The Discordant Opposition Journal Issue 11 - File 3
A Plea For Peace
By: skwert
"What are we fighting for?!" When a war happens -- sometimes this is the last question asked by the people, but it should be the first. I will say optimistically that most of the time it is, and people actually value what they are fighting for.
The reason I say that "What are we fighting for" should be the first and maybe even the only question asked is because wars communicate what a country or group of people values. If this question is not asked their values and cause could be misinterpreted.
It's very much like a speech or a paper - when writing it or saying it the sender needs to have a specific reason for writing it. Hopefully, they are not talking or writing just for the sake of being heard or hearing themselves talk.
If the message is not known by the sender how the hell is the receiver supposed to decipher it.
So, just to clarify my motivation for saying this to you - I am telling you what war communicates so you might think about what our country fights for - and if it is really worth it. If you truly value what message is being sent - or if you even know.
When asking the question "what are we fighting for?" I always think first of religious war. Religious wars have been raging on for centuries, yet most religions believe in the exact opposite - they believe in peace, unity and forgiveness. Most atheists, agnostics and others without a religion are that way for the very reason that the message communicated through wars, riots, etc.
By religious people is hypocritical.
The crusaders believed they were on a quest for God. They were to show the rest of the world monotheism. So, when I first thought of this I realized "actions speak louder than words," it is empirically proven. Actions are a HUGE part of communication. So the message they tried to get through with violence was drown out by the voice of their violent actions. Many people turn away or are driven from religions because of actions.
Yet other things are communicated through war, not just religious beliefs. The United States continually sends out the message that money is more important than human life. Each war they have gotten involved in since W.W.II, at least, has shown exactly that. Vietnam is a perfect example of the inner conflict between the people and their leaders. If people only realized the power they truly carried, but unfortunately not enough do yet because they are comfortable.
Vietnam made people uncomfortable because they asked the question "what are we fighting for?" and got back an answer that didn't satisfy them.
The United States was by no means always like this, valuing money over human life. They used to fight for worthy causes in most citizen's eyes. The revolutionary war fought by the United States was seen as just such a cause. There were exceptions to those who agreed, but the majority saw it as a "worthy cause." They saw it this way because they had tried to talk Britain into letting go of them, and that didn't work. Then after many debates about what they were fighting for, they turned to war. People died so others could be "free." The US was communicating to the world that they were strong enough to govern themselves and ideally anyone could make it to the top in their political system because it was a democracy with capitalism.
The question I would ask now is, "Is the US really a democracy? Are they really a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?" Back in the day, when Lincoln became president and maybe up until all presidents started being rich senators, I think the United States was an almost perfect democracy. It had its flaws just as anything, but it ran a lot better than it does today.
The United States, today, I would like to think, has Unintentionally made other countries think its sole purpose is money. Anyone on top has money; anyone in a leader position has money; anyone who's anyone has money, and there are few exceptions. The majority of the time, do these people with money truly represent "the people?"
The rest of the world seems to think so. Maybe its time we talk to the government officials and see what they think. We are not the only country communicating a message, though. All countries just as all people, all the time are communicating. They are sending out a message that says, "We believe this, we value that...." War helps this message be brought out stronger, and sometimes war completely changes the way other countries view those involved in the war.
War is not always waged between two different countries. Civil wars communicate to the rest of the world the fact that part of the country believes and values things differently. In all wars, both sides believe they are right.
Their cause is good enough to die for. So, no matter who wins the battle, the war still rages on. Just because one side loses the war, doesn't mean they will change their mind. It will probably make their conviction all the more stronger. They believe their cause is right.
Communication is a huge part of avoiding physical conflict. True, different countries speak different languages, have different religious beliefs, etc. But they obviously understand each other enough to disagree on something. The fact is they are communicating, but the communication needs to extend farther. I do see some instances that maybe another country should step in, such as a teacher separating two kids in a fight. But realize this teacher must not take sides, or the conflict is all the worse. They should just separate the two and say, "Hey, what's the deal?"
And send them to the principle, he will decide how to discipline the two fighting kids and not the teacher. This should be the same when races, different beliefs, or even countries fight. Instead of the US or someone else stepping in and taking sides (deciding who's side to fight on) the semi-authority figure should pull the two "fighting children" apart. Then, not take the situation into their own hands, unless absolutely necessary.
There is an international court if no negotiation can be made. The fact is the country that steps in SHOULD be neutral. There should not be money or anything else involved so they would want to take sides. This is for obvious reasons. For communication reasons, if they feel they might be tempted to take sides, they shouldn't be involved. Just as fighting couples do not usually go to a counselor that supports one story more than another, that is if they truly want to solve the problem.
Take for example the Middle East. If another country were to step in a try and solve it - it wouldn't work, it hasn't yet - with peace treaties etc. The agreement must be made by the people or nothing will change. The Palistineans and Israelis have a chain of hate and it just keeps getting passed down from generation to generation. Many times it has happened that war is passes from one generation to the next. Attitudes and ideals are usually inherited by the younger generation because they have grown up hearing it.
Jesse Micheals (the lead singer/song writer of former Operation Ivy) noticed this and wrote it very well in the song "Room without a window." He noticed the close-mindedness of the younger generation that kept the ball rolling, he wrote:
"Walls made of opinions, through which we speak and never listen. Ceilings made of pride, vicious and self satisfied. Door that's made of rage, hard and slowly aged. Always closing tighter with every war that's waged."
Most of the time second and third generation warfare is very much like this. They refuse to look outside the walls, to see it in a different light. The fact is, war communicates many things. But there is something else that matters more than the message being sent, that is that there has never been a war that solved anything. Although the US declared its independence from England it still had its problems. War may seem to temporarily remove the stain, but if a war ever did really solve a problem that would be the end of all wars.
The problem with war is: In war someone has to lose. The war isn't truly to a stopping point until both sides agree . . . but usually one side gives in or decides the cause is not worthy of war. An agreement is hardly ever made. Because one side gives in they are declared the "losers" because both sides whole heatedly believed in their side. So, next time you are thinking about supporting a cause, not only ask the question, "What are we fighting for?" But call to mind what John Tunic wrote in His Enemy, His Friend. "If we keep feed on these hatreds handed down to us by our ancestors, where are we? What good are wars? Who ever won a war? Who ever profited from them in the end?"
- UNITE!
