It's quite an unusual title to give it, certainly -but it's more like a 'for your informational pleasure' letter. As such, it will be a longer than 'usual' letter. I'm leaning more towards having Oraina never receiving this letter -it's one of many "lost" letters.
Took some time off for myself...<---lie. I surfed the web for information...er, opinions (for that's all it is) about the war-turned-conflict/struggle-argument (*tight lipped grin). I wanted to search independent news for information, blogs, anything. But as I had told him, I was going about it the wrong way to begin with. Still, just the pull of the internet was irresistible, I couldn't stop sifting through countless useless information. You know, I could start from the beginning -the definition of war. Then I could research historical (political) interpretations of war, compare that with the regular definition and then the implications...and then write a thesis (or two or four. This IS a huge topic after all) and publish it because that's the natural order-cycle of information. *sigh* How useless indeed. On the bright side it takes my mind off the otherwise boring existence I have here. I've managed to make a few more friends: He goes by the name of Erlik (*Author's note:This name I borrowed from Turkic and Mongolian mythology. It's an interesting myth, I encourage you to read it). Quite fitting for this context…but why he would accept that…is a story for another book, but whatever floats his boat. More on him when the occasion calls for it; Amba (*Author's Note: or Durga or any other various names of the Mother Goddess -please read more on Hinduism), who as I find out later, is her namesake...I'm honored and more than happy she's on our side ~ sheesh. Perhaps she was born in the wrong era, however, nothing is ever so concrete, but her sense of justice is strong and appears to be...right...? Lastly, there's Yamaya (*Author's note: Oh my goodness, this website: http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/african-mythology.php?deity=YEMAYA). I like her, she's very well grounded and quite reliable. Around the three, there's never a dull moment. However, now is not the time for antics although I'm pretty sure you're dying to know. Back to war... ... ...
A thought occurred to me: if you don't call it a war, could it be "lost"? (How do you lose something not "winnable" and what are the requirements to "win" a war? On the flip side, and I suppose, really the issue is what is considered "winning"?). I mean, I suppose that was a stupid question since, now that I think about it, there's currently a Conflict that has been ongoing 63 years strong. Still no resolution, but I suppose I didn't have to remind you of that. You're a well aware citizen unlike many others ~ I digress.
Wars have changed so much over the centuries and if someone has more firepower and money, and they can afford to leave an occupied land (hypothetically speaking, of course), then they (would, could) may think that any smaller country trying to fight them would be "unfair" and so wouldn't want to call it a war -after all, it would look as though they (the bigger countries) were being bullies that uses physical means to win. Granted, they are still bullies, but more "civilized" bullies. Hell, I'll research the "rules" of war (another lie). There seems to be this BS gentleman's rules to fighting a war (as though there need be rules for that). But looking at it from that perspective, whose wars is it usually but a few at the top who have nothing better to do than gamble with mere humanity as though they were gods?
Wars have a beginning and an "ending"...the ending is where we get into trouble because perhaps there are no endings in nature, only cycles and we just happen to dwell on the more destructive cycle of nature...Continuation seeming to be the case, how can its "previousness" be "won"? It can't, right? And that's why we've had the 300 years war and...and Global War II...what was that about? Sometimes I feel like what's the point in giving it a name -it's all the same. ...But to give it a classification makes it 'easier' to see who to blame and to make things more black and white (winning vs. losing)...it really belittles the complexity of our interrelationships. But I don't wish to go down this route (of semantics for very long), so then to bring back some THEME towards a direction so that I can finally feel like my research isn't for naught...
To start, the definition of war is this (*Author's note: to reference specifically, all of these definitions I paraphrased from dictionary.com): As a noun it means a conflict [my italics] carried on by force of arms, as between nations...by land, sea, or air. 2. [A] state or period of armed hostility or active military operations. This (and the third definition which I won't include) doesn't appear to apply to our situation because the North has no military. However, definition 2 applies to our side, unless the North has an army that I simply don't know about. "Armed" wise would be their police force and it makes no sense to use that and leave their people law-enforced-less. Oh, and I italicize "conflict" because that also deserves defining. We simply must not take words for granted!
As a verb: [T]o make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation. This definition could possibly become imminent because they have stronger relations with their (as well as our) allies than we do. It would be suicide to "war" with the North overtly and physically, so to call it a conflict and negotiate (publicly and/or privately) is "better" on our part...I suppose...as long as the situation doesn't get out of hand. I do have a problem, however with using the word itself within the definition. Perhaps more proof that words have meaning, not that we should give meaning to words -but another argument for another day.
And here is the definition of "conflict" because a comparison needs to be made: As a verb, used without object -to come into disagreement; be...in opposition; clash. On a side note, I love the word clash -it sounds like swords (or pots and pans) clanging together in discordant harmony. But on to definition two ~
As a noun: fight, battle or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife. Squabbles are normal between siblings, and we've had our fair share...just nothing really prolonged. But as things are now, I wouldn't be surprised if our conflict (which should die down on its own normally) will never become resolved. (*BECAUSE) If we don't know what we're fighting for (or we're fighting for the wrong reason/s) we'll continue to fight because it's embarrassing to admit (defeat) being wrong -it's just natural for someone powerful to continue trying to prove their own self-worth. Yet, if they get a big enough beating, they'll back down. But by then our country will be worse off than it necessarily should be -keeping up pretenses is costly, after all.
Morale is VERY important. Sometimes I believe that morale is more important than money and supplies. Money and supplies seem to be more important to the more "Developed" nations and the winners than the less developed (*Hell, what am I talking about, it's immediately important for those of us doing the groundwork, supplies are at least --money is only important to those at the top gambling our lives away). If they (the less developed) have the will they will sacrifice and get resources (or be resourceful) when they can in order to defeat the winning side, ESPECIALLY fighting on their own turf. Even if they do lose, their people will remember and may continue the fight long after the "war" is declared over whether it be because of grudges, pride or whatever. But I digress...Besides, the only example of "the little guy" winning was the Ivetian War and they aren't even mad at us...considering we still supply them oppressive tools and look the other way... ... Uncontinued digression.
The last definition I want to include is this: ...[A] conflict of ideas. Other than out of jealousy, aren't most sources of struggles from a conflict of ideas? I think I like my version of conflict and war best --pretty simplified but: A conflict is when two dissenting parties can't come to terms and begin a war which involves punching someone in the face. It's not really a war without other parties involved. Wars then are more complicated because of those extra involvements --now you must not only win against your opponent but win the hearts and minds of men (war is VERY emotional -and men who say that the male species is more rational are kidding lying to themselves). So according to my simplified definition, the difference between conflict and war is analogous to the difference between strategist and tactician. War needs strategery (yes, a word now), but a conflict just needs (instant gratification) a clear winner; it's an escalated version of argument, but I won't include that here --too many definitions make the mind go sane.
You realize if we became more comfortable with being wrong, we wouldn't try to prove who was "right". ...Or maybe if (men) weren't so insecure (and realistically if more people didn't perpetuate those insecurities) we would be more...creative...More dead doesn't equal more right...or some such quote I've heard before. I bet if they suddenly ran out of human resources, a war couldn't be fought EVEN with technology (hint, go back to MORALE) at least not for long. We have power, we don't use it -quite the shame and hence our predicament...wait what was our predicament again?
Is it really different controlling (governing, same difference) people? How can you hope to lead someone else when you can't even control yourself? What about governing or leading by example? We're too caught up in ideals (religious or not) to focus on being leaders. Show people your vision, not just filibuster an opponent. It's to the point of slandering a person, distracting the public from the real issue at hand and ignoring facts (xenophobia, quite the ugly cancer). Of course mistakes will be made, and you can't make everyone happy. THAT'S not the point of any governmental system. The point is to create an atmosphere of civility, where differences can be aired but one view not be more right than others. Yet when it becomes too aggravating to even look at the other butt-hole (putting it nicely), not to put into place who's right, but how much are either willing to compromise (if they can), if not, what other solutions can there be to prevent them from killing each other. All ideals and none serving any real purpose in this world, an incomplete...a thought which made sense when I first wrote it...but now...is just as incomplete as I'll leave it.
This letter seems to be more a beginnings of a thesis or even a sermon, so I'll stop for now. Perhaps I will write one (I mean thesis for those who may be confused of the referencing)after this is all over. I mean if I survive the war (says the hopeful one. I'm pretty realistic about this death and dying stuff). There will always be war, it IS a balance, not a moral dilemma as it's been branded (my mantra). You'll have to suffer the research for a few more letters, but I promise I won't bore you with more details today. I must go eat anyway. I'm meeting my childhood friend whom I will now and forever refer to as the Advocate (even though he's now a somewhat private investigator -->a story not fit for letter format, sorry).