The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
-
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.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Still able to cope with the moral implications of a war?
What about the moral implications of NOT having a war? I suppose you'd be sitting on your moral high-horse if Hitler had exterminated all the Jews, saying "Well, at least I didn't go to war over it!" War is nasty. The war in Iraq is nasty. But so was Saddam Hussein - very nasty - and so was life (and death...) for hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis (and Kurds) before the war. Sometimes there are no easy, "nice", answers. Sometimes you just have get down and get dirty and fight tooth and claw for what you think is right.
Shouldn't be long before the USA invades Pakistan, then. Oh, wait... wrong dictator. He's a 'frontline ally in the war against terror'.
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
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:
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.
... while all the while the USA was arming him to the teeth just because he happened to be fighting against Iran...
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it doesn't.
You say it doesn't but that is what you want to do. To aknowledge that war is hell is not to "concentrate on" it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
percieved evi
Perceived evil? What are you taking about? Beauchamp's stories weren't about evil, they were about how war coursens people.
Stan Shannon wrote:
score some political points
Get real!:rolleyes:
Stan Shannon wrote:
You don't give a flying rats ass about the troops
You are so full of shit. I have the utmost respect for our soldiers and hearing Beauchamp's stories does nothing to reduce that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And no, I don't think shooting unarmed Germans was morally unjustified
Killing unarmed, surrendering soldiers was morally justified? You have a seriously damaged sense of what is moral. Very sad. That wasn't the question I asked, anyway. I asked:blockquote class="FQ">
oilFactotum wrote:
Do you believe that it was a hate-filled diatribe against our soldiers? Is the answer to this question 'no' as well? If so, then there is nothing hateful about Beauchamps stories in TNR.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
So, lying to the public, hiding the true cost of war is necessary. You believe the public cannot deal with the truth? Do you believe that support of any war can only be gained by deceit? I have more respect for Americans than that.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You can only defeat evil by being evil.
Thank God you are wrong.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you refuse to accept that challange, the only other choice you have left is to surrender to it.
By 'it' I assume you mean evil. You seem to be suggesting two choices: surrender to evil or embrace it. Whats the difference? On final note on your Weekly Standard link: "In an effort to undermine a New Republic article by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp about alleged inappropriate conduct by U.S
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
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.
... while all the while the USA was arming him to the teeth just because he happened to be fighting against Iran...
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
Yes, I know - the arms trade is both immoral and disgusting, and so is the political practice that underlies it of propping up tin-pot dictators to do the dirty work of the greedy men who finance it all. A pox on all of them. None of which alters the fact that Saddan Hussein was a sh*t who deserved what he got. Finding fault with the USA does not invalidate everything they do. We all have fauilts, that doesn't mean we can none of do anything just becuase someone else can stand up and point a finger at us. We'd none of us do anything in that case. Sorry to offend the Jesus crowd, but he was wrong when said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - well, maybe not in the context in which it was said, but as a general rule? No - that just then becomes a formula for oppression ("You are too sinful to act, so you must do as we say.")
-
Yes, I know - the arms trade is both immoral and disgusting, and so is the political practice that underlies it of propping up tin-pot dictators to do the dirty work of the greedy men who finance it all. A pox on all of them. None of which alters the fact that Saddan Hussein was a sh*t who deserved what he got. Finding fault with the USA does not invalidate everything they do. We all have fauilts, that doesn't mean we can none of do anything just becuase someone else can stand up and point a finger at us. We'd none of us do anything in that case. Sorry to offend the Jesus crowd, but he was wrong when said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - well, maybe not in the context in which it was said, but as a general rule? No - that just then becomes a formula for oppression ("You are too sinful to act, so you must do as we say.")
Fred_Smith wrote:
Sorry to offend the Jesus crowd, but he was wrong when said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - well, maybe not in the context in which it was said, but as a general rule? No - that just then becomes a formula for oppression ("You are too sinful to act, so you must do as we say.")
Jesus was speaking to those who were stoning somebody for sinning. They believed that were doing God's work by punishing the wicked for their sins, but Jesus pointed out that they were all sinners. That has absolutely nothing to do with war and international policy, which has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with protecting national interests. "Turning the other cheek" would be a more relevant concept.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
That's a fallacy. I didn't say introspection will always lead you to conclude that you did something wrong. It's equally as valuable to learn that you couldn't have done anything differently. Of course there are times when we're not responsible for what happens, that's life. I'd say WWII falls under that category. Hitler and Japan wanted the own the world so badly they could taste it, and there's not a damn thing we could have done to prevent the war. Hell, maybe there's nothing we could have done differently in the past 30 years in the Middle East, either. But I think it's valuable to know whether we could have, and a great many Americans get furious when anyone asks that question. All I'm saying is, take the opportunity to introspect, so that IF you've made a mistake you can correct, you are actually aware of it.
-
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.
Yeah, but he does have a point, Red. As you may have gathered I am quite prepared to back the USA up, but nevertheless you (as a nation) would do well to wake up to the rest of the world, and how it sees you. 9/11 did not happen - as many Americans seemed to think at the time - in a vacuum, without reason. (That doesn't justify it, but an explanation and a justification are two different things.)
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Sorry to offend the Jesus crowd, but he was wrong when said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" - well, maybe not in the context in which it was said, but as a general rule? No - that just then becomes a formula for oppression ("You are too sinful to act, so you must do as we say.")
Jesus was speaking to those who were stoning somebody for sinning. They believed that were doing God's work by punishing the wicked for their sins, but Jesus pointed out that they were all sinners. That has absolutely nothing to do with war and international policy, which has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with protecting national interests. "Turning the other cheek" would be a more relevant concept.
Yes, I know the story and that was why I specifically said "maybe not in the context in which it was said"... but I as pointing out that you should not extrapolate this into a general rule and apply it to, for example, the USA and say "because you have done wrong therefore you have no right to criticise others" (or go to war against them...)
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Golly. You're right. I'm going to reflect on how our international policy prompted the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
That's a fallacy. I didn't say introspection will always lead you to conclude that you did something wrong. It's equally as valuable to learn that you couldn't have done anything differently. Of course there are times when we're not responsible for what happens, that's life. I'd say WWII falls under that category. Hitler and Japan wanted the own the world so badly they could taste it, and there's not a damn thing we could have done to prevent the war. Hell, maybe there's nothing we could have done differently in the past 30 years in the Middle East, either. But I think it's valuable to know whether we could have, and a great many Americans get furious when anyone asks that question. All I'm saying is, take the opportunity to introspect, so that IF you've made a mistake you can correct, you are actually aware of it.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Of course there are times when we're not responsible for what happens, that's life. I'd say WWII falls under that category. Hitler and Japan wanted the own the world so badly they could taste it, and there's not a damn thing we could have done to prevent the war. Hell, maybe there's nothing we could have done differently in the past 30 years in the Middle East, either. But I think it's valuable to know whether we could have, and a great many Americans get furious when anyone asks that question.
Really? So if FDR had never enacted the oil embargo against Japan, which overtly told him that they would consider that an act of war (as it would jeopardize their fight against China and doom them as a nation)...Then Pearl Harbor would not have been prevented? :rolleyes: Japan did not want to attack the US. It was an act of desperation and they knew that doing so would seal their fate. They attacked the US because of FDR's foreign policy that was specifically designed to antagonize Japan. War is the eventual result of two groups of people with conflicting interests that cannot be resolved otherwise. Ironically, oil started WWII and yet it's viewed as somehow a virtuous war while this one is condemned. Foreign policy has a rather predictable result for a set of circumstances. We've known for decades that our policies in the Middle East antogonize Islamic extremists, but those policies also serve our interests. I'm not inclined to give the enemy the benefit of personal introspection so that I can reinterpret conflicting interests into personal flaws.
-
Yeah, but he does have a point, Red. As you may have gathered I am quite prepared to back the USA up, but nevertheless you (as a nation) would do well to wake up to the rest of the world, and how it sees you. 9/11 did not happen - as many Americans seemed to think at the time - in a vacuum, without reason. (That doesn't justify it, but an explanation and a justification are two different things.)
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yeah, but he does have a point, Red. As you may have gathered I am quite prepared to back the USA up, but nevertheless you (as a nation) would do well to wake up to the rest of the world, and how it sees you. 9/11 did not happen - as many Americans seemed to think at the time - in a vacuum, without reason. (That doesn't justify it, but an explanation and a justification are two different things.)
Working in harmony with other nations is most often the best path to take for overall happiness of the American people. However, when interests collide and a foreign body decides to rebuke our interests (whether that be militarily or otherwise) in order to advance their own, it is against the interests of the American people and for the interests of the enemy to ponder our own supposed deficiencies for not acquiescing to that other nation's demands. Taken to fruition, it's downright treachery.