Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by ElephantStone at 12:33 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 I think this is a little wasted in the other forums, but there's something more to this than 'War is bad'. This is human nature, this is fear, this is love, this is life at its rawest, we live and we die, we discover ourselves and we falter or we triumph. Most importantly, it means nothing and it means everything. In the below video, which is actual combat footage, taken from the camera of the platoon Sergeant's helmet, you will see be shown the death of British Army soldier, Private Chris Gray. You will see the reaction of the men around him as they try to save him, and you will see what the typical combat in Afghanistan is like. The platoon was ambushed by the Taliban, and the Taliban were less than 15 metres away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1otP5KWdI94 And below is the efforts made by the Chinook pilots dispatched to evacuate Chris Gray from the battlefield. There was a medical team in the back who would operate on Chris Gray in an attempt to save his life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACA8wJ6dRWM&feature=related Private Chris Gray was 19, a career soldier. He died in Afghanistan, not a movie. The Real War. Life at its rawest. -- Posted by lisma at 9:03 am on Nov. 2, 2008 death is a horrible thing, but also a very normal one when it is not connected to war. war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 11:37 am on Nov. 3, 2008 Quote: from lisma at 5:03 pm on Nov. 2, 2008 death is a horrible thing, but also a very normal one when it is not connected to war. war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will. I was hoping for a better reply than this. -- Posted by Bacon at 2:57 am on Nov. 4, 2008 We live, we die. We fight, we surrender. We laugh, we cry. Sure they're shocking videos of an untimely death of a young soldier in a very real war, but then.. What kind of reaction or response are you looking for? Are you looking for some kind of "war is bullshit" diatribe or are you looking for something along the lines of "this man died for a noble cause"? Life is hard. We know this, we get this. These videos are a wake-up call for some, but then, some of us already know of the harsh realities of life. And it's not just war or fighting or people dying. It's sickness, it's hopelessness, it's government ignorance. It's poverty, guilt and betrayal of Self. If you want a better reply than what I have offered, you really must ask yourself.. Why?   -- Posted by save the world at 5:05 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 9:33 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 this is love Exaggeration. The notion of war may contain some of the things you've mentioned, but love? Between whom? Soldiers? No, comradeship, friendship at most, but not love. You sound like you glorify war in a way. When I think of war, I wonder about the grave consequence of failure in communication. -- Posted by whoami111 at 8:20 am on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 5:05 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 9:33 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 this is love Exaggeration. The notion of war may contain some of the things you've mentioned, but love? Between whom? Soldiers? No, comradeship, friendship at most, but not love. You sound like you glorify war in a way. When I think of war, I wonder about the grave consequence of failure in communication. Tell me if I'm wrong but wasn't there one war in history/myth started because of jealousy for a woman? I think this is what he meant. -- Posted by save the world at 3:12 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Quote: from whoami111 at 5:20 pm on Nov. 6, 2008 Tell me if I'm wrong but wasn't there one war in history/myth started because of jealousy for a woman? I think this is what he meant. Okay, one mythical example (not to mention that there were other motivations, like simple desire to rule over more territories). In any case, war is serious business. Romanticising it like that doesn't really work in a serious discussion. Again, I disagree with putting 'war' and 'love' into the same bundle. One is about death, the other is about life. They simply don't go together. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 2:35 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 1:05 am on Nov. 5, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 9:33 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 this is love Exaggeration. The notion of war may contain some of the things you've mentioned, but love? Between whom? Soldiers? No, comradeship, friendship at most, but not love. You sound like you glorify war in a way. When I think of war, I wonder about the grave consequence of failure in communication. But there is love between men in a combat situation. Im telling you, from what Ive read and who Ive talked to. The bond developed is something else and nothing less of love, because what drove Hans in 'The Forgotten Soldier' to walk through a russian town as german forces are retreating to look for Guy. Or why have soldiers sacrificed themseleves for the lives of the rest of their squad. There are millions of examples of love in war. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 2:36 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from Bacon at 10:57 am on Nov. 4, 2008 We live, we die. We fight, we surrender. We laugh, we cry. Sure they're shocking videos of an untimely death of a young soldier in a very real war, but then.. What kind of reaction or response are you looking for? Are you looking for some kind of "war is bullshit" diatribe or are you looking for something along the lines of "this man died for a noble cause"? Life is hard. We know this, we get this. These videos are a wake-up call for some, but then, some of us already know of the harsh realities of life. And it's not just war or fighting or people dying. It's sickness, it's hopelessness, it's government ignorance. It's poverty, guilt and betrayal of Self. If you want a better reply than what I have offered, you really must ask yourself.. Why? No I think you hit the nail on the head there. -- Posted by mountain hare at 7:33 pm on Nov. 9, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 5:05 pm on Nov. 4, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 9:33 pm on Nov. 1, 2008 this is love Exaggeration. The notion of war may contain some of the things you've mentioned, but love? Between whom? Soldiers? No, comradeship, friendship at most, but not love. You sound like you glorify war in a way. When I think of war, I wonder about the grave consequence of failure in communication. Violence is a method of communication! How does that saying go: Actions speak louder than words. Well, nothing speaks louder than a bullet to the head! -- Posted by save the world at 12:54 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 4:33 am on Nov. 10, 2008 Violence is a method of communication! How does that saying go: Actions speak louder than words. Well, nothing speaks louder than a bullet to the head! It's a one-way communication, therefore a failure. Not to mention unproductive. It arises from the inability to reach a compromise. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 1:18 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 8:54 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 It's a one-way communication, therefore a failure. Not to mention unproductive. It arises from the inability to reach a compromise. How is it a failure though, in the sense of the OP. Is Chris Gray's death a failure? Are the men around him failures? Is this moment in time, this view of 'life' a failure? -- Posted by save the world at 3:37 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 At first I meant war to be the result of a failure in communication, then violence (for similar reasons, explained in my previous post). But if you ask, the man's death is a failure in a sense. The failure of others in peacefully solving whatever conflict brought the soldier's life to an end. His, or his government's, failure in choosing to go or being made to go to war. And finally, the part of human nature that makes us aggressive beings and the inability to overcome it is a failure. As to Is this moment in time, this view of 'life' a failure? , I don't know what you mean. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:44 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 11:37 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 At first I meant war to be the result of a failure in communication, then violence (for similar reasons, explained in my previous post). But if you ask, the man's death is a failure in a sense. The failure of others in peacefully solving whatever conflict brought the soldier's life to an end. His, or his government's, failure in choosing to go or being made to go to war. And finally, the part of human nature that makes us aggressive beings and the inability to overcome it is a failure. As to Is this moment in time, this view of 'life' a failure? , I don't know what you mean. What Im saying is that the lives we lead are so sheltered, our mind is so distorted in what life is like, should be. And then this, this happens. This conflict, these thoughts running through human minds the moment Chris Gray hit the ground, those feelings, those efforts, theyve been shared by all our human ancestors in one form or another. And seeing it, feeling it like they do, knocks everything into perspective. But youre only looking at the war and seeing things in a modern sense, or the way society makes you see it. -- Posted by save the world at 3:54 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 It comes down to that I don't think there's value in war. Do you disagree? -- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:55 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 11:54 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 It comes down to that I don't think there's value in war. Do you disagree? Thats not the discussion. -- Posted by save the world at 4:06 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Then what was the thought behind this topic back when you created it? I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives. And I argued that it's no big loss. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 4:08 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 12:06 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Then what was the thought behind this topic back when you created it? I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives. And I argued that it's no big loss. maybe. But your last question led away from that none the less. I mean unless you want me to repeat myself, read the op and my replies. -- Posted by save the world at 4:19 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Your posts don't give me 100% certainty as to what you originally meant. I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives. That's how I understand them. If I'm correct, then I believe that whether there's value or not in war is a very relevant question, since why would you feel like you missed out on something if war had no value? -- Posted by ElephantStone at 4:24 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 12:19 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Your posts don't give me 100% certainty as to what you originally meant. I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives. That's how I understand them. If I'm correct, then I believe that whether there's value or not in war is a very relevant question, since why would you feel like you missed out on something if war had no value? But youre talking about war as a whole, politically. Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life. -- Posted by mountain hare at 8:48 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 It's a one-way communication, therefore a failure. That sounds like nancy pansy bullshit you'd learn in a Philosophy crash course at Community College. For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate. Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication. Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication. Simply because these simple facts offend your tender sensibilities does not mean that they are rendered invalid. Not to mention unproductive.   Says who? You? You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully. Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'.   The Indonesians also found that violence against the imperialistic Dutch was rather productive. The Allies found it productive to employ violence against the Japanese.   And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour? It arises from the inability to reach a compromise. So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication? -- Posted by mountain hare at 8:55 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 3:37 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 At first I meant war to be the result of a failure in communication, then violence (for similar reasons, explained in my previous post). But if you ask, the man's death is a failure in a sense. The failure of others in peacefully solving whatever conflict brought the soldier's life to an end. His, or his government's, failure in choosing to go or being made to go to war. And finally, the part of human nature that makes us aggressive beings and the inability to overcome it is a failure. As to Is this moment in time, this view of 'life' a failure? , I don't know what you mean. So you hate human beings for being capable of violence. In order to remain consistent, you should hate all of nature, since almost all organisms employ violence against another in order to survive or obtain territory/resources/status. In a world of limited resources and land, violence is sometimes desirable, nay, inevitable. The existence of violent tendencies in humans is not evidence of some sort of 'failure', but more along the lines of a survival mechanism that triggers during appropriate times in successful and competent organisms. You see this behaviour all the time in mammals, when resources become scarce their is inter-species killing. If human beings acted according to instinct, instead of forming abnormal social constructs that promote international peace and conspiracy against mother earth, then they would be killing each other more often. Which would mean fewer humans, which would result in far less damage to the environment and biodiversity. -- Posted by save the world at 9:27 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 1:24 am on Nov. 11, 2008 But youre talking about war as a whole, politically. Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life. Hmm... I think the reason for the misunderstanding was that I imagined there was a hidden message behind your words, like an additional conclusion of what you've said, whereas you simply wanted to point out that being in war brings unique experiences. Roughly speaking, is that right? -- Posted by ElephantStone at 9:30 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 5:27 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 1:24 am on Nov. 11, 2008 But youre talking about war as a whole, politically.    Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life. Hmm... I think the reason for the misunderstanding was that I imagined there was a hidden message behind your words, like an additional conclusion of what you've said, whereas you simply wanted to point out that being in war brings unique experiences. Roughly speaking, is that right? No. Omg read the op again. I said theres more to this than there is, or something along those lines. -- Posted by save the world at 9:42 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 5:48 am on Nov. 11, 2008 For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate. I didn't say that. I only stated that one-way communication in case of a bullet in the head was a failure (since it isn't an exchange of ideas, but an enforcement of ideas of one party). Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication. I didn't say it didn't. Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication. Subjective. Says who? You? No, my alter ego. Duh. You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully. I guess that would in turn make you a gangsta stepping over still-warm corpses of inferior gangstas? Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'. I didn't say there weren't situations in which one simply had to resort to violence, but don't forget that along 'producing' the effect of, say, getting rid of a bully, you add to the combined amount of violence in the world. This may sound a bit silly - in other words, violence is an ongoing chain reaction - whatever you put into it, you can be quite sure it'll pop up somewhere else. This shouldn't be ignored. And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour? We don't live in the Stone Age any more. Give the man a rod and teach him how to use it. (By the way, are you a troll? The above statement, in its stupidity, reeks of a troll.) So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication? Again, I was merely referring to the bullet example you provided. -- Posted by Heavenly Eve at 9:47 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from lisma at 12:03 pm on Nov. 2, 2008 war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will. Funny the way you put it... War is about profit. Or gain. Also funny how every complains about the war in iraq but complains even more about the high gas prices... Operation Iraqi Liberation O.I.L. surely you see the irony. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 9:53 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from Heavenly Eve at 5:47 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from lisma at 12:03 pm on Nov. 2, 2008  war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will. Funny the way you put it... War is about profit. Or gain. Also funny how every complains about the war in iraq but complains even more about the high gas prices... Operation Iraqi Liberation O.I.L. surely you see the irony. You know Chris Gray died in Afghanistan, right? -- Posted by ElephantStone at 9:57 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 5:42 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 5:48 am on Nov. 11, 2008 For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate. I didn't say that. I only stated that one-way communication in case of a bullet in the head was a failure (since it isn't an exchange of ideas, but an enforcement of ideas of one party). Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication. I didn't say it didn't. Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication. Subjective. Says who? You? No, my alter ego. Duh. You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully. I guess that would in turn make you a gangsta stepping over still-warm corpses of inferior gangstas? Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'. I didn't say there weren't situations in which one simply had to resort to violence, but don't forget that along 'producing' the effect of, say, getting rid of a bully, you add to the combined amount of violence in the world. This may sound a bit silly - in other words, violence is an ongoing chain reaction - whatever you put into it, you can be quite sure it'll pop up somewhere else. This shouldn't be ignored. And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour? We don't live in the Stone Age any more. Give the man a rod and teach him how to use it. (By the way, are you a troll? The above statement, in its stupidity, reeks of a troll.) So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication? Again, I was merely referring to the bullet example you provided. You seem to be throwing out all sorts of statements and approaching this topic in a very unorthodox way, seemingly in an attempt to disprove war in general and the emotions and feelings resulted from it, in an attempt to be right, or prove modern society's thoughts or values of war, when they just dont apply in reality. Step down when youre wrong, and I dont entirely sypport everyhting from the person you are quoting. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 9:59 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from Save the world at 5:42 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 5:48 am on Nov. 11, 2008 For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate. I didn't say that. I only stated that one-way communication in case of a bullet in the head was a failure (since it isn't an exchange of ideas, but an enforcement of ideas of one party). Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication. I didn't say it didn't. Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication. Subjective. Says who? You? No, my alter ego. Duh. You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully. I guess that would in turn make you a gangsta stepping over still-warm corpses of inferior gangstas? Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'. I didn't say there weren't situations in which one simply had to resort to violence, but don't forget that along 'producing' the effect of, say, getting rid of a bully, you add to the combined amount of violence in the world. This may sound a bit silly - in other words, violence is an ongoing chain reaction - whatever you put into it, you can be quite sure it'll pop up somewhere else. This shouldn't be ignored. And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour? We don't live in the Stone Age any more. Give the man a rod and teach him how to use it. (By the way, are you a troll? The above statement, in its stupidity, reeks of a troll.) So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication? Again, I was merely referring to the bullet example you provided. You seem to be throwing out all sorts of statements and approaching this topic in a very unorthodox way, seemingly in an attempt to disprove war in general and the emotions and feelings resulted from it, in an attempt to be right, or prove modern society's thoughts or values of war, when they just dont apply in reality. Step down when youre wrong, and I dont entirely sypport everyhting from the person you are quoting. -- Posted by save the world at 10:02 am on Nov. 11, 2008 Quote: from mountain hare at 5:55 am on Nov. 11, 2008 So you hate human beings for being capable of violence. Please stick to what I actually said, not what you thought up. The existence of violent tendencies in humans is not evidence of some sort of 'failure', but more along the lines of a survival mechanism that triggers during appropriate times in successful and competent organisms. Yes, but now we have developed brains to solve problems. Muscles shouldn't be needed any more. If human beings acted according to instinct, instead of forming abnormal social constructs that promote international peace and conspiracy against mother earth, then they would be killing each other more often. Which would mean fewer humans, which would result in far less damage to the environment and biodiversity. Then your suggestion is to basically go back to our roots as the solution to the planet's problems? Mine is to go forward - find out and pinpoint the deep down causes of humanity's and planet's issues and address them directly. It would evidently require lots of thinking, but hell, we've got developed brains. Both suggestions are revolutionary and it's unlikely they'll come to be in the near future, so I suppose we can drop the subject. Pages: 1 2  Next