Worse? In your idealistic hypothetical, obviously the rape is worse. In reality, in the process of killing the “soldiers” we’ve killed innocents.
Really, this is just the practical aspect of those stupid dead-end morality questions like “Is it worth killing an innocent for the greater good?”
Both sides are responsible for their actions. But it’s not a zero-sum game where good deeds cancel bad, and anyone who justifies an action based on one of the gameplays is a fool.
Bush is responsible for starting a war that created an environment for these things to happen. This is fact. Disputing otherwise is ridiculous.
These murderers are responsible for abusing the situation in their barbaric attempt at gaining power. This is fact. Disputing otherwise is ridiculous.
And ignoring either side due to preference is detestable.
They weren’t . Dad recalled them as gray-haired reservists, the sort of schlubs who get posted to occupation duty and who had probably never done anything to anybody and were trying to stay under the radar until the war was over. The Resistance guys had captured them a few days before so they COULDN’T have been involved. Wrong place, wrong time.
So, take issue with my posts, do you? “Shudder at the sight of all of them,” do you? Give you an “odd heaving sensation” in the stomach, do they? “Such inhumanity,” you huff. And you suggest that my posting access should be limited.
Poor baby.
I cannot decide whether I am more amused or amazed by the fact that you express such revulsion for me and *none at all * for the atrocity which is the subject of my post. Do you feel no outrage? No sympathy for the dead woman?
No, you are a phoney humanitarian. With people like you it is always going to be: “Roseworm is bad. Roseworm talks about bad, ugly things. I wish she wouldn’t do that because it makes my tummy feel bad. Please make Roseworm go away. Then the bad things will go away, too.”
This attitude always confuses me. People make choices and those choices are theirs alone and no one elses.
If I am walking down the street and I see a women, I guess I have the choice of ignoring her, saying hello, or chopping her extremities off. Just because no one is looking doesn’t make it all right to chop her head off. And it certainly isn’t the fault of whoever might be looking, or is supposed to be looking, as to what course of action I choose to take. Even if another person creates the perfect conditions to allow you to satisfy your desire to lop someone’s head off, it still is your choice to do so.
Now for some murkiness: If I am walking down the same street and see someone trying to de-limb this woman, what should I do? I can do nothing, say hello, or attempt to stop the perpetrator. The only reasonable action is to help the victim in any way I can. If in the attempt to stop this crime some third party gets hurt as a result of my actions who is responsible for that?
The only way I can see people saying someone else, either partly or completely, is responsible other than the terrorists who did this is if they can say the terrorists, by their actions, are 1) defending themselves, or 2)defending someone else. And that would be pretty weak in this case.
That’s a good point, Uzi. The problem is that the scenario you’re offering isn’t reflective of this particular situation.
Not quite; the most reasonable action is to help the victim to the best of your ability. Assuming you’re an average joe not trained in firearms, you should probably call for help instead of fishing, uh, an uzi out of your pocket and spraying bullets.
There’s a similar situation in that you shouldn’t administer CPR unless you’re trained to do so; otherwise you may do more harm than good.
I criticize Bush and his administration in this case because his lack of planning led to Fallujah becoming a base for the insurgency. It was most definitely his reponsibility to ensure Iraq was under control, but because it didn’t happen, he takes the blame. So, he’s not really responsible for the woman’s death, but he’s certainly responsible for allowing an environment that made it possible. I hope that makes sense.
[QUOTE=TonyF]
That’s a good point, Uzi. The problem is that the scenario you’re offering isn’t reflective of this particular situation.
Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.
I would criticize Bush for not planning to deal with this, not because it arose. There are no freedom fighters in Iraq among the terrorists or in those who support them. They are not fighting to defend their lives, or their freedoms. Their lives would be safe if they stopped being terrorists and their freedoms will only be assured by guaranteeing that the upcoming elections are fair, available to all, and comprised of candidates who will put the needs of the country before their own and the group they are a part of. They don’t care about this. They want all the power for themselves. The same as Saddam before them. There is no difference between them. They are responsible for their actions and the state of the country, no one else.
Look, when Saddam’s statue was toppled last year from the rubble could have arose a new, enlightened country that would have been a beacon for the world. Is it the American’s responsibility that this didn’t happen? No, Sir. I don’t buy it. It was the choice of the Iraqis themselves.
What really bothers me is the statement that things are worse than before Saddam, as if that makes what Saddam was doing correct. Is the assumption here that the only way that the Iraqis can be governed is with a brutal dicatator?
Thanks, this is what I figured.
War is hell, and it always surprises me when it turns out to have Infernal Cheerleaders.
That’s just not true.
Many native Iraqis have taken up arms, because they perceive us to be invaders (and we are), because they don’t want to turn their government over to democratic (read: rule by the mob) politics, because of a host of other reasons.
I am gobsmacked.
If they’d just stop being pesky terrorists everything would be ok!
Well, no, no they wouldn’t. Sunnis would still not trust Shiites and vice versa, and the Kurds would still want their own show. Nobody would trust elections, and there would still be foreign Jihadists coming into the country.
And, you will notice, if the elections are fair and available to all, we have no fucking right, what-so-fucking-ever, to tell them what type of candidate they should have. They might very well elect a fundementalist, and guess what, that’s democracy.
Yes and no.
Some are thugs and strong-arm men.
Some want power for their faction.
Some honestly believe that they’re right.
Etc…
Yes, they are responsible for their actions, but let’s face facts:
Due to poor planning, there was never any plan to win the peace. With a power vacuum in effect, anarchy is a natural consequence. Enter the present day situation, and blaming Iraq for not being able to deal with an almost total loss of infrastructure and government.
What bastards.
Look up the story on that statue toppling.
It was staged, try to find a wide-angle shot on the web.
And, yes, it IS our responsibility.
We disbanded their military, smashed their infrastructure, created a power vacuum with no fucking clue of what to do, and now we blame them.
Whee!
Walk ---------> chew bubble gum.
Is it possible that A) things are worse than when Sadaam was in power B) Sadaam was still an asshole C) Government is always based on the monopoly of coercive force, and in the absence of government we must, perforce, have anarchy.
Admittedly there appears to be some issues regarding whether the marines thought that there may or may not have been booby traps in the area since this quote from the article says;
But from the news footage I saw this morning, thankfully stopped just before it got too graphic, the person who was shot certainly appeared to be alive at the point the marines and the news crew entered the building.
It looks like investigations are underway but either way this turns out it is not going to be good. If this was in self defence, which I’m not in a position to judge, then it will still be used for propaganda by the insurgents and if it was not in self defence then it’s just appalling.
I don’t disagree with you, but the only way Iraq remains a single country (and I’m not saying it should) is to stop thinking only of the particular group you belong to.
[QUOTE]
I am gobsmacked. If they’d just stop being pesky terrorists everything would be ok! Well, no, no they wouldn’t. Sunnis would still not trust Shiites and vice versa, and the Kurds would still want their own show. Nobody would trust elections, and there would still be foreign Jihadists coming into the country./QUOTE]
And what is going to cure that? Or does it even matter that it is cured?
I never said we select the candidates for them. If they choose to elect another dictator that is up to them. If they want to have a country where they can continue to elect people that will represent them, then they shouldn’t. It is up to them like you say.
Ah, so what you are saying is that the only way to control people is to use force of one form or another? Does it matter who uses the force as long as they restore peace? No? Then the US might as well rule Iraq as anyone else and they should get about restoring order by using what ever measures are required to do so.
Or, does it matter how much force is used? Well, Saddam used overwhelming force to keep his population in line and the argument is that the Iraqis were better off before the invasion. I am failing to understand what is the bitch is then? If the only way to keep peace and order in Iraq is to use brutal measures then why can’t the US keep the peace? Is it because they are not, in fact, using the force necessary to do this?
Actually, I care about her death. I don’t care about you. You can peddle your simplistic and juvenile conceptualization of morality anywhere you like. I do find your effort to try to cover the situation in Iraq with the justification of WWII (ala the use of the title from Band of Brothers) mildly offensive and maximally stupid, but hey, we’ll never be completely free from stupidity.
While this line of argument looks impressive, it makes claims that are false.
Many of the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for freedom (even if “our” side thinks they are misguided). They look around and see that the U.S. overthrew their government, tried to impose a known thief (Chalabi) as our puppet, then imposed a “ruling council” made up of people like Allawi (who bribed his way into the role of leader), to form the “new government.” (Can you say “Diem brothers”?) From their perspective, it is simply one U.S. charade after another and the only legitimate response is to throw the invaders out.
Now, I happen to think that they are partially mistaken. I think the U.S. people would be happy to see actual free elections by the Iraqis followed by a swift wihdrawal from that land. (I am not so sanguine regarding the reponse of the administration to the election of a government that was less willing to take “advice” from the U.S.)
As gobear noted earlier, there are many factions in Iraq who all hold different perspectives of reality. Some of them truly are power-mad fiends who simply wish to grab authority–we have seen that demonstrated with people like Chalabi. Ooops! He was “ours.” That, however, does not change the fact that there are people there who are fighting for their perception of freedom and demonizing them simply means that we will never understand (and will, therefore, underestimate) them.
To simply dismiss all the insurgents as power mad people who want no part of genuine freedom is to accept as “true” the propaganda of the U.S. administration–the same administration that gave us WoMD and “Chalabi as freedom fighter” and a host of other lies. This goes along with the original “they hate our freedoms” rhetoric that was promulgated back when we were actually fighting terrorism instead of obnoxious but non-threatening third world countries, rhetoric that has been rejected by even our own investigators and analysts such as in the report on the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
We’ll it’s sort of a beacon for all the terrorists in the world after the huge power vacuum we created. Of course if it had become some perfect utopia, that would have been our responsibility.
What really bothers me is this simpleton thinking. I don’t know if things are “better or worse” now of before SH, but I do know that both eras really, really suck rocks. I don’t find the hundreds of billions, the loss of credibility, and the tens of thousands dead (both sides) to be worth taking a giant step sideways. That’s the sad part. Iraq is the same place as 10 years ago, just under new management, but the US is much worse off.
History will prove this venture wasn’t worth it, but like WMD, some of you slow motherfuckers won’t get it until they’re bludgeoned with cold hard reality.
No, the assumption is we can’t just roll in and “make it a beacon for the world”. They don’t want our democracy, and I don’t entirely blame them.
I know why I fight, Rosewood. I fight because I volunteered to fight for my country. I fight for my friends that are up to their necks in shit. I fight so that other people don’t have to. I fight so that my son will have a safe place to grow up in.
But mostly I fight so that you can say the kind of stuff that you said in your OP, callous as it is. As someone who was over there, I can state beyond any shadow of a doubt that I would be thrilled to see a Marine with a gun running up to me. Of course, if that were the case I would have bailed out of my dying aircraft. That does not mean that if I were an Iraqi I’d be excited to see a Marine.
The Iraqis are fighting in much the same manner that we would if we were invaded. They do not believe that we are in the right. Just as I do not believe that you are in the right. The beheadings, murders, and kidappings are savage to be sure, but they are performed by a very small number of people. In our hunt for these raving lunatics we are inflicting incredible amounts of punishment upon the Iraqi people. That is a terrible and unfortunate consequence of war, but at the same time we are not making any friends over there. And statements like your OP ignore the reality of that. You want to believe that we are almost universally beloved by the people. I wanted to believe that, too. But we’re not. And for you to say what you said in your OP shows an incredible naivete that was shaken out of me a long time ago.
Whatever we need to do to finish the job, I don’t know. But whatever it is, we need to get it done and get out of there with a minimum of bloodshed. I hope that what’s happening in Fallujah will be the end of it, but I know deep down that it’s only the beginning. How sad it all is.
