As two time recipient of the medal of honor, Smedley Butler said:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses... — Manuel

War as a racket. That about sums it up. There has always been war profiteering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

You can read the famous booklet by the ex high ranking Marine, here:

https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket/mode/2up

Wars have only ever been justifiable from a defensive perspective - I believe that the Allied forces had a moral imperative to win the Second World War so as to save the world from Hitler. But it can never be a good thing, especially now, with weapons that can destroy all life on earth. — Wayfarer

Agreed. The use of force is necessary at times for self-defence.
That is when 'pacifism' turns realistic...

Thanks for interesting conversation. There's a lot there I didn't know about.
No surprise there - but, after all, that's why I started the thread :sparkle:

:up: Thanks for the article. Also, "Versailles" flashed through my mind when I'd paraphrased Levinas' reflection on war.

Thanks. Good to see it available for free. :up:

Wonder how he felt - relieved tinged with guilt ? — Amity

I don't think he ever felt like he should fight in many ways. My Dad was a devote Roman Catholic and went to church daily for decades, just to light candles for his prayers up to coordinating the living Manger each Christmas.

Did he survive ? — Amity

Absolutely he survived and served 33 years to the USA Army from Vietnam to Desert Storm. My Uncle is a language specialist (7 languages the last being Spanish) and as a Master Sergeant he would be called up to be part of a mission and essentially creates the relations with the locals where they would be based. The only gun he ever had was his issued sidearm that was never fired in deployment except for one time when he managed to shoot himself in the stomach. No Purple Heart please!
His most soul touching memory was his first day in Cambodia. On his first day he held a baby boy, with distended stomach and very ill from starvation who sadly died that night in my Uncle's arms. He was crushed. The next morning he was brought to a clinic where he was able to hold a new born baby. I have never met someone so adamant of not letting any piece of food go to waste.
Amazing man who wishes to be buried at Abraham Lincoln Veterans Cemetery in Illinois, second in size only to Arlington.
:flower: :heart: :flower:

I asked earlier if 'war' is seen not as a solution but a problem in itself, how do we solve it ?
What sayest the Pragmatist or Stoic view. John Dewey, Epictetus ? — Amity

Marcus Aurelius spent a good part of his reign as Emperor at war, and died in his military headquarters in Pannonia (now Serbia). The Empire also saw famine and plague while he was Emperor. I'm amazed he found time to write his Meditations--but know of nothing he wrote specifically addressing war. I suspect his attitude toward it was that war was evil, but a necessary evil to sustain the Empire. From the standpoint of a Stoic Sage, I think war, if not defensive, would be viewed as motivated by concerns related to acquisition of territory. wealth and power, which are matters regarding which we should be indifferent, and contrary to virtue.

I'm not sure what Dewey felt about war, but suspect that he would feel context must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of judgments, and that as a result it's not possible to to draw absolute conclusions regarding it, if he addressed it as a philosopher.

I don't have high hopes for the goodness of man, for universal pacifism or other high mindedness and pompous grandstanding. I believe in the old Roman saying from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus "Si vis pacem, para bellum". — ssu

And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed.

So, 'universal pacifism' might not be achieved but there are other kinds, perhaps more realistic.
Peacebuilding interventions - and asking questions about 'whose peace' for whose benefit and at what cost ? Peace has to become the more attractive option - how can that be done ? — Amity

The distrust nations share doesn't go easily away. The Swiss still have a large reservist army even if it is crazy to think that the EU countries would invade it (or any other country would). Yet the Swiss have decided after a referendum to sustain their military and the country still opts to be non-aligned.

(Even if literally being inside the EU, the Swiss still have keep their fighters inside mountains. As the saying goes: the Swiss don't have an army, they are an army.)


Having armed forces being a deterrent and then welcoming cooperation between the nations is one way for peace to endure. In fact the US policy from Teddy Roosevelt of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick" could work, if there is no need to use that stick and there wouldn't be imperial (or post-imperial) aspirations. Unfortunately Teddy Roosevelt among others had those aspirations.

The real tragedy is that politicians (and people) will seriously work for cooperation and peace only after truly horrific wars. Nowhere, not even in China with it's large population, has more people been killed as in Europe during WW1 and it's sequel WW2. It sounds bleak, but I think that only with huge losses felt among the entire society jingoism and aggressive militarism is defeated. If war doesn't affect the ordinary person's life, if it's fought somewhere else with volunteers or robots, then the causes for going to war can be quite obscure and light. Many don't even know that their country is engaged in a low-intensity war even today, thanks to the obscuration of the line between peace keeping and war.

A real danger for ruinous wars are ideas like the Thucydides Trap. Just like with the "Domino Theory", these kind of ideas can get the World into wars. The worrisome thing is that there exist between the US and China (or Russia) these tragic vicious circles.

Because the OP seems to barely have anything to do with war. — StreetlightX

it's probably not a thread on war, but some librarian's bookish take on it from the comfort of a cozy chair somewhere pontificating about war as a matter of ideas and feelings and erasing almost the entirety of what war has ever meant for human beings both today and throughout history. — StreetlightX

Wrong.
The only bit you got somewhat right is 'from a chair'.
Like many here - discussing 'war' and sharing ideas - who don't have first hand experience of war, as usually thought of in military terms. Yourself included, perhaps ?
Quite the ridiculous leap from there to 'erasing...what war has ever meant for human beings...'.
But you know that.

Your other posts speak of 'fear' and 'desire' and 'inner wars' and so on. — StreetlightX

Correct. So what is the issue ?

You previously said:
"One wages war to acquire ..." - that is Desire.
"threats, real or imagined" - that is Fear.

It involves arms, metal, wood and stone. It involves bodies and their destruction, the logistics of moving men and supplies across treacherous lines, the conquering of lands and the negotiation of geography. It involves production at home and the organization of economies for the sake of sustaining troops on battefronts longs distances away, along with defense infrastructure, among other things. — StreetlightX

Of course it involves these things, but it does not exhaust all what is involved and does not cover all of the issues we are discussing.

'Inner war'? What a pathetic notion. The appropriation of the horror of one of the most destructive things that humans do to each other to be twisted into some New Age hippie kumbaya 'find yourself' nonsense. It's hard to imagine anything that makes more of a mockery of war and those who have suffered from it than this kind of spiritualization of it. — StreetlightX

It would have been better if you had used the quote function, to give context:

'War' can be at a personal level as well as global. Individual struggles to conquer inner demons, to find peace. None more so than the soldiers who are conflicted - their concerns that the war they are fighting might not be 'just' - the guilt involved. The realisation that comes when the pockets of dead enemy soldiers are picked or discovered - the diaries, the family photos - just like those carried by themselves. Who is the enemy ?

The moral issues creating an inner war. — Amity

The inner mental conflict of soldiers is well documented. This is nothing like a 'spiritualisation' exercise but a clear recognition of all types of suffering involved, not just the physical.
At the extreme, there is post traumatic stress disorder.
In the past, it was known as 'shell shock' for which there was little sympathy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/extra/series-1/shell_shocked.shtml

Terms like 'peace' and 'war' are not just for military talk.
They can be used to describe interpersonal relationships and, yes, even a person's state of mind.

You can't be unaware of any of this. So why the attack - the accusation of 'mockery', huh ?

Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman. — 180 Proof

And I believe in Cicero's assertion that silent enim leges inter arma, and think Sherman was right when he said war is cruelty and cannot be reformed. — Ciceronianus the White

Those just justify the position. But it is interesting to see how these historical people were totally aware of what they do to other people in war, be they the Romans or general Sherman who famously "made Georgia howl".

Smedley Butler is an interesting case. But then he fought in "the Backyard of the US" in the Banana Wars and in the Boxer Rebellion and saw quite openly American imperialism. His small booklet is worth reading.

I remember reading the memoirs of an American Sergeant Major from special operations (a Delta force operator). Even if obviously the author was patriotic, as an NCO he told things as they actually were, which made the story in the end comical (or grotesque), but it in it's way it just underlined how correct Smedley Butler had been (especially when comparing the time during the Reagan and older Bush years in Central America).

War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type. I think it the way how we as a species have rationalized war in our society that is the most surprising and puzzling things in our society.

"One wages war to acquire ..." - that is Desire.
"threats, real or imagined" - that is Fear. — Amity

Wrong. One is not blown to pieces by 'Desire'. It's not 'Fear' that drops bombs that decimates populations. This shamanisation of war into capitalized psychological categories (capitalised to give it some affectation of "depth") is the stupidest possible take on war. It's telling that war becomes so sanitized in your discussion that PTSD and "interpersonal relationships" are where the bulk of the emphasis lies. This is subject matter for Oprah and Dr Phil, not 'the philosophy of war'. The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective. Want to discuss war? Well, open the DSM-V; search your 'feelings'. It's hard to imagine a more ass-backward way of approaching war.

I remember the late great Robert Fisk quoting a US soldier, don't know his rank, who was patriotic and wrote really well.

Chris Hedges has an interesting book on the things you are talking about called War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Yes, it is very strange - but then again group psychology is extremely complex, we are all subject to such behavior, depending on our life's circumstances.

For a "Philosophy of War", perhaps we should read it as Just War Theory.
SEP has this for war: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.
Just War Theory on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

I support Just War Theory and I think the public in most nations support Just War Theory too. If they find that a war has been for evil, there will be consequences to those responsible.

The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective. — StreetlightX

:up: :up: :clap:

War! Kill OR Killed! That "OR" seems really, really (sorry couldn't think of a better superlative) important!

Avoiding War - Philosophy of Peace
War requires money, money, and money. As simple as that. Okay how we get money from? From taxpayers, selling an unborn generations as debt slaves, and so on.

The war in Afghanistan cost U.S. taxpayers more than two trillion dollars so far. What happened to that amount of money? Where did it go? Funny because that money exists in physical form even now, but it became totally worthless. The inflation has eaten it up completely.

What is missing is the fruit of two decades of work of Americans, their investments, the future of their children, creativity, talent, and their hard work that didn't pay off. It did not benefit society. It was not invested back into the economy, but consumed by the military industry.

U.S. taxpayers worked for virtually free for twenty years for their own government to finance the meaningless war on the other side of the world. The war which solved nothing. And even God knows how long their children will work for the same war for free to repay the huge public debt. Which will never happen, but the debt slavery will still remain.

One of the ancient great Christian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus said: inflation is the mother of war, and of course the mother of taxation.

What do you think? Is it really worth fighting the endless and meaningless war of the ruling elite? Is the life is not short enough for doing this?

SP

From the standpoint of a Stoic Sage, I think war, if not defensive, would be viewed as motivated by concerns related to acquisition of territory. wealth and power, which are matters regarding which we should be indifferent, and contrary to virtue.

I'm not sure what Dewey felt about war, but suspect that he would feel context must be considered in assessing the appropriateness of judgments, and that as a result it's not possible to to draw absolute conclusions regarding it, if he addressed it as a philosopher. — Ciceronianus the White

Thanks for your response. War motivated by desire as being 'contrary to virtue', therefore seen as a problem ? What about war as motivated by fear, same thing ?

I always have to think about what 'indifference' means. As a reminder:

Indifference exists between good and bad. Stoics claimed that virtues are desirable, while vices should be casted away. Therefore, indifference appears to be the gray area between these two categories. It is important to note that both vices and virtues are within our control, because we can control our mind and will, and therefore we have power over our actions. Things that are indifferent lie completely out of our control, and this is very important to remember for Stoics. In the Enchiridion, Epictetus further explains the difference between the things we can control and the things we cannot. — thewisemind.net

So, desires related to war are those we should be 'indifferent' to. But 'War' itself - and the related issue of 'Fear'; the concepts, experience and function of ?
If war is seen as a problem rather than a solution, how would pragmatists deal with this, as per their decision-making process?
And with regard to education about war and fear, I mentioned stoicism and pragmatism here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/573670

Grateful for your thoughts.

War has this curious way of intoxicating us and our societies. It shows how frighteningly adaptable and malleable we are. Yet that might be also our strength that we do adapt. Because it's usually not that only the so-called anti-social type who prevail in wars, it's how totally ordinary people do fight them. Military men and women are usually the most rational and pragmatic people and furthest from the erratic "artist" type. — ssu

I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ?

'How totally ordinary people do fight them' - the ordinary as opposed to the military person who fight in wars have been either conscripted or they stay at home, supporting and coping - even with all the traumas involved.
The 'totally ordinary' become out-of-the-ordinary in how they feel and act in such a scenario.
There is a whole spectrum of views and arguments...from strong to weak...how humans are affected.

That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ?
The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types.
A lot of what we know about war is from the poets who fought and suffered.
They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen being the most memorable from WWI.
Other artists changed how we view war. Well, some of us.

His poetry both described the horrors of the trenches and satirised the patriotic pretensions of those who, in Sassoon's view, were responsible for a jingoism-fuelled war.[2] — Wiki

Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders. But even if rational and pragmatic, imagination is still required to arrive at creative solutions.
Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'.

I had a quick look at this - what do you mean by 'the so-called anti-social type' and how do they 'prevail in wars' ? Examples ? — Amity

It's the idea that people who don't fit into the peace-time society, have brawls with the police or end up in jail then show their potential as being great soldiers. It's a popular storyline in war films and books. Basically it's a myth. The reality is different, with the worse example perhaps being the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger.

That includes the military and artistic types. Why would you describe the latter as 'erratic' ? — Amity

Erratic in the positive way, not something regular. Art that catches our attention is something out of the ordinary. And artists generally show in their work, whatever it is, human feelings.

The conscripts fighting in the trenches included all types. — Amity

All servicemen, volunteers and professional soldiers include all types of people. Somehow many people think that those drafted, conscripts, are "people like us" where people volunteering for military service are different. It's degrading to think so. When you have such large numbers of people, there are all kinds of people involved and the idea of one "military-type" is wrong (even if you can find the occasional stereotype). If people's perception of the military is what Hollywood represents it to be, it's far from the actual reality of ordinary military life and those who serve.

Besides, armies have for all known history trained those individuals representing all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail. A combat situation is obviously dangerous and extremely stressful, hence military training focuses on learning to operate in such dire situation. Automatic responses and learning by heart practices help in such situation to operate.

They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war. — Amity

And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents.

Clearly, military personnel are probably not given to poetic thoughts as they follow out orders. — Amity

To follow orders, yes. But to serve in the military, they are given a lot of those "poetic thoughts". Still, the hire-for-money-willing-to-serve-anybody mercenary is an rare oddity. In fact the modern private contractor business has long been taken under the control of the intelligence services of the great powers. I think the South African Executive Outcomes was for a while genuinely offering "will serve without political links" service.

Problems are not just technical in nature with a manual to follow...not so very far from being 'artistic' by using their skills and thinking of 'brotherhood'. — Amity

True, but the pragmatism of the human endeavor like in the military and in war is many times sidelined to make a statement about politics or the society in general.

The intelligent people must WAR against the LESS INTELLIGENT!!!!! There’s no way democracy will save us. The majority (ignorant) will drive us in the dirt

:100:

Thanks for clarifying with such a substantive and thought-provoking response.
So many points to discuss but, right now, I'd like to focus on:

They turned from the noble notion that it is glorious to die for one's country to being totally anti-war.
— Amity
And how many in the military are for war? It's like saying that doctors and medics are for disease and accidents. — ssu

A question I raised in the OP:

Many politicians and the medical profession still use war vocabulary to further their agendas or projects.
Should we be changing the way we approach such issues - having a 'War Cabinet' about Brexit or a 'War on Cancer' ? — Amity

So, the analogy is interesting one to consider; there are similarities but also many differences.
Where to start...
How many in the 'military' standing 'for or against' war compared to individual health professionals 'for or against ' disease and accident.
The military:

A military, also known collectively as armed forces, is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare. It is typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform.

...of uncertain etymology, one suggestion being derived from *mil-it- – going in a body or mass.[5][6]
As a noun, the military usually refers generally to a country's armed forces, or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them.[4][7] In general, it refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy.

As an adjective, military originally referred only to soldiers and soldiering, but it soon broadened to apply to land forces in general, and anything to do with their profession — Wiki: Military

Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/oath-of-enlistment-3354049

Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ?

So, individuals acting within this 'machine' are not mechanistic robots but include:

...all types of people to act in uniform as an organized group. It's simply a pragmatic issue: the better controlled, coordinated and organized force likely will prevail. — ssu

There is a need to strip away some individual identity. To obey orders without question. The training is tough and designed to harden.

The danger of this lies in taking a dehumanising attitude towards the 'enemy'.
https://www.soldiersforthecause.org/2012/03/21/dehumanization-eliminates-the-guilt/

So the cat is out of the bag… Soldiers kill people. Now what are we going to do about it? And the big one at the moment is the case of Robert Bales. It’s the major issue that has spearheaded this sudden distaste for the ravages of war — the issue of the American soldier that killed 16 civilians in Afghanistan. But what did he do wrong really? We can criticize in our recliners, but few of us have actually been those dogs of war crying havoc... — Dehumanization Eliminates the Guilt

Turning to the health profession - the oath. There are variations and updates of the Hippocratic Oath.
Important aspects:

For Warriner, the original oath still resonates, particularly the phrase: “I will utterly reject harm and mischief,” which is commonly misquoted as “First do no harm.” He says, “For me that fits perfectly with not over diagnosing, not over treating, and sharing decision making.”

He finds the vow, “I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being,” which was included in the 1964 version of the oath, particularly meaningful. “When I teach juniors about how to help patients I remind them these are not blood tests—they are people,” he says. — The BMJ :Is the Hippocratic oath still relevant to practising doctors today ?

So, to return to the analogy, individual health professionals are not 'for' or 'against' disease and accident.
The militaristic or 'war' language is not helpful as this article explains from a nursing perspective:
Framing the pandemic as a war, with battles and sacrifices, sends the wrong messages

https://rcni.com/nursing-standard/opinion/comment/covid-19-why-we-need-to-ditch-military-terms-160071

We call it a ‘fight’, with individual battles and skirmishes and sacrifices to be made, and when lives are lost, we make death an honourable and heroic martyrdom.

That last sentence was difficult to write. I felt awkward writing it and you may feel uncomfortable reading it because as I type these words from the safety of isolation, my colleagues are facing serious risk. Many lives have already been lost.

We all feel heartbroken at the loss of our colleagues but we must not accept that their deaths were necessary or inevitable – this is not a war and it is not what nurses joined the profession for. We should not be expected to give our lives for our work. — Covid 19 - Why we need to ditch the military terms

Therein lies the biggest difference.
Soldiers join up with full knowledge that involvement in killing might result in their death.
That is the greatest sacrifice of all.
They are 'for' war or defence of their country and people in that respect. To that degree.
A highly developed sense of duty. For better or worse...

Marcus Aurelius spent a good part of his reign as Emperor at war, and died in his military headquarters in Pannonia (now Serbia). The Empire also saw famine and plague while he was Emperor. I'm amazed he found time to write his Meditations--but know of nothing he wrote specifically addressing war. I suspect his attitude toward it was that war was evil, but a necessary evil to sustain the Empire. — Ciceronianus the White

[ emphasis added * ]

I had meant to say Thanks for this.
I have read his Meditations and likewise wondered how he found the time.
But this was a case of making time. As a way to help order and clarify his thoughts.
A necessary daily practice to cope with all the vicissitudes and responsibilities.
Like having to make war as a necessary evil.

* I had thought of looking up the index, but I take your word for it :smile:

War is used as to define serious dedicated engagement and that the issue tackled is extremely important and if not solved even an existential threat. Or something like that. I remember in Mexico City the traffic jams are so huge and the traffic so awful that people refer to going into traffic as "going to war". Well, naturally actual war is very, very different.

Anyone who signs up for the military know what they are signing up for.
They take an oath. In the US, it includes defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to obey the the orders of the President. — Amity

The interesting question is just who signs up for war? Consider my country, for example. Here in Finland the Constitutions says the following:

Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence, as provided by an Act.

Notice that it means every citizen, man or woman. And only after the 1970's a further exemptions have been made for military conscription for males:

Provisions on the right to exemption, on grounds of conscience, from participation in military national defence are laid down by an Act.

Before the 1985 for example Jehova witnesses for their grounds of conscience went to jail for 11 months when they refused conscription. And that act doesn't exempt Finnish males at wartime: they still are in a category of being reserves. Only at the age of 50 for soldiers and 60 for officers is when reserve duty ends.

(Men, largely Jehova witnesses, who had abstained from military or national service at a special camp (read=jail) in Finland in 1968.)


This just shows that many countries, which are quite peaceful and democratic, have these quite totalitarian rules to be possibly implemented, even if they are very improbable. Such draconian laws might come as a surprise to people as they aren't obviously talked much about.

This also shows how totally different the role of the armed forces can be. In many Western countries that don't have a potential enemy lurking on their physical borders, the armed forces are made usually up of voluntary professional soldiers that are there to participate in international operations. Then there many armies in Third World countries that basically concentrate at the domestic security issue and often are nearly the only working part of the government (which makes things problematic). The role can be quite different.

Another discussion could be had about who the President might consider a 'domestic enemy'.
Think protest march v riots. Who are the 'patriots' ? Who the traitors ? — Amity

Interesting question. I'll just answer about the use of military force. How "patriotic" is to defy your government and resort to "extra-parliamentary opposition" is another question I think.

To bring in the military to any domestic problem is a sign of defeat. That basically means the police or the legal system is incapable of handling the issue. Do notice the lengths that the US military went to for the active military units NOT to be used during the turmoil of the Trump presidency. Using active military can be also a statement like with Eisenhower ordering paratroops of the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock because of school policies.

(Safety in going to school?)


Yet when the military is used, it also gives credibility to those who are engaged. Remember that prior to 9/11 terrorists belonging to the same cabal of islamist tried to bomb and pull down the Twin towers. They failed, only a few people were killed and the whole thing was a police matter. The terrorists were found by the FBI in Pakistan and tried in ordinary courts and put into a normal jail.

Imagine an US President doing the same after 9/11: coming out and saying that this is now a police investigation and the FBI will be on it. And the investigations would have gone on for years.

Nope. That would have been something that the American psyche wouldn't have tolerated. President Bush would have been a weak dick, a pussy.

Bush had to go to war. Invade Afghanistan. Use the armed forces and invade a country. And for the matter, an Al Gore administration would have done the same. Absolutely. Again the reason was that a) the US could do it, b) it would not upset the ordinary life of Americans and c) Americans are accustomed on actions like that. And I'm really not blaming Americans here. I think that the vast majority of people in this World in the situation of the US (having a huge army) would have acted the same way.

'Absolutely NOTHING' as Edwin Starr sings ? — Amity

The good of war is it allows us to express and live the desire for war inside of us.

"The good of war is it allows us to express and live the desire for war inside of us." . . . and if I never am put into such a situation or do not join the armed service to put my life on the line to fulfill this desire then as a person i'll forever regret as well as atone for this failure.