the average age in the US millitary is 18-21. that's young. might as well be a kid. most are poor uneducated. I think most are trying to figure out how killing civilians in Iraq translates into preserving freedom in the United States.. I agree with musicismylife78.
if it were up to the pentagon they would be even younger. they are already targeting kids as young as 17. I had 2 navy recruiters come to my house when I was in high school. I don' think I was even 18 at the time. and apparently that's illegal, as of 2002. at least in violation of what they said.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
the average age in the US millitary is 18-21. that's young. might as well be a kid. most are poor uneducated. I think most are trying to figure out how killing civilians in Iraq translates into preserving freedom in the United States.. I agree with musicismylife78.
if it were up to the pentagon they would be even younger. they are already targeting kids as young as 17. I had 2 navy recruiters come to my house when I was in high school. I don' think I was even 18 at the time. and apparently that's illegal, as of 2002. at least in violation of what they said.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
right ,so they can focus on killing Afghan civilians. big difference. :roll:
old enough to kill not old enough to drink.
whatever you call them, they're young and stupid. I doubt many had the slightest idea of what they were getting into. I could of been a hero of war too...if I didn't mind torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners. I'm guessing the military recruiters leave those little details out of the brochures.
the average age in the US millitary is 18-21. that's young. might as well be a kid. most are poor uneducated. I think most are trying to figure out how killing civilians in Iraq translates into preserving freedom in the United States.. I agree with musicismylife78.
if it were up to the pentagon they would be even younger. they are already targeting kids as young as 17. I had 2 navy recruiters come to my house when I was in high school. I don' think I was even 18 at the time. and apparently that's illegal, as of 2002. at least in violation of what they said.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
right ,so they can focus on killing Afghan civilians. big difference. :roll:
old enough to kill not old enough to drink.
whatever you call them, they're young and stupid. I doubt many had the slightest idea of what they were getting into. I could of been a hero of war too...if I didn't mind torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners. I'm guessing the military recruiters leave those little details out of the brochures.
Don't whine to me man. If you want to be outraged at least get your facts and countries right. It annoys me to no end when you all get up on your soapboxes about war and then use the wars interchangeably.
The drinking age thing is stupid and needs to change. I'm on board with that.
I think you need to walk up to an enlisted soldier and accuse them of torturing civilians and see how they react. They've got a shit job and they're trying to do the best they can in circumstances you will NEVER understand while you sit there at your computer typing long-winded posts about how evil our military is and downloading porn in the other window. I don't think torturing civilians is anywhere near as common as you wish it was.
Don't whine to me man. If you want to be outraged at least get your facts and countries right. It annoys me to no end when you all get up on your soapboxes about war and then use the wars interchangeably.
The drinking age thing is stupid and needs to change. I'm on board with that.
I think you need to walk up to an enlisted soldier and accuse them of torturing civilians and see how they react. They've got a shit job and they're trying to do the best they can in circumstances you will NEVER understand while you sit there at your computer typing long-winded posts about how evil our military is and downloading porn in the other window. I don't think torturing civilians is anywhere near as common as you wish it was.
right. I wish there was MORE torture in this world. spot on. and what facts have I "mixed up"?
when did you learn how to read my mind? nice trick. and way to be predictable. right around the time you realized you were on the wrong side of the debate you went right in with the personal attacks. nice.
Don't whine to me man. If you want to be outraged at least get your facts and countries right. It annoys me to no end when you all get up on your soapboxes about war and then use the wars interchangeably.
The drinking age thing is stupid and needs to change. I'm on board with that.
I think you need to walk up to an enlisted soldier and accuse them of torturing civilians and see how they react. They've got a shit job and they're trying to do the best they can in circumstances you will NEVER understand while you sit there at your computer typing long-winded posts about how evil our military is and downloading porn in the other window. I don't think torturing civilians is anywhere near as common as you wish it was.
right. I wish there was MORE torture in this world. spot on. and what facts have I "mixed up"?
when did you learn how to read my mind? nice trick. and way to be predictable. right around the time you realized you were on the wrong side of the debate you went right in with the personal attacks. nice.
You mixed up the facts when you (as people always do in these debates) pointed to abuses in Iraq as some sort of condemnation of Afghanistan. It's a common occurrence around here. When in doubt, change the subject to Iraq, because we all know it was a bad idea.
As to torture, yes, I suspect you are eager for all reports of it. It gives you ammunition to label all military actions evil and wrong and sadistic without having to think critically about the occasional necessity of military action or empathize with the difficult of people trying to survive and maintain their humanity in a chaotic and violent world you'll never have to confront.
the average age in the US millitary is 18-21. that's young. might as well be a kid. most are poor uneducated. I think most are trying to figure out how killing civilians in Iraq translates into preserving freedom in the United States.. I agree with musicismylife78.
if it were up to the pentagon they would be even younger. they are already targeting kids as young as 17. I had 2 navy recruiters come to my house when I was in high school. I don' think I was even 18 at the time. and apparently that's illegal, as of 2002. at least in violation of what they said.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
right ,so they can focus on killing Afghan civilians. big difference. :roll:
old enough to kill not old enough to drink.
whatever you call them, they're young and stupid. I doubt many had the slightest idea of what they were getting into. I could of been a hero of war too...if I didn't mind torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners. I'm guessing the military recruiters leave those little details out of the brochures.
dude you are so out of line, first you say that they are and stupid and then you say torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners WTF :shock: :x you need to get a life you make me sick. these guys are risking there life every day to keep people like you safe. and this is what you got to say ? You should be ashamed of your self. :x
As to torture, yes, I suspect you are eager for all reports of it. It gives you ammunition to label all military actions evil and wrong and sadistic without having to think critically about the occasional necessity of military action or empathize with the difficult of people trying to survive and maintain their humanity in a chaotic and violent world you'll never have to confront.
Are you talking empathy for the soldiers that are having 'difficulty trying to survive etc? Should we feel empathy for them if we disagree with their mission and, like you say, they knew what they signed up for? I do feel empathy for them, but only in the sense that I DON'T think many of them actually did know what they signed up for.
dude you are so out of line, first you say that they are and stupid and then you say torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners WTF :shock: :x you need to get a life you make me sick. these guys are risking there life every day to keep people like you safe. and this is what you got to say ? You should be ashamed of your self. :x
ugh, the 'keeping people like you safe' line. These arent the allied forces of '42 or some shit...I have a feeling I'd be sitting here, stuffed full o' Big Mac regardless of where Western troops have been stomping for the last couple decades. They're not keeping us safe from anything; if anything its the opposite. And NO, that is NOT a fucking attack against the moral judgement of every member of the military :roll:
You mixed up the facts when you (as people always do in these debates) pointed to abuses in Iraq as some sort of condemnation of Afghanistan. It's a common occurrence around here. When in doubt, change the subject to Iraq, because we all know it was a bad idea.
using every single war ever as a guide, its safe to say that atrocities are going to happen in afghanistan, that people will be tortured and innocent people are going to die. I can say that I am certain of this, using history as a guide. its doesn't matter where its fought, war produces atrocities. afghanistan will be no different. its not about mixing up facts or changing the subject to Iraq. its about being knowledgeable about war and what it produces. its never good. never.
As to torture, yes, I suspect you are eager for all reports of it. It gives you ammunition to label all military actions evil and wrong and sadistic without having to think critically about the occasional necessity of military action or empathize with the difficult of people trying to survive and maintain their humanity in a chaotic and violent world you'll never have to confront.
not everyone is as selfish or apathetic about human life as you are. according to some people (especially on this board) US troops are killing and torturing others for my freedom and security. well fuck that. if they're torturing in my name I feel a bit responsible for the VICTIMS. that's why I give a shit, because I am partly responsible for their plight. its not about being right or seeing someone else proved wrong, I don't give a shit about that. there's a bigger picture here that not many people are seeing.
and quit pretending you can read my fucking mind, its getting old. I never said "all military actions [are] evil and wrong and sadistic". never even implied that. that's you pretending to know what I'm thinking. and you suck at that so lets stop doing it. sometimes a direct act of violence is needed. Pol Pot could have been stopped with such an act, maybe saving a million lives in Cambodia. imagine if Hitler had been taken out like that, tens of millions would have been saved. the situation in Darfur called for military action many times. would that they use the military for humanitarian needs.
I think there's been maybe 2 verifiable cases of humanitarian intervention in known human history. significant cases anyway. and no, WWII was not one of them. nor was the US responsible for any of them, more the opposite. from Chomsky-The 2 cases of military humanitarian intervention are "India's invasion of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ending a huge massacre; and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, driving out the Khmer Rouge just as their atrocities were peaking." In both cases the US supported those committing the atrocities, after the humanitarian intervention.
And that's typical US foreign policy. Why is there almost a direct 1:1 ration for US military aid to a country and atrocities committed on its own citizens? Turkey and Columbia-2 countries that receive massive US military support and equipment, had far worse human rights records than even the Serbs, at the height of their atrocities in Yugoslavia. yet the serbs were bombed. more accurately, the people of yugoslavia were bombed.
And its not diplomacy that's used or preferred. The US spends about as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. so naturally they tend to use the massive firepower at their disposal. its one area where they are guaranteed the upper hand. problem of course is the victims of that military machine, in this case Afghanistan. what the fuck did the people of Afghanistan ever do you you or me? because those are the real victims in war, the people. the Taliban is fine, stronger than ever. not in charge of the country but better now than they were 5 years ago. stronger anyway. they don't seem too affected by this war. but I am pretty sure those million people displaced from their homes along the afghan/pakistan border are pretty pissed off right now, if they are all still alive.
and why is it now afghanistan? at the time there was absolutely no evidence tying afghanistan/bin ladin/taliban to the 9/11 attacks. the taliban even offered up bin ladin post 9/11. with no evidence tying him to the attacks. now there's even less. and, giving the history of the US and its dozens of military interventions and wars, its safe to say that whatever they tell the people the reason is for invading another country, its a pretext. its a lie. an excuse to get the public behind whatever bullshit attempt they make to expand their power. or maybe this is about the huge pipeline that could go through the middle of Kandahar (the most volatile region in Afghanistan) that would cut the Iranians completely out of the oil situation regarding europe (I believe). or maybe its the billions in poppy sales that are going on over their. the taliban had them down to minimal levels, since the US invaded production has shot up over %150. who knows.
one thing is fairly certain. war does not make us more safe or more secure. in fact the worst attack on US soil in history was direct result of US militant foreign policy and actions. seems war and invasion only make it worse. for everyone.
dude you are so out of line, first you say that they are and stupid and then you say torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners WTF :shock: :x you need to get a life you make me sick. these guys are risking there life every day to keep people like you safe. and this is what you got to say ? You should be ashamed of your self. :x
how are they keeping me safe?
not ashamed. pissed off maybe, not ashamed.
how is fighting and dying for Haliburton or Exxon's profit an intelligent move? because there is a case to be made that Afghanistan is about oil as well, with a pipeline going right through Kandahar province.
notice there is always an enemy of the US? and notice they can't really defend themselves ever? its part of the military industrial complex. they always need to be fighting, to maintain relevance, and justify their insane budget. so they invent an enemy every few years, or one emerges on his own. Noriega/Hussein/Bin Ladin. Funny thing about the last 3-they were all once directly employed either by the CIA or by the US military in some way. now they are official bad guys. but that hypocrisy is pretty thin if you examine it even a little bit. official US allies are far worse than any of their official enemies. Columbia and Turkey were right up in the lead on human rights abuses. also on the top of US military aid, no coincidence. to name a few cases.
and they do torture innocent people and they do kill little kids. that's been proven. that's the kind of shit that's going to increase when Obama expands the war in Afghanistan.
the average age in the US millitary is 18-21. that's young. might as well be a kid. most are poor uneducated. I think most are trying to figure out how killing civilians in Iraq translates into preserving freedom in the United States.. I agree with musicismylife78.
if it were up to the pentagon they would be even younger. they are already targeting kids as young as 17. I had 2 navy recruiters come to my house when I was in high school. I don' think I was even 18 at the time. and apparently that's illegal, as of 2002. at least in violation of what they said.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
The problem isnt the age of the soldiers, its the idea of the stop loss.
They may have known what they were signing for, or maybe they didnt. Do you really honestly think any 18 year old will know what a war really means? Yes they may watch alot of war movies or play alot of violent video games, but does any of that prepare or describe the situation in a war? How about how to deal with what goes on during war?
And additionally, being sent to iraq and coming home is traumatic enough. Imagine, going, coming back. Then getting called back up, coming home. Then called back again, you get the picture. These soldiers have been to and come back from iraq 4 or 5 times now. Is that something they know about or can process? Can an 18 year old process that? Is that ethical in any way?
dude you are so out of line, first you say that they are and stupid and then you say torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners WTF :shock: :x you need to get a life you make me sick. these guys are risking there life every day to keep people like you safe. and this is what you got to say ? You should be ashamed of your self. :x
how are they keeping me safe?
not ashamed. pissed off maybe, not ashamed.
how is fighting and dying for Haliburton or Exxon's profit an intelligent move? because there is a case to be made that Afghanistan is about oil as well, with a pipeline going right through Kandahar province.
notice there is always an enemy of the US? and notice they can't really defend themselves ever? its part of the military industrial complex. they always need to be fighting, to maintain relevance, and justify their insane budget. so they invent an enemy every few years, or one emerges on his own. Noriega/Hussein/Bin Ladin. Funny thing about the last 3-they were all once directly employed either by the CIA or by the US military in some way. now they are official bad guys. but that hypocrisy is pretty thin if you examine it even a little bit. official US allies are far worse than any of their official enemies. Columbia and Turkey were right up in the lead on human rights abuses. also on the top of US military aid, no coincidence. to name a few cases.
and they do torture innocent people and they do kill little kids. that's been proven. that's the kind of shit that's going to increase when Obama expands the war in Afghanistan.
that's what war is. torture and atrocity.
please give me an example of an american soldier walking up to a little kid and shooting them for no reason and Bin laden may have been getting aid from the CIA but it was when the mujahadeem were fighting the Russians in afghanistan. As far as Hussein and Noriega well that's a new one on me ,but I think I will do my own research b/c I think most of your post are B.S.
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist.
What are you, some sort of law student or something? 18 is LEGALLY an adult, this is true, but, that's about it. Age doesn't make one an adult. Responsibility, maturity, common sense, and a heap of life's seasoning make one an adult. Age has dick to do with it, really. When i was 18 i was nowhere near, what i would call, an "adult". All laws aside, of course. Every time i see one of those lists of killed US servicemen i notice the age column. 18, 19, 20, 21... Bunch of dead KIDS. No amount of leagalese will ever change that. Most enlist because they're leaving high-school with either limited options, limited ambition, or both. As far as it being post 9/11, that changes very little either. Most are 18 year olds who have played waaaaay too much "call of duty" or "socum" and have absolutely no idea what they are REALLY getting themselves into. They find out all too soon. More often then not its that instant some roadside bomb goes off the second before there taking their last breath in a pool of their own piss, shit, and blood and they realize "Fuck! There's no reset button on this shit".
KIDS.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist.
What are you, some sort of law student or something? 18 is LEGALLY an adult, this is true, but, that's about it. Age doesn't make one an adult. Responsibility, maturity, common sense, and a heap of life's seasoning make one an adult. Age has dick to do with it, really. When i was 18 i was nowhere near, what i would call, an "adult". All laws aside, of course. Every time i see one of those lists of killed US servicemen i notice the age column. 18, 19, 20, 21... Bunch of dead KIDS. No amount of leagalese will ever change that. Most enlist because they're leaving high-school with either limited options, limited ambition, or both. As far as it being post 9/11, that changes very little either. Most are 18 year olds who have played waaaaay too much "call of duty" or "socum" and have absolutely no idea what they are REALLY getting themselves into. They find out all too soon. More often then not its that instant some roadside bomb goes off the second before there taking their last breath in a pool of their own piss, shit, and blood and they realize "Fuck! There's no reset button on this shit".
KIDS.
Whose fault is that if their brains are so fucking fried they think it's going to be like a video game? Evolution baby. People used to be working steady jobs, marrying, working farms, having kids, and raising families at ages younger than 18. If the current generation is so zombified and permanently adolescent then maybe a wake up call is a good thing.
The problem isnt the age of the soldiers, its the idea of the stop loss.
They may have known what they were signing for, or maybe they didnt. Do you really honestly think any 18 year old will know what a war really means? Yes they may watch alot of war movies or play alot of violent video games, but does any of that prepare or describe the situation in a war? How about how to deal with what goes on during war?
And additionally, being sent to iraq and coming home is traumatic enough. Imagine, going, coming back. Then getting called back up, coming home. Then called back again, you get the picture. These soldiers have been to and come back from iraq 4 or 5 times now. Is that something they know about or can process? Can an 18 year old process that? Is that ethical in any way?
If they were all 35, would they suddenly be ready or prepared for war? Nothing prepares you for the shit people see in war. Nothing. Age has nothing to do with it.
Stop loss is a crock of shit though, no doubt. I'm not saying our leaders haven't abused their position as leaders of the military and often used the military callously. I'm just saying you can't say Obama lied or mislead anyone about what he was going to do with these troops. And that those who signed up knew they could end up fighting. The revolving door is wrong and needs to stop, sure. But the fact that they were sent to war in the first place is not some honor code violation. They knew military might mean fighting. It's not like you can just shelve or disband the military and never fight anyone anywhere because you're afraid your soldiers don't know what they're getting into. Nobody knows what war is like until they've lived it. Least of all you and me. Which is why I take umbrage when you and people like you imply that US soldiers are all callous baby-murdering monsters that gleefully target civilians.
I also take umbridge soulsinging. With you. You dont know me, and I dont know you. You've known my posts on this board for years, as I have yours, but beyond that, I know little about you, and the same follows for me.
I dont post every intimate detail of my life on this board, so trying to glean who I am from little bits and pieces of posts from the past years is impossible.
But I do take offense at your suggestion that I think all soldiers are baby killers who target civilians. I would love to see where you got this information. Please, if you can provide evidence of this, by all means post it. But dont post salacious gossip for the hell of it.
There is a fine line. These soldiers are kids. Whether you all want to admit it or not. They are youngsters. And imagine being in the horror and hell of war, scared out of your mind, just trying to survive, seeing death and blood everywhere, I can truely see and understand why these soldiers would kill cilivians by accident or on purpose. That doesnt excuse their behavior, but it is easy to understand. The simple fact is, most are youngsters just trying to get back home in one piece.
I have posted that a million times on this board. Somehow, it doesnt surprise me you missed it, soulsinging as, I dont know you, but I do know you have been trying to either jokingly or seriously piss me off the minute i joined this forum. Every single thread I post you are oddly enough making an appearance, and you almost always say something mean or hurtful to me.
I have also said on this board, I wanted all the troops brought home yesterday. If I really hated the soldiers, and thought of them as baby killers wouldnt I just wish them to stay where they were and die?
Additionally I have written to my newspaper, and was published, demanding better treatment of soldiers when they get back home, and of course better treatment in general, maybe not being sent to die in foreign lands at all! What a novel idea!
I also take umbridge soulsinging. With you. You dont know me, and I dont know you. You've known my posts on this board for years, as I have yours, but beyond that, I know little about you, and the same follows for me.
I dont post every intimate detail of my life on this board, so trying to glean who I am from little bits and pieces of posts from the past years is impossible.
But I do take offense at your suggestion that I think all soldiers are baby killers who target civilians. I would love to see where you got this information. Please, if you can provide evidence of this, by all means post it. But dont post salacious gossip for the hell of it.
There is a fine line. These soldiers are kids. Whether you all want to admit it or not. They are youngsters. And imagine being in the horror and hell of war, scared out of your mind, just trying to survive, seeing death and blood everywhere, I can truely see and understand why these soldiers would kill cilivians by accident or on purpose. That doesnt excuse their behavior, but it is easy to understand. The simple fact is, most are youngsters just trying to get back home in one piece.
I have posted that a million times on this board. Somehow, it doesnt surprise me you missed it, soulsinging as, I dont know you, but I do know you have been trying to either jokingly or seriously piss me off the minute i joined this forum. Every single thread I post you are oddly enough making an appearance, and you almost always say something mean or hurtful to me.
I have also said on this board, I wanted all the troops brought home yesterday. If I really hated the soldiers, and thought of them as baby killers wouldnt I just wish them to stay where they were and die?
Additionally I have written to my newspaper, and was published, demanding better treatment of soldiers when they get back home, and of course better treatment in general, maybe not being sent to die in foreign lands at all! What a novel idea!
You can stop using the "you don't know me" argument. You sound like a whining teenager complaining to teachers or parents. I think it's quite clear that nobody here knows anyone other than by their posts. But that doesn't mean we're all unable to get decent pictures of each other's attitudes and beliefs based on what they've typed here. And I've read your posts for years under a number of different names, so I'm quite familiar with you. No, I don't know you. But I have as much info about you as you have about Barack Obama, and the fact that you haven't met Obama personally has not stopped you from making judgments about him, so don't tell me I can't do the same to you or vice versa.
Commy early made the flippant remark that our soldiers are staying in Iraq to shoot children, which rather implies that he thinks less than highly of our soldiers. Personally, I agree with what you've said in this post... that they're just normal people trying their damnedest to cope and survive in unimaginably horrific circumstances. Bad shit happens in war. But I do not believe, as some anti-war folks do (apparently you're not one of them and that is good to hear), that our soldiers are sadistic killing machines trying to wipe out civilians for the glory of the empire.
I 100% agree that the way veterans are treated when they come home is abhorrent. We put them through the wringer and then bring them home and toss them out and say "good luck." It's disgusting. But your thread was about Obama, not veterans. And whatever else you say about him, his views on the military and use of force are a step up from Dubya.
As to me and you, I don't make an effort to piss you off. But there are times when your naivete is appalling to me, just as I'm sure there are times when my bitter cynicism is appalling to others. And when I see that, I say something. This is not the 60s. The hippies are dead and their ideology died because it was unworkable. The first step to progress is dealing with reality. Wishing that war didn't exist does not in any way solve things. It will never happen. Pining for a lack of a military is never going to happen either. So let's be real and talk about ways to ensure that force is used judiciously and as a last resort and with extreme caution. Saying all war is wrong and then twiddling your thumbs refusing to talk about anything further does nothing to help anybody.
Its probably a good thing Crispus Attucks, the first martyr of the American Revolution, didn't get that memo. i might also hazard to guess there are a lot of slave descendants who may disagree. Try making this statement to a large group of Jewish folks, some still with unsolicited tattoos. Those aren't stickmen on their arms.
i'm no fan of war myself, and i in no way support the debacle in Iraq, but, to imply that war is never, and has never, been necessary, is naive at best.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Its probably a good thing Crispus Attucks, the first martyr of the American Revolution, didn't get that memo. i might also hazard to guess there are a lot of slave descendants who may disagree. Try making this statement to a large group of Jewish folks, some still with unsolicited tattoos. Those aren't stickmen on their arms.
i'm no fan of war myself, and i in no way support the debacle in Iraq, but, to imply that war is never, and has never, been necessary, is naive at best.
resisting oppression is self defense, and differs from waging war...
These people were victims, not aggressors.
naive, idealist rant below, take it or leave it...
as long as people feel oppressed, or like victims of aggression, there will be violent conflict...right? Why do people feel oppressed? It's virtually ALWAYS the loss of something material, no? even religious conflict or ethnic cleansing - they wipe out the other race, or non-believers...clearing the land.....Most personal freedoms are dependant upon who controls the land upon which you stand, right? So can we say that there is material motivation behind all war? Once you've got your motive, you can find the aggressor....once that's done, you can look at appropriate response or defense...aside from the case of religious extremism/hate crime, war and violence would rarely be necessary. But there is NO fucking media coverage of the root causes - the material motivation behind any of these conflicts! And why would there be? BAD for business!
So there is this acceptance that war is the only solution, when in most cases, the wars are over bad business deals, and unfair trade, and control of land (material goods) - issues that can usually be dealt with democratically and without violence.
Don't choose your battles based on your business dealings - pick them based on humanitarian consequence. hearts n minds n terror n all that.
even religious conflict or ethnic cleansing - they wipe out the other race, or non-believers...clearing the land.....Most personal freedoms are dependant upon who controls the land upon which you stand, right?
That's absurd. Personal freedoms go far beyond land, they extend to what you can say and do even on land you don't own. Ethnic cleansing and religious conflict is about a hell of a lot more than "clearing land." The Islamic world does not want to take over the US. The Nazis just didn't like having Jews in the neighborhood, they didn't necessarily care who lived in the house or what they did with it. They didn't repo Jewish homes for some personal financial motive. That premise doesn't hold water.
Once you've got your motive, you can find the aggressor....once that's done, you can look at appropriate response or defense...aside from the case of religious extremism/hate crime, war and violence would rarely be necessary. But there is NO fucking media coverage of the root causes - the material motivation behind any of these conflicts! And why would there be? BAD for business!
You just said up above that religious extremism and hate crime were all about property like every other root cause... why are they deemed an exception here?
So there is this acceptance that war is the only solution, when in most cases, the wars are over bad business deals, and unfair trade, and control of land (material goods) - issues that can usually be dealt with democratically and without violence.
Don't choose your battles based on your business dealings - pick them based on humanitarian consequence. hearts n minds n terror n all that.
I don't think there is any such acceptance. The fact we were lied to about Iraq and other wars shows that people in power know such reasons are unacceptable to the public. I'll agree, getting that information out is lacking, but I also think it's largely becos people are generally disinterested.
not lettin me off on the 'naive idealist' disclaimer, huh?
haven't read your response yet, but ok.... I'll give this a shot, I had to know mr. reality would be all over this
That's absurd. Personal freedoms go far beyond land, they extend to what you can say and do even on land you don't own. Ethnic cleansing and religious conflict is about a hell of a lot more than "clearing land." The Islamic world does not want to take over the US. The Nazis just didn't like having Jews in the neighborhood, they didn't necessarily care who lived in the house or what they did with it. They didn't repo Jewish homes for some personal financial motive. That premise doesn't hold water.
My point about the freedoms is that they are determined by who controls the land...everyone has these basic rights...but your ability to practice them free of oppression depends on who controls the area in which you choose to practise them.
No, Islam doesn't want to take over the US - I don't think they want to take over anything. If you're talking violent extremism, in any religion, then yes...if their sole motivation is to kill, violent self defense may be necessary. The whole point of my rant was to reinforce that we need to look at the ROOT causes. Why didn't the nazis like jews? before anyone freaks, I'm not looking to blame the jews...rather looking for the influences that turned German public opinion far enough to hatred that genocide was accepted? What was the motivation behind those influencing the public? Just hate, or is there more to it? The generally accepted premise of good vs evil being the sole motivation of the allied powers in that war tarnishes quickly when you look into those questions.
You just said up above that religious extremism and hate crime were all about property like every other root cause... why are they deemed an exception here?
I acquiesce. ''clearing land' was a bad analogy in terms of religious extremism. Faith is intangible; it doesn't apply to property. But even the most zealous believer is not a problem until they oppress or 'take the stuff' of someone else. Unfortunately, those running the show understand the intanigble nature of faith and manipulate religious extremism to justify their violent agenda.
I don't think there is any such acceptance. The fact we were lied to about Iraq and other wars shows that people in power know such reasons are unacceptable to the public. I'll agree, getting that information out is lacking, but I also think it's largely becos people are generally disinterested.
I think the acceptance is rooted in disinterest and ignorance, so we're both right :P
resisting oppression is self defense, and differs from waging war...
These people were victims, not aggressors.
naive, idealist rant below, take it or leave it...
Gonna have to leave that one, chief.
So, now, i guess, if presented with examples that may challenge one's ideology, there's no problem. Simply change you're operational definitions and "ouila" problem solved. Whew, that was close. The American revolution, Civil War and WWII were WARS. There is no way around it. You can't change that fact by saying it isn't technically war if its a defense against tyranny, oppression, or genocide. Like hell it isn't! The only difference is they don't fit into you're neat little package of all war is completely unjustifiable. " Ummm..., well..., gee, that doesn't count. Jews were being rounded up, tattooed, and thrown into ovens. That means it isn't a war."
Look, i'm a lefty too. One thing i won't do, however is sacrifice my integrity and common sense out of fear someone may revoke my "liberal card". My allegiance in this case is to integrity and not John Lennon.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The first step to progress is dealing with reality. Wishing that war didn't exist does not in any way solve things. It will never happen. Pining for a lack of a military is never going to happen either. So let's be real and talk about ways to ensure that force is used judiciously and as a last resort and with extreme caution. Saying all war is wrong and then twiddling your thumbs refusing to talk about anything further does nothing to help anybody.
in a nutshell, these are my basic thoughts. i am not suggesting blind acceptance of war as inevitable and let whatever happen, happen....just that while it's wonderful to attempt and work towards peaceful resolutions, to realize we as species have engaged in violence against each other, practically since the beginnings of our existence. i honestly do not believe we have evolved past that, and perhaps we never will. sao while i am ALL for working towards communication and peaceful resolutions, i also realize this isn't always possible...so try to balance reality and dream. however, most definitely...just saying 'war is wrong' and not offering true, viable alternatives...helps nothing, and probably why war is still waged, rightly and wrongly at times.
So, now, i guess, if presented with examples that may challenge one's ideology, there's no problem. Simply change you're operational definitions and "ouila" problem solved. Whew, that was close. The American revolution, Civil War and WWII were WARS. There is no way around it. You can't change that fact by saying it isn't technically war if its a defense against tyranny, oppression, or genocide. Like hell it isn't! The only difference is they don't fit into you're neat little package of all war is completely unjustifiable. " Ummm..., well..., gee, that doesn't count. Jews were being rounded up, tattooed, and thrown into ovens. That means it isn't a war."
Look, i'm a lefty too. One thing i won't do, however is sacrifice my integrity and common sense out of fear someone may revoke my "liberal card". My allegiance in this case is to integrity and not John Lennon.
Either I wasn't clear, or you missed my point.... which isn't surprising considering the state I wrote that in it was a rant admittedly based in idealism. our disconnect comes from your omission of the word 'waging' ....I didn't say they weren't wars, I said the people you gave as examples of justifiable war-wagers were acting in defense of their freedoms, not oppressing others. They were defending against attack, not waging war. There is a difference. But again, we need to look deeper than that....
And I don't consider myself a liberal.
So, now, i guess, if presented with examples that may challenge one's ideology, there's no problem. Simply change you're operational definitions and "ouila" problem solved. Whew, that was close. The American revolution, Civil War and WWII were WARS. There is no way around it. You can't change that fact by saying it isn't technically war if its a defense against tyranny, oppression, or genocide. Like hell it isn't! The only difference is they don't fit into you're neat little package of all war is completely unjustifiable. " Ummm..., well..., gee, that doesn't count. Jews were being rounded up, tattooed, and thrown into ovens. That means it isn't a war."
Look, i'm a lefty too. One thing i won't do, however is sacrifice my integrity and common sense out of fear someone may revoke my "liberal card". My allegiance in this case is to integrity and not John Lennon.
They were defending against attack, not waging war. There is a difference.
I'm not sure we see what that difference is. I'm curious what you think it is. Because many justified the Iraq war as defending ourselves after we were attacked by extremist Islam. It's a stretch, but it still kinda fits your definition, if you say that extremists began waging war on the US in the 90s and now we're just fighting back... then it's just a matter of arguing over the best tactics. So I'm not sure I get what distinction you're envisioning.
My point about the freedoms is that they are determined by who controls the land...everyone has these basic rights...but your ability to practice them free of oppression depends on who controls the area in which you choose to practise them.
No, Islam doesn't want to take over the US - I don't think they want to take over anything. If you're talking violent extremism, in any religion, then yes...if their sole motivation is to kill, violent self defense may be necessary. The whole point of my rant was to reinforce that we need to look at the ROOT causes. Why didn't the nazis like jews? before anyone freaks, I'm not looking to blame the jews...rather looking for the influences that turned German public opinion far enough to hatred that genocide was accepted? What was the motivation behind those influencing the public? Just hate, or is there more to it? The generally accepted premise of good vs evil being the sole motivation of the allied powers in that war tarnishes quickly when you look into those questions.
I acquiesce. ''clearing land' was a bad analogy in terms of religious extremism. Faith is intangible; it doesn't apply to property. But even the most zealous believer is not a problem until they oppress or 'take the stuff' of someone else. Unfortunately, those running the show understand the intanigble nature of faith and manipulate religious extremism to justify their violent agenda.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying about religious extremism here. What if they don't just take someone's land? What if they start saying "you can keep your land, but you can't marry a gay man." That doesn't take anyone's "stuff." Or what if they just start killing people that aren't like them? They might have no interest in the land they live on, they just want them erased from existence. It's not necessarily just about property.
As to who owns the land you're living on, not necessarily. There are plenty of stories of outsiders invading a land to wipe out non-believers. It's nothing new. Oppression can take many forms, and it's not restricted to taking your stuff. People that aren't heard don't get violent? Columbine? Nobody listened to those kids, they went nuts and shot people up. Humans are social animals, we need to feel part of a community. Feeling excluded can cause more violence than someone taking our stuff.
I don't think there is one simple, easy cause for every war. They're all started for different reasons in different time by different people. You can't just pick one cause and say "ok we got it, just have to stop taking people's stuff and war will go away." It's not that simple. If it was, we'd have put an end to war long ago. But it's not as easy as just figure out who's taking people's stuff.
That's the problem of communist/capitalist ideology... everything is about materialism. Give people enough stuff and they'll be happy. Doesn't matter how it's gotten, just as long as there's enough to go around. It ignores things like the base irrationality of human emotion... things like pride, religion, nationalism, community... things that go back much, much further than any concept of owning property and land.
War: No matter how it starts, or how noble the initial intent, it always becomes about profit. Because of this, little is done to avoid them from starting, and little is done to manage them well once they gather steam.
Food for thought: World War II would have never even happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of World War I-- a Germany that was destroyed, and was given no help in rebuilding. Cue Hitler, who had his crazy ideas, and spoke them loudly and charismatically. If Germany wasn't kicked while it was down, would a guy like Hitler be able to rise to power? Quite possibly not. How different would the world have looked then? Would the atom bomb still be a secret to all of us reading this board, as well as Russia, North Korea, Iran, TURRRRRORRRISTS, and anyone else that this country doesn't want to have them?
War: No matter how it starts, or how noble the initial intent, it always becomes about profit. Because of this, little is done to avoid them from starting, and little is done to manage them well once they gather steam.
Food for thought: World War II would have never even happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of World War I-- a Germany that was destroyed, and was given no help in rebuilding. Cue Hitler, who had his crazy ideas, and spoke them loudly and charismatically. If Germany wasn't kicked while it was down, would a guy like Hitler be able to rise to power? Quite possibly not. How different would the world have looked then? Would the atom bomb still be a secret to all of us reading this board, as well as Russia, North Korea, Iran, TURRRRRORRRISTS, and anyone else that this country doesn't want to have them?
Point taken. It doesn't change the fact, however, that Hitler DID rise to power and because of it a lot of Jews were murdered and a lot more would have been murdered had he not been stopped. That being said, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a detestable and, in my opinion, unjustifiable tactic used to bring an end to that war. i'm not making apologies for that. What i'll NOT concede however is that the slaughter and attempted Genocide of Jews is not justifiable reason for war in general.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
War: No matter how it starts, or how noble the initial intent, it always becomes about profit. Because of this, little is done to avoid them from starting, and little is done to manage them well once they gather steam.
Food for thought: World War II would have never even happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of World War I-- a Germany that was destroyed, and was given no help in rebuilding. Cue Hitler, who had his crazy ideas, and spoke them loudly and charismatically. If Germany wasn't kicked while it was down, would a guy like Hitler be able to rise to power? Quite possibly not. How different would the world have looked then? Would the atom bomb still be a secret to all of us reading this board, as well as Russia, North Korea, Iran, TURRRRRORRRISTS, and anyone else that this country doesn't want to have them?
Point taken. It doesn't change the fact, however, that Hitler DID rise to power and because of it a lot of Jews were murdered and a lot more would have been murdered had he not been stopped. That being said, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a detestable and, in my opinion, unjustifiable tactic used to bring an end to that war. i'm not making apologies for that. What i'll NOT concede however is that the slaughter and attempted Genocide of Jews is not justifiable reason for war in general.
I hear ya loud and clear, and totally agree. War seems like this asexual organism that just seems to keep breeding. Whoever came up with the expression, "war to end all wars?" It seems it's just the opposite. If only it were true.
Comments
18 is an adult, not a kid. If we can trust them to elect morons like Dubya, we can trust them to know what they're doing when they enlist. Yes, military recruiting practices are abhorrent and I know they prey on people with few other options. But they knew what they were signing up for, and those 18-21 year olds NOW all signed up AFTER 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So don't tell me they didn't know they might end up being sent over there. As to killing civilians in Iraq, that's why Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq.
right ,so they can focus on killing Afghan civilians. big difference. :roll:
old enough to kill not old enough to drink.
whatever you call them, they're young and stupid. I doubt many had the slightest idea of what they were getting into. I could of been a hero of war too...if I didn't mind torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners. I'm guessing the military recruiters leave those little details out of the brochures.
Don't whine to me man. If you want to be outraged at least get your facts and countries right. It annoys me to no end when you all get up on your soapboxes about war and then use the wars interchangeably.
The drinking age thing is stupid and needs to change. I'm on board with that.
I think you need to walk up to an enlisted soldier and accuse them of torturing civilians and see how they react. They've got a shit job and they're trying to do the best they can in circumstances you will NEVER understand while you sit there at your computer typing long-winded posts about how evil our military is and downloading porn in the other window. I don't think torturing civilians is anywhere near as common as you wish it was.
right. I wish there was MORE torture in this world. spot on. and what facts have I "mixed up"?
when did you learn how to read my mind? nice trick. and way to be predictable. right around the time you realized you were on the wrong side of the debate you went right in with the personal attacks. nice.
You mixed up the facts when you (as people always do in these debates) pointed to abuses in Iraq as some sort of condemnation of Afghanistan. It's a common occurrence around here. When in doubt, change the subject to Iraq, because we all know it was a bad idea.
As to torture, yes, I suspect you are eager for all reports of it. It gives you ammunition to label all military actions evil and wrong and sadistic without having to think critically about the occasional necessity of military action or empathize with the difficult of people trying to survive and maintain their humanity in a chaotic and violent world you'll never have to confront.
dude you are so out of line, first you say that they are and stupid and then you say torturing innocent civilians and shooting little kids on street corners WTF :shock: :x you need to get a life you make me sick. these guys are risking there life every day to keep people like you safe. and this is what you got to say ? You should be ashamed of your self. :x
Are you talking empathy for the soldiers that are having 'difficulty trying to survive etc? Should we feel empathy for them if we disagree with their mission and, like you say, they knew what they signed up for? I do feel empathy for them, but only in the sense that I DON'T think many of them actually did know what they signed up for.
ugh, the 'keeping people like you safe' line. These arent the allied forces of '42 or some shit...I have a feeling I'd be sitting here, stuffed full o' Big Mac regardless of where Western troops have been stomping for the last couple decades. They're not keeping us safe from anything; if anything its the opposite. And NO, that is NOT a fucking attack against the moral judgement of every member of the military :roll:
using every single war ever as a guide, its safe to say that atrocities are going to happen in afghanistan, that people will be tortured and innocent people are going to die. I can say that I am certain of this, using history as a guide. its doesn't matter where its fought, war produces atrocities. afghanistan will be no different. its not about mixing up facts or changing the subject to Iraq. its about being knowledgeable about war and what it produces. its never good. never.
not everyone is as selfish or apathetic about human life as you are. according to some people (especially on this board) US troops are killing and torturing others for my freedom and security. well fuck that. if they're torturing in my name I feel a bit responsible for the VICTIMS. that's why I give a shit, because I am partly responsible for their plight. its not about being right or seeing someone else proved wrong, I don't give a shit about that. there's a bigger picture here that not many people are seeing.
and quit pretending you can read my fucking mind, its getting old. I never said "all military actions [are] evil and wrong and sadistic". never even implied that. that's you pretending to know what I'm thinking. and you suck at that so lets stop doing it. sometimes a direct act of violence is needed. Pol Pot could have been stopped with such an act, maybe saving a million lives in Cambodia. imagine if Hitler had been taken out like that, tens of millions would have been saved. the situation in Darfur called for military action many times. would that they use the military for humanitarian needs.
I think there's been maybe 2 verifiable cases of humanitarian intervention in known human history. significant cases anyway. and no, WWII was not one of them. nor was the US responsible for any of them, more the opposite. from Chomsky-The 2 cases of military humanitarian intervention are "India's invasion of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), ending a huge massacre; and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, driving out the Khmer Rouge just as their atrocities were peaking." In both cases the US supported those committing the atrocities, after the humanitarian intervention.
And that's typical US foreign policy. Why is there almost a direct 1:1 ration for US military aid to a country and atrocities committed on its own citizens? Turkey and Columbia-2 countries that receive massive US military support and equipment, had far worse human rights records than even the Serbs, at the height of their atrocities in Yugoslavia. yet the serbs were bombed. more accurately, the people of yugoslavia were bombed.
And its not diplomacy that's used or preferred. The US spends about as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. so naturally they tend to use the massive firepower at their disposal. its one area where they are guaranteed the upper hand. problem of course is the victims of that military machine, in this case Afghanistan. what the fuck did the people of Afghanistan ever do you you or me? because those are the real victims in war, the people. the Taliban is fine, stronger than ever. not in charge of the country but better now than they were 5 years ago. stronger anyway. they don't seem too affected by this war. but I am pretty sure those million people displaced from their homes along the afghan/pakistan border are pretty pissed off right now, if they are all still alive.
and why is it now afghanistan? at the time there was absolutely no evidence tying afghanistan/bin ladin/taliban to the 9/11 attacks. the taliban even offered up bin ladin post 9/11. with no evidence tying him to the attacks. now there's even less. and, giving the history of the US and its dozens of military interventions and wars, its safe to say that whatever they tell the people the reason is for invading another country, its a pretext. its a lie. an excuse to get the public behind whatever bullshit attempt they make to expand their power. or maybe this is about the huge pipeline that could go through the middle of Kandahar (the most volatile region in Afghanistan) that would cut the Iranians completely out of the oil situation regarding europe (I believe). or maybe its the billions in poppy sales that are going on over their. the taliban had them down to minimal levels, since the US invaded production has shot up over %150. who knows.
one thing is fairly certain. war does not make us more safe or more secure. in fact the worst attack on US soil in history was direct result of US militant foreign policy and actions. seems war and invasion only make it worse. for everyone.
not ashamed. pissed off maybe, not ashamed.
how is fighting and dying for Haliburton or Exxon's profit an intelligent move? because there is a case to be made that Afghanistan is about oil as well, with a pipeline going right through Kandahar province.
notice there is always an enemy of the US? and notice they can't really defend themselves ever? its part of the military industrial complex. they always need to be fighting, to maintain relevance, and justify their insane budget. so they invent an enemy every few years, or one emerges on his own. Noriega/Hussein/Bin Ladin. Funny thing about the last 3-they were all once directly employed either by the CIA or by the US military in some way. now they are official bad guys. but that hypocrisy is pretty thin if you examine it even a little bit. official US allies are far worse than any of their official enemies. Columbia and Turkey were right up in the lead on human rights abuses. also on the top of US military aid, no coincidence. to name a few cases.
and they do torture innocent people and they do kill little kids. that's been proven. that's the kind of shit that's going to increase when Obama expands the war in Afghanistan.
that's what war is. torture and atrocity.
The problem isnt the age of the soldiers, its the idea of the stop loss.
They may have known what they were signing for, or maybe they didnt. Do you really honestly think any 18 year old will know what a war really means? Yes they may watch alot of war movies or play alot of violent video games, but does any of that prepare or describe the situation in a war? How about how to deal with what goes on during war?
And additionally, being sent to iraq and coming home is traumatic enough. Imagine, going, coming back. Then getting called back up, coming home. Then called back again, you get the picture. These soldiers have been to and come back from iraq 4 or 5 times now. Is that something they know about or can process? Can an 18 year old process that? Is that ethical in any way?
please give me an example of an american soldier walking up to a little kid and shooting them for no reason and Bin laden may have been getting aid from the CIA but it was when the mujahadeem were fighting the Russians in afghanistan. As far as Hussein and Noriega well that's a new one on me ,but I think I will do my own research b/c I think most of your post are B.S.
What are you, some sort of law student or something? 18 is LEGALLY an adult, this is true, but, that's about it. Age doesn't make one an adult. Responsibility, maturity, common sense, and a heap of life's seasoning make one an adult. Age has dick to do with it, really. When i was 18 i was nowhere near, what i would call, an "adult". All laws aside, of course. Every time i see one of those lists of killed US servicemen i notice the age column. 18, 19, 20, 21... Bunch of dead KIDS. No amount of leagalese will ever change that. Most enlist because they're leaving high-school with either limited options, limited ambition, or both. As far as it being post 9/11, that changes very little either. Most are 18 year olds who have played waaaaay too much "call of duty" or "socum" and have absolutely no idea what they are REALLY getting themselves into. They find out all too soon. More often then not its that instant some roadside bomb goes off the second before there taking their last breath in a pool of their own piss, shit, and blood and they realize "Fuck! There's no reset button on this shit".
KIDS.
Whose fault is that if their brains are so fucking fried they think it's going to be like a video game? Evolution baby. People used to be working steady jobs, marrying, working farms, having kids, and raising families at ages younger than 18. If the current generation is so zombified and permanently adolescent then maybe a wake up call is a good thing.
If they were all 35, would they suddenly be ready or prepared for war? Nothing prepares you for the shit people see in war. Nothing. Age has nothing to do with it.
Stop loss is a crock of shit though, no doubt. I'm not saying our leaders haven't abused their position as leaders of the military and often used the military callously. I'm just saying you can't say Obama lied or mislead anyone about what he was going to do with these troops. And that those who signed up knew they could end up fighting. The revolving door is wrong and needs to stop, sure. But the fact that they were sent to war in the first place is not some honor code violation. They knew military might mean fighting. It's not like you can just shelve or disband the military and never fight anyone anywhere because you're afraid your soldiers don't know what they're getting into. Nobody knows what war is like until they've lived it. Least of all you and me. Which is why I take umbrage when you and people like you imply that US soldiers are all callous baby-murdering monsters that gleefully target civilians.
I dont post every intimate detail of my life on this board, so trying to glean who I am from little bits and pieces of posts from the past years is impossible.
But I do take offense at your suggestion that I think all soldiers are baby killers who target civilians. I would love to see where you got this information. Please, if you can provide evidence of this, by all means post it. But dont post salacious gossip for the hell of it.
There is a fine line. These soldiers are kids. Whether you all want to admit it or not. They are youngsters. And imagine being in the horror and hell of war, scared out of your mind, just trying to survive, seeing death and blood everywhere, I can truely see and understand why these soldiers would kill cilivians by accident or on purpose. That doesnt excuse their behavior, but it is easy to understand. The simple fact is, most are youngsters just trying to get back home in one piece.
I have posted that a million times on this board. Somehow, it doesnt surprise me you missed it, soulsinging as, I dont know you, but I do know you have been trying to either jokingly or seriously piss me off the minute i joined this forum. Every single thread I post you are oddly enough making an appearance, and you almost always say something mean or hurtful to me.
I have also said on this board, I wanted all the troops brought home yesterday. If I really hated the soldiers, and thought of them as baby killers wouldnt I just wish them to stay where they were and die?
Additionally I have written to my newspaper, and was published, demanding better treatment of soldiers when they get back home, and of course better treatment in general, maybe not being sent to die in foreign lands at all! What a novel idea!
You can stop using the "you don't know me" argument. You sound like a whining teenager complaining to teachers or parents. I think it's quite clear that nobody here knows anyone other than by their posts. But that doesn't mean we're all unable to get decent pictures of each other's attitudes and beliefs based on what they've typed here. And I've read your posts for years under a number of different names, so I'm quite familiar with you. No, I don't know you. But I have as much info about you as you have about Barack Obama, and the fact that you haven't met Obama personally has not stopped you from making judgments about him, so don't tell me I can't do the same to you or vice versa.
Commy early made the flippant remark that our soldiers are staying in Iraq to shoot children, which rather implies that he thinks less than highly of our soldiers. Personally, I agree with what you've said in this post... that they're just normal people trying their damnedest to cope and survive in unimaginably horrific circumstances. Bad shit happens in war. But I do not believe, as some anti-war folks do (apparently you're not one of them and that is good to hear), that our soldiers are sadistic killing machines trying to wipe out civilians for the glory of the empire.
I 100% agree that the way veterans are treated when they come home is abhorrent. We put them through the wringer and then bring them home and toss them out and say "good luck." It's disgusting. But your thread was about Obama, not veterans. And whatever else you say about him, his views on the military and use of force are a step up from Dubya.
As to me and you, I don't make an effort to piss you off. But there are times when your naivete is appalling to me, just as I'm sure there are times when my bitter cynicism is appalling to others. And when I see that, I say something. This is not the 60s. The hippies are dead and their ideology died because it was unworkable. The first step to progress is dealing with reality. Wishing that war didn't exist does not in any way solve things. It will never happen. Pining for a lack of a military is never going to happen either. So let's be real and talk about ways to ensure that force is used judiciously and as a last resort and with extreme caution. Saying all war is wrong and then twiddling your thumbs refusing to talk about anything further does nothing to help anybody.
Its probably a good thing Crispus Attucks, the first martyr of the American Revolution, didn't get that memo. i might also hazard to guess there are a lot of slave descendants who may disagree. Try making this statement to a large group of Jewish folks, some still with unsolicited tattoos. Those aren't stickmen on their arms.
i'm no fan of war myself, and i in no way support the debacle in Iraq, but, to imply that war is never, and has never, been necessary, is naive at best.
These people were victims, not aggressors.
naive, idealist rant below, take it or leave it...
as long as people feel oppressed, or like victims of aggression, there will be violent conflict...right? Why do people feel oppressed? It's virtually ALWAYS the loss of something material, no? even religious conflict or ethnic cleansing - they wipe out the other race, or non-believers...clearing the land.....Most personal freedoms are dependant upon who controls the land upon which you stand, right? So can we say that there is material motivation behind all war? Once you've got your motive, you can find the aggressor....once that's done, you can look at appropriate response or defense...aside from the case of religious extremism/hate crime, war and violence would rarely be necessary. But there is NO fucking media coverage of the root causes - the material motivation behind any of these conflicts! And why would there be? BAD for business!
So there is this acceptance that war is the only solution, when in most cases, the wars are over bad business deals, and unfair trade, and control of land (material goods) - issues that can usually be dealt with democratically and without violence.
Don't choose your battles based on your business dealings - pick them based on humanitarian consequence. hearts n minds n terror n all that.
haven't read your response yet, but ok.... I'll give this a shot, I had to know mr. reality would be all over this
My point about the freedoms is that they are determined by who controls the land...everyone has these basic rights...but your ability to practice them free of oppression depends on who controls the area in which you choose to practise them.
No, Islam doesn't want to take over the US - I don't think they want to take over anything. If you're talking violent extremism, in any religion, then yes...if their sole motivation is to kill, violent self defense may be necessary. The whole point of my rant was to reinforce that we need to look at the ROOT causes. Why didn't the nazis like jews? before anyone freaks, I'm not looking to blame the jews...rather looking for the influences that turned German public opinion far enough to hatred that genocide was accepted? What was the motivation behind those influencing the public? Just hate, or is there more to it? The generally accepted premise of good vs evil being the sole motivation of the allied powers in that war tarnishes quickly when you look into those questions.
what, then?
I acquiesce. ''clearing land' was a bad analogy in terms of religious extremism. Faith is intangible; it doesn't apply to property. But even the most zealous believer is not a problem until they oppress or 'take the stuff' of someone else. Unfortunately, those running the show understand the intanigble nature of faith and manipulate religious extremism to justify their violent agenda. I think the acceptance is rooted in disinterest and ignorance, so we're both right :P
Gonna have to leave that one, chief.
So, now, i guess, if presented with examples that may challenge one's ideology, there's no problem. Simply change you're operational definitions and "ouila" problem solved. Whew, that was close. The American revolution, Civil War and WWII were WARS. There is no way around it. You can't change that fact by saying it isn't technically war if its a defense against tyranny, oppression, or genocide. Like hell it isn't! The only difference is they don't fit into you're neat little package of all war is completely unjustifiable. " Ummm..., well..., gee, that doesn't count. Jews were being rounded up, tattooed, and thrown into ovens. That means it isn't a war."
Look, i'm a lefty too. One thing i won't do, however is sacrifice my integrity and common sense out of fear someone may revoke my "liberal card". My allegiance in this case is to integrity and not John Lennon.
in a nutshell, these are my basic thoughts. i am not suggesting blind acceptance of war as inevitable and let whatever happen, happen....just that while it's wonderful to attempt and work towards peaceful resolutions, to realize we as species have engaged in violence against each other, practically since the beginnings of our existence. i honestly do not believe we have evolved past that, and perhaps we never will. sao while i am ALL for working towards communication and peaceful resolutions, i also realize this isn't always possible...so try to balance reality and dream. however, most definitely...just saying 'war is wrong' and not offering true, viable alternatives...helps nothing, and probably why war is still waged, rightly and wrongly at times.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
And I don't consider myself a liberal.
I'm not sure we see what that difference is. I'm curious what you think it is. Because many justified the Iraq war as defending ourselves after we were attacked by extremist Islam. It's a stretch, but it still kinda fits your definition, if you say that extremists began waging war on the US in the 90s and now we're just fighting back... then it's just a matter of arguing over the best tactics. So I'm not sure I get what distinction you're envisioning.
As to who owns the land you're living on, not necessarily. There are plenty of stories of outsiders invading a land to wipe out non-believers. It's nothing new. Oppression can take many forms, and it's not restricted to taking your stuff. People that aren't heard don't get violent? Columbine? Nobody listened to those kids, they went nuts and shot people up. Humans are social animals, we need to feel part of a community. Feeling excluded can cause more violence than someone taking our stuff.
I don't think there is one simple, easy cause for every war. They're all started for different reasons in different time by different people. You can't just pick one cause and say "ok we got it, just have to stop taking people's stuff and war will go away." It's not that simple. If it was, we'd have put an end to war long ago. But it's not as easy as just figure out who's taking people's stuff.
That's the problem of communist/capitalist ideology... everything is about materialism. Give people enough stuff and they'll be happy. Doesn't matter how it's gotten, just as long as there's enough to go around. It ignores things like the base irrationality of human emotion... things like pride, religion, nationalism, community... things that go back much, much further than any concept of owning property and land.
Food for thought: World War II would have never even happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of World War I-- a Germany that was destroyed, and was given no help in rebuilding. Cue Hitler, who had his crazy ideas, and spoke them loudly and charismatically. If Germany wasn't kicked while it was down, would a guy like Hitler be able to rise to power? Quite possibly not. How different would the world have looked then? Would the atom bomb still be a secret to all of us reading this board, as well as Russia, North Korea, Iran, TURRRRRORRRISTS, and anyone else that this country doesn't want to have them?
Point taken. It doesn't change the fact, however, that Hitler DID rise to power and because of it a lot of Jews were murdered and a lot more would have been murdered had he not been stopped. That being said, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a detestable and, in my opinion, unjustifiable tactic used to bring an end to that war. i'm not making apologies for that. What i'll NOT concede however is that the slaughter and attempted Genocide of Jews is not justifiable reason for war in general.
I hear ya loud and clear, and totally agree. War seems like this asexual organism that just seems to keep breeding. Whoever came up with the expression, "war to end all wars?" It seems it's just the opposite. If only it were true.