Jump to content

Futility and Death


IceCold
 Share

Recommended Posts

Futility and Death

Why do individuals risk their lives in war and what force can drive such a wedge into our humanity as to allow the incessant slaughter of others? The testimony of battlefield veterans does not reflect a political ideology but a felling of brotherhood among their fellow soldiers. Soldiers fight not for their country but for, “the men beside them,” and the opposition is viewed as alien. Psychoanalysis allows a view into the collective conscious of a group of soldiers. The mind has formed a community around the combatants and therefore invokes the self-protection instinct of the ID to protect the group. In a sense, the mind limits humanity to just the soldier as his comrades. This demotes the opposition to a sub-human state where the soldier can successfully engage and destroy them at close range, aka. Face to Face. One can fell the pain of another human as see the life drain out of him as he lies, bleeding, on the ground. This empathy has been suppressed by the soldiers in order for them to survive this ordeal with their sanity. This approach of psychological division is prevalent in militaries of developed (Western) countries who have been raised in life and educated in wisdom. The western culture has evolved to become able to restrain itself in the use of terrible weapons. Restraint in war is demonstrated and resistance to war is prevalent. The developing countries do not have the luxury of such an evolved culture. These primitive nations have been given too much destructive power too quickly for surplus Russian weapons are freely available in these areas. This culture is not ready for the influx for new technology and begins to fight amongst itself to prove their prowess with their new weapons. Such countries divide the world into “us” and “them” where the group is superior to all. When a hostile from this culture kills a western soldier he does not view him as human but as one of “them,” a member of an oppressive culture bent on the destruction of all others. I cannot cope with the though of an age of hatred befalling mankind. Cultures are pitted against each other in a mounting winner takes all conflict. The empathy I feel with the senseless death and murder is overpowering. If humanity continues on this evolutionary course part will advance to great things while the remainder will destroy itself thereby bringing blight upon the former. We are in a time of choice where all can choose between life and death, prosperity or pestilence; we must choose wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats nice. Your points are valid, but you provide no revelations, because every person here can point out socialogical problems. Until you can provide solutions, please shorten your reteric or don't complain at all.

[ 06-18-2002, 05:33: Message edited by: antaren4279 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good warning.

Perhaps bringing these countries into a world community where their input means something and can effect change could limit the violence.

I don't think I agree with all of the above. Soldiers do fight for themselves and dehumanizing the enemy is key in instilling the idea that killing is ok. There is an inherent block in the human mind when it comes to killing another human. Training techniques and buffers i.e. thermal scopes...weapons HUD etc seek to buffer the killer from the killed and increases efficiency and resistance. Read "On Killing" Grossman sp? a very interesting book on the psychology of killing on a couple different levels and what it can mean to society.

He also puts out that the only thing the military is after when conditioning a solider is getting them to kill. The only thing that will save a soldierÔÇÖs sanity (for the most part) is that the killing was authorized. So when given a lawful order from an accepted authority it's ok. Also, how society treats those soldiers when they return from duty is another huge factor. Look at post Vietnam soldier with serious emotional problems as compared to any other war and this becomes clear. Shell shock type damage aside.

And when you say developing countries culture impacts violence levels I would agree. However the leadership is usually the key problem. Most people don't want to go to war. However barbaric tribal systems are different. When killing people is an everyday thing type o' deal.

However I believe that Muslims are way past this. However dictatorship type government is a serious problem to peace and forward progress. And after that we have to deal with economic freedom as well. As long as one culture holds all the cards and forces its will on others it will be a target. Bottom line. When dealing with personnel prepared to strap an explosive device on themselves to further their beliefs something is very wrong..we see it all through history.those who are prepared to sacrifice the most often succeed the most.

[ 06-18-2002, 09:07: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there are no solutions to this dilemma. One could think of it as an eternal test of our humanity. I spent the night trying to come up with an epiphany but my progress is limited. The only realization I had was the importance of prejudice.

It seems when one culture divides itself from another they will begin to vie with the latter for power or to prove their superiority. Nazi Germany creation and ensuing war is illustrates a cultural split and the hostility accompanied by their division. The world as a whole must respect all other cultures for when any culture divides, the vicious cycle continues.

It should be noted that every terrorist movement, acting on behalf of a nation state, has had its demands satisfied in part or in full. There are two types of terrorism in the world today, one tied to a nation state and one rouge. Palestine and the PLO are of the nation state class and they will create a nation for themselves if history is repeated. The other types are the freelance terrorists, the rouges, who fight for an ideal on the sole purpose of destroying the culture of the opposition. Carlos the Jackal and Osoma Bin Landen are examples of this type. History shows that this class can never succeed unless the opposing culture is under the rule of a government friendly with the terrorists aka. mass genocide. Without this factor the rouge class will fail for Carlos is languishing in a French prison and Bin Laden is ruined.

The primary issue in my previous passage was choice. All humanity can choose their actions independent of external influences. Governments choose to commit their nations to war however many do not understand the meaning of this step. Collective memory retains events for approximately 20 years, most recall an event took place however the importance of the happening is lost to them. Vietnam was a war where all the wrong cards were showing. The existing culture was fighting for independence which increased their devotion and the mass killing of World War II had faded from memory so neither the government nor the people understood the cost of war. The lack of respect for the Vietnamese culture prompted the United States to replace the French in the fight in Vietnam. The result was terrible loss, death, and suffering on both sides for nothing. The Vietnamese united their country and the Unites States was defeated. It is just as it would have been if the US had not attempted to attack a foreign culture and the cost is all the KIAs and MIAs on both sides.

Answers? I do not have answers. For man will always vie for power and whenever one culture separates itself to achieve this goal, war will result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...