To Those Who Support War

To those who support war, I have these questions. Do you not know that military action always has the consequence of death? The basis of war is the international use of force, coercion, and violence in order to acquire what all other means and methods could not. While that is an efficient definition for our purpose, it still leaves out a very important understanding of war. The human race is stubborn. We are willing to kill each other, or let ourselves be killed, in order to defend the earth where we were born to; the land that some of us would be unwilling to leave under penalty of death.

Does the war advocate understand that by supporting a military conflict,To Those Who Support War Articles he is putting men in to combat with each other, each soldier expecting to kill or be killed? War is a process that affirms and upholds the most barbaric and most uncivilized traits of the human character. In all armed conflicts, people are rewarded and given medals for relying on violent instincts and satisfying cruel urges. When a soldier kills, murders, and slaughters without prejudice or inhibition under the guidance of a general, he is given medals, honors, and awards. If a person should ever take the role of a soldier in his civil life, if an individual should ever murder or loot from his fellow citizens, he would be dealt with very seriously. As a society, the actions of murderers and thieves are never taken light-heartedly. There are strong and bold men who are willing to defend the rights of all the innocent, sometimes even to their deaths; true heroes. It is the common opinion of all honest thinkers, that all humans have certain inalienable rights. And among those rights, we count the right to life. Should a civilian ever end the lives of the people around him, he would be taking the role of the soldier in an armed conflict. The contradiction of this scene of international affairs only strikes the most socially alert of the world’s people.

War always entails the deaths of combatants, of soldiers, of those who aid one side in their military efforts, no matter what station or position they hold. While this is the essential premise to battle, it is also admitted that in ending the lives of men drafted by their governments, armies are responsible for killing many innocent people. Collateral damage. Friendly fire. Civilian casualties. There are a million technical phrases that the governments of the world have applied to the situation where their troops are directly responsible for killing unarmed families and children. Much of the time, entire cities are engulfed in flames by extremely destructive tools. The homes of these unarmed and innocent people, their places of work, their museums and centerpieces of culture, are entirely burned to the ground. And this is all done under the guise of “military campaigns” or “strategic warfare.” Nobody will ever doubt you if you were to state that the military are responsible for tens of millions of unintentional deaths. Being able to react fast and quickly in a military conflict means having a higher chance to live. Those who are fast to open fire on an unarmed family scurrying from the conflict, are also most likely to be fast in opening fire on armed combatants. The natural order follows then, that those who open fire on civilians quickly, will open fire on enemies quickly, and therefore be more likely to survive and continue fighting. While it is true that innocent civilians often are slaughtered during combat, the governments are always hesitant to release the numbers or any cases that they are aware of when it comes to their troops murdering the innocent.

Rarely, though, do the governments or the world’s militaries ever admit that they intentionally killed innocent civilians. The generals, the presidents, the prime ministers, all authorities, will deny having killed people who they were unsure were civilians or combatants. Sometimes they will begin their speeches with phrases like, “In combat, things can become confused,” or “Who is your enemy? Who is your friend? You can never know.” But, they will never end their press conferences with, “Yes, we willingly and knowingly killed people who were innocent and completely uninvolved with combat or the conflict.” These are militaries that train their soldiers to wound, maim, kill, and otherwise destroy other people who are also called warriors. And once the curtain has been unfurled, once armed troops are thrown on to a battlefield with people they are expected to kill, there will always be the intentional murder of innocent civilians. Sometimes, a government will declare war not another government, but on an entire people, as it happened with the Nazi government and its hatred of the Jews, or as it happened with America’s rulers and the Vietnam War. In those situations, all people are considered the enemy, because they are workers, producers, consumers, and distributors in the enemy’s economy. They produce the food, the weapons, and all other necessities that feed themselves or fuel the war efforts; and in their zeal to win the war, armies will claim open season on all people, armed or unarmed, of the other side. Due to recently declassified documents, we are now aware that military authorities ordered the extermination of thousands of unarmed civilians in Vietnamese villages. We see the same kind of murders and mutilations in the history books, when it comes to the First World War, the Second World War, just about every war the United States government enacted, and the many military campaigns of ancient empires. The intentional murder of innocent families and their children is an unbreakable pattern that comes with every military effort.

In America today, we are on the very fringes of the Vietnam conflict. The great many who fought and witnessed the death of their comrades in combat are still with us today. And after losing their conflict abroad, not to superior forces, but to a people defending their homeland from foreign invasion, they came back to America to fight the United States government. Armies of soldiers had organized, this time not for the sake of waging war, but for the sake of defending peace. They protested their government’s activity in creating foreign wars and deceiving the public. These soldiers threw their medals that they had earned at their oppressors. To them, it was more important to uphold the life, the culture, and the independence of all people, instead of subjecting them to violence, tyranny, and cruelty. I’ve known many members of the underground and the subculture who listened to the confessions of the Vietnam veterans. As revolutionaries, we have always been the greatest and strongest enemies of military conflict. And many of us have listened to the sad and displeasing tales of Vietnam veterans. They confess to us in a way that a Catholic might confess to a priest, or the way a child might confess to a mother or father. They tell us how they bombed entire villages of innocent people. An entire village, scorching in the hot sun of South East Asia, and even though the American soldiers were far, far away, they could still hear the crying pains of unarmed people being burned alive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on To Those Who Support War

Running Is A Alcoholism Killer

Running is helpful to cut down smoking and drinking. We also have improved sleep, less worry and more funs in our life than before. Negative habits can dominate our life while positive hobbies will be dominated by us. Negative habits will be defeated by running.

It is the common by-products of running to reduce smoking and drinking. One businessman runs several miles in a park everyday. He said to me these words. If he worked so hard in his office before,Running Is A Alcoholism Killer Articles on the way home he will stop to drink something. However now he replace drinking with running. Laurence created the American Jogging Medical Association and he also is a researcher of American Sports Medical Department. He once said these words. People will give up smoking for the sake of long running. You would like to have less drink than before due to the same reason. There are no more drinking and smoking in your life, and your life will become more colorful. It is necessary for us to have enough nutrition in order to participate in the aerobic sports. So our eating habits will be changed. Your overall health condition will be improved. You sleep better than before and the sleeping time become less. Your sexual life gets an improvement and your worries would be reduced. Through running we can improve our production rate and have better factors to tackle obstacles. Running brings you away from your television. Then you start to have a look at the new world surrounding you all the time. Running actually bring us a number of advantages. It enables us to have a colorful and quality life. From what they said in the above, we know that running can help us sleep better, have less worry and find more joy in our lives.One doctor talked about active hobbies in his book. Active hobbies mean to use good habits instead of bad habits, such as, using drugs and excess drinking. These words also were written in his book. Positive habits help you enhance your physical strength and they are the reverse sides of negative habits. Besides habits, negative habits seem to use up your energy in each section of life. People who addicted in negative hobbies have already given up love and valuable things and wholly addicted in their hobbies. The people who have positive habits enjoy the fun of their hobbies. But their hobbies do not dominate their lives. It is the most reliable way to nurture our active habits through running. He holds this point of view. You will definitely get rid of bad habits which made your life terrible through positive habits. If negative hobbies have annoyed you long time, then running could do you a favor.Many people realize that it is helpful to get rid of negative hobbies through jogging. He was just one of them. One superintendent of a company noticed that the alcoholics have no other hobbies except for excessive drinking. He wanted to know it very much. If he seduced alcoholics to be interested in other things, then what will happen. One of his patients was a sportsman of short-run in his middle school. And this person really hopes he could get recovery as soon as possible. So he encouraged his patient to participate in some local track and field meets. The health condition of this short-run sportsman gets an improvement soon. So running has been advised by him to other drinkers. In this way, running is a scientific method to cure bad habits. Normal 0 7.8 Ă… 0 2 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:nh<; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} The men is a real Nike Free Run 2 fan who knows more about the running and writes many reviews Nike Free Run 2 Mens Black Green. To be a sport fan as him please join in with running.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Running Is A Alcoholism Killer

Power: Its Cause, Its Effect

Between the thousands of pages of history, one will see the rise to power of kings and their eventually toppling, either by a social insurrection or an opposing political party, or perhaps the one enemy they never outrun: death. The Russian culture had decided to call their monarchs Czars, the Europeans called theirs Kings, the Egyptians used the term Pharoah. So it is that every culture has a long line of leaders and rulers who have given birth to laws and shaped society and government. So it is also often true that these political figures would have a religious connection as well. It seemed that every culture has its war between the state and the church. In some cases, one would gain control over the other, and sometimes the opposite would occur. Monarchs, by whatever title, were dictators, despots, or unelected leaders. Some may have had representative bodies aid in creating and enforcing legislation, and some leaders were elected themselves, as presidents and chancellors are. Whatever the case, whatever the restrictions or the means of their coming to leadership, every leader has power. By this, they have the ability to enforce restrictions or requirements upon those who they control over. However, as many are already aware of, the idea of power (or government) in this regard is something I consider to be unjust, both on its principle and its practice. The following essay will outline my reasons for this belief, this belief of Anarchism.

The Cause of Power

I imagine that there is little doubt as to the cause of power. By the word power,Power: Its Cause, Its Effect Articles I mean the ability to influence people through force, essentially, physical force and coercion. Power is the result of people supporting one person as a leader. This support can come in various forms. Either through taxes, military duty, moral support (defending/praising them publicly), or any other method, power comes to a leader by the support of others. In the cases of dictators and despots, they remain in power by both popular and military rule, in most cases. A king whose rule is harsh, brutal, and undesirable by a people will have to have a strong military rule. But even with that, there is the possibility of an insurrection, overthrowing the old leader and replacing him with a new one, or possibly without any. The family of Nicholas II, the Russian Czar, was executed by his own military, because of the incredibly negative effect his rule has had on the land. On the other hand, a king whose rule is neither negative nor positive to the general population, will require only some military support and some popular support. I imagine that a ruler who gains enough popular support will only need military support to defend himself against other political opponents.

The understanding our the mechanics of government in our schools and universities seems to be that a person is elected, impeached, repramanded, or otherwise ousted, through a due process. No decision, either judicial or legislative, can be enforced without several parties examining it, and the interested parties having their opinion put in. The American idea of power, it seems, is believed to be the ability to convince judges, legislators, voters, and others that your idea is the right idea. The president, who has (some of) the American people at his feet, has the media outlets directly towards what he will say next, probably commands the most power in this nation under this definition.

However, despite whatever one may believe about the American political infrastructure, all arguments, all debates, the ability to convince, means nothing, without force to back it up. There may be the process of the president vetoing a bill and the congress trying to get 2/3rds vote to override the veto. One may say that the congress cannot enforce the bill until they can override the veto with a 2/3rds vote. There are other similar barriers in different fields, the so-called “checks and balances” of the judicial, legislative, and executive power. The only purpose that it serves is to convince people that the will of the government is the voice of the people. In many cases, officials outrightly violate the government’s structure. So it was when the Supreme Court ruled that the United States had to respect the Cherokee Nation. The president’s response was rather expressive of what I have said, “The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let them uphold it.” Power means the ability to coerce, to physical force, and in the most brutal form, the ability to murder and kill.

The cause of power, as I have stated, is rather simple. Power is caused by the support of a figure by one mass or group of people, thus making him a political figure. As to why these groups of people defend and promote this one person, this person they desire to be a leader of all, it is based on their thoughts and ideas, essentially their justification. They believe, inherently, that their leader must be the one with the most military power. The reasons why make up their justification.

The greatest argument in defense of government, which has also been used in the defense of increased restrictions, is that of protection. It is believed that without a government, there will be chaos and vice. Order, it is believed, will be completely ameliorated, as nobody will exist to defend the weak and innocent from the cruelty of the powerful and vicious. So it happens that protection becomes the sole goal of government, though other parties and interests would come to be considered. The often quoted Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote, “Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay.” Expressing a similar idea, Thomas Paine wrote…

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. [Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, section “Some writers have so confounded society with government.”]

It seems to be uniformly believed among thinkers that though government (or power) ought to be supported, it is a necessary evil. The primary, and sole, goal of government should be protection. What we then find in various political activism and campaigning is a desire to alter this protection in government, whether it is to boost it, decrease it, or (more often than not) aim it at a new sector or remove aim from another sector. For instance, we have the conservatives who typically are opposed to welfare and social programs, believing that protection should be withdrawn from the poor, while the liberals typically believe in sustaining such protection or increasing it. Some believe that military spending of the United States needs to be decreased while others desire to maintain it and may even want to increase it. All of these activists understand the principle role of government as a protector.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Power: Its Cause, Its Effect