The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
-
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?
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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
oilFactotum wrote:
Try not to be an a**hole.
What makes you think you should have the monopoly on that?
-
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
oilFactotum wrote:
To stick you head in the sand and pretend the war is some "great game" is what does the troops the real harm.
No it doesn't. To go out of your way to concentrate on the percieved evil done by those putting their lives on the line to defend us from true evil just to score some political points for your side is what does them real harm. You don't give a flying rats ass about the troops. You hate Bush. You'll use anything to get to him regardless of how much harm you cause to others or to your country.
oilFactotum wrote:
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.
Of course I saw it. And no, I don't think shooting unarmed Germans was morally unjustified Armed or unarmed, they were enemy soldiers. Killing them is what you do. However, I would point out that no such movies were made during WWII. That is becasue even people critical of war understood that such things needed to be done to triumph over evil. Those people loved their country more than they did their political affiliations. The simple point of the matter is that you cannot defeat evil by being good. You can only defeat evil by being evil. Evil, by its very nature, can easily force that upon you. If you refuse to accept that challange, the only other choice you have left is to surrender to it.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
And I find it sad that, to use your words, the American people didn't even know about Iraq prior to 1991. In 1985 (I think it was) Saddam Hussein wiped an entire Kurdish town (ok, large village) off the map by dropping a chemical bomb on it. Nice guy. Maybe, just maybe, this willful ignorance of Americans towards the rest of the world had something to do with 9/11 - someone thought they needed a wake-up call... Things start to add up if you take into account that you cannot go through life ignorant of and uncaring about the rest of the world.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, this willful ignorance of Americans towards the rest of the world had something to do with 9/11 - someone thought they needed a wake-up call... Things start to add up if you take into account that you cannot go through life ignorant of and uncaring about the rest of the world.
No! Americans never do ANYTHING wrong! They're a bunch of Islamofascists who just hate our way of life and it NEVER came from anything we ever did or didn't do! Oh, wait... Honestly, I'm not saying we're responsible for 9/11 - that's like a husband telling his wife "You made me hit you." But we do have culpability in our global influence and that's what we mismanage so terribly. To hear many Americans talk about it though, you'd think they were blind, the refusal to consider one's own place in the outcome of events. Every event is an opportunity for introspection yet that seems to be the one activity in which Americans categorically refuse to engage. It's like discovering that we have a problem we need to fix is somehow 'evil'.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, this willful ignorance of Americans towards the rest of the world had something to do with 9/11 - someone thought they needed a wake-up call... Things start to add up if you take into account that you cannot go through life ignorant of and uncaring about the rest of the world.
No! Americans never do ANYTHING wrong! They're a bunch of Islamofascists who just hate our way of life and it NEVER came from anything we ever did or didn't do! Oh, wait... Honestly, I'm not saying we're responsible for 9/11 - that's like a husband telling his wife "You made me hit you." But we do have culpability in our global influence and that's what we mismanage so terribly. To hear many Americans talk about it though, you'd think they were blind, the refusal to consider one's own place in the outcome of events. Every event is an opportunity for introspection yet that seems to be the one activity in which Americans categorically refuse to engage. It's like discovering that we have a problem we need to fix is somehow 'evil'.
Patrick Sears wrote:
To hear many Americans talk about it though, you'd think they were blind, the refusal to consider one's own place in the outcome of events. Every event is an opportunity for introspection yet that seems to be the one activity in which Americans categorically refuse to engage.
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.