Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
War: What is behind the killing of innocent men, women, and child
Share:
by Charlie1955 | April 1, 2009 at 09:28 pm
338 views | 39 Recommendations | 16 comments
It is important to understanding how war begins and that many wars begin behind closed doors, with a crude word, or disrespectful comment. Many times a war technically begins behind closed doors, over the telephone, or even in person when one politician makes a physical or political blow/statement towards another.
Are these the actions of a civilized individual? The same can be said about racial slurs that occur everyday in our society, although, racial slurs are considered a punishable offenses in any court, but war crimes although punishable often go on for years and many are kept secret from the public eye. Why is this? Is it because these same officials are ashamed of his or her actions? However, if a child were to behave in such a way the child would be punished by some corrective measure to see that it did not happen again in the future.
Governments gather to speak of important matter’s that are supposed to concern one’s country but how many of these leaders speak of peace in a peaceful fashion. Yet in the end tempers flare and anger mounts to the point that one or both individuals within the meeting stomp off like a child, screaming, “I’m gonna take my ball and go home, if you do not play by my rules” or “my big brother is going to beat up your big brother.” All the while, these same adults are behaving like small children on a playground and do not like what the other person has said.
Is this what our governments have come to? Are they just children who when he or she does not like something that was said begins an argument that escalates into a war where innocent men, women, and children will be slottered? Can’t they just agree to disagree and try to work things out in a civil fashion? If this is the government that is in place, then all the countries around the world ought to have a child go in and show these world leaders how to share and be responsible individuals. No individual, whether he or she is a government official, or a civilian, should wish to harm another individual, yet this is who gets hurt, someone other than the two individuals who are arguing are the ones hurt in the long run.
When it is a leader of a country, innocent men, women, and children are killed regularly due to their country leaders ill remarks or disrespectful comments, and these casualties are explained away like yesterdays news. Why were these individuals really killed? Was it to appease ones desire to decrease their own country’s population? Was it because of the country’s leaders bad behavior? On the other hand, who would the victims of these senseless wars blame? Where these men, women, and children called collateral damage? This was not part of the plan, but it happened. These same innocent men, women, and children are those who feel that it does not matter what or who started the war, what mattered most is that a member of their family was killed for something that was not his or her fault. Take a close look at the current stories of the war torn countries like Iraq, Gaza, and the like.
The peace process is supposed to be a meeting of the minds and a goal for a better world government that can function as a family unit, at least this is what this author thought it was. However, in the end it has come to which country the other country. This author asks this question again; Why do the innocent men, women, and children have to be the casualties of the actions of their governments or country leaders?
Many people worldwide ask, “Why were these women and children really killed? And why are these same men, women, and children being starved or denied the right to earn a peaceful living?” The unrest of these horrible acts of violence are always going to be something that will happen, but can the worldwide leaders see past their own selfish desires and think for once of who will ultimately be hurt by their temper tantrums or their ill mannered comments or behaviors?
Note from the author:
These are just the thoughts of an individual who believes peaceful discussions and meetings are essential for all civilian individuals and political individuals. It is ok to agree to disagree, there is no shame it this. This author likens wartime actions to that of children who have never learned to interact with others properly and the death of ones own innocent countrymen and women and children should be more important than his or her own personal interests or desires.
Written by K. Madden
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (39)
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada
lefty_liberated
New York, New York, United States
hussain
All Places, Pakistan
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (16)
at 05:54 on April 2nd, 2009
Would this explain the rise of Hitler or Stalin?
It seems to me that this explanation is what would be deemed reductionist.
Often war is arrived out out of cold calculation, not emotionality, sometimes for good, and sometimes for evil. Once attacked by one side, the other side must respond to protect its innocent members.
What if there is no peaceful resolution to the discussion? What about the American Revolution? Were the British just supposed to fold and say, "Go ahead?"
at 09:30 on April 2nd, 2009
Thanks for your insight Roy. However, I believe if the heads of state had any foresight in their negotiations these individuals would also consider the loss of those innocents of their respective countries. In my opinion, this would be the more responsible route.
The American revolution, if I am not mistaken was based on the fact that slavery was wrong and to prove this point the American Revolution was conceived. Slavery of any race is wrong, however, growing pains are not always easy. I do understand this aspect, in the American Revolution many were injured and maimed due to one side's selfishness. Am I right to assume this?
The British should have allowed the new world to take on a life of its own when the first settlers decided to leave Britain. They (the monarchy) knew that the settlers would eventually break away from the British rule, similar to a teenager who has grown to his/her independence, this is what the new world settlers had done. They grew up and wanted their own rules, therein lies the difference of opinion of the monarchy and the common man of those days. Does this make since to you? It does to me.
In the end and when all is said and done, was it right to punish those innocent individuals for wanting to change? As I said, war is not the only way. On a conscious or unconscious level it is wrong to make ones countryman, and women, and children pay for something that should have been discussed in a peaceful fashion, however, the individuals pride took over and their mouth wrote a check that the country had to pay for while the person who began the war with angry words and threats made the decision.
War is just wrong on all levels. In the aftermath, the country has to spend more money to repair the damage the government can afford.
at 08:28 on April 2nd, 2009
Thank you for your article. This is unfortunately ideology of a lot of people who are unaware of the dualism that lies in every individual.
"If we could have a "world-wide" consciousness where all division and antagonisms due to the splitting of opposites in the psyche then and only then would we really know where to attack! Yet the smallest and most personal stirrings of the individual soul-so insignificant in themselves remain as unconscious and unrecognized and go on accumulating and produce mass groupings and mass movements which cannot be subjected to reasonable control or manipulated to a good end. All direct efforts to do so are no more than shadow boxing, the most infatuated by illusion and being the gladiators themselves."(113) The Undiscovered Self . Carl Jung.
Do you think Martin Luther King walked in the streets without a lot of blood shed in order for him to do this ? Would the south have relinquished without war? Can a policeman walkin a bad neighbor hood without a stick, mace and a gun. Will the drug cartel stop using weapons or delivering without a fight? Will the pirates stop ? Can we talk to North Korea or Bin Laden? What about Hitler?
One must understand the statistic's of psychopathy, and narcissism and the many factors that keep it alive. Carl Jung said 40% of the population is ill and this is not just about people in institutions. Mental disorders have increased dramatically since this proclamation by him back in 1958. Now we have a culture of addicts . Talk does not work to get them out of addictions either. While they are in the throes of it they will lie and do anything! It takes very dramatic painful experiences to ever pull them away from their state of NO Mind. When psychopathy , narcissism and addictions combine well the person will brook no opposition.
Please study nature..look at all the species and even the yeast in your body forms gangs.
Reason and non confrontation does not work.
None of us like the idea of having to fight for our rights. To have no conflict people have to have CONSCIENCE AND OBJECTIVE REASONING and this has to be ON BOTH SIDES!
We all have to have boundaries. Law and order cannot exist without some blood behind it. It is in fact a sickness to believe what you promulgate. " Man today is capable of greater evil than the man of antiquity or the primitive. He has incomparably more effective means with which to realize his proclivity to evil."(Jung)
Look at North Korea's leader! Have we been able to talk with him? He has no moral nature. Reason alone does not suffice.
Roy is right. When one is attacked we must respond.
at 09:41 on April 2nd, 2009
Thank you for your comments QueensHart. Knowing of the self is as Jung has suggested is very true, however, even those with mental disorders have the capacity to live with reason and logic. You are right about both sides having to use his/her conscience and objective reasoning, my thoughts on this I believe I made clear as none of these officials have much conscience or objective reasoning or the killing of innocent men, women, and children would not be happening. Why can't these individuals, if they truly want a war, fight these wars in a ring where the two who disagree can settle their differences as real public and government officials? These are the two who disagree, it is not that of the innocent's to pay for these individuals inability to be objective with their reasonings. Don't you think?
I have been told and I have heard that man is supposed to be superior to animals, this is not the case when man cannot even begin to come close to CONSCIOUS AND OBJECTIVE REASONINGS. No matter what the sickness of man, all things can be accomplished without bloodshed. The G20 Summit is still going on and yes, Obama was making every attempt to speck to North Korea's current leaders. It is unfortunate that the current Leader is ill with a heart attack, and the second in command is being selfish and greedy. We must respond, but does it have to be with the taking of those innocents of their respective countries? I truly don't believe so.
at 10:14 on April 2nd, 2009
Why you hit the nail on the head when you say.PLAYGROUND. The so called intelectuals never really leave School do they. Playground politics is what lies at the root of all evil. Anyone can pick up a book and read it. How can anyone who has never left the PLAYGROUND.Know what suffering is ! if they havnt lived it themselves the real honest School. Is ! the school of life.Not the classroom.
at 11:34 on April 2nd, 2009
I disagree concerning mental disorders. Some certainly can exhibit reason and logic. Most psychopaths, narcissists and addicts with goals of greed and an arsenal of defenses to hide their real , hidden behaviors. Just take a look at our leaders With their education and comfortable above average income they have no clue of their shadows and deny their stuffing their pockets. They talk a good talk but do not walk it. Technology will help to advance the revelations of their deeds.
Until we live in a Perfect World with Leaders who do care about their constituents
because they have values
and no personal agenda's
and
have been elected by a majority who have not been bought
we can live in a Paradise.
Until this can happen there will be revolutions and wars. Wars are fought too within all countries and not always by weapons. We are fighting internal ones with people being in different places. Of course there is hope but it is truly within individuals and until enough inside the countries have this awareness of what they are about we are doomed.
Rhetorical question?s. Do you confront your circle of friends and family? Do you personally have peace. People who we work with in offices etc. are dishonest for they have to wear their persona's for work or they would not have a job would they! If everyone told the truth for just one day...there would be war!
Concerning the men at the summit I wonder what they all really think about each other. Most of them are "little" boys who do not know the truth of their own agenda's.What do you think they are saying when the camera's are off?
I would be interested to know what you think should be done about North Korea? We can't even elect a majority of leaders who are honest in their offices. Why is that?
If North Korea hits us with a rocket what do you want to do about it?
at 12:54 on April 2nd, 2009
Social reaction to paradise would be that of how to improve what we already have. This as you said is Rhetorical. I personally have peace in my life, and I would wish it on others. Those who have constant arguments should learn how to solve their problems of need in a two-way discussion knowing full well they will have to give up something in order to co-exist. This is a fact of life. I agree with you in that there are internal wars in many different places and in many different ways. Getting the word out of what is going on in the governments, and exposing these individuals for who they really are is what makes it great for the communities and countries all over the world, and then the masses will all finally realize that those in who abuse their power will be dealt with by those whom they have lied to for too long. Look at some of the stories coming from Israel, they are finding out that the heads of state had a big hand in many of the complications within their own government. This was no surprise to me, I had a feeling something was just not right.
Many of the leaders at the summit do indeed have their own agenda's, this is a given. Each wants to see what they can get out of a bad situation. This world has to realize that co-existence is not an easy task, and they need to work together to make anything worth having work for the good of the world, not just their own personal benefit. As you have already said, they are just a bunch a children who all think they will get their way with or without anyone's help.
We could debate the points of North Korea for years, and the matter would never be settled. Korea is going through growing pains, both sides seem to feel they are right. I remember hearing about a country who put two factions equally in office to run their country. This seemed to fix their struggles for the most part, as they have to behave responsibly for their countries. They actually appeared to learn how to get along for once in their long history of violence. Should this not be seen as a possible solution.
at 12:57 on April 2nd, 2009
Thank you for your comments, Playground politics seem to cause more problems than they solve. Growing up and behaving like a mature adult and using conscious reason, and unconscious logic and reason would be to their benefit. But that is only my opinion.
at 12:14 on April 2nd, 2009
The trouble with any war is that the masses are the ones that suffer most, because they have so little control over what is happening, and often when a leader decides to declare war, how it will affect the general population is furthest from their mind.
at 13:11 on April 2nd, 2009
I have to agree with you on that. Their confidence within themselves seems to have the ability to pull the wool over everyone's eyes when they bully enough people. However how do we stop these bullies from taking over when they appear to carry more power, money, and greed? This I have not figured out how to do as yet, other than confronting them on their lies and deceit. Their strength seems to lie in their ability to fill the role of a poker player, show the poker face and keep hidden agenda's from those who are supposed to decide with all information, not just part of the information that is deemed relevent.
at 17:24 on April 2nd, 2009
samvak.tripod.com/corporatenarcissism.html -
This is a long article but really a very good read.
Both Christopher Lasch in "The Culture of Narcissism" and singled out American society as narcissistic. Litigiousness may be the flip side of an inane sense of entitlement. Consumerism is built on this common and communal lie of "I can do anything I want and possess everything I desire if I only apply myself to it" and on the pathological envy it fosters.
Not surprisingly, narcissistic disorders are more common among men than among women. This may be because narcissism conforms to masculine social mores and to the prevailing ethos of capitalism. Ambition, achievements, hierarchy, ruthlessness, drive - are both social values and narcissistic male traits. Social thinkers like the aforementioned Lasch speculated that modern American culture - a self-centred one - increases the rate of incidence of the narcissistic personality disorder.
In their book "Personality Disorders in Modern Life", Theodore Millon and Roger Davis state, as a matter of fact, that pathological narcissism was once the preserve of "the royal and the wealthy" and that it "seems to have gained prominence only in the late twentieth century". Narcissism, according to them, may be associated with "higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs ... Individuals in less advantaged nations .. are too busy trying (to survive) ... to be arrogant and grandiose".
They - like Lasch before them - attribute pathological narcissism to "a society that stresses individualism and self-gratification at the expense of community, namely the United States." They assert that the disorder is more prevalent among certain professions with "star power" or respect. "In an individualistic culture, the narcissist is 'God's gift to the world'. In a collectivist society, the narcissist is 'God's gift to the collective."
at 20:48 on April 2nd, 2009
Thank you for the reference, I will check it out. Good Luck to you and your practice. We have studied some on personality disorders, and I have to deal with it on a daily basis. I do however, agree that many are "arrogant and grandiose" in their beliefs. Too bad the government leaders cannot be humble in their endeavors.
at 17:55 on April 2nd, 2009
http://my.nowpublic.com/culture/re-elect-no-one-steams-ahead
Oh my this is an interesting concept by an author here.. Reno. A deeper way to clean house and change.
at 20:56 on April 2nd, 2009
Thanks I will check it out.
at 13:21 on April 6th, 2009
I like this author's thinking process.
The funny thing is that most corrupt and UN-intelligent people are becoming great politicians!
at 13:47 on April 6th, 2009
Sarah,
Your truly right, as my thoughts were of the same thing. Yet these individuals know how to use the system to their benefit. Such (I suppose) is the way of the world.