Realism Vs. Idealism
This is a first draft and only a sample of the complete document.
You will have to excuse the jumping from thought to thought, that's how things come to me so that is how I write, later I go through and edit, and fix and move bits and pieces.
This essay is just to, as always when I write stuff, is to just show points to enlighten. If you don't like, post something saying so, if you like it, by all means say something about that as well. This essy is 7 pages long. And it's just the first draft. Another draft will be produced sometime during the summer when I have time to actualy think more on the subject. Please leave comments, of course they will not go towards any fo my futre papers mainly because I don't write to make people happy, I write because it makes me happy and because I like to point out things.
Enjoy
Some Philosophies on War
James R.A. Willis
War has always been the way of mankind, the way to solve problems, conflicts, between nations, or house holds. In all of its violence, war has been one of the many down grading atrocities on this planet, and maybe the other vast amounts of worlds that may be out there. War is always turned in to an idealistic moment stood behind with virtues with the shadows of imperialistic and demanding intentions. War has always been, and always will be ruthless. It's only in the eyes of children that the world should rightfully be idealistic. Being young, un-educated on the matter, ignorant to the realistic laws we all have to abide, children view the world idealistically: no war, peace, happiness, among other things.
For a president in office, to view the world in a radical idealistic view is not always the downgrading of this nation, for it can lead to great things. But to be pure idealist vs. realist can lead to damnation. Of course there is and always will be a mixture of both idealist and realist in people. One must remember that when one denies to be the other, he is in fact more so of the other then he realizes, one is in denial. For if a liberal says he is not conservative in any way shape or form, he is more conservative in such a close minded statement. There is always a balance.
To go to war saying it's our obligation as a democracy to go help the other democracies. Is that the cause? Is that too, idealistic? Or is it an excuse? Or, is it a rarity that maybe it really is an obligation, and the greater good that we as Americans really must do? As I have heard stated before, we as a nation must feel comforted, feel as though the actions we made are right, virtuous, not in vain. So we make the excuse to say it's to help another. But such as in the Spanish American War, and World War I, America did not wish to be involved, but both wars dragged us in by the sinking of our ships, innocent people dying always seems to be the underlying button that other nations know to push to drag us in to the heat of battle.
Even in the Spanish American War with the USS Maine's destruction was on our count a perfect excuse to go to war. Saying it was to get revenge for the American lives they had lost. Which in context sure, that is a great reason among just about soul in this nation, kill who kills our brothers. To kill someone out of smite and revenge is the "eye for an eye" rule of thumb, and yet so many people don't agree with that idea on all levels. Frankly I think the rule shouldn't be applied to a "when ever I feel like" foundation. It's unfair, wrong, and almost sounds as though someone can kill someone for any reason they want but make it out to seem justified. Back to the USS Maine, was there an investigation? Maybe so, my knowledge doesn't take me that far, but I do know that if there was a thorough investigation that war may have not been so inevitable, a lingering chance that would only bound by fate maybe, but not inevitable.
Of course, with every action there is a reaction, and if we never fought in the Spanish-American War, it first of all wouldn't be the Spanish-American War, some other war that would later be forgotten about, never explained unless it leads to some other higher event that would be remembered for all of eternity. Without wars, sadly, this world wouldn't be the world we have now come to love so much within ourselves. On the contrary, the war we fight now in ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com surprised ffice:smarttags" />Iraq, the constantly rising gas prices going up at night so that when we wake up in the morning it goes by almost secretively, it's something about sneaking things at night people don't care to argue in the morning because it's just not that noticeable, but it is. We as Americans have the rite to stand up to the Government to argue our point and ask them to do what they as the Government should do, provide, live, and protect the American People. But what happens when the Government is corrupt, and no offense should be taken for the term corrupt is only in the sense that, obviously their not suffering for they have money.
Capitalistic attributes can give one immunity, but what of the lingering higher percentage of people that have no money, struggling as though they used to be an alcoholic, but indeed have given up everything they have virtually to survive. Understand the term corrupt, imbalanced, unfair, cruel, etc. The people of this nation have been beaten down in to being afraid of the government, there is less problem there if no one stands up to argue a truth. Truth, in politics, and religion, are the first and for-most greater weapon, the demon against their ways. Politics and Religion should never be combined, or we'll be living in the 1600's again, but they are both more alike than really recognized. You speak bad about the Government and your looked down upon as though you're a traitor, same in religion. If you speak horribly about religion, if you don't acknowledge their beliefs, then you're an antichrist, you're the Devil.
To bring more points, World War Two: Hitler wanted to conquer the Middle East, but he started off slowly, he would break a rule and when the League of Nations confronted Hitler, he paralyzed their attempts with a truth, the napalm of words. But then he continued up until he wanted to take Poland, again, the League of Nations stepped in and Hitler, again dropped the proverbial verbal H-Bomb with another truth, that Poland was part of Germany and unfairly taken away, that it's occupied by Germans, it should be rightfully so, part of Germany. So Hitler signed a treaty with America saying he wouldn't go to war with America, ah, Hitler was a man full of Truth's and Lies, the Idealist and Realist were both in his advantage. He Signed a treaty with Russia, and they both invaded Poland. Hitler was fulfilling his dream, one small nation at a time. Once he got Poland his thirst drove him past his treaties, and thus war soon broke out. America was reluctant, great Economists trying to tell the Political Leaders of the American government that they needed to spend money, go in to deep deficits, was an Idealistic dream to them, to them it was the real world, that their in so much debt that they'll never get out. The clashing again lets the Great Depression happen. Without idealism, realism will never progress, and vice versa. It's through chaos that we progress, it pushes our minds to the limit to search for new answers to find ways to save ourselves. Of course, the world could theoretically survive if idealism or realism were to just disappear, every person is run by either of the two, some people have the lucky gift of being equal in both.
America would later be dragged in to World War II, fighting the Japanese on one side and helping Britain fight against the Germans. It was a democracies—our status as a democracy that led us to believe that it is our obligation to help defend those nations under attack that could further threaten other democracies, and the security of our own. Is that idealism speaking? Or realism? We'll go with a little bit of both. It was generous thing to do to help a country in need, an ally that we fought in the early days. Factious Germany, Communist Russia, and then there was Japan carving up the lands that surrounded its countries, continually progressing. Who was the greatest threat? Communist Russia was an ally, so there was Japan and Germany. Germany was carving up land quicker then Japan it seemed, and Churchill was on the brink of loosing his part of the war. So we helped Britain up until Hitler assassinated himself, so then Japan was the greater threat where we'll really argue what's rite and wrong.
Now that Germany was out of the way, it was a one way shot to annihilate Japan's plans, and get revenge for Pearl Harbor and the two thousand plus American soldiers dead, for what cause? Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was in that, a surprise attack, to try and take out the American Pacific fleet. Being considerably lucky that at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, our most important ships, air craft carriers were not docked at the time, rather out doing maneuvers, saving a fraction of the Pacific Fleet that would later return, and indeed carry bombers assisted with battleships, destroying every Japanese ship that led the attack on Pearl Harbor. Revenge is sweet only if patience is an ally.
It was later while were island hopping, regaining control of Japanese controlled islands, liberating, destroying, conquering the lost, for a not so lost cause, that we would discover the Japanese soldiers die hard fans for the riotous and their religion to die honorably for the Emperor. The Japanese filled fear in to their civilians that Americans were cruel, full of hate, would torture and rape, leading to many Japanese civilians' death by suicide. Parents would throw their children off of cliffs in to the ocean, of course only after they hit the rocks at the bottom, following to jump after them. Fear is propaganda, sadly so, not always during war time. Dictators have a secret slogan while running for offices, it's fear. Even today in our nice little cozy American Government, fear is propaganda. The media, using fear to scare people in to believing what it is the Government wants us to believe. Again arguing the point that Democrats and Republicans only feed a certain amount of information and only enough to get someone to listen and believe, always being against the other sides opinions.
In today's society however opinions mean almost nothing, being bashed down by the opinions others, and being stamped wrong. Opinions are not correct or incorrect, in that they are exactly that, an opinion, a freedom that we earned. Slowly though that is corrupt and taken away, to speak ill of another persons opinion can lead to disastrous outcomes. During WWII, near it's enevitable end, we were very cautious to invade Japan it's self, so we warned them to surrender or we would destroy them. We didn't tell them that we were going to bomb them, rather a very quick end to their war. They continued to fight, determined that they would win, so the very first Atom Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, not first after months of deliberating whether it was a probably cause to drop an A-Bomb on a country killing more civilians then actual soldiers. Feeling that it was probable, and that it would demoralize the Japanese soldiers, they killed over twenty thousand Japanese Civilians. Instead of demoralizing the Japanese, they angered them, tremendously, and in a haste to win the war and prove that they are not so easily debunked, they fought harder, and they kept up their attacks. Some cases we wiped out whole battalions, thousands of Japanese soldiers killed in combat, but for what? To them they were fighting for their freedom, while in fact taking freedom from other countries such as China, and the Philippines. We later warned the Japanese again, where they refused, and so we dropped a second A-Bomb on Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands more Japanese. The Japanese Emperor realized what he was doing had to end.
Idealism vs. Realism, just an example in the Japanese surrender, ending World War II, it was when the second A-Bomb was dropped, killing all of those Japanese people, that the Emperor's Idealistic notions of conquering all of the land he wished to conquer died along with every Japanese civilian and soldier that died bravely and harshly for his name. He realized that had he not surrendered that all of Japan could meet it's extinction, or real close. Sadly though not all of his high ranking officers felt so realistically, they felt that the emperors ideological views should keep going, full force, have every Japanese person pick up arms and fight for their country, they realized the Emperor was no more of the man they protected and in that felt ashamed, and so they killed themselves, an honorable death to them for their ideologies, it was finally the end.
Sadly two views cause so much war and chaos, without which nations would not thrive, they would not progress, humankind would not thrive. Without Idealism to push for new great ideas for the time periods with which they are born, Realism would never have been born. And with out Realism, Idealism would never have been born to search for new ideas and ways to run governments, and lives. It's the same as Man and Women, without either humankind would never have progressed. We as humans though, should stop and think what the right path to take is, whether the idealism is so important that you would die for it, or whether the realistic ways are the way it should be.
"Rorschach's Journal, September 15th, 1987 8:55 PM. I just Saw Mr. T punch a double decker buss so hard, it crapped a Mini Cooper.."
"They turned it into a wasteland and called it peace."
"They turned it into a wasteland and called it peace."
