It wasn't only in Haditha...

[amadeus]

I knew that's what you were referring to. But that's not what I asked. Sorry if I put you in a tough spot.

No, not at all.

I don't agree with his idea that European news media wants U.S. soldiers dead. While I do think it's unfair to characterize all of Europe's news sources as being anti-U.S., I don't think that equates to wishing bodily harm to the U.S. ground forces.

Sun knows that many European countries still have men on the ground there themselves, and I don't think their media would want to place their men at risk. I'd say any negative press about U.S. or allied conduct in Iraq is not really so much news, but more as an opportunity to sell newspapers.

What sometimes amuses me though is how some editorial writers and anti-war people say that Iraq was all about oil and then they write a book about it, collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from sales and advance fees, make a bunch of TV appearances to sell the book, and then go on the speaking circuit and collect thousands for a 20-minute speech. Michael Moore is a great example of this, his whole fortune is based off his criticism of people making or allegedly making money.

I do agree with Sun though that I don't actually believe this happened, or at least happened as it has been presented to us. I'd certainly need to see hard evidence to believe the worst, that's for sure. This story almost seems to me like the Duke rape case; we don't know what happened there either.

 

[VoodooAce]

No, not at all.

I don't agree with his idea that European news media wants U.S. soldiers dead. While I do think it's unfair to characterize all of Europe's news sources as being anti-U.S., I don't think that equates to wishing bodily harm to the U.S. ground forces.

Sun knows that many European countries still have men on the ground there themselves, and I don't think their media would want to place their men at risk. I'd say any negative press about U.S. or allied conduct in Iraq is not really so much news, but more as an opportunity to sell newspapers.

What sometimes amuses me though is how some editorial writers and anti-war people say that Iraq was all about oil and then they write a book about it, collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from sales and advance fees, make a bunch of TV appearances to sell the book, and then go on the speaking circuit and collect thousands for a 20-minute speech. Michael Moore is a great example of this, his whole fortune is based off his criticism of people making or allegedly making money.

I do agree with Sun though that I don't actually believe this happened, or at least happened as it has been presented to us. I'd certainly need to see hard evidence to believe the worst, that's for sure. This story almost seems to me like the Duke rape case; we don't know what happened there either.

Fair enough. A well reasoned reply. Of course, I disagree on a number of things, but you gotta expect that. And I obviously can't begin to say whether or not this happened, either. We all hope not....at least most of us, and probably for different reasons.

I guess my main point throughout the thread has been that if this happened I want the people that did it punished and I want the people that tried to cover it up at least outed, if not punished. I don't want it hushed or covered up. It would all just be very wrong. And, for me personally, depressing, because I see all of these things that I thought America was when I was your age going by the wayside. We have people in government advocating torturing people, we see our government locking people away without due process and we make up excuses why its ok. And now we have people calling outright murder, a massacre if it happened, 'collateral damage'.

And that last part was what I was curious to get your opinion on. I would bet you disagree with it, but I was just asking.

I get the idea that you have such a high opinion of our soldiers that you can't imagine them committing such acts. In that respect, we're alike. Also in that respect, maybe you can at least understand why these other things bother me.

 

[amadeus]

I guess my main point throughout the thread has been that if this happened I want the people that did it punished and I want the people that tried to cover it up at least outed, if not punished.

I'd agree in principle, but, as I'm sure you would, have to examine each on a case-by-case basis.

I don't want it hushed or covered up. It would all just be very wrong.

I don't know if we don't share the same viewpoint here, but I think there are some things that Americans and American soldiers need to know, but to put it one way: it isn't really the business of anybody else, particularly in hostile territories.

And, for me personally, depressing, because I see all of these things that I thought America was when I was your age going by the wayside.

I'm seeing things a little differently, but I'm certainly more on the libertarian than the statist side. If you ask me personally, I see two parties that are basically the same. In theory they both propose different solutions to problems, but in practice they only compound those problems and they do it the same way.

For the first time in fifty years, Republicans have had control over both houses of Congress and the White House, yet spending isn't under control and tax relief has been marginal to non-existent. The defecit, once championed by the Republicans as a major government issue is now a back-burner to side projects like gays getting married and bridges in Alaska that don't go anywhere.

We have people in government advocating torturing people, we see our government locking people away without due process and we make up excuses why its ok.

I'm just curious as to your definition of torture. For example, would you consider something like the rock music blasted at Noriega to be a form of torture?

And now we have people calling outright murder, a massacre if it happened, 'collateral damage'.

If so, they're using the term incorrectly.

I get the idea that you have such a high opinion of our soldiers that you can't imagine them committing such acts. In that respect, we're alike. Also in that respect, maybe you can at least understand why these other things bother me.

These things bother me too, since I think it has a negative impact on how we defend ourselves in the future. America's young men aren't going to join the army if they're afraid that our defense policy isn't working.

 

[Xenocrates]

I'm just curious as to your definition of torture. For example, would you consider something like the rock music blasted at Noriega to be a form of torture?

I always imagined Noriega playing air guitar and yelling 'turn up the noize you panzies - give me some more Zep'.

On a serious note there needs to be a more rigorous definition of 'torture' for obvious reasons. What was the topic again?

 

[RedWolf]

That's purely speculative, considering that the average Iraqi probably lived in fear from Saddam's secret police and his son's wanton carnage.
.

It's difficult - I don't disagree and I don't claim to have any answers either - just opinions about the morality of this war. It's unfortunate that we can't somehow poll the Iraqi populace... Which did they prefer? Saddam's opression or the lawless, bloody anarchy that has now taken over their society.

Do you know? Do I know? Does George Bush or the sociopathic Rumsfield know? No... So it's very difficult for us to bomb them, shoot them, terrorize them and then claim "it's for their own good".

The alternative? I admit I don't know... But this war isn't the answer either.
Thousands of Americans dead... TENS of thousands of Iraqi's dead. ALL of it predictable. It's not even like success in this war was LIKELY.

Well if you prefer to stereotype an entire group of certain people by the words of a few, that's your own choice. But I supported the initial invasion, believe in freedom for the Iraqis, and am pretty pissed about the massacres and Abu Ghraib.

That's fair... and I respect your opinions. However people like Sun will NEVER believe these massacres exist - and they will certainly never condone them.

 

[RedWolf]

And your second statement is wrong. There are a few that don't get it, but most of those who supported war from the beginning are the MOST concerned about collateral damage and the crimes committed by some military members. When some idiot commits a crime that causes significant strife with the local population it greatly increases the chance one of my friends will be killed as the population is against us instead of being with us; and these acts are completely opposed to our democratic ideals.

If those in the military TRULY cared about collateral damage they would not be calling in airstrikes on civilian populated areas in order to kill insurgents that took refuge there...

Insurgents certainly share the blame... but the people who drop bombs KNOWINGLY on civilians ultimately also are to blame - particularly when there were alternatives (ie: walking away). Police forces do it every day in our society - civilian casualties are unacceptable when trying to catch criminals. They can't level a city block and claim "The bank robbers were hiding in a condo building... not my fault I had to blow the crap out of it. We have the right to defend ourselves blah blah". Interestly during war time, far away, against a different nationality the same practice seems to be acceptable.
We tolerate things carried out in our name against OTHER people that we would never accept against ourselves.

 

[RedWolf]

About RedWolf's comment about wishing the U.S. harm in Iraq.

That's normally the kind of thing I'd expect to get upset about, but I know him all too well to even care. He'd wish us harm even if we weren't there.

There goes your simple black and white thinking again... Wouldn't want you to consider the shade of grey.

I don't hate YOU or your country or the people in it. I hate this war. And because I disagree with that war you make the leap that I wish harm upon your civilian populace. Brilliant.

Let me ask you a question - who do YOU wish harm upon in the Iraq conflict? Combatants fighting US troops right? And you thought the same for every war the US has ever fought I'm sure.

Well am I not allowed to choose a side as well? You have obviously chose yours. Just because your country shares a border with mine am I not allowed to look at a situation and evaluate it based on my own value system? I'm sorry if while doing that I chose against the occupying power (the side who initiated this war). I'm also sorry for what that means for US troops... seriously. I don't personally wish them harm... but I certainly will not support your war.

Besides - at the of the day my opinion is (edit)irelevant and thus harmless... Regardless of who I support it won't affect anybody anywhere either way.

 

[amadeus]

There goes your simple black and white thinking again... Wouldn't want you to consider the shade of grey.

I don't hate YOU or your country or the people in it. I hate this war. And because I disagree with that war you make the leap that I wish harm upon your civilian populace. Brilliant.

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibilities.

Let me ask you a question - who do YOU wish harm upon in the Iraq conflict? Combatants fighting US troops right? And you thought the same for every war the US has ever fought I'm sure.

Of course.

Well am I not allowed to choose a side as well? You have obviously chose yours. Just because your country shares a border with mine am I not allowed to look at a situation and evaluate it based on my own value system? I'm sorry if while doing that I chose against the occupying power (the side who initiated this war). I'm also sorry for what that means for US troops... seriously. I don't personally wish them harm... but I certainly will not support your war.

Fair enough, but you just said that you wished the U.S. harm in Iraq. I'm afraid I don't understand -- how can that mean anything else?

Besides - at the of the day my opinion is relevant and thus harmless... Regardless of who I support it won't affect anybody anywhere either way.

That's why I wasn't surprised or outraged.

 

[malclave]

I'm just curious as to your definition of torture. For example, would you consider something like the rock music blasted at Noriega to be a form of torture?

IIRC, Senator Durbin suggested that rap music was developed by people working for Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot... I'm not sure which.

I'm uncertain as to the official stance on rock 'n' roll. Disco, however, should be explicitly categorized as torture under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Pyrite]

"Disco, however, should be explicitly categorized as torture under the Geneva Conventions."

I've never heard that line of argument..do you have any supporting articles?

 

[RedWolf]

I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibilities.

Fair enough, but you just said that you wished the U.S. harm in Iraq. I'm afraid I don't understand -- how can that mean anything else?

No it means what you think it means... but my point is that it's not my fault.. that it only happens indirectly.

For example - I decide that your war is wrong and thus decide that I would rather see you lose it. By extension of that I'm wishing harm on US troops. But what am I suppossed to do? Compromise my political ideology and support a war I don't believe in just because there's a bunch of "good guys" in the US Army?

 

[amadeus]

To say that you're bitter about it and want us to lose doesn't seem like a very progressive attitude. It seems barbaric, to be honest.

 

[Verbose]

For example - I decide that your war is wrong and thus decide that I would rather see you lose it. By extension of that I'm wishing harm on US troops. But what am I suppossed to do? Compromise my political ideology and support a war I don't believe in just because there's a bunch of "good guys" in the US Army?

It looks as if you're saying that if dead US soldiers is the only thing that will keep the US from going further down the path it has chosen, then so be it.

We can pity the soldiers and their families, acknowledge that they weren't responsible, at fault or in any way bad people, but since it's the US that holds the Stop and Go button here anyway, neither is that our concern as non-US citizens.

Question is, is there anything but dead US soldiers that will do the trick here? If so, it's obviously infinately preferable.

 

[RedWolf]

To say that you're bitter about it and want us to lose doesn't seem like a very progressive attitude. It seems barbaric, to be honest.

You mean as oppossed to your two "progressive" wars of occupation?

 

[RedWolf]

I saw an interesting documentary last night called "occupation dreamland". Was about a US Army unit in Fallujah prior to the Marines laying seige to it.

It was less about war and more about the young men that were fighting it. It followed a squad (sometimes the platoon) of the 82nd airborne and claims to have had "unprecedented access" to troops. I guess that was the most interesting part - it showed opinions that ran the gamut - reflected well the varying opinions we have here on CFC regarding the war. Usually I would suspect the military runs a tighter ship then that (particularly when it comes to troop interviews)

I saw troops who genuinely supported the war and it's aftermath and believed they could do some good. Some of them beleived the invasion was mostly BS and about colonialism/resource control. Others supported the war and hated the Iraq people at the same time.

Anyway it probably overall had a subtle anti-war slant without being preachy... not sure if I imagined that or not. Worth watching - it's only about an hour or so.

 

[Tulkas12]

It looks as if you're saying that if dead US soldiers is the only thing that will keep the US from going further down the path it has chosen, then so be it.

We can pity the soldiers and their families, acknowledge that they weren't responsible, at fault or in any way bad people, but since it's the US that holds the Stop and Go button here anyway, neither is that our concern as non-US citizens.

Question is, is there anything but dead US soldiers that will do the trick here? If so, it's obviously infinately preferable.

Yes. Control of the area in general for the next 50-90 years. Nothing short of this will end the middle easts disputes. It is geting our attention because they have become more and more advanced in their technologies. There is alot of hope for the people there not to fall into its natural state of warfare. As many of these countries have access to WMDs, it is the world's responsibilty to tryto assure they are not used in the area and that the mid-east doesn;t have to suffer the true horros of modern warfare. The current "wars of occupatio" being fought are in no way alike to what wrath could be unleashed if things started getting out of control.

Believe it or not, in the long run we are a calming influence. The problem is that the american people don't have what it takes to stick it out.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Believe it or not, in the long run we are a calming influence. The problem is that the american people don't have what it takes to stick it out.

It's just that we don't see much reason to involve a country that didn't attack us, all for a war that hasn't shown much "progress" as of yet. We've been "sticking it out" for quite a while now.

So far, we have only destabilized Iraq, and that may make things in the Middle East worse.

 

[Tulkas12]

It's just that we don't see much reason to involve a country that didn't attack us, all for a war that hasn't shown much "progress" as of yet. We've been "sticking it out" for quite a while now.

So far, we have only destabilized Iraq, and that may make things in the Middle East worse.

In the short term I totally agree it will. In the long term as we are in the area and especially once it gets open for trade our influence will be very strong. It is very polarizing in the short term, but as time fades and the atocities slow, wisdom says a form of assimilation (make no mistale this is what this whole thing is all about) will occur. Our way of markets raise a middle class naturally, if we can really get middle class numbers up in the area, alot of this stuff will fade away.

 

[tomsnowman123]

In the short term I totally agree it will. In the long term as we are in the area and especially once it gets open for trade our influence will be very strong.

I just don't see why we need to try to influence so much of the world. Globalization is not good, and neither is us forcing ourselves on other countries.

 

[Ellipsis Jones]

To say that you're bitter about it and want us to lose doesn't seem like a very progressive attitude. It seems barbaric, to be honest.

You mean as oppossed to your two "progressive" wars of occupation?

Ironically, the Iraq and Afghan campaigns are among the most 'progressive' and 'liberal' ventures the US has ever embarked upon. America has abolished a medieval theocracy and a modern dictatorship, and is trying to replace them with societies which respect the rule of law and individual rights. What's more, the underlying assumption of these ventures is that all men, everywhere, have the ability to form functional, free societies - and that they should be helped to do so whenever possible. This is quintessential liberalism.

RedWolf, when you hope for the defeat of American forces, you are - by definition - hoping that the other side wins. And the other side, in this case, is made up of tyrants, criminals, and Islamist headchoppers. Let's be crystal clear about this. You're not saying you want the Iraqi government to take over security duties as soon as possible, which would allow the Americans to leave with the safety of Iraq ensured. That would be a progressive attitude, and one I share. You're saying you want America and her allies to lose. You want them driven out before the new Iraqi state can defend itself. You're hoping Iraq will be delivered into decades of sectarian violence and slaughter.

I don't think 'barbarity' quite does your position justice.