You Subhuman Savages (Iraq Rant Ahead)

The BBQ Pit
81

I want to add that yours is a common stance: My country right or wrong.

I disagree with that. My priorities and values are in different order and moral right and humanity come before country and family. I would not help my country or my family commit immoral acts. I would not support them if they raped or stole. Humanity, human rights, come before anything for me. They are at the very top. I cannot in good conscience support what I consider immoral. My loyalty is to moral right, not to a country or a person.

82

but in this case, the Iraqis are in the wrong. We freed them from an evil regime, and now what you are seeing is not a proud, free people wanting to liberate themselves from a foreign oppressor, but groups of thugs wrestling for control of the country sand shooting at us because we are in the way. Do you believe that if the US skedaddled today that Iraq would be at peace?

Tell me whether you abhor the violence visited on Americans and I’ll tell you if I reiterate or withdraw my statement.

The cheap and easy answer is to retort that there’s a word for people who support their nation’s enemies, but I won’t go down that road.

Your position is wrong because you pull wildly inflated numbers out of your ass and completely false charges against US troops and then crawfish when confronted. I’m merely using your own tactics against you.

You are wrong because you seem to misunderstand the nature of the opposition. The Iraqis aren’t angry because we are there as much as we are there and doing nothing to help them. If we had laid out the funds and men to fix Iraqi infrastructure and created a jobs program to lower Iraqi unemployment, we would not now be in the mess we’re in.

83

–

84

Bullshit. You can’t be loyal to to an abstraction. WTF is “humanity”? It doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as “humanity”; there are only humans. Ditto for “moral right” or human rights"–you’re talking about airy piffle that you should have outgrown by now.

85

We may or may not have unjustly invaded Iraq, but our soldiers do not randomly assassinate Iraqis! The military force of the US kills Iraqis when the Iraqis present a threat (or are mistaken for a threat – which happens, too).

I’d really like to see a cite about how the US “steals their oil.” That’s you, right above this post, implying for all you’re worth that we’ve stolen Iraqi oil. Please retract your assertion, back it up with facts, or admit that it’s a baseless accusation.

As for occupying their country, we’ve already told everyone that we’re leaving in June. Yes, while we’re in their country it is a living hell. Yes, civilians are killed by US mistakes. But civilians are also killed by Iraqis living in Iraq! Why attack when you’ve been assured that your enemy is already committed to retreating?

86

OK, a couple of points.

  1. The demand (or at least the only one I’m aware of) is for Japan to withdraw its troops from Iraq in order for the captives to be freed. Am I mistaken, or did the Japanese constitution drawn up after their defeat in WWII expressly forbid Japan from sending troops abroad?

  2. Threatening to burn people alive if demands aren’t met is a pretty harsh thing to attempt. But, as has been said by many an American soldier, “war is hell”. And this is a war to end an occupation. If the Iraqis had an army that was as well-organized and as well-equipped as the coalition forces, I find it highly unlikely they’d resort to taking civilian hostages and threatening them with horrible nasty pain-filled death.

Nevertheless, they’re fighting a war and using the means available to them. I certainly hope Japan seriously reconsiders its decision not to withdraw its troops as I don’t want to find out those civilians have been immolated. But they won’t be the only Japanese to die if they don’t withdraw - sooner or later Japanese troops will also be killed. I don’t want Japanese troops to die any more than I want to see American troops die. But if their governments continue enforcing this occupation and thereby provoking fightbacks (to which the Iraqis have every right) then that is exactly what is going to happen. And, as I said, they’ll use the means available to them. They may seem brutal in comparison to the high-tech, almost sterile conduct of the US and coalition troops, but that doesn’t mean those same occupation forces aren’t brutal, either.

87

“Democrats have demanded the use of foreign troops, but countries that previously refused to help without a United Nations mandate have not changed their minds. Britain announced Tuesday it was replacing an armored brigade, keeping their contribution at the present level of 8,700 troops but not adding any. Spain’s new leftist government wants out. That leaves only Turkey willing to help, but the U.S. has ruled that out in the face of fierce Kurdish opposition.”

From CNN “Inside Politics,” today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/troops/

It looks as though we’ve already asked everyone to help, and they’ve pretty much decided whose side they’re on. As for transferring authority to the UN,

*A multinational force under U.S. command has already been authorized by the council but would need another confirmation. However, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made clear that the world body will not organize “blue helmets” for a mission in Iraq.

Iraq currently is under an arms embargo except for weapons shipped to occupation forces. The resolution is expected to ask the council to lift this ban once the occupation ends.

Security concerns have prevented any U.N. international staff from setting up a mission in Iraq. The United Nations pulled out foreign staff last October, following attacks against humanitarian groups and the Aug. 19 bombing of U.N. offices in Baghdad that killed 23 people. *

(From Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SMBCHOWTKSEUUCRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=4790322&pageNumber=1)

Interesting assertion. Please explain exactly what you mean by “the oil” – that we’re taking it and putting it in our reserves? Or did you mean we’d profit from the sale of it? That would make sense, except that we spent billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to get where we are – seems like the profit margin on pillaging is a little thin.

Do I understand you correctly? Do you assert that the US is indifferent as to whether or not any given Iraqi lives or dies? Please, be specific. I am going to have a field day with this one.

Hm. So you assert, then, that the US government is willing to throw away the lives of its own soldiers, the lives of foreigners (civilian or military) and piles and piles of money, so they can have

  1. A base in Iraq, and

  2. control over another country’s economy?

I’ll admit that I can’t prove it’s untrue, but that seems to me like a bad trade. Which base is the US planning to keep in Iraq? Why would that base be better than their current (uncontested) bases in Qatar and Diego Garcia? And how will controlling the Iraqi economy pay the bills for our war?

88

[QUOTE=gobear]
but in this case, the Iraqis are in the wrong. We freed them from an evil regime, and now what you are seeing is not a proud, free people wanting to liberate themselves from a foreign oppressor, but groups of thugs wrestling for control of the country sand shooting at us because we are in the way. Do you believe that if the US skedaddled today that Iraq would be at peace?

[quote]
I believe you are obfuscating the issue but I think it is clear to everyone who is reading as many people have told you so.

No, you made the statement

based on what I said before. Now you are unable to show your statements follow from what I said. And you are trying to obfuscate. The truth, evident to all, as many have told you, is that what you said does not follow from what I posted and you know it and you are unwilling to admit it.

Often they are heroes. It takes a hero to stand up to his country when he believes his country is wrong. It is a much more difficult decision than opposing the policies of another country. Those Germans who opposed the II Reigc because they thought it was immoral were heroes. Those Americans who refused to go to Vietnam because they thought it was an immoral war were heroes. Nicolás Estévanez was a Spanish army officer in Cuba in 1898 and he refused an order to execute some Spaniards accused of fomenting separatism. He said “before my country come right and humanity”. He paid a price after being court martialed but he went on to become an important politician and member of the government. He was a hero when he refused to do what he thought was immoral. And Spain, more than 100 years ago, did not consider him a traitor but a hero. It seems they understood then what many Americans do not understand today: that right comes before country.

In any case, if your loyalty is to your country then you should accept that Iraqis are loyal to their country and will fight the invaders to the death.

Hm, no. I have not pulled wildly inflated numbers from anywhere. Please support your allegations with cites will you? I get tired of your empty accusations but your dishonesty is becoming quite clear to all.

I do not care about your explanations. The fact is that the Iraqis, like every country on earth, should have the right to be free from being invaded by other countries. And they have the right to fight the invaders off and defend their homeland.

Wow. Does anyone else support this view? Humanity, human rights, moral right are “abstractions” , “airy piffle”? Does anyone else here support this?

89

Sheesh, it’s hard to know where to start.

For one thing you act like the US did some magnanimous favor for Iraq, and they’re just a bunch of ingrates. You seem to forget that for the most part, they never asked us for any favors. We simply assumed that they wanted good old-fashioned Yankee-style freedom. Maybe – just maybe – our help was unwelcome.

The fact that not every single Iraqi is laying down his gun and kissing Dubya’s ass leads me to believe I’m right.

Perhaps an analogy will help. A thief is robbing you blind and beating you up daily. Understandably, this is a bad situation for you. You wish someone would come to your rescue. Suddenly, someone does. And it just so happens to be the far religious right. They are going to liberate you from not only that bully, but from that horribly oppressive homosexuality that has plagued you for so long. Your meek little voice tries to cry out “Thanks, but no thanks.” However, it is drowned out by the voices of your liberators shouting “Free gobear! Free him from his sexuality!”

And of course, anyone that speaks on your behalf is shouted down with “Why do you hate Jesus so much?”

So your liberators kill the thief, and drag you off to their church to cure your evil gay lifestyle. You struggle to get away from them as well, and cry “That’s not what I wanted.”

So – are you wrong? Those noble Christians have done you a huge favor, and look how ungrateful you are. In fact, they are so intent on saving you that they’re willing to kill you in the process. And they don’t see some noble individual fighting for his freedom – they just see some whiny fag who wouldn’t know a good thing when it bit him.

And of course it may dawn on you that they never really wanted to save you in the first place, they simply had an agenda and saw you as a useful tool for fulfilling it.

Does that analogy shed any light on things?

No, I don’t. As you said earlier (and I’m paraphrasing, of course), we’re fucked. Damded if we do, damned if we don’t. I have no good answers for what we should do next.

90

I must take issue with this statement. Are you saying you side with the Iraqi troops in this conflict because they are right? I don’t want to misrepresent you, so kindly correct me now if I am wrong.

I think it’s important to remember that neither our troops or the Iraqi rebels are avatars of the ideologies that got them there. To say that you side with the fighters in Iraq because our policy is misguided is… a little reprehensible I think.

And yes, I would argue that the term “humanity” is at the least ambigous and at worst, abstract. Morality? Human rights? I don’t want to get into a debate over moral relativism, but you honestly mean to tell me you can’t see how someone could hold this opinion.

91

tdn I like your analogy a lot.

92

No, I’ve already cited your posts that support my position. You demur. So, if you want me to withdraw my comment, just say that you regret the deaths of the 4 contractors. A mere “yes” is required.

If the scenario you describe (US soldiers massacring civilians; Americans stealing oil; Americans raping and killing everything they see), then yes, humane considerations would require disobedience to unlawful commands. You have yet to demonstrate that that is the case.

[quote]

Hm, no. I have not pulled wildly inflated numbers from anywhere. Please support your allegations with cites will you? I get tired of your empty accusations but your dishonesty is becoming quite clear to all.

[quote]

I would suggest that **Jurph[/b['s post above mine points out who here is really being dishonest. “Killing Iraqis in large numbers”? “Stealing Iraqi oil”? “Wanting to control the Iraqi economy?” Crakka, please!

You don’t what you’re talking about because that is not what is going on. The situation is vastly more complicated than the simple-minded picture you just described.

Who cares if anyone supports it? I support it and that’s enough. You’'re talking like a high school kid, not an adult.

93

Giggles

The ocupation forces are not going anyware, the June 30th deadline is for a symbolic handling of power to whatever form of Iraqi goverment is present there.

94

And, by the same measure I have shown that you are a bloodthirsty person who wishes death on the Iraqis. Either it applies to both or it doesn’t apply. So, how does it feel to be wishing for Iraqi deaths you bloodthirsty imperialist? And I am waiting for cites of my “inflated numbers”.

I think the readers of this thread will easily recognise your intellectual dishonesty and with that I have enough. I do not believe anyone is supporting you in your assertions against me…

Well, I just feel better knowing there are few people like you and more people who would consider honesty, justice, freedom, human rights and moral values superior to a blind loyalty to one’s country.

What makes America good and right is that it is supposed to stand for those things. The day America represents the opposite of that is the day America is not worth defending. I do not believe in “my country, right or wrong”. I believe in honesty, justice, freedom, human rights and moral values and those who try to live by them and for them.

95

Thank you. I just hope that it speaks to gobear.

96

Since I have never said US soldiers “randomly assasinate Iraqis” your clarification was unnecesary.

Well, the American authority grants oil contracts in Iraq to American companies and the Iraqis have no say. You can call it what you want. I call it stealing.

Really? I must have missed it. because what I have read in the news is that American troops will stay in Iraq. And the Americans will retain all military power and a lot of civil power, including the right to veto the government etc. In other words, what is happening on June 30 is a farce with little real significance. It is aimed at people like you who do not know what’s happening.

The enemy is not retreating and has said it will not retreat. Please read the news.

97

I am not sure if I understand your question. What I am saying is that the American aggression was unjust and unjustified and that, consequently, the Iraqis have every right to fight for their homeland and for the freedom from the invaders. That is what I think: that the USA was wrong when it attacked them and, therefore they have the right to defend themselves.

I cannot in good conscience defend an aggression which was unjust and unjustifiable.

98

Then you should be able to criticize the apprehension of the civilians, which the thread is about afterall.

This other tangent spun off of your ‘sort of’ defense of the kidnappers.
The Iraqis are NOT defending their homeland by brutalizing foreign civilians. If anything, they will create more aggression when the millitary tries to find out who committed the kidnappings and possible murders.

They gain no sympathy abroad, at worst.

BTW, I think you have defended your position admirably, so far.

99

Your claims have already been addressed in the referenced threads.

You might need a crowd on your side to feel right–I do not. And I believe you have the patent on intellectual dishonesty.

And this shows what an idiot you are. Blind loyalty? Have I not been condeminbg Bush’s blundering and the stupidity of the CPA?

You seem to view this as a white hats and black hats drama, and I have been trying to tell you it ain’t that simple. If we pull out, Iraq will not suddenly be a haven of peace and industry. It will be a bloody mess and then you will be complaining that the US ought to launch a humanitarian mission to help the Iraqis. There’s nothing the US can do to please you. Every option we have is a wrong one, and we have to choose the least wrong in a very confusing situation. “Honesty, justice, freedom, human rights and moral values” only make sense when applied to concrete situations–they don’t exist as some sort of Platonic Idea.

Yes, I want the Iraqis to live in a free, prosperous country. But that doesn’t happen by proclaiming “Freedom and prosperity!” as if it were an incantation.

You talk about human rights? Should we allow the Iraqis to choose a hardline Islamic republic in Iraq? If so, then what the human rights of women who will live in subjugation? Should we allow a Shia majority government? What if the majority chooses to persecute or attack the Sunni minority? If we object or intervene, won’t we be impinging on the rights of the Shia to determine their own affairs?

Do you think the Iraqis “believe in honesty, justice, freedom, human rights and moral values and those who try to live by them and for them”? If not, why are you so sure that the thugs are right?

[/quote]

100

Please note that I do not by any means condone or justify human rights abuses from or by anybody. Period. It is unacceptable whether it is the Iraqis or the USA.

The point is that, once we have condemned human rights abuses, even those which have not yet happen but may happen, as is this case, we should go to the next level of analysis and ask ourselves what caused these things to happen. It is not that Iraqis are evil people different from us. It is that they have been put up against the wall. I have no doubt that many Americans would do the same things under similar circumstances.

What I have been trying to do is not look at the small picture of whether an Iraqi or an American has committed an attrocity because I am certain there’s been plenty from both sides because that is normal in war. What I am trying to say is that we know these things happen in war and those who start the wars bear the responsibility for creating the circumstances which turn some humans into beasts. On both sides.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. It is normal that people who disagree would post more likely than those who agree so i sometimes wonder if I am alone in my opinions and views. I do appreciate the compliment.