Any aspies have trouble understanding concept of war?

Post Reply New Topic

I find that this directly has to do with the fact that I tend to follow rules strictly. War is, in a way, a lack of rules.

Even in grade 10, I was totaly confused with this concept of war. I remember one of my teachers said "I hope every single one of you buys a poppy to wear by the time November 11 comes around" and he said something like "we need to show respect for these soldiers". At the time, I was confused and thought to myself, "Why are we respecting these soldiers? These soldiers kill people and I was always taught that killing people is bad and that we shouldn't even hurt anyone." This was the problem I had. I was taught these rules of "Don't kill people" and so I thought that these soldiers were bad people and they were all criminals.

Of course, now I understand more of why these soldiers are respected as they fought for what they (or the country at least) believed was right. But I still have trouble with this whole concept of placing special honour for these soldiers.

The current war in Afghanistan:
I can see that Canadian (and other NATO) soldiers have good intentions and they are actually helping to establish what is believed to be a "stable democracy" for Afghanistan. They are helping by contributing to reconstruction efforts. However, I still question if the best course of action was to actually destroy the Taliban regime. I don't understand what gives us (NATO countries) the right to just destroy the pre-9/11 government in Afghanistan. Another thing I don't like is how, in my opinion, we are actually demonizing the Taliban by forcing them to use suicide bombing tactics. If we didn't destroy their government, there would not be so much suicide attacks. I'm sure that if someone were to attempt to destroy a weak Western democracy, some people would resolve to terrorism to defend democracy.

WW1:
Now, why do we even treat the soldiers of ww1 to the same level as those who fight in Afghanistan? People say these soldiers "fought for their country" and I understand that these soldiers needed some degree of bravery. But I ask this question: In what way did Canadian soldiers actually do something good to the world? Did they help civilians in Europe better their lives? Well, maybe they did help wounded civilians as a result of stray bullets, I don't know, but overall, I don't see what good they did. They contributed to the bullets flying back and forth across no-man's land, thats all I know. And so why do we treat soldiers of the past like those we treat today?

I don't know, I guess I would describe myself as close to a pacifist. I do believe that sometimes action needs to be taken like the brutal regime of Adolf Hitler. but honestly, how many wars are really about liberating people from an evil regime?

I don't really know about war but I know about what it makes. Death, Money, and Questions.

Don't forget Hatred.

Yes but I know hate too well. I'm filled with it whenever I turn on a TV so I've almost stopped watching it completely. I hate most of the newer commercials and shows.

I understand the concept of peace much better, than I understand the concept of war.

99.9% of the time a soldier does something you don't like, it was because they were ordered to, because their commander was ordered to, because their commander's commander was ordered to, etc.

I know soldiers. They are individuals who have to trust that they are being to ordered to do the right thing.

If a soldier does something you don't like, blame their leaders. Don't take it out on the rank-and-file.

edit: sorry if this comes across as rude. It's only because I've had a handful of soldiers in my life and I know firsthand they get blamed for *everything*, and a rarely actually thanked for anything--and believe it or not, yes soldiers do a great deal of very risky, very beneficial things for their respective countries.

War can certainly seem like nothing but chaos and anarchy, but those who fight in those wars, armies, are ruled by strict order and discipline. Ask any soldier how things are done in his or her line of work, and you'll hear nothing but regulations, standing orders and formats. As for your other point, which seems to be, "They're acting like bullies so why treat them like heroes?", I don't know what to tell you. Shall I explain the many justifications in favor of WWI and Afghanistan and every war in between and turn this into yet another political thread, or can you just accept that there are many who feel, really feel, that what we're doing is necessary, and the man in the foxhole getting shot at far away from home in service to his country is braver than you or I will ever be, and just leave it at that.

I try to figure out how behaviors and memes fit into an evolutionary biology framework. I am still toying with this one, and I don't know exactly how it fits.

Many Aspies seem to have a problem with the idea of rules, failing to understand that they're meaningless in and of themselves. Everything in life is contextual, even the morality of something like killing comes down to circumstances, killing by accident, killing on purpose, and killing in self defense are all radically different actions with differing levels of acceptability.

I had it drilled into me at a young age that no one can force another person to do anything, everything comes down to choices in the end and so have always evaluated rules and laws independently on their own merits rather than simply accepting that the people who made the rules know better than I. Wars and the people who fight them need to be examined in the same way, make up your own mind about whether the causes are honorable and if the combatants conducted themselves in a manner deserving of respect.

I agree with everything being choices I see life as (I lack a better way to describe) like a water drop going down a spiderweb many different locations and many ways to get to the same place. Is it possible that with every choice we make we create sub universe like realm that does the opposite of what we chose?

Karadzic gives us the most recent clue. Dropped a massive one.

Pasternack got closer than Dawkins .( Dawkins nicked his ideas)


Basho and his mates sat right on top of it and smiled.

It's like some really weird organic OS. Really simplistic, very,very hard to stand outside and abstract.


If I'm right an interesting question is this: If (for example) digitally recorded music is just a string of numbers, how does a string of numbers convey complex emotion and thinking? Evolutionary theory: S-R in simple organisms something like 1 and 0's? ( Think of Dawkins wing being built up out of repeated simpler shapes and forms)


What if there is "something" underlying both the numbers and music, in fact any medium, ( we only make distinction between the media: ask someone like Joshia Wedgewood where art begins and science ends) Meaning automatically creates its own form, medium of expression.

Good puzzle game this one, and memesplicing fun to play, but maybe not on a nuclear armed, heavily populated planet. Give these idiots base codes
to C, they probably burn planet.

I can't even read these posts. Maybe it's just too late tonight, maybe my brain has lost what little edge it once had, but one thing I can say... War is a peculiar and outdated concept, assuming it ever made sense. I do understand self-defense... someone has seen fit to physically attack you and those you are committed to protect, therefore you must withstand them in kind. But how it stands to reason that the question of correct choices can be settled through the sacrifice of the time and very lives of your own citizens, I'm sure I don't understand. They do what they're supposed to do, but who decided it was what they were supposed to do? I also grudgingly understand the concept of conquest. You send in large numbers of soldiers because you are using them as your henchmen to take something you want. I don't like it but I get it.

I guess it just seems to me that it's hard enough some days just to go through the daily motions of getting up, bathing, and feeding yourself, much less others, without seeking to kill in the name of a cause. As to force settling any question, it makes as much sense as an episode of The Office I saw once... they all stayed at work late to do some quiz thing, and when the boss's team lost, his partner picked an argument which ended with the group deciding that if the partner could throw another man's shoes over the building, it somehow made their team win the trivia contest. War for the purpose of settling a dispute makes about as much sense as that.

I don't.

It's just people killing each other in groups, and there's usually some reason for it.

That's because you're looking at it from a moral standpoint. And the moral question is the hardest one to answer--because you must answer it for yourself, and you will never have unanimous agreement.

It's obvious I don't want soldiers to be demonized *as individuals*, but I can also see the evolutionary biology at play in the phenomenon of war.

As for how war, and the demonization or glorification of soldiers, fits into evolutionary biology... well, I admit biology isn't really my strong suit, but didn't Howard Bloom kinda sew this question up years ago?

NATO is a defensive alliance; member states are required to act (as far as I understand it) if any of their fellow member states are attacked on home soil in Europe or North America; the Taliban aided and abetted such attacks and are therefore a legitimate target for NATO.

Though by the same token, so are Riyadh and Islamabad.



There's nothing that forces them to use suicide bombers against marketplaces and busy streets, though. That's the difference between "us" and "them"; they either don't much care or positively glorify in attacking civilians, whereas we try (and do not, of course, always succeed) not to. We're too nice, in the original sense of the word.



More than likely - but it wouldn't necessarily make them right to do so. The Caucasus (Nagorny-whatsitsname, the bit of Armenia that's inside Azerbaijan) and Balkans are somewhat relevant examples.



In a sense, yes. While the Great War was a waste beyond expression, it did at least break the old Imperial and social orders of Europe.

Conscientious objectors have refused to fight in wars.