War is cruelty and there is no refining it! Rules of war will only work when both sides participate! Because war brings out the very primal instinct of survival no justification of law or justice may be applied unless both parties equally agree to participate. It defies logic! You can litigate a damaged fender of your car and the associated loss of value in court. This requires a participation of two parties. Soldiers will not participate in a one sided litigation where they always lose! Neither should a government. You can train a soldier thousands of hours and the result will always be the same, they will apply the basic primal instinct of survival. A dead soldier or terrorist will not kill me. Litigate that! And think of litigating it with dead brothers all around you! The primal instinct of survival in war will always be the rules of war. As it is in the hen house, the strongest will survive! Lawyers and politicians litigate as soldiers die. Put yourself on a battlefield and reason rules that consistently say you lose. You will hold your belief about as long as you can hold your breath. Basic instinct! Changeyourlatitude
Did you pay attention to anything said in the previous posts? War is savage, no argument, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it less gruesome than it already is. We can afford to be humane to prisoners. Don't forget the very ideas that have fuelled a war such as this one in Iraq, faulty as they are. Again we're claiming to have a higher moral ground in this war. There is a mental conflict as well as a physical one in war, and winning that conflict is contingent on our backing of our idealogy, our image on the world stage and how we carry ourselves in war. Neanderthal "primal" instincts are no excuse for atrocities in a war, war is terrible enough without its participants being needlessly vindictive.
You are using reason in a quiet space where you contemplate. Your moral fiber is intact. Let me set a scenario. You buy a car after working diligently by the rules, pay cash for it and insure it. A man on welfare with a ghetto car crashes into you and destroys your car. Your insurance pays the street value, you lose $4,000. You buy another car after working diligently by the rules and the same thing happens but this time your insurance company refuses you insurance and you lose the car and are paralyzed, a vegetable. You litigate but the person has no means by law to compensate you. You followed the law exactly and you lose! Another true story from my home state. A cross-country truck driver owns a farm in the country and is away for days at a time. On three separate occasions his house is robbed of all possessions. Before the next cross-country he sets a double barrel shotgun pointing towards the door where the thief always enters. When he returns he is arrested and charged in a civil maiming suit for injury to a person. The thief was shot by the gun and lost a leg. The court awarded the thief damages for injury and took the mans house, truck and farm to compensate him for his injury since the thief stated his car had broke down and needed a phone to call for help. The truck driver followed the law and lost! When lawyers and politicians litigate a war with rules with only one party having the possibility to lose by following the LAW explicitly, it only takes a few heartbeats to realize you must take survival in your own hands. The law does not protect the law abiding if the lawless are cunning and have nothing to lose. Get it? Now imagine learning this with comrade’s dead bodies and legs and arms around you in lieu of your comfortable space to contemplate your moral decision. Changeyourlatitude
It sucks, but that is the law. You cannot "boobytrap" your property. It is the same if you own a pool. Even if you have the pool fenced in, locked, and a sign that says "no trespassing." If you own a pool, you have a strict liability. That means if someone drowns in it, you are responsible. People across the street from my parents house can attest to that. A neighbor kid drowned in their pool when they were not home. The brothers of the kid were supposed to be watching him. He died. The parents sued the pool owners and won the suit. Even though they left their 3 yr old in the care of teenagers.
"If it were your home country and the Homeland Defense Department had announced they have firm substantiated intelligence that four mass killing will take place in the next 24 hours. First I would want to know what the ‘evidence’ was remember how we were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam had ready to launch WMD’s. Second many Britians have lived under that threat, my mother was bombed in the war, my sister has watched IRA bombs going off from her London balcony, I’ve had to leave underground trains and cinemas because of bomb threats, (and by the way the IRA’s bombs were paid for by American citizens). "Would you serve him steak and lobster or ENCOURAGE HIM TO TALK?" We caught many northern Irish terrorists, and tortured them (the UK government got done in the Earopean courts on human justice). We also let nine IRA men starve to death, including a member of our own Parliament, (Bobby Sands), We had a shoot to kill policy (Gibraltar) and imprisoned the innocent along with the guilty (Guilford four and Birmingham six). It didn’t work in fact it was extremely counter productive it turn people against the British authorities and producing more terrorists (it also caused American citizens to give even more money to the IRA to buy weapons and bombs) As to the crap about the ‘steak and lobster’, PLEASE that’s a rather juvenile comment don’t you think or is it some pathetic attempt at humour or an even more pathetic attempt of trying to portray anyone not following you hard-line approach as being soft on terrorism?
In the scenario I presented you had a mass bomber in custody and the second blew up a school. Would that be proof of intelligence? About the steak and lobster…this is pure sarcasm I feel towards the rehabilitation process. I cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioning and satellite TV without sacrifice of other family needs. The liberals always insure prisoners have such comforts as a minimal standard of living and usually throw in a state of the art gym. Catch the enemy and they get the above, they catch you they slowly slice off your head. As long as one side does not follow rules, neither will, if the people who sent them (the rule followers) to war fail to provide 100% support! It was true in Viet Nam and could happen again. I did not say it was correct I said it was basic instinct. You are correct booby-trapping is illegal. The lawyer who told me the story of the truck driver gave me some good advice. He said if you find a thief in your front yard with your TV offer to help load it in the truck, because if he hurts his back he could sue you. If you shoot a thief do it in his front side and inside of your home. Rules have their drawbacks when all don’t play by the same rules. Changeyourlatitude
"As long as one side does not follow rules, neither will, if the people who sent them (the rule followers) to war fail to provide 100% support! It was true in Viet Nam and could happen again. I did not say it was correct I said it was basic instinct." ** But the thing is that things aren’t inevitable the Vietnam War need not have happened. It was a bad policy that many saw was bad and gave warnings. The present occupation, as is, of Iraq need not have happened and the situation there need not have got this bad. So in the case of Iraq you seem to be demanding 100% support for a something that I never supported and warned against. At every stage I said what could happen if and in most cases it has. I don’t think things should be supported without thought they have to be view against certain criteria, among them is it good and is it working. In Iraq due mostly to the decisions of neo-con politicians and the US military neither of those things are true.
I don’t know how to explain my view of the war clearly but I’ll try. Iraq attacked Kuwait and war was declared on Iraq a while back. As I recall Iraq was offered to leave Kuwait and Sadam said NO! This will be the Mother of All Battles. We went into a “time out” period for 12 or so years. The UN passed 1441 telling Sadam time is up, hold out two empty hands or force will be used to open them. The President, GWB went to the US Congress with soldiers, sailors and marines in the ready position for war. The US Congress overwhelmingly approved his VOTE OF CONFIDENSE decision without even posting one amendment. GWB then offered Sadam another opportunity to show open hands and avoid inevitable war. Sadam remained with one hand open and the other giving the UN and GWB the finger. The representatives of the entire free world unanimously agreed Sadam open both hands. The overwhelming majority of the US citizenship agreed Sadam open both hands or we would open them. We opened his other hand with force because he refused to open it in peace. The world and the US gave Sadam hundreds of opportunities to avoid war! He chose war! If you believe in laws passed by the majority of a representative government you must agree this, the war, was enacted no differently. If you believe in governmental representation of “your” will, the majority’s will and laws you must obey them all. Whether it is a stop sign or an abortion clinic on your street against your belief. It is the law as created by the majority. Everyone has the freedom to disagree with the law and how it is carried out. I see nothing being carried out in Iraq that wasn’t addressed prior to the last offer given Sadam to peacefully disarm. The objectives were clearly stated and nothing has changed. Please point out my flawed perspective! Changeyourlatitude
Wow. What an ill-informed whitewash. You simply don't know the background facts. Perhaps you're just very eager to believe political propaganda and to justify the current neo-conservative Whitehouse agenda. Perhaps you just watch Fox News and don't read... And this in addition to consistent attempts to justify blatant torture! Im nothing less than flabbergasted! Views and opinions I never thought I would see expressed on a site like this.
So, in your opinion, agreements like the Geneva conventions should be scrapped? In your opinion, it would perfectly OK for any army to commit atrocities, to commit genocide, to target civilians, to torture with impunity, to let the troops on the ground make any decisions they see fit in the heat of battle or in treatment of prisoners? To do whatever it takes to win? Is that your position?
Hey, I’m anti war! But, at the same time pro soldier when the government goes to war.Read my most recent post on John Kerry to understand a little of how I feel. The Geneva Convention and other protections for soldiers are great tools during war. They just don’t work when only one side follows the law and the other isn’t a signature. It isn’t that a country may demand its soldiers follow the rules, it’s the reality the soldiers won’t when the probability of survival is so tilted. I posted a post on the “America Attacks” section on Senator Inhofe who holds the same opinion as me earlier today. I don’t think I’m abstract, I’ve seen hippies who were drafted into the Army talk openly about what soldiers, including themselves, have done when the government leaves them “in the middle” of a lopsided mess. ALL people react the same, survival instincts kick in. Changeyourlatitude
Changeyourlatitude I’ve been supporting campaigns against Saddam for some 20 plus years a lot longer than the majority of Americans woke up to the fact he was a bloody handed bastard who was better off dead or better rotting in one of his own jails. The only problem is that back then is that the US was supporting him oh yes that just happened to be the time when his regime was at it’s most bloodiest, but hey. There is much talk now of why there is not more ‘Arab’ protest at some extremist Islamic groups, but back then there was little protest at US support for this bloodstained tyrant (as there hasn’t for many other bloodstained regimes the US supports). Well, back then Saddam was useful so he was an OK guy, someone Rummy could shake hands with, a man the US could work with. They may have been unhappy with the gassing of Kurds but hey that wasn’t important, this guy hated the Iranians and that’s what counted. The US government sold that to the American people and most went for it (many others were happy in their ignorance). Then Saddam did something the US didn’t want and he becomes ‘evil’ and the American public went along and they accepted it. But when the Shia’s rebelled (at the wishes of the US), and the US gave assistance to Saddam not the Shias. But the US government sold that as victory to the Americans and they accepted it. Then they accept the hints that Saddam was connected to 9/11 Then they accept that the very flimsy ‘evidence’ of Saddams WMD’s as concrete reasons for war. They then were told that they would be treated like liberators and a majority of Americans believed them. They were told they were bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis and they accept it even though the evidence doesn’t point to it. ** Why are so many Americans so patently gullible?
Because US corporate media sanitises all "news" free of any annoying historical context with which to better apprehend the consistent thread of our efforts to manipulate situations and people, whether by direct military intervention or covert CIA support for brutal right wing coups. Thus each successive generation sees events as current isolated incidents rather than the backlash for years (if not decades) of ongoing (and largely unreported) wrongs which the recipients of our duplicitous policies have not forgotten. One important reason why I strongly advocate a mandatory 1-2 years study abroad for all American youth, that they might come to see the true face of America which Washington presents to the rest of the world.
One important reason why I strongly advocate a mandatory 1-2 years study abroad for all American youth, that they might come to see the true face of America which Washington presents to the rest of the world. I agree with that, and not just for Americans. They also need to be living in the foreign community too many times on this forum people have come on claiming to have ‘lived’ in other countries only to have them turn out to be military personnel that spent all their time in US bases, eating American food, watching American TV, in an American environment. ** But I suppose what I’m getting at is why so many Americans seem to wish to remain ignorant even when given an alternative. To take an example I believe it has remain roughly consistent that some 40 to 50 per cent of Americans believe Saddam was directly connected with 9/11.
If you're saying it's understandable that coalition soldiers are breaking the rules, torturing and acting contrary to their obligations and responsibilities, then I would not disagree at all. It's perfectly understandable and was certainly predictable. But that's a very different thing from attempting to justify it! Which - correct me if I'm wrong - is what you are doing. You're saying it's OK that some of them are behaving contrary to the standards and values they are there (supposedly) to uphold. This is simply wrong. It's not OK. Soldiering is undoubtedly an extremely difficult and complex job, few will have adequate skills and training to make the difficult decisions regarding the detail of their responsibilities. But that's the job they have chosen, and they do have rules to follow. Those who aren't up to it, those who do the wrong thing should be unequivocally condemned, and held accountable for their actions. Fair play and the rule of law is the only figleaf that distinguishes a civilised army from a band of murderers. If you allow or forgive the kinds of abuses we're seeing then you accept that the American army is no better than the "terrorists" they fight.
More than that... The last poll I saw at the end of last year put it as high as 70% believing that Saddam was implicated in 9/11. It's very clever how the Bush administration sold this lie to the American people - they never actually told the lie directly, but by association and implication they made a non-existent, imaginary connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda seem like truth. Now, with the war, they've managed to make it a real connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda... go USA!
albus-Lick The US government sold that to the American people and most went for it (many others were happy in their ignorance). You are probably correct in what you state with the above sentence and the preceding ones. The American political system is extreme in thinking from Ted Kennedy to GWB. American hostages were held during the Carter administration empowering Islamic clerics who run everything in the entire region regardless of lines on a map. An opposite political power came in after the failure of an elite Special Opns Delta Force failed the rescue. Iran knew the shit would hit the fan and released the hostages immediately. Swinging from far left to far right at the beginning of a new administration wasn’t a good time for a war. Neo-con’s probably thought, well, the turbine ones could have a civil war and Iran will know the next time. Not a good foreign policy but it sent a message to Iran it isn’t cool to take hostages even when a far left party is in power in America. Then Saddam did something the US didn’t want and he becomes ‘evil’ and the American public went along and they accepted it. But when the Shia’s rebelled (at the wishes of the US), and the US gave assistance to Saddam not the Shias. But the US government sold that as victory to the Americans and they accepted it. The failure of support for the Shia’s after Desert Storm is the undoubtedly the worse policy America had adopted to date. And, probably explains why the Iraqi’s worry about our election now and how long we will stay. Then they accept the hints that Saddam was connected to 9/11 True, even after GWB and fellow neo-cons said it wasn’t so. Then they accept that the very flimsy ‘evidence’ of Saddams WMD’s as concrete reasons for war. I don’t hold with you here, the UN and several large nations intelligence agencies had information otherwise. Scott Ritter was the only one denying the existence. And, Sadam with his failure to send out the scientist and families and the other games just encouraged the belief. He could have shown open hands but he chose not to. They then were told that they would be treated like liberators and a majority of Americans believed them. The Iraqi’s are waiting to see who will stay this time or who will leave. If we leave these guys blowing up school children and police stations will take charge after a bloody civil war. They were told they were bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis and they accept it even though the evidence doesn’t point to it. It could happen if the resolve remains. Why are so many Americans so patently gullible? Because of 9-11. I’ve spent over half of my life away from the mainland US. I have a different perspective for that reason. My entire family is Democratic anti war types. I view happenings also through soldier’s eyes and feel for soldiers on both sides. Wise people would have a better system of treating people to remove hatred; you can’t beat it out of someone. I just can’t hate America it’s my homeland. The balance of the political parties was forced to work together instead of against each other then change could happen. News media sells stuff! That’s why people watch a favorite news channel, they use focus groups to advise reporters how best to “sell” and keep you tuned in to them. I try to watch as many different channels as I can to get perspective and also read the web. Changeyourlatitude
Indeed Balbus. What I mean by 1-2 years of foreign study includes living with a foreign family, learning a foreign language, engaging in foreign customs, seeing the world through foreign eyes and foreign media so as to have a basis for better scrutinising the glaring absence of reporting on many issues Washington doesn't wish the public to know.
What worse a pressident who damaged his freindship with powerfull countries throughout the world?? A president who made the record for most protest man in history through out the world. A goverment that gives the perseption that all americans are just like him.(George W Bush) I know that, not all americans are like him that after having family,relatives an etc in the US and having a relative just recently move there. But what about people how don't have family in the US, what about people in other countries of the world that when they think of america they think of george bush not the benifits america does throughout the world, but squarly on Bush. I read somewhere that G.W. Bush knew about Sep 11 and let it happen to boost himself political, and i read somewhere else he was neglegent, of course being neglegent makes more sense then GW trying to profit himself polititcally.
