spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6781|vancouver
...does that affect our understanding of its essential nature?

I am lucky.  I live in a country protected by two vast oceans.  The devastating effects of war are things I see on television and in movies, and find it difficult to relate to my home country in a meaningful sense.

In its relatively short history, Canada has sent millions of troops overseas to fight in wars, and many of them have been injured or killed protecting what I consider worthwhile values and ideals.  I admire their sacrifices, and hope their efforts were not in vain.  Although I respect pacifists, I am not one myself.  I believe wars are sometimes necessary.

However, Canada itself does not bear the scars of these conflicts.  The civilian population who remained here during these conflicts did not endure occupation.  Or bombing of civilian targets and the total destruction of cities.  Or the imposition of a totalitarian government with all the depredations and brutality that come with that.

I can read about these things, or even experience them when travelling, to some extent.  But our almost unique geographical situation prevents me from seeing them as even possible in the country I call home.  We have a good relationship with the one country whose army would not need to cross an ocean to fight us.

My question is this:  In such a light, are Canadians as a whole best placed to comment upon the essential nature of war?  Is our perception necessarily skewed by our unusual -- not to mention unusually brief -- history?  Is the unfathomably eternal nature of human conflict best understood by such a fledgling culture, whose nearly unparalleled privilege of position sets it apart not only from most of the world, but even from its own very recent ancestors?

The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it.  Start with me. 

Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-06-20 19:36:35)

PspRpg-7
-
+961|6938

I personally despise war...Though I do like killin bitches in BF2. +1 for you.
4_Phucsache
Property of BF2s©
+112|6823|Brisbane Australia
Very good comment and one that I feel sums up the situation of Australia also.

We have never been invaded and only attacked a couple of times ( Darwin, they bombed the post office. Sydney, found a couple of Japanese mini subs).

I dont think most Australians understand the devastation and hardship that is placed on a countries citizens when conflict takes place.

Whilst i have never been in a "war" zone I have been sent to a "conflict" zone and seen first hand the results of armed fighting and the hardship, anger and fear that it causes.

Like Canada we have a proud service history of sending military aid to wherever we are needed and also like Canada we have the luck to be globally situated in such a way that the chances of conflict coming to our home shores is indeed slim a fact for which I am eternally greatful.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6769|Global Command
The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it.  Start with me.
Can I get that in writing? Oh wait...
Des.Kmal
Member
+917|6858|Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Someone watched The Daily Show.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6923|Stillwater, Ok
This is true but canada has seen war on its soil before it was just in the 1700's and im sure a few other minor conflicts.  Our geographic location does make it relatively hard for a foreign nation to attack Canada or the US.  Alaska is our most vulnerable state and if it fell well...you still gotta get around Canada before you reach the main.  But I am definately grateful that my nation gets to read about it instead of experience it first hand.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

spastic bullet wrote:

The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it.  Start with me. 
Except that noone I know of on these forums has seen an attack on their homeland.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6781|vancouver

Bubbalo wrote:

Except that noone I know of on these forums has seen an attack on their homeland.
Well, without wanting to be too pedantic, many of us have seen attacks on our homelands, but there's no question that being the site of an actual war is something else entirely.  Journalists are fond of hyperbole and we've all heard them trot out "war zone" when it's clearly not appropriate.

Anyway, individual experience and memory is one thing; cultural history and psyche quite another.  If our nationality defines us in any way as individuals, we should be aware of how our nation's collective experience affects its view of itself, and its relation to the world -- especially if, as in the case of Canada, that nation's experience is highly unusual in some respects.

I just find it weird that we can all watch the same movies about, say, WWII (or play the same games), and somehow derive totally incompatible conclusions.  We see the same images of bombed-out cities, mutilated bodies, or concentration camps, and yet it can end up meaning something different to us all.

I can't help but wonder if where it happened -- and where it didn't happen -- has something to do with that.  As a Canadian, I feel it's important to be vigilant against a sense of insular detachment from war, as if it always happens in somebody else's country.  We're warned against this feeling often enough for our own sake, but ultimately it's always more likely we will be among the last to suffer its effects.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6801

spastic bullet wrote:

Well, without wanting to be too pedantic, many of us have seen attacks on our homelands
I'm presuming you refer to September 11, which was really one attack, quite different from what he was talking about (i.e. the levelling of cities in Europe).  America has never really seen a large scale war on it's homeland, unless we include the American War of Independence, which was what created the nation, and wasn't anywhere near as long term as the struggles in some countries.
ImmortalTechnique
Banned
+33|6762

Kmal1 wrote:

Someone watched The Daily Show.
You would be stupid not to.
BVC
Member
+325|6936
Being an "untouched nation" doesn't mean you don't know that the effects of war on the places it takes place are terrible, it just means you're less likely to have a personal understanding of it...and many such countries do have a lot of WW2 vets who've seen it up close and personal.  Not from a civilian perspective, granted, but they'd have an idea surely.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6781|vancouver

ImmortalTechnique wrote:

Kmal1 wrote:

Someone watched The Daily Show.
You would be stupid not to.
Actually I did see that, but this is something I've been thinking about for years, and I think it's quite different.

But yeah, I can't believe all those politicians would come right out and say Iraq is basically a lightning rod for terrorism, by design.  Don't know how I'd feel about that, if I was serving or living in Iraq...
Havazn
Member
+39|6934|van.ca

spastic bullet wrote:

The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it.  Start with me
Is this question directed at Americans? Because really, do the civilians know anymore themselves?

There is a difference between a country at war and a wartorn country. Only those who have been to the latter can truly understand war.

However, the question you posed was whether Canadians can comment upon the essential nature of war. My answer to this is yes, only because anyone can comment upon the nature of war, why some wars are necessary, simply by interpreting its base definition. But, it is the understanding of what a war's affect will have that is the question. We never saw it our home soil, but we have contributed to wars.

spastic bullet wrote:

Well, without wanting to be too pedantic, many of us have seen attacks on our homelands
For those of you who don't know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ, the FLQ was a terrorist group in the 60's that killed civilans and a high ranking politcal official. It was also reported that some members were trained in the middle east. We are no stranger to terrorist attacks. Granted, they were not on scale to 9/11, but this was the 60's and they were large enough at the time.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6781|vancouver

Havazn wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

The next time a Canadian tries to lecture you on war, tell them they don't know the half of it.  Start with me
Is this question directed at Americans? Because really, do the civilians know anymore themselves?

There is a difference between a country at war and a wartorn country. Only those who have been to the latter can truly understand war.

However, the question you posed was whether Canadians can comment upon the essential nature of war. My answer to this is yes, only because anyone can comment upon the nature of war, why some wars are necessary, simply by interpreting its base definition. But, it is the understanding of what a war's affect will have that is the question. We never saw it our home soil, but we have contributed to wars.
I wrote it knowing both Canadians and non-Canadians would probably read it.  The part you quoted was right at the end, and was supposed to be both a poke at myself (for the lecturing tone) and a semi-ironic comment on how Canada is probably not typically seen by others (which is to say, as positioning itself as an expert on the essential nature of war).

I didn't mean to sound as if I thought I was speaking for all Canadians, or that I can totally anticipate how non-Canadians perceive us, but I have a way of talking/writing that sometimes comes off as arrogance, so who knows?  Whoever disagrees is either stupid, evil, or both -- you can't say any fairer than that.

Anyway, the question I actually posed was whether Canadians are "best placed" to comment on the nature of war, given our lack of experience as host to it any time recently -- not whether we can or can't have any say at all.  But you're right -- it has to do specifically with the (in)capability of fully grasping modern warfare's local effects, when we're one of very few cultures who have only ever played that sport away from home.  This requires some serious thought IMO, because systemic gaps in our understanding are difficult to detect through intuition alone.

Anyway, thanks for commenting.  The relative lack of Canadian feedback on the thread was making me wonder if the torch and pitchfork committee was going to be making an appearance outside my apartment...
Misery82
Member
+0|6788|Quebec, Canada
OK, its my first post here, I've been watching the discussions in here but no one really caught my attention until that one.

Saying that the flq trained in middle east is bullcrap. Come on, it was just a bunch of pissed people that wanted Quebec's independence the easiest way but it didn't worked out. Most of the separatist at that time did not agree with the flq when they started kidnapping officials. But to talk about Quebec's Independence and all the other stuff should be on another thread. For the war part i agree with you spastic.
Havazn
Member
+39|6934|van.ca

Misery82 wrote:

Saying that the flq trained in middle east is bullcrap.
"At least two of the FLQ members had also received guerrilla training in selective assassination from Palestinian commandos in Jordan." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ

"FLQ personel trained in Jordan and Algeria..." - http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph … 1-84_e.pdf

Granted, it was a bunch of pissed people, who resorted to terrorist tactics. Read about it anywhere and you will find that it wasn't just rallies and protests. People died at the hands of the FLQ. You cannot just shrug it off as if it was a child throwing a tantrum.
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6781|vancouver
I doubt Havazn meant to imply links between the FLQ and mujahideen-type movements, but the wording could definitely have been clearer.  There's a good ten years of buffer between the FLQ and Osama in Afghanistan, and I don't think even the most casual observer could equate their respective goals.

I think he just wanted to point out aspects of our collective experiences people in other countries might not know about.  I guess I could just let him speak for himself, though...

EDIT: That's what I get for taking a dump before hitting send...  Never mind. 

Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-06-22 18:29:33)

Misery82
Member
+0|6788|Quebec, Canada
OK, we'll it's true it was terrorism. But to declare the state of war and putting everyone that had a tough about Quebec's separation in jail was a little bit far out.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard