Are you actually insane?
Never was a moderator, you jackass.
What junior moderating, you jackass. I made a polite suggestion to you.
Ah, what fun would that be? You’re plenty insult all by yourself.
Even accidentally?
Oh oops, our mistake. I guess it was the blanket wishing of death upon them that might have given us the wrong idea.
Please explain further. Is it just the American military that you despise as murdering, raping thugs, or is that you are not anti-military in theory, just against every person who actually serves in the military?
Is it? I think that is precisely what we are discussing. If we did not fill the power vacuum, somebody else would have. The Soviet Union comes to mind.
Although I’m sure that people like Der Trihs and his ilk would have no philisophical problem with communism.
Of course you are. And it’s very cute.
Let’s see. We have two sets of numbers here. The number of civilians accidently killed by the United States military and the number of people who live in freedom because of its actions. Which one is higher? And which of the people that live in freedom would you ask to give that freedom up so a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time wouldn’t have to die?
I dislike the American military, right now because of the way they are behaving.
So you think there’s no middle ground between conquest, looting, rape and torture and surrender ? Have you ever heard of the concept of self defense ? You may note that I have said nothing of Afghanistan; that’s because while I think it was badly handled, it was justified.
And no, I’m not a Communist. :rolleyes: This isn’t the Cold War, no matter how much you miss it.
The number of people killed; consider what’s happening to women’s rights and the rising religious fervor, I’d say they had more real freedom under Saddam.
Then you are truly a sodding moron. How’s the American military behaving? Contrary to your false assessment of it above, it’s generally following the civilian leadership as the Constitution requires. And when members of that military commit crimes, they’re tried in a fair court and punished appropriately if found guilty.
Yep, truly a sodding moron.
Do have an actual argument, or just silly insults ? Any evidence I’m wrong ?
Just those courts-martial you’re conveniently ignoring.
I note you ignore the issue of freedom. As far as the courts martials go, so what ? A few of the cannon fodder are thrown to the wolves; the people who give the orders will just find more.
You forgot the third set, the people who do not live in freedom because of the policies of the United States government enforced by it’s military. (See Smedley Butler)
War is just a racket,
[
](http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm)If he were alive today I doubt his opinion would be any different.
I didn’t ignore it–you did. You’re getting more and more ridiculous, which is quite surprising given how you appear on this board.
So what, you ask? Here’s what: the people who treated prisoners in an illegal manner were tried and punished. They weren’t cannon fodder; they were actual members of our military and thus were expected, required to treat those prisoners in a humane and lawful manner.
And you have yet to produce any actual proof that those who gave the orders weren’t punished.
Is Mr We-need-to-torture Cheney still in office ? Then they have not been punished.
Is that an answer in your mind? Did he actually issue orders: yes or no?
Snappy comeback.
Sorry, thought that’s what the “SDSAB” stood for - my mistake.
Sure, when you do it’ it’s a polite suggestion … you jackass.
well then, guess that’ll save me some typing
Well, as “accidently” as the actions of an army of occupation can be from the get-go, I suppose. Which is “not at all” - the “accidents” wouldn’t happen at all if there was no occupation, so those “accidents” are tainted with the same negative moral weight, I believe.
Oh, I love guessing games!
Clues: Vietnam, soldiers, gross injustices, suffering, ignorant, naive, holier-than thou, contorted mutterings…
Nixon? LBJ? Kissinger? MacNamara?
Hey, that sounds like fun! I’ll play!
Okay, here we go. Because I’m a nice guy, I’m going to give you the 4 million people freed by the American Revolution (even though they were free before), and I’m not going to ding you for the enslaved blacks and the Indians. So there’s four million. Consider it house money. Okay, I’m going to skip over the 19th century and the Civil War, because even if the blacks were emancipated, they weren’t freed. So here we are at the beginning of the 20th century, and we’ll pick up with the Philippine-American war. Since we were surpressing Philippine independence, we actually made about 8 million people unfree, and killed between a quarter of a million and a million Filipinos in the process. So now you’re 4 million under on the free count.
Let’s skip World War I, since it was basically a wash, Germany being a democracy and all. You could argue that if we hadn’t entered the war and Germany had won, there would have been no Hitlerism later, but I don’t think we need to go there. So let’s skip a couple of minor police actions, and move right ahead to World War II. Whoo-hoo, you hit the jackpot! You free maybe 100 million Western Europeans! But wait a minute – you suddenly remember that Britain and France and the Netherlands and Belgium were in fact colonial powers, and you helped them retain control of maybe half a billion unfree people, so all of a sudden you’re about 400 million in the hole again. Then add in another 100 million in Eastern Europe that you allowed your ally Stalin to gobble up, and you’re about half a billion down, plus you have a million or so civilians or killed by American air raids. I’ll let you have Japan and Korea, so that’ll get you about 100 million back, but we haven’t even talked about destabilization of Indochina so that another 50 million people end up unfree, nor about our military support of dictators in Indonesia and Chile and… and…
But you know what? This is a really stupid game. Why? Because it’s based on the moronic proposition that if you set a million people free, you get to kill a million civilians. What, you’re really going to argue that a million free and a million dead is better than two million unfree?
And as to your question, “Which of the people that live in freedom would you ask to give that freedom up so a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time wouldn’t have to die?” I have to say - ME! ME, ME ME! And if there’s anyone out there who wouldn’t take this bargain, I’ll only say, more shame to you.
A note to the student: Don’t base a term paper on the population figures I have given above, okay? You’d have cause to regret it.
This may be hard for you to grasp, but how was the common soldier able to differentiate between fighting the Germans, the Iraqis the first time and this current Iraqi war? Most civilians were in favor of all these wars amongst the countries that entered them at the time. These soldiers don’t have the luxery to sit back and enjoy the extended investigation that followed in the media. Nor did they have time to do individual investigations into whether or not the war was justified at the outset. We went into all these wars with a common belief that an overseas enemy was in someway capable of harming us or our allies. And in each case there were a minority of desentors. Again, how is the common soldier capable of making a determination beforehand?
Kaiser Wilhelm might disagree with you. But don’t let the facts get in your way.
Germany was a parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage. A weak democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.
Oh please, if you want to go that far, Germany was a democracy for WW2. Bismark was appointed Prime Minister of Prussia by the Kaiser and Chancellor of the German Army by the same. The Reichstag was less effective than the UN, being able only to express non-binding opinions on major policy. Ooooh, scary. It was the Chancellor who ran things for the Kaiser in reality.