The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
-
Its called 'federalism' also known as Jeffersonianism. Defending the country is an appropriate role for the federal government. Marxist control of the economy isn't.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
:zzz:
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
-
Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.[^] What do the warmongers think about it? Still able to cope with the moral implications of a war?
There are two things that one must get used to or one will find life unendurable: the damages of time and injustices of men Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Only 50? Wow, things must be going much better than we are being told by the leftist media.
K(arl) wrote:
Still able to cope with the moral implications of a war?
I don't recall too much angst about the moral implications of liberating france. Of course, perhaps liberating white people is more moral than liberating Arabs. I wouldn't know.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I agree wholeheartedly. Heck, I wouldn't waste time or resources invading. I would wait until the bastard goes out to give one of his long-winded propaganda speeches in front of his supporters, and target him with a couple of cruise missiles. You can be sure that the next guy will carefully consider his goals and ambitions. So... getting back to reality: the bastard ruler in Iraq is history; why are we still there?
Atheist: Leviticus! Christian: Abrogated! Atheist: Gay Rights! Christian: Leviticus!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
You get what you pay for
In your country, many people don't get what they pay for.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Le Centriste wrote:
In your country, many people don't get what they pay for.
Define "many". At any given point in time, it's roughly 15% who are uninsured. However, the majority of those are insured within 3 months such that only about 5% are really uninsured for a significant period of time. Of those 5%, most mooch off of the Medicare system, such that they have coverage. In reality we're talking in the low single digits (approaching 1%) that don't have health coverage of some variety. And that 1% is hardly the cream of the crop. Is 1% too high a figure for you? Especially keeping in mind that 1% could get coverage if they wanted it?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I agree wholeheartedly. Heck, I wouldn't waste time or resources invading. I would wait until the bastard goes out to give one of his long-winded propaganda speeches in front of his supporters, and target him with a couple of cruise missiles. You can be sure that the next guy will carefully consider his goals and ambitions. So... getting back to reality: the bastard ruler in Iraq is history; why are we still there?
Atheist: Leviticus! Christian: Abrogated! Atheist: Gay Rights! Christian: Leviticus!
Al Beback wrote:
the bastard ruler in Iraq is history; why are we still there?
because...
Al Beback wrote:
getting back to reality
..the world is full of people who couldn't string two coherent thoughts together if their life depended on it. Unfortunately, it's usually other peoples' lives that do...
-
:zzz:
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
You asked the question. Thats the answer.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Regime changes are made only if it fits the interests of the 'changer'. Nobody is interested in the fate of Zimbabwe.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
That is true, and understandable really, even if the consequences are sad. But most people only act in ways that are in their best interest, and why not? Life's hard enough as it is... I guess the thing is that we need to recognise that it is, in fact, in all our interests to see the Robert Mugabe's of this world eliminated... In the case of Zimbabwe it is, for me, very sad - I was born out there (well, Zambia) and spent my early childhood in Zimbabwe (though they were Northern and Southern Rhodesia at the time...) It's a beautiful country, it's peoples (leader apart) are intelligent, and it has all it needs to provide everyone with a good life. It is a crying shame to see it reduced to the state it is now by one insane man.
-
Only 50? Wow, things must be going much better than we are being told by the leftist media.
K(arl) wrote:
Still able to cope with the moral implications of a war?
I don't recall too much angst about the moral implications of liberating france. Of course, perhaps liberating white people is more moral than liberating Arabs. I wouldn't know.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't recall too much angst about the moral implications of liberating france. Of course, perhaps liberating white people is more moral than liberating Arabs
Nice fallacy. "You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't recall too much angst about the moral implications of liberating france. Of course, perhaps liberating white people is more moral than liberating Arabs
Nice fallacy. "You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
It was also common to call the Germans "krauts" during WWI/WWII. What's your point?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't recall too much angst about the moral implications of liberating france. Of course, perhaps liberating white people is more moral than liberating Arabs
Nice fallacy. "You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Nice fallacy.
No fallacy at all. Liberation is liberation.
K(arl) wrote:
"You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
I seriously doubt that is as common as you are trying to propagandize. I find it highly unlikley, for exmpale, considering the number of african americans serving in the us armed forces that the term 'sand nigger' would get used more than once. So I am very suspecious of this information and put it into this [^] category.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards
Really? What's the point then? Deposing a dictator and leaving behind chaos, doesn't seem like it will accomplish much. Most likely another strong-man will take over, and it is likely nothing will have changed. Going in a second time is unlikely to improve the situation. It seems to me that winning the peace is essential.
Fred_Smith wrote:
If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene?
Sure, but removing the husband (and probably the bread-winner) and then walking away, without providing assistance to the wife/child is not very moral. They could very well end up on the street, or hooked up with another abuser.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Why would you say that? Is that your position?
-
K(arl) wrote:
As you said, war is evil,
I never said that. I said it was nasty. Big difference.
K(arl) wrote:
What the difference for the 2 yo kid kid with a bullet in her leg?
Chances are she'd have died of torture or starvation anyway, or grown up into a life of slavery. But there is a huge difference for those that do get saved.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Chances are she'd have died of torture or starvation anyway, or grown up into a life of slavery.
Besides the possibility of starvation due to crippling sanctions I would say the chances were nil.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But there is a huge difference for those that do get saved.
It seems getting saved means millions of people are displaced outside the country and millions more internally. The people saved now (and are still alive) live in a place where water and electricity are not accessible for weeks at a time. Where having a curfew in place is a normal event, and even if there was no curfew venturing outside is a risk. Where being on a land that has one of largest reserves of oil, won’t stop severe oil shortages...
Surah AlFurqan(Ayah 1-34) Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video)
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons....
...and the replacement has made this a reality that the average citizen can experience.
Surah AlFurqan(Ayah 1-34) Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video)
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Are we as evil as Hitler then?
As you said, war is evil, and there is no just thing as a morally justified war. This is an illusion democracies need to send their citizen kill and being killed.
Fred_Smith wrote:
We are a million light-years short of ever being as evil as Sh or AH.
What the difference for the 2 yo kid kid with a bullet in her leg?
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
Nice fallacy.
No fallacy at all. Liberation is liberation.
K(arl) wrote:
"You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
I seriously doubt that is as common as you are trying to propagandize. I find it highly unlikley, for exmpale, considering the number of african americans serving in the us armed forces that the term 'sand nigger' would get used more than once. So I am very suspecious of this information and put it into this [^] category.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
The fallacy is that in the first case you mention a country military occupied by a foreign power after an invasion, when Iraq was not occupied. The term 'liberation' could be used for the Kurdistan, but there is no Kurdistan.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right. If your next door neightbour was torturing / abusing / about to kill his wife/child, would you not think you had a moral duty to intervene? Why is it any different just because these people hide behind an artificial boundary on a map? They are torturing / abusing / murdering millions of living breathing people every day, and we smile and trade with them and sell them our weapons.... Still, why should we care, eh? They're just a bunch of darkie foreigners, aren't they?
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes. And Burma and Zimbabwe. But i wouldn't bother with the "winning the peace" crap afterwards. It's time we stopped being so bloody nice/diplomatic to these bastard rulers, but walk in there, kill them and walk out again. If they don't manage better with their next leader, we should do it again. And again, until they get it right.
I don't think it is that easy with some countries. Kill a couple of leaders and you end up with anarchy. Lots of ongoing violence, but no leader or small group of leaders to blame. Civilisation requires cultural attitudes that many countries lack.
John Carson
-
The fallacy is that in the first case you mention a country military occupied by a foreign power after an invasion, when Iraq was not occupied. The term 'liberation' could be used for the Kurdistan, but there is no Kurdistan.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
The fallacy is that in the first case you mention a country military occupied by a foreign power after an invasion, when Iraq was not occupied. The term 'liberation' could be used for the Kurdistan, but there is no Kurdistan.
Fine, so instead, I'll use Germany and Japan as examples of preferring liberation to moral outrage at the warfare required to achieve it.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Nice fallacy.
No fallacy at all. Liberation is liberation.
K(arl) wrote:
"You can honestly see how the Iraqis in general or even Arabs in general are being, you know, kind of like dehumanized," said Specialist Englehart. "Like it was very common for United States soldiers to call them derogatory terms, like camel jockeys or Jihad Johnny or, you know, sand nigger." According to Sergeant Millard and several others interviewed, "It becomes this racialized hatred towards Iraqis." And this racist language, as Specialist Harmon pointed out, likely played a role in the level of violence directed at Iraqi civilians. "By calling them names," he said, "they're not people anymore. They're just objects."
I seriously doubt that is as common as you are trying to propagandize. I find it highly unlikley, for exmpale, considering the number of african americans serving in the us armed forces that the term 'sand nigger' would get used more than once. So I am very suspecious of this information and put it into this [^] category.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
TNR stands by the articles. "In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)"
-
TNR stands by the articles. "In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)"
oilFactotum wrote:
TNR stands by the articles.
Well good for you, then. Your world view has been validated once again. You were absolutely correct to hate your country, its defenders, and those evil republicans. Absolutely no doubt about it. How very intellectual of you. Your mom must be so proud.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
TNR stands by the articles.
Well good for you, then. Your world view has been validated once again. You were absolutely correct to hate your country, its defenders, and those evil republicans. Absolutely no doubt about it. How very intellectual of you. Your mom must be so proud.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You were absolutely correct to hate your country, its defenders, and those evil republicans
Try not to be an asshole. To recognize that war is inhuman and degrades those who have to prosecute it is not hate. To stick you head in the sand and pretend the war is some "great game" is what does the troops the real harm. I'm curious - did you see "Saving Private Ryan"? Do you believe that it was a hate-filled diatribe against our soldiers? After all it did show American soldier shooting unarmed Germans at least twice. -- modified at 12:13 Tuesday 7th August, 2007