There Are No War Heroes


Nevermind while Luke is putting his weapon down there is a rebel army fighting with the indigenous population of the planet to prevent Imperialist expansion.

Luke gets to be philosophical because there are other people fighting at the time. Kinda how we wax philosophical about freedom while Syrians are being cut down bloody.

Is your presumption that the Nazis would have just stopped at some point in the 1940's and decide mass extermination was wrong, or that Southern Confederates would have one day just realized their slaves were people and apologized?
Well, Luke is also not fighting because Vader is his father.

Oh, sorry... SPOILER ALERT!...
#1 Both the American southern states and the German nazi party were angry over what they saw as unfair financial pressure on their economies from meddling outside interests. So as you allude, how does one prevent a war from resulting when one group looks at another and says something like, "your way of doing it is evil and wrong. We must kill you to stop your evil ways." Most wars seem to start because those in power wish to remain in power or not share resources with the less fortunate. At least that is how I see events. Negotiations are the ideal first solution. But as we know men like things that explode. Your points are germane, when push comes to shove who really wants to turn the other cheeks only to all 4 slapped.

This is why George Bush is one of the greatest men in history.

He effectively prevented WW III by pre-emptively toppling Saddam Hussein.

PLEASE liveblog the entire original trilogy someday, Charles.
#3, I agree war is largely fought for the purpose of power or the purpose of resources. No one should seek war, but to say all war is unjustifiable is ignoring an important aspect of human government. If China were to invade the US for its resources or to put its own puppet government in power would it not be just for the US military to resist them. Would the men and women serving to prevent our government from being removed not be "heroes"?

Which brings up #4's point, if a defensive war could be justified would a preemptive war ever be justified? I believe the answer is no, in no case would one be acceptable just like we would never consider preemptive justice to be acceptable.
Charles, you’re posts are only fun when they’re over the top, not when they are appallingly divorced from reality. Let this post be a reminder to yourself not to let the country folk push you to the opposite extreme.
Why are you posting Star Wars videos on your rural vacation? I was looking forward to being outraged and amused by your take on rural life.
only rah rah is allowed on memorial day, charles. see @4.
@8, I suspect he thought first of trolling us with something Memorial Day-themed but nothing in his actual travels suited. Hence he dipped back into the Lucasfilm well. Hang in there. My prediction: his next post will reveal the purpose of his trip and/or his traveling companion(s). Bonus points if it's something to do with his showbiz career.
It's so very tasteless to consider all that is war, in the context of Star Wars, on Memorial Day.

@4: Please tell me you are a satirical caricature of a conservative. Either way, that's funny stuff.
I think the comments in this section can adequately be addressed by today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal cartoon.…
insipid, stupid, and harmful. Our war against the nazis was not just just, but heroic. so was our war against Japan in ww2. BTW after we beat them across the pacific did we even really have to go on? well, it got them out of china where they'd raped thousands and enslaved more. The greeks fighting the persions were just, too.

This kind of comment, the disengagement from the entire complex of thought and feelings summed up as honor, is largely why liberals, progressives and pseudo progressive faux marxists like charles just can't win in politics. Krugman shows the same thing today decrying chris christie's "bad arithmetic" as if his lying attempts to scam voters on the state budget issues are just some kind of mistake. Krugman fails to be morally offended and outraged at Christie's knowing, planned, calculating, and ultimately dishonorable LIE for power. So, Krugman always points out Christie and his ilk are "wrong" intellectually, without giving them a big old gut based moral put down. Based on honor.

Charles, you're dishonorable if you come here and benefit from our justice we have achieved, yet can't honor our own war dead. And yes, none of this means american isn't wrong sometimes or didn't have some wars that were unjust: we did. But the revolutionary war, the ww2 war, those aren't among them. neither was the civil war you moron, esp. after the emancipation proclamation. Let me say it clearly: a WAR TO END SLAVERY is just. Our armies being in western europe stopped the commies, they'd of taken over west germany and france if we wweren't in place there. This whole "there is no just war" redounds of the whole moral relativism plaguing liberal thought and affectlessness. Get some honor dude and stop being a total wimp. You'd let the nazis take over? that's cowardice masked as intellectual superiority. it's dishonorable.

My ancestors fought the brits. They also fought in ww2. My father fought the nazis. They were in line to go invade japan. Fuck you charles. They were not morally equal to the nazis or the japanese leaders. Fuck you for suggesting they were.
Good Afternoon and Happy Memorial Day Charles,
Clearly, your posting coincides with this somber holiday dedicated to our fallen veterans. And the posting does so provocatively, to say the least.

Obviously, I disagree. First of all, there are such things as "just wars". Second, only if one is a pacifist can one actually believe there is no such thing as a just war. That would mean at the public administrative level, say as a president or monarch and of course privately, one is a pacifist. That is if one's cheek is struck one will not strike the other's cheek AT ALL as a response.

It's been stated there are basically two kinds of war, wars of necessity (just ) and wars of choice (debatable). The best example in American history of the former is of course Dec. 7, 1941 and arguably the best example of the latter, is the Gulf of Tonkin incident 1964 which enabled America's entry into the Vietnam conflict.

To be sure, all wars have victims civilian or military. And, we must endeavor to avoid military conflict knowing the conflagrations that may ensue. But, I'm dubious the soldiers male and female, straight or gay that fight and die for any of these conflicts believe they are victims. I believe they are heroes and I salute them.
all wars are preventable

If all wars had, in fact, been prevented, the world would be a much shittier place than it is now.
I've seen heroes with my own eyes so I know they exist. But if your point is that humans don't need wars than you don't know humans. Rather than waste any more time on you, I will turn my attention to those who are serving, have served or sacrificed their lives for this country and say to them thank you. You are my heroes.
Charles, do you have any idea how greatly your self-perceived intellectual superiority undercuts your voice? Your work is all about showing your readers how Smart and Right you are, which makes your prose irritating enough to tempt me to pray to God and vote Red to But the delicious irony of your work is that your perception of your intellect (that jewel of great rarity!) negates your ability to believe your readers can grasp your point. Thus even your shortest entries are littered with your trademark, almost Seuss-ish redundancies. How you love the sound of your own voice! And oh, my dear Charles, how masturbatory it is!

My gift to you: a master class in writing, in two simple points: 1) "Never use two words when one will do." -Thomas Jefferson, and 2) Trust your reader, genius.

I wouldn't bother criticizing your writing if you weren't so obnoxiously scornful of other human beings -- people just as valuable as you are -- because they're different. The Sacred exists, Charles, whether in material form or outside of it, whether in the imagination or in the ether. And the freedom to enjoy that Great Mystery, however one perceives it (whether you believe in some kind of a God or whether you worship your own intellect), is as important as the freedom of speech here in your adoptive land. (You know, just like in Zimbabwe!) This is why we celebrate Memorial Day, and why your despised Christian pastors and many millions of other Americans, left and right, honor our fallen soldiers today. Their sacrifice has enabled you to come to the land of their birth and freely ridicule what they stood for with your self-important prose. Their sacrifice is what enables you to go to your daughter's school and demand justice and a decent education for her. Perhaps you'd have preferred to be a black intellectual leftist writer in Nazi Germany or the Soviet bloc? So be a leftist, a humanist, an existentialist, an atheist, whatever. This is America, after all! Where you have the right to believe and say whatever you wish. But Charles (at the risk of being redundant) -- you owe it to the men and women we honor today.

So write what you will. But Jesus, dude. If your ideas and your prose are as stratospherically far above your readership -- the Seattle Left -- as your work suggests you believe, why are you writing for a free alternative weekly in a far corner of our benighted land?
Whether or not I agree with the estimable Mr. Mudede is irrelevant. I have for years enjoyed his, um, uncommon philosophical interpretations of Star Wars. As a youth, I merely watched Star Wars for the special effects, and because I had the hots for Luke Skywalker. I never imagined anyone could derive deeper meaning from these movies. Charles proves me wrong again and again.
On the one hand: a good sword belongs in its sheath.

On the other hand, it is the good war that hallows any cause.

I don't need to take a position on this to enjoy the nuances of each philosophy.
Well you are wrong about all wars being preventable, some just are not. But you are dead on about there being only victims. Read Paul Fussell to see what life was like for the guys at the point of the spear and how the saw themselves not as heroes but as expendable cannon fodder.

If you want to honor the fallen work harder to make sure there are fewer in the future and none waste for garbage reasons like Iraq
I dont know about that... All wars preventable?
They should bring back looting.

I'm serious, not kidding in the slightest. To equalize the disparity between wealthy old men who start wars and poor young men who fight them, looting should be institutionalized as a way for a young warrior to return to his native land a wealthy man.

On the other hand, if people understand that the wars they choose to fight will necessitate looting and hardship on subjugated people should they succeed, they will have second thoughts on the meanness and cruelty of warfare, and may opt not to engage in warfare if at all possible.

There's no reason to risk your life unless the potential to profit is magnificent.

charles got stoned and did a star wars marathon this weekend.

i'll be back tomorrow.
I certainly can't improve on lark @ 15 or C'est Dommage @ 18, so I'll just add this Japanese proverb:

"Knowledge without wisdom is a load of books on the back an ass"
Charles first post on Ewoks clearly did not have the effect on us that he was looking for, so this post exists. He upped the ante, and we need not take the bait.

On further inspection I noticed that @1 mentioned the Nazi's at the top of the thread, so Charles has already won.

I hope your happy.


And idk how my grandfather and cousins would feel about calling them victims. After all the medals they have gotten for the heroic things they did i think its abit insulting to them....
Usually with you dan but not this time but i do get what you mean its just... Flawed.
Wtf how did i end up here this isnt dans blog...
@@27 no one tell me i said im usually with you dan i see my mistake now
Not all wars are preventable, in that anyone could have prevented them.

But the ones you started were preventable by you.

War has only one purpose.

To remove excess males from society.
Someone please push "RESET" on the tickle machine.
People who start wars are not heroes. The people who end them are.
How exactly do you prevent a war? Only thing I can think of: Mutually assured destruction (quaint phrase). That only works when both sides are willing and able to bring total destruction to each other, which implies that they have engaged in previous wars and military activities that make this a reasonable threat.

But as far as "Come on, people, now. Smile to your brother. Everybody get together. Try to love one another right now.": That's just a bit detached from the reality of human nature and the general biological competition for limited resources.

It's a nice thought, though, like communism or the teachings of Jesus.

(Star Wars is so corny, now that I look at it. How is that still popular?)


The point is would you want to?

For example, our society was at its most "fair" after WW II.

War swept away the old institutions.

We don't know what meaningful negotiation would have brought to World War II or the Civil War because it never happened. I cannot comprehend the Mudede-bashing so prevalent on this blog. It reeks to high heaven.
Word. Also interesting is how Vader's voice kind of changes, starting with when he says 'NO!' here
@21: I could be wrong, but I assume that Charles was including those young men in the category of war's victims.


Never happened?

You forget:…

Gee, I wonder what happened to Luke right after he put down that weapon?
There is no correlation between Star Wars and our present day struggles. Star Wars took place a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Hmmm ... regardless of whether or not I agree with your basic point... arguing that anything in real life is true or false because of something that happened in a scene in a "Star Wars" is ridiculous.

"The Bible says so" is a better argument than "it happened in Star Wars" ... understand?

When is SLOG going to have anything good on?

Like..Korean racing models!!…

In other news, Chad Vader has completely ruined my taking Darth seriously.
So, no Thermopylae, no Athens, no greek this and that, and you end up with the federal buildings in washington dc resembling the temple of darius nd the usa being an oriental despotism system. How would a Mudede choose to go to America then, mmmmm?

Wars exist solely to make the rich and powerful more rich and powerfull. That we continue to believe that sending our kids to go murder each other for these mother fuckers shows shows what a pathetic ape we are.
On behalf of every brave individual who has risked, sacrificed and given more than than Mudede's privileged, ivory tower communist ass will ever know or understand:


I can't wait till the day you join you racist dictator supporting father in hell.
Thanks Charles, I no longer feel guilty for doing nothing in rwanda.

Charles doesn't like wars of intervention; I mean, slaughtering your own people has always been the only way to create a communist state.
" all wars are preventable" is an ideology, with which you should not attempt to analyze the material reality of our day to day existence.
War Victims, how true. Better yet, no ewoks.
"War has only one purpose.

To remove excess males from society."

Seattle did the same by using radical feminism.
@ 47, needs bolding and more exclamation points.
Also, if we're using Star Wars as an allegory against war, um...Luke refused to fight in that moment because it would have meant giving himself over to his hatred and joining the Dark Side. He still supported the fight against the Empire.

Seriously, who doesn't get this?
@36...What are you talking about? Meaningful negotiations with Hitler? That's exactly how Chamberlain gave the Third Reich its head start.

Charles Mudede, LOL. He tries SO hard to intellectual, hip, and clever, but much like walking and chewing gum he just can't get it done. Probably not too late to sign up for some creative writing classes at Seattle Central, Chucko.
Charles Mudede, LOL. He tries SO hard to be intellectual, hip, and clever, but much like walking and chewing gum he just can't get it done. Probably not too late to sign up for some creative writing classes at Seattle Central, Chucko.
@ 18. you made my day! Well said. I love reading the stranger but rants from Charles such as this are truly difficult to bear. I try not to feed the troll so I don't really post... and I recognize that you take the good with the bad but, jesus is it painful to read.
I will agree that "Just Wars" are rare and that the suffering of everyone involved in a war is inhuman, but I disagree with your assertion that all wars are preventable, and therefore unjust. Take the Rwandan Genocide; the US and the UN refused to enter the war, thereby enabling the Hutu militias to slaughter nearly 1 million innocent people. Imagine if we had stepped in after 10 days and stopped the slaughter then. Our country was not attacked (and therefore we enter a gray area of the Just War principle) but with US and UN involvement the death toll would have been hundreds of thousands lower. This is one of the reasons I feel we need to reserve the right to use force and wage war.

For the record, I feel the US invasion of Iraq was not justified and our mishandling of Afghanistan removes any justification that we could claim post 9-11
I don't like homosexuals. I prefer not to talk to them or hear about them. I think they chose to live the homosexual lifestyle and I think they are perverts.
My guess is that Dan agrees with Charles. Sad
The fact that so many Americans believe in just wars only reflects the poor state of our nation's education system. Even a small dose of geography and history would leave this opinion shaken. Really, give Rwanda a little more thought and effort. More was going on there than what you saw on TV.
I like this quote:

Before speaking, notice what motivates your words. ♥
~ Lama Surya Das
That is the mark of a true intellectual and academic right?

"Everything I say is 100% correct, and anyone who disagrees in any way is just too stupid to understand."

Get over yourself, child, everyone else is.
Good Morning Charles @61,
I gonna contend with you on this. No, believing in "just wars" does not at all reflect on the "poor state of our nation's education system". It reflects in fact, a proper discussion on the use of warfare as a means to a morally correct end, say the toppling a dictatorship or ending slavery. That is something I learned from this nation's flawed but otherwise fine education system.

Look, I'm neither a warrior or pacifist. But, I do believe there are causes worth fighting and dying for. Those are commonly called "just" causes for waging war.

BTW, I believe Pres. Obama believes in "just wars" as well otherwise he wouldn't implementing this:…

For the record, I have grave reservations about this.
I don't exactly believe in just wars, but I'm also not a pacifist. All of the examples of "just wars" that are offered generally begin with an injustice, and then the reaction of the ostensibly "just" to that injustice. That is, it's not so much that there are just wars, but that standing and fighting can be a just course of action if war is the only alternative to extermination. In this case, war is not so much an evil as an absurdity--of which we must contend with a good many in the course of any life. There are heroes in war as there are in all human endeavors.
Chuckles is right. Next time some minority population is getting liquidated in Eastern Europe, Africa, or the Middle East, we should just sit back and let it happen. If war cannot be just, then there must be no pacifism that is cowardly or unjust, no matter who's getting hurt.

Let's not forget this is the guy who watched his neighbors get robbed without doing anything about it. That, right there, tells you everything about this clown you need to know.
@61: "You don't agree with me -- that means you're uneducated."

Thanks for proving my point about you, Charles.
@66: Well said.
When a force invades another country to take for their own, that, is not avoidable in any way. If anyone attempts to take lands from another country, that, imo, is a just war. Of course there is a just war. Violence is only wrong if it is used in a context outside of defense of self or another. But in defense, violence is right, and there is no argument against it, save cowardice. There is no such thing as a "pacifist" that can't fight, for truly, only one capable of violence is capable of making a "choice" to not be violent, because you cannot make a choice to not do something that you cannot do in the first place, in essence, only a fighter can be a pacifist, and one that has never engaged in violence can not call themselves a pacifist, because pacifism is a choice, and one cannot make a choice if they have no alternative... I choose to be a pacifist, because I can fight, because I have fought, and I choose words over fists, but if a person needs defending, I will put my beliefs aside and engage, defense of another is the most important of all human qualities.
Upon further reflection, the reason Chuckles doesn't believe in heroism in war becomes quite obvious; he is a man lacking in even basic levels of physical courage or common humanity. A Socialist (or whatever he is) who loathes the common man to the point where he proves incapable of helping his own community against predation. I suspect the constant searching for meaning in the cosmos comes from a fundamental interior lack, one which I'd have no trouble believing has led him to be incapable of knowing even basic first aid training, or the willingness to help another person without some sort of personal gain. Were our society in any way tribal he would have long since been cast out, too much work to keep alive and unable or unwilling to help himself. Yes indeed... Come the zombie apocalypse, I predict a short lifespan for our dear Chuckles.

Damn, this philosophical bullshitting is fun. I see why you persist despite having nothing relevant to say.
Fight the rich, not their wars!

And believe me, they are ALL their wars.
I love how Slog's only contributions to Memorial Day are "There are no war heroes" and "Should the draft be reinstated...I really hope not bc I sure as hell don't want to serve."

Not one little thank-you post? You know, to soldiers? On Memorial Day?
Mr. Mudede is a pathetic individual.
Mr. Mudede's expectation that the world should mirror the clear-cut morality of Star Wars perfectly illustrates the childishness of his outlook.
Sorry for all Americans who get all lovey-dovey everytime war is mentionned... but let's think a bit, will you ?

Even in theory, wars are never "just". They may become necessary, whenever stupidity has had its way for too long and you end up with a murderous asshole being obeyed by a whole country, and diplomacy can no longer resolve anything. Yes I'm European, and don't come tell me WWII was a just war in which Americans saved my hide. Americans raped French women of my family, patriots, who had the misfortune of having learned how to speak German. And yes Hitler could have been stopped, diplomatically, in the 30s. But "better Hitler than the Communists", said both European and American diplomacy... An unavoidable war is not enough to make it a "just" war (nor a "holy" one). There is no element of justice, ever, in butchering human bodies with metallic implements.

And then there's the practice of wars. Who die most in wars ? Unarmed people. Civilians. Mostly women and children. You'd remember that, America, if you've had recently a war on your soil. But you haven't.

You've not been raised with the tales of children and women burned down in a church in a village (Oradour-sur-Glane, a few hundreds of civilians, the nazis did it). Nor the memory of a whole civilian town ravaged by fire though phosphorus carpet bombing with - in less than an hour, nothing living, nothing standing (Hamburg, several hundreds of thousands of civilians, the allied did it ; less than 3 weeks afterwards, the German war ships were back in operation in Hamburg Port, but not the civilians, they were ashes). Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not civilian cities or Massachussets nor of Arizona. It wasn't Ohio schools that were bombarded by Clinton's aviation during the Yousgoslavia wars, with Ohio children being mashed to bits. War at home, you don't remember what it is.

The war sufferings, for most of you Americans, it's about private Ryan coming or not home. For people who have experienced war on their soil, it's about whole families, whole towns being wiped from the surface of the earth. About unarmed men, women and children tortured, killed, raped. It's also about years afterwards, babies still being born with deformities because of all the uranium and lead blown all over the place. It's also about people who weren't born yet during the war, but who can't sleep at night because they can't forget how a whole branch of their family (including the 3rd-month-old baby) has burned to death in their cellar/been hacked to pieces by machetes in their church/been riddled with bullets in their car/etc. in an attack during this or that war.

All that, that's wars, the reality of wars. What you're calling heroes are men heavily armed going agaisnt men less heavily armed. And they are going to kill way more unarmed civilians than heavily armed men, even if they themselves are decent people who were sent to the rescue of those same civilians. Because it's how wars happen in reality.

Wars are about mass-destroying human bodies. And about enriching arm companies. Call that just ? I don't.
@75 said it better than i did. i rest my case with his/her comment. just remember, the idea of a just war is as flawed as the idea that north america is on the top and south america is on the bottom.
@75 and 76.

you merely prove that wars are regrettable; resisting aggressors is still just. no one said it's good, or nice or like unicorns. my cancer therapy was bad. it hurt. but it was just. and btw often the men heavily aremed are not going against men less armed, but against men more armed, as if that's relevant to the justice of the cause.

you don't hear the german or japanese people bitching that america's involvement in war against them was unjust. wonder why. really, go wonder why.

it's because america in ww2 was just.

the globe having conventions of north and south top and bottom is a silly analogy. fuck you charles, you're a moron if you think the nazis were the equivalent of my father when he fought the nazis in europe and was being readied to go fight japan. those nations were at FAULt in conquering other lands, they were UNJUST, and opposing them is as JUST as it is for a cop to go arrest and use force against gary ridgeway. stopping agresssion is just and moral and i am glad we did stop it and i am proud and you, sirs, have no honor in equating the nazis with the us army and marines who fought them. you should be ashamed of yourselves as you enjoy the fruits of what they did. the european guy especially -- go ask the belgians and dutch and french if our fightint the nazis was just.

an american who rapied a french woman was unust. he should have been tried and put in jail. the rape was unjust, so taking his freedom away was just. similarly, hitler was unjust in raping france, and taking away his ability to do so through war was just. because in fact there is right and wrong. those who say there isn't are dumb or more likely narcissistic, but in the end, they're just wrong. and for equating my dad with nazi troops, I say it again: fuck you assholes.
The phrase "just war" has no meaning outside theology. Within a paradigm built on the fictional concepts of sin and virtue or hero and villain, we must try to square the circle of war in all its horror. The entire debate is meaningless. To ask whether war is just is to ask an invalid question. War cannot be controlled. Can the atrocities of the red army on the night it took Berlin be divorced from the struggle to repel the invading German army and the over-throw of the nazies? What are we to make of the decisions not to divert allied resources to bombing the tracks to Auschwitz? The question is not whether a war is just. The question is whether it should be fought despite the inevitable injustice. Like all real life questions, the answer depends on the circumstances.
@76 Very honored.