Would you go to war?

[WIN 52]

West Ukraine is a good example of what happens when people have run out of options. They have found a strength that many can only imagine. The strength to stand and push back. Surely it is not without cost and yet, at some level, karma may find some balance therein, as likely was a choice made for the current round into the fray.

 

[Joe]

If someone doesn't know what war is like, and seeks the experience, then they would probably go to get that experience, and there's a good chance it would be their last. For someone who knows what war is, what it is for, and who has an aim to stay alive and be useful to the universe, then they would probably not go, and find a way not to go.

I would like to think that most members of this forum have seen enough of the reality of war (if only from a distance), what purpose it serves and who organizes it, to decide against it. Then again, some might have a 'higher calling' for the experience of killing and being killed.

 

[loreta]

War is always a lie, is destruction, violence, sadism, canon fodder, the continuity of ignorance, traumas that will perdure for generations. The face of war is very ugly.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Lux i agree that man without training behaves selfishly in disaster so as to survive. But i think that having awareness and knowledge in the aspect of esoteric principles. These enable us to act and respond in a different way than the person without training.

Yes it is. There are different paths. From good teacher or organization, who is really concerned about safety of people can get good training in proper behavior and attitudes in an emergency. War in, I would say, 99% are initiated by 'dark forces' and soldiers etc are trained to be machines to killing. But also there are people who learn and teach skills to defend self and others. Practical, physical training (appropriate reflexes and habits) is just as important as the spiritual.

 

[Tomiro]

I've read a few statements that during wars, the majority of soldiers would not aim to fire at the enemy in order to kill, but instead miss on purpose. It make sense that normal human beings would be averse to kill each other even under extreme circumstances. Although the exception seems to be when leaders are present and directly commanding the soldiers. A similar effect that has been demonstrated by the Milgram experiment.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

Marshall's work on infantry combat effectiveness in World War II, titled Men Against Fire, is his best-known and most controversial work. In the book, Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat. Marshall argued that the Army should devote significant training resources to increasing the percentage of soldiers willing to engage the enemy with direct fire.

Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door:

Studies of combat activity during the Napoleonic and Civil Wars revealed striking statistics. Given the ability of the men, their proximity to the enemy, and the capacity of their weapons, the number of enemy soldiers hit should have been well over 50 percent, resulting in a killing rate of hundreds per minute. Instead, however, the hit rate was only one o two per minute. And a similar phenomenon occurred during World War I: according to British Lieutenant George Roupell, the only way he could get his men to stop firing into the air was by drawing his sword, walking down the trench, "beating [them] on the backside and ... telling them to fire low". World War II fire rates were also remarkably low: historian and US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall reported that, during battle, the firing rate was a mere 15 to 20 percent; in other words, out of every hundred men engaged in a firefight, only fifteen to twenty actually used their weapons. And in Vietnam, for every enemy soldiers killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired.

Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in war and Society

What these studies have taught the military is that in order to get soldiers to shoot to kill, to actively participate in violence, the soldiers must be sufficiently desensitized to the act of killing. In other words, they have to learn not to feel -- and not to feel responsible -- for their actions. They must be taught to override their own conscience. yet these studies also demonstrate that even in the face of immediate danger, in situations of extreme violence, most people are averse to killing. In other words, as Marshall concludes, "the vast majority of combatants throughout history, at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy, have found themselves to be 'conscientious objectors'".

 

[Mikey]

Thanks for this info, Tomiro! I remember reading somewhere (don't remember where any more) that many soldiers on the battlefield don't die from artillery and bullets but just drop dead from stress and other environmental conditions (cold, thirst, hunger, infections etc.)

 

[casper]

Loud and clear once again, never again!

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

War is always a lie, is destruction, violence, sadism, canon fodder, the continuity of ignorance, traumas that will perdure for generations. The face of war is very ugly.

This is absolutely true. My rhetorical question was a bit silly.

 

[Argo]

But shouldn't people defend themselves if the situation is like in eastern Ukraine for example? One can not always move out.
Seems to me the discussion here mostly stems from the classical view of War, ie two (or more) aggressors terrorizing each other for whatever contrived reason. Should I join aggressor A or aggressor B? If that is the case the choice is easy, stay out of it, in total, if it's possible.
However, attack and defense are two different things.

I agree , there is a big difference whether it is a war of aggression or self-defense.

When someone wants to occupy your land, house and family, I think maybe there is no choice. Even if it is much stronger force than you have. Occupation is nasty stuff and there is no guarantee that the occupiers will not kill your family and burn down your house. The fact is that any occupation undermines our freedom.

There is a Serbian proverb that perfectly describes this: Better grave than slave. (Bolje grob nego rob)

If someone doesn't know what war is like, and seeks the experience, then they would probably go to get that experience, and there's a good chance it would be their last. For someone who knows what war is, what it is for, and who has an aim to stay alive and be useful to the universe, then they would probably not go, and find a way not to go.

Exactly. I know of several cases where people have refused to participate in the ex-Yugoslav war. And they found a way. For some, it took a lot of effort and energy to it, but they still managed to avoid war. The point is that they simply did not want to go to war, and were persistent in it.

 

[liam1310]

war is never the answer killing others is never the answer that's what the psychopaths want war destruction devastation its what they do best
and who comes out on top? it inst the people that's for sure.

 

[Renaissance]

When I was in high school I joined JROTC, which is an American youth indoctrination program for the military. I remember joining because it offered camping activities and physical fitness training which I was into at the time. Throughout most of high school I didn't consider actually considered joining the military, however that changed when I was began facing graduation. I didn't know what I wanted to do, and eventually I caved and applied for a ROTC scholarship, which trains military officers in college. I also applied to West Point since it was in the area. Thankfully the competition was extremely high and I wasn't accepted.

But I did get a scholarship, which I did accept. I think a lot of kids are pushed into this simply because it offers a concrete 'career', money for school, etc. Still, even though I took the scholarship, I was still pretty conflicted about the reality hanging over me of the possibility of having to go to war. I couldn't see myself fighting, killing or being killed for politicians. I didn't know much about politics then, but I did know that. I also remember a friend of mine saying how the US has been going to war every 10 years or so, and that would mean that by the time we graduated college, that we would be at war. Interestly enough, my college graduation time was in 2004, a year after the Iraq invasion.

I started college with the scholarship and after the first semester I had to sign an agreement where I would be bound to military service for 8 years after graduation. There was a curious things I noticed about the program - certain odd personalities that I remembered in high school who were also participating in the officer training. I didn't particularly want to be around these types for my foreseeable future, and the possibility of having to go to war was still on my mind. I turned the scholarship down just days before I had to sign. I didn't expect to feel the elation upon doing so, but it was close to euphoric. I think whatever part of me that was real, was pretty happy. I think this was also a turning point for me because up to that point I had always tried to do what 'mentors' expected me to do. It was a decision that was for me, and I really began to explore life after that.

About a year after that I found Laura's work, which literally opened up a whole new world. It was as frightening as it was incredible. It felt like a switch was turned on and yearning for truth, curiosity and life was awakened. I've still got a lot of work to do, but I'll always be thankful for that gift.

 

[Al Today]

I think: I would do what I can to defend my family. Many would say defend their home, but what is that stick building? Home is where the heart is. A place to live can be built, rebuilt and is nothing but a material structure. Holding onto, keeping family, loved ones safe, is quite another story.

My sad observation is we all have been lied to. Programming seems to begin at birth. Lies surround us, are practically hammered into our being and 'tis very hard to break this programming, get our brains to objectively view what is truly around us.

On this world we live in, methinks nobody can "win" a debate of the merits of war. Firstly, we should protect and defend ourselves from harm. Secondly (and this also is debatable), secondly we can/should/would protect our loved ones. Thirdly, we would desire to protect our way of life. But ultimately, murder is murder. Even be it an ant on the sidewalk...

I so very much appreciate the comfort I have around me. I cry for the world, those who do not enjoy the comfort and safety I enjoy on a daily basis. For myself, I believe I have no right to even comment on the merits of war. What I do think is that I really don't know how I would I react, what will I do when terror knocks on my door.

I can prepare with storage of food, water, guns, bullets, arrows, sticks and stones, attitude and metal awareness. BUT as I said, what I ask myself is: What will I do if or When terror knocks on my door of comfort and safety here in the heartland of America?

Side note: I am a child of the late 60's. I well remember the Vietnam war, the draft, the nightly news reporting of counting of the dead. I remember the protests, burning of draft cards, but SO WHAT !

That was then and this is now. Different times, different world.
I apologize for this noise but these are my thoughts of war.
I live in comfort and right now, I am embarrassed that I live so well.

edt: add a comma for clarity.

 

[Dylan]

'War doesn't determine who is right-only who is left.'

Bertrand Russel

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on war. I would defend the ground my family lives on with my life, but it would be a very extraordinary cirmumstance in which I would yield my autonomy to a military collective. While I did attempt to enlist as a younger man in Canada, I was weeded out due to my admission of certain recreational activities, for the better. At this point in my life, the only reason I would accede to violent recourse would be in a situation of complete societal collapse and for the purpose of defending mine.

I will never willingly join the armed forces of my nation; I see how these men an women are used and I want no part of it.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Like Renaissance,
I almost joined the ROTC. Why? Well they had a package to pay for education, and my family doesn't make much money. I didn't think being in debt was a good idea (and still don't think it is).

Unlike Europe and some other areas of the world, higher education in the USA is very very expensive. It is a business that has no shame in increasing it's costs at a rate MUCH higher than the artificially low rate of inflation.

However, I never did go through with the ROTC. They were very picky during the physical, making me spend my own money to remove a wisdom tooth that was under the surface. As I did not have the money then to remove it (requiring dental surgery), I ended up not taking the commission.

You would think a military that seeks for recruits would offer to take care of their relatively minor medical issues in order to secure a recruit! That alone is what made me feel disdain for the system.

 

[Mal7]

Here are a couple of quotes on war from Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous:

“Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?” someone asked. “Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?”

“There can be different wars and there can be different patriots,” said G. “You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such.”

“And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to war?”

“Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse.”

- page 363.

“But surely those who realize this can do something?” said the man who had asked the question about war. “If a sufficient number of men came to a definite conclusion that there should be no war, could they not influence others?”

“Those who dislike war have been trying to do so almost since the creation of the world,” said G. “And yet there has never been such a war as the present. Wars are not decreasing, they are increasing and war cannot be stopped by ordinary means. All these theories about universal peace, about peace conferences, and so on, are again simply laziness and hypocrisy. Men do not want to think about themselves, do not want to work on themselves, but think of how to make other people do what they want. If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them. And it is still more certain that they would make war on people who also want to stop wars but in another way. And so they would fight. Men are what they are and they cannot be different. War has many causes that are unknown to us. Some causes are in men themselves, others are outside them. One must begin with the causes that are in man himself. How can he be independent of the external influences of great cosmic forces when he is the slave of everything that surrounds him? He is controlled by everything around him. If he becomes free from things, he may then become free from planetary influence.”

- pages 103-4.