make sense, compared to the idea of the governments themselves fighting each other. If, for example, Obama decided to take action against Vladimir Putin, I think it would be more effective if they fought each other, one-on-one. Sounds too primitive and barbaric, you say? Fine. Let's stick with the current method of thousands of innocent people murdering thousands of other innocent people until someone decides to compromise.


I'm sorry if I sound childish and simplistic. But I believe if everyone held that simplistic view, the world would be a better place. Anyways. I'm bound to be disagreed with, so let's have a discussion.