...
Well to me... Jesus Christ means body of Christ.... which means daily bread... which means sandwhich... which means Subway... therefore, Jesus Christ means an Italian BMT with the works... hold the Mayo.
See y'all after lunch.
Now that was funny! And now I'm hungry.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
how so? what would you call someone who takes human life? you can use any euphamism you want ,its murder.Thats not even an opinion its a fact , how can you possibly argue with it. I dont care if they were following orders they are still people with a conscience and should Know better
If you read the words following the ones you quoted you will read something like "some surely are and some surely aren't". I'm sure some soldiers have committed murders in Iraq. And I'm sure some still have their conscience and didn't. The problem is that we don't seem to hold the same definition of murder so... meh, I won't argue on a word.
(A soldier killing another one in a war (illegal or not) is not murder imo, a soldier killing a civilian in a war (illegal or not) is murder. That's how I understand all this).
...
Do you know why you believe Saddam Hussein was such a brutal dictator and needed to be taken out? Because you were TOLD that he was a brutal dictator and needed to be taken out
And I suppose our governments told us that Pinochet should never have been installed and needed to be held account for his actions, the dropping of the atomic bombs was wrong, along with the firestorms in Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo that targeted civilians. Oh hang on...
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
pick a news source. PBS, CBS, ABC, FOX NEWS, LA TIMES, NY TIMES, WASH POST, WALL STREET JOURNAL-
all of these have taken polls consistently about public opinion on the war. The war has been consistently negative in peoples opinions since December of 2004, so right after the elections.
It hasnt changed much since then, people have only gotten more pessimistic.
The polls show that:
The majority of americans think the war is unwinnable
That setting up democracy in iraq is impossible
That they would rather the troops come home, than have them stay in iraq
that they believe the war wasnt worth it (it being the cost in lives and money)
All that poll tells me is that Amreicans don't think we can win the war. Don't you find it odd that none of these polls ask if Americans think the war is wrong? That's the real point I'm trying to make. Americans have negative feelings about the war, but only because it's not "going well"....they don't think we can "win"...they think setting up a democracy is impossible (I agree because you can't force democracy on people...that's not real democracy)...they think it's costing too much. But you don't see any of these polls asking "Do you think the war is wrong?" That should be the real question.
All that poll tells me is that Amreicans don't think we can win the war. Don't you find it odd that none of these polls ask if Americans think the war is wrong? That's the real point I'm trying to make. Americans have negative feelings about the war, but only because it's not "going well"....they don't think we can "win"...they think setting up a democracy is impossible (I agree because you can't force democracy on people...that's not real democracy)...they think it's costing too much. But you don't see any of these polls asking "Do you think the war is wrong?" That should be the real question.
I don't think people realise how much support the Nazis had in Germany. Remember Krystal Nact, the famous footage of a woman in a street saying "goodbye Jews, goodbye Jews". Imposing democracy there when people didn't want it was pretty successful. And don't bother saying proportionately more people in Iraq are against it than Nazi Germany because I know.
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
I don't think people realise how much support the Nazis had in Germany. Remember Krystal Nact, the famous footage of a woman in a street saying "goodbye Jews, goodbye Jews". Imposing democracy there when people didn't want it was pretty successful. And don't bother saying proportionately more people in Iraq are against it than Nazi Germany because I know.
It doesn't matter if they're against it or in favor of it...the point is, the U.S. has no business ramming some government/economic model down someone else's throat. That's not right.
And comparing the situation in Iraq to WW2 is just crazy to me. Germans supported the Nazis for very good reason....that regime did incredible things for their economy. Everyone was happy and making money....and everyone who traded with Germany was happy too. It had nothing to do with people being resistant to democracy. Germans during that time period would not describe themselves as living under a dictatorship, they would say Hitler was in power because the majority wanted him there...that's basically democracy.
It's just one thing that suprises me. Okay, Bush wanted war, he got it.
Lots of young Americans died there. That a sad fact and there's nothing, we can do about it.
I'm almost sure, that on the next elections, new president will be republican. Again. Come on, how is this possible????
I just want to scream...
...hello!!!
My god its been six years...
never dreamed...
...you'd return.
It doesn't matter if they're against it or in favor of it...the point is, the U.S. has no business ramming some government/economic model down someone else's throat. That's not right.
And comparing the situation in Iraq to WW2 is just crazy to me. Germans supported the Nazis for very good reason....that regime did incredible things for their economy. Everyone was happy and making money....and everyone who traded with Germany was happy too. It had nothing to do with people being resistant to democracy. Germans during that time period would not describe themselves as living under a dictatorship, they would say Hitler was in power because the majority wanted him there...that's basically democracy.
It doesn't matter if they're for or against? So it doesn't matter if "the people" don't want democracy "forced on them" then?
A restaurant with a smoking section is like a swimming pool with a pissing section
If "forcing democracy" on Iraq is or was the main objective, the war could have some merit. However, anybody with any brain whatsoever knows that this war is 100% about oil. Iraq was ready to start selling their oil to the Chinese. The only reason for this war was to prevent that from happening. Iraq has the fourth largest amount of discovered oil reserves in the world (115 Billion barrels). This falls only behind Saudi Arabia (267B), Canada(179B) and Iran(132B). If the US lost control of Iraq as a potential source of oil (Iraq's oil only amounted to 5% of the US's oil imports last year), the future of America's fossil-fuel driven economy could have been in jeopardy as China is becoming a huge player in the energy consumption market.
Somebody had to decide where the US's oil will come from for the next 100ish years and it is not going to be easy to out-buy the billion and a half strong Chinese. So, the US essentially controls Canada's oil reserves already with their buying power and location. Also, Canada is not likely to start selling oil to China when it is to our benefit to have a good American economy. Another downfall to Canadian oil is that most of the reserves are in the oil sands and extracting the oil is a very costly (both financially and environmentally) process. Next, it is only a matter of time before the Saudi's migrate over to the huge Chinese market and there is no way that the US could invade Saudi Arabia and make it look like anything other than a money-grab. The only other option after Iraq would be to invade Iran and if you think the Iraq war is going badly ... yikes. Iraq was the only country on the list that could be illegally invaded with minimal response from the rest of the world. Simple as that, right?
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
sorry for jumping in this thread late, but i think that yes, a lot of Americans have turned against the war only because its not going well, however a significant amount have turned against because they know the truth now, whereas the media did not properly debate the war before it started. i marched against the war in October 2002 - and that's only because I had been turned on to alternative media in 2000 and 2001.
If "forcing democracy" on Iraq is or was the main objective, the war could have some merit. However, anybody with any brain whatsoever knows that this war is 100% about oil. Iraq was ready to start selling their oil to the Chinese. The only reason for this war was to prevent that from happening. Iraq has the fourth largest amount of discovered oil reserves in the world (115 Billion barrels). This falls only behind Saudi Arabia (267B), Canada(179B) and Iran(132B). If the US lost control of Iraq as a potential source of oil (Iraq's oil only amounted to 5% of the US's oil imports last year), the future of America's fossil-fuel driven economy could have been in jeopardy as China is becoming a huge player in the energy consumption market.
Somebody had to decide where the US's oil will come from for the next 100ish years and it is not going to be easy to out-buy the billion and a half strong Chinese. So, the US essentially controls Canada's oil reserves already with their buying power and location. Also, Canada is not likely to start selling oil to China when it is to our benefit to have a good American economy. Another downfall to Canadian oil is that most of the reserves are in the oil sands and extracting the oil is a very costly (both financially and environmentally) process. Next, it is only a matter of time before the Saudi's migrate over to the huge Chinese market and there is no way that the US could invade Saudi Arabia and make it look like anything other than a money-grab. The only other option after Iraq would be to invade Iran and if you think the Iraq war is going badly ... yikes. Iraq was the only country on the list that could be illegally invaded with minimal response from the rest of the world. Simple as that, right?
I'd say that's pretty much right on. If people can't see this war is about oil, they're trying really hard not to.
Of course a large portion have turned against the war because it's not going well, perhaps "not going well" is kinda an Understatement, anyway it is true (like kenny said) that they now know the truth which is one of the reasons why some have turned against it, but the problem with ths is that these same people will still stay ignorant to other issues and conflicts. These same people will line up backing a war against Iran if it happens then 4 years into that war when it's not going so well only then will they turn against it.
So as I am happy to see people turn against this war i'm still quite sad that they will still support others, a good example are these people who are wanting america to take all the troops out of iraq and send them to afghanistan. When we saw Israel level lebanon they supported israels actions. these are major issues that we can not ignore.
If "forcing democracy" on Iraq is or was the main objective, the war could have some merit. However, anybody with any brain whatsoever knows that this war is 100% about oil. Iraq was ready to start selling their oil to the Chinese. The only reason for this war was to prevent that from happening. Iraq has the fourth largest amount of discovered oil reserves in the world (115 Billion barrels). This falls only behind Saudi Arabia (267B), Canada(179B) and Iran(132B). If the US lost control of Iraq as a potential source of oil (Iraq's oil only amounted to 5% of the US's oil imports last year), the future of America's fossil-fuel driven economy could have been in jeopardy as China is becoming a huge player in the energy consumption market.
Somebody had to decide where the US's oil will come from for the next 100ish years and it is not going to be easy to out-buy the billion and a half strong Chinese. So, the US essentially controls Canada's oil reserves already with their buying power and location. Also, Canada is not likely to start selling oil to China when it is to our benefit to have a good American economy. Another downfall to Canadian oil is that most of the reserves are in the oil sands and extracting the oil is a very costly (both financially and environmentally) process. Next, it is only a matter of time before the Saudi's migrate over to the huge Chinese market and there is no way that the US could invade Saudi Arabia and make it look like anything other than a money-grab. The only other option after Iraq would be to invade Iran and if you think the Iraq war is going badly ... yikes. Iraq was the only country on the list that could be illegally invaded with minimal response from the rest of the world. Simple as that, right?
Boy I wish I could organize my thoughts as clearly as that. Thanks song. That is precisely what is going on and I don't see anything changing in the near future. Instead of the $400 billion spent on this war we should have spent it on creating alternative fuel methods. But the puppeteers that are controlling Bush have other ideas.:mad:
I dont care if it fits or not, people who kill people are murderers, its not debatable its just not, its a word for people who kill people whether they be justified or not(in this case they arent), you still murdered. i dont understand the confusion.
Well as some have tried to point out the confusion is beacuse the word murder is a legal term - it does not unilaterally apply to anybody who has ever killed (even intentionally) another person. And those who have been deemed to have committed murder are (hopefully and supposedly) done so as and when it's debated through the recourse to due process in a court of law.
Buy you prefer to ignore all that and arbitrarily leap to referring to homogenous masses of people as murderers - which is fine, that's your opinion - just don't sound perplexed when others disagree with you.
(and stating that your point of view is 'not debatable' kind of defeats the purpose of logging onto a chat forum does it not)
Ya but its been completely fucked up for the civilians since it began and i think its an insult to them to only express concern now that its affecting ye, especially since ye went in their under the guise of liberating them. Also if you follow that logic then a successful war would be justified regardless of how many innocent Iraques died. Another thing that annoys me is this bands emphasis on the troops as if they were the most deserved of sympathy. These are people who most of them willingly went into a foreign country in which they had no business and killed innocent men, women and children and illegally tortured prisoners. Not all of them i know are evil or are guilty of the above , many of them may have been mislead or forced to go also but the sizable majority believed in what they were doing and they are murderers. Sympathy should be directed at the civilian popoulation who suffered under the american terrorism
Here is a word for you..."unnecessary". If you believe the American military is a bunch of murderers, then suit yourself. But I don't see how bringing that kind of opinion around here is going to positively influence any argument.
The morality or righteousness of the war in Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with our soldiers. They are basically pawns, and have no say in policy. They only carry out orders. Yes, each soldier should be held accountable for their individual actions and the military ensures this. That is why soldiers have a code of conduct, rules of engagement, etc. That is why there are stiff penalties, including capital punishment for soldiers who disobey these rules. These rules explicitly state that soldiers are not to harm non-combatants.
Herein lies the hypocrisy and exposes your bias view. Sunni or Shia death squads among other factions EXCPLICETLY TARGET innocent women and children, yet you only label the Americans, the force that tries its best to LIMIT civilian casualties as the murderers in Iraq.
Iraq is a hell whole full of ethnic and religious violence. Some experts have divided the chaos into as many as 5 different wars being fought. The United States should shoulder the blame for toppling the Saddam regime and not keeping order until a new government could be implemented. However, the US should not be blamed for the hatred in many Iraqi hearts towards their brethren. That is not our fight, and we did not have anything to do with these conflicts.
So Iraq is full of murderers as you would point out. It just shows how lop-sided your view is that you would castigate the American military as murderers, when we are the only force that is trying to stabilize the country into a society that respects all beliefs and tolerates differences. Left to their own devices, Iraq factions will continue to purge each other with revenge killings, political killings and ethnic cleansing until one force emerges and persecutes the subdued losers, creating yet another backwards society that will be a sore to the world.
So you think we would have paid as much attention to Iraq if their chief export had been Brussel sprouts?
I love brussel sprouts. I fully support any war and occupation in which it would bring down the price of this precious commodity. and O so heathly. mmmmmmmm
Herein lies the hypocrisy and exposes your bias view. Sunni or Shia death squads among other factions EXCPLICETLY TARGET innocent women and children, yet you only label the Americans, the force that tries its best to LIMIT civilian casualties as the murderers in Iraq.
She's only a hypocrite if she is contradicting herself and her own view. It sounds like you are asserting that one is a hypocrite if they are contradicting your view. Can you please point out where she is supporting the innocent killing of any people? And of course she's speaking from her own personal perspective--she's posting her opinions on a message board.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
She's only a hypocrite if she is contradicting herself and her own view. It sounds like you are asserting that one is a hypocrite if they are contradicting your view. Can you please point out where she is supporting the innocent killing of any people? And of course she's speaking from her own personal perspective--she's posting her opinions on a message board.
I do not believe she applies the same standards to American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq and I think that is hypocritical. Also, if you read her posts closely, you will notice that innocence doesn't factor into the equation of a person who is killed. In her view, everyone is innocent.
Herein lies the hypocrisy and exposes your bias view. Sunni or Shia death squads among other factions EXCPLICETLY TARGET innocent women and children, yet you only label the Americans, the force that tries its best to LIMIT civilian casualties as the murderers in Iraq.
Hang on... how is dropping 5000lb bombs on URBAN areas trying their 'best to limit civilian casualties'??? You speak about how America is so great for ridding Iraq of this evil dictator... like all they did was go into Iraq and take him out (which SURELY would have been much easier than all this bullshit) but that's not what happened. What about the hundreds and thousands of other people killed (soldier OR civilian) were they ALL guilty? I was sitting in a bar in New York when tv started showing footage of the first bombs being dropped on CITIES. People were standing and cheering and clapping as lives were being lost... like it was a fucking video game.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Hang on... how is dropping 5000lb bombs on URBAN areas trying their 'best to limit civilian casualties'??? You speak about how America is so great for ridding Iraq of this evil dictator... like all they did was go into Iraq and take him out (which SURELY would have been much easier than all this bullshit) but that's not what happened. What about the hundreds and thousands of other people killed (soldier OR civilian) were they ALL guilty? I was sitting in a bar in New York when tv started showing footage of the first bombs being dropped on CITIES. People were standing and cheering and clapping as lives were being lost... like it was a fucking video game.
When we have the capability to level the entire city of Baghdad, we instead used precision laser-guided bombs to destroy specific buildings and targets. To me, that is trying our best.
I do not believe she applies the same standards to American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq and I think that is hypocritical. Also, if you read her posts closely, you will notice that innocence doesn't factor into the equation of a person who is killed. In her view, everyone is innocent.
I would hope she would not apply the same standards to the American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq, as they are each operating with different variables. Thusly, in order to actually discern information optimally, each situation must be assessed and understood within it's own context. If you call assessing different situations on their own merits "hypocrisy", then you and I have a difference of opinion.
Do you recognize that if you kill people who appear to range from being "good" to "bad" that you are still killing different people? And that you are still a killer? And that you are still responsible for the killing you exact, independent of what the other person has done? Of course the other person is responsible exactly for their own horrors or inequities in a similar self-accountability.
There is a base issue in human psychology, wherein people like to justify and excuse what they do ie: killing, stealing, etc, while seeing the other person who does the same as bad guy--ie: they are WORSE killers or WORSE bad guys, therefore I'm a "better" killer. And really being a killer is being a killer. Ruthlessly killing many is still ruthlessly killing many. The psychologically healthy way is to recognize that EACH person has accountability. Therefore, I'm on the bandwagon with those on this board who point to those who are closing their eyes to their own accountability, while pointing the finger at some mythical "bad-guy" in the "bad" foreign-country-of-the-day. When you can understand this perspective, you will understand there is not inherent contradiction in this view. It is only viewing this view through your own lens, where you cannot appreciate this perspective, that the illusion of a flaw arises to you.
And yes, I realize that while you actually believe that people with other ideas and policies are just "bad", you will be unable to appreciate this concept. But at least the problem is on the table--and the illusion of hypocrisy is called out into the light where it dissipates.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's right. My response was: 'No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.'
Was that worth a ban? Maybe a bit of a generalization, but a ban seemed a bit harsh to me.
I would hope she would not apply the same standards to the American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq, as they are each operating with different variables. Thusly, in order to actually discern information optimally, each situation must be assessed and understood within it's own context. If you call assessing different situations on their own merits "hypocrisy", then you and I have a difference of opinion.
Do you recognize that if you kill people who appear to range from being "good" to "bad" that you are still killing different people? And that you are still a killer? And that you are still responsible for the killing you exact, independent of what the other person has done? Of course the other person is responsible exactly for their own horrors or inequities in a similar self-accountability.
There is a base issue in human psychology, wherein people like to justify and excuse what they do ie: killing, stealing, etc, while seeing the other person who does the same as bad guy--ie: they are WORSE killers or WORSE bad guys, therefore I'm a "better" killer. And really being a killer is being a killer. Ruthlessly killing many is still ruthlessly killing many. The psychologically healthy way is to recognize that EACH person has accountability. Therefore, I'm on the bandwagon with those on this board who point to those who are closing their eyes to their own accountability, while pointing the finger at some mythical "bad-guy" in the "bad" foreign-country-of-the-day. When you can understand this perspective, you will understand there is not inherent contradiction in this view. It is only viewing this view through your own lens, where you cannot appreciate this perspective, that the illusion of a flaw arises to you.
And yes, I realize that while you actually believe that people with other ideas and policies are just "bad", you will be unable to appreciate this concept. But at least the problem is on the table--and the illusion of hypocrisy is called out into the light where it dissipates.
You may need to break this down a little simpler for me, and I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm just not understanding the concept. Let me tell you a few things I believe.
I beleive that in the year 2007, killing other humans is necessary to keep the world order. I believe that killing is wrong, but it is necessary. So I think some killing though "wrong" is justified.
Comments
Now that was funny! And now I'm hungry.
I dont recall saying it was. I was just pointing out that just because a person kills another, does not automatically equate them to being a murderer.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
If you read the words following the ones you quoted you will read something like "some surely are and some surely aren't". I'm sure some soldiers have committed murders in Iraq. And I'm sure some still have their conscience and didn't. The problem is that we don't seem to hold the same definition of murder so... meh, I won't argue on a word.
(A soldier killing another one in a war (illegal or not) is not murder imo, a soldier killing a civilian in a war (illegal or not) is murder. That's how I understand all this).
And I suppose our governments told us that Pinochet should never have been installed and needed to be held account for his actions, the dropping of the atomic bombs was wrong, along with the firestorms in Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo that targeted civilians. Oh hang on...
All that poll tells me is that Amreicans don't think we can win the war. Don't you find it odd that none of these polls ask if Americans think the war is wrong? That's the real point I'm trying to make. Americans have negative feelings about the war, but only because it's not "going well"....they don't think we can "win"...they think setting up a democracy is impossible (I agree because you can't force democracy on people...that's not real democracy)...they think it's costing too much. But you don't see any of these polls asking "Do you think the war is wrong?" That should be the real question.
I don't think people realise how much support the Nazis had in Germany. Remember Krystal Nact, the famous footage of a woman in a street saying "goodbye Jews, goodbye Jews". Imposing democracy there when people didn't want it was pretty successful. And don't bother saying proportionately more people in Iraq are against it than Nazi Germany because I know.
It doesn't matter if they're against it or in favor of it...the point is, the U.S. has no business ramming some government/economic model down someone else's throat. That's not right.
And comparing the situation in Iraq to WW2 is just crazy to me. Germans supported the Nazis for very good reason....that regime did incredible things for their economy. Everyone was happy and making money....and everyone who traded with Germany was happy too. It had nothing to do with people being resistant to democracy. Germans during that time period would not describe themselves as living under a dictatorship, they would say Hitler was in power because the majority wanted him there...that's basically democracy.
I was banned yesterday for one day for replying to this post. Interesting.
Lots of young Americans died there. That a sad fact and there's nothing, we can do about it.
I'm almost sure, that on the next elections, new president will be republican. Again. Come on, how is this possible????
...hello!!!
My god its been six years...
never dreamed...
...you'd return.
It doesn't matter if they're for or against? So it doesn't matter if "the people" don't want democracy "forced on them" then?
I'm saying whether or not Iraqis desire democracy has nothing to do with the fact that it was wrong for the U.S. to invade in the first place.
Somebody had to decide where the US's oil will come from for the next 100ish years and it is not going to be easy to out-buy the billion and a half strong Chinese. So, the US essentially controls Canada's oil reserves already with their buying power and location. Also, Canada is not likely to start selling oil to China when it is to our benefit to have a good American economy. Another downfall to Canadian oil is that most of the reserves are in the oil sands and extracting the oil is a very costly (both financially and environmentally) process. Next, it is only a matter of time before the Saudi's migrate over to the huge Chinese market and there is no way that the US could invade Saudi Arabia and make it look like anything other than a money-grab. The only other option after Iraq would be to invade Iran and if you think the Iraq war is going badly ... yikes. Iraq was the only country on the list that could be illegally invaded with minimal response from the rest of the world. Simple as that, right?
I'd say that's pretty much right on. If people can't see this war is about oil, they're trying really hard not to.
So as I am happy to see people turn against this war i'm still quite sad that they will still support others, a good example are these people who are wanting america to take all the troops out of iraq and send them to afghanistan. When we saw Israel level lebanon they supported israels actions. these are major issues that we can not ignore.
Boy I wish I could organize my thoughts as clearly as that. Thanks song. That is precisely what is going on and I don't see anything changing in the near future. Instead of the $400 billion spent on this war we should have spent it on creating alternative fuel methods. But the puppeteers that are controlling Bush have other ideas.:mad:
HAHAHAHAHHA!
Well as some have tried to point out the confusion is beacuse the word murder is a legal term - it does not unilaterally apply to anybody who has ever killed (even intentionally) another person. And those who have been deemed to have committed murder are (hopefully and supposedly) done so as and when it's debated through the recourse to due process in a court of law.
Buy you prefer to ignore all that and arbitrarily leap to referring to homogenous masses of people as murderers - which is fine, that's your opinion - just don't sound perplexed when others disagree with you.
(and stating that your point of view is 'not debatable' kind of defeats the purpose of logging onto a chat forum does it not)
So you think we would have paid as much attention to Iraq if their chief export had been Brussel sprouts?
Here is a word for you..."unnecessary". If you believe the American military is a bunch of murderers, then suit yourself. But I don't see how bringing that kind of opinion around here is going to positively influence any argument.
The morality or righteousness of the war in Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with our soldiers. They are basically pawns, and have no say in policy. They only carry out orders. Yes, each soldier should be held accountable for their individual actions and the military ensures this. That is why soldiers have a code of conduct, rules of engagement, etc. That is why there are stiff penalties, including capital punishment for soldiers who disobey these rules. These rules explicitly state that soldiers are not to harm non-combatants.
Herein lies the hypocrisy and exposes your bias view. Sunni or Shia death squads among other factions EXCPLICETLY TARGET innocent women and children, yet you only label the Americans, the force that tries its best to LIMIT civilian casualties as the murderers in Iraq.
Iraq is a hell whole full of ethnic and religious violence. Some experts have divided the chaos into as many as 5 different wars being fought. The United States should shoulder the blame for toppling the Saddam regime and not keeping order until a new government could be implemented. However, the US should not be blamed for the hatred in many Iraqi hearts towards their brethren. That is not our fight, and we did not have anything to do with these conflicts.
So Iraq is full of murderers as you would point out. It just shows how lop-sided your view is that you would castigate the American military as murderers, when we are the only force that is trying to stabilize the country into a society that respects all beliefs and tolerates differences. Left to their own devices, Iraq factions will continue to purge each other with revenge killings, political killings and ethnic cleansing until one force emerges and persecutes the subdued losers, creating yet another backwards society that will be a sore to the world.
I love brussel sprouts. I fully support any war and occupation in which it would bring down the price of this precious commodity. and O so heathly. mmmmmmmm
:eek:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I do not believe she applies the same standards to American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq and I think that is hypocritical. Also, if you read her posts closely, you will notice that innocence doesn't factor into the equation of a person who is killed. In her view, everyone is innocent.
Hang on... how is dropping 5000lb bombs on URBAN areas trying their 'best to limit civilian casualties'??? You speak about how America is so great for ridding Iraq of this evil dictator... like all they did was go into Iraq and take him out (which SURELY would have been much easier than all this bullshit) but that's not what happened. What about the hundreds and thousands of other people killed (soldier OR civilian) were they ALL guilty? I was sitting in a bar in New York when tv started showing footage of the first bombs being dropped on CITIES. People were standing and cheering and clapping as lives were being lost... like it was a fucking video game.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
When we have the capability to level the entire city of Baghdad, we instead used precision laser-guided bombs to destroy specific buildings and targets. To me, that is trying our best.
I would hope she would not apply the same standards to the American forces as the other factions fighting in Iraq, as they are each operating with different variables. Thusly, in order to actually discern information optimally, each situation must be assessed and understood within it's own context. If you call assessing different situations on their own merits "hypocrisy", then you and I have a difference of opinion.
Do you recognize that if you kill people who appear to range from being "good" to "bad" that you are still killing different people? And that you are still a killer? And that you are still responsible for the killing you exact, independent of what the other person has done? Of course the other person is responsible exactly for their own horrors or inequities in a similar self-accountability.
There is a base issue in human psychology, wherein people like to justify and excuse what they do ie: killing, stealing, etc, while seeing the other person who does the same as bad guy--ie: they are WORSE killers or WORSE bad guys, therefore I'm a "better" killer. And really being a killer is being a killer. Ruthlessly killing many is still ruthlessly killing many. The psychologically healthy way is to recognize that EACH person has accountability. Therefore, I'm on the bandwagon with those on this board who point to those who are closing their eyes to their own accountability, while pointing the finger at some mythical "bad-guy" in the "bad" foreign-country-of-the-day. When you can understand this perspective, you will understand there is not inherent contradiction in this view. It is only viewing this view through your own lens, where you cannot appreciate this perspective, that the illusion of a flaw arises to you.
And yes, I realize that while you actually believe that people with other ideas and policies are just "bad", you will be unable to appreciate this concept. But at least the problem is on the table--and the illusion of hypocrisy is called out into the light where it dissipates.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's right. My response was: 'No. Because your Government are immoral, greedy liars and murderers, and anyone who respects the criminal American Government is stupid.'
Was that worth a ban? Maybe a bit of a generalization, but a ban seemed a bit harsh to me.
You may need to break this down a little simpler for me, and I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm just not understanding the concept. Let me tell you a few things I believe.
I beleive that in the year 2007, killing other humans is necessary to keep the world order. I believe that killing is wrong, but it is necessary. So I think some killing though "wrong" is justified.