War and on and on

February 13, 2003 8:21 AM

War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning.General George S. Patton famously said, "Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, I do love it so!" Though Patton was a notoriously single-minded general, it is nonetheless the case that war gives meaning to many lives, a fact with which we have become familiar now that America is once again engaged in a military conflict. War is an enticing elixir. It gives us purpose, resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. With this generational iteration, is peace ever attainable?
posted by the fire you left me (23 comments total)

the fire you left me - oops, double post. (previously posted Dec 18. 2002) How about Eisenhower's famous "beware the military-industrial complex" speach? That's a good one, and likely not posted on Metafilter (but maybe....best to link-check)
posted by troutfishing at 8:29 AM on February 13, 2003

It allows us to be noble.
no thanks. i'll just remain a mewling, purposeless, unenticed, elixer-avoiding traitor.
posted by quonsar at 8:29 AM on February 13, 2003

Yeah but are the current hawks motivated by a sense of the nobility of combat, or by realist politics and fear?

Some of Wolfowitz's, Perle's and Grossman's ideas about the ability of a US strike on Iraq to change the whole region are expansive visions, but they all downplay the actual fighting in favor of great confidence in the post war period.

Given how powerfully conservative (in the traditional sense) people like Powell are, I find it hard to believe they want to commit US forces for the sheer joy of it.

Plus how romantic is the "Powell doctrine?" Ovewhelming force applied from a distance to inferior forces that are so shocked they surrender en masse. Not a romantic vision at all. More like the SWAT team approach than chivalrous combat.

Me thinks Patton was a nut, and an irrelevant one at that.
posted by ednopantz at 8:51 AM on February 13, 2003

The only way we'll ever stop these warmongerers who have never known the sweet song of love is to broadcast a ridiculously annoying popstar over their PA systems, and while entranced by her bubbly song we shall fly in with our transforming mecha and blow them all out of space. Afterwards, we get to bang that hot brunette officer and kick the singing bitch to the curb. Suckers.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:58 AM on February 13, 2003

first off...it's Tom Paine hyper crap. ....waxing poetic on the "darkside" of war is so...I'll give the guy credit of assumption and one-sided views but come on...ya know, fuck Hedges. War is Fun?.... Panama? these where fun? Whoz eyes is Hedges looking through....is he making blanket statements about men in combat or tattling on 'those how never fought' guilt/macho complex. And i take issue wth Patton being a single-minded general...what does that mean. a fact with which we have become familiar now that America is once again engaged in a military conflict. which conflict are we in...am i missing something on CNN...you mean Iraq?...hell we have occupied and conducted military operations in Iraq since 1991? So...is it just a matter of numbers of troops and their objectives that define military action? or is military action defined by the damage solders do.

and an irrelevant one at that.
how so?
posted by clavdivs at 9:00 AM on February 13, 2003

"Laddy, without war we'd all be swinging in the fucking trees. It's God's own university and anyone who says different is a self-deluding fairy."

--Doc MacLeod from Tobias Wolff's In Pharaoh's Army
posted by mookieproof at 9:01 AM on February 13, 2003

Stan, i told you never to reveal Owillis' Brittany plan...please turn in your secret "war is love" signet ring and matching cuff links.
posted by clavdivs at 9:03 AM on February 13, 2003

and an irrelevant one at that.
how so?

because his observations don't have anything to do with the motivations of the hawks today, as fire insinuates.
posted by ednopantz at 9:05 AM on February 13, 2003

agreed
posted by clavdivs at 9:06 AM on February 13, 2003

It allows us to be noble.

It does, but I would wager not in the way you write about it, which I would assume is a brave honourable death in combat.

It allows us to be noble, because sometimes the weapons of war can be used to achieve truly great things - the best example of which is man on the moon.

It allows us to be noble when the purpose of war is to relieve the suffering of others. Make no mistake, the upcoming war in the Mid-East is not such a war. It will not allow for nobility, it will allow only for greed and destruction. Anyone who suggests that the quote attributed to Patton is relevant to this conflict is mistaken.
posted by tomcosgrave at 9:08 AM on February 13, 2003

It will not allow for nobility, it will allow only for greed and destruction.
this is where im seeing party hats...IF we go into Iraq with full force, i think once saddam flees, is captured or made into a mussolini pinate, there will be one big party.
posted by clavdivs at 9:19 AM on February 13, 2003

I've been aching to post this for a while. But lacking a suitable venue, will post it here.

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war." - the Onion
posted by blue_beetle at 9:31 AM on February 13, 2003

"the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. " -1984

where Goldstein == bin Laden
Eurasia == one of the axis of evil
Eastasia == one of the axis of evil
posted by eurasian at 9:39 AM on February 13, 2003

oh boy, and of course,
Oceania == USA
posted by eurasian at 9:42 AM on February 13, 2003

I find I masturbate more when there's war on CNN. Something about all that killing.
posted by Slagman at 9:58 AM on February 13, 2003

War is an enticing elixir.

I believe it was Nixon who originally declared the War on Enticing Elixirs, which our government is still fighting today.

Sadly, no one has the heart to tell them that the Enticing Elixirs won.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:37 AM on February 13, 2003

Any large, all-encompassing effort tends to give people a sense of purpose. Generations who are lucky enough to have an obvious, unambiguous problem to solve together are always considered noble (e.g. the pioneers). But war does not by definition give meaning to people's lives; sometimes, like in the case of WWI, it does just the opposite.

In other words, to say that war gives us meaning is missing the point. Sometimes it does, but it's just a coincidence.
posted by Hildago at 11:58 AM on February 13, 2003

"With this generational iteration, is peace ever attainable?"

- No, not unless we create a fascistic one world government which forcibly modifies the human genome towards lower levels of agression and competitiveness........or we could all just become Buddhists, reduce our needs, and work for peace and global underdstanding.....hmm.... That might work....

["yes, but can they be Evil Buddhists?...." - shut up, Dr. Evil ]
posted by troutfishing at 12:07 PM on February 13, 2003

"Wartime brings the ideal of the State out into very clear relief, and reveals attitudes and tendencies that were hidden. In times of peace the sense of the State flags in a republic that is not militarized. For war is essentially the health of the State. The ideal of the State is that within its territory its power and influence should be universal. As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of man, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation. Its idealism is a rich blood flowing to all the members of the body politic. And it is precisely in war that the urgency for union seems greatest, and the necessity for universality seems most unquestioned."
posted by riviera at 12:27 PM on February 13, 2003

where Goldstein == bin Laden
Eurasia == one of the axis of evil
Eastasia == one of the axis of evil

I'm so happy that fellow anti-war people are very smart and can make intelligent literary references. I am also so happy that such references accomplish nothing and further push the left to irrelevancy in the U.S.

Can we actually discuses something about war and politics with out all that troll? Say, can we debate the facts? Such a quote is so stupid because it can applied without any thought and reflects the closed-mined nature of the poster, and further can applied to any public relations tactic taken by any administration, including my boy, Clinton.
posted by Bag Man at 3:44 PM on February 13, 2003

Such a quote is so stupid because it can applied without any thought and reflects the closed-mined nature of the poster

I know, it's double-plus bad.

It's a valid analogy to make, since Orwell was writing about what he felt could happen. If it is happening, then nothing could be more relevant. Anyway, you shouldn't argue that references shouldn't be made, you should argue that they don't apply.
posted by Hildago at 5:16 PM on February 13, 2003

Anyway, you shouldn't argue that references shouldn't be made, you should argue that they don't apply.

The reference is over made to point were in looses meaning. Further, it is so extreme to point a point were it looses meaning. 1984 is about total deprivation of civil liberties, total control of the government and love of citizenry for its government for the control and deprivation. If the USSR and the Nazis could not achieve it, I don’t think the US is there or even close to there. Further the same argument can be made about several current Western European countries, which still outlaw certain political parties, make foreigners check in with the cops, watch their citizens more so than the US, make citizens carry national ID cards, allow police to hold people indefinably without evidence, police their whole country with federal police (military police), and use terrorism as an excuse to spy on their own citizens. Does that reference apply to Western European countries? I would argue no and I’ve seen no such an argument on MIFI. So, does 1984 apply to the US? Well, how can it if apply if it does not apply in more extreme cases? It's pure troll and it prevents people from supporting anti-war and anti-Bush arguments because people know it's troll. It's the ravings of someone with no argument or someone who lacks the facts to put together any sort of thoughtful argument. It’s a sad example of the way in which the radical left has lost its way and will never appeal to rest of the country and thus never archive their goals. At time like these I fell like moving toward the middle. My only purpose is try get real discussion on MIFI, rather having an bullshit anti-war, anti-religion and anti-Bush dumping ground. Why? Because debate and discussion is a method to higher understanding and examination of self and society. And forbid it people actually change someone’s mind instead of just shouting at each other.
posted by Bag Man at 5:47 PM on February 13, 2003

War is Fun?.... Panama? these where fun? Whoz eyes is Hedges looking through....is he making blanket statements about men in combat or tattling on 'those how never fought' guilt/macho complex.

Unlike you, Mr. Spelchek chickenhawk armchair general, the man's been a war correspondent for 15 years. I suspect that trumps your experience of combat by as many years.
posted by y2karl at 10:32 PM on March 12, 2003