There are a number of anti-war movies, most of which fall into two categories. Either they are written so cleverly as to hide the anti-war message so deeply into the plot, and/or present it so abstractly that it cannot be discerned by the average viewer, so the message is completely lost. Or, on the other hand, they are presented in such a ham-handed and “preachy” manner, that, while the message comes through, loud and clear, it will be rejected by the majority of the film-goers. Simply put, if the film-goers know it is anti-war, most will reject it at the time, or if they can’t even tell that the movie is anti-war, they won’t care if they are told about the message at a later time.
It is simplistic to be “against war” and makes about as much sense as being “against disease” or “against starvation.” Of course everyone is “against war” but that doesn’t make much sense in a world full of humans. Those who look at the world with a clear understanding of human nature understand that occasionally war is the only solution to a particular situation, while those who believe that people can always live without war are filled with denial and an unrealistic view of life, and the proliferation of the omni-present “bad guy.”
Throughout history, there have been “bad guys” followed by the general demand that the “bad guy” must be removed from power and influence so that people are free to live their lives with the least amount of oppression as possible. At the local level, society demands that the police take care of “bad guys” in neighborhoods. By the same token, “bad guys” in other lands are expected to be taken care of by armies. Getting rid of the “bad guy” is a traditional role of society, and those who are “against” war are at odds with society and should not be surprised that they are generally out-numbered.
Those who believe in the struggle of good versus evil, that life has a plan, that G-d directs us to follow the path of righteousness, that innocents are to be protected, that monsters must occasionally be destroyed to protect the life of innocents, and that there is life after death, will ALWAYS support going to war on reasons of principle. They support war because they believe that some conditions (such as oppression) are worse than war. (Their belief in the afterlife means that they have minimal fear of actual death.)
Those who believe that there are no situations that warrant war, that there are not conditions worse than war, that we have no right to interfere in the lives of others, that America is for Americans, that America’s wealth is merely a matter of “luck” and should not be used as a mandate for spreading democracy or capitalism, that we are not responsible for protecting other lives, that those who are weaker must simply bear their own fate, and who do not believe in the afterlife, will ALWAYS argue against war, for any reason. They do not believe in war for any reason, and particularly not on the matter of principle, because death serves no purpose (other than the end of life). (Their disbelief in the afterlife means that death represents nothing more than the end of life.)
Conditions for the war in Iraq does not hinge on WMDs, the price of oil, the future of the Middle East, the fate of Israel, or the superiority of the West. Support, or condemnation, of the war hinges on one’s fundamental world view; with the most compelling being the attitude toward the afterlife. Anti-war folks don’t want to die because they don’t believe that there is anything after the moment of death. Folks who believe that there is life after death, also believe that we are made in the image of G-d and are not to spend our only time as earth as victims of cruel and sadistic dictators. We believe that our fellow humans are to be treated with dignity and honor, and that the notion that humans can be used to service the sick needs of a lunatic who believes his “superiority” gives him the right to commit random acts of evil are intolerable to the mind and sickening to the soul. Saddam was free to murder, maim, and torture innocent citizens at random. Decades of mass graves are the unspeakable markers of his horror.
If no man is an island, and if we are our brother's keeper, and if we believe that people have a right to live in freedom, then we have an obligation to free our fellow man. The final analysis is love and freedom; loving our fellow man demands that we fight for his freedom. There are no other complications.
reply
share
Stefan____
17 years ago
If you feel so strongly about helping the oppressed via 'war' and 'killing', why don't you send America to all the other impoverished and over-run countries in the world where there isn't any oil or moeny to be made? Hmmm? How about africa, or even Russia ... they seem to need help with democracy. Because America is not in the 'business' of losing money with it's military.
Does every Iraqi citizen want America there? No. Get off your couch and computer and go live there for a few years as a citizen before spewing this rubbish.
Jesus didn't preach violence the last time I checked. And I guess it depends on which G-d you worship which Heaven you will end up in.
The intelligent people in America are also out-numbered. Such is democracy.
I'd prefer it if no one believed in G-d, were scared to die and would stop fighting long enough to enjoy some of the gifts that we are given right here on earth, or at least let others do it if they do not wish to. But misery loves company and they want to take some one with them.
I'm not sure why I even bothered replying to this post, but after all the nice things that were said here, I felt you did a great dis-respect to the gentleman's father.
reply
share
Stefan____
17 years ago
For the war loving chap ... read this little news clip and tell me America supports a true democracy.
From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/opinion/21herrera.html?th&emc=th
"April 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A Terrorist Goes Free
By BERNARDO ÁLVAREZ HERRERA
Washington
AFTER the attacks of Sept. 11, President Bush forcefully argued that it was every country’s duty to fight international terrorism. He made the case that sponsoring terrorism or simply looking the other way when it happened were equivalent acts, and the United States would stand for neither. But holes have started appearing in that principle, courtesy of a single Venezuelan terrorist, released this week from a New Mexico prison on bail.
In early 2005, Luis Posada Carriles, a Venezuelan with a long history of violent attacks in Latin America, sneaked into the United States and was soon arrested. Mr. Posada had escaped from a Venezuelan prison while awaiting trial in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people, including all 24 members of Cuba’s youth fencing team and several Guyanese medical students. This was the deadliest attack on a civilian airliner in the Western Hemisphere in history — until 9/11.
Upon Mr. Posada’s capture, the government of President Hugo Chávez demanded his extradition. But the Bush administration has refused to extradite Mr. Posada to Venezuela or Cuba, claiming that it fears he will be tortured in those countries. In fact, Washington’s reluctance is more likely linked to Mr. Posada’s history as a Central Intelligence Agency operative and a darling of extremist sectors of the powerful Cuban-American community in Florida (he tried to assassinate Fidel Castro with C-4 explosives placed in an auditorium packed with students in Panama in 2000). Twenty-two months have passed since Venezuela formally asked for his extradition, offering 2,000 pages of documentary evidence to substantiate its claim, yet the State Department has not even acknowledged receiving the request.
Nor has Mr. Posada been charged with the 1976 attack, even though declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents indicate that his role has long been accepted as fact. Instead, he faces charges of immigration fraud, a travesty that could be equaled only by charging Osama bin Laden with entering and leaving Pakistan without a visa. Finally, Mr. Posada was released on bail on Thursday, even though he is an obvious flight risk and a violent terrorist.
Of course, Mr. Posada’s case isn’t the first instance related to Venezuela in which the Bush administration has set aside its principles for political expediency. Five years ago last week, the Bush administration gleefully welcomed a coup that overthrew President Chávez, replacing him with a junta that suspended the Constitution, dismissed the National Assembly and dissolved the Supreme Court. Thankfully, the Venezuelan people ensured that their democratically elected president was returned to power two days later.
Just as the Bush administration’s support for the Venezuelan junta undermined its pledge to uphold and promote democracy around the world, allowing Mr. Posada to avoid prosecution for a vicious attack he can credibly be accused of masterminding throws into doubt the sincerity of President Bush’s war on terrorism. Mr. Posada is a terrorist, regardless of the cause he fought for or the allies he might have. The Bush administration’s foot-dragging on his extradition and its failure to even classify him as a terrorist is unconscionable.
Last week, Venezuelans celebrated the return of democracy after the coup against President Chávez. But they continue to mourn the 73 people killed aboard that civilian airliner. If President Bush is serious about the principles he set out after 9/11, he need only look to Venezuela and correct the mistakes he can. The coup has passed, but the chance to extradite or prosecute Mr. Posada hasn’t.
Bernardo Álvarez Herrera is Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States."
reply
share
dgriffin1
16 years ago
<There are no other complications.>
Sure there are. Like opportunistic politicians using the Faithful's belief in an afterlife to foment war and profit thereby.
You want to be a dupe, go ahead. But don't ennoble it by wrapping it in religion.
reply
share
DocS-1
16 years ago
Would someone please tell me what possible relevance Camargue's LONG, rambling, pro-war post has to this thread? I fail to see any genuine connection; he appears to have simply picked an "anti-war" movie to which to attach his rant. I'll admit that he has a point about "good vs. evil" -- I would have hated to see Hitler's evil go unchallenged by an earlier generation. But his second-to-last paragraph justifies nothing I can see (except possibly giving an explanation for why the religious have always been so "keen" on warfare!), and the whole thimg has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread it's tacked onto. Please, Mr. C., go rant somewhere else where it might make more sense...
reply
share