We bombed them, in an act of pure aggression. Do you think the shrapnel magically avoided everyone but Saddam ? Then there’s are indiscriminate attacks on anything that moves too near our Humvees, and those kids who were shot execution style. That doesn’t even count the kids we abused but didn’t bother to kill, like the ones molested as a torture technique in Abu Gharib.
:dubious: What ?
:rolleyes: Someone should sticky number like these. I’m getting tired of citing that the sky is blue. Here’s a news story that mentions the study, googled at random. It’s not obscure; it’s just that people like you don’t want to see reality.
They are worse off; much worse off. Less free, less safe, more impoverished, facing a multisided civil war; screwed, basically.
Ah, yes, because there’s no middle ground between isolationism and mass murder and conquest.
I’m afraid the Ultra-Liberalism of the socially maladjusted are clouding an important issue raised by the OP. Face it, many of you would have an ax to grind against the military if they were passing out candybars to disadvantaged children here at home.
The fact of the matter is that we need an army, ours is damn good, and bad things happen in war. And we’ve always been a country that’s glorified it’s military, ever since the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War.
People should support the troops because for the most part, they are just regular people who decided to serve their country and have to do things that most of us will hopefully never have to do.
The problem as I see it, is that the media is so busy celebrating the heroics of our soldiers that they have stopped analyzing whether they should be there in the first place.
Which was at once humorous and hypocritical, as you were the one who had done it first. And then when I explained the reason I mentioned it, your comment was:
To which I obligingly explained the reason, yet again, and clearly enough for a child to understand, in spite of which you nonetheless accused me of:
To which I finally, once more, attempted to explain the reason I mentioned my military service, in some way that could not possibly be interpreted as impugning your personal motives. And yet you still don’t get it:
Very well. I’ll certainly repeat the disclaimer and add some bolding to help the understanding along.
If you still don’t get it at this point, then I pity your inadequate reading skills. I’m not going to apologize for anticipating what I have come to expect as routine behavior from military personnel on this thread, and trying in advance to save time by countering it up front. And the only reason I had to explain my motives in mentioning my military service was was that you sneeringly accused me (personally, I might add) of “flaunting” my ex-military status and that I was being “defensive” in mentioning it. You could have overlooked the comment or you could have said “not applicable to me”. I did not anticipate choice C of your throwing a tantrum over the matter.
All right Brain Wreck, I give up. As long as you’re in the thread, you’re right, it IS inevitable, and if no one brings it up, Brain Wreck himself will.
Ok, I’ve read your cite in good faith, How do you explain, then, that
Do you think that the British MND is giving a more honest appraisal of the situation than the BBC? Please explain, since this is all as obvious to you as the sky is blue, why an unverifiable “secret poll” that has only one source, is more believable than others? Suppose that both polls are equally accurate, does it make the occupation a net positive in March 2004, but not a year later?
Der Trhis, I guess the root of our disagreement is that I am willing to accept some bad things will happen in the process of achieving an ultimately good outcome, and that I am willing to attribute the actions of individuals to individuals instead of the collective. An honest, non-rhetorical question, if you will. Do you think that a soldier who goes to Iraq with the genuine desire to help the Iraqi people, who throughout his stay commits no war crimes and provides a positive input to the security and humanitarian situation in the area he is stationed, should still feel personally responsible for Bush’s deceptions or the AG prisoner abuse?
Where does the difference come from ? A years worth of killing, rape, deprivation and torture ?
Two, actually. There was another poll at the same time by the Iraqi government at the same time with very similar results. Then of course, there’s human nature. If the Iraqis don’t hate us and want to kill us, there’s something wrong with them.
Ah, yes, the “we mean well” and “just a few bad apples” excuse. We don’t mean well, and I don’t believe it’s just a few bad apples.
Yes. He is cooperating with an evil endeavour, and following the orders of an evil man. Nor do I believe there are a significant number of such people.
Meh, again, it’s a half full half empty kind of thing. I think things can get better, you don’t. Perhaps we will just have to leave it at that and let time run its’ course. FWIW, I think you’re probably right. The American people are losing the will to fight and proving themselves to be a fairweather friends. It is very possible that they may lose this war. Of course, I don’t think that is the optimal outcome.
Why is it merely an excuse? What if a soldier genuinely means well and is not guilty of war crimes? Do you claim to speak for all of them? Why can I(the figurative “I”) not be responsible for my own actions, regardless of how many “bad apples” surround me?
Instead of following this around in circles, tell me if I am understanding you correctly: Since Bush was dishonest and unethical in the process of instigating the war, the entire endeavour, no matter what positive results it may bring, must also be dishonest and unethical. Correct?
If an evil man ordered you to turn over the proverbial toddler face down in the puddle, does it automatically make you one of his evil accomplices regardless of the nature of the action?
I am one of those bad guys who think I back the soldiers by saying they should be home working and raising families. Article in the paper today saying the military is charging 200 bucks to new soldiers to pay for the new uniforms. Soldiers have bought their own armour and had it shipped to Iraq. They have taken armour from destroyed vehicles and welded it to other vehicles to make them safer. The armor they had sent to them caused the army to say they would not honor insurance policies unless they used the older armor. But I am the bad guy.
I do not blindly accept the rationale for war. I make my own mind up after getting as much information that I can.These men should be home.
[QUOTE=kawaiitentaclebeast]
The American people are losing the will to fight and proving themselves to be a fairweather friends.[/quite]We were never friends of the Iraqis. We are their mortal enemies.
Well I do, although I’d prefer most of the casualties be on the American side, which won’t happen. The bigger the disaster is to us ( we don’t care about Iraqi casualties, of course; as non-Americans, we don’t really regard them as human ), the longer it will be before we go out and slaughter people for fun and profit again.
“The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Consequences matter, not intentions. Especially intentions so clearly divorced from reality; “We will kill you to make you free” is an insane viewpoint.
Of course, and it won’t bring about positive effects. Not when the bad guys are the ones in charge.
If he ordered me to turn the kid over by hitting it with a shovel, then told me to beat it until it stopped screaming, yes.
We were never friends of the Iraqis. We are their mortal enemies.
Well I do, although I’d prefer most of the casualties be on the American side, which won’t happen. The bigger the disaster is to us ( we don’t care about Iraqi casualties, of course; as non-Americans, we don’t really regard them as human ), the longer it will be before we go out and slaughter people for fun and profit again.
What do you care either way? Your only interest is in seeing a politician whos policies you disagree with disgraced at the expense of American lives. Are we supposed to believe you actually care about Iraqis?
Going back to the OP (as opposed to the specifics of the Iraq war)…
Wesley, you cited Clausewitz’s quote that war is politics by other means. You then go on to talk about the military as another branch of politics. I think you should be careful there. Clausewitz (and other less lofty thinkers like me) would make a significant distinction between war and the military. Except when it is conducted by military dictatorships, war is a policy decision made by the civilian government and carried out by the military. The military has little or no direct control over those policy decisions, and must be prepared to carry out the policies of whatever government is in power. I think the real danger in the U.S. is not that we are too pro-military, but rather too pro-war.
Switzerland is an excellent example of this distinction. The Swiss people I talked to on my single visit there in 1988 were all very proud of their military. They were proud of their tradition of mandatory, universal military service, and of the training and expertise of their citizen-soldiers. It would be difficult, however, to find a less pro-war nation. The Swiss are, after all, famed for their neutrality.
The U.S. citizenry, on the other hand, is all too ready to embrace war. I would say that the Iraq war is the least popular U.S. war since Vietnam. But in the run-up to the war, it enjoyed popular support and congressional support from both sides of the aisle. Even after events got started and public support waned, Bush got re-elected in 2004. That says to me that a very large number of people either supported the war at that time or at least didn’t consider it a big enough problem to warrant voting against the war’s biggest proponent. If the most unpopular war of recent decades has met such feeble resistance, that says a lot about U.S. willingness to go to war.
I believe military service should be applauded. The people who enlist in the armed forces are willing to risk their lives to carry out the policy of their nation. I think they deserve the same respect that policemen and firemen do. I believe that the way we treat veterans in the U.S. is shameful. But at the same time I also believe that we as a nation need to be much more reluctant to enter into war. As Johnny L.A. pointed out, we have lost sight of the wisdom of “speak softly and carry a big stick.”
I am concerned with seeing America disgraced, because of what it has done and is doing. I don’t care about the lives of American soldiers because they show so little care for those of others. The Iraqi’s lives matter because they are the victims here; we are the predators.
This is something I was going to pick up on too. Clausewitz was much smarter than most people in this thread are giving him credit for. Recycling a couple of quotes from my copy of The Utility of Force:
[bolding mine]
He also made a point of defining the trinity of military, state and population, and that any truly significant military endeavour required all three to act together. So in the current context, the threat of war is one policy (not political) instrument which can be employed against states like North Korea or Iran to try to change their behaviour, alongside sanctions, diplomacy, persuasion, bribery and all the other means states have traditionally used to influence one another.
Similarly, if someone had suggested to him starting a war under the pretext of WMD, then changing the pretext from WMD to ‘freedom’, then running the war in such a way as to reduce the freedom of the liberated, and in the process alienating the population from the state and the military, he’d probably have hit them with one or more volumes of his magnum opus.
Returning more explicitly to the OP, I think one of the biggest issues the US has in this regard is that since 1865 every war has been a foreign one. Even that was a civil war - before that it was all indian crushing and the Revolutionary War of liberation.
This means that to many Americans, “War” means troops going off abroad to kill or be killed, or else creating/expanding the homeland. While war is usually agreed to be horrible, it is abstract. “Battlefield” is some foreign land or city, and the “home front” is Podunk Ohio with petrol rationing and triple shifts at the munitions factory.
For most of the rest of the world (particularly Europe and Japan), “Battlefield” means some land or city much like one’s own, and the “home front” means some town with bombs falling on it and possibly enemy armies rampaging through it.
The other thing that I have seen commented on is just how different the average American is from the average American military person. All militaries reflect, but are different from, the societies they represent - however this difference is often felt to be larger for the US than most other comparable countries.
Absolutely. I would also think it would be nice if I could win the lottery and have a pony. Since the United States expressed very little interest in creating a democratic state in Vietnam, I fail to see the relevance in either.
But in any case, it’s simply not relevant. My point was simply this; you’ve said that soldiers are better off being sent into war, and that’s ridiculous.
I feel bad as an American citizen. They’re doing this in my name as well. They’re doing it in the name of every American that ever will be born, as well. I’m not proud of what we have done (even before this war) in our history, and I’m certainly not happy with what they’re doing now. Hopefully we can remedy this situation, hopefully we can put an end to war.
I would hope that the person in this hypothetical situation would feel the same.
Frankly, I don’t believe you. And if you’re right, that just makes the soldiers in question fools. It also makes them bad soldiers, given that someone who wants to fight is precisely the sort who’ll start one.