Can we win?

This week in class we brought up the idea of a victory over a concept is impossible. The Vietnam War sparked uproar across the world because the United States attempted to "police" the world and stop the spread of communism. The unsuccesful war cost both the U.S. and Vietnam hundreds of thousands of lives. Almost the entire nation was against a war effort, which should have sent a signal to Washington saying that we shouldn't go to war. As blind as Washington occassionally is, they decided to go ahead to fight in a war in a foreign country with difficult terrain that would lead to many casualties. U.S. did not complete its objective. But I guess I can't be so mad at the U.S. for going to war because this was a good learning lesson... well I thought it would be.
Ah, the War on Terror, the most unclear war ever fought in U.S. history. I don't see any point on rambling on about the war and how the objective is vague and it constantly changes from time to time. But what I do know overall its a war against a concept. Terror being that concept, ofcourse. We have been at war for a little over half a decade now, and have made quite a bit of progess in terms of removing terrorists of the streets in the Middle East, but not put an end to the concept. It is impossible to get Islamic radicals to make peace or accept our western ideals and vice versa. It extremely difficult to change someone's values and morals in just everyday life. So how is the U.S. going to change or make peace with such radical, anti-western views? They aren't. The U.S. should've taken Vietnam as a lesson. Vietnam's objective wasn't even as abstract as the current one and look how Vietnam turned out to be. Victory --> not happening. Band-aid to maybe hinder terrorism ... ehh possible.
What do you think?

Tralfamadorians - can you be anyomre abstract?

After attempting to grasp an understanding of the Tralfamadorians, I feel like I have taken a trip back to Woolley's poetry class last year - I leave each class debating myself and just ending up with no clear understanding (some can relate). Tralfamadorians, in case you haven't read all of Slaughterhouse-Five yet, are 2 feet-tall green aliens who abduct Billy after his tragic experience of Dresden. Tralfamadorians were created in Billy's mind; he uses it as an escape from the devastating experience at Dresden and his mental stress due to the bombings. An important question that everyone had trouble answering in class was, "Do humans have free will?" Are we already predestined to do certain things and choices which makes free will is just an illusion? I am still unsure and will not take a position on this question (I am acting as if the Tralfamadorians were real). Vonnegut takes a step back into his own world with the Tralfamadorians who show us that our free will is only an illusion and that ultimately do not have "choice." Tralfamadorians view Billy as an ideal being because he knows he has been stripped of this so called "illusion" - free will. Tralfamadorians are very smart and are very successful. They are able to enjoy their lives because they travel to only the good experiences for they do not see time linearly like humans and know the outcomes of each experience because they do not believe in free will. Choices will ultimately not be made in these experiences they travel to because these experiences have an ending that is visible, nothing can change within the experiences. So would you rather be a Tralfamadorian and have no free will and the ability to travel to only the good experiences but already know the outcome? Or would you like live to have "illusions" and be a mystery?
(I know this blog was confusing but I hope you understand the questions for the most part)

Are Humans Killer Angels?

In the most recent class we briefly discussed the meaning of "Killer Angels." One of the questions that was asked was - are humans Killer Angels? I interpret this as are humans peaceful creatures roaming around the earth that have the ability to be violent or murderous. Or vice versa - are humans reckless, violent, and murderous creatures who have the ability to be peaceful like an angel. [when I continue referring to angels in this passage I'm talking about a stereotypical one, not the devil]. I believe that we are neither Killers nor Angels. I feel that we have equal ability to be violent as well as peaceful. This partially resembles my last argument on is war human nature. You cannot label humans anything else but humans. There are no adjectives that can generalize all humans. Some are naturally peaceful, some are barbaric and violent. Humans have the capability of being more of an attribute than another. Not only do I think that everyone can be labeled as a Killer Angel, no individual even has the capability of being one.

Is it in you?

Earlier this week we had a debate on if war is human nature. War is not human nature. War is waged by individuals or a group of individuals, usually not a mass population. If ONE person in any nation does not support a war then it is not human nature. Human nature is something by which it is inherent. It is human nature to communicate and eat and drink. It is not human nature to wage war. Most of us are violent; now by violent I mean willing to protect what is sacred to him by resorting lastly to violence. One may be able to argue that it is human nature to fight or self-defend. The definition for war - a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air (Webster). Me and probably the rest of class doesn't plan on waging war, let along participating in one (maybe one or two of us want to fight for America). But my point is that even in our own class room we all do not want to (even most of the USA) do not want to be at war. It is not something we are born with or is human nature.

Rules of the Game

Today (December 17th, 2008) in class we discussed what should be the rules of war. Two of the rules that seemed to get a lot of attention was: 1. Torturing is allowed. 2. You can go to war with another nation for the sake of vital resources. My opinion with #1... I agree with it. I believe that torturing would be very beneficial to CIA intelligence and could save millions of lives. I also believe that psychological torturing methods should be used more often over physical ones. However, I am not saying that the 8th amendment of the constitution - no cruel or unusual punishment - should be removed, I think it should be altered. Cruel and unusual punishment should be allowed for the gain of important domestic and/or foreign information on suspicion of terrorism or treason. Cruel and unusual punishment may not be a sentence for domestic civil or criminal cases ("criminal will obviously have fine print explaining the criteria of being a criminal."
#2. I am somewhat skeptical on which side to take but I am going to agree with this rule. If the would runs out of oil and only Saudi Arabia has some remaining but now they close their exports, I feel that the US has the right to invade and destroy Saudi Arabia for its oil. This wouldn't be such a bad rule because small countries, like Cuba which we have an embargo on all their trade, won't go to war with us because they know they will get destroyed instantly. This is a point that is easy to argue, I am just taking this side to see what ya'll have to say.

Warrior Etiquette

How should a warrior or a hero act? Is there a right way or a wrong way? The movie Hancock (hopefully you all have seen it) is a perfect representation of how modern society views how heroes should act. Will Smith, Hancock, is a drunken hero who is very reckless, but nevertheless a crime stopper and life saver. He is influenced to change his ways and does so. He becomes more polite, cautious and selfless. The world ends up loving him.
Now, as for Achilles... Many people (the readers, of course) view Achilles as selfish and stubborn. They see him as just a necessity, not someone who deserves honor and fame for defeating the Trojans. We understand his justifications for his actions, but he still seems like he could have gone about everything in a much better manner.
But is the way Achilles behaved actually wrong? Who are we to judge someone with "holy" power and terrific skill? I personally believe that there isn't a warrior/hero "etiquette" at all. The most important thing I need to distinguish before I continue writing is that I am talking about heroes and warriors, not leaders. Though that can be leaders as well, I am talking about well skilled soldiers and ones who save lives for the betterment of their own society, in this case. I feel that heroes such as Achilles don't have to act a certain way because trying to live up to what everyone else thinks about them can distract them from their true heroic beings. Why give up certain traits such as aggression and disrespect just so that one person or a group of people will like you? Why not just get the job done and go home? Is it okay for a warrior to be selfish? Is it even possible to become a warrior without being selfless? Heroes have already done enough, why ask more of them?
Dwell on these questions and respond back to them,
Thanks

Domination

This weekend I have been playing Call of Duty:World at War and I haven't be able to leave the screen. I beat the WWII game and enjoyed every minute. Why did I enjoy it? Why do I feel great when I dominate my enemy? In a more realistic sense-why do we glorify war? I believe that behind the main justifications of war, there is a obscured reason that countries go to war with each other. Its the emotional drive of war. I am not talking about the adrenaline and thrill of fighting on the battlefield, I am talking about the intimidation and confidence boost that comes from a victory. I feel that superpowers like the United States enjoy waging wars because they are known for blowing out the enemy. Our country can look down at most countries and intimidate them because of our military strength. When I win a match on Call of Duty I get excited, sometimes scream at the screen or spike the controller down like a football (I have broken a controller already). I did not really win anything but the emotional gain from winning the battle was good enough to keep on playing. The U.S. isn't hesitant about war because they know they have the intimidation factor and it will be a giant morale boost across the nation after the victory.