The West and Cowardice

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@rjung

Maybe because the rest of “global society” realizes that warfare is not a trivial matter, involving as it does the catastrophic destruction of both people and property, and should be undertaken only as a last resort, instead of at the mere whims of today’s political trends du jour?

Sure. Like in the Ivory Coast. Or perhaps World War I …

Oh, heck. I’m sure we could quote European wars and atrocities all day. You get the point. European nations are just as guilty of using wars to advance their own interests as the US. To the extent they don’t do so today, it’s largely because they can’t project their military power with as much ease as they could in the past.

@rjung

One thing Western Europe has over the United States is years of experience; . . . .

Sorry, but I don’t see how this makes any sense.

I suspect you’re talking about the fact that the French, British, German, etc., governments have been around longer than the US government. But so what? Governments are made up of the individuals that run them. Jacque Chirac’s knowledge of what happened in France before 1776 is based on what he learned from books, school, etc. Just like George Bush and Bill Clinton. The French don’t have some body of knowledge that’s not equally available to Americans simply because the French’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents lived through it.

And even if Jung’s theories of social consciousness could somehow be applied to political lessons (or were true), where do you suppose the white dudes who started America came from? They didn’t spring wholly from the thin American air. They came largely from Western Europe, where their forefathers had the same experiences of the other Western Europeans you’re speaking of. They were members of these Western European governments, and therefore have just as much experience as the folks you’re touting here.

Moreover, if the political age of a country is such an important factor in determining whether their opinions are valid, then why aren’t you touting China, or Egypt, or the Iroquois? Haven’t they been around just as long – or longer – than many Western European governments?

[Ms2001]

@Age Quod Agis

I suspect you’re talking about the fact that the French, British, German, etc., governments have been around longer than the US government. But so what? Governments are made up of the individuals that run them. Jacque Chirac’s knowledge of what happened in France before 1776 is based on what he learned from books, school, etc. Just like George Bush and Bill Clinton. The French don’t have some body of knowledge that’s not equally available to Americans simply because the French’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents lived through it.

Well, rjung can explain for himself, but I read it as “years of first-hand experience with war”. War in Europe has not been something that happens on TV screens and newspapers, but in their own back yards. On the other hand, no one here has memories of the United States being invaded or occupied.

[rjung]

@Age Quod Agis

The French don’t have some body of knowledge that’s not equally available to Americans simply because the French’s great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents lived through it.

To dismiss past wars as simply words in a textbook is to grossly oversimplify the issue, methinks – the US of A is still affected by the aftermath of the Civil War, to pull one example. Similarly, the effects of French colonialism are still felt in France today, most notably w/r/t the Palestinians. And I can’t imagine a typical German citizen shrugging off the two World Wars as “no big deal”…

[Zoe]

The “Coalition of the Willing” needs to explore non-violent, non-military solutions to some of the problems which are destroying entire countries and perhaps even an entire continent.

The real cowardice is the refusal to look at any humanitarian crisis long enough to make ourselves vulnerable to giving a damn.

We Are All the Same by Jim Wooten finally got my attention.

[spingears]

@rjung

Maybe because the rest of “global society” realizes that warfare is not a trivial matter, involving as it does the catastrophic destruction of both people and property, and should be undertaken only as a last resort, instead of at the mere whims of today’s political trends du jour?

Global society doesn’t realize the magnitude and determination, nor the whys therof, of the present terronr war against western thought and values.

One thing Western Europe has over the United States is years of experience; we’d do well to heed them from time to time, instead of condescendingly dismissing them as “Old Europe” and “irrelevant.” The arrogance of youth is tampered by the hindsight of age, and all that.

Western Europe certainly didn’t learn from WWI, repeated the mistake in & prior to WWII, and have left the job to the US for the third time.

[rjung]

@PinGear

Global society doesn’t realize the magnitude and determination, nor the whys therof, of the present terronr war against western thought and values.

Oh, I didn’t realize that “terrorism” was a euphemism for “George W. Bush’s Burden.” :rolleyes:

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Mr2001

War in Europe has not been something that happens on TV screens and newspapers, but in their own back yards. On the other hand, no one here has memories of the United States being invaded or occupied.

If having your country ravaged by war makes for good political decision-making, then wouldn’t Israel, Palestine, Bosnia, and Rwanda be the excellent examples that we should follow? After all, they’re living with the ravages of war right now. Why only Western Europe? Even if we’re just talking about WWII, why are Russia, Japan, Poland, etc. being left out?

I suspect that the reason rjung prefers that we listen more to Western Europe is because he prefers the conclusions arrived at in Western Europe. I doubt that anyone would suggest that France’s experience with war is somehow more compelling than Poland’s or Russia’s. The fact that we’ve all arrived at different conclusions suggests to me that the experience being cited as so vital can actually lead to varied, valid conclusions.

@rjung

To dismiss past wars as simply words in a textbook is to grossly oversimplify the issue, methinks – the US of A is still affected by the aftermath of the Civil War, to pull one example.

A fair point. But it’s also an oversimplification to suggest that the US doesn’t understand the effects of war because we haven’t been invaded or occupied since WWII (and then only in relatively small doses – Pearl Harbor, industrial sabotage, etc). According to this cite, over 20 million Americans fought in the two world wars, resulting in over 500,000 American deaths and nearly 900,000 non-fatal woundings. The American soldiers, pilots, sailors, and marines from the world wars are certainly not under the impression that wars are something that’s fought on tv or in textbooks. I strongly suspect that the American soldiers that have fought in wars all over the globe have a pretty good understanding and respect for the effects of their actions. I seriously doubt that Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Condaleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, etc., don’t realize that wars have real effects on real people. And as a person whose family has a long military history – including friends and family that are in the military right now – I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding that wars have real life consequences.

To me, the realization that wars have a terrible impact on the civilains where they’re fought is pretty self evident, and should be realized by everybody with active brainwaves. Maybe I’m giving people too much credit, but I don’t think so.

I respect the fact that the experience of those living with the wars in their backyards will be different then mine, but I fail to see how that difference means that I have to defer to their conclusions. Again, the fact that people with similar experiences have arrived at vastly different conclusions leads me to believe that having been (more) recently invaded and occupied does not open the door to some hidden revelations not available to me.

@rjung

Similarly, the effects of French colonialism are still felt in France today, most notably w/r/t the Palestinians.

It sounds a little like you’re saying that we should listen more to these countries because have longer histories of screwing up than us. The US has certainly had its own hand in fanning the flames that have given rise to the current bonfires raging in Palestine. Plus, we have our own experiences with neo-colonialism in the Americas. Why are our experiences chopped liver when compared with the French/German/other Western Europeans?

@rjung

And I can’t imagine a typical German citizen shrugging off the two World Wars as “no big deal”…

I think Americans are no more likely than Germans to dismiss those two world wars as “no big deal.” Again, maybe I’m giving the average American too much credit, but I don’t think so.

[Ms2001]

@Age Quod Agis

The American soldiers, pilots, sailors, and marines from the world wars are certainly not under the impression that wars are something that’s fought on tv or in textbooks. I strongly suspect that the American soldiers that have fought in wars all over the globe have a pretty good understanding and respect for the effects of their actions.

However, the electorate that supports our current crop of leaders and their policies is mostly composed of people who have not fought in wars all over the globe.

I seriously doubt that Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Condaleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, etc., don’t realize that wars have real effects on real people.

There’s a difference between understanding something logically or from reports, and knowing it to be true from your own experience.

And as a person whose family has a long military history – including friends and family that are in the military right now – I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding that wars have real life consequences.

Better than the average American voter, wouldn’t you think?

[rjung]

@Age Quod Agis

I suspect that the reason rjung prefers that we listen more to Western Europe is because he prefers the conclusions arrived at in Western Europe.

I can’t imagine why listening to advice from your friends is a bad thing. But then, I’m not a Republican.

@Age Quod Agis

Why are our experiences chopped liver when compared with the French/German/other Western Europeans?

Because, as you’ve said, they’ve done it longer and have more experience in screwing up (and ways to avoid it).

Remember when you were a teenager and thought you had the world figured out? How you didn’t need to listen to your parents because you were so much smarter than they were? That’s the US right now.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Mr2001

However, the electorate that supports our current crop of leaders and their policies is mostly composed of people who have not fought in wars all over the globe.

But most of those that have fought in the wars all over the globe tend to vote in favor of our current crop of leaders. According to this MSNBC article:

@MSNBC

A poll conducted late last year by the Military Times found that 57 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republican, while 13 percent identified with the Democrats. Among the officer corps the numbers were different. Nearly 66 percent of officers considered themselves Republican compared with 9 percent Democratic.

That suggests that the folks with the knowledge and experience you’re speaking of agree with our current crop of leaders.

@Mr2001

There’s a difference between understanding something logically or from reports, and knowing it to be true from your own experience.

OK. But why does that experience make them better able to judge? My doctor may have never suffered a broken leg, but I’m going to take his advice over some guy off the street who has broken his leg multiple times.

@Mr2001

Better than the average American voter, wouldn’t you think?

No, I don’t. Again, maybe I’m wrong, but I think most Americans appreciate that we’re dealing with real peope here.

[Ms2001]

@Age Quod Agis

But most of those that have fought in the wars all over the globe tend to vote in favor of our current crop of leaders.

Note that those are people who volunteered to go kick ass elsewhere in the world. One can expect them to have a different view of war than folks who were just sitting at home when the bombs started dropping.

OK. But why does that experience make them better able to judge? My doctor may have never suffered a broken leg, but I’m going to take his advice over some guy off the street who has broken his leg multiple times.

If I’m trying to find out whether a broken leg is painful and whether I should avoid doing something that’s going to cause a lot of broken legs, I’d rather listen to the guy who has actually broken his leg.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@rjung

I can’t imagine why listening to advice from your friends is a bad thing.

Nor can I. But I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that we’re not listening to them at all. We’ve just chosen not to take their advice over our own opinions, as well as the opinions of others with similar experiences (for example, Poland).

@rjung

Because, as you’ve said, they’ve done it longer and have more experience in screwing up (and ways to avoid it).

Which in no way suggests that they’ve arrived at the correct answer yet.

Once again, countries with very similar experiences have arrived at vastly different conclusions. That suggests that their experiences have not resulted in some secret knowledge, incapable of being imparted to others, that makes them better able to deal with these events.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@Mr2001

Note that those are people who volunteered to go kick ass elsewhere in the world. One can expect them to have a different view of war than folks who were just sitting at home when the bombs started dropping.

So now the military does not understand the effects of their actions? This seems significantly different from the tenor of your previous answer, but ok.

I guess this also applies to the French government, doesn’t it? Because the French government has shown an affinity for ass kicking in other parts of the world. So we can safely discard their opinions. The only opinions that matter are the civilians that have had bombs showered down around them.

But here’s the thing – there’s no magical knowledge that’s imparted merely by the act of being bombed. Otherwise, you’d have to explain why so many different civilians with so many similar experiences have arrived at so many different conclusions. Not to mention that you’d have to explain why this knowledge is more valuable than the knowledge of the ass kickers in the military.

@Mr2001

If I’m trying to find out whether a broken leg is painful and whether I should avoid doing something that’s going to cause a lot of broken legs, I’d rather listen to the guy who has actually broken his leg.

Fine. I disagree with your assumption that a doctor couldn’t tell you that a broken leg is painful, and that you want to avoid breaking your leg. But even if I accept your position arguendo, if you want to know how to treat a broken leg, and if you want to know how to avoid breaking your leg, and if you want to know how much pressure your leg can stand before breaking, then you go to the doctor.