Right. It would be so much more comfortable for us if we didn;t have to actually see what we’re doing to people. It’s so messy. And talk about depressing! Why it might even make people think twice about whether it was really worth doing!!
The implication being that you think this would be a bad idea. Why?
What good is it? Well, if the war is just, then you have the satisfaction of knowing you protected your country. That ought to be enough. You’re not doing it just to get the babes, I hope!
Let’s have a CITE, please. I would especially like one for the “didn’t really give a shit” portion.
I assume you are relying on something like this:
Of course you are not interested in this (same link):
Then also the fact that it was the first war that used “smart bombs” is totally irrelevent, I suppose.
Because logic is good. Logically.
originaly by: nogginhead
As athelas said, Logic and reason= good, hysterical emotional responses=bad.
As for being demonized by the media, ask all of the Viet Nam veterans who were spit on and attacked in the streets simply because they did what their county asked. Maybe if every soldier in the jungle didnt have a T.V. camera following him around like his shadow, they could have come home with dignity and respect. Now we have CNN to follow every soldier around the desert. Maybe we will get lucky and Saddam will gass Wolf Blitzer. It would be more fun watching that jerk twitch than watching him talk shit about the “destruction and carnage”
You know, you speak the truth. War is nasty, brutal and generally includes a lot of the wrong people dying (where “wrong” can be defined as our allies or civilian non-combatants or pretty much anything else that isn’t an enemy soldier).
But American administrations (especially since Vietnam) have long made irrational claims about how “we never target civilians”. Some bright spark in the Pentagon came up with the marvellous phrase “collateral damage” to describe the killing of people we didn’t mean to. How antiseptic. We don’t talk about the casualties, especially if they are little brown people on the other side of the planet, and there’s no way of verifying the numbers to the satisfaction of the Pentagon. How convenient.
We now have claims of “Smart weapons” that can hit the target every time (except when they don’t). Hell, in one of these threads, someone who sounded like he knew what he was talking about commented on how participants in the bombing competitions down Nellis way could land a bomb in a pickle barrel. He then went on to remark that it wasn’t the bombers’ fault if they hit the wrong target. Tell that to the Canadians, eh.
We talk of war as though it was a game – our Nintendo warriors sit high above or far away, and kill hundreds of people by pressing buttons (bomber/pilots in planes, missileers off shore on boats). There is very little courage required to fight an enemy who can’t strike back; it is reprehensible to then claim the “moral high ground” and talk of the bravery and devotion of our Armed Forces.
Our military also controls access to the “war zone” so only sanitized details of the carnage make it back to the national news. Any unsanitized footage is discredited as enemy propaganda, since of course the gallant and brave American forces would never intentionally kill anyone who didn’t deserve it. And hell, over 70% of our weapons hit the right targets – isn’t that amazing?
Look, for me Bush hasn’t made a good moral case for invading Iraq. I don’t see a connection with Al Qaeda, and I do see a connection with injured family pride.
However, if Bush were just to stand up and say, “Fuck it, I’m tired of screwing around with this guy, we’re going in; it will be bloody, it will be messy, many hundreds or thousands of people on all sides will die but in the long run it will be worth it”, then you know I might just support him. And if he promised to bring back honest reports from the battlefront, bodies, carnage, mistakes and all, to show and tell the people what Hell had been wrought in the name of God and America, then I might just vote for him next time round.
Of course, that would require courage and honesty; two qualities which I think are sadly lacking in American government these days.
Hell, I think very few Americans (or anyone else for that matter) have the courage or honesty to look at themselves in a mirror and say, “My country has caused death and destruction on a grand scale – I believe that it was the right thing to do, but I now appreciate the awful cost” without sugar-coating it. We have this strange “Hollywood” belief that we are the good guys of the world, and only the bad guys do bad things. War doesn’t work that way.
Agreed.
Nonetheless, making a logical decision requires having complete information. Not knowing what destruction you are causing-- because you can’t see it, because the US armed forces won’t let you-- means your decisions are ill-informed. If you make ‘logical’ decisions that it’s OK to kill people in some cause or another that are shaken by having to see the dead bodies, I’d say your logic was flawed.
As has been noted elsewhere, war is hell. Seeing the death doesn’t make it more hellish and shouldn’t change your perspective on it.
Helping the US public avoid having to experience the logical conslusions of their collective decision to wage war is not a good thing. Interfering the freedom of information is always bad.
Those (obviously) were not his exact words but after 9/11 he basically said that the war on terrorism was going to be a long, complicated, difficult, often unpleasant global campaign.
Why does everyone think that proving a direct link to Al-Queda would be simple & easy? Al-Queda is a secretive, illegitamit, terrorist organization. Their payroll isn’t going to be on any govt’s books. Also, proving direct links could very easily mean comprimising important intelligence sources.
And what can I say. Claiming that GW Bush is out for revenge is the most pathetic, asinine thing I’ve ever heard.
9/11 was a totally unprovoked and barbaric attack against US soil & citizens by the forces of global terrorism. These forces are going to be eliminated, starting with Iraq. This is not a United Nations, World Court, or United Federation of Planets issue. This is an issue of protecting the lives of US citizens by the US military. Which is their job (and not the UN’s).
[Fixed coding. – MEB]
I hope this is mere hyperbole. But this is the type of statement that causes many people to view liberals as a bunch of unpatriotic America-haters.
On a more positive note, I would like to congratulate nogginhead on posting seven consecutive posts to the thread. That has to be some sort of all time record.
I hope you rot in hell.
Diogenes the Assho- I mean Cynic
So you believe:[ul][li]That Desert Storm was a “terror campaign”[/li][li]That the Vincennes deliberately murdered those passengers (not accidentally)[/li]it’s better for a thousand American soldiers to die than one Iraqi child[/ul]Well, I can see a debate about this subject with you would be fruitful…
Thank you, thank you, no autographs, please.
Just on my way to the procrastinator’s convention.
** Hail Ants and Rhum Runer**-- Please keep personal insults and attacks in the pit.
Also, you should re-read Diogenes’ posts. Nowhere does he claim that the Vincennes intenionally shot down the Iranian plane, just that the US showed little remorse, regret, or compassion.
I’m not sure what Diogenes’ logic is about 1000 soldiers vs. one child, but this is the forum for debates, so I’ll ask:
Yo, Diogenes-- why does one Iraqi child’s life have more value than 1000 US soldiers’?
Also, the Geneva convention:
My reading of this is that the HS cannot be considered cobatants (article 43) and thus that it would be illegal to treat them as POWs (article 44). Article 48 seems to separate humans into combatants and non-combatants, so I’d guess the HS must be non-combatants. That would make it a violation of the convention to treat the HS as a target in and of themselves. But don’t let that stop you from wanting to kill them. After all, the convention is just a scrap of paper.
Why? What’s wrong with this statement? The Americans have made a choice to be there. Iraqi children are innocent. Tell me why someone who was born on this piece of dirt is automatically better than someone who’s born on that piece of dirt. I’m not saying I want American soldier’s to die, I’m saying that killing innocent children is even worse.
Well, is patriotism defined only as mindless support for the government? My conscience trumps my patriotism. I will not support evil. I sincerely believe that invading Iraq will be an immoral act by my government. Why should i support it?
Yes, no and yes.
Because an Iraqi child is innocent, Innocence has no citizenship. Soldiers had a choice, they knew that going to war was a possibility when they signed up. They knew they could get killed. They had a chance to say no. The children of Iraq have not been given that choice. Are there any of you with children of your own who would say that there could ever be any justification for another country to set them on fire? To blow their arms off? To kill you and leave them as orphans? The Iraqi people have done nothing to us. War is not a video game, it’s ugly and viscious and heartless and it requires some justification. Nothing the Bush cabal has cooked up comes anywhere close to justifying the pain we are going to inflict on utterly innocent people.
Patriotism is not about supporting your government – certinly not about supporting your government’s policies. It is about supporting your country, and your countrymen. Valuing the lives of 1,000 of your soldiers – people who are defending you (not necessarily in this particular instance) – less than one foreign random person indicates a lack of patriotism.
But let’s go a step further. Suppose you were actually in a situation where you could save the life of one Iraqi child by causing the death of 1,000 American soldiers. Would you do it? If not, why not?
I’m not opposing my country, I’m opposing my government. Why should I value my countrymen more than any other human beings? Why is a “foreign” child of any less value than my own child?
If the 1000 American soldiers were attacking the innocent child then that would be an easy choice.
Let’s reverse the question. Let’s say you could save a thousand American soldiers by pouring gasoline on one three year old Iraqi child and setting him on fire. Would you do it? Why or why not?
Let’s reverse it again, suppose I get to save 1000 American soldiers by pouring gasoline on you and setting you on fire. On second thought that’s too easy.
So then you are not patriotic.
The reason you would value a foreign child less than your own is because they have less of a connection with you. This does not mean that they have a higher value from an objective standpoint. But it means that they have a higher value to you. Or should.
So you would betray your country.
Probably. Though obviously I’d prefer to avoid such situations. I would be accomplishing a greater good, and further, I owe more and have more connection to the Americans.
<hijack> an Iraqi child is innocent …
every unborn child is innocent, butRhum, So far you have said you want me to rot in hell and you want to set me on fire. Do you actually want to address anything I’ve said?
Are you defining patriotism as “my country, right or wrong?” To tell the truth, no. I’m not patriotic. I think nationalism is stupid. All human beings are equal.
So I should view myself as the center of the universe and ascribe value to people based solely on their relationship to me, the Great Diogenes?
I would choose what is right over what is “patriotic.”
Again you’re defining right and wrong in purely egocentric terms. I think all human life is the same. I don’t separate them into arbitrary groups. It is wrong to kill innocent people. It doesn’t matter where they live.