Why do people want to become soldiers and kill?

'Why do people want to become soldiers and kill?' - this was one of the question I had to answer in one of the public 'ask a question' projects. I see quite fit to double my answer in the blog.

They do it first of all because in their 20s (at their young age) they are still very poorly educated about the history of their country, of the whole world, about politics and about human life in general. Politicians (who are educated very well) actively exploit this circumstance, and paint a good attractive 'heroic' picture for those fledglings, alluring them into the army, promising a worthy cause for their life and all that.
Mind you, they themselves (politicians) don't go to the war oh no, and not because they are too old too weak, but because they value their lives, only the young children of the nation who don't have enough education to fully understand the value of life (their own and life in general) - they are directed by their 'parents' in power to fight wars.
But it's not all about this simple mechanics. After you have served several years in active war zone and killed some 'enemy', even despite all those horrors of war, psychologically it gets much harder for you just to confess to yourself that you made a mistake and walked into a trap set by your own government. It's very hard for a man (especially young one) to recognize that he killed several people 'just for nothing', that he killed people incorrectly, because it's a huge psychological pressure for one to recognize that he, though by mistake and by fault of the government, voluntarily killed people in other part of the world. Very few people are capable of acknowledging this hard truth to themselves and quite army and begin a real war for peace. More often than not governments are successful in setting the guys and girls on the 'crooked path' cause most of them after serving and killing have only one easy way-out: to convince themselves that those killings were right, that they served the right cause and helped their country etc, and, as a result, stay further in army and continue to kill.
In this sense governments apply a very old but effective technology of converting children into inveterate and irreparable killers and feeding them into the mincer of war, latter those guys and girls (who could have become good doctors lawyers, rights activists etc etc) return into the civil life and themselves become active 'carriers of mental infection' convincing others about the bliss of being a soldier and helping the government to get new 'meet' for its war games. The main trick is to force or con an uneducated young man into doing something so bad, that latter he would not have the psychological power to recognize it. So the main thing for a soldier is to learn to feel that he is always right, and that morality of his actions is regulated solely by his government (or commander). If the Counsel responsible for the Nobel Prize really wants to meet the declared conditions and aims of the Award, it must establish a special Nobel Prize Squared for the people like Bradly Manning or Julian Assange, because, de-facto, so far nobody's come even close to the record of war-mongering and mass murder as national governments, and those, who at the expense of their entire life, like the young Bradly, in good conscience tell the whole world about the true deeds, intentions and face of the governments, are the bravest and the most selfless and sacrificing heroes, let alone the most effective one in the way of actual advance of piece on our poor raped Planet.

See also:

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CVRWNP6MUFXGNDQJ…

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CVRWNP6MUFXGNDQJ…

Bahrain, Yemen: just another litmus test to reveal the ethical crisis in the US foreign policy

Situation in Bahrain and Yemen is just another excellent litmus of the US loyalty to its own declared principles and values of Democracy, of its choice between true values and so called 'interests' - a buzzword (belonging to the second-class demagogic vocabulary of the 20th century) that has lately begun producing a nauseating feeling in many educated people at the mere mention of it.
While America and the rest of the West are procrastinating over the nauseating red-herring of 'no-fly zone', only to do absolutely nothing of the pile of things they could and should have done many weeks ago to help the people of Libya, the situation around Bahrain government trying to kill and violently suppress its own people has reached an unprecedented scale and degree of cynicism. Authorities asked and let in a huge corpus of military force from a foreign country to help them to shoot and cripple their own people!! Unbelievable indeed! One country not only kills and beats its own people, but help another government to help with some extra butchers in order to more successfully and reliably dispose of the demonstrators! That's 21th century indeed! In Yemen protesters are killed by their dozens by the government's force in the form of special services and military. They open fire on their civilians in Yemen without any qualms and scruples. But Yemen too, to great disappointment and horror of Yemeni people, is a country of 'the special strategic interest' to the US!
And what could we hear from the US on this score? Just: 'Please, show respect to your citizens'. Respect indeed... 'Tut-tut', - said the US to Bahrain bloody butchers, wagging its finger.. Even Caddafi, whom the US exhorted to leave and accused of criminal actions against his own people several days ago, was not as directly unprincipled and defiant a butcher as to ask OFFICIALLY a FOREIGN COUNTRY to help him to kill its people to retain their freedom in his fist. I wonder: what would the US say if Cuba, whose 11 m people (not leadership by any means) have been tortured by the US sanctions for decades, had openly and officially invited foreign troops to help to beat and kill people and defend the regime? But of course, let's not forget, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (the latter is the biggest financier of terrorist activity against the US itself) are.. of course 'strategic interests'! All in all, those absolutely terrifying and unlimited in their cynical cruelty events in Bahrain have been just PASSED OVER by the West in general and by the US in particular. They have been passed over regardless of the fact that they have evolved in full view of the amused public 'in broad daylight' for several weeks on end now, and came to something that would constitute a new personal record even for such a miraculously anti-human maniac as colonel Caddafi.
Just another of the recent glaring examples of the huge, unbridgeable and unconcealed chasm between the American values and the American interests, the American words and the Americans deeds, the American external political declarations and intentions. Does the US fight socialism (or protect capitalism) or does it defend democracy? Does it fight religious extremism or does it defend its oil interests? Does it fight against real criminals guilty of genocide against their own people, or does it protect 'special interests' and special rights of special countries like Israel? Does the US government political establishment fight to protect their own interests and interests of some other special countries at the expense of the American people or does it fight to defend the real interests of the nation? Does the US fight to provide a good pension, dividends and cloudless future for some bloody adventurists like Chaney, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld etc, or does it fight to insure that those conscientious people of the young generation get more hope and less disappointment and that there is less need of such selfless desperate figures like Bradly Manning in order to tear the fiendish veil behind which the US Government with 120% guarantee can hide any true motives and crimes against the true interests of the American people as well as other nations without a single mechanism of democratic control on this front.
Just one more blow to already totally destroyed moral reputation. The continuing megacrisis of zero ethical credibility of the US in its foreign policy has just reached a point where there is no avoiding big decision and real changes (promised by Obama, but unfulfilled so far because of huge accumulation of a huge amount of 'historical junk of unprincipled and morally irresponsible actions'). This is just an additional note to what's been said earlier:
http://dr-world.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-must-decide-whether-to-support-its.html
http://dr-world.blogspot.com/2011/03/america-refused-to-teach-arabs.html
http://dr-world.blogspot.com/2011/03/west-re-lybia-seems-intentionally-slow.html

America refused to teach Arabs democracy, then Arabs will teach the US democracy!

During all the second half of the 20th century not only did America support the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East but actually nourished them, financed them and protected them, because, so called 'national interests' (special label under which governments tend to guise governmental and political interests) as ever topped the values and principles, despite the fact that there's no 'special interests' in the American constitution and those ethical values and philosophical visions that had been established by the Fathers-founders of the country and of the nation. To put it simply the US has been absolutely unscrupulous and unprincipled in its opportunistic and often extremely cynical foreign policies and has shitted on its own declared moral principles and values like no one else - those moral principles, which are really extra precious and universal, which, without being taken hostage, really could become 'the weapon of mass instruction' if the US had been firm in following them. All of these bitter truths are no secrete: they have been many times recognized in full and openly at the highest political level, e.g. by Secretary Rice (http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/September/20080918155132eaifas0.4152033.html) and others.
Yes, over the Cold War era it was much easier to mask political and governmental interests and unscrupulousness, substituting and passing them off for 'national interests' - this art and mastery of the fraudulent substitution the US adopted from Russia in less then no time. The paradigm 'ends justify means' became an integral part of everything done by the US, though historically and culturally it had never been inherent in the nation's politics before. But what's even worse in this situation is that: AFTER the Cold War had ended the US didn't bother to change anything in this sense. Just business as usual.
The direct and understandable result of this has been such a huge, truly ASTRONOMICAL loss of any moral authority of the US and all that that country is preaching - especially after the Iraq war and open support of Caddafi regime in 2000s - that even after the coming to power of such a humanist and intellectual as Obama, the real capacity of America to do something good in terms of protecting democratic values and human rights (on the rare occasions when it really became necessary) turns out to be close to ZERO! America do need to restore at least partially the 'store of credit' that it used to command far in the past, but never will the US be able to do so before open, honest and whole-hearted recognition, if not contrition, of its own betrayal of its own values. The US needs some serious sole-searching, self-reflection, contrition and renouncement once and for all of the methods and demagogic techniques it largely used in the past.
There are natural processes and natural aspirations to democracy in the world, and if the US continues to work against them for the sake of.. 'special interests', then, in the end it will be America, not those countries, who falls behind. America does need to solve this arguably the biggest moral and ethical crisis - accumulated crises - in its entire history!
If America refuses to help Arabs to win democracy, than Arabs will teach Americans about democracy and the real responsibility of the government and political elites.
If the American government doesn't develop democracy in controlling its own action beyond the borders of the country, than Bradly Manning and Julian Assange (and many many other 'usual people' who happens to be 1000 times more honest and conscientious than the so called elites) will develop it in their own good way without being given any choice from above. But the second way - to wait until someone else teach the US about its own democratic values - will be the most painful, stupid and humiliating. Is there any point in just waiting till the eggs teach the hen? Isn't the time ripe for the US for a big review of foreign policy ethics and straightening-out?

The US must decide whether to support it's "interests" or its "values"

Spokesman of the State Dept retired, because he convicted Pentagon of stupidity and lack of humanity in treating Bradly Manning - Wikileaks Man. Because this spokesman was guided by his conscience and real moral principles: that's the Darwinism of the US: honest people retire or fired, Hilarie Clinton and Rumsfeld, Volfovits or Chaney stay and get promotion! That's the main ethical and in the end therefore political crisis. Bush and Chaney after having added thousands of killed American boys and girls in uniform to the 'trophy bag' of terrorists, are on good State pension and have dividends from their companies from exclusive activities in Iraq, and people like Bradly, who in good conscience reveals truth to the American people and the rest of the World about their governments, trying to prevent in future such absurdly senseless, illegitimate and freak wars, is tortured in solitary confinement. That's the moral equation of the American politics. That's the gist of the deepest crisis ever. Obama confronts the unavoidable choice: who and what is right and good and and who and what is wrong and bad. There is a very clear distinction crystallized between so called 'external interests' of the US Government and its structures, and NATIONAL interests, that is the interests of the American people. Never ever in the whole history of the US have those two notions been further from each other and more mutually exclusive. Political America must decide who reflects her real values and interests - interests of her people - villains like Chaney or Rumsfeld or Volfovits, or people like Bradly and that spokesman. The so called 'state secrets' and 'external state interests' fundamentally DON"T REFLECT any interests of the American people - that's the essence of the moral crisis.
Problem around Libya, which has been supported and rehabilitated by the US and the whole of the West in the recent past, is just one more manifestation - a fault line - of the very same HUGE moral crisis. "Interests" were prioritized as ever over and in conflict with the declared values. Now it's come a moment when it is no longer possible to reconcile those two, and continue assert that black is white and white is black. American political establishment must make a revolution inside itself and recognize its immoral approaches of the past and crimes. Only then the US could again, with time, gain any reputation as a protector of any special values. The US, as it is, has just turned its own declared moral values into 'a slave-girl' into a 'surf-prostitute' which is used as need arises, like a plug for any whole in so called 'INTERESTS'. I don't know about any interests in the Constitution of the US. Unprecedented moral degradation and degeneration of the morality and ethics of the US policy, especially the foreign one!

The West re Lybia seems intentionally slow and utterly hypocritical!

Everything done by the West at present seems intentionally as slow and as practically ineffective as possible - just saving the face and making a show.
The help should have been provided immediately. Now the US are trying to allude to Iraqi experience - good one. But no one's asking the US to do a direct military invasion. The first things to help are obviously these and some others: 1) absolute blockade of any potential weaponry and mercenary supplies to Tripoli by sea (should have been done weeks ago) 2) facilitation of and, if need be, help with the supply of foods and basic goods to the won territories 3) necessary financial help 4) CONSULTING HELP (!!) for rebels - advise by a bunch of specialist in the fields such as effective administrative maintaining of the captured territory, logistics, effective creation of the chain of command, creation of power leadership, the right way of winning hearts and minds and retaining civil population on their side, sharing some of intelligence information about Cadafi moves etc etc. First thing the rebels need is not direct military invasion as in Iraq, but BRAIN HELP AND EXPERTISE - that's what they need from the West apart from words of formal support. Also some special non-military equipment. And anybody understands, that the West could have really helped very much to Libyan people without any military intervention - very many things that could have and should have been done long ago, but that have not been done. One more evidence for me of an unbelievably cynical position and pretense of the West, especially the US, in its relationship with cruel dictatorial regimes. Everyone knew more than 40 years who Cadafi was - no secret. But just at the same time as a court trial was going on of Sadam Husein, Muamar Cadafi was increasingly saluted and accepted by the West. No only the West has been ever more involved in trading and business investment in Lybia, but, what is the most important for me, the West started shook hands, GIVE HUGS to Cadafi, invite this 'cannibalistic' Cadafi to some special festive events as a guest of honor. No substantial difference between Cadafi and Hussein - no secret! Only one phrase is in my head when I observe the way the West and the US in particular are treating various regimes: unprincipled SELF-INTEREST and HYPOCRISY! Shame!
If nothing is changed, there will soon come a time when not a single word from the West is taken seriously by anybody in moral aspect after this unending string of hypocritical lies and utter commercialization of the most profound values and principles on which the very US and other Western countries were built in the past. Shame!

Is nationalism really worth anything real?

What is the nature of nationalism? What's objective and what is subjective part of it?
Very deep, old, and so far under-resolved question continuing to occupy the minds of intellectuals and scientific world. There is a heck of a lot of books and theories made on this theme.

In my humble opinion, It's a sort of religion, psychological phenomenon, the end result of which is a mass identity replacement. Many people do have a 'damaged identity' and the morbid anxieties related thereto. But when those people unify themselves under the flag of some similarities (even if those similarities are completely ephemeral) they feel some kind of relief of the pain, created by the identity vacuum. It like a club of people who were born on Monday and who pride themselves on this fact, ascribing to Monday some 'special' even mystical (religious) qualities.
The anger and potential war (in broad sense: war of words, war of trade, military war in extreme cases) with those belonging to 'other world' is one more way to vent the identity deficit anxiety. As with all self-fulfilling forecasts, the state of war with 'bad others' allegedly threatening their special national belonging, is, in the eyes of nationalists, one more evidence that they are really 'special and different', and, hence, do have a fairly firm identity. All of this doesn't mean, that the degree and activity of nationalism cannot be controlled or 'activated'. There are more and less acute forms, and even 'sleeping nationalism'
Historically, nationalism began really strong and really felt only from the end of 18th - beginning of 19th century. Then the Governments got the real power over their nation-states and learned how to exploit and even create this identity-crisis. Nationalism became a weapon of mass destruction, a perfect masterpiece of demagogy - super-duper socio-psychological medication, allowing Governments to hold power and to gain those ends, which before they could have gained only with the help of the direct force against their own peoples.
So nationalism in the shape we know it now was to a large degree an invention, a lever developed, improved and 'polished' by the political power after the nation states were created and the means of controlled mass communication and broadcasting were developed. So now we more often than not deal with an artificially induced 'boosted' nationalism (in overdrive mode), 'genetically modified nationalism'.
But the fundamental causes of it lie in the identity crisis and the venting of the relevant anxieties and psychological pain.
Do I believe in the reality of such a notion as a cultural nations? Emphatically NOW - in my judgment not only is it a myth but also a very dangerous one. I don't believe in nationality of culture or in 'national cultures', but, on balance, I do belief in cultured nations! Political nations which are for some or other reasons are less or more culturally advanced and capable of further progress - reasons having nothing at all to do with nationality as such. I also believe in cultural barriers the true causes of which having nothing to do with nationality too, as well as in the universal possibility of overcoming those barriers and making initially immiscible and critically antagonistic cultures compatible and able to be parts of one common and larger culture (diverse but not self-contradictory in itself, with a common universal ethical and aesthetic foundation)

Spike in oil price will batter China much more than Western economies

The latest revolutionary events in the Middle East in general and in Libya in particular have already lead to a sharp rise in oil price, raising the bar above the key level of $100 per bbl just in a matter of days. But many analysts are now warning about a further increase which could bring the whole situation to a third oil shock in the event things take a turn for the worse. Some of experts are already anticipating a new astronomical target of $220 per bbl.
In my judgment even so sharp a spike in oil prices in the near future would hit China and some other industrializing economies by far the worst. Of course, $220 per bbl would be no birthday gift for Western developed economies, but it would be an 'apocalypse now' either - nothing even mildly comparable with the oil crisis 1973.
Pundits in their gloomy forecasts are pointing to 1) extra inflationary pressure associated with the corresponding oil price jump and 2) the fragile post crises period of recovery in the West which still continues down a bumpy road, slowly and painfully making its way through a jobless phase. They are also pointing out the fact that Western governments up to now have spent all their special stimulus packages, so there is little one can do in terms of extra emergency measures.
But, I don't think it's all doom and gloom. In the US inflation is still very low due to still low demand - structurally low demand. While a sharp increase in oil prices will draw discontent of the American consumer and rise the costs of the American producer and trader, the overall consumer price hike will be much less than many would expect. The problems of Western economies are structural in character including the tenacious joblessness and sluggish demand. On the other hand productivity continues to rise despite already very high oil prices and rather sharp dynamics of their growth in the recent past in the recent past. Oil does seem to take a very small part of the added value created in the wealthy economies of the West now.
On the other hand every cloud has a silver lining: in case of a major oil price spike, the positive processes of transition to a greener, less oil-dependent economy due to investment in new technology in the West will gain extra momentum and urgency. The world is close to the energy revolution as it is, and any lack of urgency and political will here is going to be eliminated by another oil crisis. Additional redistribution of cash flow into the alternative energy sources industry would come in handy indeed in case of oil crisis.

On the other hand China have already started testing long term sustainability of its industrialization model. Before the Middle East events inflation in China had already reached rather dangerous levels and continue to rise. The part of oil and other raw materials expenses in the creation of the Chinese GDP is already huge and the pain threshold is not so very far. I am sure, that the biggest danger that potential 'oil shock' presents to China, whose export dependent, heavily subsidized and energy extremely ineffective economy would be dealt a hefty blow and lose much of its competitiveness. Consumer demand in China also depends incomparably more on the price oil and other raw materials than that of Western economies.
For China an oil shock would be a real test and a real shock. How China will be able to handle it remains to be seen.
And last but not least, quite contrary to what many sages like to foretell, I am sure, that an economic crisis in China would do much more good than harm for the global economy in general and for the Western economies in particular in that it would make the long awaited and much talked-about 'rebalancing' of trade, monetary and investment unbalances, much closer and realer. Contrary to what is thought by many experts I am sure, that at this point quasi-market China does more damage than good to the developed economies and to the whole global economy in general, in effect parasitically "stealing" from other really market economies growth (including her closest neighbors).
Having said that, I still think that the current jump in oil price is more a reflection of speculators' grip on commodities market and their wish to bull and capitalize on the moment, than of real fundamental problems of an inadequate supply.