I think we all remember the shit storm that Iraq Abu Ghraib started and it's effect. I can only imagine as this story spreads what the backlash will be.
CNN Video:
(AP) JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. - Despite the array of prescription drugs he was taking, an Army soldier's videotaped statement describing how he and his colleagues randomly killed three Afghan civilians appeared to be a reliable account, an investigator testified Monday at a hearing into one of the most serious war-crimes cases to emerge from the Afghan war.
Cpl. Jeremy Morlock of Wasilla, Alaska, is among five Stryker soldiers charged with premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. In interviews with Army investigators, he described a plot led by Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs to randomly kill civilians while on patrol in Kandahar Province.
Prosecutors have also alleged that members of the platoon mutilated Afghan corpses and even collected fingers and other body parts, and that some posed for photos with Afghan corpses.
The Army is strictly controlling access to several grisly photos of U.S. soldiers holding up Afghan corpses, images that were uncovered as part of an investigation into alleged war crimes.
Earlier this month, Army prosecutors at Joint Base Lewis-McChord turned over the photos to a military representative of civilian attorneys representing five soldiers accused of murdering three Afghan civilians and other crimes.
But an Army commander decided the photos should not be released. In an unusual move, prosecutors then demanded defense representatives at the base return the computer disk containing the photos, according to attorneys involved in the case.
The decision reflects concern among the Army's senior leadership that publication of such evidence could anger Afghan civilians at a time the United States is trying to win support for a counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban.
there are many many similar instances like this. only difference most of those events dont make it back to us or to the news. but dont worry, every afghan civilian killed only strengthens the insurgency's recruitment pool and reserves and their willingness to fight. its a self defeating act.
So sick, but at the same time you have to think if the combination of drugs and extended periods of time in warzones completely desensitizes someone. It is still inexcusable though.
Clearly, the hashish is to blame. The thing that's not mentioned here is that the father of one of the soldiers (who knew about what was going on) attempted to report this to the higher ups, but these didn't really do anything with the information. The father didn't press the issue, because his son was scared shitless of these killers and asked him to back off. Anyway, I think I got that from TheRealNews : + Show Spoiler +
I love how the attorney almost can't suppress a dumbstruck grin after being asked that single moronic "question".
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them? Then the Afghans are the ones getting called terrorists when they are trying to protect their people.
On September 28 2010 09:41 wadadde wrote: Clearly, the hashish is to blame. The thing that's not mentioned here is that the father of one of the soldiers (who knew about what was going on) attempted to report this to the higher ups, but these didn't really do anything with the information. The father didn't press the issue, because his son was scared shitless of these killers and asked him to back off. Anyway, I think I got that from TheRealNews : + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6fpUWLgOQ
I love how the attorney almost can't suppress a dumbstruck grin after being asked that single moronic "question".
You won't go apeshit and kill people because of hashish. These people are mentally ill.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them?
By all means, disrespect the ones responsible. But you generalizing that all U.S. troops are scumbags is the same brand of discrimination that these war-criminals use to generalize that all Arabs are terrorists.
On September 28 2010 09:34 Kezzer wrote: So sick, but at the same time you have to think if the combination of drugs and extended periods of time in warzones completely desensitizes someone. It is still inexcusable though.
Yea, i agree. Although, this is inexcusable, this isn't a reflection of all US Soldiers. Don't generalize. With that being said, I still think the situation is extremely messed up right now.
Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them?
By all means, disrespect the ones responsible. But you generalizing that all U.S. troops are scumbags is the same brand of discrimination that these war-criminals use to generalize that all Arabs are terrorists.
I'm not disrespecting nobody. I'm not calling the soldiers "baby killers." Okay, let me rephrase my comment then.
"My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them?
By all means, disrespect the ones responsible. But you generalizing that all U.S. troops are scumbags is the same brand of discrimination that these war-criminals use to generalize that all Arabs are terrorists.
I'm not disrespecting nobody. I'm not calling the soldiers "baby killers." Okay, let me rephrase my comment then.
"My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
But MOST soldiers are not doing anything remotely like the incident described in the OP, so what is lowering your respect?
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
Great. So the implied message is that wars like this one keep you safe and wealthy. How delightfully insightful. I would say that ranking the lives of strangers based on whether they're part of your imaginary club makes you a real dick indeed. Many people are dicks, probably most of them. I do find it dishonest to put friends and family in the same category as countrymen, even if you really feel that way. There's a real and extremely crucial difference between people you've a personal connection to and ones you don't.
Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
Its sad that even when stories and videos like these surface, people still fail to realize how bias their usual perception of the world is. The civilians in countries currently occupied by the united states have been slaughtered like animals (or worse) quite often. The same goes for civilians in countries occupied by pretty much any other country. It amazes me that even after this sort of stuff surfaces, people still cling to their "our soldiers and society is more humane and 'good' than other societies of the past that have been in similar positions" mentality.
Most wars are brutal on both sides beyond comprehension for most people that have never actually experienced it. Saying this shit happens in every war situation doesn't justify it, however. It just shows that people need to be absolutely certain they want to go to war in the first place and are ready to accept the consequences. When you put kids into situations where they are purposely desensitized towards the value of human life, this sort of shit is going to happen. It's disgusting and it's wrong, but odds are, something similar is going to happen in most war situations.
It's disappointing to see the ignorant masses push for wars they dont understand and then cringe when they are forced to see that war involves more than what you see in most hollywood movies.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: Uh... people are bad..?
I mean, if you take a sample of 10000 hard working, church-going, everyday citizens.
Theres probably a good chance at least a few of them are pedophiles, a few may be spouse abusers, one may even be a murderer.
When you take people in the ARMY, those numbers just skyrocket due to some of the shit they go through while oversees.
Basically, all I am saying is that any large group of people are going to have bad representatives. Militaries even more so.
Go look back into russian and german armies and what THEY did to people.
That's right you proud American Citizen. Lets forget about this incident and instead jump up and down about what Russian and German armies did in the past. This topic is talking about what has happened now. This is not an opportunity for you to point fingers at another country in order to defend the actions of a few or derail the thread.
Topic "USA Soldiers do something wrong"
Response "But look what Germany did!"
Are you three years old?
People already know about the horrors of the past. People have already jumped up and down about that. The only relevance your pointing back in History has is that we never learn from it. The same cruelty; the same murder; the same stupid wars that have gone on for countless years.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
the afghans are still to blame for more afghan deaths than we are, this is typical anti-american spin. however, we should have gotten out after it was clear we weren't going to find bin laden, right now we're making no progress and people are dying.
To be honest, the so called "terrorists", or more appropriately extremists are just biding their time. Time is on their side.
That being said, I voice my disgust at this, but I hope that this can be resolved as quickly as possible and that the cretins be brought to justice. The worst we can do right now is try to cover it up. A fair, public trial. But as they are in the military, I am assuming it will be a military trial.
By the way, it does not matter what country humans are from. There are great shining examples of humanity, and then there is this.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
thats for making that generalization on bottom 10%. most of my family is in the army you ass, COMPLETELY uncalled for.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
Also, for all the people jumping on the hate American military band wagon because of this, are stupid. The military does a lot for the world, obviously, there are stories like this that go on, but what country doesn't have a shit load of skeletons in their closet?
The whole smoking hash laced with opium argument is retarded, but it looks like their attourney is just looking for anyway out since him and everyone knows their guilty.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
Why is this particularly worse than any of the other killing that goes on? At least they are honest about what they are doing. All of the killing the US Army does in the "name of Democracy" is pure bullshit. Like somehow killing in the name of some nebulous good makes it okay. The argument essentially goes like this: we kill to spread freedom. In fact, that's why we went into Vietnam. There's an interesting documentary about how America goes to war, and it was eerie seeing news footage from earlier time periods when the exact same justifications were being used back then.
The world is a perverse place, and that somehow this is a worse category of killing than other sorts of killing the army does is a meaningless distinction to me. War is fucked up no matter how you slice it.
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: Uh... people are bad..?
I mean, if you take a sample of 10000 hard working, church-going, everyday citizens.
Theres probably a good chance at least a few of them are pedophiles, a few may be spouse abusers, one may even be a murderer.
When you take people in the ARMY, those numbers just skyrocket due to some of the shit they go through while oversees.
Basically, all I am saying is that any large group of people are going to have bad representatives. Militaries even more so.
Go look back into russian and german armies and what THEY did to people.
Ok studies don't describe everything. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't make it acceptable or right that they did this. I don't care how many people are involved because they signed on to protect their country not just shoot whatever they see. Frankly you trying to rationalize these actions through statistics sickens me. To me you are accepting what they did as normal.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
He's talking about the results after the surge in 2007, and he's right. There's substantial evidence that the surge of 2007 paved the way for the almost halt in violence in the years after.
It probably wont be mimicked in Afghanistan though since our fearless president sent 1/2 of the recommended troops that was suggested by his top generals.
These soldiers are going to be misrable for the rest of their lives. There isn't many places more misrable than a military prison. They will live a horrible, painful, and depressing life for as long as they are alive.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
Debatable.
I will laugh at anyone who says that Iraq is now a stable land because of US interference. Not only are we starting to pull out at a horrible time but we didn't even get rid of the threat. There are still people there who will try to take over once the US influence is gone.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
Debatable.
I will laugh at anyone who says that Iraq is now a stable land because of US interference. Not only are we starting to pull out at a horrible time but we didn't even get rid of the threat. There are still people there who will try to take over once the US influence is gone.
I was a machine gunner for dozens of missions all over the Al Anbar province(triangle of death) in 2009. I went on more missions then almost anyone in Al Asad and I fired my weapon 0 times. Seems pretty stable to me....
But yes, after we pull out completely all hell will probably break lose
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
Great. So the implied message is that wars like this one keep you safe and wealthy. How delightfully insightful. I would say that ranking the lives of strangers based on whether they're part of your imaginary club makes you a real dick indeed. Many people are dicks, probably most of them. I do find it dishonest to put friends and family in the same category as countrymen, even if you really feel that way. There's a real and extremely crucial difference between people you've a personal connection to and ones you don't.
You support these wars too, you pay taxes. I'm not going to defend this act, but this is the reality of war. By continuing to live in the United States, you support its hegemony, and really, you only have a right to disagree with this to a certain extent.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
The war in Iraq was badly botched for many years, leading to a powerful insurgency and thus hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. However, under the excellent leadership of Gen. Petraeus, stability is about where it would have been in around 2005, had the Pentagon leadership been even remotely competent in their post-war planning. Given the inherently divided nature of Iraq, my definition of "stability" is somewhat unfair... by that, I mean that I see the current level of violence as something that cannot be eliminated by any amount of good military practice. There is a "base" level of violence that we, the U.S., can't eliminate. True stability can only be achieved with a stable political framework in Iraq that persists for many years.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
thats for making that generalization on bottom 10%. most of my family is in the army you ass, COMPLETELY uncalled for.
i'm in the army and what he's saying is pretty much accurate, the army definitely has a lot more people in the bottom 10% than the top 10%. i'm not saying that all soldiers are dumb or anything, but we definitely aren't the epitome of intelligence.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
lol... i like how you originally had your statement include all u.s. soldiers then you changed it to most. do you honestly think most soldiers are like this?
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
Debatable.
I will laugh at anyone who says that Iraq is now a stable land because of US interference. Not only are we starting to pull out at a horrible time but we didn't even get rid of the threat. There are still people there who will try to take over once the US influence is gone.
As I said, the extremists are just biding their time. No occupying country in history has ever been able to "liberate and free/control and exploit/root out and annihilate" the Middle east as the occupying country had intended. Violence has always been going on in the Middle East, albeit controlled by charismatic warlords (some "good" some "evil", each with their own ethics etc.), ruling dictators, and the governments (albeit unstable). The people there are both tired and used to war. Of course, pulling out has it's ramifications, but so was being there in there in the first place.
Back on topic, again the best thing to do is to sit down with the elders of the community who had it's civilians killed and discuss and reach an agreement for the dishonor we have dealt them. (Is it a Jurga? I forget the term.)
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: Uh... people are bad..?
I mean, if you take a sample of 10000 hard working, church-going, everyday citizens.
Theres probably a good chance at least a few of them are pedophiles, a few may be spouse abusers, one may even be a murderer.
When you take people in the ARMY, those numbers just skyrocket due to some of the shit they go through while oversees.
Basically, all I am saying is that any large group of people are going to have bad representatives. Militaries even more so.
Go look back into russian and german armies and what THEY did to people.
Ok studies don't describe everything. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't make it acceptable or right that they did this. I don't care how many people are involved because they signed on to protect their country not just shoot whatever they see. Frankly you trying to rationalize these actions through statistics sickens me. To me you are accepting what they did as normal.
Wtf? Nobody said anything about it being acceptable
What I am saying is that every nation likes pointing fingers at US troops, because they are supposed to be perfect or something?
On September 28 2010 10:18 On_Slaught wrote: This is so sad to see.
These soldiers are going to be misrable for the rest of their lives. There isn't many places more misrable than a military prison. They will live a horrible, painful, and depressing life for as long as they are alive.
... I can't tell if you're being sincere or not. Why are you concerned about the prison sentence that these assholes will get? They killed innocent civilians without provocation, and you're worried about their future? Is it not justified that these scumbags are locked up in prison for the rest of their lives? Should we care about whether or not the conditions of a military prison are adequate for these guys?!
There is no legitimate stance you could take to defend their actions, and there is no morally righteous reason for empathizing with heartless murderers. Who gives a shit whether they'll be miserable for the rest of their pathetic existences?! These guys... no, these worms are callous thugs, and they deserve life in prison and more. Hell, if I was the warden keeping these assholes in line for the next 40 years, I'd go out of my way to make them regret such horrible actions.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
Well, you may disagree, but your link doesn't support your case. Please don't make me explain this.
And yours is unsubstantiated. You've provided no examples; saying something doesn't make it so.
War doesn't cause immediate stability...but stability through civil genocide? That's a new one. Iraq is much better off now than it was ten years ago, of that there is no question. (I said it, that makes it true)
These guys in no way represent the majority of our armed forces. Does shit like this happen, of course. Does it happen as much as people now think, NO. This unit is not even close to a normal unit. I served 2 years and 3 months in Iraq, not 1 time did I see anything that was in violation of geneva convention, from a US soilder
If you think we are in afganistan just for Bin Laden your clearly mistaken. We have all heard it but to me its very logical. We are in afghanistan (imo) to keep the attention some were else than our main land.
There are quite a few assumptions being made here, and many of them with no evidence.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
I just got a degree in physics, but I apparently there's a mistake because I'm supposed to be in the bottom 10% of students. Or you just made that up without actually knowing anybody in the military.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
I have taken you seriously, great post!
War by definition is lawless, people die. One day it might be in your backyard and you might actually have to nut up.
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: Uh... people are bad..?
I mean, if you take a sample of 10000 hard working, church-going, everyday citizens.
Theres probably a good chance at least a few of them are pedophiles, a few may be spouse abusers, one may even be a murderer.
When you take people in the ARMY, those numbers just skyrocket due to some of the shit they go through while oversees.
Basically, all I am saying is that any large group of people are going to have bad representatives. Militaries even more so.
Go look back into russian and german armies and what THEY did to people.
Ok studies don't describe everything. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't make it acceptable or right that they did this. I don't care how many people are involved because they signed on to protect their country not just shoot whatever they see. Frankly you trying to rationalize these actions through statistics sickens me. To me you are accepting what they did as normal.
Wtf? Nobody said anything about it being acceptable
What I am saying is that every nation likes pointing fingers at US troops, because they are supposed to be perfect or something?
It's cause americans are stupid enough to go to war on a constant basis... Yes war is fucked up and shitty things inevitably happen, that's why you should stay out of them.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
I just got a degree in physics, but I apparently there's a mistake because I'm supposed to be in the bottom 10% of students. Or you just made that up without actually knowing anybody in the military.
My respect for MOST French mothers gets lower and lower every day.
The other generalization is offensive garbage, but the first one has some merit though....He isn't saying that all people in the military are stupid or poor, but you can't argue that on average, most people who enlist tend to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
I don't want to derail the thread here, but stability in Iraq existed before the billions (trillions) were spent on a war that resulted in the loss of more that 1 million Iraqi civilian lives. The US has left behind a culture of secret prisons and torture (or to put it nicer : it didn't put an end to the practice) and now the extent of the problem is coming to the surface. Stating that stability has been achieved in Iraq is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? This remains to be seen. All that's certain is the extent of the damage and the scope of the violence.
Well, you may disagree, but your link doesn't support your case. Please don't make me explain this.
And yours is unsubstantiated. You've provided no examples; saying something doesn't make it so.
War doesn't cause immediate stability...but stability through civil genocide? That's a new one. Iraq is much better off now than it was ten years ago, of that there is no question. (I said it, that makes it true)
Iraq went to shit when we got there... it may be better now, depends on who you ask. Posting a wiki page about something that happened in 88 doesn't justify us getting involved 12 or 13 years later. Governments handle internal issues with there population differently. Am I saying what Iraq did was right? Of course not. But do we have the right to police the world when it serves the US?
As far as stability, that can be debated until we are blue in the face and our sources are going to have an agenda both ways. So honestly who really knows. I will say Iraq had to fall apart completely before it got back to were it is now... is it better? Depends on who you ask in Iraq.
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: What I am saying is that every nation likes pointing fingers at US troops, because they are supposed to be perfect or something?
They are supposed to stay at home and keep suppressing their own people, kkthx
The other generalization is offensive garbage, but the first one has some merit though....He isn't saying that all people in the military are stupid or poor, but you can't argue that on average, most people who enlist tend to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Ok, but that is not what he said. He implied that those who enlist are in the bottom 10% of their high schools, not from poor backgrounds. He falsely implied stupidity and ignorance, whereas your claim is justified and true.
Sickening. These are the kinds of stories extremists use to start violence. Absolutely disgusting that someone representing the United States Army would ever do such a thing.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
1. A developed country such as the U.S. should stop bringing such people into the army then. If these kind of people can get into the army then idk what this world has come to.
2. This isn't even war, they are going out to kill civilians for the fun of it. And just because this has been going on since the dawn of time doesn't change a THING. If its really been going on so long, then the ones recruiting these soldiers really need to look at who they are recruiting.
3. Okay, let me rephrase my comment again " I fucking hate people who kill innocent civilians, not servicemen." I thank all real soldiers for being there when the time comes to protect my family. (The afghans aren't harming anyone though, that's why I said "when the time comes")
4. I respect those people more then I would any scientist.
Oh my god, this is so horrible. I feel so sorry for the victims and for their families!!
I mean, come on, a bunch of heavily armed guys walking around in your town, arbitrarily killing people for fun/sports?
Why are we still doing this? Haven't we learned anything? There goes the idealistic nutjob... I guess.
But it's still true: Violence/war = bad! Don't do it! Everybody, everywhere. There is nothing honorable about killing people, even if your country says it is your duty. It can't be the solution!
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
1. A developed country such as the U.S. should stop bringing such people into the army then. If these kind of people can get into the army then idk what this world has come to.
2. This isn't even war, they are going out to kill civilians for the fun of it. And just because this has been going on since the dawn of time doesn't change a THING. If its really been going on so long, then the ones recruiting these soldiers really need to look at who they are recruiting.
3. Okay, let me rephrase my comment again " I fucking hate people who kill innocent civilians, not servicemen." I thank all real soldiers for being there when the time comes to protect my family. (The afghans aren't harming anyone though, that's why I said "when the time comes")
4. I respect those people more then I would any scientist.
To be honest, I think this was probably the result of a psychotic break from one of the Sergeants, who then forced his subordinates into taking part. That shit happens all the time, because people are so fucking strict on the whole "chain of command" bullshit.
I'm in the USAF, btw, never been to combat, but given what I have seen working an office job (Air Traffic Control), this sort of bullshit doesn't seem too far fetched. All it takes is one Staff Sergeant to scare his subordinates into killing people.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
1. A developed country such as the U.S. should stop bringing such people into the army then. If these kind of people can get into the army then idk what this world has come to.
2. This isn't even war, they are going out to kill civilians for the fun of it. And just because this has been going on since the dawn of time doesn't change a THING. If its really been going on so long, then the ones recruiting these soldiers really need to look at who they are recruiting.
3. Okay, let me rephrase my comment again " I fucking hate people who kill innocent civilians, not servicemen." I thank all real soldiers for being there when the time comes to protect my family. (The afghans aren't harming anyone though, that's why I said "when the time comes")
4. I respect those people more then I would any scientist.
If these are your views then why generalize and tear down the poor bastards who are in the armed services? We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
I've met some fucked up soldiers that are either torn apart by war, or just plain batshit insane but they are not by any means the majority. Most veterans look to each other for support and stand by each other and are actually kind of inspiring in their sheer loyalty and brotherhood.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Well, I was against jumping into the TL scene but fuck it this comment is just too much. Anyways, this is too the know-it-all kids on the sight who say "fucking soldiers, godammit" it general, not just this guy. Comments like this really show just how disconnected with reality most people really are.
1. Every fucking profession has psychos join up at some point in time. Why the fuck are soldiers exempt from being mentally ill? You see all kinds of nutjobs in the US army just as you might see many in the salvation army, this cannot be fixed.
2. War isn't some little chess game where enemies exchange being nice to each other. Bad shit happens, terrible unspeakable shit that makes most grown men stand back in shock. Its not right, but its part of war and has gone on since the dawn of time.
3. This comment disrespects all of the many service men who want nothing more than to do their duty to their respective countries. I know its fashionable to say all soldiers are baby rapers but give me a break, show a little respect for guys that get shot at for a bunch of old white assholes all in the name of protecting a nation.
4. I know many individuals who would do nothing more than jump on a live grenade for their brothers in service. They have a true belief in the their soldier's oath and stand by each other no matter what.
This won't be taken seriously by anyone here since most of you know everything and then some and are the respective voices of authority even over the soldiers that work to keep your free speech so i don't know why i bother.
1. A developed country such as the U.S. should stop bringing such people into the army then. If these kind of people can get into the army then idk what this world has come to.
2. This isn't even war, they are going out to kill civilians for the fun of it. And just because this has been going on since the dawn of time doesn't change a THING. If its really been going on so long, then the ones recruiting these soldiers really need to look at who they are recruiting.
3. Okay, let me rephrase my comment again " I fucking hate people who kill innocent civilians, not servicemen." I thank all real soldiers for being there when the time comes to protect my family. (The afghans aren't harming anyone though, that's why I said "when the time comes")
4. I respect those people more then I would any scientist.
If these are your views then why generalize and tear down the poor bastards who are in the armed services? We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
I've met some fucked up soldiers that are either torn apart by war, or just plain batshit insane but they are not by any means the majority. Most veterans look to each other for support and stand by each other and are actually kind of inspiring in their sheer loyalty and brotherhood.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
Eh, I'm sorry for the generalization. I guess I really made a fool out of myself. Thing is when I hear such news, I know this type of shit goes down, I know people die every day for reasons worse then this, and I just straight up rage hard. I shouldn't of been surprised when I read this I guess. . I'll be changing my comment now, and I'll try to generalize a bit less :S
I think what happened here is obvious. It's the same thing that's been happening to people in war since the dawn of man. Stress induced by constant warfare does a number on one's mental capabilities and emotions. Most people can handle it, and some people can't.
War is the most horrible thing any human can experience. It's unfortunate those people had to even be there in the first place. However, that in no way excuses their actions. They went into the army knowing what they were getting in to. If they didn't think they could handle it, or had any doubts as to whether or not their ethical boundaries would be broken during the experience, they just shouldn't have signed up.
It's too bad for them. They made a series of horrible decisions and now their lives will be ruined.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
This,
also, whoever said this was comparable to Nanking seriously needs to get their facts straight. This is an unfortunate incident, but it's nothing nearly of that size.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
its upsetting to hear what happened there. although i blame the US gov for this mess more than i blame the soldiers.
the entire War was fought with a mentality of vengeance. its unsurprising that some US soldiers took it out on any Afghan they see. obvious what the soldier did was wrong but so is the US choice of using military solution against what should had been dealt with by the police force.
not shocked. this is not an isolated case. (american) soldiers are misbehaving in all sorts of cases to a degree that many of them can even be found on youtube. and then you wonder why american democracy, freedom and the troops are not popular in the countries they liberate.
i wont go into reasons for which an individual might behave in such a way because i have no interest in providing excuses. quite frankly there is not ever an excuse for violence or murder except for immediate self defence. there certainly is the problem of violent, oppressive regimes like the taliban or terrorist groups like al quaeda who will not respond to anything other than force. this excuse doesnt work in all cases though.
It's astonishing how true the saying "1 death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic" is.
Some soldiers kill 3 people and the public reaction is "OH MY GOD! HOW DISGUSTING AND SADISTIC! FUCK THE MILITARY" while hundreds of thousands die in bombings and crossfire.
I'm pretty disillusioned about war in general. It just seems like there's never a "right side" to take in any war.
On September 28 2010 09:23 seRapH wrote: wtf. if this shit is real then this is like rape of nanking all over again. bullshit.
Dont even compare this to the rape on nanking. 5 guys shooting a few people is completely different from an entire army shooting and raping a whole city.
yay more mindless killings in a mindless war in a god forsaken country in a god forsaken part of the world.....hell with it, i've been there done that and some how i went a year in helmand province without unleashing a torrential down pour of doom on some guy cause he looked at me wrong. I wanted to, oh god everyday i wanted to, but i never did. people in this thread made great points on BOTH sides of the spectrum, and here are my thoughts(for those so inclined) : war is bad but war is a part of the human condition. we should screen candidates for enlistment more carefully, but in a recession like we are in now and with little new jobs being created, the pool of intelligent recruits to imbecile recruits is staggeringly unbalanced. are they're actions excusable? hell no and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the UCMJ. there i've said my peace
took me a minute to find the documentary i recently watched on the issue of drugs, ptsd and medication of troops in iraq/afghanistan. you might want to watch this.
keep in mind though that knowing of these problems wont bring the civillians back to life and that drugs and ptsd are not responsible for all cases of impoper conduct of troops.
On September 28 2010 09:23 seRapH wrote: wtf. if this shit is real then this is like rape of nanking all over again. bullshit.
ahhhhhh..........nooooooooooooooo..... cuz the rape of Nanking was a whole Japanese army. I'm Chinese so I would know. But of we use generalization, it might work.
On September 28 2010 12:31 EleanorRIgby wrote: why do i only hear US soldiers doing these things
probably because the US media makes a big deal out of EVERYTHING
quite the opposite. the us media has been very passive in reporting on these things because they fear to lose access to their sources. look at independent sources/documentaries or youtube for example if you want to get a picture of what kind of things happen there. this is neither the only case nor the only kind of case that's happened.
This isn't too big a deal for US troops. It seems that at least once a month there's news about something horrifying that US soldiers did. I really hope they clean up their act.
On September 28 2010 12:44 Chairman Ray wrote: This isn't too big a deal for US troops. It seems that at least once a month there's news about something horrifying that US soldiers did. I really hope they clean up their act.
i hope the same. but as of now they have preferred the sweep things under the rug approach, using arguments like "publication of it is a threat to national security and will endanger the lives of americans and our soldiers", instead of just not having these things happen.
The problem isn't necessarily that psychos join the military. The problem is that the military has for decades developed training routines designed to break down man's resistance to killing. It was discovered in world war 1 that many soldiers simply wouldn't shoot, and military training regimens have been trying to reduce that percentage ever since. Situations like this are the consequence.
Pretty messed up shit. I don't understand the heavy emphasis on hash smoking, clearly theres enough scientific evidence that smoking hash doesn't make you a violent psychopath. Thats what the military training is for.
On September 28 2010 12:57 monolith94 wrote: The problem isn't necessarily that psychos join the military. The problem is that the military has for decades developed training routines designed to break down man's resistance to killing. It was discovered in world war 1 that many soldiers simply wouldn't shoot, and military training regimens have been trying to reduce that percentage ever since. Situations like this are the consequence.
agreed. the military was meant to be a killing machine. not policing and protecting. which is why i always felt military solution for a policing problem is the wrong approach.
On September 28 2010 12:58 Therapy wrote: Pretty messed up shit. I don't understand the heavy emphasis on hash smoking, clearly theres enough scientific evidence that smoking hash doesn't make you a violent psychopath. Thats what the military training is for.
funny how this story came up right when California is pushing to legalise marijuana huh?
On September 28 2010 12:58 Therapy wrote: Pretty messed up shit. I don't understand the heavy emphasis on hash smoking, clearly theres enough scientific evidence that smoking hash doesn't make you a violent psychopath. Thats what the military training is for.
funny how this story came up right when California is pushing to legalise marijuana huh?
Yeah I drew that same connection actually. God bless the media =/
On September 28 2010 09:37 Tazza wrote: Just sick, absolutey despicable. Who's the terrorists now?
Whos the terrorists now? Ive read of 15 bombings over the last 2 months in different parts of Europe and the middle east. All claimed by the same organization.
Were all the same person, some good some bad, were all the same person. I dont get why people dont understand this. Give someone a gun and the power to dictate who lives and dies and there are going to be people like this. I dont care if you're from the USA, Afganistan, UK, Iran, France or China were all the same person.
With the sheer amount of both slightly unstable and also perfectly normal people that join the military, a very tiny amount of them will inevitably crack and break under the pressure they're in.
And because the USA provides the vast majority of manpower to the conflict, the statistical chance that Americans would do this is simply that much more likely.
It's sad, it's disappointing, and it's tragic, but it was bound to happen given the number of people involved in the conflict and the extreme stress they are put under.
On another note, US Army infantry branch is the hardest after MI to get into (for officers) . or it was a year or so ago
An important thing to take from this is not to associate the actions of a few rogue soldiers who cracked with the US military as a whole. To do so is arguably a greater wrong than the deaths of these people
Dispicable and Embarrasing, good thing foreigners wont see this a commonality with US invasion and will split the difference between this special case and United States armed forces as a whole.
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
i hope this deters military supporters on TL. If you join the military these are the types of people you will be lumped with. And "undermining the enemy from within!" doesn't work, trying to change the mafia into th peace corps would be easier than changing the US military. Because at least the mafia dont pretend or try to convince others that it is doing good.
These soldiers did bad things. These soldiers were American. America is bad. My country did not do these things. My country is better than America. I am better than America! I will show my distaste for America on a forum.
Yeh its messed up. The thing I am most interested in is Gibbs, for some reason I feel he could be a involved in Afghan opium trade and maybe killing people for that reason. That or he is just crazy. But unless he got ahold of military opiates I would look into Gibbs being involved with organized crime. I mean he already had hashish which isn't from the military obviously and I assume the opiates are from Afghan as well.
On September 28 2010 12:31 EleanorRIgby wrote: why do i only hear US soldiers doing these things
probably because the US media makes a big deal out of EVERYTHING
Well a few reasons include there are more US soldiers serving overseas in combat roles than there are for probably any other country, maybe all of them put together. These things occur all the time by UN peacekeepers from probably all nations (the rate of rapes, for example, is higher for UN peacekeepers than US troops).
Also, the US military is a lot bigger so there are people in it for a lot of reasons, even if the military is not something they are most interested in (whereas, if you are in the French military, for example, it's probably because you are very interested in being in a military, not just getting out of student debt or such).
On September 28 2010 14:06 blitzkrieger wrote: These soldiers did bad things. These soldiers were American. America is bad. My country did not do these things. My country is better than America. I am better than America! I will show my distaste for America on a forum.
Yeh its messed up. The thing I am most interested in is Gibbs, for some reason I feel he could be a involved in Afghan opium trade and maybe killing people for that reason. That or he is just crazy. But unless he got ahold of military opiates I would look into Gibbs being involved with organized crime. I mean he already had hashish which isn't from the military obviously and I assume the opiates are from Afghan as well.
I love Goldblum. Why are you calling this the Goldblum effect? I will admit that your phrasing seemed like something a character of his would say, but only in the timing not in the content.
I've never heard of the Slippery Slope fallacy being called the "Goldblum Effect" and Google concurs with me so who is the "we" that calls this the GoldBloom effect?
On September 28 2010 13:41 Elegy wrote: With the sheer amount of both slightly unstable and also perfectly normal people that join the military, a very tiny amount of them will inevitably crack and break under the pressure they're in.
And because the USA provides the vast majority of manpower to the conflict, the statistical chance that Americans would do this is simply that much more likely.
It's sad, it's disappointing, and it's tragic, but it was bound to happen given the number of people involved in the conflict and the extreme stress they are put under.
im not sure you can shrug it off so easily with that very comfortable assumption. do you have looked into actual numbers of occurance of such cases of misconduct in relation to troop strength there? to me it seems that the number we see is greater than what can be explained merely by that ratio alone.
On another note, US Army infantry branch is the hardest after MI to get into (for officers) . or it was a year or so ago
An important thing to take from this is not to associate the actions of a few rogue soldiers who cracked with the US military as a whole. To do so is arguably a greater wrong than the deaths of these people
first off id like to see the argument that establishes that being cautious and not trusting the ones holding power blindly can be more harmful than unjustified murder and abuse of said power. secondly it really isnt "a few rogue soldiers". there are many of such cases and even cases previously having been endorsed by your government. need i mention torture or other forms of prisoner abuse?
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
Source please?
Also "While 70 percent of contractors and 93 percent of private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghan nationals." So this 70% isn't made up of British and French and whatnot that are supposed to be so much better behaved on average, it's made up of Afghani troops.
By the way, a lot of people seem to have the idea that Afghanistan was peaceful and it was upset by the US invasion. Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war for decades. 10,000 people died in combat in Afghanistan the year before the US arrived. Every year since the US arrived, less than 10,000 people have been killed. Just a couple years later it was down to 4,000. This past year has been the worst year since US troops arrived and it reached 7,000. It will probably be above 10,000 the year after the US leaves, assuming they leave soon.
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
Source please?
Also "While 70 percent of contractors and 93 percent of private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghan nationals." So this 70% isn't made up of British and French and whatnot that are supposed to be so much better behaved on average, it's made up of Afghani troops.
By the way, a lot of people seem to have the idea that Afghanistan was peaceful and it was upset by the US invasion. Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war for decades. 10,000 people died in combat in Afghanistan the year before the US arrived. Every year since the US arrived, less than 10,000 people have been killed. Just a couple years later it was down to 4,000. This past year has been the worst year since US troops arrived and it reached 7,000. It will probably be above 10,000 the year after the US leaves, assuming they leave soon.
thats why i seriously hope that they will not leave and make it a second vietnam. it isnt just any civil war (if that wouldnt be bad enough already) but one side are militant religious fundamentalists oppressing the population with force based on shariah law, hacking, slashing, and pouring acid over the face of people whereever they see fit. the us(military) certainly is very far off from being the best role model you can get, but they are still 100x more bearable than that stoneage mentality.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
They're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff? Really? I'm pretty sure its our presence in the middle east that provokes attacks not the other way around...
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
there is no proof at all that the activities of the united states military in the middle east have improved your national security. in fact it could be argued that they made the threats worse, also by acts described in the op, as it certainly hasnt made you very popular internationally.
that aside war is no excuse for things like that to happen, and there should never be any. you have the duty to respect other peoples rights especially in war because war is something that enables a lot more harm to be done. you are even more obliged to not lose sight of your moral highground if that war is fought in the name of freedom and liberty and the rights of people.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
there is no proof at all that the activities of the united states military int he middle east have improved your national security. in fact it could be argued that they made the threats worse, also by acts described in the op, as it certainly hasnt made you very popular internationally.
that aside war is no excuse for things like that to happen, and there should never be any. you have the duty respect other peoples rights especially in war because war is something than enables a lot more harm to be done. you are even more obliged to not lose sight of your moral highground if that war is fought in the name of freedom and liberty and the rights of people.
On September 28 2010 14:06 blitzkrieger wrote: These soldiers did bad things. These soldiers were American. America is bad. My country did not do these things. My country is better than America. I am better than America! I will show my distaste for America on a forum.
Yeh its messed up. The thing I am most interested in is Gibbs, for some reason I feel he could be a involved in Afghan opium trade and maybe killing people for that reason. That or he is just crazy. But unless he got ahold of military opiates I would look into Gibbs being involved with organized crime. I mean he already had hashish which isn't from the military obviously and I assume the opiates are from Afghan as well.
I love Goldblum. Why are you calling this the Goldblum effect? I will admit that your phrasing seemed like something a character of his would say, but only in the timing not in the content.
I've never heard of the Slippery Slope fallacy being called the "Goldblum Effect" and Google concurs with me so who is the "we" that calls this the GoldBloom effect?
Oh its blum not bloom... its a quote from Jurassic Park that was used in SouthPark. Its not an attack of Goldblum but who is gonna know who Ian Malcolm is...
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them?
By all means, disrespect the ones responsible. But you generalizing that all U.S. troops are scumbags is the same brand of discrimination that these war-criminals use to generalize that all Arabs are terrorists.
Ya u cant break a stereotype while stereotyping another group of people without being a hypocrite (at least to certain people, some people will believe just about anything)
On September 28 2010 09:23 seRapH wrote: wtf. if this shit is real then this is like rape of nanking all over again. bullshit.
3 murders = 100,000-200,00 murders, 20,000-60,000 rapes, etc.
?
I believe your math may be inaccurate.
You didn't account for the "American" variable where everything get blown out of proportion.
I like to think tis b/c we are so much better than everyone else that when we make a small mistake its huge, because Americans are so superior in every way shape and form that any problem is HUGE. So thank you rest of the world, we Americans sure are great and you should hold us to the highest standards, since again, we are the best country on Earth and it should not be tolerated that the great Americans should be held to regular human standards.
On September 28 2010 14:30 enzym wrote: that aside war is no excuse for things like that to happen, and there should never be any. you have the duty to respect other peoples rights especially in war because war is something that enables a lot more harm to be done. you are even more obliged to not lose sight of your moral highground if that war is fought in the name of freedom and liberty and the rights of people.
This is an unrealistic expectation of everyone in a deep combat setting. What they did was terrible, but you simply cannot put yourself in the shoes of someone entrenched in combat and expect to understand their thoughts and feelings, if you've never done it yourself. Furthermore, you can't hold them to the standards of civilian life; they aren't a part of civilian life. Most "handle" it better than these people did, but mostly that just means suppressing it better. It's a position that requires dehumanization and that is a truly awful thing. It also requires a level of stress and sleeplessness most of us can't understand, as well as extreme sensory overload from amphetamines, loud blasts, bright flashes, etc. Some of the airmen dropping napalm over Vietnam say they were mesmerized, almost entranced, by the liquid glow. It's surreal, and at the other end an unfortunate soul is being ended.
The people above them need to set a culture to avoid/punish for this. But calling people bad apples, which is what often happens, accomplishes nothing. Even in the best culture, as long as you're in that setting for a long enough time, something is going to snap.
It's probably time for the military to rethink its deployment cycles? People break when they are exposed to such high-risk situations for a very long time, and it's been well known that 180 days of straight combat means a soldier is combat-ineffective mentally. Also, somebody did say something about the drug trade being possibly involved, does anyone think it's a good reason to coerce the sergeant to actually do this?
Still, this is despicable for them to have actually done this.
I find it quite despicable how so many Americans in this thread are trying to defend the US military in spite of what happened, and to brush aside all criticism at US personnel. Just pathetic really.
On September 28 2010 15:37 5unrise wrote: I find it quite despicable how so many Americans in this thread are trying to defend the US military in spite of what happened, and to brush aside all criticism at US personnel. Just pathetic really.
People are simply making statements such as:
A) this is not an indication that "American on whole is evil" B) it's bad, sure, but it's also a product of media sensationalism C) people don't realize how frequently this happens in war
No one is saying "this is good" or "this shouldn't be fixed."
On September 28 2010 09:23 seRapH wrote: wtf. if this shit is real then this is like rape of nanking all over again. bullshit.
This is bad but please don't compare it to the Rape of Nanjing. It's not even close to the same degree of mass murder... And the Rape of Nanjing was a systemic slaughter of civilians, ordered by the Japanese leadership. Very different from this case, where a few rogue soldiers committed grisly deeds of their own volition. While the outcomes may be similar, the chain of events leading up to those outcomes make a big difference.
P.S. I truly believe the only "solution" to this sort of problem is... ROBOT ARMIES. Flying drone armies, tracked robots on the ground, remote controlled vehicles, all of these culminating in a US military RTS game where Idra will keep all our children safe as champion of the free world. See, that way, all we have to do is keep a few super-nerds from going postal, rather than worrying about hundreds of thousands of dudes crawling around on the ground getting up to who knows what kind of trouble.
I’m socked and im getting tired of a nation that invades countries for no particular reason.. after they invade and finish “smart” bombing families their troops get bored or tired of war and start shooting people for fun..
I don’t care if they are only 3 out of 100.000 if it was your country would say shit happens at war or all American troops are not like that?
Well, the real interesting thing is what the US military court does. Every sentence that is not lifelong imprisonment or death is too low and shows that the government in the US is a hypocritical one. So let's hope those guys get the sentences they deserve.
@the people arguing about the respect for the US army:
While the anger and hate of those hating on most or all US soldiers is on the wrong way (it should be against US government really), it is understandable since you mostly hear the bad stuff those soldiers do. The hate against the government will just come when it decides to let those guys go off again without a serious penalty.
I'm facepalming because I know that I'm somehow going to pay for this as a military member. It's a one team one fight military, regardless of service, I will somehow pay for it. I also know that I pay for the stupid shit that about 1% of the military does.
You claim that this is similar to the people that facepalm over others joining the military without having to. I fail to see the connection of the topic, please elaborate.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
they are 2 completely different situations. the insurgents in iraq were bribed to and concessions were made to give the sunnis more power and autonomy with the iraqi government. the militias are all still active and loyal to their tribal leaders and will rise again within a moments notice if need be, the people who committed some of the worst sectarian crimes such as the badr brigade that wiped out entire sunni communities are still active within the government, the mahdi army and muqtada al sadr have not been disarmed. violence has been quelled for now but the situation is not stable at all as all the right ingredients are there to reignite the conflict. this is in addition to regular bombings that kill scores of civilians quite often.
afghanistan is a whole different ball game. the taliban are based in pakistan and the pakistani army is not capable of disarming them. everytime the pakistani goes to take action against the taliban in their northwest frontier province close to the border with afghanistan, they end up taking losses, killing and displacing scores of civilians while the taliban reappear as soon as they leave. the bases and madrassas (religious schools) that support the taliban are all still active along with training camps. any military action against the taliban would have to involve attacking their logistical and power structure in pakistan and that is a whole new nightmare.
I hate everything having to do with the Stars and Stripes.
Fuck this man, I'm going to China, they are so much better there. They sing about flowers and little bunnies all day long. I can't wait until the Chinese take over the world, then we can all live in peace and harmony.
Oh, sorry. Just jumping on the bandwagon.
Shit like this happens everyday, everywhere throughout the world. Lets stop blaming certain "countries", and start hating on the human race in general.
On September 28 2010 15:37 5unrise wrote: I find it quite despicable how so many Americans in this thread are trying to defend the US military in spite of what happened, and to brush aside all criticism at US personnel. Just pathetic really.
North Korea Best Korea.
See, I can do it too!
OT: I personally see this as a sad example of a lack of discipline in the middle-echelon of the chain of command, something that's been plaguing the US Army for quite some time now. And also at the disgusting spinelesness of those under the SSGT.
Also, don't hate the US military for being forced to be somewhere. Hate the power-mongering ignorants we have running the country.
Seriously though, this is not a US only thing. This is a HUMAN thing.
HUMANS are evil little bastards and smoking opium everyday coming from being a good kid in the states will mess up your brain pretty good.
I mean look through history, Christians have committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity in the name of GOD, but most people dont think of them as evil, even though all religious people are evil and ignorant...but thats another topic.
This one, although sad yes, is everyday occurrences around the globe.
Like Africa, that place is straight fucked, be glad you're not there and a few dumbass soldiers is all you need worry about for now.
On September 29 2010 03:34 N3rV[Green] wrote: Seriously though, this is not a US only thing. This is a HUMAN thing.
HUMANS are evil little bastards and smoking opium everyday coming from being a good kid in the states will mess up your brain pretty good.
I mean look through history, Christians have committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity in the name of GOD, but most people dont think of them as evil, even though all religious people are evil and ignorant...but thats another topic.
This one, although sad yes, is everyday occurrences around the globe.
Like Africa, that place is straight fucked, be glad you're not there and a few dumbass soldiers is all you need worry about for now.
yeah, its a human problem. but in this case these humans are under responsibility and jurisdiction of the united states. people wouldnt hate so much if the people managing this whole thing would be honest, stop letting it happen over and over and over again, stop trying to sweep it under the rug, play it down or even try to justify or endorse it (after the torture thing i have absolutely no idea what kind of vile practices the us military might be employing to achieve some goal and i certainly dont trust them to be nice easily). you will always have some bad sheep, but they are only bad sheep if you do your absolute best to weed them out and restore/realign your image with your original goal. we simply dont see the u.s. doing that, thats why we are very unhappy.
Smoking hash!? What the fuck? As someone who has smoked pot my fair share of times I can say that it has never made me even think about hurting someone. Really, were they seriously implying that smoking weed may have lead to the killings or were they just trying to make it sound even worse?
If they were implying that smoking weed was somehow involved in the killings then I'd only have to ask if the anchors at CNN have ever met a pothead. Least violent people I've ever met.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
This. Some people are stupid and do stupid things when put in groups of others who are also stupid. War is a high stress environment that desensitises people to violence. The combination is an atrocity waiting to happen. The reason we have officers who are intelligent is to try and prevent this kinda shit. Imo this is a failure of the leadership rather than of the soldiers.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
This. Some people are stupid and do stupid things when put in groups of others who are also stupid. War is a high stress environment that desensitises people to violence. The combination is an atrocity waiting to happen. The reason we have officers who are intelligent is to try and prevent this kinda shit. Imo this is a failure of the leadership rather than of the soldiers.
Officers have so little to do with the lower enlisted/junior NCOs under their command. True responsibility of the soldiers falls to three key people: The squad leader (normally E-5 - E-6), the platoon Sergeant (E-6+), and the First Sergeant. Show me a successful officer and I will show you the hard-working NCOs who make him look good.
Most of them joined because they saw no other option and needed what little monetary compensation would be provided, and mostly stayed for the feeling of power; being untouchable wolves among sheep. These did not care for what took place and what did not, and they almost unanimously loathed and despised the common folk for being weak and wretched. At official notice, most would not hesitate to dispatch of every single one, what many among them overtly jested would be the prudent course of action anyway. But they were largely followers, believing to be there due to circumstances outside their control, and thus not overly motivated except in matters pertaining to them keeping or improving their position in the general hierarchy.
Some were sadistic degenerates who joined to fulfill their evil desires without repercussion. For some of them, their service provided sufficient outlet; others went above and beyond the call of duty. These few were the cause of terrible tragedies, where the truly innocent were murdered.
But there were also those who joined not because of need or malice, but purely out of personal conviction. They knew their faith made them better than most in the service, and they held but utter contempt for the corrupt few who abused their authority to satiate their dark hunger with the blood of innocents. They kept the divine purpose of the mission always shining brightly in their hearts, especially when they mercifully brought the torch to yet another pyre of sinners, knowing they are saving their immortal souls from eternal torment in the abyss.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
They're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff? Really? I'm pretty sure its our presence in the middle east that provokes attacks not the other way around...
Who said anything about our presence in the middle east? Way to read.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
there is no proof at all that the activities of the united states military in the middle east have improved your national security. in fact it could be argued that they made the threats worse, also by acts described in the op, as it certainly hasnt made you very popular internationally.
that aside war is no excuse for things like that to happen, and there should never be any. you have the duty to respect other peoples rights especially in war because war is something that enables a lot more harm to be done. you are even more obliged to not lose sight of your moral highground if that war is fought in the name of freedom and liberty and the rights of people.
On September 28 2010 09:30 seppolevne wrote: There was something in the paper about this about a week ago, the soldiers would drop/give/place AK47s on civilians and kill them in "self-defense".
On September 29 2010 05:13 infecteddna wrote: Most of them joined because they saw no other option and needed what little monetary compensation would be provided, and mostly stayed for the feeling of power; being untouchable wolves among sheep. These did not care for what took place and what did not, and they almost unanimously loathed and despised the common folk for being weak and wretched. At official notice, most would not hesitate to dispatch of every single one, what many among them overtly jested would be the prudent course of action anyway. But they were largely followers, believing to be there due to circumstances outside their control, and thus not overly motivated except in matters pertaining to them keeping or improving their position in the general hierarchy.
Some were sadistic degenerates who joined to fulfill their evil desires without repercussion. For some of them, their service provided sufficient outlet; others went above and beyond the call of duty. These few were the cause of terrible tragedies, where the truly innocent were murdered.
But there were also those who joined not because of need or malice, but purely out of personal conviction. They knew their faith made them better than most in the service, and they held but utter contempt for the corrupt few who abused their authority to satiate their dark hunger with the blood of innocents. They kept the divine purpose of the mission always shining brightly in their hearts, especially when they mercifully brought the torch to yet another pyre of sinners, knowing they are saving their immortal souls from eternal torment in the abyss.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
They're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff? Really? I'm pretty sure its our presence in the middle east that provokes attacks not the other way around...
Who said anything about our presence in the middle east? Way to read.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sob3k wrote: Sure, its bad, but is anyone really shocked at this? How could you be?
Over a million US troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in a hostile war situation. Some of them are bound to be crazy or break under the pressure. They are all carrying enough weapons to kill hundreds of people, so when someone does have a meltdown its extremely likely to be serious.
We should do all we can to prevent event like this occurring, but to be honest they are completely inevitable in a situation such as this and shouldn't lower your respect for soldiers of either side any more than some wacko shooting people in a mall lowers your respect for the rest of the public.
Pretty good word Sob3k. This is war people, it ain't all sunshine and butterflies like the news makes it out to be.
Chances are, your life, with all its worries, concerns, stresses, and difficulties, isn't nearly as difficult as the life of a soldier overseas. Until you're put under that kind of pressure, don't be so convinced of your own morality.
It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
there is no proof at all that the activities of the united states military in the middle east have improved your national security. in fact it could be argued that they made the threats worse, also by acts described in the op, as it certainly hasnt made you very popular internationally.
that aside war is no excuse for things like that to happen, and there should never be any. you have the duty to respect other peoples rights especially in war because war is something that enables a lot more harm to be done. you are even more obliged to not lose sight of your moral highground if that war is fought in the name of freedom and liberty and the rights of people.
e: typo
Who claimed that there was? Way to read.
what? iraq=middle east, isarel=supported by usa=middle east, afghanistan=borders to iran=middle east, well, close enough to not throw it out of the window in context of this thread. i dont understand why the wording gives you so much problems, please explain! what else are we talking about in your opinion if not that?
edit: it think i see it now. you mean to say that nobody in this thread said anything about the military presence making your life safer. but:
On September 28 2010 14:24 danl9rm wrote: It was wrong, and they should be convicted, but let's not get all high and mighty stateside where we're not worried every car we pass has a bomb in it. Remember, they're the reason we don't have to worry about that stuff.
it even looks like your very own words to me. additionally to that i also mentioned it because "it makes us safer" is something that is frequently brought up by american politicians and heard on american media.
On September 29 2010 05:13 infecteddna wrote: Most of them joined because they saw no other option and needed what little monetary compensation would be provided, and mostly stayed for the feeling of power; being untouchable wolves among sheep. These did not care for what took place and what did not, and they almost unanimously loathed and despised the common folk for being weak and wretched. At official notice, most would not hesitate to dispatch of every single one, what many among them overtly jested would be the prudent course of action anyway. But they were largely followers, believing to be there due to circumstances outside their control, and thus not overly motivated except in matters pertaining to them keeping or improving their position in the general hierarchy.
Some were sadistic degenerates who joined to fulfill their evil desires without repercussion. For some of them, their service provided sufficient outlet; others went above and beyond the call of duty. These few were the cause of terrible tragedies, where the truly innocent were murdered.
But there were also those who joined not because of need or malice, but purely out of personal conviction. They knew their faith made them better than most in the service, and they held but utter contempt for the corrupt few who abused their authority to satiate their dark hunger with the blood of innocents. They kept the divine purpose of the mission always shining brightly in their hearts, especially when they mercifully brought the torch to yet another pyre of sinners, knowing they are saving their immortal souls from eternal torment in the abyss.
And despite this, because the media only reports this type of shit to the public, and never the story of the typical Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman, the general public only learns that the military does shit like this, abuses prisoners, raping civilians, all other sorts of WAR CRIMES when that's far less than 1%. Hell, you don't even get this kind of report that often, yet we're generalized into the psychotic killer mindframe by everyone.
For those of you in high school, look at your class. Someone will probably enlist for reasons outside of their control. That person might be the next one to pull this kind of shit to put them in the spotlight. Can you imagine anyone in your class doing that? It could happen. Now further imagine that person went off into a shooting rampage and suddenly you're held accountable because "You could have done something". THAT'S what military personnel are going through. We are being held accountable for someone we probably have never met, because we are generalized into these sorts of categories.
Why should I, as an Airman, assume that anyone in my workspace would pull something so inhumane? Last I checked, despite being in the military, I am still a person, and getting put in the same group (therefore, treated), like the maniacs that lose their mind in an ACTUAL COMBAT ZONE, just because I'm military. That's like getting put in the same group as the guy that went on a shooting rampage, because you were in the same class.
Why the fck people are talking about stability in Iraq? Do you like Iraq so much? I lol very hard every time I see an American talking about stability and democracy in Iraq like it is their business and they did it to help people Every living creature even soulles ROCKS know why US is in ME. Stabilty, democracy, WMDs etc, ----- pleaseee.
On September 29 2010 03:34 N3rV[Green] wrote: Seriously though, this is not a US only thing. This is a HUMAN thing.
HUMANS are evil little bastards and smoking opium everyday coming from being a good kid in the states will mess up your brain pretty good.
I mean look through history, Christians have committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity in the name of GOD, but most people dont think of them as evil, even though all religious people are evil and ignorant...but thats another topic.
This one, although sad yes, is everyday occurrences around the globe.
Like Africa, that place is straight fucked, be glad you're not there and a few dumbass soldiers is all you need worry about for now.
Yeah, that's why atheists have killed more people in the past 100 years then any other religion combined, right?
really what's the point to say again all those cliche words "omg how horrible, murderers" etc etc when that have happened before plenty of times.
Since people are not able to choose a single government who will drag to trials by force if it's necessary anyone who is responsible for those crimes against humanity, since there is not a single member of international criminal court who will react even to this late time then any other discussion tends to be hypocritical....
On September 29 2010 03:34 N3rV[Green] wrote: Seriously though, this is not a US only thing. This is a HUMAN thing.
HUMANS are evil little bastards and smoking opium everyday coming from being a good kid in the states will mess up your brain pretty good.
I mean look through history, Christians have committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity in the name of GOD, but most people dont think of them as evil, even though all religious people are evil and ignorant...but thats another topic.
This one, although sad yes, is everyday occurrences around the globe.
Like Africa, that place is straight fucked, be glad you're not there and a few dumbass soldiers is all you need worry about for now.
Yeah, that's why atheists have killed more people in the past 100 years then any other religion combined, right?
did they also do that because of or in the name of atheism? did atheism demand them to do it like religious books do? the answer, at least to the latter, is no, because atheism is nothing other than the rjection of belief in a god. but lets not derail the thread please. this is not about religion.
Yeah, that's why atheists have killed more people in the past 100 years then any other religion combined, right?
## please.
Unless you can somehow equivocate that people starving because of poor management and greed equals genocide. Then Christianity killed half of Western Europe.
On September 29 2010 05:13 infecteddna wrote: Most of them joined because they saw no other option and needed what little monetary compensation would be provided, and mostly stayed for the feeling of power; being untouchable wolves among sheep. These did not care for what took place and what did not, and they almost unanimously loathed and despised the common folk for being weak and wretched. At official notice, most would not hesitate to dispatch of every single one, what many among them overtly jested would be the prudent course of action anyway. But they were largely followers, believing to be there due to circumstances outside their control, and thus not overly motivated except in matters pertaining to them keeping or improving their position in the general hierarchy.
Some were sadistic degenerates who joined to fulfill their evil desires without repercussion. For some of them, their service provided sufficient outlet; others went above and beyond the call of duty. These few were the cause of terrible tragedies, where the truly innocent were murdered.
But there were also those who joined not because of need or malice, but purely out of personal conviction. They knew their faith made them better than most in the service, and they held but utter contempt for the corrupt few who abused their authority to satiate their dark hunger with the blood of innocents. They kept the divine purpose of the mission always shining brightly in their hearts, especially when they mercifully brought the torch to yet another pyre of sinners, knowing they are saving their immortal souls from eternal torment in the abyss.
And despite this, because the media only reports this type of shit to the public, and never the story of the typical Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman, the general public only learns that the military does shit like this, abuses prisoners, raping civilians, all other sorts of WAR CRIMES when that's far less than 1%. Hell, you don't even get this kind of report that often, yet we're generalized into the psychotic killer mindframe by everyone.
For those of you in high school, look at your class. Someone will probably enlist for reasons outside of their control. That person might be the next one to pull this kind of shit to put them in the spotlight. Can you imagine anyone in your class doing that? It could happen. Now further imagine that person went off into a shooting rampage and suddenly you're held accountable because "You could have done something". THAT'S what military personnel are going through. We are being held accountable for someone we probably have never met, because we are generalized into these sorts of categories.
Why should I, as an Airman, assume that anyone in my workspace would pull something so inhumane? Last I checked, despite being in the military, I am still a person, and getting put in the same group (therefore, treated), like the maniacs that lose their mind in an ACTUAL COMBAT ZONE, just because I'm military. That's like getting put in the same group as the guy that went on a shooting rampage, because you were in the same class.
It doesn't matter, because its everyone in the military is part of the same organization (DoD). If just one person fucks up, it makes the entire group look like shit. This is true in all aspects of life, it may not be fair, but that's how it goes, especially so in the military. Granted, American media sensationalizing shit like this just adds fuel to the fire, but the fact remains there are still incidents like this that occur every now and then.
Also, the amount of military hate in this thread is disgusting.
Messed up indeed, and it always will be, but every ISAF-unit have elements like these. It`s not just U.S soldiers, and that fact is important to remember.
Norwegian soldiers are getting shit in the media these days because our Leutenents and Captains dress up in viking gear, making war-cries like "To Walhalla" and calling afghan`s "prey". These actions represent a very primitive mindset regarding what our "peacekeeping" operation is all about. This is not single individuals with a meltdown, its what is referred to within the military as troop morale, looked upon as a necessity, and maybe sometimes a humerous one. Add this with the fact that all soldiers in the western invasion force have to have a mindset that tells them to get excited, and not depressed, when killing an afghan, and you have modern warfare as it is. And as far as i can see, these things will not be changed, due to the two words that are "troop morale". Those that loose troop morale, well, they fall back, drop out, wants to go home, and is at a high risk of performing suicide. Call it decivilization of the mind, or dehumanitation or whatever, but it is a prerequesite for beeing a soldier in a war. And thats because wars are brutal.
So, its not U.S soldiers beeing rabid blind killers, it is the way of war. A war lead by the U.S government, with the approval of the U.S population, because of a terrorist attack, allegedly performed by a guy that lived (at the time), in a totally non-involved country. And still does, 9 years after. Now go ponder on that one.
And on a sidenote, Norway will keep giving the people orchestrating these scemes the Nobel Peace Price, just so you all know that we are a peaceloving and caring people and nation, with oil and weapon sales just as a little thing on the side.
That fact is not justification, nor does it mean that one should not be affected by its happening. It does mean that one should use it as a strong reminder that the nation as a whole should not be entering into these needless wars, which have no discernable net benefit to the country, aside from fueling the nilitary-industrial complex and prison slave-labour system that exists in the states.
Reports of this occurring are relatively frequenyt, and to those giving out to the media for sensationalising it, this is more of a result of the fact that the majority of occurances of a lest blatant scale are suppressed as a whole in the media.
These soldiers should be treated for and helped, as they have most probably beeen shaped into the mindframe that would facilitate this. They don't need to be sent to prision for life, or sentenced to death, this wont solve anything, and this wont prevent occurances such as this from happening in the future.
Then thats what you should do with Al-Qaida also no? After all how exactly are these terrorists different from those terrorists?
But I do agree that the death penalty for them won't solve anything, just like it doesn't solve anything else. But life in prison would be quite justified for what are most certainly war crimes.
This is the reason why the US won't sign the ICC treaty btw. Not surprising, the US military has a long history of war crimes that are under prosecuted and under punished.
In no way can I, as a US soldier myself who deployed into a combat theater, condone what these soldiers did as justifiable or excusable. What they did truly gives the majority of the soldiery within the entirety of the US Armed Forces a bad name. This will not be to defend their actions in any way, but to give an insight as to the reasons of why it has a heightened chance of happening on a battle-weary group of individuals whose average deployment rates in a high stress environment are 18 months.
It stems back to the initial training of a recruit/soldier(Note: Nothing against Navy and USAF personnel, but there is less of an "infantry fighting force" background conditioned in the initial training). A reinventing of one's self into a "warrior" starts with the psychological breakdown brought from the constant harass and stress induced on these individuals to become team players that support each other through any obstacle, including sleep deprivation, inducing stress to the constant waking environment, and getting in trouble when one person messes up regardless of what the whole did.
Next is the conditioning of the body to do certain tasks. Bayonet training is a perfect example of this type of conditioning. To stab a human-shaped target while screaming "kill, kill, kill" as you twist the rifle and bayonet is the beginning of the attempt to desensitize a person to violence. Things like this is what is needed on a battlefield: A dehumanization of one's enemy to better condition the soldier/recruit's mind to be able to act rather than hesitate.
These reasons above(which, as a matter of fact, can be applied to any formalized military in the world) is what makes the current situation of overseas policing actions tough to the armed forces. You have a group of individuals who were taught collectively to work as one mind, one fight, and who are a fighting force used to spearhead and destroy their enemies working as international police officers.
Daily, when "rolling outside the wire" on missions, I would look out at the civilian populace and thought to myself "Who's gonna try and blow me up today?". That type of stresser reinforces a dehumanization of the "enemy" so that someone may act and react, not hesitate.
Going back completely to the original topic, the US Armed Forces spans approximately 1% to 2% of the total US population. That may not seem like a lot to mathematically disinclined, but that truly is a substantial number. Breakdown of the US population as a whole such as mentally unstable, suicidal, spousal abuse/domestic violence, etc., is highly disproportionate because now the statistics represent fewer in number. This means that there is a high probability that there will be a few more than normal "bad apples" within the organization.
However, it is up to the individual themselves whether they act on their thoughts. It is the duty of every soldier to not just blindly follow every order(at least in the US. I am unable to speak for the rest of the world.), but to question any order that is morally corrupt, unlawful, or has the potential to cause unnecessary bodily harm or death. Thus, those US soldiers depicted in the article, in my own opinion, should be sentenced to death by firing squad for committing premeditated murder to noncombatants for being unable to follow that one basic rule that is the fundamental of leadership and soldiery alike. It is, unfortunately, easy to see how they could be coerced into such an act just off the fact that the training of every soldier in the world, no matter the nation or time period, breaks down the barrier between humane actions and complete apathy to a situation. In no way do these soldiers represent the US Armed Forces as a whole, but what they did has happened many times in the past, and will continue to be performed by a few in all countries' military organizations no matter how hard they try to root it out.
War makes the mind go mad. Shame on these people, but the stress and brutality that these guys go through everyday will break them eventually. I'm not justifying their actions though, these guys are fucking scum
Then thats what you should do with Al-Qaida also no? After all how exactly are these terrorists different from those terrorists?
But I do agree that the death penalty for them won't solve anything, just like it doesn't solve anything else. But life in prison would be quite justified for what are most certainly war crimes.
This is the reason why the US won't sign the ICC treaty btw. Not surprising, the US military has a long history of war crimes that are under prosecuted and under punished.
Yeah, in general, I agree. They're different in many ways, but ultimately the same - people conditioned to kill for a force they genuinely believe to be good. In some cases, conditioning people like this causes them to completely dehumanize people linked to the enemy, resulting in actions such as this.
And yes, the US military does have a long history of war crimes that are under prosecuted and under punished. Other states' militaries do also, but those states are less likely to be giant military-industrial complexes.
On September 29 2010 11:14 mp_spc4 wrote: In no way can I, as a US soldier myself who deployed into a combat theater, condone what these soldiers did as justifiable or excusable. What they did truly gives the majority of the soldiery within the entirety of the US Armed Forces a bad name. This will not be to defend their actions in any way, but to give an insight as to the reasons of why it has a heightened chance of happening on a battle-weary group of individuals whose average deployment rates in a high stress environment are 18 months.
It stems back to the initial training of a recruit/soldier(Note: Nothing against Navy and USAF personnel, but there is less of an "infantry fighting force" background conditioned in the initial training). A reinventing of one's self into a "warrior" starts with the psychological breakdown brought from the constant harass and stress induced on these individuals to become team players that support each other through any obstacle, including sleep deprivation, inducing stress to the constant waking environment, and getting in trouble when one person messes up regardless of what the whole did.
Next is the conditioning of the body to do certain tasks. Bayonet training is a perfect example of this type of conditioning. To stab a human-shaped target while screaming "kill, kill, kill" as you twist the rifle and bayonet is the beginning of the attempt to desensitize a person to violence. Things like this is what is needed on a battlefield: A dehumanization of one's enemy to better condition the soldier/recruit's mind to be able to act rather than hesitate.
These reasons above(which, as a matter of fact, can be applied to any formalized military in the world) is what makes the current situation of overseas policing actions tough to the armed forces. You have a group of individuals who were taught collectively to work as one mind, one fight, and who are a fighting force used to spearhead and destroy their enemies working as international police officers.
Daily, when "rolling outside the wire" on missions, I would look out at the civilian populace and thought to myself "Who's gonna try and blow me up today?". That type of stresser reinforces a dehumanization of the "enemy" so that someone may act and react, not hesitate.
Going back completely to the original topic, the US Armed Forces spans approximately 1% to 2% of the total US population. That may not seem like a lot to mathematically disinclined, but that truly is a substantial number. Breakdown of the US population as a whole such as mentally unstable, suicidal, spousal abuse/domestic violence, etc., is highly disproportionate because now the statistics represent fewer in number. This means that there is a high probability that there will be a few more than normal "bad apples" within the organization.
However, it is up to the individual themselves whether they act on their thoughts. It is the duty of every soldier to not just blindly follow every order(at least in the US. I am unable to speak for the rest of the world.), but to question any order that is morally corrupt, unlawful, or has the potential to cause unnecessary bodily harm or death. Thus, those US soldiers depicted in the article, in my own opinion, should be sentenced to death by firing squad for committing premeditated murder to noncombatants for being unable to follow that one basic rule that is the fundamental of leadership and soldiery alike. It is, unfortunately, easy to see how they could be coerced into such an act just off the fact that the training of every soldier in the world, no matter the nation or time period, breaks down the barrier between humane actions and complete apathy to a situation. In no way do these soldiers represent the US Armed Forces as a whole, but what they did has happened many times in the past, and will continue to be performed by a few in all countries' military organizations no matter how hard they try to root it out.
thanks for the level-headed, insightful response. if only this were common sense to most people...
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
This. Some people are stupid and do stupid things when put in groups of others who are also stupid. War is a high stress environment that desensitises people to violence. The combination is an atrocity waiting to happen. The reason we have officers who are intelligent is to try and prevent this kinda shit. Imo this is a failure of the leadership rather than of the soldiers.
Officers have so little to do with the lower enlisted/junior NCOs under their command. True responsibility of the soldiers falls to three key people: The squad leader (normally E-5 - E-6), the platoon Sergeant (E-6+), and the First Sergeant. Show me a successful officer and I will show you the hard-working NCOs who make him look good.
If that's your experience then I believe it's a difference between the US and UK armed forces. My experience is limited to the British, I assumed they were the same.
On September 29 2010 08:48 RoyW wrote: This happens frequently in war.
That fact is not justification, nor does it mean that one should not be affected by its happening. It does mean that one should use it as a strong reminder that the nation as a whole should not be entering into these needless wars, which have no discernable net benefit to the country, aside from fueling the nilitary-industrial complex and prison slave-labour system that exists in the states.
Reports of this occurring are relatively frequenyt, and to those giving out to the media for sensationalising it, this is more of a result of the fact that the majority of occurances of a lest blatant scale are suppressed as a whole in the media.
These soldiers should be treated for and helped, as they have most probably beeen shaped into the mindframe that would facilitate this. They don't need to be sent to prision for life, or sentenced to death, this wont solve anything, and this wont prevent occurances such as this from happening in the future.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
On September 29 2010 14:11 RoyW wrote: Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Except that they also proceeded to subsequently transfer authority of the ISAF over to NATO, and its explicit goal was to maintain 'security.'
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
"some Americans" "looks down their noses at them" That pretty much explains it. A) Nonsensical generalizations "oh all of Americans are therefore terrible" or B) "looks down their noses" - remind me when the act of looking down one's nose at someone, something, or in any context serves any purpose, goal, or benefit? That's just egotistical-masturbation, meaningless self-inflation. It's not intelligent discussion of root problems, nor is it contemplation of potential solutions.
Llama, pseudo-intellectual dictionary wankery is not a method of rebutting argument that holds any water whatsoever. While RoyW could be construed as unfair in claiming that Americans have no right to feel persecuted, as I suppose they can be in some ways (nobody likes to be attacked for such things), he raises excellent points in that the Bush Administration dehumanised their enemies immediately upon initiation of the War on Terror, and that attitude now permeates the American public. He expresses his argument succinctly, and you would do well to actually address his issues instead of playing scrabble.
On September 29 2010 14:52 DannyJ wrote: the last 2 posters need to keep their paragraphs to 8th grade reading levels so i can follow along better. Thanks.
Llama: @ RoyW: Stop acting as if you're better than Americans, this is the problem and you're not making any decent points.
Myself: @Llama: Stop using big words as a substitute for an actual argument, RoyW had a good point.
EDIT: So looking at my own paraphrase, neither of us said much of use.
On September 29 2010 14:45 NightRapier wrote: Llama, pseudo-intellectual dictionary wankery is not a method of rebutting argument that holds any water whatsoever. While RoyW could be construed as unfair in claiming that Americans have no right to feel persecuted, as I suppose they can be in some ways (nobody likes to be attacked for such things), he raises excellent points in that the Bush Administration dehumanised their enemies immediately upon initiation of the War on Terror, and that attitude now permeates the American public. He expresses his argument succinctly, and you would do well to actually address his issues instead of playing scrabble.
How is there no rebuttal?
I'll break it down for you. His argument: A) the administration's actions were bad
therefore
B) we get to look down on Americans.
I answered it pretty specifically by pointing out that nowhere does he actually prove the link between an administration's actions and every single American, and how the B) point was simply nonsense.
You claim that he showed how the Bush Administration's "attitude now permeates the American public." Not at all.
"It is, unfortunately, symbolic of the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay"
Where do you see the magical proof that Bush's ideas infested all of America? If anything, the fact that it has to be identified as Bush indicates that the fact that we have a new president Obama shows the opposite, the public's general rejection of that.
And how am I playing "pseudo-intellectual dictionary" games anyhow? What word was so offensive. "Egotistical"? Um, I type out the word 'ego' fully...I'm pretty sure a lot of people here are familiar with the word ego. Masturbation? Um, again, should be pretty self-explanatory.
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
I wasn't aware that the war in afghanistan ('Operation Enduring Freedom' haha) was a U.N. backed war. In fact The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.
The UNSC did subsequently authorise the ISAF subsequently 'to prevent genocide', but it wasn't only genocide by Afghans they were concerned about when they authorised this.
Back to the treatment of random civilians. It is, unfortunately, symbolicof the adminstration's attitude from the top-down. From the initial labeling of Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law, to the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay, it baffles me how some Americans can feel persecuted when the rest of the first-world looks down their noses at them.
well technically it should be a UN backed war but for the most part, it isn't. the bulk of the forces are from america with a very small amount for troops from other countries(like canda for example sent around 100 troops i think, not so sure). basically no country really wants to go to war unless its in the countries' interest to do so.
Hua hua. Oh god, I feel like such a douche sometimes. Cheers. :D
And you know, I skimmed back through the entire thread (admittedly, did not do that the first time) and saw a lot of rational "Man -THOSE GUYS- suck" posts. Not common on the net in my experience.
So I will retract some of my exasperated tone from the original post I made. I guess I jumped the gun a bit.
On September 29 2010 15:18 NightRapier wrote: @Llama: Righto, that's more like it:
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
@2: Your entire point is phrased in terms of "precedence." This is a logical fallacy of slippery slope. Obama has also taken certain actions, for instance wanting at one point to have a legal trial for detainees in New York (but of course the controversy overwhelmed that). While of course it is not magically cleaned, it is not a "dooming precedent" that you're portraying it to be.
@3: The far right conservatives getting behind people like Palin have nothing to do with Bush attitudes of discussion in this topic. They do so because of domestic affairs like the economy.
@4: Once again, what "phrasing"? If anything, there was that one line to spice things up with a more visual description, and its point was pretty clear, as my last post looked at (ie looking at ego and what not).
1- Well, it became more evident under Bush. I never said they invented it, because of cause the true age of terrorist acts was decades ago before we had dedicated counter-terrorist units and legislation.
2- Obama is nothing but a good thing and I believe he has been the best move for your country, which ties into...
3- The same people that dehumanised 'terrorists', supported the war in Iraq, opposed stem cell research, support gun ownership, encourage bigotry and do everything in their power to block or even remove the moderating power of secularism are the same people that supported Bush, and are now trying to get another insane Republican into office.
4- This point isn't worth either of our time, no matter which one of us right.
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
It's war, getting brain washed in a boot camp, seeing your friends get ripped to shreds by a mine right in front of you, it fucks your brain up. Not ev'rybody is mentaly strong to stand up to that. War fucks your moral sence, you're forced to think, your enemy isn't a human being. I can't blame any of these guys, they're just kids.
If you want to talk about war, how about learning the history of USA and terrorism, we can get into a discussion how fucked up and selfrighteouss USA politics are and how the goverment brought all of this up on it's own people.
To the OP, i love your "Soldiers killed Afgans for sport", how about "Soldiers killed Afgans" how's that not fucked up and worth reporting?
On September 29 2010 15:18 NightRapier wrote: @Llama: Righto, that's more like it:
1- The point is that America's enemies immediately had the 'terrorist' label applied to them, so much an obsession with the threat of 'terrorism' manifested and the word 'terrorist' could be applied to everything from the Taliban operatives in Afghanistan to those with unpopular political ideas.
2- Guantanamo Bay was always a disturbing precedent in that it was a serious step towards a police state, which America was beginning to look very much like. It still exists. Not only this, but the attitude towards the US of the liberties it supposedly upholds so strongly is evident in the treatment of its political prisoners. Waterboarding may not be used anymore (doubtful), but to have ever claimed that it was not torture was a terrible precedent.
3- In regards to Obama being voted in, of course Bush was such a despicably criminal president that the support base that got him elected, the crazies of the Christian Right, had to distance themselves from him. However, they are behind people like Palin and O'Donnel now, and it is no guarantee that Obama will get a second term.
4- Simply the way you phrased your response was designed to confuse, and that is equivalent to intellectual bullying.
On September 29 2010 15:16 unavailable wrote: So first post...
I'm an Infantryman in the U.S. Army with the 25th ID. Figured I should throw that in as a nice soft opener.
I will keep this brief because I, of course, know a lot of soldiers and really do not want to get into a grand dialectic about the politics of wars. All war is terrible, it is never really justified and the world proves itself to be a shitty place most of the time. That is all I have to say about that.
We have been hearing a lot about these guys in the past weeks, they are unfortunate characters in what is an unavoidably larger picture. They do not represent most of the Army, in fact they do not represent even a small fraction of the Army. They are murderers like any other thugs on the street. They are the kinds of people we want the world to be safe from.
Believe it or not, and I am sure a loud few wont, most guys here, even us stone cold killer Infantry types, just want to make the world and their lives better, they are good men fighting for what they believe is right in the only way they know how. The anarchist politick of the internet does not hold water with most of us, so we fight for what we can in the real world.
I will however outline briefly the general "war is hell" sentiment. It is. Men, no matter their struggle, have a capacity for unparalleled irrational hatred when placed under the right stresses. The prolific use of the term "Hadji" to describe anyone of Arab descent is an unfortunate symptom which highlights this that I see around me every day.
But in the end I hear great deal more stories from soldiers about giving candy to children and making entire districts at least a bit safer from the general gangland-style chaos that has long been the norm in that part of the world than I do of raping women and murdering civilians.
I hope this adds something to the conversation...
Your moderating influence is welcome, and of course (at least I hope) that most people understand that criminals such as the men mentioned in the OP are in the minority. Also, INFANTRY HURRRR YEAH MANLY MEN
i really really wanted to avoid directly throwing dirt at people and tried to restrain myself from the following post for as much as i could. but i will try to make you see why some people, myself included, have a hard time believing that most american soldiers are good people and that what we are talking about here are just the minority bad apples.
these are examples i remembered off the top of my head. to that comes abu ghraib (government endorsed), the baghdad airstrike case that was only revealed through wikileads, the case listed in the OP.
most of us do understand that these cases are not representative of the whole of the united states military. but i am usually not specifically looking for ways to throw shit at people, especially at people fighting the taliban. neither heroin nor fundamentalist religion is something that makes the world better in my opinion. and while the reasons for and the way in which afghanistan and iraq were entered and the strategy employed and the way the military conducts itself are questionable, i do firmly believe that more good comes from staying in afghanistan than leaving and letting the taliban come back to fill the resulting power vacuum. i do not look for cases like this and yet there are so many of them that they fly me in the face so easily. additionally to that you frequently see the people responsible for the whole thing trying their best to keep information about such cases away from the public and even threatening wikileaks. so how rare can these cases possibly be is a question that rightfully sits behind the majority of negative reactions you can see.
i said it earlier: bad apples are only bad apples if you do your best to weed them out (which is not what we see), and if there is few enough of them (which we are not convinced of at all at this point and rightfully so).
May I ask what the big discussion is about here? It's a horrible thing and I'm sure everyone agrees on it, but honestly there are so many murders every year, what makes this case special? Wiki tells me there are 520'000 estimated in the year 2000. five hundred twenty thousand. let that sink in for a moment. And we devote a thread to *gasp* violence in a war.
This has nothing to do with america, nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with the military. It simply happens. And nothing will change that.
I think we should be discussin gthe 50'000 murders anually in brazil, or that it's the leading cause of death for young africans. But that wouldn't make headlines like a nice military scandal now would it
On September 29 2010 08:48 RoyW wrote: This happens frequently in war.
That fact is not justification, nor does it mean that one should not be affected by its happening. It does mean that one should use it as a strong reminder that the nation as a whole should not be entering into these needless wars, which have no discernable net benefit to the country, aside from fueling the nilitary-industrial complex and prison slave-labour system that exists in the states.
Reports of this occurring are relatively frequenyt, and to those giving out to the media for sensationalising it, this is more of a result of the fact that the majority of occurances of a lest blatant scale are suppressed as a whole in the media.
These soldiers should be treated for and helped, as they have most probably beeen shaped into the mindframe that would facilitate this. They don't need to be sent to prision for life, or sentenced to death, this wont solve anything, and this wont prevent occurances such as this from happening in the future.
the war is hardly needless, but the reason that we entered the war in the first place is idiotic. The countries in the UN are supposed to prevent genocide. when saddam came to power, there was a genocide in iraq, but we didn't intervene until the gas prices started going up. when afghanistan was invaded by russia, the US supplied the taliban with weapons to prevent the spread of communism. the russians killed plently of afghan, but the taliban was even worse(genocide of the hazara ethnic group) and they also end up attacking US embassies.
Actually, it's completely fucking needless. Thanks for giving reasons why it is needed.
The US did much more than just support Wepaons to the Taliban when the Russians were there...
Actually the US fucked up the whole middle east... Well otherwise the Russians would probably have done it, but the shithole it is now is basically selfmade by the USA/West/Russia and their conflicts...
On September 29 2010 23:41 Velr wrote: The US did much more than just support Wepaons to the Taliban when the Russians were there...
Actually the US fucked up the whole middle east... Well otherwise the Russians would probably have done it, but the shithole it is now is basically selfmade by the USA/West/Russia and their conflicts...
I'm pretty sure the Middle east was in a very delicate position before russia and the US intervened.
I say this because I've experienced it: It's very easy to critique large countries like the US and Russian when you're from a small country like Switzerland, who believes that if we just talk with each other enough we can all get along, and has no real political strength.
Though i wonder how Switzerland would act if it had the power to, given that it had invasion plans to attack Gadaffi, and proved itself rather unaccepting of muslims by baning minarets
Well this shouldn't be a new 'news' for anyone of us. It was kinda obvious that there is people just for the sake of killing (not only the targets) and doing shit like this. Its sad but what you can do.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
Great. So the implied message is that wars like this one keep you safe and wealthy. How delightfully insightful. I would say that ranking the lives of strangers based on whether they're part of your imaginary club makes you a real dick indeed. Many people are dicks, probably most of them. I do find it dishonest to put friends and family in the same category as countrymen, even if you really feel that way. There's a real and extremely crucial difference between people you've a personal connection to and ones you don't.
its not like our opinions will ever change things. the US goes to war for personal interest and not any of our opinions will stop this.
this government is set in the status quo and having almost basically half the population buying into the lie that this country is a democratic state, they've succeeded.
we can keep arguing about how bad it is, but i'm gonna have to agree with the poster about war is ugly. there is NO clean war in the history of man. just compartmentalize the information away because getting riled up over this has no effect on the situation.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
On September 28 2010 13:29 jacen wrote: Maybe because not enough of them are involved? The us has the most soldiers deployed there no?
No. Nearly 70% of the currently employed soldiers are private contractors. Most of the soldiers are not fighting for the illusion of bringing democracy but for their paychecks.
Source please?
Also "While 70 percent of contractors and 93 percent of private security contractors in Afghanistan are Afghan nationals." So this 70% isn't made up of British and French and whatnot that are supposed to be so much better behaved on average, it's made up of Afghani troops.
By the way, a lot of people seem to have the idea that Afghanistan was peaceful and it was upset by the US invasion. Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war for decades. 10,000 people died in combat in Afghanistan the year before the US arrived. Every year since the US arrived, less than 10,000 people have been killed. Just a couple years later it was down to 4,000. This past year has been the worst year since US troops arrived and it reached 7,000. It will probably be above 10,000 the year after the US leaves, assuming they leave soon.
thats why i seriously hope that they will not leave and make it a second vietnam. it isnt just any civil war (if that wouldnt be bad enough already) but one side are militant religious fundamentalists oppressing the population with force based on shariah law, hacking, slashing, and pouring acid over the face of people whereever they see fit. the us(military) certainly is very far off from being the best role model you can get, but they are still 100x more bearable than that stoneage mentality.
Unless you are going to be the next one who is being raped with battery acid in front of your family.
That, I take for granted sir.
On September 28 2010 11:05 Jonoman92 wrote: There are evil murderers amongst us that make up a minute amount of every population. Unfortunately a few of them join the US military.
"Military personnel are supposed to be used as pawns in foreign policy." H. Kissinger
And having military 'bring democracy' is asinine beyond everything.
According to your constitution (which is the best one there is.) you shouldn't even be overseas.
Your supposed to protect your lands between your borders, sir.
Your congress hasn't approved any foreign action/vengeance/ (aka WAR) since WW II.
Why is that? Might as well research Golf of Tonkin and other staged events and be aware that
executive branch is pretty much overarching for a long time, sir.
On September 28 2010 09:54 Fa1nT wrote: What I am saying is that every nation likes pointing fingers at US troops, because they are supposed to be perfect or something?
They are supposed to stay at home and keep suppressing their own people, kkthx
also, if you go to the military, you know you'll be trained for killing people, so is like premeditated murder... i mean you have to be fucked up to going into in the first place.
Sheep get flashbanged, puppies get thrown, this one you gotta watch.
k throwing that puppy was crossing the line
Sadly though it's not surprising at all to hear people are doing dumb shit in a war with no purpose or enemy. I'm even pretty sure I'd throw a fucking puppy and record it if i was in a desert with my friends for 2 years with nothing to do.
also I think these kind of heinous acts of boredom have always been around during war. The only reason you finally get to see it is cus we invented some cool shit recently called cameras and youtube.
On September 28 2010 09:59 RiB wrote: Things to account for when thinking about this story:
1) War's effects on the human psyche (isolation, fear of death, killing another human being) 2) The power of "chain of command" 3) Tangible objectives of war
So how's that spread of democracy going?
It's going fine, thank you. We've achieved stability in Iraq and we think we can do the same in Afghanistan.
Wait, what? Which news channel are you watching? Oh, I think I know...
On September 30 2010 05:20 eiswand wrote: Wow. You US guys can be so proud. You bring peace and democracy to the world.
...........
How about you try posting something useful instead of flamebaiting.
I have a few thoughts on the videos I have just watched. It is a reality that the US military has a system that does not promote a great deal of individual thought and initiative on the part of private soldiers, as opposed to the way, for example, Australian soldiers are trained to think as inidividuals within the unit. This has its advantages, but it does mean that US soldiers can do some very insensitive things (I'm not referring to murder here) that could be avoided if they just thought about it a bit more. I suspect something along the lines of more detailed media, information warfare, 'hearts and minds' training that gave soldiers a clearer understanding of the potential impact of stupid actions, particularly those caught on film, would help them out here.
I don't know if the US Army already has these things in place, or if it has taken action since these videos were filmed, if perhaps a US soldier who might browse here could enlighten me.
Sheep get flashbanged, puppies get thrown, this one you gotta watch.
That's one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen.
We've all read the books and heard the stories, war fucks with a person. Seeing how utterly dehumanized people can be (and how they can dehumanize others) is something entirely different.
I had a friend in high school who couldn't wait to enlist. As long as I can remember, even as a kid, he wanted to be in the army. I've no idea why, nobody in his family was in the military; but he dreamed about it like people dream about going into space, flying planes, etc. It was his passion, I guess.
After high school he enlisted. Eventually he was sent overseas.
He came back traumatized. He's never been the same since. He never saw combat - he just saw the leftovers, and the same type of shit depicted in that video. He can't hold down a job, he's socially inept, and he can't stop thinking about all the "awful shit" that he saw people do. He used to be a totally, fun, normal, balanced guy.
Fucking retarded.
The question for me is:
Do people get fucked up by war and/or the army; or does the army tend to draw on some small demographic of people who might be more apt to be desensitized in such a way? Perhaps people are just people regardless - and some of them are going to be sick fucks no matter where they are or what they're doing; the army just gives them guns.
I've no idea; but that's fucked up shit.
Aside from the puppy and the sheep - I can't believe some fucking adult would park in front of a destitute kid with disabilities and just poke fun at him. How unbelievably sad.
I've met a number of people who have been deployed overseas on combat operations and while you can usually tell the difference between soldiers who have deployed and those who have not, generally they don't come back as wrecks though some of course do. Different experiences effect different people in different ways, and I've met people who are clearly disturbed by the thought that they have killed people and others who really aren't concerned about it but are far from psychopaths.
It is just my personal theory that the issue lies in how they are trained, or how they are not trained, and I imagine the demographic that the US Army tends to appeal to is an issue as well. Again, I would like to hear from a US soldier on the issue myself.
As a side note, I am not saying US soldiers are stupid, but some of them certainly are and they seem to be the people responsible for these sorts of actions.
It just so happens the USA's gets the most attention mainly because we send our dumbest and most unproductive abroad to fight our wars. There are messed up people in every society. Of course not all military personnel are unintelligent, but the majority are beyond what you would call educated. I have personal friends who fought in Iraq and for the most part they are all really lost as to what is going on in their life. But then again, they haven't had the opportunities that I have had. I get to go to college, they don't. So you know, whatever. Evil stuff is going to happen on both sides of any war. So just grow up and learn to accept the truth about war so that you can help prevent it in the future. This war isn't going to end anytime soon for western society, so if you want to dislike the USA , then try to think about what your country would be like without protection that you take for granted.
For example: Can you possibly imagine what the recent China-Japan dispute could have been like if the USA wasn't involved in that region of the world? Notice you don't see Japan whining about the island base on Okinawa after that. China and Japan have a deep-seeded secrete hatred for each other because of the horrible things that happened between them in WWII. Who knows what kind of things they would be trying to do to each other if the USA wasn't standing there with a massive army knocking on china's door. No one can really know, but do you really want to know? Don't take the country that protects you for granted. I have lived in Japan and I have known many internationals from my university, so I know how good I have it.
I had to register to add that not all americans think that imperialism is in anyway justified. I acknowledge that both wars were unnecessary and horrible, as is all war. But america is still the same country that hunted the native americans and enslaved the africans. Not that other countries are better, but currently america is taking charge.
If you guys want to see what life is like for an Iraqi after the invasion watch the movie heavy metal in baghdad http://www.heavymetalinbaghdad.com/ E: its in netflix on demand.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Contrary to media depictions, the US military is not raping babies and turning the country into a complete clusterfuck. I've seen bad shit come out of this but i've also seen a lot of genuine goodness moving forward as well.
Soldiers are only human. You will see some of the darker aspects of human nature come out in times of war but you will also see shining examples of loyalty and altruism.
On September 30 2010 05:20 eiswand wrote: Wow. You US guys can be so proud. You bring peace and democracy to the world.
...........
How about you try posting something useful instead of flamebaiting.
I have a few thoughts on the videos I have just watched. It is a reality that the US military has a system that does not promote a great deal of individual thought and initiative on the part of private soldiers, as opposed to the way, for example, Australian soldiers are trained to think as inidividuals within the unit. This has its advantages, but it does mean that US soldiers can do some very insensitive things (I'm not referring to murder here) that could be avoided if they just thought about it a bit more. I suspect something along the lines of more detailed media, information warfare, 'hearts and minds' training that gave soldiers a clearer understanding of the potential impact of stupid actions, particularly those caught on film, would help them out here.
I don't know if the US Army already has these things in place, or if it has taken action since these videos were filmed, if perhaps a US soldier who might browse here could enlighten me.
We do. Unthinking killing drone image of the US Military is a myth (except for the Corps, har har.) As an Infantry guy I am constantly encouraged to think for myself and judge a situation. This isn't Viet Nam, there are ROE and the cost of violating them is hefty for us. It actually reached the point late in Iraq where contracted civilian investigators would come out to the scene of a firefight and do their best to ensure that there was no foul play.
That being said, it is combat and combat is a shitty place. Not because of a lack of thought but because of lack of information and I don't mean in an Military Intelligence sense of the term.
Let me frame it like this: You have been in a city full of people who either love, hate or feel indifferent to you. The ones who love you and who are indifferent tend not to say a thing to you. The ones who hate you try to kill you, blow you up, scam you lie to you they will kill their own civilians who they are trying to liberate from our evil western clutches to get to you... Each of these three groups look the same, all of them dress the same and speak the same language, they go to the same religious centers they mingle together all the time. Some of the worst ones fight along your side for a time. So you as an individual, ANY individual no matter training or nationality, are prone to become a bit paranoid. Maybe your friend got blown up last week because some twelve year old boy tossed an RKG into his Hummvee after receiving some of the humanitarian rations that are given out (small scale "hearts and minds" stuff) and now some mob of kids are running up to you begging for candy and food and money while a group of adults stand across the street giving you dirty looks. What do you do? What if one of them seems to be throwing something?
Even less horrific a scene than that is some of the standard training we do get. We are mean, we need to be. Australians are too. If you are invading a house to snatch up a guy who is coordinating mortar attacks on your FOB you are going to kick over tables, raid closets, knock people to the floor, yell and scream and be vicious. That sort of presence actually keeps an already bad situation from becoming a blood bath. And you know what. Sometimes you get the wrong house. Unfortunate.
That sort of stuff happens and 99% of the time the right call is made. People get skittish, even professional tough guys. It is not a lack or training or sensitivity, it is the brutal and sad reality of combat. No one wants it.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
@ JamesJohansen, if you could look back to my last couple of posts on the previous page and throw in your 2 cents on what I said, I was looking for the opinion of a US soldier. That's if you can find the post amidst the mangroves that infest this swamp of trolls :3
@ unavailable: Sorry, I only just saw your post. I certainly agree that the judgement calls made by soldiers are generally correct, because such decisions are made daily but don't make it onto the news precisely because nothing untoward occured as a result of the decisions of soldiers on the ground. Of course not always the correct decision is made, but I understand that that is an unfortunate reality of war as well. There is currently a case going on in Australia where the decision has been made to charge in a military court several reservist Commandos who inadvertantly killed several human shields in contact with an insurgent; I personally think they made the right decision, but the result was ugly nonetheless.
I am only wondering if you think the relatively common incidence of US soldiers committing atrocities compared to nations such as Australia and Britain is simply probability at work (more soldiers=more potential for things to go wrong no matter the country), a problem with US recruiting standards, a training deficiency or anything else.
The murdering is despicable, but how do they act like smoking hashish is a big deal? I would be surprised if they DIDNT smoke hashish while in Afghanistan. These are people who kill for a living, obviously they need a way to escape from the terrible world that surrounds that. And besides, the US military has a long history of giving drugs to soldier including amphetamines to pilots as recently as this exact same war.
@JamesJohansen, if you are going to call someone stupid, the least you could do is learn how to spell you're.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
On September 30 2010 15:47 NightRapier wrote: @ JamesJohansen, if you could look back to my last couple of posts on the previous page and throw in your 2 cents on what I said, I was looking for the opinion of a US soldier. That's if you can find the post amidst the mangroves that infest this swamp of trolls :3
@ unavailable: Sorry, I only just saw your post. I certainly agree that the judgement calls made by soldiers are generally correct, because such decisions are made daily but don't make it onto the news precisely because nothing untoward occured as a result of the decisions of soldiers on the ground. Of course not always the correct decision is made, but I understand that that is an unfortunate reality of war as well. There is currently a case going on in Australia where the decision has been made to charge in a military court several reservist Commandos who inadvertantly killed several human shields in contact with an insurgent; I personally think they made the right decision, but the result was ugly nonetheless.
I am only wondering if you think the relatively common incidence of US soldiers committing atrocities compared to nations such as Australia and Britain is simply probability at work (more soldiers=more potential for things to go wrong no matter the country), a problem with US recruiting standards, a training deficiency or anything else.
I think a lot of it is rational, like you said. More=more. I also think that the US is under a lot more scrutiny than any of the other countries in the Coalition. I just like to give the benefit of the doubt to most cases, the OP excluded. I am definitely biased, though. I will say that the Military can appeal to a large segment of what is referred to as the "lowest common denominator" because it supplies opportunity where generally there is none but even a vast majority of those folks are not lacking in moral fiber. Combine numbers with stress and boredom and digital cameras and you are going to have a sizable pool of distasteful imagery. Again it is unfortunate and unavoidable. All I can ask of anybody is to remember that you are looking at the ugliest snapshots of a much bigger picture.
On September 30 2010 15:12 besteady wrote: I had to register to add that not all americans think that imperialism is in anyway justified. I acknowledge that both wars were unnecessary and horrible, as is all war. But america is still the same country that hunted the native americans and enslaved the africans. Not that other countries are better, but currently america is taking charge.
If you guys want to see what life is like for an Iraqi after the invasion watch the movie heavy metal in baghdad http://www.heavymetalinbaghdad.com/ E: its in netflix on demand.
thank you for your registration and comment besteady - the documentary you named seems to be really good and also worth the watch. im at part 5 now and part 3&4 were the most relevant to the issue as of now, i think.
@JamesJohansen @unavailable
On September 30 2010 15:16 JamesJohansen wrote: Contrary to media depictions, the US military is not raping babies and turning the country into a complete clusterfuck. I've seen bad shit come out of this but i've also seen a lot of genuine goodness moving forward as well.
Soldiers are only human. You will see some of the darker aspects of human nature come out in times of war but you will also see shining examples of loyalty and altruism.
you* must acknowledge that every act like that undermines the entire mission and no effort can be allowed to be spared to make sure that these things dont happen** and that people will be informed about such cases and that there will be an apology for every single one of them, so that your goal will hold up at all. that is if your goal is to bring freedom and peace. if it isnt, then i guess holding you to these standards and criticizing you by the examples provided in this thread is as much of a waste of time and misguided as it can be.
*or more precisely the people in charge of the personnel **happen as little as possible
enzym: What both of the posters you are referring to have said is that bad things have happened, and that they are bad, and have been carried out by bad people, but that these things are in the vast minority. That is their point: they concede that mistakes have been made, but measures are in place to ensure that, as you say, these things happen as little as possible. Their point again is that the mission is reconstruction, rehabilitation and additionally in the case of Afghanistan, maintaining freedom from tyranny, and that is how the overall effort is being carried out.
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
Actually I get most of my information from a small selection of blogs, especially this one. Its founder is a US citizen btw. I don't claim to know everything (hell, i only understand half of what is posted there) but it still makes much more sense to me than any of the official mass media coverage.
Who cares about the US dept? It lies on the shoulders of the everyday citizens who are now indepted forever. Guess who got some big contracts over the last years? Private security companies, oil companies (oil production in Iraq has skyrocketed over the last few years) and last but not least the industrial sector which provides the military with all those shiny new toys. I don't know of any government in the current world which cares more about its citizen than the big boy CEOs which make the bigger parts of their GDP.
Anyway, I'm being too general.. Let's stay on topic :o
Some of you have some very bad knowledge of afghan history. I'll help you guys brush up. This isn't directed at anybody in particular, but I read the whole thread and a lot of people really don't understand what is going on.
Esp those people claiming this war hasn't been proven to improve our national security. I'm almost certain there actually has been a study showing there was, but I could be wrong. In any case, it is 5am and I can't be assed to find it.
****This is not my work. My friend wrote this up. He is currently an intel analyst in the national guard, and also contracted to northrop for a country report on yemen. He does this type of stuff for a living, analyzing history, causes, etc. He has a TS clearance, however all of this is OS and you can find it out yourself.*****
There is no logical reason to be against our involvement in Afghanistan. The Taliban are literally worse than Nazis. It'd be like being against World War II because we didn't do so well in Operation Market Garden. And by that I mean we lost 3,974 men in just over a week. A week. So, I will be discussing Afghanistan's past and likely future given two possible courses of action. In very simple terms.
The British In the 1800s-early 1900s the British went 1-2 in Afghanistan. The "win" resulted in Britain just claiming to be in charge of Afghanistan's foreign affairs. The Afghans let this fly because for the most part they didn't know about it and those that did know didn't really care.
The Era of Peace In the early 1900s the British "gave Afghanistan independence" (the Afghans pretty much had it the whole time). The Afghan government went about enacting social reforms (education for women, mandatory elementary education). Some of the reforms did no go over well with the religious types (no more veil, coed schools, etc). To put that in context with the US, Women had just gotten the right to vote and segregation between blacks and whites would be around for another 35 years. Oh and women were just recently allowed to wear pants. Anyways, that King left office, the next one was assassinated in a revenge killing, and the next one ruled from 1933-1973 in an era of peace and stability for Afghanistan. That's right. During World War II and the first half of the Cold War, Afghanistan enjoyed peace and stability. While Europe and Eastern Asia was engulfed in an insatiable blood lust followed by uncontrollable paranoia, Afghanistan was both peaceful and stable. It was also expanding its political and social freedoms and modernizing.
The Beginning of the End That all changed in 1973 when a bloodless coup made by Mohammad Daoud Khan. Khan angered the Islamists, the communists, and Pakistan. He wanted to get closer to the West and the Middle East. So the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan assassinated him. And with a name like People's Democratic Party you know shit is about to hit the fan. Queue state atheism, terrible land reform, and the imprisonment, torture, and murder of thousands of wealthy elite, religious officials, and intellectuals. On the bright side they at least wanted to educate women.
The Soviet-Afghan War So of course the Soviet Union backs this budding Communist government right next-door to them. So the US gets this crazy idea that if they back the anti-communist forces already present in Afghanistan, then they will put such a massive hurt on the Soviet Union that they will sink more and more money into it and cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. And that idea actually worked. Unfortunately for Afghanistan they neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan is so paranoid of India that they make the US/Soviet paranoia during the Cold War look like a friendly and open relationship. Pakistan has an obsession with having a Pakistan-friendly Afghanistan. So Pakistan required that all money sent by the US had to go through Pakistan. Specifically Pakistan's ISI (their CIA). The ISI has a long history of supporting Islamist radicals in Kashmir. Needless to say, the ISI gave most of the money to the Islamist radicals in Afghanistan. Most of the money went to an evil man known as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. He has the distinction of never winning a major battle and mostly just fighting against other Afghans so that he would be in the best position to take power after the Soviets left. Pretty much no money went to a man named Ahmed Shah Massoud. He has the distinction of being the most effective anti-Soviet commander of the war. He is a National Hero of Afghanistan. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 (Jimmy Carter won instead). He was assassinated by al Qaeda on September 9, 2001. That day is a national holiday known as Massoud Day.
Oh also some guy named Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to build roads. He got in one little fight with a small Soviet unit and survived because he and his men holed up in a cave. He became a financier of Arabs (not Afghans) who went to fight the Soviets. He did not get money from Pakistan or the US.
The Afghan Civil War Part I Interim government is set up but Hekmatyar wants to be in charge so he attacks Kabul. Large fight in Kabul between Hekmatyar and Massoud and various other mujaheddin. Hekmatyar is unconcerned about killing civilians and destroys large parts of the city. Hekmatyar is kicked out of Kabul but takes up positions south of Kabul so that he can launch rockets against Kabul. People get fed up with the constant fighting.
The Afghan Civil War Part II Pakistan sees that Hekmatyar will never beat Massoud so they find a new group to create that Pakistan-friendly Afghan government. The year is 1994 and the group is the Taliban. Who are new and who mostly did not fight in the Soviet-Afghan War because they were busy attending radical madrassas on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Some like Mullah Omar did fight in that war a bit. But the group didn't even exist until 1994. So the Taliban take over Kandahar and then start heading north to Kabul. And who is still sitting south of Kabul? Hekmatyar. So the Taliban buy off most of the commanders in their way and Hekmatyar temporarily joins Massoud against the Taliban but then decides to just flee to Iran. Massoud leaves Kabul to the Taliban and withdraws to the mountains north of Bagram. They hold that line (but lose ground in other places) until the US comes to their aid in October 2001.
The Taliban People first thought the Taliban would be ok because the Taliban promised to get rid of the warlords. They couldn't have been more wrong. To get an idea of just how bad the Taliban are, here are some of the things the Taliban prohibited: unveiled women, certain hairstyles for men, keeping pigeons, woman's clothing with any ornamentation, kites, women singing, images or photographs posted in a public place, pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, anything that makes music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, TVs, anything that propagates sex, anything full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards, soccer, education for women, jobs for women, and many many more. Basically imagine anything that a normal person could possibly enjoy and it's probably banned. And if you disobey they will at best beat you and at worst kill you; either on the spot or at a soccer stadium in front of people who are forced to watch.
The Taliban's current pastimes include murdering young children (especially girls), burning schools, murdering aid workers, murdering civilians, murdering police, murdering military members, destroying vital infrastructure that provide power, water, etc...
Recap 1933-1973: Afghanistan peaceful 1974-1979: Afghanistan starts heading down hill fast 1979-1989: Soviet-Afghan War - Soviets destroy Afghanistan's infrastructure, Soviets leave 1989-1994: Pre-Taliban Civil War - Afghans get fed up with warlord fighting 1994-2001: Pre-US involvement in Afghan Civil War featuring the Taliban - Afghans learn just how terrible the Taliban are and plead with the international community for help 2001-present: US involvement in Afghan Civil War - Afghans happy that the US is there. US promises Afghans aid. Most of aid diverted to Iraq. US government half-asses war for many years.
Now try to image what it would be like if we left and there was still strong support for the Taliban. I've given you all the clues. Warlords propped up --> Afghans tired of fighting --> Taliban takes over 85% of the country saying they will end the fighting --> al Qaeda uses Taliban controlled Afghanistan as a safe haven --> Afghans ask for international assistance to remove the Taliban --> nobody listens until a terrorist attack occurs --> international community helps Afghanistan --> warlords propped up
On September 30 2010 17:48 NightRapier wrote: enzym: What both of the posters you are referring to have said is that bad things have happened, and that they are bad, and have been carried out by bad people, but that these things are in the vast minority. That is their point: they concede that mistakes have been made, but measures are in place to ensure that, as you say, these things happen as little as possible. Their point again is that the mission is reconstruction, rehabilitation and additionally in the case of Afghanistan, maintaining freedom from tyranny, and that is how the overall effort is being carried out.
there seem to be misunderstanding, but also disagreement here. let me try to make it clear.
these cases luckily probably are in the minority, but should in no way be downplayed by bringing up rate of occurance at all. there probably are measures in place to prevent such things from happening, but i dont see these measures to be working or to be sufficient and i dont see the military doing its best to prevent them. instead i see that there are measures in place to prevent people from finding out about them and if you read through the more recent posts in this thread you will also find out that there might even be practices in place to support a mindset that makes occurance of such cases more likely, but that it is regarded as an acceptable or necessary side effect of military training by the people making these decisions.
please let me know if i managed to improve your understanding of the situation with this post, or if there still remain questions.
No that's fine, I understand what you are saying. The question is then, what options are there? In my mind improved training is a good option, which is why I was looking for the input of people who may have gone through such training as they can provide the most informed view of whether or not it is enough. Then of course bias becomes a problem, but it shouldn't stop us from theorycrafting :3
On September 28 2010 11:09 JamesJohansen wrote: We might not agree with the policies, but its our godammed job to do what we're told.
But thats not newsworthy so who cares
If you do not agree with them then - for god's sake - don't sign up for the job. Even more so if the job includes killing people!
And, by the way, this is the same excuse every soldier in the history of time used for every military crime.
This job does not include killing innocent people... Taking down radical muslims who want nothing more than the subjugation of the west is fine by me. They're threat is very underestimated by people
And there is no way you're ever going to agree with every foriegn policy put forth but its vital to respect those above you or there would be no discipline, no chain of command, and no effectiveness whatsoever.
Comparing that to "war crimes" is not applicable and starts to touch on godwin's law
oh yes, the radical muslims are the reason why we are there. not. gotta love the contracts, potential market to open up and putting up our own interest are the main reason we are there.
you are just another puppet the military loves to have.
every war kills innocent people. the US army, i can't think of one major conflict they were involved with that hasn't had war crime material.
it's just with the advent of media from vietnam on, people actually started to give 2 cents bout it.
your job is to follow orders blindly no matter how fucked up it is. you don't have a choice.
who cares if they are radical muslims. they are in their own goddamn country and we have no right to interfere with the workings of separate government.
the US needs to stop taking this hypocritical highly idealistic stance on why they are in other countries and just come out honestly stating, oh, we want to be there. we have financial reasons. thank god we could spin a few terrorist attacks into going into war with multiple countries with enough backing so the rest of the world doesnt act.
And your just another stupid kid who thinks he knows everything from the internet. There are people out there who want the west to crash and burn and they will stop at nothing to achieve this. There are civilians who lived utterly terrible lives under the Taliban who now see their country starting to rekindle. Whether or not it was a good idea to invade iraq is debatable but we're doing our best to make the best of it, its all we can do really.
Do you really believe your wars were started for anything else than economic reasons?
Stop watching TV.
I wonder where you get your information, possibly from your anti-american european media? Yeah that's not biased, you obviously know everything.
The truth lies in the midle, if it was solely for economic reasons shouldn't the US gain more than they're spending? Seems more like it gave them a massive debt but i dunno.
Actually I get most of my information from a small selection of blogs, especially this one. Its founder is a US citizen btw. I don't claim to know everything (hell, i only understand half of what is posted there) but it still makes much more sense to me than any of the official mass media coverage.
Who cares about the US dept? It lies on the shoulders of the everyday citizens who are now indepted forever. Guess who got some big contracts over the last years? Private security companies, oil companies (oil production in Iraq has skyrocketed over the last few years) and last but not least the industrial sector which provides the military with all those shiny new toys. I don't know of any government in the current world which cares more about its citizen than the big boy CEOs which make the bigger parts of their GDP.
Anyway, I'm being too general.. Let's stay on topic :o
And this blog is more credible why? It makes much more sense to you because that's what you want to believe. I'm not saying mass media is better, but rather most information you get on this subject is biased, in your favor or otherwise.
US military history is full of rape/violence/abuse/murder cases towards civilian populations.
France Japan South Korea Vietnam Iraq
When you give so much power (weapons+hierarchy and country support) to mentally unbalanced people, no matter what nationality they are, they will commit thoses rapes/murders.
On September 30 2010 05:20 eiswand wrote: Wow. You US guys can be so proud. You bring peace and democracy to the world.
...........
How about you try posting something useful instead of flamebaiting.
I have a few thoughts on the videos I have just watched. It is a reality that the US military has a system that does not promote a great deal of individual thought and initiative on the part of private soldiers, as opposed to the way, for example, Australian soldiers are trained to think as inidividuals within the unit. This has its advantages, but it does mean that US soldiers can do some very insensitive things (I'm not referring to murder here) that could be avoided if they just thought about it a bit more. I suspect something along the lines of more detailed media, information warfare, 'hearts and minds' training that gave soldiers a clearer understanding of the potential impact of stupid actions, particularly those caught on film, would help them out here.
I don't know if the US Army already has these things in place, or if it has taken action since these videos were filmed, if perhaps a US soldier who might browse here could enlighten me.
We do. Unthinking killing drone image of the US Military is a myth (except for the Corps, har har.) As an Infantry guy I am constantly encouraged to think for myself and judge a situation. This isn't Viet Nam, there are ROE and the cost of violating them is hefty for us. It actually reached the point late in Iraq where contracted civilian investigators would come out to the scene of a firefight and do their best to ensure that there was no foul play.
That being said, it is combat and combat is a shitty place. Not because of a lack of thought but because of lack of information and I don't mean in an Military Intelligence sense of the term.
Let me frame it like this: You have been in a city full of people who either love, hate or feel indifferent to you. The ones who love you and who are indifferent tend not to say a thing to you. The ones who hate you try to kill you, blow you up, scam you lie to you they will kill their own civilians who they are trying to liberate from our evil western clutches to get to you... Each of these three groups look the same, all of them dress the same and speak the same language, they go to the same religious centers they mingle together all the time. Some of the worst ones fight along your side for a time. So you as an individual, ANY individual no matter training or nationality, are prone to become a bit paranoid. Maybe your friend got blown up last week because some twelve year old boy tossed an RKG into his Hummvee after receiving some of the humanitarian rations that are given out (small scale "hearts and minds" stuff) and now some mob of kids are running up to you begging for candy and food and money while a group of adults stand across the street giving you dirty looks. What do you do? What if one of them seems to be throwing something?
Even less horrific a scene than that is some of the standard training we do get. We are mean, we need to be. Australians are too. If you are invading a house to snatch up a guy who is coordinating mortar attacks on your FOB you are going to kick over tables, raid closets, knock people to the floor, yell and scream and be vicious. That sort of presence actually keeps an already bad situation from becoming a blood bath. And you know what. Sometimes you get the wrong house. Unfortunate.
That sort of stuff happens and 99% of the time the right call is made. People get skittish, even professional tough guys. It is not a lack or training or sensitivity, it is the brutal and sad reality of combat. No one wants it.
There's a lot of truth in this I'm sure, but the particular case in the OP seems to be going far beyond just making the wrong call. From what the article says this was completely planned and premeditated murder, so I don't think these particular soldiers can be excused in that way.
Sheep get flashbanged, puppies get thrown, this one you gotta watch.
k throwing that puppy was crossing the line
Sadly though it's not surprising at all to hear people are doing dumb shit in a war with no purpose or enemy. I'm even pretty sure I'd throw a fucking puppy and record it if i was in a desert with my friends for 2 years with nothing to do.
also I think these kind of heinous acts of boredom have always been around during war. The only reason you finally get to see it is cus we invented some cool shit recently called cameras and youtube.
Dude, the whole video is "crossing the line", jezus christ.
Its war. Unless youre in it you wont understand it. Since this isn't the first crazy shit soldiers pull off, you might wanna notice a pattern. Those guys dont even have to be terribly evil. Its just an unreal situation where life, as protected as we know it, doesnt exist. Where you have to behave in a certain way to survive. And that certain way affects the way you look at things.
How surprising is it that people, that are away from civilization put into a place where its as uncivilized as it can get, dont behave all that civilized anymore.
Its just war. But ofc its more comfortable to point at some single soldiers instead of at the institutionalized thing, that some countries just cant let go.
People are getting killed without media touching it, it's good that they finally start bashing the US millitary down in Iraq, so they can't do whatever the please
On September 30 2010 05:20 eiswand wrote: Wow. You US guys can be so proud. You bring peace and democracy to the world.
...........
How about you try posting something useful instead of flamebaiting.
I have a few thoughts on the videos I have just watched. It is a reality that the US military has a system that does not promote a great deal of individual thought and initiative on the part of private soldiers, as opposed to the way, for example, Australian soldiers are trained to think as inidividuals within the unit. This has its advantages, but it does mean that US soldiers can do some very insensitive things (I'm not referring to murder here) that could be avoided if they just thought about it a bit more. I suspect something along the lines of more detailed media, information warfare, 'hearts and minds' training that gave soldiers a clearer understanding of the potential impact of stupid actions, particularly those caught on film, would help them out here.
I don't know if the US Army already has these things in place, or if it has taken action since these videos were filmed, if perhaps a US soldier who might browse here could enlighten me.
We do. Unthinking killing drone image of the US Military is a myth (except for the Corps, har har.) As an Infantry guy I am constantly encouraged to think for myself and judge a situation. This isn't Viet Nam, there are ROE and the cost of violating them is hefty for us. It actually reached the point late in Iraq where contracted civilian investigators would come out to the scene of a firefight and do their best to ensure that there was no foul play.
That being said, it is combat and combat is a shitty place. Not because of a lack of thought but because of lack of information and I don't mean in an Military Intelligence sense of the term.
Let me frame it like this: You have been in a city full of people who either love, hate or feel indifferent to you. The ones who love you and who are indifferent tend not to say a thing to you. The ones who hate you try to kill you, blow you up, scam you lie to you they will kill their own civilians who they are trying to liberate from our evil western clutches to get to you... Each of these three groups look the same, all of them dress the same and speak the same language, they go to the same religious centers they mingle together all the time. Some of the worst ones fight along your side for a time. So you as an individual, ANY individual no matter training or nationality, are prone to become a bit paranoid. Maybe your friend got blown up last week because some twelve year old boy tossed an RKG into his Hummvee after receiving some of the humanitarian rations that are given out (small scale "hearts and minds" stuff) and now some mob of kids are running up to you begging for candy and food and money while a group of adults stand across the street giving you dirty looks. What do you do? What if one of them seems to be throwing something?
Even less horrific a scene than that is some of the standard training we do get. We are mean, we need to be. Australians are too. If you are invading a house to snatch up a guy who is coordinating mortar attacks on your FOB you are going to kick over tables, raid closets, knock people to the floor, yell and scream and be vicious. That sort of presence actually keeps an already bad situation from becoming a blood bath. And you know what. Sometimes you get the wrong house. Unfortunate.
That sort of stuff happens and 99% of the time the right call is made. People get skittish, even professional tough guys. It is not a lack or training or sensitivity, it is the brutal and sad reality of combat. No one wants it.
There's a lot of truth in this I'm sure, but the particular case in the OP seems to be going far beyond just making the wrong call. From what the article says this was completely planned and premeditated murder, so I don't think these particular soldiers can be excused in that way.
Yes, those guys are assholes. I was referring more to the specifics of the question posed and I tend to ramble and get a bit dramatic sometimes.
Sheep get flashbanged, puppies get thrown, this one you gotta watch.
k throwing that puppy was crossing the line
Sadly though it's not surprising at all to hear people are doing dumb shit in a war with no purpose or enemy. I'm even pretty sure I'd throw a fucking puppy and record it if i was in a desert with my friends for 2 years with nothing to do.
also I think these kind of heinous acts of boredom have always been around during war. The only reason you finally get to see it is cus we invented some cool shit recently called cameras and youtube.
Dude, the whole video is "crossing the line", jezus christ.
Also wtf.
That fucking video pisses me off so much. If I was to see these people in person I would kill them with my bare hands
On September 30 2010 21:47 BaltA wrote: People are getting killed without media touching it, it's good that they finally start bashing the US millitary down in Iraq, so they can't do whatever the please
Finally? They've been documenting incidents like this in the media for a looong time.
Sheep get flashbanged, puppies get thrown, this one you gotta watch.
k throwing that puppy was crossing the line
Sadly though it's not surprising at all to hear people are doing dumb shit in a war with no purpose or enemy. I'm even pretty sure I'd throw a fucking puppy and record it if i was in a desert with my friends for 2 years with nothing to do.
also I think these kind of heinous acts of boredom have always been around during war. The only reason you finally get to see it is cus we invented some cool shit recently called cameras and youtube.
Dude, the whole video is "crossing the line", jezus christ.
Also wtf.
That fucking video pisses me off so much. If I was to see these people in person I would kill them with my bare hands
Righto tough guy, you should know that some people take such talk seriously. I would suppose that people whose job can involve killing human beings wouldn't be particularly impressed with your sentiment, if that's who you're trying to impress.
On September 30 2010 15:36 unavailable wrote: We do. Unthinking killing drone image of the US Military is a myth (except for the Corps, har har.) As an Infantry guy I am constantly encouraged to think for myself and judge a situation. This isn't Viet Nam, there are ROE and the cost of violating them is hefty for us. It actually reached the point late in Iraq where contracted civilian investigators would come out to the scene of a firefight and do their best to ensure that there was no foul play.
That being said, it is combat and combat is a shitty place. Not because of a lack of thought but because of lack of information and I don't mean in an Military Intelligence sense of the term.
Let me frame it like this: You have been in a city full of people who either love, hate or feel indifferent to you. The ones who love you and who are indifferent tend not to say a thing to you. The ones who hate you try to kill you, blow you up, scam you lie to you they will kill their own civilians who they are trying to liberate from our evil western clutches to get to you... Each of these three groups look the same, all of them dress the same and speak the same language, they go to the same religious centers they mingle together all the time. Some of the worst ones fight along your side for a time. So you as an individual, ANY individual no matter training or nationality, are prone to become a bit paranoid. Maybe your friend got blown up last week because some twelve year old boy tossed an RKG into his Hummvee after receiving some of the humanitarian rations that are given out (small scale "hearts and minds" stuff) and now some mob of kids are running up to you begging for candy and food and money while a group of adults stand across the street giving you dirty looks. What do you do? What if one of them seems to be throwing something?
Even less horrific a scene than that is some of the standard training we do get. We are mean, we need to be. Australians are too. If you are invading a house to snatch up a guy who is coordinating mortar attacks on your FOB you are going to kick over tables, raid closets, knock people to the floor, yell and scream and be vicious. That sort of presence actually keeps an already bad situation from becoming a blood bath. And you know what. Sometimes you get the wrong house. Unfortunate.
That sort of stuff happens and 99% of the time the right call is made. People get skittish, even professional tough guys. It is not a lack or training or sensitivity, it is the brutal and sad reality of combat. No one wants it.
Excellent post, I hope everyone reads it. For the record, I am an American progressive, completely opposed to the war in Iraq. I believe invasion was a terrible decision, made for a combination of morally bankrupt and factually/logically flawed reasons. I believe that this action, more than anything else that has happened (certainly far more than 9/11), has made America far less safe and less able to protect its interests abroad. Worse, it has caused the loss of untold numbers of innocent lives. I am sure that history will view the American invasion of Iraq as a huge mistake.
That said, I believe that our soldiers are deserving of nothing but respect and compassion. They are not the ones who made the decision to go to Iraq. After Iraqi civilians, American (and coalition) soldiers are the ones who suffer the most for this cynical and unrealistic war. The conduct depicted in this video (and in many other incidents) is despicable. It makes me sick to my stomach. But these people perpetrating these actions are perhaps the most deserving of compassion, because their experience in war has stolen their humanity from them. They have turned into monsters, and I am sure their life is a nightmare. They cover it up with bravado and humor, but they are sick. We need to do more to ensure that we are screening soldiers and providing them with help when they are heading down this path.
And we need to remember that 99% of our soldiers are trying as hard as they can to do the right thing. Condemning the 99% for the sick actions of the 1% is the same as condemning all Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda and other extremists. Whoever uses the actions of a few sick individuals to judge an entire group is responsible for the continuation of hostility, misunderstanding, and hate.
Occupying Armies have throughout history been known to act in inhumane ways. It is certainly not isolated to the U.S. Armed Forces.
It's a shame that the recruitment policies of all the branches of the USAF target people whom lack opportunity, or at least seem to. If any foreign power were to be actively occupying Afghanistan at the moment, be it France, Libya, Brazil, China, or any other country, a portion of said military would be mentally unstable, engage in illegal drug use, and commit inhuman acts like this.
On September 30 2010 20:10 Dullahx wrote: US military history is full of rape/violence/abuse/murder cases towards civilian populations.
I fucking lol'd. You mean to say "Military History is full of rape/violence/abuse/murder cases towards civilian populations." Compared to the track record of much more aged nations, the US is much less noteworthy with regards to their transgressions. Which is not to say that any inhuman transgression is anything less than noteworthy.
Blame the government, not the soldiers. US had no solid legal reason to invade Iraq, I've taken International Law course regarding Law of War and Iraq Invasion was completely without any legal basis. They interpreted the United Nations resolutions in such a way so that they make it seem like war is justifiable while it wasn't.
Anyone remembers the weapons of mass destruction supposed to be found in Iraq? Inspectors found nothing. Saddam's biggest mistake was not allowing inspectors to do their job, US and Britain used this to claim that Iraqi government is not complying with the UN's instructions, and used this along with a Security Council resolution that is about the First Gulf War to start a completely unjustified invasion. The resolution allowed use of force against Iraq to take it out of Kuwait, which was invaded by Iraq at that time. It is this resolution that allowed use of force in 2003 Invasion.
What can we do? Nothing, US has the power, money, the military, the technology, and it will continue to crush those not doing what is expected of them to do.
Regarding all these, I can give quotations etc from International Law sources if anyone is interested.
Those soldiers should be tried for war-crimes and punished accordingly. Being in a hostile environment with fear of dying for a prolonged period time would play with your mind and drive you insane/crazy and act brutally. I really feel sad for those soldiers who think they're doing a good thing by joining the war, they should protest their goverment and start taking steps to govern their own country, rather than rich bureaucrats and investors.
TLDR: Soldiers are soldiers, there are maniacs everywhere and US soldiers are no expection. My advice, don't forget why and how they got there, and question what's going on in the world. Your soldiers are not dying for your freedom or anything, your soldiers are killing so that you can have more hamburgers and oil for your gas guzzling automobiles.
In a week or two the world has forgotten all about this and this thread will seize to get bumped. In a year from now, someone will stumble upon this thread and be shocked because he never heard of it in the first place, then bump it. Afterwards it'll get closed because by then this will be irrelevant since so much worse has happened since this.
Stop for a second and think about it. You send people to fucking war to kill innocent people (yeah that is what is the war about) and then fucking complain about it. Wtf seriously, it doesn't make sense. Imagine that you are in war, killing people is your every day's cup of tea. There is a slight (big as fuck) chance that you become little bit brutal and less reserved than average Joe and there might be a case where some poeple cross the boarder and play tear the defenseless "enemy" with a god damned grenade and have fun with it.
On October 02 2010 21:41 XsebT wrote: In a week or two the world has forgotten all about this and this thread will seize to get bumped. In a year from now, someone will stumble upon this thread and be shocked because he never heard of it in the first place, then bump it. Afterwards it'll get closed because by then this will be irrelevant since so much worse has happened since this.
SEATTLE -- Those who have seen the photos say they are grisly: soldiers beside newly killed bodies, decaying corpses and severed fingers.
The photos, described in interviews and in e-mails and military documents obtained by The Associated Press, were seized by Army investigators and are a crucial part of the case against five soldiers accused of killing three Afghan civilians earlier this year.
Troops allegedly shared the photos by e-mail and thumb drive like electronic trading cards. Now 60 to 70 of them are being kept tightly shielded from the public and even defense attorneys because of fears they could wind up in the news media and provoke anti-American violence.
At least some of the Afghanistan photos pertain to those killings that are the subject of the trial. Others may have been of insurgents killed in battle, and some may have been taken as part of a military effort to document those killed, said lawyers involved in the case.
Among the most gruesome allegations is that some of the soldiers kept fingers from Afghans they killed as war trophies. The troops also are accused of passing around photos of the dead and of the fingers.
On October 03 2010 10:33 Zamiel wrote: I've been deployed in Iraq for 4 months. You guys would be surprised at all the fucked up shit that goes on there.
On October 03 2010 10:33 Zamiel wrote: I've been deployed in Iraq for 4 months. You guys would be surprised at all the fucked up shit that goes on there.
Can you at least tell us something, or explain what you meant? By U.S. Soldiers or Iraqis??
On October 03 2010 10:52 Diuqil wrote:Can you at least tell us something, or explain what you meant? By U.S. Soldiers or Iraqis??
By US soldiers.
First off, I'll preface my post with some history. Since the "war" in Iraq/Afghanistan has been kind of a disaster, the Army has been having problems getting people to keep enlisting. Thus, ever since 2006, you do no longer need a GED in order to enlist, and from what I understand the Marine Core is the same way.
What I'm trying to get at is, the average US army cat is really dimwitted. I hate to make gross generalizations about the thousands and thousands of people that make up the Army/Marine Core, but it is definitely true. Do not be fooled by the dramatization in shows like "Generation Kill", with soldiers making clever metaphorical jokes mixed in with crude humor; the average soldier is much stupider.
Anyways, I'll just give one example. One time I was hanging out on base having a smoke by a truck with a friend and we noticed that there was a guy standing on top of a water tower in the distance. Low and behold, shots began whizzing into the ground near us, and we jump behind the truck for cover; the guy was a sniper. After taking a few shots, he begins to run away. A team immediately rolls out after him (this kind of thing happens all the time) and I happened to be with them. Long story short, we catch up to the guy and begin firing at him. He gets wounded and goes down, but is still alive.
At this point, we are going to kill the guy, but one of the soldiers enigmatically whips out some pork jerky. He walks up to the wounded sniper with it, and says in crude Farci, "Do you know what this is?" I don't know what the sniper said, but the soldier explained that it was pork (a.k.a. pig a.k.a. harem meat) and rubs it all over the guy's face and sticks it in his mouth. Then, after a moment, he shoots the guy in the head. (Eating pig is of course not halal; a lot of the fundamentalist Muslims over there don't even believe in touching it, which is why he rubbed it on his face first.)
In case you still don't understand my little story, what is going through the sniper's head before he died was this: he was performing his religious jihad duty. Yes, firing upon a US base is dangerous but if he died in the process he is going to go to heaven. But now, he's definitely going to hell.
On October 03 2010 10:52 Diuqil wrote:Can you at least tell us something, or explain what you meant? By U.S. Soldiers or Iraqis??
First off, I'll preface my post with some history. Since the "war" in Iraq/Afghanistan has been kind of a disaster, the Army has been having problems getting people to keep enlisting. Thus, ever since 2006, you do no longer need a GED in order to enlist, and from what I understand the Marine Core is the same way.
huh? you need either a GED, high school diploma, or 15 college credits to join the army.
On September 28 2010 09:28 Diuqil wrote: Wow. My respect for U.S Soldiers gets lower and lower every day.
Because all U.S. soldiers must be just like these ones. Generalizing is fun.
When you hear of so many story's like these, you think I'm going to like them?
By all means, disrespect the ones responsible. But you generalizing that all U.S. troops are scumbags is the same brand of discrimination that these war-criminals use to generalize that all Arabs are terrorists.
I'm not disrespecting nobody. I'm not calling the soldiers "baby killers." Okay, let me rephrase my comment then.
"My respect for MOST U.S. soldiers gets lower and lower every day"
Most U.S Soldiers? Are you saying MOST U.S Soldiers do shit like this? There's always going to be scumbags in the military, but MOST U.S Soldiers are just people fighting for their country who don't do shit like this. You can't disrespect anyone not responsible for this kind of shit if you're sitting on your ass posting on Teamliquid, while ALL U.S Soldiers are actually doing something that risks their life day-today.
on a major war like this, to hear events like this as remarkable and incredibly disgusting suggests that US army has otherwise kept its act straight. Now compare this to any past major wars and the respective atrocities committed by the armies invovled. Suddenly, the US army seems angelic.
On October 01 2010 13:36 RiB wrote: Stability in Iraq does not equal democracy in Iraq.
So stability in Iraq would be instituting a U.S. planted puppet dictator.
Because, like, thats worked out so fucking well in the past right?
What I'm trying to get at is, the average US army cat is really dimwitted. I hate to make gross generalizations about the thousands and thousands of people that make up the Army/Marine Core, but it is definitely true. Do not be fooled by the dramatization in shows like "Generation Kill", with soldiers making clever metaphorical jokes mixed in with crude humor; the average soldier is much stupider.
Anyways, I'll just give one example. One time I was hanging out on base having a smoke by a truck with a friend and we noticed that there was a guy standing on top of a water tower in the distance. Low and behold, shots began whizzing into the ground near us, and we jump behind the truck for cover; the guy was a sniper. After taking a few shots, he begins to run away. A team immediately rolls out after him (this kind of thing happens all the time) and I happened to be with them. Long story short, we catch up to the guy and begin firing at him. He gets wounded and goes down, but is still alive.
At this point, we are going to kill the guy, but one of the soldiers enigmatically whips out some pork jerky. He walks up to the wounded sniper with it, and says in crude Farci, "Do you know what this is?" I don't know what the sniper said, but the soldier explained that it was pork (a.k.a. pig a.k.a. harem meat) and rubs it all over the guy's face and sticks it in his mouth. Then, after a moment, he shoots the guy in the head. (Eating pig is of course not halal; a lot of the fundamentalist Muslims over there don't even believe in touching it, which is why he rubbed it on his face first.)
In case you still don't understand my little story, what is going through the sniper's head before he died was this: he was performing his religious jihad duty. Yes, firing upon a US base is dangerous but if he died in the process he is going to go to heaven. But now, he's definitely going to hell.
o.o
eye opening story, thanks for sharing, this but um, how exactly does that demonstrate stupidity? I cruelty, yes, but stupidity? Well, it shows hes intelligent enough to make his humilation as brutal as possible without resorting to crude ("Physical") measures. It also demonstrates that hes able to speak Farci lol.
On October 03 2010 12:50 tomatriedes wrote: I've also heard because of manpower shortages the US army is also now enlisting soldiers with criminal records.
You need a waver among various other background checks. They certainly frown upon people with criminal records, but if it's something very minor and you don't lie about it you should be ok. Also the poster who said he is in the Army was incorrect about the Marine Corps allowing those without a GED or High School diploma to enlist. The army is the only branch that allows those without a High School education or a GED to enlist, and even then you must complete some preparatory course.
What I'm trying to get at is, the average US army cat is really dimwitted. I hate to make gross generalizations about the thousands and thousands of people that make up the Army/Marine Core, but it is definitely true. Do not be fooled by the dramatization in shows like "Generation Kill", with soldiers making clever metaphorical jokes mixed in with crude humor; the average soldier is much stupider.
Anyways, I'll just give one example. One time I was hanging out on base having a smoke by a truck with a friend and we noticed that there was a guy standing on top of a water tower in the distance. Low and behold, shots began whizzing into the ground near us, and we jump behind the truck for cover; the guy was a sniper. After taking a few shots, he begins to run away. A team immediately rolls out after him (this kind of thing happens all the time) and I happened to be with them. Long story short, we catch up to the guy and begin firing at him. He gets wounded and goes down, but is still alive.
At this point, we are going to kill the guy, but one of the soldiers enigmatically whips out some pork jerky. He walks up to the wounded sniper with it, and says in crude Farci, "Do you know what this is?" I don't know what the sniper said, but the soldier explained that it was pork (a.k.a. pig a.k.a. harem meat) and rubs it all over the guy's face and sticks it in his mouth. Then, after a moment, he shoots the guy in the head. (Eating pig is of course not halal; a lot of the fundamentalist Muslims over there don't even believe in touching it, which is why he rubbed it on his face first.)
In case you still don't understand my little story, what is going through the sniper's head before he died was this: he was performing his religious jihad duty. Yes, firing upon a US base is dangerous but if he died in the process he is going to go to heaven. But now, he's definitely going to hell.
o.o
eye opening story, thanks for sharing, this but um, how exactly does that demonstrate stupidity? I cruelty, yes, but stupidity? Well, it shows hes intelligent enough to make his humilation as brutal as possible without resorting to crude ("Physical") measures. It also demonstrates that hes able to speak Farci lol.
because its stupid. why lower the standards for the army, and promote further hatred of US forces by the native population you are trying to win over and even psychologically damage yourself, your comrades and lower morale.
For the record, it's Farsi, and if he's in Iraq, I'd be very very surprised if the insurgent spoke Farsi (a Persian, read Iranian) language. Standard Arabic would have been the way to go.
On October 03 2010 10:52 Diuqil wrote:Can you at least tell us something, or explain what you meant? By U.S. Soldiers or Iraqis??
By US soldiers.
First off, I'll preface my post with some history. Since the "war" in Iraq/Afghanistan has been kind of a disaster, the Army has been having problems getting people to keep enlisting. Thus, ever since 2006, you do no longer need a GED in order to enlist, and from what I understand the Marine Core is the same way.
What I'm trying to get at is, the average US army cat is really dimwitted. I hate to make gross generalizations about the thousands and thousands of people that make up the Army/Marine Core, but it is definitely true. Do not be fooled by the dramatization in shows like "Generation Kill", with soldiers making clever metaphorical jokes mixed in with crude humor; the average soldier is much stupider.
Anyways, I'll just give one example. One time I was hanging out on base having a smoke by a truck with a friend and we noticed that there was a guy standing on top of a water tower in the distance. Low and behold, shots began whizzing into the ground near us, and we jump behind the truck for cover; the guy was a sniper. After taking a few shots, he begins to run away. A team immediately rolls out after him (this kind of thing happens all the time) and I happened to be with them. Long story short, we catch up to the guy and begin firing at him. He gets wounded and goes down, but is still alive.
At this point, we are going to kill the guy, but one of the soldiers enigmatically whips out some pork jerky. He walks up to the wounded sniper with it, and says in crude Farci, "Do you know what this is?" I don't know what the sniper said, but the soldier explained that it was pork (a.k.a. pig a.k.a. harem meat) and rubs it all over the guy's face and sticks it in his mouth. Then, after a moment, he shoots the guy in the head. (Eating pig is of course not halal; a lot of the fundamentalist Muslims over there don't even believe in touching it, which is why he rubbed it on his face first.)
In case you still don't understand my little story, what is going through the sniper's head before he died was this: he was performing his religious jihad duty. Yes, firing upon a US base is dangerous but if he died in the process he is going to go to heaven. But now, he's definitely going to hell.
this post was initially about US soldiers being "dumb", but it ended by talking about an enemy sniper going to hell. the story had nothing to do with intelligence. maybe insensitive actions by the US soldier, but neither side was being "stupid".
No matter how you feel about the actions of some soldiers, you are only allowed to makes posts like this, talk openly like this, and criticize government and our soldiers becuase these exact same soldiers have for 200+ years died to give you that freedom and right.
I'm not saying its ok, but keep in mind that the reason you have your freedom is because for hundreds of years, American men and women have fought and died and done/seen unspeakable things so that people back home can mock them, hate them, and despise them. They are risking their lives out there so you can sleep easy at night. Dont go saying that this war is not protecting us. The reason foreign troops have not directly attacked US soil for so long is because they know what our men and women in uniform are willing to do. They see it every single day.
I'm proudly deploying in 2 weeks, not every guy I work with is a rocket scientist, but ever single one of them will gladly die to keep our country strong and free.
Tragic story, I am surprised that this could take place. When in war some people can't handle the pressure and start doing inhumane things because inhumane things is happening around them, that is why you need to have a good chain of command where the officers are not sicko whackjobs ordering the killing of civilians for fun, but mentally strong people with their morals straight. People like this need to be found and suspended before they run amok.
On October 04 2010 15:06 CryHavok wrote: No matter how you feel about the actions of some soldiers, you are only allowed to makes posts like this, talk openly like this, and criticize government and our soldiers becuase these exact same soldiers have for 200+ years died to give you that freedom and right.
I'm not saying its ok, but keep in mind that the reason you have your freedom is because for hundreds of years, American men and women have fought and died and done/seen unspeakable things so that people back home can mock them, hate them, and despise them. They are risking their lives out there so you can sleep easy at night. Dont go saying that this war is not protecting us. The reason foreign troops have not directly attacked US soil for so long is because they know what our men and women in uniform are willing to do. They see it every single day.
I'm proudly deploying in 2 weeks, not every guy I work with is a rocket scientist, but ever single one of them will gladly die to keep our country strong and free.
God Bless America
i just want to point out that the soldiers of today are not the same people as the soldiers 200 years ago. just because someone did something in the past does not mean that someone working for the same organization today works for the same goal or achieves the same things. there is no connection at all. we live now, not 200 years in the future or 200 years in the past. now. so we observe and analyze what happens around us now.
Among the men of Bravo Company, the notion of killing an Afghan civilian had been the subject of countless conversations, during lunchtime chats and late-night bull sessions. For weeks, they had weighed the ethics of bagging "savages" and debated the probability of getting caught. Some of them agonized over the idea; others were gung-ho from the start. But not long after the New Year, as winter descended on the arid plains of Kandahar Province, they agreed to stop talking and actually pull the trigger.
Love how the paper rages over pictures of dead bodies. "Even if they are of enemy combatants... IT'S BAD". No, it isn't, wtf. And I mean straight up pictures now, not pictures with people posing and shit or where bodies or parts have been arranged. In fact I am specifically outraged by their comments on the last of all pictures, lol sensationalist news. There's already a story there, don't try to make it into something more.
So if I click that link, what can I expect to see? I've seen a lot of insane shit on the Internet, but depending on how bad these pictures are I won't click the link.
On March 28 2011 15:30 KonohaFlash wrote: So if I click that link, what can I expect to see? I've seen a lot of insane shit on the Internet, but depending on how bad these pictures are I won't click the link.
A dead boy, reportedly around 15. Soldiers messing with his body, one guy smiles in a picture as he holds up the dead boy's head. A severed heads, some severed limbs, a body cut in half.
It's graphicness is pretty much the same as you'd see if you frequented a certain infamous imageboard often. Not for the faint of heart.
On March 28 2011 15:30 KonohaFlash wrote: So if I click that link, what can I expect to see? I've seen a lot of insane shit on the Internet, but depending on how bad these pictures are I won't click the link.
Dead bodies + blood + mutilation, didn't go through all the pics though.
This kind of thing is so embarrassing and disappointing, we're wasting so much (money, lives, etc.) over there to just end up pissing off civilians even more. Pulling out (flat out) might even be better than the alternative of perpetuating this kind of thing.
On March 28 2011 15:30 KonohaFlash wrote: So if I click that link, what can I expect to see? I've seen a lot of insane shit on the Internet, but depending on how bad these pictures are I won't click the link.
Severed head. Legs without bodies. Dead corpse. A burnt corpse or what appeared to be burned. Its pretty bad
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
Why don't they just execute these guys? They clearly deserve it. They are truly the lowest form of human being. And I can't say I'm surprised at the Army suppressing the incident. Disappointed, but not surprised.
On March 28 2011 15:30 KonohaFlash wrote: So if I click that link, what can I expect to see? I've seen a lot of insane shit on the Internet, but depending on how bad these pictures are I won't click the link.
There's a video too that shows soldiers shooting and killing two men on a motorcycle and then examining/searching the scene. But the pictures were more graphic imo.
On March 28 2011 15:44 travis wrote: The military should have the strictest of punishments for this kind of behavior. These people are supposed to be professionals.
The pyschos that pulled the trigger will probably spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth. My main concern is what happens to the commanding officers that ignored and/or covered up the situation. The first death of was one too many, the subsequent ones are the fault of everyone involved, not just the triggermen.
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
On March 28 2011 15:44 travis wrote: The military should have the strictest of punishments for this kind of behavior. These people are supposed to be professionals.
Basically, this. The military of civilized nations should rightly be held to a highly standard (as opposed to the deafening silence when fine Afghani gentlemen burn down a school for females and mutilate/kill those involved...)
PS Implying that all soldiers were the "bottom 10% of their class" is quite factually wrong -- I encourage you to look up the statistics yourselves.
PPS Comparing this to the rape of Nanking either conveys a serious ignorance of history or mathematical deficiency.
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
"served"?
I don't doubt that seeing the lovely Afghani culture at work (hint: look up their rape statistics) would unhinge a normal individual, but it by no means justifies what was done here...
On March 28 2011 15:44 travis wrote: The military should have the strictest of punishments for this kind of behavior. These people are supposed to be professionals.
We do. It's called capital punishment, and is enforcable under the UCMJ. Specifically, they're probably being charged with several counts of article 118, murder.
This is why they shouldn't send first deployers straight to iraq or afghanistan, it was alot easier for me to deal with other places and to see killing and death before then. I've been in the navy for awhile now, and I've been working with Seal teams 2, 3, and 5 for about 3 years, I've never seen anyone do anything that fucked up.
As far as your comment about being professionals, yes, we are professionals, and for the most part our job comes down to sanctioned murder. But ending another human being's life isn't exactly like slamming copies through a xerox machine, it fucks with your mind and there's no way around that unless you're insane.
These guys went nuts, and there wasn't a person there with experience in the job that knew how to identify that and stop them before they did something incomprehensibly out of line. I'm not trying to make excuses for them, please don't get that impression, I'm just saying I kind of understand, it's a mental state that alot of people go through and have to be bitch slapped out of.
On March 28 2011 15:44 travis wrote: The military should have the strictest of punishments for this kind of behavior. These people are supposed to be professionals.
Basically, this. The military of civilized nations should rightly be held to a highly standard (as opposed to the deafening silence when fine Afghani gentlemen burn down a school for females and mutilate/kill those involved...)
PS Implying that all soldiers were the "bottom 10% of their class" is quite factually wrong -- I encourage you to look up the statistics yourselves.
PPS Comparing this to the rape of Nanking either conveys a serious ignorance of history or mathematical deficiency.
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
"served"?
I don't doubt that seeing the lovely Afghani culture at work would unhinge a normal individual, but it by no means justifies what was done here...
That is correct, but still don't think they deserve to be put to death, send them to prison for life I am fine with that but more killing I don't think is the correct response. Also US military spends countless time and money making sure soldier's are trained to dehumanize the enemy so it makes their job "easier." Due to that alone I am not surprised for it to go this far. BY NO MEANS saying is correct, just saying I can see why it happen, or what appears to have happened.
That is correct, but still don't think they deserve to be put to death, send them to prison for life I am fine with that but more killing I don't think is the correct response. Also US military spends countless time and money making sure soldier's are trained to dehumanize the enemy so it makes their job "easier." Due to that alone I am not surprised for it to go this far. BY NO MEANS saying is correct, just saying I can see why it happen, or what appears to have happened.
Uh, what?
No, we don't. And that would have nothing to do with Afghani civilians anyway, they're civilians.
Also, about the "sitting around the dinner table" shit, I'm going to call sensationalism on that. If someone heard that, that was not cool with murdering defenseless civilians, they could have been sent to NJP just for saying it.
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
If those are the soldier's that are keeping me safe, then I'd rather be dead. Evil like that deserve nothing but death.
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
If those are the soldier's that are keeping me safe, then I'd rather be dead. Evil like that deserve nothing but death.
I dont get it how you can make a difference with who gets the death penalty and who doesnt. If you slaughter innocent people i dont see the difference between a random sicko in the street and a random sicko in a uniform.
Its just sad that stuff like that continues to happen. Allthough i think the US is getting more heat then other countries because they cannot regulate press like other political powers can.
That is correct, but still don't think they deserve to be put to death, send them to prison for life I am fine with that but more killing I don't think is the correct response. Also US military spends countless time and money making sure soldier's are trained to dehumanize the enemy so it makes their job "easier." Due to that alone I am not surprised for it to go this far. BY NO MEANS saying is correct, just saying I can see why it happen, or what appears to have happened.
Uh, what?
No, we don't. And that would have nothing to do with Afghani civilians anyway, they're civilians.
Also, about the "sitting around the dinner table" shit, I'm going to call sensationalism on that. If someone heard that, that was not cool with murdering defenseless civilians, they could have been sent to NJP just for saying it.
You don't try to dehumanize the targets for soldiers? That makes the army of the USA quite a unique one I have to say. At least a few soldiers where they can't abuse their homecoming for those weird propaganda videos.
Those guys are fucked up, killing an unarmed 15y old, even setting it up like a so it looks like he started, isn't that straight first degree murder? Together with trophy pictures etc., kinda sick, lets just hope that your goverment won't be able to cover it up again so they'll get away with 1-2y in prison. How about putting all of them into guantanamo, that would be nice
That is correct, but still don't think they deserve to be put to death, send them to prison for life I am fine with that but more killing I don't think is the correct response. Also US military spends countless time and money making sure soldier's are trained to dehumanize the enemy so it makes their job "easier." Due to that alone I am not surprised for it to go this far. BY NO MEANS saying is correct, just saying I can see why it happen, or what appears to have happened.
Uh, what?
No, we don't. And that would have nothing to do with Afghani civilians anyway, they're civilians.
Also, about the "sitting around the dinner table" shit, I'm going to call sensationalism on that. If someone heard that, that was not cool with murdering defenseless civilians, they could have been sent to NJP just for saying it.
You don't try to dehumanize the targets for soldiers? That makes the army of the USA quite a unique one I have to say. At least a few soldiers where they can't abuse their homecoming for those weird propaganda videos.
Those guys are fucked up, killing an unarmed 15y old, even setting it up like a so it looks like he started, isn't that straight first degree murder? Together with trophy pictures etc., kinda sick, lets just hope that your goverment won't be able to cover it up again so they'll get away with 1-2y in prison. How about putting all of them into guantanamo, that would be nice
I didn't click the link, but all that was in the pictures?
You don't try to dehumanize the targets for soldiers? That makes the army of the USA quite a unique one I have to say. At least a few soldiers where they can't abuse their homecoming for those weird propaganda videos.
Those guys are fucked up, killing an unarmed 15y old, even setting it up like a so it looks like he started, isn't that straight first degree murder? Together with trophy pictures etc., kinda sick, lets just hope that your goverment won't be able to cover it up again so they'll get away with 1-2y in prison. How about putting all of them into guantanamo, that would be nice
No, I never received any "dehumanization" training, unless you mean by calling people "targets" or whatever, I won't get into bad names we call our foes. Yes they were probably insane. They will not get away with 1-2 years in prison, they will probably get the death penalty.
That is correct, but still don't think they deserve to be put to death, send them to prison for life I am fine with that but more killing I don't think is the correct response. Also US military spends countless time and money making sure soldier's are trained to dehumanize the enemy so it makes their job "easier." Due to that alone I am not surprised for it to go this far. BY NO MEANS saying is correct, just saying I can see why it happen, or what appears to have happened.
Uh, what?
No, we don't. And that would have nothing to do with Afghani civilians anyway, they're civilians.
Also, about the "sitting around the dinner table" shit, I'm going to call sensationalism on that. If someone heard that, that was not cool with murdering defenseless civilians, they could have been sent to NJP just for saying it.
You don't try to dehumanize the targets for soldiers? That makes the army of the USA quite a unique one I have to say. At least a few soldiers where they can't abuse their homecoming for those weird propaganda videos.
Those guys are fucked up, killing an unarmed 15y old, even setting it up like a so it looks like he started, isn't that straight first degree murder? Together with trophy pictures etc., kinda sick, lets just hope that your goverment won't be able to cover it up again so they'll get away with 1-2y in prison. How about putting all of them into guantanamo, that would be nice
Dehumanize is kind of a vague term. The only thing I remember that could be remotely linked to that term was when we had to watch videos of military members dying(i'm assuming so we could learn from there mistakes). You can fin most of the videos on you tube,just search al qaeda propaganda.
But these soldiers are fucked up, and they should get the death penalty
Uggh this reminds me of my highschool friend (not really my friend anymore he's changed) told me of Iraq stories of soldiers killing innocents and that one sniped a boy's head while he was eating ice cream because they were bored or something. He's never been the same after going to Iraq the first time, and even worse after his second or third time back. Fucking war..
On March 28 2011 18:23 Torte de Lini wrote: Death penalty is never justified because it neither punishes nor corrects the person. It is contradictory to what a punishment and/or a sentence is.
To end their life serves no purpose in the end.
neither does incarceration without therapy. how does spending years of your life surrounded by criminals help you stop drug addiction?
death penalty serves as a deterrent for future crimes as well as saves honest, hardworking people from paying a lot of money to support a career criminal
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
If those are the soldier's that are keeping me safe, then I'd rather be dead. Evil like that deserve nothing but death.
I doubt that, but nice try.
I don't doubt it. I know I'd rather die than have a bunch of sick cunts kill kids in my name.
On March 28 2011 18:23 Torte de Lini wrote: Death penalty is never justified because it neither punishes nor corrects the person. It is contradictory to what a punishment and/or a sentence is.
I doubt this is the place for a discussion on the death penalty; it is guarenteed to get stupid, fast. Think about the consequences of your posts, don't make us go through that D:
On March 28 2011 18:23 Torte de Lini wrote: Death penalty is never justified because it neither punishes nor corrects the person. It is contradictory to what a punishment and/or a sentence is.
To end their life serves no purpose in the end.
neither does incarceration without therapy. how does spending years of your life surrounded by criminals help you stop drug addiction?
death penalty serves as a deterrent for future crimes as well as saves honest, hardworking people from paying a lot of money to support a career criminal
Executing a person generally costs more than life imprisonment due to appeals and the surrounding process. We also know that we have executed innocent people, this is hard to reverse.
And execution has never been a deterrent because of a simple reason, criminals don't plan to get caught. I come from a country where the harshest sentence is 21 years (with further time only if that person is a danger). In addition we have much stricter gun control, and guess what. This leads to less murders.
The actual stories, and a good amount of the posts in this thread (Really? The war is terrible because of a few sociopaths? Really? American soldiers are all baby killers?).... I can't think of an intelligent response. So: *Facepalm*
On March 28 2011 18:23 Torte de Lini wrote: Death penalty is never justified because it neither punishes nor corrects the person. It is contradictory to what a punishment and/or a sentence is.
To end their life serves no purpose in the end.
neither does incarceration without therapy. how does spending years of your life surrounded by criminals help you stop drug addiction?
death penalty serves as a deterrent for future crimes as well as saves honest, hardworking people from paying a lot of money to support a career criminal
Death penalty is the best way to never ask yourself why such things happen. Death penalty is the ultimate hypocrisy.
What this story tells is that this war is barbarian. This kid is a complete moron and a bastard, but for this to happen even with a complete moron and a bastard, you need something to be very seriously wrong in the way this war is driven.
These guys are professionals? Right, take an 18 year-old redneck kid, give him a gun and a plane ticket, and he's a "professional".
It reminds of how soldiers were depicted in Apocalypse Now. No reason to fight apart from their salary. It's not even about protecting their country if it's so far away from home...
This is disgusting, but I guess it's just war. War is disgusting in many aspects and there are always ugly stories going along.
On March 28 2011 22:09 Kukaracha wrote: These guys are professionals? Right, take an 18 year-old redneck kid, give him a gun and a plane ticket, and he's a "professional".
It reminds of how soldiers were depicted in Apocalypse Now. No reason to fight apart from their salary. It's not even about protecting their country if it's so far away from home...
This is disgusting, but I guess it's just war. War is disgusting in many aspects and there are always ugly stories going along.
Onlt hing I'll disagree with is that you don't have to be close to an area to protect your home from it.
Ow god i saw all these sick pictures.... this is just fucked up i just thought they killed civilians by shooting them in the head, but after seeing those pictures now i truly know how messed up those guys are.
"throw candy to the children and run over them" if they did this i would be so furious.
On March 28 2011 19:28 TALegion wrote: The actual stories, and a good amount of the posts in this thread (Really? The war is terrible because of a few sociopaths? Really? American soldiers are all baby killers?).... I can't think of an intelligent response. So: *Facepalm*
My advice to you is that next time you can't think of an intelligent response, don't respond.
On March 28 2011 18:23 Torte de Lini wrote: Death penalty is never justified because it neither punishes nor corrects the person. It is contradictory to what a punishment and/or a sentence is.
To end their life serves no purpose in the end.
Just getting rid of someone to remove their potential to cause harm seems like a purpose to me. It doesn't have to be about punishment/correcting.
Given that, in our current system I think it's more expensive to execute them so that would make throwing them in prison may be a more efficient way of removing them from society.
Another photo of Afghan children. According to one soldier, members of 3rd Platoon also talked about a scenario in which they “would throw candy out in front and in the rear of the Stryker; the Stryker would then run the children over.”
So fucking sick. These guys need the death sentence
I don't think Soldiers who served our country in one way or another deserve the death sentence, this is all situational and too difficult in my opinion to determine what should be done =(
If those are the soldier's that are keeping me safe, then I'd rather be dead. Evil like that deserve nothing but death.
Painting them as 'evil' completely avoids the actual problem and actually does more harm than good for future cases. Making things 'evil' is the ultimate Bush-ism- it allows you to disconnect yourself from the bad deeds and just proclaim that they're bad apples, nothing is wrong with the system.
That is not true, especially when it comes to war and soldiers. The Apocalypse Now reference is spot on, because Heart of Darkness is a perfect example of the psychological transformation people go through in war and when they're put in ultimate positions of power.
Heinous crimes like these need to be accounted for, but just killing the persecutors and hoping it never happens again will not prevent it in the future. It never has.
I hate how CNN tries to imply that the killings have something to do with smoking hash and opium. Pretty dumb to think that hash and opium can go and make you kill someone lol. Lets just blame drugs for everything and not let anyone have any responsibility for their own actions.
On March 28 2011 22:48 CultureMisfits wrote: I hate how CNN tries to imply that the killings have something to do with smoking hash and opium. Pretty dumb to think that hash and opium can go and make you kill someone lol. Lets just blame drugs for everything and not let anyone have any responsibility for their own actions.
Thats media for you, CNN isn't the only one.. Same shit with shooting games, even though it might make you insane, but still.
On March 28 2011 22:48 CultureMisfits wrote: I hate how CNN tries to imply that the killings have something to do with smoking hash and opium. Pretty dumb to think that hash and opium can go and make you kill someone lol. Lets just blame drugs for everything and not let anyone have any responsibility for their own actions.
Yeah it's pretty amusing. Opium basically makes you sleep, and hashish makes you calm and relaxed... If the persons were under the effects of the drugs while killing people, I'd say they're becoming pretty huge dangers to society. Soldiers are drilled to kill, so that's what they do.
This is what happens when a government propagandizes how evil an entire group of people are just because of the side of an imaginary line they live on. Don't get me wrong, sure there are some real terrorists...but its all hyped so much. Not a single person inside the United States has died from a terrorist since 9/11, 2001. Even the Secretary of Defense admits Gaddafi was no threat to the US prior to the attacks, and thus the attacks on Libya are unconstitutional (Perhaps this is somewhat off topic). My point is, a majority of Afghanistan/Iraq citizens are great people, and its only a small minority that completely hate the United States. Also, its been declassified that Al Qaeda leaders such as Anwar al-Awlaki have been privately meeting at the Pentagon with federal officials, so perhaps we should be suspicious of our own government rather than killing innocent citizens that aren't even affiliated with any terrorist groups in wars we can't even afford.
On March 28 2011 23:37 sikyon wrote: I don't know about the US but in Canada, the military doesn't exactly attract top graduates out of high school and college.
No, this is what happens when you are forced to fight with the dregs of society, those who HAVE to join the military.
I'm not saying everyone in the military is like this, just that the incidence is higher due to the status of the job.
I've seen some of the brightest kids go into the military as well as some of the dumbest motherfuckers out there. The brighter ones I knew all went into either West Point or Air Force, most of the poorer/dumber people joined Army. I think for a lot of lower income people joining the military is a great deal because you get paid, they take care of you for a few years, and when you come out college is paid for. A lot of people probably join because they have no idea what to do with themselves after high school. With that kind of input, the fact that this kind of stuff happens in an already mindfucking place like Afghanistan makes me surprised that this hasn't happened more frequently.
On March 28 2011 23:37 sikyon wrote: I don't know about the US but in Canada, the military doesn't exactly attract top graduates out of high school and college.
No, this is what happens when you are forced to fight with the dregs of society, those who HAVE to join the military.
I'm not saying everyone in the military is like this, just that the incidence is higher due to the status of the job.
I've seen some of the brightest kids go into the military as well as some of the dumbest motherfuckers out there. The brighter ones I knew all went into either West Point or Air Force, most of the poorer/dumber people joined Army. I think for a lot of lower income people joining the military is a great deal because you get paid, they take care of you for a few years, and when you come out college is paid for. A lot of people probably join because they have no idea what to do with themselves after high school. With that kind of input, the fact that this kind of stuff happens in an already mindfucking place like Afghanistan makes me surprised that this hasn't happened more frequently.
99th percentile on my Asvab, Army infantry for 4.5 years, medically retired now. Mind you, a whole lot of the US Army is pretty fucked up, but so are the political and tactical situations. The issues are a whole lot more complex than they get made out to be though.
The vast majority of Combat Arms, the Infantry, Cav Scouts, and Tankers, aren't in the high IQ demographic. However, I don't think that's really the issue. The issue is the social groups they fall under. Now I'm perfectly aware this will raise a shit storm, but the fact is, the majority of those guys are Catholic or redneck Christians.
It's combining the lesser education, the intolerant religious upbringing, and the "badass soldier on a mission" mentality that really causes the problems. The intolerance allows them to not question the things that should be questioned, breeding ignorant hatred, and then handing them a gun and saying "all these guys are bad guys". It doesn't take long before they really believe that ALL of them are bad guys. It doesn't help that you can't be sure, and half the time, due to politics, you can't do something about the ones where you are sure.
Give ignorant, intolerant people guns, combat training, and a motive for hatred, spurred on by the common conflict, and it creates incidents like this. The US breeds intolerance in more places than the military, they're just the ones given an outlet. The problem goes deeper than the war crimes. Fix the intolerance, fix the ignorance, and fix the political climate, and maybe we can avoid a lot of this nonsense.
^ The army is primarily staffed by those without any other decent financial options and/or those with that whole "God and country" crazy complex. The grunts make up the bulk of the army so shit like this isn't exactly unexpected.
What pisses most people off is that this is being actively (and poorly) covered up in the name of "winning hearts and minds".
I'm much more angered by the fact that too many people up the chain of command are allowed to have the same crazy complex. My last unit, the Battalion Commander (that's a Lieutenant Colonel) literally idolized the movie 300. Not as a morale thing, it actually hurt morale and scared the piss out of the sane people. He actually slightly modified the "Who are you, what are you..." shit from the movie, and made us all scream it daily before being released.
If the grunts weren't put in an environment that breeds the mentality, and were sent to mental health professionals for getting like that, instead of getting promotions for "having the right attitude", it would help immensely.
Yes, the individual fault is on the people who commit the atrocity, but the people who don't do their jobs as leaders and get them therapy, but instead encourage the mindset that causes the problem should be treated as accomplices.
Edit:
intolerance.. hatred.. i don't see anything but intolerance and hatred in this thread. So stop whining about it.
You think people should be more tolerant towards murder? Let's look at cause and effect. Kill an enemy combatant = not murder. Kill an enemy civilian = murder. One of these breeds intolerance, for an action. Granted, a lot of people are focusing their ire horribly, but that doesn't mean the emotion behind the reaction isn't reasonable. Their aim just sucks.
War is hell. Simple as that. Every single side in every single war has committed mass atrocities.
This story, however, is a direct consequence of the Army lessening its standards for recruitment during the dog-years of 2005-2008. Just about every recruiting period failed to meet their required goals. In response, the JCOS did two things. One was being the "stop-loss" orders, in which soldiers on rest and refit could be ordered back to the front in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second, and much more important, was the relaxing of standards to allow just about anyone into the Army. Beforehand, you needed to pass several physical and mental tests before being recruited into the Army. During those dog-years though, the Army did away with most of these requirements. Yes, this soldier was a bad apple, but the relaxation of requirements is what allowed these bad apples to fester.
By and large, the US army is a very professional outfit. Even though I have major qualms about US foreign policy and agenda, I will almost never berate the US army because it is one of the few fighting forces out there that are actually quite professional.
On March 29 2011 00:18 Offhand wrote: ^ The army is primarily staffed by those without any other decent financial options and/or those with that whole "God and country" crazy complex. The grunts make up the bulk of the army so shit like this isn't exactly unexpected.
What pisses most people off is that this is being actively (and poorly) covered up in the name of "winning hearts and minds".
couldn't have said any better
the army is mostly comprised of people trying to escape there shitty life
that said being put into a war situation only furthers mental stress and can create someone to go crazy i dont doubt that
It's sad but true, it seems. Stuff like this happening. Is it a thing of this time, or a thing of all times? I'm eager to say similar stuff has happened in difference contexts throughout human history, with the difference of the fact that (the spread of) information was much more limited.
I think it's pointless to say stuff like "they should be punished". Punishment may seem obvious on the one hand, but does not solve anything on the other hand. But acts like these are too gruesome anyway, so rational thinking seems hard by default on such a subject. It all comes down to a saying I tend to embrace more and more when stumbling upon stupid stuff like this: "make love, not war". And this comes from someone who never smoked weed, nor hugged a tree in actual life for 27 years in a row now.
Crap went down, horrible stuff happened. Really nothing good can be said about that in any way. Should we just move on? I don't believe so. But rejudging the situation over and over again isn't going to contribute a single part of a constructive solution in any way. A basic study of prison life and/or punishment will show the huge ineffectiveness of said systems. What else is there to do? In a well advanced world no wars at all, but let's keep it more realistic. Professional help, such as psychiatrists for instance. Working well together with the US army to prevent/handle with stuff like this. That's one thing that comes to mind. And yes, it does not "feel" good after seeing stuff like this. But that's the one thing that's not going to help getting rid of horrible situations like this, feeling.
Demanding justice by killing/brutalizing/whatevering the "suspects" doesn't help in any single way. It's not getting the victims magically undamaged, and/or peace restored. It leaves a shitty feeling for everyone anyway. And it screams we want to go back instead of forth regarding development of the human species. "Man smash other man 'cause he smash other man". Welcome back to the stone age. So instead why not ask questions that help prevent this kind of stuff in the (near) future?
Looking at the history of man kind I'd say this "is the time to move forth" or something like that.
Another thread on TL full of self-hating Americans who comfortably sit behind their keyboards while bashing the people who protect this country. There are plenty of crazy people in every segment of society. I dislike being generalized as a soon-to-be killer due to the fact that I play video games. However I can tolerate that, seeing as though I really don't sacrifice anything to be that. When you generalize and bash American troops though, then you are crossing a line.
Look down upon the people who committed the crimes, not the people who share their occupation and sacrifice.
Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
On March 29 2011 00:36 Stoids wrote: Another thread on TL full of self-hating Americans who comfortably sit behind their keyboards while bashing the people who protect this country. There are plenty of crazy people in every segment of society. I dislike being generalized as a soon-to-be killer due to the fact that I play video games. However I can tolerate that, seeing as though I really don't sacrifice anything to be that. When you generalize and bash American troops though, then you are crossing a line.
Look down upon the people who committed the crimes, not the people who share their occupation and sacrifice.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
On March 28 2011 23:37 sikyon wrote: I don't know about the US but in Canada, the military doesn't exactly attract top graduates out of high school and college.
No, this is what happens when you are forced to fight with the dregs of society, those who HAVE to join the military.
I'm not saying everyone in the military is like this, just that the incidence is higher due to the status of the job.
I've seen some of the brightest kids go into the military as well as some of the dumbest motherfuckers out there. The brighter ones I knew all went into either West Point or Air Force, most of the poorer/dumber people joined Army. I think for a lot of lower income people joining the military is a great deal because you get paid, they take care of you for a few years, and when you come out college is paid for. A lot of people probably join because they have no idea what to do with themselves after high school. With that kind of input, the fact that this kind of stuff happens in an already mindfucking place like Afghanistan makes me surprised that this hasn't happened more frequently.
99th percentile on my Asvab, Army infantry for 4.5 years, medically retired now. Mind you, a whole lot of the US Army is pretty fucked up, but so are the political and tactical situations. The issues are a whole lot more complex than they get made out to be though.
The vast majority of Combat Arms, the Infantry, Cav Scouts, and Tankers, aren't in the high IQ demographic. However, I don't think that's really the issue. The issue is the social groups they fall under. Now I'm perfectly aware this will raise a shit storm, but the fact is, the majority of those guys are Catholic or redneck Christians.
It's combining the lesser education, the intolerant religious upbringing, and the "badass soldier on a mission" mentality that really causes the problems. The intolerance allows them to not question the things that should be questioned, breeding ignorant hatred, and then handing them a gun and saying "all these guys are bad guys". It doesn't take long before they really believe that ALL of them are bad guys. It doesn't help that you can't be sure, and half the time, due to politics, you can't do something about the ones where you are sure.
Give ignorant, intolerant people guns, combat training, and a motive for hatred, spurred on by the common conflict, and it creates incidents like this. The US breeds intolerance in more places than the military, they're just the ones given an outlet. The problem goes deeper than the war crimes. Fix the intolerance, fix the ignorance, and fix the political climate, and maybe we can avoid a lot of this nonsense.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
So is Teamliquid.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
I believe the saying is "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Agree with the politicians or not, the Military needs to exist, and the people in it (aside from the nuts that need to be kicked out) are just doing another needed job.
(Note: I say a military is needed in the same way I say Marxism doesn't work. Theoretically, in a perfect world, we could avoid needing military, but we don't live in one of those.)
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
Yes, we live in a society where it's acceptable to trade violence for upward mobility. Think about that for a second.
The average soldier is capable of attending college without service, they are middle class after all and things like loans do exist. The majority aren't there because they have no other option (although those there purely for upward mobility are no more or less morally in the clear).
Maybe military service is the only way you could attend a 40k/year high-end private school.
On March 29 2011 00:36 Stoids wrote: Another thread on TL full of self-hating Americans who comfortably sit behind their keyboards while bashing the people who protect this country. There are plenty of crazy people in every segment of society. I dislike being generalized as a soon-to-be killer due to the fact that I play video games. However I can tolerate that, seeing as though I really don't sacrifice anything to be that. When you generalize and bash American troops though, then you are crossing a line.
Look down upon the people who committed the crimes, not the people who share their occupation and sacrifice.
-Your point that our mission in Afghanistan is protecting Americans is highly debatable. It could be argued that the last time US troops actually "defended" the US was in WW2.
-Just because there are nutbags exist in every segment of society does not mean that their actions should be tolerated if they are avoidable. The shit that happened ,happened because our military is flawed in that a) we don't screen the nutbags out in the first place, b) superior officers may condone/encourage this kind of behavior, and c) reports are covered up which protects perpetrators and makes it easier for things to happen again.
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
Yes, we live in a society where it's acceptable to trade violence for upward mobility. Think about that for a second.
I'm sure you thought of this statement and high fived yourself in the mirror for how insanely deep and thoughtful it was. I'm not sure the point you were trying to make, but it was in no way compelling.
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
Yes, we live in a society where it's acceptable to trade violence for upward mobility. Think about that for a second.
Gee, that's convenient. You must not need to give yourself a leg up in the world, because you're already standing on everyone below you. But hey, whatever, pay your taxes, and you pay for my $1000/weekly medication, and my disability check, because I'm medically retired, and planning to enjoy my GI Bill. So it worked, and apparently our society DOES support it, including you, whether you like it or not.
Just because there are nutbags exist in every segment of society does not mean that their actions should be tolerated if they are avoidable. The shit that happened ,happened because our military is flawed in that a) we don't screen the nutbags out in the first place, b) superior officers may condone/encourage this kind of behavior, and c) reports are covered up which protects perpetrators and makes it easier for things to happen again.
I'm fine with arguing at this angle. I do not enjoy reading generalized hatred directed at American troops though. It insults current and former soldiers who sacrificed their temporarily comfortable life to help our country. Like I said earlier, I am not arguing their reasons for being there; rather, I am supporting them as individuals whose inherent job description is to protect my country.
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
Yes, we live in a society where it's acceptable to trade violence for upward mobility. Think about that for a second.
Gee, that's convenient. You must not need to give yourself a leg up in the world, because you're already standing on everyone below you. But hey, whatever, pay your taxes, and you pay for my $1000/weekly medication, and my disability check, because I'm medically retired, and planning to enjoy my GI Bill. So it worked, and apparently our society DOES support it, including you, whether you like it or not.
I agree, there's really nothing I can do to stop it. Perhaps all that cash and benefits help you sleep at night. I'll take my student loans and moral superiority instead.
The solution is of course to kill military spending and make soldiers live by the same rules as the rest of civilization. But who the fuck am I kidding, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
On March 29 2011 00:36 Stoids wrote: Another thread on TL full of self-hating Americans who comfortably sit behind their keyboards while bashing the people who protect this country. There are plenty of crazy people in every segment of society. I dislike being generalized as a soon-to-be killer due to the fact that I play video games. However I can tolerate that, seeing as though I really don't sacrifice anything to be that. When you generalize and bash American troops though, then you are crossing a line.
Look down upon the people who committed the crimes, not the people who share their occupation and sacrifice.
I think if the US governement didn't label it's military "pure and courageous angels fighting for freedom and peace" the standards wouldn't be so high.
Everybody with half a brain knows the was has been done in Abu Grahib for ex. has been done (and worse) by any kind of army in a war environnement. The US is extending it's influence over the world to the expense of it's ennemies like any country would do but they refuse to call a cat a cat.
And stop turning every american soldiers into a martyr, as far as I know these guys are either professionals or volunteers am I right ? And they are not defending the american land, they are occupying another country.
Again, I'm not a rabid anti-US guy, I assume that my country would do the exact same thing if it was in the position the US is in. Just cut the "we're all good guys sacrifying solely for freedom and peace" BS.
On March 29 2011 00:42 Offhand wrote: Ths US military doesn't do anything to protect me. The troops are on the line of fire, but not for reasons that concern my safety, or the safety of any other non-military Americans for that matter.
I dislike generalizations but numbers don't lie. The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
I'm speechless at how ignorant this is. Amazing. I'm not saying, what you're saying is statistically incorrect, but the way you said it was disgusting. Not everyone has a mommy and daddy that can foot their 40,000 $ per semester bill, or cosign for their student loans. It's called upward mobility, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill is a great way to move up. Seriously think for like 2 seconds before you say some ignorant shit next time.
Yes, we live in a society where it's acceptable to trade violence for upward mobility. Think about that for a second.
Gee, that's convenient. You must not need to give yourself a leg up in the world, because you're already standing on everyone below you. But hey, whatever, pay your taxes, and you pay for my $1000/weekly medication, and my disability check, because I'm medically retired, and planning to enjoy my GI Bill. So it worked, and apparently our society DOES support it, including you, whether you like it or not.
I agree, there's really nothing I can do to stop it. Perhaps all that cash and benefits help you sleep at night. I'll take my student loans and moral superiority instead.
The solution is of course to kill military spending and make soldiers live by the same rules as the rest of civilization. But who the fuck am I kidding, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
You can't have world peace without a world government, and that would likely end up needing to be the worst military dictatorship at all. And feel free to claim your theoretical moral superiority, tell me, how exactly am I morally inferior to you? What war crimes did I commit? What crimes have I committed? What have I done against my fellow man? Can you name anything? No.
My job in Iraq was as a gunner in a Brigadier General's security detail. I rode along in case we got attacked, to be ready to defend my squad and the general. His job? He was inspecting the second wave of humanitarian projects to make sure the money wasn't falling through cracks as badly as the first round. I rode to schools, water treatment plants, power plants, and police stations.
Do I believe we should have been in Iraq to begin with? No. But I did a job there, was able to avoid being forced to kill any other human, DESPITE us being attacked several times on our way to check out those aid projects. Just because the politicians fuck up doesn't automatically make the soldiers worse people than you for doing their jobs. The fact that you seem to think so just shows you to be as ignorant and intolerant as the types that actually commit the war crimes.
You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
On March 29 2011 01:15 Offhand wrote: You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
Actually, I was actively helping the process of undoing what you're saying I was doing. As it turns out, the benefits are incredibly worth it. I volunteered to do a job, did it to the best of my ability, helped a bad situation get a little bit better for some of the people in it.
Can you say as much? What have you done to help those poor oppressed people? Protested on their behalf? I'm sure they can eat rhetoric. Have you sent money? I doubt it.
If you don't support either side, you can't claim the high ground, you're just a coward sitting on a fence hoping it never affects you personally.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
I agree with everything you said except the bolded part. Yes, the people in the armed forces are sacrificing a lot in order to serve and this is admirable of them, but tell me, in what way is the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan protecting you and allowing you to continue the life that you live?
I read alot of bad things in this thread and alot of accusations about why and how american soldiers are, which I think is half true and half bullshit. I think some people fail to remember that some of these men have been oversea's in iraq or afghan for many years sometimes 4+ in a combat zone alone. Now also remember this war is all about gorilla tactics, IED's VBIED's, suicide bombers and what not have been the main attack on ANY SOLDIER from ANY country that has served in these wars.
My first tour of duty was in 2003, and beleive me U.S. soldiers were not always the worse out on the road then and there were many country's involved. I, like many others signed up for the army because I wanted to make something of my life ( not because im iggnorant ) and when sept 11th happen I felt it was right to serve 4 years for my country. I am a type of person that likes to help people, I am very generous and always go out of my way to help others. I volunteered to go to guatemala and do some work, just to say im not racist or anything in anyway. After day in and day out being bombed on the roads, while you sleep motors raining down nightly ( mainly in 03-04 ) Seeing innocent civilians get blown up by these bombs over and over and your buddies too, and the biggest problem was. Who the fuck is doing this? well it's that same joe that looks like a regular civilian. After awhile this breaks you down because no matter who you are, you are scared everytime you step outside that wire and you don't know who or when something will happen.
Now i am not saying what these guys did is right, because it's not and I wouldnt tolerate it, but to put this name on every soldier is just bullshit when there has been 100's of thousands of soldiers that have gone over there. I will admit I have seen my fair share of bad shootings and I am not happy about it, I have been in shootings where innocent people preceived to be a threat, because they were just as ignorant as everyone else in this world. It's sad and I feel pain from my tours of duty every single day, when it was real bad I couldn't sleep. nightmares haunted me, my startle reaction was out the roof. Someone could tap my shoulder behind me and I would jump and be in a offensive position. Most my problems from the war still happen every week and it's been years. I like to think of it as a tolerance level and 90% prolly more, but I don't want to say everyone just can't or shouldn't be put through year's of this kind of war where there is no trust in the people you are trying to protect, there is no face on the man behind the trigger and the explosions just keep getting bigger and bigger.
When I was in, the military ignored most common signs of mental health problems, mainly PTSD.( Post Tramatic Stress Disorder ) I still fault them everyday for that, but I am hearing it is getting better( but obviously not ). I am working with the VA now and I will say that they are indeed also more aware of the problem and are trying to help. PTSD is something that is uncurable, it's all in the mind and you can't control how the mind think's and react's, but you can supress it with the use of therapy and maybe some medication might work but rarly does. There are 100's of thousands of claims for PTSD and lets also not forget TBI ( tramatic brain injury ) which many will think if your brain dead then whats it matter? well there are many different levels of TBI and they do mess with you mentally even though it was caused by a physical reaction.
btw i am 100% disabled veteran and I would hope just because of that many of you wouldn't look down at me and flame to hard, but i know it will come. Just remember my tolerance level is lower so i might get angry =)
On September 28 2010 10:00 SiguR wrote: Its sad that even when stories and videos like these surface, people still fail to realize how bias their usual perception of the world is. The civilians in countries currently occupied by the united states have been slaughtered like animals (or worse) quite often. The same goes for civilians in countries occupied by pretty much any other country. It amazes me that even after this sort of stuff surfaces, people still cling to their "our soldiers and society is more humane and 'good' than other societies of the past that have been in similar positions" mentality.
Most wars are brutal on both sides beyond comprehension for most people that have never actually experienced it. Saying this shit happens in every war situation doesn't justify it, however. It just shows that people need to be absolutely certain they want to go to war in the first place and are ready to accept the consequences. When you put kids into situations where they are purposely desensitized towards the value of human life, this sort of shit is going to happen. It's disgusting and it's wrong, but odds are, something similar is going to happen in most war situations.
It's disappointing to see the ignorant masses push for wars they dont understand and then cringe when they are forced to see that war involves more than what you see in most hollywood movies.
The solution is of course to kill military spending and make soldiers live by the same rules as the rest of civilization. But who the fuck am I kidding, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
It's already happening. Quite a bit actually... let's see in the last few months: -My housing allowance was reduced.
-Pay raise for the new year was only 1.3% which does not even keep up with inflation.
-Cuts to various education programs on my post. (I'm sure its army wide but can't confirm)
-My unit is probably going to lose our jump status because of budget cuts and the fact that its just not important as anymore given the current environment.
*edit* -Reduction in medical coverage.
-The army is currently in the process of Trying to cut 49,000 people by trying to "chapter" them out. Basically it's a process of catching a lot of the bad apples. Basically in my unit if you commit any offence that would normally result in a UCMJ article... you will be instantly chaptered.
and I just realized this is kind of off topic, I apologize.
Too much fighting about whether being in the military is justifiable or not. Personally, I do not have it in me to take a human/ most animal life (mosquitoes...well), and my morals are that I treat other people as humans, no matter from what social, economic, ethnicity etc. they come from.
I respect the soldiers that do serve in the military, as they too make sacrifices, although I do not always agree with policies that the military employs.
That being said, I cannot justify the killings that happened here. This is the result of a flawed system, that did not take responsibility for what happened, and is actively trying to downplay the role it had in the slaughter of innocent civilians. I am attending a American Revolutionary War class, and some events are quite under-told. I too would have my blood boil if some soldiers whom I have never seen in my life march in and shot my family and neighbors, all for the sake of sport? Or revenge killings, as what happens ever so often in war? (I read about a account of a British dragoon finding 5 severed heads on a shelf (the Tories/loyalists taking revenge on the Whigs/patriots vice versa.)
On March 29 2011 01:15 Offhand wrote: You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
Actually, I was actively helping the process of undoing what you're saying I was doing. As it turns out, the benefits are incredibly worth it. I volunteered to do a job, did it to the best of my ability, helped a bad situation get a little bit better for some of the people in it.
Can you say as much? What have you done to help those poor oppressed people? Protested on their behalf? I'm sure they can eat rhetoric. Have you sent money? I doubt it.
If you don't support either side, you can't claim the high ground, you're just a coward sitting on a fence hoping it never affects you personally.
The only mess you're fixing was the one you helped create.
Not going into the rest of your post because it's ad homonim bullshit.
On March 29 2011 01:15 Offhand wrote: You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
Actually, I was actively helping the process of undoing what you're saying I was doing. As it turns out, the benefits are incredibly worth it. I volunteered to do a job, did it to the best of my ability, helped a bad situation get a little bit better for some of the people in it.
Can you say as much? What have you done to help those poor oppressed people? Protested on their behalf? I'm sure they can eat rhetoric. Have you sent money? I doubt it.
If you don't support either side, you can't claim the high ground, you're just a coward sitting on a fence hoping it never affects you personally.
Jingle, buddy, if I were you I would quit responding to such blatantly hateful posts. Let that one stew in his own juices. I, for one, appreciate your service, and I appreciate that you brought sincere humanitarian motives to that service. It's very encouraging to hear.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
So is Teamliquid.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
I agree with everything you said except the bolded part. Yes, the people in the armed forces are sacrificing a lot in order to serve and this is admirable of them, but tell me, in what way is the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan protecting you and allowing you to continue the life that you live?
Actually... In most war-time circumstances there is the threat of them invading america If we lose there in war X then the y country will invade us. Iraq is different, we invading them is a mistake. they didn't have the money or forces to fight back, let alone invade america. Peter basically says what the government fucked up in the first place:
You think people should be more tolerant towards murder? Let's look at cause and effect. Kill an enemy combatant = not murder. Kill an enemy civilian = murder. One of these breeds intolerance, for an action. Granted, a lot of people are focusing their ire horribly, but that doesn't mean the emotion behind the reaction isn't reasonable. Their aim just sucks.
Putting words into my mouth. I'm just pointing out how ironic it is people are condemning intolerance with more intolerance.. eg."rednecks" "religious nuts" etc. We should deal with these murderers appropriately and condemn their actions, but it would be a mistake to generalize calling the army incompetent or intolerant as that only breeds more intolerance.
Well I have been to afghanistan twice now, and there are a lot of soldiers that help the afghanis a lot, at the same time on my first deployment that was 15 months a month after getting out of airborne school I used to have this hate for all this people, because somehow I blamed them for me been there and every time a soldier got killed i felt like we had to kill all of them.
By the end of that deployment I realize how good some of this people are and how nice they are too but when all you see in the news is them killing american soldiers by the time you get there the only thing you have in your mind is payback and if you don't catch yourself you might end up doing something stupid.
also a lot of times the problems this soldiers have in the states specially married soldiers is worst than them been in the war.
On March 29 2011 01:15 Offhand wrote: You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
Actually, I was actively helping the process of undoing what you're saying I was doing. As it turns out, the benefits are incredibly worth it. I volunteered to do a job, did it to the best of my ability, helped a bad situation get a little bit better for some of the people in it.
Can you say as much? What have you done to help those poor oppressed people? Protested on their behalf? I'm sure they can eat rhetoric. Have you sent money? I doubt it.
If you don't support either side, you can't claim the high ground, you're just a coward sitting on a fence hoping it never affects you personally.
Just ignore the retarded troll. People here in the U.S. and across the world have very unrealistic viewpoints of war. You don't know what war is but until you are actually involved in that war you know nothing. I have been involved in one before and there is not a day that goes by that I can forget it. The type of combat involved in Iraq is nothing but urban fighting, where avoiding civilian casualties is impossible. What makes matters worse is that insurgents/militants use civilians as their cover when they do operations. No matter how hard you try not to hurt civilians, they always get hurt.
@Offhand it's not hard to take to easy path and blame it on a soldier, who volunteered to protect your interests and your ass. The ones you should blame are the politicians, not the soldiers. The soldiers go their to do their job, a job they volunteered for, blame the politicians who send them there, the ones you voted for.
Certainly, there are many soldiers that have done much good in the countries they are sent to war in. Much reconstruction and progress has been made, although unforeseen circumstances do happen. I am quite aware that civilians do get shot or killed incidentally. My only beef with this case is that these soldiers (the ones specifically in this case) were doing it to pass time, because they were bored, and some ignored their own morals and did what their commanding officers told them to do.
On March 29 2011 01:23 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: I read alot of bad things in this thread and alot of accusations about why and how american soldiers are, which I think is half true and half bullshit. I think some people fail to remember that some of these men have been oversea's in iraq or afghan for many years sometimes 4+ in a combat zone alone. Now also remember this war is all about gorilla tactics, IED's VBIED's, suicide bombers and what not have been the main attack on ANY SOLDIER from ANY country that has served in these wars.
My first tour of duty was in 2003, and beleive me U.S. soldiers were not always the worse out on the road then and there were many country's involved. I, like many others signed up for the army because I wanted to make something of my life ( not because im iggnorant ) and when sept 11th happen I felt it was right to serve 4 years for my country. I am a type of person that likes to help people, I am very generous and always go out of my way to help others. I volunteered to go to guatemala and do some work, just to say im not racist or anything in anyway. After day in and day out being bombed on the roads, while you sleep motors raining down nightly ( mainly in 03-04 ) Seeing innocent civilians get blown up by these bombs over and over and your buddies too, and the biggest problem was. Who the fuck is doing this? well it's that same joe that looks like a regular civilian. After awhile this breaks you down because no matter who you are, you are scared everytime you step outside that wire and you don't know who or when something will happen.
Now i am not saying what these guys did is right, because it's not and I wouldnt tolerate it, but to put this name on every soldier is just bullshit when there has been 100's of thousands of soldiers that have gone over there. I will admit I have seen my fair share of bad shootings and I am not happy about it, I have been in shootings where innocent people preceived to be a threat, because they were just as ignorant as everyone else in this world. It's sad and I feel pain from my tours of duty every single day, when it was real bad I couldn't sleep. nightmares haunted me, my startle reaction was out the roof. Someone could tap my shoulder behind me and I would jump and be in a offensive position. Most my problems from the war still happen every week and it's been years. I like to think of it as a tolerance level and 90% prolly more, but I don't want to say everyone just can't or shouldn't be put through year's of this kind of war where there is no trust in the people you are trying to protect, there is no face on the man behind the trigger and the explosions just keep getting bigger and bigger.
When I was in, the military ignored most common signs of mental health problems, mainly PTSD.( Post Tramatic Stress Disorder ) I still fault them everyday for that, but I am hearing it is getting better( but obviously not ). I am working with the VA now and I will say that they are indeed also more aware of the problem and are trying to help. PTSD is something that is uncurable, it's all in the mind and you can't control how the mind think's and react's, but you can supress it with the use of therapy and maybe some medication might work but rarly does. There are 100's of thousands of claims for PTSD and lets also not forget TBI ( tramatic brain injury ) which many will think if your brain dead then whats it matter? well there are many different levels of TBI and they do mess with you mentally even though it was caused by a physical reaction.
btw i am 100% disabled veteran and I would hope just because of that many of you wouldn't look down at me and flame to hard, but i know it will come. Just remember my tolerance level is lower so i might get angry =)
I'd just like to say I really apprechiate posts like these (and posters like you) that can discuss a matter at hand in shades of gray, and not black and white.And no one in their right mind would look down at you.
On March 29 2011 01:15 Offhand wrote: You were in a country actively suppressing the local people for someone else's profit. Perhaps you didn't get your murder on and were there to just defend other soldiers. But your actions are no better then the people you support.
You weren't drafted, you entered the army willingly, no one forced you to support that agenda. Hope the benefits were worth it.
You forget that you too, have blood on your hands. Your food, your car, your house, every import has blood stains on it. The ground on which you walk is a giant graveyard. Your chap-ass shoes are made by kids who live hell everyday. Your shirt was made by an exploited worker who won't know much outside of the factory. Your Ipod is made in an oppressive country. The computer you're working on is partially made in a country whose' history is based on starving masses and the Tian an men massacre.
The situation of your country depends of its ability to maintain its superiority. Every men who lives a good western life lives in a bubble allowed by the other's suffering. And it has always been that way. Even those who tried to impose the beautiful ideal of communism ended up by repeating the same scheme.
Don't fool yourself on thinking you're not responsible. Your parents were responsible for what occurred in my country and latin America in the 70s, and you're responsible for your own government. And not only that, but you also profit from this system (student loans for example, but also every day shopping, peace and wealth). Like Sartre said, if you really disapprove, you can do something against it. Minding your own business is agreeing silently.
I'm sorry if the mods consider this off-topic but I really need to point out that very few people have clean hands and the position to look down on those who actually act towards a certain goal and certain values.
@All the posters who are/were in the military -- thank you for your service.
As for a good segment of the posters who pigeonhole soldiers as dumb and ignorant (a completely unfounded generalization, by the way~) -- I guess its very easy to call other people idiots when you have the power of anonymity, yes?
The situation of your country depends of its ability to maintain its superiority. Every men who lives a good western life lives in a bubble allowed by the other's suffering. And it has always been that way. Even those who tried to impose the beautiful ideal of communism ended up by repeating the same scheme.
Hint: you aren't exempt from this either.
You benefit just as much, or even more, from ~imperialism and shedding of blood~ as we do (that is, assuming your location is accurate).
I really appreciate all the posts by people actually who have actually served in a military whether it's America's or another country.
The civilians in countries currently occupied by the united states have been slaughtered like animals (or worse) quite often. The same goes for civilians in countries occupied by pretty much any other country. It amazes me that even after this sort of stuff surfaces, people still cling to their "our soldiers and society is more humane and 'good' than other societies of the past that have been in similar positions" mentality.
Because that mentality is correct. If you look at the numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan 60-70% or more of the civilians killed have died in terrorist attacks not American bombings or shootings.
It amazes me that people are so ignorant that they really think these kinds of moral equivalence arguments work, especially when they can't resist from using such intemperate language. It amazes me that people can cling to "Well some of your soldiers committed murder so I'm going to generalize that to the entire military and then to your society as well and condemn you" just because they are so emotionally charged about it they can't think straight.
And someone way earlier said that instances of US killing civilians is just like the Rape of Nanking, you've obviously never read what the Japanese actually did in Nanking, how it happened, etc.
America is one of the few countries in history to prosecute its own soldiers for war crimes they've committed, and it is while the conflict is on going! Unheard of.
Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq because of engagement and firepower limitation rules intended to protect civilians from being hurt.
The situation of your country depends of its ability to maintain its superiority. Every men who lives a good western life lives in a bubble allowed by the other's suffering. And it has always been that way. Even those who tried to impose the beautiful ideal of communism ended up by repeating the same scheme.
This is bullshit and I hope everyone reading it knows this. The West didn't become rich and powerful because we "oppressed" the rest of the world, we became rich and powerful because of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in our own countries, with resources we found in our own countries (America, France, Britain, Germany, etc.).
It's a totally twisted worldview to look at the economic situation of countries or individuals as zero-sum game; someone having something MUST mean someone somewhere else is being deprived of something DIRECTLY BECAUSE that first person has whatever they have. It's not true.
The West does not lead the good life because we've stolen the wealth from others. We lead the good life because we made it for ourselves here in our own country.
It wasn't the US that started World War II, which caused so much devastation that the US, almost the only untouched "great power" after the war and already the richest country on earth beforehand, couldn't help but become the dominant world economy afterward.
It wasn't our greedy capitalist pigs that put just huge deposits of iron in the northern Midwest, and oil in Texas and California and Alaska, or coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, etc., it wasn't plutocrats that gave us a million square miles or more of great agricultural land. It was there. We did the hard work to make it useful. We didn't go "oppress" some other country and steel mills and factories and farms started magically appearing in America as the result.
Unless of course you want to get all angry about what happened to the Native Americans. Of course a lot of it happened before there was an America, and it wasn't like the Indians didn't try to enslave or wipe each other out all the time, but it doesn't matter that population migration happens and when it does people get displaced, usually in not-nice ways, because America is wrong and evil and we'll just ignore all of history to say so.
I really hate these threads because the ignorance and biased anti american hate is always astounding and hard to not just lash out at people for being incredibly close minded and stupid.
The people who did this were wrong no way around it, but to lump every single person in the military in the same category of them is ridiculous, you have no idea what it is like and are in no position to look down on the people who serve and don't take part in this bull.
I honestly wish mods would just close these threads because nothing comes out of it but hate from people who can only see things in black and white.
I just hope the perpetrators get the punishment they deserve. In past wars, a lot of these murderers seems to get reduce sentence or early release. Always piss me off when justice is not serve
Kurt Tucholsky '31. It was and will always be like that.
I wonder if he might have had a different opinion if he'd lived long enough to see 1939-1945. Nothing like a guy building gas chambers and trying to take over the world to open the possibility in your mind that soldiers might be necessary and what they do necessary as well sometimes.
Unfortunately probably not, when people get dense like about a topic nothing really ever gets through.
On March 29 2011 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: I really appreciate all the posts by people actually who have actually served in a military whether it's America's or another country.
The civilians in countries currently occupied by the united states have been slaughtered like animals (or worse) quite often. The same goes for civilians in countries occupied by pretty much any other country. It amazes me that even after this sort of stuff surfaces, people still cling to their "our soldiers and society is more humane and 'good' than other societies of the past that have been in similar positions" mentality.
Because that mentality is correct. If you look at the numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan 60-70% or more of the civilians killed have died in terrorist attacks not American bombings or shootings.
It amazes me that people are so ignorant that they really think these kinds of moral equivalence arguments work, especially when they can't resist from using such intemperate language. It amazes me that people can cling to "Well some of your soldiers committed murder so I'm going to generalize that to the entire military and then to your society as well and condemn you" just because they are so emotionally charged about it they can't think straight.
And someone way earlier said that instances of US killing civilians is just like the Rape of Nanking, you've obviously never read what the Japanese actually did in Nanking, how it happened, etc.
America is one of the few countries in history to prosecute its own soldiers for war crimes they've committed, and it is while the conflict is on going! Unheard of.
Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq because of engagement and firepower limitation rules intended to protect civilians from being hurt.
The situation of your country depends of its ability to maintain its superiority. Every men who lives a good western life lives in a bubble allowed by the other's suffering. And it has always been that way. Even those who tried to impose the beautiful ideal of communism ended up by repeating the same scheme.
This is bullshit and I hope everyone reading it knows this. The West didn't become rich and powerful because we "oppressed" the rest of the world, we became rich and powerful because of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in our own countries, with resources we found in our own countries (America, France, Britain, Germany, etc.).
It's a totally twisted worldview to look at the economic situation of countries or individuals as zero-sum game; someone having something MUST mean someone somewhere else is being deprived of something DIRECTLY BECAUSE that first person has whatever they have. It's not true.
The West does not lead the good life because we've stolen the wealth from others. We lead the good life because we made it for ourselves here in our own country.
It wasn't the US that started World War II, which caused so much devastation that the US, almost the only untouched "great power" after the war and already the richest country on earth beforehand, couldn't help but become the dominant world economy afterward.
It wasn't our greedy capitalist pigs that put just huge deposits of iron in the northern Midwest, and oil in Texas and California and Alaska, or coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, etc., it wasn't plutocrats that gave us a million square miles or more of great agricultural land. It was there. We did the hard work to make it useful. We didn't go "oppress" some other country and steel mills and factories and farms started magically appearing in America as the result.
Unless of course you want to get all angry about what happened to the Native Americans. Of course a lot of it happened before there was an America, and it wasn't like the Indians didn't try to enslave or wipe each other out all the time, but it doesn't matter that population migration happens and when it does people get displaced, usually in not-nice ways, because America is wrong and evil and we'll just ignore all of history to say so.
On March 29 2011 02:47 419 wrote: You benefit just as much, or even more, from ~imperialism and shedding of blood~ as we do (that is, assuming your location is accurate).
Oh I know, don't get me wrong. I'm a foreigner so I have a really strong conscience of how the west in general is bubble of peace and wealth.
The situation of your country depends of its ability to maintain its superiority. Every men who lives a good western life lives in a bubble allowed by the other's suffering. And it has always been that way. Even those who tried to impose the beautiful ideal of communism ended up by repeating the same scheme.
This is bullshit and I hope everyone reading it knows this. The West didn't become rich and powerful because we "oppressed" the rest of the world, we became rich and powerful because of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in our own countries, with resources we found in our own countries (America, France, Britain, Germany, etc.).
It's a totally twisted worldview to look at the economic situation of countries or individuals as zero-sum game; someone having something MUST mean someone somewhere else is being deprived of something DIRECTLY BECAUSE that first person has whatever they have. It's not true.
The West does not lead the good life because we've stolen the wealth from others. We lead the good life because we made it for ourselves here in our own country.
What was the Industrial revolution? Oh right, strikes that ended in mass murder, workers being exploited to death, dangerous and hard working conditions wich led to mental disorders, stress, death, etc. What was the previous boost? Oh right, colonies. Enslaving foreign countries to obtain their ressources at the lowest price, giving very little in return (when giving anything, take the example of Congo). America was a colony by the way, and it grew to be a great country when... Europe was destroyed to pieces by WW2! It wasn't hard work that made America what it is today. Countries never "hard worked" their way to history. In fact, history is made of wars.
And I'm not accusing the west, that's just how it works. The nobles own everything while commoners - "belongings" of their lord - struggle to survive, working classes oppressed by the bourgeoisie, colonialism, conquests, imperialism.
I just ate tasty chinese food, but that's because that's made by a bunch of illegal immigrants who'll do it for nothing. I could go there to give them some cash, hell I don't really need a new shirt, but I won't. Because I don't care that much.
But at least I'll never say that "oh noez, the world is being cruel with them, someone do something!". At least I admit that I just don't care about them. I somehow care about starving people so I give 20€ per month to charity even though I'm just 19. But I don't care that much so I won't go to Africa to play being a superhero.
You CAN always do something, so if you're not doing anything it's YOUR FAULT. You can protest, you can donate, you can work, you can spread the word, etc, etc. You can bitch about wars but if you're still giving your money to the government and not expressing your opinion then you're just being a whiny kid.
Last time I checked I chill with friends and smoke up all the time. I don't go killing people. I'm not even aggressive. Don't make excuses for these sick murderers they are the reason mankind is becoming a mindless killer.
Also, I know there are a lot people on these forums who are in the U.S army here, and are offended by the posts that people have been making. I understand what you guys have been doing but really the higher-ups should at least try to control their inferiors. Don't defend these serial killers if you want to be respected.
On March 29 2011 04:00 Dismantlethethroat wrote: Last time I checked I chill with friends and smoke up all the time. I don't go killing people. I'm not even aggressive. Don't make excuses for these sick murderers they are the reason mankind is becoming a mindless killer.
Also, I know there are a lot people on these forums who are in the U.S army here, and are offended by the posts that people have been making. I understand what you guys have been doing but really the higher-ups should at least try to control their inferiors. Don't defend these serial killers if you want to be respected.
you also aren't put through the stress and lifestyle of a soldier. someone who's seen death so many times their head isn't right... but that's the fault of the branch to keep people not in the right state of mind on the field... i'm not making excuses for them, i'm just saying - trust me, it's much easier to go insane in afghan than it is in your cupcake world where you get to see your family and friends everyday, do whatever you want, and the only murder you witness is on call of duty.
i'm in the military, i've been overseas, etc. etc. etc. and i'd really hope the acts of a few men don't jumble you're opinions of the entire military, because that's just quite silly. it would be like if i said TL is full of trolls because there are 1-2 here and there.... silly, right?...
What was the Industrial revolution? Oh right, strikes that ended in mass murder, workers being exploited to death, dangerous and hard working conditions wich led to mental disorders, stress, death, etc.
Feudalism was better, right? Trade guilds and tenantry that kept most people in a nicer, gentler serfdom was better, right?
Look at where we are now. We wouldn't be here if we hadn't gone through the growing pains of what came before.
I'll remind you that mass murder, exploitation, dangerous and long working conditions, mass deportation to a far-off corner of the country, and outright starvation were all threats faced in much larger degree by the proletariat in the Soviet Union and other communist countries than they ever were even in the darkest hottest loudest dankest steel mill in the dirtiest smokiest city in America.
What was the previous boost? Oh right, colonies. Enslaving foreign countries to obtain their ressources at the lowest price, giving very little in return (when giving anything, take the example of Congo). America was a colony by the way, and it grew to be a great country when... Europe was destroyed to pieces by WW2! It wasn't hard work that made America what it is today. Countries never "hard worked" their way to history. In fact, history is made of wars.
And I'm not accusing the west, that's just how it works. The nobles own everything while commoners - "belongings" of their lord - struggle to survive, working classes oppressed by the bourgeoisie, colonialism, conquests, imperialism.
Marx was wrong, Marx was wrong, Marx was wrong! About a lot of stuff. Sorry.
Your analysis is simplistic; it ignores everything that doesn't fit into the box of historic materialism. That is one of the things Marx was wrong about.
Oh I know, don't get me wrong. I'm a foreigner so I have a really strong conscience of how the west in general is bubble of peace and wealth.
Yes, you do, which is good. Your conscience just isn't understanding correctly =)
Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant. We only have the part of the story that is being posted here. There could be a whole lot more going on.
Also I hate all this generalization crap. Just because on person who is representing a nation or a group of people fucks up or can't handle that burden doesn't mean that all people from that group or nation are fuck ups. Look at Hitler. I'm fairly certain that the average German is nothing like him and would not like to be compared to him one bit.
On March 29 2011 05:12 dasset wrote: awful picture
Wow. just wtf. I hate the minority of U.S. soldiers, and I hope they rot in hell.
On March 29 2011 05:29 Magic_Mike wrote: Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant. We only have the part of the story that is being posted here. There could be a whole lot more going on.
no.......You can form an opinion. Killing people for no reason is awful, that's that.
On March 29 2011 05:29 Magic_Mike wrote: Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant. We only have the part of the story that is being posted here. There could be a whole lot more going on.
I'm sorry but I couldn't give less of a fuck about the circumstances surrounding it. What "other part of the story" could possibly make this more acceptable?
On March 29 2011 05:29 Magic_Mike wrote: Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant.
:|
Judges and juries are never present at the scenes of the crimes they must hear in court.
On March 29 2011 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: This is bullshit and I hope everyone reading it knows this. The West didn't become rich and powerful because we "oppressed" the rest of the world, we became rich and powerful because of the Industrial Revolution, which took place in our own countries, with resources we found in our own countries (America, France, Britain, Germany, etc.).
It's a totally twisted worldview to look at the economic situation of countries or individuals as zero-sum game; someone having something MUST mean someone somewhere else is being deprived of something DIRECTLY BECAUSE that first person has whatever they have. It's not true.
The West does not lead the good life because we've stolen the wealth from others. We lead the good life because we made it for ourselves here in our own country.
This could not really be any further off base, concessions to European and American powers were in place in most major middle eastern governments until well into the twentieth century (EDIT) and often actively suppressed the development of those countries. You literally could not possibly be more wrong.
On March 29 2011 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote: It wasn't the US that started World War II, which caused so much devastation that the US, almost the only untouched "great power" after the war and already the richest country on earth beforehand, couldn't help but become the dominant world economy afterward.
It wasn't our greedy capitalist pigs that put just huge deposits of iron in the northern Midwest, and oil in Texas and California and Alaska, or coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, etc., it wasn't plutocrats that gave us a million square miles or more of great agricultural land. It was there. We did the hard work to make it useful. We didn't go "oppress" some other country and steel mills and factories and farms started magically appearing in America as the result.
Unless of course you want to get all angry about what happened to the Native Americans. Of course a lot of it happened before there was an America, and it wasn't like the Indians didn't try to enslave or wipe each other out all the time, but it doesn't matter that population migration happens and when it does people get displaced, usually in not-nice ways, because America is wrong and evil and we'll just ignore all of history to say so.
You are also as wrong as you can possibly be about this.
I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
Reading most of these statements makes me doubt that there is a God.
On Topic: In my opinion the problem here is not that such things happen. It is more to the point that the people in charge obviously do not intend to prevent it from happening (same things coming to light for over 10 years now) nor do punish such actions to a noticable extend unless it goes public and even then it's more of an alibi than anything else.
The source of this mindset in case of the USA might be and correct me here if i'm wrong the following (it was explained to me like that by an employee of the US legal system): All US laws are thought and created to regulate the interactions of US citizens among each other as well as the legal relationships of the USA with other countries. Meaning: The subject of the legal system is not the human but the citizen. Therefor the US legal system does not know human rights. This seems to misslead many of said citizens into thinking that there are no human rights. Which of course opens the door into thinking that non US citizens are no humans which in turn would explain the way some individuals behave. Some people will argue that i can't know that said soldiers has not been dealt with in time as these are internals of the military and therefor secret. To this i do respond that i find it really hard to believe when new cases are revealed on a six month basis.
For the 'In war bad things happen' argument: How do you justify such a statement when you party started the conflict? Following the same reasonable train of thought here that a few soldiers don't represent the whole of an entire army and therefor its country - the USA started the war in Afghanistan as not all Afghans are terrorists. Even claiming that it would be justified because the vast majority of said country shelters terrorists (which is not even remotely true) doesn't hold up because it was the USA who made the uprise of the Taliban possible in the first place during the cold war (if you didn't know that i would strongly recommend reading up on it - same thing is true for Saddam Hussein by the way).
On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
Doesn't that depend heavily on where you are deployed though? Genuinely curious, I know shit all about what happens in Iraq other than the odd car bomb I see in the news. I didn't think it was.. well, "pretty much over" as you put it.
Edit: Want to clarify, the war is obviously over but I thought there was still some action here and there.
Stuff like this are the reason why U.S has been so hostile against ICC and has tried everything to stop the Rome Statute being ratified or its provisions put to use.
On March 29 2011 06:31 cz wrote: Anyone have numbers on the number of people involved in actual killings and the estimated dead as a result?
I will tell you that it is no where near the amount of civilians that have died to some roadside bomb in ONE day, But you will never know actually how many wrong shootings take place, it's war and it sucks. I will just say it again if no one read my earlier post I do not agree with what happen I think they should each get 1000 lashings on live tv, but it wont happen.
The military is comprised primarily of middle-class WASPs with no where else to go. These are people who can't get into a college or have a decent job out of highschool.
Nobody is "protecting your country". Euro-American force in Irak and Afghanistan are invading armies, are there for wrong reason, and, as it has been proven many times, don't behave much better than their opponents. What's really easy and confortable is to say that theses guys were psychopaths and that the problem has nothing to do with the whole situation.
Just watch Fox News, like 3 minutes, and you get a good picture of what is really fucked up in the first place, of where the violence originaly comes from.
I would respond to this, but you're inability to form a coherent argument makes it difficult to do.
It's disrespectful to soldiers as a whole to group them together with these crazy people. They have an occupation that grants a larger amount of respect than most jobs. Whether or not you agree with their presence has no bearing on if you should support the individuals. They have a duty to serve their country and continue to make sacrifices that allow me to live the life that I live.
I find that the Afghans who defend their country against our armies deserve much more respect that our soldiers who have invaded their. I'm not even talking about Irak. If I were an Iraki, I would know who is the ennemy right now. Namely, people who have invaded my land to make money, thinking I was stupid enough to believe that they wanted to "bring me democracy".
You find military respectable in itself, that's great. I don't. Now don't start your post implying that I am an idiot or that I can't make a coherent reasoning, because that's a bit too easy. The number of scandals involving american army in theses two wars is already astonishing, and has to be the top of the iceberg, given the culture of secret of any modern military. You have to realize that until now, american army has behaved like pigs in the middle east. On its defence, any invading army of hundred of thousand men occupying a foreign couuntry behave like pigs, in almost any circunstances.
US had a debate about if torture should be legal. It's just astonishing. Really, just thinking about it makes me so damn angry. In fact, it's so shocking that everytime I think about it, I lose for a moment faith in any kind of progress and civilization. Now, if you don't see that there is a problem there which is deeply connected with the fucked up stuff theses kids can do, I am the one who is sorry for you.
[/QUOTE] I find that the Afghans who defend their country against our armies deserve much more respect that our soldiers who have invaded their. I'm not even talking about Irak. If I were an Iraki, I would know who is the ennemy right now. Namely, people who have invaded my land to make money, thinking I was stupid enough to believe that they wanted to "bring me democracy".
You find military respectable in itself, that's great. I don't. Now don't start your post implying that I am an idiot or that I can't make a coherent reasoning, because that's a bit too easy. The number of scandals involving american army in theses two wars is already astonishing, and has to be the top of the iceberg, given the culture of secret of any modern military. You have to realize that until now, american army has behaved like pigs in the middle east. On its defence, any invading army of hundred of thousand men occupying a foreign couuntry behave like pigs, in almost any circunstances.
US had a debate about if torture should be legal. It's just astonishing. Really, just thinking about it makes me so damn angry. In fact, it's so shocking that everytime I think about it, I lose for a moment faith in any kind of progress and civilization. Now, if you don't see that there is a problem there which is deeply connected with the fucked up stuff theses kids can do, I am the one who is sorry for you.[/QUOTE]
Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ, and another how do you know how these people feel? Have you been there? are you in fact an iraqi or afghan? Well lets talk about what the majority of them think for a moment. In 2003 after the invasion I went up to Mosul and that was my primary city for that deployment. 95% of citizens in Mosul(size of detriot) were happy about america being there. Now thats a pretty big number if I am not mistaken. The reason we invaded iraq might of been wrong, but there is one thing you can't denie. The Husseins are even more dirt then what these people have done, do you know uday and qusay? they used to walk down random streets see a pretty girl and take them home, abuse them rape them and then throw them to the streets after they had there fill. Remember Chemical ali? he isnt fiction. Did you know the iraqi soccer team was threatened and there families if they didn't win games? Sure our invasion in iraq may have not found WMD, but that country needed our help.
@ the video's showing soldiers harassing kids
Kids harassed us much more, infact some kids were quite dangerous with the big rocks they would throw at your gunners. I still think it's dumb what they did and I would never do that to a kid. But you didn't link the video's of where we would give these kids our MRE's (food) and bottled water even if we were low. in 2003 we had to regulate water useage because we were running low and we still gave kids water and food. Built schools, cleaned up the roads, picked up millions and I do mean millions of munitions and im not talking about bullets, im talking about 155 howitzer rounds, tank mines, rpg's... laying in a school or whereever for kids to play with. if that isnt a breeding ground for mass destruction i don't know what is.
On March 29 2011 05:45 Cloud9157 wrote: I really hope there is only one "Kill Team". I've heard about it, but I haven't heard of multiple KTs.
Afghanistan+Iraq are a disaster, especially the latter. Since we had at least somewhat of an excuse for going into Afghanistan, I have been patient in hopes that there would be progress. Iraq is just moronic. We went in there because of reports of WMD? Thats such bs as we know now.
Just get the hell out of both countries. This is going to be just like Vietnam where we can't win and it only costs more and more lives to wear them down.
While your statement about Vietnam might be true about Afghanistan(only time will tell), the war in Iraq Is pretty much over.
I was a machine gunner over there and went on missions daily and never once had to fire my weapon. And that was back in 2009....
Doesn't that depend heavily on where you are deployed though? Genuinely curious, I know shit all about what happens in Iraq other than the odd car bomb I see in the news. I didn't think it was.. well, "pretty much over" as you put it.
Edit: Want to clarify, the war is obviously over but I thought there was still some action here and there.
Well I was operating all throughout the Al Anbar province which was very violent at one point.
But yeah, I'm sure the odd car bombs will continue for years to come
On March 29 2011 05:29 Magic_Mike wrote: Until you've walked in their shoes, you only have your opinion about what happened. According to this information, none of us were there when it happened. Therefore our opinions are irrelevant. We only have the part of the story that is being posted here. There could be a whole lot more going on.
Also I hate all this generalization crap. Just because on person who is representing a nation or a group of people fucks up or can't handle that burden doesn't mean that all people from that group or nation are fuck ups. Look at Hitler. I'm fairly certain that the average German is nothing like him and would not like to be compared to him one bit.
Americans hate generalizations only when it's done to them. You pretending like we don't generalize people? You are correct in that it's easy for us to sit here behind computer screens and judge soldiers. At the same time, the accusations here are pretty heinous.
One of the most dedicated and informed journalists who have been immersed in the shocking tragedy, Nir Rosen, published an epitaph, "The Death of Iraq," in Current History.
"Iraq has been killed, never to rise again," Rosen writes. "The American occupation has been more disastrous than that of the Mongols, who sacked Baghdad in the 13th century" -- a common perception of Iraqis as well. "Only fools talk of 'solutions' now. There is no solution. The only hope is that perhaps the damage can be contained."
Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ
Not everyone on this site knows the english terminology for everything. It's irak in french, and he's from france, so I'm guessing that's why he's calling it that. And if you want to be technical, it's not called IRAQ, it's called العراق.
Warlords and drug lords dominate Parliament and the Karzai government, Joya said, while U.S. troops kill civilians and rain destruction from the air. Afghan women and democratic people are caught between three enemies: the misogynist Taliban, the fundamentalist and misogynist warlords and Karzai regime, and the U.S. occupation forces. If the U.S. occcupation forces leave her country, Joya said that it will be easier, because Afghans will only have two enemies to fight, instead of three.
Prof. Chomsky agreed that the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan or other countries for humanitarian reasons or to promote security or democracy, but to advance the interests of a corporate elite that controls U.S. policy. He pointed to the dangerous destabilization of Pakistan that has been driven by U.S. aid to the military there over many decades, by U.S. support of fundamentalist Islam which began under Reagan and continues via Pakistan to this day, and by the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan which are causing many civilian casualties, and suggested that no one could possibly think these policies were intended to advance security.
well hes from france that might explain thing's but this is an English site so I take it how I see it. would also like to say sorry for that, i just didn't know.
On March 29 2011 07:07 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: Well one if you respect these people so much its called IRAQ, and another how do you know how these people feel? Have you been there? are you in fact an iraqi or afghan? Well lets talk about what the majority of them think for a moment. In 2003 after the invasion I went up to Mosul and that was my primary city for that deployment. 95% of citizens in Mosul(size of detriot) were happy about america being there. Now thats a pretty big number if I am not mistaken. The reason we invaded iraq might of been wrong, but there is one thing you can't denie. The Husseins are even more dirt then what these people have done, do you know uday and qusay? they used to walk down random streets see a pretty girl and take them home, abuse them rape them and then throw them to the streets after they had there fill. Remember Chemical ali? he isnt fiction. Did you know the iraqi soccer team was threatened and there families if they didn't win games? Sure our invasion in iraq may have not found WMD, but that country needed our help.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
Face it.
Your landlady's opinion is not authoritative just because she's Iraqi.
The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless (like, say, they did try to "take care of him" in 1991 and he slaughtered them, there are multiple cases of "invading a country" and getting rid of its rulers making that country better, etc.).
You can keep saying Iraq is a "disaster" but that doesn't change the fact that that statement applied in 2005 and 2006 but certainly not today. Close to a hundred people or a little bit over were dying a day on average at one point in Iraq. There were thousands of "attacks" a day. Those numbers are astoundingly low fractions today of what they were considering how bad things were.
You're just angry at America so you say confrontational things that hold a thin grasp on reality at best.
Face it.
stereotypes of this nature are part of the problem in the american mainstream and i assume in the armed forces as well.
Funny thing about stereotypes is it's always the other guy's stereotypes that are inaccurate / offensive. Assumptions make wonderful things too I'm sure we know what they are.
Prof. Chomsky agreed that the U.S. military is not in Afghanistan or other countries for humanitarian reasons or to promote security or democracy, but to advance the interests of a corporate elite that controls U.S. policy. He pointed to the dangerous destabilization of Pakistan that has been driven by U.S. aid to the military there over many decades, by U.S. support of fundamentalist Islam which began under Reagan and continues via Pakistan to this day, and by the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan which are causing many civilian casualties, and suggested that no one could possibly think these policies were intended to advance security.
Noam Chomsky's political arguments (in general, not just on this topic) consist of unsupported assertions, dismissal of the importance of any and all inconvenient facts that either don't help shape his narrative or contradict it, and eventually breaking down and accusing anyone disagreeing with him of being complicit in genocidal imperialism or not intelligent enough to see the truth. He isn't a reliable source for information or opinion on anything outside linguistics.
I find it interesting (for lack of a more accurate term) how the US citizens seem to inconditionnally support their troops (at least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing).
This thread and the argueing going on in it reminds me of a video on another thread here on TL, who showed soldiers from the US coming home (I think it was for christmas) and their kids crying overjoyed when they saw their daddies were home. The reactions in this thread from american TLers were astounding to me.
Anyway, I find it really weird that in the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy in the world", there seems to be so little questionning of the propaganda going on around the "support our troops" slogan. Once again, maybe it's not true, it's just what it looks like to me (and probably to many non-americans who follow loosely the international situation).
George Bush invaded Iraq because he deceived the people who elected him, and made them believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US security, that he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, that he was harboring muslim terrorists. We all know all of this is nothing but lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, sure he had a lot of blood on his hands (mainly thanks to the weapons we, western democracies, sold him, by the way...), and I'm not going to mourn his death, but that's beyond the point.
My point is I don't think the soldiers in Iraq need to be supported. They are not serving their country. They are not giving their lives for a greater moral purpose, like those who died on the beaches of France or Italy to stop the Nazis.
They are fighting an indecent war. Some of their parents did the same in Vietnam, but those didn't choose it. It wasn't their job, they were forced to. Those who are fighting in Iraq are obeying by the orders of a regime that used deception to wage an uncalled-for war, disregarding the thousands of lives it would cost. The moral obligation of the US soldiers was to quit. I'm sure some of them did.
In these conditions, I find it really disturbing and surprizing that people, in what seems to be the vast majority in the US, continue to "support our troops".
^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical.
On March 29 2011 07:54 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: well hes from france that might explain thing's but this is an English site so I take it how I see it. would also like to say sorry for that, i just didn't know.
stereotypes of this nature are part of the problem in the american mainstream and i assume in the armed forces as well.
you assume to much my friend. I was just stating the fact that he is from another country I said sorry didnt i? I do not know how french people write, that doesn't mean im against you. Even though i know why you would assume that, but really thats your problem not mine.
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
First, you're not addressing my question at all.
Second, I don't know why you are comparing WW2 with the Iraq situation, they have nothing in common except the fact that both wars eventually rid the face of the Earth of a horrible dictator.
Do I have to remind you of how many horrible dictators plagued the Earth over the last 70 years that America (or anyone else) just let be because they had no interest in overthrowing them and because they were no threat to foreign countries (other than their own, I mean)?
Also, the United Nations have a rule (I don't know the English name for it, but I guess you'll know what I mean) that no country has the right to get involved in another country's internal politics unless extremely special and precisely defined circumstances, which Iraq didn't qualify for in the slightest.
Also, if the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate fight against a horrible dictator (and I really have trouble believing you really believe that), then why are the US not invading North Korea? Sudan? Why did they not invade Cambodia in the 80's? Pinochet's Chile? Do I really need to go on?
This crap happens in every war, in/with every country. It's what war does. Most wars feature crimes even worse than this and Abu Ghraib (not that any of it is excusable).
While I don't think the war in Afghanistan is providing any more use or security to the world, I also appreciate that there are U.S. military personnel doing things over their that are good.
In this case, we see three soldiers who lacked humanity, and killed some people. It's shameful. But it's also worth noting that a lot of U.S. military engineers are over there deactivating land-mines that Afghani rebels set-up themselves -- land-mines that would otherwise possibly kill innocent Afghanis. There are villagers all over Afghanistan that wouldn't survive a Taliban take-over and depend on U.S. protection.
I know it isn't popular to say, but a good portion of the U.S. military men and women over there are actively fighting to save lives, not take them.
But, I do think it's time we leave. That place has way too much strife, of a way too complicated nature, for our military to be able to provide any lasting solutions. But when we leave, innocent people will die because of it. It's just a bad situation.
I hope people take some time to appreciate the nuances of such matters and not cast broad and ignorant judgments. My only sibling, my older brother, died in Afghanistan less than a year ago, when an IED flipped over his armored car. He left behind a wife and three kids. We grew up together, living in the same room for more than half our lives. I know he was a good man incapable of hurting anyone defenseless. So it obviously bothers me greatly when other military personnel soil the reputation of the military as a whole, because I've met a lot of them who are plainly good, empathetic, trustworthy people.
Just as my family has suffered, the families of these innocent Afghans will suffer as well. It's horrible, and there are no easy answers. There is no one side to blame. Murderers are murderers, war-profiteers are war-profiteers, and politicians are politicians. You'll find them on every side of every conflict.
On March 29 2011 07:54 ReDDoG-TrEe wrote: well hes from france that might explain thing's but this is an English site so I take it how I see it. would also like to say sorry for that, i just didn't know.
stereotypes of this nature are part of the problem in the american mainstream and i assume in the armed forces as well.
you assume to much my friend. I was just stating the fact that he is from another country I said sorry didnt i? I do not know how french people write, that doesn't mean im against you. Even though i know why you would assume that, but really thats your problem not mine.
Ironically isn't he just stereotyping himself? haha.
i work with a dude who was a spotter for a sniper team in the USMC. He's been in Iraq and Afghanistan and has told me countless stories of basically gruesome deaths at the hands of the superior technology that the U.S fields over there: guys getting shot by barrett rifles, bombings, machine guns, tanks and whatnot, but even if (the way he told it) the guys were never sorry about doing these things to the enemy, they were NOT taking sadistic pleasure in killing innocent civilians like the pricks in in these articles.
Seriously, how fucked up do you gotta be to kill a 15 year old kid FOR FUN? And they talk about them going around planting drop weapons to get away with it. There's no doubt in my mind these dumbshits just wanted to kill as many human beings as possible. Seriously. Compare this to those rednecks who run around killing animals just for fun ( I don't mean hunting and If you thought I did you completely missed my point). Same thing. Only because there are repercussions for killing people, they (half-assedly) had to cover their tracks.
I mean, I'm no humanist or bleeding heart or anything, and these atrocious photos aren't even that grisly compared to some of the war shit you can find on the internet, but you don't expect it out servicemen in a first world country like the USA.
The Corporal and Pfc. deserve to fry. Staff Sergeant should be harshly punished as well, maybe not capital.
On March 29 2011 12:05 Leporello wrote:Murderers are murderers, war-profiteers are war-profiteers, and politicians are politicians. You'll find them on every side of every conflict.
Everything you wrote was very sensible, and I'm sorry for your loss.
The problem in this case, though, is that politicians that led to this conflict were also murderers and war-profiteers.
I believe I made my opinion on Iraq clear. Try reading that part next time. I just find it hysterical that anyone living in France has a negative opinion about American interference with dictators on foreign soil. There are literally no circumstances that prevent that being the funniest joke I've seen all day.
I entirely don't believe the situation was handled properly. This has nothing to do with support of the military. If people don't back the soldiers, there won't be a well trained, standing, volunteer army. If we don't have one of those, in the world we actually live in, bad things WILL happen. I don't trust the UN any more than I trust any other oversized political body with a million parts moving in different directions. They wouldn't be able to protect me in an emergency. That's the job of the US Army.
Are they protecting me now? No. Does that mean the soldiers shouldn't get support for willingness to do a difficult job? No. It shouldn't be a thankless job. If there was no good to come of it, people wouldn't do it in times of peace, let alone war, and we would have untrained conscript armies and militias as our only chance if someone decided to invade. (And I'm sure without a reason not to, someone happily would.)
On March 29 2011 12:05 Leporello wrote:Murderers are murderers, war-profiteers are war-profiteers, and politicians are politicians. You'll find them on every side of every conflict.
Everything you wrote was very sensible, and I'm sorry for your loss.
The problem in this case, though, is that politicians that led to this conflict were also murderers and war-profiteers.
I agree, actually. We might agree on a lot politically.
As would my brother. He wasn't much of a political person at all, which is okay. He joined the army because he lost his job, to be frank. But I talked to him while he was in Afghanistan several times. He didn't feel great about the mission, but he also knew that his company, the 27th engineer battalion, was actively helping to save lives.
You can't judge an army based on the atrocities of a few (whose crimes, by the way, are being brought to the public).
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical.
France was already speaking German for a bit there.
But honestly. Does the actions of a few give enough reason to condemn an entire country?
My grandmother, 71 at the time, traveled across Europe before she died. When she and my aunt were in France, they got on a bus to the Eiffel Tower and some Frenchman knocked her out the door where she fell and broke her arm. As he passed he said "fuck you American." (He is extremely lucky me or my brother were not there.)
Does this mean that I should hate every citizen of France? No, that was one uptight shithead not the whole country.
On March 29 2011 11:34 Husnan wrote:
Anyway, I find it really weird that in the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy in the world", there seems to be so little questionning of the propaganda going on around the "support our troops" slogan. Once again, maybe it's not true, it's just what it looks like to me (and probably to many non-americans who follow loosely the international situation).
Guess what, the troops are American citizens, of course I support them. If someone supports something why should they be against it?
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical.
France was already speaking German for a bit there.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong.
Anyway, I find it really weird that in the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy in the world", there seems to be so little questionning of the propaganda going on around the "support our troops" slogan. Once again, maybe it's not true, it's just what it looks like to me (and probably to many non-americans who follow loosely the international situation).
Guess what, the troops are American citizens, of course I support them. If someone supports something why should they be against it?
Err.. If you support something, you're not against it, that's what supporting means... What I'm saying is "Why are they not against it?"
On March 29 2011 11:49 JingleHell wrote: ^ I think it's funny that you don't mind that America was part of the process of overthrowing a certain dictator in the 40s. Yknow, since you bring up us invading sovereign soil of other countries during WW2 as a good thing, and Iraq as a bad one.
I agree the situation in Iraq sucks, but if America didn't support and maintain a standing military, and stop dictators elsewhere, you'd be speaking German. Rather hypocritical.
Should we have invaded under false pretenses? No. Were there dozens of political blunders? Yes. Did some individual soldiers make things worse? Yes. Would you be in as good of a place as you are if America didn't take out dictators on foreign soil occasionally? I doubt it.
Actually they'd more than likely be speaking Russian. But that's getting technical.
France was already speaking German for a bit there.
I don't know where you got this idea, but it's wrong.
Anyway, I find it really weird that in the self-proclaimed "greatest democracy in the world", there seems to be so little questionning of the propaganda going on around the "support our troops" slogan. Once again, maybe it's not true, it's just what it looks like to me (and probably to many non-americans who follow loosely the international situation).
Guess what, the troops are American citizens, of course I support them. If someone supports something why should they be against it?
Err.. If you support something, you're not against it, that's what supporting means... What I'm saying is "Why are they not against it?"
I was lightheartedly joking about the occupation of France by Germany in my first part.
The second point is that because American soldiers are American, I do not want to see them killed, thus I support them. Plain and simple. I have the mental capacity to see that these are a few soldiers who committed a terrible crime but do not reflect every last American soldier.
Of course no one is saying this is right for 3 innocent people to be killed, or for any innocent people to be killed. But I'm sure the vast majority of the people getting jumping on the "hate the military" bandwagon have absolutely no idea what goes on in war. An example is Vietnam where women would put bombs under their shirts so they would look like pregnant women and blow up on US troops. Lets say you see your friend explode and lose limbs and ultimately die to that, how trusting are you going to be of the next "pregnant lady" approaching you.
I'm not saying these soldiers have had something as crazy as that happen, but my point is CRAZY STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. We have no idea what these soldiers had gone through before this and what they were thinking or experiencing at the time.
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: The French can say whatever they want about armies and wars because they have never effectively fought a war since Napoleon and are effectively the biggest pussies in the world. They no nothing about war until it's on their doorstep and they need to be rescued.
Delete this part because it weakens your argument. I am not a fan of the French but even I find it insulting.
George Bush invaded Iraq because he deceived the people who elected him, and made them believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US security, that he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, that he was harboring muslim terrorists. We all know all of this is nothing but lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, sure he had a lot of blood on his hands (mainly thanks to the weapons we, western democracies, sold him, by the way...), and I'm not going to mourn his death, but that's beyond the point.
Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others.
BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie.
As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit.
Husnan I really don't understand posts like yours because they are very condemnatory in nature and are based off of your emotional reaction to things you believe are true but most of them simply are not. You create a picture of moral monstrosity that simply isn't there.
Do I have to remind you of how many horrible dictators plagued the Earth over the last 70 years that America (or anyone else) just let be because they had no interest in overthrowing them and because they were no threat to foreign countries (other than their own, I mean)?
What's funny is that there are only a handful of countries that have ever actually, you know, really seriously gone to war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation for the purpose of restoring political liberty to the native inhabitants. The US is one of those countries.
And people like you whine because we "let some alone." Nonsense.
Also, the United Nations have a rule (I don't know the English name for it, but I guess you'll know what I mean) that no country has the right to get involved in another country's internal politics unless extremely special and precisely defined circumstances, which Iraq didn't qualify for in the slightest.
We weren't getting involved in their internal politics, we were saying their government was a threat to us and we were going to remove it because of that and that democracy afterward would be the best way to go. Whether or not we were correct in perceiving ourselves in danger, nothing in the UN takes away each and every sovereign nation's right to decide what actions to take in its own self-defense without having to ask permission from anyone. The US didn't go invade Nicaragua although we've had problems with them in the past. We haven't had a relationship with Nicaragua defined by military factors for 20 years. We did have that with Iraq. They shot at our planes enforcing a UN No-Fly Zone.
Also, if the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate fight against a horrible dictator (and I really have trouble believing you really believe that), then why are the US not invading North Korea? Sudan? Why did they not invade Cambodia in the 80's? Pinochet's Chile? Do I really need to go on?
No, you don't, because this is a debater's point. The simple way to deal with it is to simply ask the questioner if he would support the US reimplementing the draft, building an army of fifteen million men and women, and going on a world-stomping tour through Africa and Southeast Asia. Hell no he wouldn't. But you're more than happy to ask us "Why not invade X, Y, and Z?"
Well because despite what you may think, the US doesn't have the soldiers or the money or the ships or tanks or guns to go invade 20 different countries at once, just because all of them have strong moral arguments for doing so. We don't so much get to pick and choose as we have to pick and choose, as this is war we're talking about. If we're going to get into a dispute with a dictator that may cause war, we better make sure that for us it is worth taking it that far, not whether or not it meets your impossible and silly standard of consistency.
And by the way, Sudan has oil, so invading there would obviously be a war for imperialism to steal their oil right?
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. On the second part of your answer, you'll notice if you read my posts once more that I didn't say one thing about these 3 soldiers. I was not making any generalizations either. Many American TLers seem to have a grudge against French, I don't know why that is, we too have our share of anti-american retards, but I would like you to understand that I'm not one of them by any stretch of the imagination.
All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
I don't understand your answer at all. "They are American, so I don't wanna see them killed". Well, duh.. I don't wanna see anyone killed either. That's not the point. The point is this invasion was decided by deceptive politicians under false pretenses (I hope I spelled that one right) and yet, amazingly enough, people don't seem to question it. They "support our troops". They choose to ignore the fact that those troops have chosen to be where they are.
Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there.
When France sent soldiers to Serbia to ensure the security of civilians, I agreed with it. When we heard in the news that a French soldier had died there, I was genuinely saddened. When France joined the US to help free Koweit from Saddam Hussein's attack in 1991, I was behind it too.
But when France waged a war in Algeria to prevent the Algerian people to gain independancy, I wouldn't (I wasn't born, but you get the idea). The war in Algeria was a dirty war not only because it was fought by soldiers who didn't choose to be here (they were'nt professionnal soldiers, just kids doing their military service for most of them) but also because it was fought for wrong reasons.
The first gulf war in 1991 was about protecting Koweit (how the hell do you spell that in English?) that was invaded by a hostile foreign country. The people who fought there did it for a morally justified cause. What was the second war in Iraq about exactly?
On a slightly different subject, I still fail to see how me being French and not supporting the invasion of Iraq is "ironic" or whatever. The International Community has rules. The United States of America are not above those rules. One of those rules is that no country has a right to intrude into another country's internal politics. Admittedly, I have very little understanding of international legislations or diplomacy but if you think (that's not aimed at you, Ordained) that the second Iraq war has anything to do with the US intervention in France during WW2, you're a fool.
If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works.
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others.
Paid for with US loans you idiot
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. "
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit.
Yeah he was gonna have an invasion force ready to land in NY in moths if we didn't stop him.
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: Husnan I really don't understand posts like yours because they are very condemnatory in nature and are based off of your emotional reaction to things you believe are true but most of them simply are not. You create a picture of moral monstrosity that simply isn't there.
Could you be any more condescending? You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
I'm tired of people like you giving Americans a reputation for arrogance and willful ignorance so I'll say it again.
Take off the rose-colored glasses, they make you look fucking stupid
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote: And by the way, Sudan has oil, so invading there would obviously be a war for imperialism to steal their oil right?
Didn't have time to read all you wrote, but I will and try to answer. But please, don't be putting words in my mouth, bro. You know better.
George Bush invaded Iraq because he deceived the people who elected him, and made them believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US security, that he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, that he was harboring muslim terrorists. We all know all of this is nothing but lies. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, sure he had a lot of blood on his hands (mainly thanks to the weapons we, western democracies, sold him, by the way...), and I'm not going to mourn his death, but that's beyond the point.
Over 90% of the weapons sold to Iraq were sold by the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern Bloc. It is an enduring lie that "we" armed him. Yes, we did, in far less proportion than others.
I did not know that. In fact, I was pretty convinced of the contrary, but I might have been mistaken, I'll try to do a little research.
On March 29 2011 13:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED is agitprop and isn't true anyway; no one has been able to prove anything other than Bush said something he believed was factual that was not in regards to WMD. He had no intent to lie.
As for no threat to the US or didn't harbor terrorists, no one can seriously say that because he had shown again and again and again that he was a threat to the US and he did harbor terrorists. Literally every Muslim government in the Middle East, including ones we are "allies" with, harbors terrorists to one degree or another, but Saddam didn't? Bull and shit.
You don't understand. Of course, there were muslim terrorists in Iraq, as there is in every other country (not even just arab countries). What I meant to say was "There were no more terrorists in Iraq than any other Arab country and it is a lie to pretend this is the reason (or one of the reasons) why Iraq was invaded."
Someone else already reminded you of the proofs we have that Bush and his administration lied about WMDs, so I'm not gonna do that again. I'll just add that after the Colin Powell episode at the UN, and what an embarassment it was for your country, I don't understand why anyone still tries to defend them. Please do understand once again, I have nothing against the USA, or the American people, but if I was king, this government would be first against the wall.
Do I have to remind you of how many horrible dictators plagued the Earth over the last 70 years that America (or anyone else) just let be because they had no interest in overthrowing them and because they were no threat to foreign countries (other than their own, I mean)?
What's funny is that there are only a handful of countries that have ever actually, you know, really seriously gone to war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation for the purpose of restoring political liberty to the native inhabitants. The US is one of those countries.
And people like you whine because we "let some alone." Nonsense.
Please, once again, you're either putting words in my mouth or maybe my English isn't good enough to get my point across, or you're reading what I write with a bias because it's written "France" next to my name, but geez, I am not "whining because we let some alone."
I sincerely believe that the fact that the USA did indeed "wage a war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation to restore their political liberty" is exactly what makes the USA's greatness. I'm not a historian, and I'm not sure if the US really fought Germany only to free France, Poland, Austria and the other invaded countries (I think I remember learning in History class a long time ago that the US stayed neutral in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, after which they declared war to Japan, and since Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, they also were at war with them), but it doesn't change the fact that they fought for a noble end goal.
I'm merely trying to explain that trying to pretend that getting rid of a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein is NOT the reason why the US invaded Iraq. It's logically absurd to believe it. If it was true, then the US would also intervene everywhere else where the basic freedoms are ignored, where the political police decide what people should think, etc...
Just an overall answer : I think you're mistaken (or misinformed) if you really do believe that this war in Iraq was fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people. It was not. It was not fought for the security of the USA's territory or people.
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things.
Husnan you are putting words in our mouths by saying we never questioned going to war with Iraq or not. First off let me say there is a HUGE difference between "support our troops" and support the decision of our politicians to send our troops. I will always support our troops for all the crap and horrible things they have to go through, whether I agree with the fact that they are there or not. I'm sure they don't want to be fighting in the desert anymore than some of us want them there, but we support the fact that they are risking their lives for our country. So understand that simple difference first. Also, millions of Americans have questioned going to Iraq, even in 2003 a poll shows that 25% of America said we should have stayed out. Hopefully now you won't be "puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops"." when you clearly didn't understand what was going on politically at the time and what we mean when we say support our troops.
And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail.
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there.
This is true in some sense but its not fair to people already in the military when the war started or people like Pat Tillman who joined soon after.
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: Husnan you are putting words in our mouths by saying we never questioned going to war with Iraq or not. First off let me say there is a HUGE difference between "support our troops" and support the decision of our politicians to send our troops. I will always support our troops for all the crap and horrible things they have to go through, whether I agree with the fact that they are there or not. I'm sure they don't want to be fighting in the desert anymore than some of us want them there, but we support the fact that they are risking their lives for our country. So understand that simple difference first. Also, millions of Americans have questioned going to Iraq, even in 2003 a poll shows that 25% of America said we should have stayed out. Hopefully now you won't be "puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops"." when you clearly didn't understand what was going on politically at the time and what we mean when we say support our troops.
I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two.
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail.
Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies.
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things.
If it's not, then you can't "not support the invasion", and still "support the troops".
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: Husnan you are putting words in our mouths by saying we never questioned going to war with Iraq or not. First off let me say there is a HUGE difference between "support our troops" and support the decision of our politicians to send our troops. I will always support our troops for all the crap and horrible things they have to go through, whether I agree with the fact that they are there or not. I'm sure they don't want to be fighting in the desert anymore than some of us want them there, but we support the fact that they are risking their lives for our country. So understand that simple difference first. Also, millions of Americans have questioned going to Iraq, even in 2003 a poll shows that 25% of America said we should have stayed out. Hopefully now you won't be "puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops"." when you clearly didn't understand what was going on politically at the time and what we mean when we say support our troops.
I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two.
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail.
Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies.
Regardless of support for our leaders, we support our troops. We want them safe, we want them all to come home.
Debate rages over whether or not the powers that be are in the right, but when it comes down to it the guy that's on the front line who had no choice where he was deployed (yes it's true, you go where you're told) will always have our unwavering support.
On March 29 2011 14:29 number1gog wrote: Debate rages over whether or not the powers that be are in the right, but when it comes down to it the guy that's on the front line who had no choice where he was deployed (yes it's true, you go where you're told) will always have our unwavering support.
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: To Ordained :
Sorry, I didn't get the joke. On the second part of your answer, you'll notice if you read my posts once more that I didn't say one thing about these 3 soldiers. I was not making any generalizations either. Many American TLers seem to have a grudge against French, I don't know why that is, we too have our share of anti-american retards, but I would like you to understand that I'm not one of them by any stretch of the imagination.
All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
I don't understand your answer at all. "They are American, so I don't wanna see them killed". Well, duh.. I don't wanna see anyone killed either. That's not the point. The point is this invasion was decided by deceptive politicians under false pretenses (I hope I spelled that one right) and yet, amazingly enough, people don't seem to question it. They "support our troops". They choose to ignore the fact that those troops have chosen to be where they are.
Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there.
When France sent soldiers to Serbia to ensure the security of civilians, I agreed with it. When we heard in the news that a French soldier had died there, I was genuinely saddened. When France joined the US to help free Koweit from Saddam Hussein's attack in 1991, I was behind it too.
But when France waged a war in Algeria to prevent the Algerian people to gain independancy, I wouldn't (I wasn't born, but you get the idea). The war in Algeria was a dirty war not only because it was fought by soldiers who didn't choose to be here (they were'nt professionnal soldiers, just kids doing their military service for most of them) but also because it was fought for wrong reasons.
The first gulf war in 1991 was about protecting Koweit (how the hell do you spell that in English?) that was invaded by a hostile foreign country. The people who fought there did it for a morally justified cause. What was the second war in Iraq about exactly?
On a slightly different subject, I still fail to see how me being French and not supporting the invasion of Iraq is "ironic" or whatever. The International Community has rules. The United States of America are not above those rules. One of those rules is that no country has a right to intrude into another country's internal politics. Admittedly, I have very little understanding of international legislations or diplomacy but if you think (that's not aimed at you, Ordained) that the second Iraq war has anything to do with the US intervention in France during WW2, you're a fool.
If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works.
The war in Iraq is extraordinarily unpopular in the States. Even the war in Afghanistan, a war which by all objective measurements is certainly more justified, receives a incredible amount of distaste.
I'll take the example of Kuwait to expand on a point I made earlier, that moral principles and national interest are not mutually exclusive.
Based on moral principles and the international order, the war against Saddam over Kuwait was just that- it prevented a weak nation desiring independence from being gobbled up permanently by a hostile neighbor. On the other hand, it also destroyed the, at the time, very real danger of having Iraqi tanks 200 miles from Riyadh, the capital of America's largest oil supplier outside of Canada. American diplomatic history is replete with numerous examples of moral principles fitting and working with the perceived national interest; Monroe Doctrine promotes self-determination and independence of Latin America, while furthering American economic and political hegemony in the hemisphere.
Naturally, internet warriors and the "radical" school of thought will say "herp derp American imperialism in Latin America", whereas more rational minds will realize comparing American adventures in Latin America to real imperialism is like comparing an amputated toe to a machete'd face, but whatever.
If Nazi Germany had not invaded several other countries, and conducted the most horrible crime against humanity, then there would have been no place for any other country to wage war against Germany. You may find it sad, or wrong, or depressing, but this is how international law works.
No.
International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been.
Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate.
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: Husnan you are putting words in our mouths by saying we never questioned going to war with Iraq or not. First off let me say there is a HUGE difference between "support our troops" and support the decision of our politicians to send our troops. I will always support our troops for all the crap and horrible things they have to go through, whether I agree with the fact that they are there or not. I'm sure they don't want to be fighting in the desert anymore than some of us want them there, but we support the fact that they are risking their lives for our country. So understand that simple difference first. Also, millions of Americans have questioned going to Iraq, even in 2003 a poll shows that 25% of America said we should have stayed out. Hopefully now you won't be "puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops"." when you clearly didn't understand what was going on politically at the time and what we mean when we say support our troops.
I know that many US citizens questioned the war in Iraq, I remember the protests in every major American city. I guess I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that this "support our troops" slogan seems to be generally accepted even amongst the anti-war partisans. This may very well be untrue, I'm watching the USA across a five (six?) thousand km wide ocean, so it's hard to be accurate, which is exactly why I'm posting here, to discuss with Americans and try and learn a thing or two.
On March 29 2011 14:09 hongo wrote: And when you say the troops CHOOSE to be somewhere you show that you are clearly ignorant of what it means to be in the military. You CHOOSE to be in the military, you don't then just CHOOSE to go to Iraq, or to some nice country instead. You go where they send you or you end up in jail.
Is this true? Because that doesn't sound right. It sounds more like what they would do to deserters in 1915's armies.
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things.
If it's not, then you can't "not support the invasion", and still "support the troops".
While you can request particular duty stations, you can't say "I won't go to Iraq, but I'll go to X instead". Branching infantry or a direct combat role increases the chance of a tour in the middle east as well, though particular careers (language, etc) would have no use for someone without the appropriate skill set.
You can resign, although barring medical reasons leaving before your contract is up is probably quite a hassle. I've no evidence for this claim, however.
Here it even specifically says "no soldier has been imprisoned for more than 18 months for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war"
Which implies that soldiers have been imprisoned for up to 18 months for not showing up when they were supposed to go to Iraq. Please please please have an idea of what you're talking about before you post things such as the idea of a soldier having a choice of following orders from a superior or not.
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: The French can say whatever they want about armies and wars because they have never effectively fought a war since Napoleon and are effectively the biggest pussies in the world. They no nothing about war until it's on their doorstep and they need to be rescued.
Actually, you're wrong, the French have fought many wars since Napoleon, and the latest wars we've fought are pretty much some of the most shameful parts of our history (Algeria, Indochine). Which is probably why most French people are not big on war, y'know.
One of the great things about the US in my opinion is that your country seems (once again, I'm far away so I could be wrong) better at dealing with its history, even if it's shameful.
There have been tons of movies and books about the Vietnam war for instance. France is only now beginning to have a public debate over the war in Algeria (which ended 10 years before Vietnam) and the atrocities that took place within it. One movie was published recently that dealt with this history and the outburst that it created (extreme-right protests and so on) was pretty ugly, trust me.
Here it even specifically says "no soldier has been imprisoned for more than 18 months for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war"
Which implies that soldiers have been imprisoned for up to 18 months for not showing up when they were supposed to go to Iraq. Please please please have an idea of what you're talking about before you post things such as the idea of a soldier having a choice of following orders from a superior or not.
Fair enough, dude. If I came off as judgemental or whatever, I did not mean to. I didn't understand so I asked questions. I did not make any claims of things I was unsure of though, I said I found it weird, because I didn't know how things worked.
The only claim I made is that Bush lied about WMD's and the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. Which I don't think anyone in their right mind and with the bare minimum of intellectual honesty can argue with.
To Elegy : cool post, learned a bunch, so thanks. I'm pretty confused by this :
On March 29 2011 14:33 Elegy wrote: No.
International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been.
Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate.
The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state".
So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct?
I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right?
On March 29 2011 13:51 Husnan wrote: All I'm saying is I'm puzzled by the fact that seemingly almost no Americans question the invasion of Iraq and instead choose to "support our troops".
What you're saying is actually the same faulty logic used by so many American right-wing Bush-voters. You can support the troops, and not necessarily support the "invasion" or the mission. There is actually a very wide difference there. Supporting the troops, who are largely just everyday people, and supporting the politics of war are two completely different things.
I am surprised that I missed seeing this, but I guess my country wouldn't really want me to know about this. I'm sure it is kept hush-hush, though it doesn't surprise me, as I've seen some pretty gruesome and unusual videos come out of Iraq.
To whoever was saying France hasn't been in a war since Napoleon, do you not realize that they had a standing army in Vietnam given the run around by the Viet Cong previous to us being there? France sat out in the open expecting the North Vietnamese to come out and fight them... well, as you know, that's not how they rolled.
Husnan: there was a huge campaign against "blood for oil", mainly around the college aged students, and liberals. The "war" in Iraq definitely had opposition, as people were generally confused as to why we were over there and not just demolishing the Taliban who would not release Osama. I questioned whether or not we really wanted him released after seeing his families flight records on that Michael Moore film... they were flown out of the country right after 9/11, which in and of itself is sketchy considering temperatures in relation to melting steel of building columns.
The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it
On March 29 2011 15:03 Bill Murray wrote: I am surprised that I missed seeing this, but I guess my country wouldn't really want me to know about this. I'm sure it is kept hush-hush, though it doesn't surprise me, as I've seen some pretty gruesome and unusual videos come out of Iraq.
To whoever was saying France hasn't been in a war since Napoleon, do you not realize that they had a standing army in Vietnam given the run around by the Viet Cong previous to us being there? France sat out in the open expecting the North Vietnamese to come out and fight them... well, as you know, that's not how they rolled.
Husnan: there was a huge campaign against "blood for oil", mainly around the college aged students, and liberals. The "war" in Iraq definitely had opposition, as people were generally confused as to why we were over there and not just demolishing the Taliban who would not release Osama. I questioned whether or not we really wanted him released after seeing his families flight records on that Michael Moore film... they were flown out of the country right after 9/11, which in and of itself is sketchy considering temperatures in relation to melting steel of building columns.
The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it
I know this isn't even my country, but the Colin Powell speech at the UN where he held that supposed "bottle" of Anthrax (or whatever the hell he said it was) is one of the main reasons why I stopped believing in politics and stopped voting all together.
International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been.
Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate.
The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state".
So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct?
I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right?
Well, I had some time to make some research, and I was wrong. The UNSC did actually vote a resolution (#1441) that aimed at disarming Iraq.
Edit: sorry for the double post, don't know how to erase the second one (can I?)
On March 29 2011 15:03 Bill Murray wrote: The WMDs thing was generally figured to be a joke, even among the intelligent parts of the public society. The American Government itself dismissed the idea previously to Bush giving a report at the UN on it. I'm not sure how it got added back in, but I know for a fact Bush didn't write the speech himself, and probably hadn't even read it before giving it
On March 29 2011 13:06 hongo wrote: The French can say whatever they want about armies and wars because they have never effectively fought a war since Napoleon and are effectively the biggest pussies in the world. They no nothing about war until it's on their doorstep and they need to be rescued.
Actually, you're wrong, the French have fought many wars since Napoleon, and the latest wars we've fought are pretty much some of the most shameful parts of our history (Algeria, Indochine). Which is probably why most French people are not big on war, y'know.
One of the great things about the US in my opinion is that your country seems (once again, I'm far away so I could be wrong) better at dealing with its history, even if it's shameful.
There have been tons of movies and books about the Vietnam war for instance. France is only now beginning to have a public debate over the war in Algeria (which ended 10 years before Vietnam) and the atrocities that took place within it. One movie was published recently that dealt with this history and the outburst that it created (extreme-right protests and so on) was pretty ugly, trust me.
Here it even specifically says "no soldier has been imprisoned for more than 18 months for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war"
Which implies that soldiers have been imprisoned for up to 18 months for not showing up when they were supposed to go to Iraq. Please please please have an idea of what you're talking about before you post things such as the idea of a soldier having a choice of following orders from a superior or not.
Fair enough, dude. If I came off as judgemental or whatever, I did not mean to. I didn't understand so I asked questions. I did not make any claims of things I was unsure of though, I said I found it weird, because I didn't know how things worked.
The only claim I made is that Bush lied about WMD's and the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq. Which I don't think anyone in their right mind and with the bare minimum of intellectual honesty can argue with.
To Elegy : cool post, learned a bunch, so thanks. I'm pretty confused by this :
International law, in a broad sense, means nothing like that. International law exists to the point where the UN Security Council says it does. If the UNSC says intervention in Libya is allowed, then it is. If the UNSC had existed and said intervention in Nazi Germany was to be allowed, it would have been.
Yes, countries are totally sovereign, but that sovereignty is a fickle thing at best that can be violated without repercussions if the legal consensus deems it appropriate.
The English word for what I meant was "right of interference" (if I trust my online English-French dictionnary). I googled that and I ended up on the United Nations Charter, which is really hard to understand for me. 2nd article, 7th paragraph of the Charter : "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state".
So if I understand this correctly, it basically means you don't go mess with another country's business unless it spills over the border, or, if I understand what you said correctly, if the UNSC says it's fine. Correct?
I think I remember pretty clearly that the UNSC never actually said Bush's plan to intervene in Iraq was fine, right?
you are correct, the UNSC never directly authorized war with Saddam, hence the purported "illegality" of the war. Unfortunately, there are no repercussions for such an action, so claiming it as illegal is a rather moot point. resolution 1441 did not say it was ok to wage war exactly
The UNSC would have never authorized war with Saddam, at least according to most analysts
article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN charter is pertinent for this as well specifically "inconsistent with the purposes of the UN"
and article 41 and 42
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."
also since France and others have recognized the rebel government as legitimate representatives of the Libyan people you've got an interesting case
The UN charter is quite vague, and the UNSC is the effective branch of the UN in terms of actually doing things with regards to international affairs and conflict. For Libya, the UNSC has declared a no-fly zone, which is to say armed intervention, into a completely domestic civil war. The "legal basis" for it is, again, a moot point, because international law is so flimsy and unenforced that it, by necessity, becomes a tool of powerful states to do with it what they will. And as I said before, the national interest of western states does not necessarily entail a departure from commonly accepted moral principles, though in practice in oftentimes does.
My overall point is that, when it comes to a field such as international law, the systematic incapability to enforce it on an even and objective level becomes vividly apparent. By all reasonable measurements of legality on the international scene, the war in Iraq was extremely shady at best. Likewise, the imposition of a no fly zone over Libya highlights the extremely selective nature of the UNSC when it comes to interventions, for a mix of political and practical factors.
when China used its veto power to repeatedly block any attempts at stopping genocide in Sudan, when nothing was even mentioned in the UN about Rwanda until the French intervention which ironically prolonged the genocide, repeated American vetos of any resolution against Israel, even extremely mild ones that are purely symbolic, it's easy to become disillusioned with the way the UNSC operates as an international body
It's difficult to take international law seriously when there is a severe lack of both enforcement and willingness of states to voluntarily abdicate some of their unilateral powers in favor of a more fair and less arbitrary international system
Sorry for the rambling posts, I'm absolutely exhausted and going to go to sleep now. I usually structure longer responses a lot better than this
I'm sure that partly they were, but considering that before 1991 Iraq was one of the world's top five oil producers, they had little need for "US loans" (whatever that means, foreign aid or loans from American banks?) I really doubt that your argument holds much weight. Other than you being mad because I debunked a talking point so now you're making an accusation that is more likely not true.
Yeah he was gonna have an invasion force ready to land in NY in moths if we didn't stop him.
Sarcastic and stupid.
Could you be any more condescending? You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Actually I do, probably far more than you do, and I'm right so if it came off as condescending sorry.
I'm tired of people like you giving Americans a reputation for arrogance and willful ignorance so I'll say it again.
I'm tired of people like you who equate disagreement with ignorance and arrogance JUST BECAUSE an American is disagreeing so that MUST MEAN we are being arrogant and ignorant. I'd take your challenge as to who knows more American foreign policy from 1787 to now, and the results of it, any day.
Take off the rose-colored glasses, they make you look fucking stupid
They're not rose-colored, but the ones you've spray-painted black from the inside really aren't making a positive statement for you. Apparently not adopting a strident tone and a harsh anti-US line = "Rose-colored classes." Whatever.
Those troops knew (just like everyone else) that invading Iraq was NOT about stopping a dictator. They knew that it was NOT about ensuring security for the Iraqi people, or for the American people, or anyone else's. Yet, they went there.
That's your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's true, and it is definitely not true that American soldiers "knew" that it wasn't about Saddam or the Iraqi people or American security. The only one of those three that might actually be true is that we didn't need to invade for the security of the American people, because there were no WMD stockpiles, but that's beside the point you are making here.
Didn't have time to read all you wrote, but I will and try to answer. But please, don't be putting words in my mouth, bro. You know better.
Yes that was too sarcastic and uncalled for, that sentence you quoted.
You don't understand. Of course, there were muslim terrorists in Iraq, as there is in every other country (not even just arab countries). What I meant to say was "There were no more terrorists in Iraq than any other Arab country and it is a lie to pretend this is the reason (or one of the reasons) why Iraq was invaded."
I still disagree because your conclusion does not seem to support your premise. Terrorists everywhere meaning invading Iraq in part because there were terrorists there doesn't mean that that justification is a "lie."
Someone else already reminded you of the proofs we have that Bush and his administration lied about WMDs, so I'm not gonna do that again. I'll just add that after the Colin Powell episode at the UN, and what an embarassment it was for your country, I don't understand why anyone still tries to defend them. Please do understand once again, I have nothing against the USA, or the American people, but if I was king, this government would be first against the wall.
There were several US Senate investigations, including one when the Democrats were in control, that disagree. It is not believed by anyone except Democrats and others who have a political edge to gain by saying Bush lied who do so. You don't see the French government, for example, saying Bush lied, even though it was France that led the international opposition to the war.
Why? Because the foreign intelligence agencies of France, and many other European countries, had the same intelligence Bush did, some of it came from them, they didn't think that it was sufficient to support going to war because they thought the new round of inspections should have more time to work, but they didn't think Bush was lying.
I don't see why Powell's embarrassing presentation means what you say it does. He had reservations about parts of it but overall thought it was solid.
Basically all you're doing is asserting over and over again with no proof - except that provided and interpreted by people who already reached the conclusion that Bush lied - that Bush lied, and anyone defending him should be ashamed.
The truth is that Bush did not due diligence on checking out information because too many people were telling him what he already believed: Saddam had a bunch of WMD left. So he said things he believed were true that weren't. That isn't lying. That is a gross, almost unforgivable mistake when you are president and the issue is war or peace.
Please, once again, you're either putting words in my mouth or maybe my English isn't good enough to get my point across, or you're reading what I write with a bias because it's written "France" next to my name, but geez, I am not "whining because we let some alone."
Whining is how I took it so that's why I said it. You're pointing at a meaningless inconsistency and going on and on and on about.
I sincerely believe that the fact that the USA did indeed "wage a war putting all national effort towards winning with the goal being liberating countries from foreign occupation to restore their political liberty" is exactly what makes the USA's greatness. I'm not a historian, and I'm not sure if the US really fought Germany only to free France, Poland, Austria and the other invaded countries (I think I remember learning in History class a long time ago that the US stayed neutral in WW2 until Pearl Harbor, after which they declared war to Japan, and since Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, they also were at war with them), but it doesn't change the fact that they fought for a noble end goal.
In the spring of 1941 Roosevelt ordered the Atlantic Fleet to shoot at U-boats on sight and to have US Navy ships start escorting convoys to England along with the Royal Navy. We were at de facto war with Germany right then.
The reason we didn't come in at the start was that isolationism was very strong in America before Pearl Harbor; we thought "we went over there and helped them end World War I, and it's only 20 years later and they're starting again? We don't want to get into another mess."
But we did give all that Lend-Lease aid to Britain and Russia both before and after Pearl Harbor, we were basically belligerents in all but name from 1939-1941 and after that openly in the war.
And we went after Germany harder than Japan because we knew Germany was stronger and the bigger threat and there wasn't 5,000 miles of Pacific to get past to get to Germany. Just get to England then hop over the channel and take a drive through France.
Actually from December 8 to December 11 the US and Germany weren't at war, and then Hitler declared war on us because as you said of alliances. We didn't have any "formal" alliance like "the Axis" countries did until the US entered the war. There was one between Britain and France, but not either of those two and America. After that, of course we were formally allied with them.
I'm merely trying to explain that trying to pretend that getting rid of a horrible dictator such as Saddam Hussein is NOT the reason why the US invaded Iraq. It's logically absurd to believe it. If it was true, then the US would also intervene everywhere else where the basic freedoms are ignored, where the political police decide what people should think, etc...
I'm saying that it is not logically absurd to believe that, because our argument wasn't that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam was horrible to his own people. It was an argument that we should.
And does not the US already intervene, with sanctions and criticism and diplomatic maneuvers, quite often when it comes to the internal affairs of countries with bad human rights records? Like, say, North Korea? Or Sudan? Intervention doesn't just have to mean bombing or invading.
It is not logically inconsistent to say "we overthrew Saddam partly because he was a brutal tyrant" just because we haven't done that to every brutal tyrant in the world, or didn't try to do it all at the same time we invaded Iraq.
In fact, wouldn't it be true to say that the opposite is the case? That in this decade we have two and hopefully soon three dictatorships notched on our belt? Isn't that fast enough to be "consistent" to you?
I just don't understand your argument. The US invaded a brutal dictatorship and removed it but since they aren't doing it to all brutal dictatorships simultaneously (or something), it's a lie when we say the brutality of the dictatorship was part of the reason? How does that mean it's a lie?
Just an overall answer : I think you're mistaken (or misinformed) if you really do believe that this war in Iraq was fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people. It was not. It was not fought for the security of the USA's territory or people.
I think you are misinformed and mistaken. Freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam and giving them the power to rule themselves was a central part of Bush's idealist vision. The man dedicated his second inaugural address almost exclusively towards 'spreading freedom worldwide.' He got a lot of criticism for that speech for being allegedly unrealistic.
I just think you are so cynical on this issue that you find it simply impossible to believe that the US invaded Iraq for any other reason than naked greed for "power" or something. Your arguments so far as to why this simply has to be true don't make any sense because you keep simply asserting that it's true without giving any evidence why other than "everyone knows Bush lied" (no, they don't, and plenty disagree) and "America wasn't being consistent according to me so I'm right." Weaksauce.
I'm not saying these soldiers have had something as crazy as that happen, but my point is CRAZY STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. We have no idea what these soldiers had gone through before this and what they were thinking or experiencing at the time.
yea but still.. i dont give a fuck what someone been through/seen/experienced in life.. nothing gives anyone the right to harm, let alone kill an INNOCENT person (if they deserve it, thats a different story)
getting in a fight or something is alright.. but killing someone, you cant take that shit back... and no matter how fucked up/high you are at the moment, a decision to kill someone (that too an innocent) is weak, sad, and cruel. I dont believe for a second that someone can make a decision to kill (even when high) without it coming from somewhere dark inside... there is always plenty of time to stop and think about an action of that magnitude... this kind of stuff shouldnt ever happen in war dude
Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder.. even when your stoned.
I'm sorry if you don't want to keep talking if you think I'm still being too harsh, really I just want you to explain your opinions a bit more because even though you're wrong I say you are actually articulate and not a raving lunatic and you're interesting because you obviously don't just parrot something you've read or heard somewhere you've thought about it what you think it means before expressing an opinion. I just think a lot of the things you've read or heard are wrong =)
yea but still.. i dont give a fuck what someone been through/seen/experienced in life.. nothing gives anyone the right to harm, let alone kill an INNOCENT person (if they deserve it, thats a different story)
These soldiers who've committed these murders and others like them, they have no excuse. Now, shooting a grenade through a window a terrorist just fired at you from and there's two civvies in the room or the room beside you didn't know were there who get killed or hurt, that is really awful, but that's war.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
Face it.
Your landlady's opinion is not authoritative just because she's Iraqi.
The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless (like, say, they did try to "take care of him" in 1991 and he slaughtered them, there are multiple cases of "invading a country" and getting rid of its rulers making that country better, etc.).
You can keep saying Iraq is a "disaster" but that doesn't change the fact that that statement applied in 2005 and 2006 but certainly not today. Close to a hundred people or a little bit over were dying a day on average at one point in Iraq. There were thousands of "attacks" a day. Those numbers are astoundingly low fractions today of what they were considering how bad things were.
You're just angry at America so you say confrontational things that hold a thin grasp on reality at best.
Face it.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
If your opinion is based on nothing or almost nothing then why not say so?
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
I disagree with your characterization of Iraq today and think your "don't get reported" remark is a cover for lack of evidence. As for the assertion that we're the only thing keeping it from blowing up, we only have 50,000 soldiers there. That is nowhere near enough. There's more than a million Iraqi soldiers / national police / police (national police are basically paramilitary and police have at least AK-47s). If the country was going to go crazy in violence because we didn't have enough soldiers to stop it, it would have. We've had less than 100,00 for a while. This is what I mean when I say you don't have your facts straight.
Why not invade China or three quarters of the world? I've given my answer to this question like three times in this thread, check my recent posts in it and argue with my answers instead of asking the questions over and over again.
The Soviets were installing dictatorships all over the place, unfortunately in some of these cases democracy would have meant Soviet overthrow soon after, and some fucked up shit happened that we should be ashamed of being involved with, but that doesn't mean we did it for shits and giggles, Argentina would have liked bowing down to Moscow a lot less (would have happened sooner or later if we hadn't struggled against the USSR around the world) than to being a "puppet" (stretching that term very loosely) of the US.
As for "dozens of thousands," you can't mean Argentina alone, you must mean all of South and Central America, and let's see, adding Cuba, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, etc., well I hope you see that adding up a "Communist vs. Capitalist Death Toll Contest" to see who's "better" is trivial.
So let's make it clear.
1. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. 2. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. 3. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have to break this down it's so crazy.
1. That came out of left field and is pretty much nonsense. American business didn't get much direct gain out of Iraq other than the munitions industry. Certainly not Big Oil. All that money Halliburton got for restoring the oil wells? It's going to be pumping out oil under contract for European oil companies and the Chinese state oil company mostly.
I guess we should have done a better job of invading them for our business.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
What has actually happened says mostly and the situation today says almost entirely the opposite. Why do you think we went after the Mahdi Army who were slaughtering Sunnis and al-Qaeda who was truck bombing and suicide bombing Shiites? Did protection of the victims have nothing to do with it????????
What exactly does the discussion from the last few pages have to do with civilians being killed in Afghanistan?
I thought it was more kind of "this happened, there's a broader discussion past just this particular incident to be had," and that was going on. Iraq and Libya got thrown in (and I think civilians killed or injured in those places is relevant to this discussion). But of course it became war for oil/business Bush lied lied lied stuff that I won't reply to anymore because no one is going to change any opinion about it and it is off-topic.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
If your opinion is based on nothing or almost nothing then why not say so?
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
I disagree with your characterization of Iraq today and think your "don't get reported" remark is a cover for lack of evidence. As for the assertion that we're the only thing keeping it from blowing up, we only have 50,000 soldiers there. That is nowhere near enough. There's more than a million Iraqi soldiers / national police / police (national police are basically paramilitary and police have at least AK-47s). If the country was going to go crazy in violence because we didn't have enough soldiers to stop it, it would have. We've had less than 100,00 for a while. This is what I mean when I say you don't have your facts straight.
Why not invade China or three quarters of the world? I've given my answer to this question like three times in this thread, check my recent posts in it and argue with my answers instead of asking the questions over and over again.
The Soviets were installing dictatorships all over the place, unfortunately in some of these cases democracy would have meant Soviet overthrow soon after, and some fucked up shit happened that we should be ashamed of being involved with, but that doesn't mean we did it for shits and giggles, Argentina would have liked bowing down to Moscow a lot less (would have happened sooner or later if we hadn't struggled against the USSR around the world) than to being a "puppet" (stretching that term very loosely) of the US.
As for "dozens of thousands," you can't mean Argentina alone, you must mean all of South and Central America, and let's see, adding Cuba, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, etc., well I hope you see that adding up a "Communist vs. Capitalist Death Toll Contest" to see who's "better" is trivial.
1. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. 2. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. 3. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have to break this down it's so crazy.
1. That came out of left field and is pretty much nonsense. American business didn't get much direct gain out of Iraq other than the munitions industry. Certainly not Big Oil. All that money Halliburton got for restoring the oil wells? It's going to be pumping out oil under contract for European oil companies and the Chinese state oil company mostly.
I guess we should have done a better job of invading them for our business.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
What has actually happened says mostly and the situation today says almost entirely the opposite. Why do you think we went after the Mahdi Army who were slaughtering Sunnis and al-Qaeda who was truck bombing and suicide bombing Shiites? Did protection of the victims have nothing to do with it????????
What exactly does the discussion from the last few pages have to do with civilians being killed in Afghanistan?
I thought it was more kind of "this happened, there's a broader discussion past just this particular incident to be had," and that was going on. Iraq and Libya got thrown in (and I think civilians killed or injured in those places is relevant to this discussion). But of course it became war for oil/business Bush lied lied lied stuff that I won't reply to anymore because no one is going to change any opinion about it and it is off-topic.
I won't spend whole day discussing that and we are absolutely off topic, so I will answer one more time on specific points.
1- Soviet were not installing dictature in South America. USA installed dictatures not again Stalinist dictatorships, but against popular will and any kind of left wing government. Allende was not a dictator. There were no Soviet presence in Argentina. The fact is that in their paranoid crusade against the "reds" (operation Condor, someone?), America installed and supported fascist dictatorship on the whole continent in democratic countries which hadn't asked anything. The ennemy was not soviet dictature, it was any movement of emancipation or any communist/scialist influence, idea or movement.
As I told you my mother fled Argentina. At the time, a young person was a suspect. If you were a friend of a "subversive" that was enough to make you disappear. Systematic torture, executions, denonciations, have been the common lot of Argentina for more than a decade. The question is not "communism vs capitalism". Question is about an imperial power and its ideological paranoic stance against whole people's will. USA has fucked up the whole South American continent for half a century. And believe me, I know very well what I am talking about.
Just a little thing: FARC and other terrorist groups are completely irrlevant. Counting the number of death caused by people who claim being marxist and say that it's the crime of communism is as stupid as counting the number of death made by vegetarian people and saying it's the crimes of vegetarianism. USA foreign policy is a coherent whole. "Marxists in South America" in the other hand doesn't mean anything. There is no link whatsoever between leftist in Argentina or Salvador Allende adminsitration and FARCS.
A minimum of 60 000 death, probably much more. Please, read the whole article. You may learn stuff which are not really talked so much about in mainstream american medias.
2- Let's make it clear. You didn't go to war for the interest of America. You went to war for the private interest of members of your adminsitration, linked very closely with industries which benefited enormousy from the war. Namely oil, but also weapon, security and construction industries. This war is the result of your politcal system, which is the definition of corruption: collusion between private and public interest. Your political institiution is structurally corrupted, if we agree on this definition of the word.
3- America has been hysterical for years after 11/9. It's not that I think you guys are idiots. It's ust that it has been a huge traumatism and that's kind of normal. The general consensus for a war which made no sense at all, the lack of opposition for stuff such as the patriot act which is the most anti-democratic bullcrap you ever had, or the ridiculous reaction to France which was the only country who really pointed out that it made no sense at all (lol liberty fries) is what I call a hysterical climate. Your government exploited it.
4- Nobody ave a crap about democracy in Irak. Your administration didn't go to war because of MDW and they admitted it. Two lies. They manipulated public opinion with fear of MDW although they knew perfectly that the reason to suspect that Saddam had any were loosy and that in this regards, countries like North Korea were much more dangerous.
5- You talk about protection of victims. The victims are victim of a civil war and chaotic situation that we created with our armies. You invade a countrry, it turns into total chaos, and then we say lucky we are there because people are getting killed. Irak war was the best thing which could happen to Al Qaeda and other fundamentalists and extremist groups.
We have fucked up middle east. We european, american and russians. Afghanistan didn't have any problem before russians invaded it. Saddam was helped enormously by euro americans a some point because he was fighting Iran. Iran was screwed up by British who installed the Shah to be able to exploit oil. etc etc etc etc... This area is a victim of imperialism, european, soviet and american and theses invasions are just the last chapter of that history.
I'm sure you can now understand, even if you don't agree, why I don't feel full of pride and respect when I see american soldiers in middle east. I don't think you say anything stupid, but I have reasons to have a completely different point of view.
Hopefully this wont undermine (too much) the credibility of the army. It will put some criticism on their screening and psychological handling of the soldiers though.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
Face it.
Your landlady's opinion is not authoritative just because she's Iraqi.
The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless (like, say, they did try to "take care of him" in 1991 and he slaughtered them, there are multiple cases of "invading a country" and getting rid of its rulers making that country better, etc.).
You can keep saying Iraq is a "disaster" but that doesn't change the fact that that statement applied in 2005 and 2006 but certainly not today. Close to a hundred people or a little bit over were dying a day on average at one point in Iraq. There were thousands of "attacks" a day. Those numbers are astoundingly low fractions today of what they were considering how bad things were.
You're just angry at America so you say confrontational things that hold a thin grasp on reality at best.
Face it.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
Owned. You sir, deserve a medal. I really mean it.
They go to war for the military industrial complex not to save people from dictatorsor to defeat "Terrorism". The reason why we have terrorism is because we fuck with other nations all the time. I would be angry to if our country was occupied by foreign troops. The politicians have to appease the people who payed for their campaigns not the american people.
I can write many things but I'm just going to say this: America disgusts me, its military, its institutions, its idiot people, and its evil government.
No country "need your help", who do you think you guys are? The cops of the world? The enlighten nation which will bring peace democracy and light to the whole world with your jets your tanks and your marines? Hussein was awful, but it's Irakis who should have taken care of him. You don't bring peace and democracy by invading a country, you just make things worse.
If you ask Irakis if they are happy now about the war and american being there, I am pretty much certain they woud say no. They were probably happy to get rid of Saddam in 2003, but their country has been absolute chaos since America went to mess everything up. I'm pretty sure that it was less worse to live in Bagdad twelve years ago than now.
My landlady is Iraki. She says that Irak was a horrible dictature, but that now it's madness and civil war. The only thing American army brought with it is more violence.
The motive were wrong and dishonest. The principle is arrogant and naive. The result is a disaster.
Face it.
Your landlady's opinion is not authoritative just because she's Iraqi.
The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless (like, say, they did try to "take care of him" in 1991 and he slaughtered them, there are multiple cases of "invading a country" and getting rid of its rulers making that country better, etc.).
You can keep saying Iraq is a "disaster" but that doesn't change the fact that that statement applied in 2005 and 2006 but certainly not today. Close to a hundred people or a little bit over were dying a day on average at one point in Iraq. There were thousands of "attacks" a day. Those numbers are astoundingly low fractions today of what they were considering how bad things were.
You're just angry at America so you say confrontational things that hold a thin grasp on reality at best.
Face it.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
Owned. You sir, deserve a medal. I really mean it.
Oh, I don't mean to own anybody, really, just to expose why there are reason not to believe american soldiers are doing something heroic there.
I guess two centuries ago, French people also were proud of their soldiers beating the shit out of africans in their colonies (to bring them "civilization", we were already trying to keep our conscience clear...)
World doesn't change.
On March 30 2011 01:16 Bleak wrote: I can write many things but I'm just going to say this: America disgusts me, its military, its institutions, its idiot people, and its evil government.
Although I don't like the United States as a nation and what they represent (global capitalism, imperialist policies etc etc) either, I would edit this post. You are gonna get banned and that's a bit silly
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
If your opinion is based on nothing or almost nothing then why not say so?
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
I disagree with your characterization of Iraq today and think your "don't get reported" remark is a cover for lack of evidence. As for the assertion that we're the only thing keeping it from blowing up, we only have 50,000 soldiers there. That is nowhere near enough. There's more than a million Iraqi soldiers / national police / police (national police are basically paramilitary and police have at least AK-47s). If the country was going to go crazy in violence because we didn't have enough soldiers to stop it, it would have. We've had less than 100,00 for a while. This is what I mean when I say you don't have your facts straight.
Why not invade China or three quarters of the world? I've given my answer to this question like three times in this thread, check my recent posts in it and argue with my answers instead of asking the questions over and over again.
The Soviets were installing dictatorships all over the place, unfortunately in some of these cases democracy would have meant Soviet overthrow soon after, and some fucked up shit happened that we should be ashamed of being involved with, but that doesn't mean we did it for shits and giggles, Argentina would have liked bowing down to Moscow a lot less (would have happened sooner or later if we hadn't struggled against the USSR around the world) than to being a "puppet" (stretching that term very loosely) of the US.
As for "dozens of thousands," you can't mean Argentina alone, you must mean all of South and Central America, and let's see, adding Cuba, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, etc., well I hope you see that adding up a "Communist vs. Capitalist Death Toll Contest" to see who's "better" is trivial.
1. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. 2. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. 3. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have to break this down it's so crazy.
1. That came out of left field and is pretty much nonsense. American business didn't get much direct gain out of Iraq other than the munitions industry. Certainly not Big Oil. All that money Halliburton got for restoring the oil wells? It's going to be pumping out oil under contract for European oil companies and the Chinese state oil company mostly.
I guess we should have done a better job of invading them for our business.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
What has actually happened says mostly and the situation today says almost entirely the opposite. Why do you think we went after the Mahdi Army who were slaughtering Sunnis and al-Qaeda who was truck bombing and suicide bombing Shiites? Did protection of the victims have nothing to do with it????????
What exactly does the discussion from the last few pages have to do with civilians being killed in Afghanistan?
I thought it was more kind of "this happened, there's a broader discussion past just this particular incident to be had," and that was going on. Iraq and Libya got thrown in (and I think civilians killed or injured in those places is relevant to this discussion). But of course it became war for oil/business Bush lied lied lied stuff that I won't reply to anymore because no one is going to change any opinion about it and it is off-topic.
I won't spend whole day discussing that and we are absolutely off topic, so I will answer one more time on specific points.
1- Soviet were not installing dictature in South America. USA installed dictatures not again Stalinist dictatorships, but against popular will and any kind of left wing government. Allende was not a dictator. There were no Soviet presence in Argentina. The fact is that in their paranoid crusade against the "reds" (operation Condor, someone?), America installed and supported fascist dictatorship on the whole continent in democratic countries which hadn't asked anything. The ennemy was not soviet dictature, it was any movement of emancipation or any communist/scialist influence, idea or movement.
As I told you my mother fled Argentina. At the time, a young person was a suspect. If you were a friend of a "subversive" that was enough to make you disappear. Systematic torture, executions, denonciations, have been the common lot of Argentina for more than a decade. The question is not "communism vs capitalism". Question is about an imperial power and its ideological paranoic stance against whole people's will. USA has fucked up the whole South American continent for half a century. And believe me, I know very well what I am talking about.
Just a little thing: FARC and other terrorist groups are completely irrlevant. Counting the number of death caused by people who claim being marxist and say that it's the crime of communism is as stupid as counting the number of death made by vegetarian people and saying it's the crimes of vegetarianism. USA foreign policy is a coherent whole. "Marxists in South America" in the other hand doesn't mean anything. There is no link whatsoever between leftist in Argentina or Salvador Allende adminsitration and FARCS.
A minimum of 60 000 death, probably much more. Please, read the whole article. You may learn stuff which are not really talked so much about in mainstream american medias.
2- Let's make it clear. You didn't go to war for the interest of America. You went to war for the private interest of members of your adminsitration, linked very closely with industries which benefited enormousy from the war. Namely oil, but also weapon, security and construction industries. This war is the result of your politcal system, which is the definition of corruption: collusion between private and public interest. Your political institiution is structurally corrupted, if we agree on this definition of the word.
3- America has been hysterical for years after 11/9. It's not that I think you guys are idiots. It's ust that it has been a huge traumatism and that's kind of normal. The general consensus for a war which made no sense at all, the lack of opposition for stuff such as the patriot act which is the most anti-democratic bullcrap you ever had, or the ridiculous reaction to France which was the only country who really pointed out that it made no sense at all (lol liberty fries) is what I call a hysterical climate. Your government exploited it.
4- Nobody ave a crap about democracy in Irak. Your administration didn't go to war because of MDW and they admitted it. Two lies. They manipulated public opinion with fear of MDW although they knew perfectly that the reason to suspect that Saddam had any were loosy and that in this regards, countries like North Korea were much more dangerous.
5- You talk about protection of victims. The victims are victim of a civil war and chaotic situation that we created with our armies. You invade a countrry, it turns into total chaos, and then we say lucky we are there because people are getting killed. Irak war was the best thing which could happen to Al Qaeda and other fundamentalists and extremist groups.
We have fucked up middle east. We european, american and russians. Afghanistan didn't have any problem before russians invaded it. Saddam was helped enormously by euro americans a some point because he was fighting Iran. Iran was screwed up by British who installed the Shah to be able to exploit oil. etc etc etc etc... This area is a victim of imperialism, european, soviet and american and theses invasions are just the last chapter of that history.
I'm sure you can now understand, even if you don't agree, why I don't feel full of pride and respect when I see american soldiers in middle east. I don't think you say anything stupid, but I have reasons to have a completely different point of view.
Let's leave it there if you agree.
I agree categorically with everything you present except for blaming the CIA (and the school of the Americas, for that matter) for installing the National Reorganization Process in Argentina, which is entirely to blame on the Argentine oligarchy in collusion with the army to install a plutarchy. This is offtopic, so im not going to delve any further but still point out that the US influence in this process had a tangential, secondary support role at the most.
Bugger the armchair generalship, what interests me is that they're deliberately trying to associate the use of cannabis with the behaviour. Again. I bet these guys drink coffee and all drive on the same side of the road too.
On March 29 2011 21:55 AeroGear wrote: Hopefully this wont undermine (too much) the credibility of the army. It will put some criticism on their screening and psychological handling of the soldiers though.
Nah, shooting Pat Tillman in the head and intentionally falsifying reports of the event to drive up recruiting numbers did their credibility in long, long ago.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
If your opinion is based on nothing or almost nothing then why not say so?
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
I disagree with your characterization of Iraq today and think your "don't get reported" remark is a cover for lack of evidence. As for the assertion that we're the only thing keeping it from blowing up, we only have 50,000 soldiers there. That is nowhere near enough. There's more than a million Iraqi soldiers / national police / police (national police are basically paramilitary and police have at least AK-47s). If the country was going to go crazy in violence because we didn't have enough soldiers to stop it, it would have. We've had less than 100,00 for a while. This is what I mean when I say you don't have your facts straight.
Why not invade China or three quarters of the world? I've given my answer to this question like three times in this thread, check my recent posts in it and argue with my answers instead of asking the questions over and over again.
The Soviets were installing dictatorships all over the place, unfortunately in some of these cases democracy would have meant Soviet overthrow soon after, and some fucked up shit happened that we should be ashamed of being involved with, but that doesn't mean we did it for shits and giggles, Argentina would have liked bowing down to Moscow a lot less (would have happened sooner or later if we hadn't struggled against the USSR around the world) than to being a "puppet" (stretching that term very loosely) of the US.
As for "dozens of thousands," you can't mean Argentina alone, you must mean all of South and Central America, and let's see, adding Cuba, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, etc., well I hope you see that adding up a "Communist vs. Capitalist Death Toll Contest" to see who's "better" is trivial.
So let's make it clear.
1. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. 2. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. 3. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have to break this down it's so crazy.
1. That came out of left field and is pretty much nonsense. American business didn't get much direct gain out of Iraq other than the munitions industry. Certainly not Big Oil. All that money Halliburton got for restoring the oil wells? It's going to be pumping out oil under contract for European oil companies and the Chinese state oil company mostly.
I guess we should have done a better job of invading them for our business.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
What has actually happened says mostly and the situation today says almost entirely the opposite. Why do you think we went after the Mahdi Army who were slaughtering Sunnis and al-Qaeda who was truck bombing and suicide bombing Shiites? Did protection of the victims have nothing to do with it????????
What exactly does the discussion from the last few pages have to do with civilians being killed in Afghanistan?
I thought it was more kind of "this happened, there's a broader discussion past just this particular incident to be had," and that was going on. Iraq and Libya got thrown in (and I think civilians killed or injured in those places is relevant to this discussion). But of course it became war for oil/business Bush lied lied lied stuff that I won't reply to anymore because no one is going to change any opinion about it and it is off-topic.
I won't spend whole day discussing that and we are absolutely off topic, so I will answer one more time on specific points.
1- Soviet were not installing dictature in South America. USA installed dictatures not again Stalinist dictatorships, but against popular will and any kind of left wing government. Allende was not a dictator. There were no Soviet presence in Argentina. The fact is that in their paranoid crusade against the "reds" (operation Condor, someone?), America installed and supported fascist dictatorship on the whole continent in democratic countries which hadn't asked anything. The ennemy was not soviet dictature, it was any movement of emancipation or any communist/scialist influence, idea or movement.
As I told you my mother fled Argentina. At the time, a young person was a suspect. If you were a friend of a "subversive" that was enough to make you disappear. Systematic torture, executions, denonciations, have been the common lot of Argentina for more than a decade. The question is not "communism vs capitalism". Question is about an imperial power and its ideological paranoic stance against whole people's will. USA has fucked up the whole South American continent for half a century. And believe me, I know very well what I am talking about.
Just a little thing: FARC and other terrorist groups are completely irrlevant. Counting the number of death caused by people who claim being marxist and say that it's the crime of communism is as stupid as counting the number of death made by vegetarian people and saying it's the crimes of vegetarianism. USA foreign policy is a coherent whole. "Marxists in South America" in the other hand doesn't mean anything. There is no link whatsoever between leftist in Argentina or Salvador Allende adminsitration and FARCS.
A minimum of 60 000 death, probably much more. Please, read the whole article. You may learn stuff which are not really talked so much about in mainstream american medias.
2- Let's make it clear. You didn't go to war for the interest of America. You went to war for the private interest of members of your adminsitration, linked very closely with industries which benefited enormousy from the war. Namely oil, but also weapon, security and construction industries. This war is the result of your politcal system, which is the definition of corruption: collusion between private and public interest. Your political institiution is structurally corrupted, if we agree on this definition of the word.
3- America has been hysterical for years after 11/9. It's not that I think you guys are idiots. It's ust that it has been a huge traumatism and that's kind of normal. The general consensus for a war which made no sense at all, the lack of opposition for stuff such as the patriot act which is the most anti-democratic bullcrap you ever had, or the ridiculous reaction to France which was the only country who really pointed out that it made no sense at all (lol liberty fries) is what I call a hysterical climate. Your government exploited it.
4- Nobody ave a crap about democracy in Irak. Your administration didn't go to war because of MDW and they admitted it. Two lies. They manipulated public opinion with fear of MDW although they knew perfectly that the reason to suspect that Saddam had any were loosy and that in this regards, countries like North Korea were much more dangerous.
5- You talk about protection of victims. The victims are victim of a civil war and chaotic situation that we created with our armies. You invade a countrry, it turns into total chaos, and then we say lucky we are there because people are getting killed. Irak war was the best thing which could happen to Al Qaeda and other fundamentalists and extremist groups.
We have fucked up middle east. We european, american and russians. Afghanistan didn't have any problem before russians invaded it. Saddam was helped enormously by euro americans a some point because he was fighting Iran. Iran was screwed up by British who installed the Shah to be able to exploit oil. etc etc etc etc... This area is a victim of imperialism, european, soviet and american and theses invasions are just the last chapter of that history.
I'm sure you can now understand, even if you don't agree, why I don't feel full of pride and respect when I see american soldiers in middle east. I don't think you say anything stupid, but I have reasons to have a completely different point of view.
I'm not defending the soldiers who committed the murder. As it stands it looks like they will for the most part all be serving time. That being said it seems like Rolling Stone was blowing the story up a bit.
I'm not defending the soldiers who committed the murder. As it stands it looks like they will for the most part all be serving time. That being said it seems like Rolling Stone was blowing the story up a bit.
That is the purpose of the media, it sells if you blow it out of proportion, however that does not change the disgusting facts nor the absolute disgusting picture or what the soldiers have done, as it is truly an atrocity. Either way, I don't think the Understudy(I like your name btw)is aimed at bashing the soldiers or America, he just wants to show you(and I agree with him) that the world is not a giant orange or utopia were everyone is happy and nice to each other. It is sadly how the world works, nothing more.
I'm not defending the soldiers who committed the murder. As it stands it looks like they will for the most part all be serving time. That being said it seems like Rolling Stone was blowing the story up a bit.
That is the purpose of the media, it sells if you blow it out of proportion, however that does not change the disgusting facts nor the absolute disgusting picture or what the soldiers have done, as it is truly an atrocity. Either way, I don't think the Understudy(I like your name btw)is aimed at bashing the soldiers or America, he just wants to show you(and I agree with him) that the world is not a giant orange or utopia were everyone is happy and nice to each other. It is sadly how the world works, nothing more.
The worst bit is that the soldiers still wouldn't hesitate to do it again.
It's so hard for armies to prevent this though. I mean, there are always the spoiled apples in a barrel. By no means is this tolerable, but alas, what can we do?
I'm not defending the soldiers who committed the murder. As it stands it looks like they will for the most part all be serving time. That being said it seems like Rolling Stone was blowing the story up a bit.
That is the purpose of the media, it sells if you blow it out of proportion, however that does not change the disgusting facts nor the absolute disgusting picture or what the soldiers have done, as it is truly an atrocity. Either way, I don't think the Understudy(I like your name btw)is aimed at bashing the soldiers or America, he just wants to show you(and I agree with him) that the world is not a giant orange or utopia were everyone is happy and nice to each other. It is sadly how the world works, nothing more.
Oh sorry if I misrepresented my views with that post. I actually have a very large problem with America's infatuation with the middle east. I don't know how it happened but somehow the US inherited the British mantle in that region. That being said I'm glad they are being prosecuted I hope they all rot in jail.
Your agressivity doesn't make you right. Starting your post by bullshit such as "The rest of your post is factually inaccurate to the point where it's worthless" doesn't make you right either.
I know perfectly my landlady is not representative of Irak people. I talked about her because the guy was saying 95% irakis were happy about US troops being there, on his personnal experience.
Irak is still a complete chaos. It may be a bit less worse than in 2005 and 2006 but on't pretend that the situation is great; the day you guys step up of the country it collapses into civil war and you know it perfectly. Your administration doesn't have a way out, and the situation is still absolutely nightmarish. We don't talk about it as much as before, that's it.
Situation in Afghanistan is absolutely critical. Frecnh army was saying they had absolutely no idea how it was going to end; and if it was only possible to defeat the talibans.
Now, Irakis failed to get rid of Saddam. Right. They would have done it another time. Or not at all. That's not the point. Should we invade China to teach them democracy? Why not? Should we invade the three quarter of the planet who don't have our conception of freedom and don't share the our values, and our interest?
Why do you guys care so much that Irakis don't live in a dictature considering the fact that you installed dictatures in South America for 30 years which were at least as deadly as Saddam was?
You see, my mother had to flee Argentina under Videla who was almost directlyt installed to power by the CIA. At the time, fighting the reds was worth few dozen thousand of innocent life.
So let's make it clear. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
If your opinion is based on nothing or almost nothing then why not say so?
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
I disagree with your characterization of Iraq today and think your "don't get reported" remark is a cover for lack of evidence. As for the assertion that we're the only thing keeping it from blowing up, we only have 50,000 soldiers there. That is nowhere near enough. There's more than a million Iraqi soldiers / national police / police (national police are basically paramilitary and police have at least AK-47s). If the country was going to go crazy in violence because we didn't have enough soldiers to stop it, it would have. We've had less than 100,00 for a while. This is what I mean when I say you don't have your facts straight.
Why not invade China or three quarters of the world? I've given my answer to this question like three times in this thread, check my recent posts in it and argue with my answers instead of asking the questions over and over again.
The Soviets were installing dictatorships all over the place, unfortunately in some of these cases democracy would have meant Soviet overthrow soon after, and some fucked up shit happened that we should be ashamed of being involved with, but that doesn't mean we did it for shits and giggles, Argentina would have liked bowing down to Moscow a lot less (would have happened sooner or later if we hadn't struggled against the USSR around the world) than to being a "puppet" (stretching that term very loosely) of the US.
As for "dozens of thousands," you can't mean Argentina alone, you must mean all of South and Central America, and let's see, adding Cuba, FARC in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru, etc., well I hope you see that adding up a "Communist vs. Capitalist Death Toll Contest" to see who's "better" is trivial.
1. You are in Irak because it was an opportunity to make business for your corrupt administration. 2. US people were hysterical after 11/9 and that it was the right moment for your admiistration to manipulate everybody and start an illegal war. 3. Now you are there, and everybody knows that the bullshit about democracy freedom and MDW was a lie.
I have to break this down it's so crazy.
1. That came out of left field and is pretty much nonsense. American business didn't get much direct gain out of Iraq other than the munitions industry. Certainly not Big Oil. All that money Halliburton got for restoring the oil wells? It's going to be pumping out oil under contract for European oil companies and the Chinese state oil company mostly.
I guess we should have done a better job of invading them for our business.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
I have the right to be a bit suspicious when someone says that US soldiers deserve respect because they are there to protect anybody. US military in Irak is an occupying force, behaving like an occupying force. No sympathy whatsoever for me.
What has actually happened says mostly and the situation today says almost entirely the opposite. Why do you think we went after the Mahdi Army who were slaughtering Sunnis and al-Qaeda who was truck bombing and suicide bombing Shiites? Did protection of the victims have nothing to do with it????????
What exactly does the discussion from the last few pages have to do with civilians being killed in Afghanistan?
I thought it was more kind of "this happened, there's a broader discussion past just this particular incident to be had," and that was going on. Iraq and Libya got thrown in (and I think civilians killed or injured in those places is relevant to this discussion). But of course it became war for oil/business Bush lied lied lied stuff that I won't reply to anymore because no one is going to change any opinion about it and it is off-topic.
I won't spend whole day discussing that and we are absolutely off topic, so I will answer one more time on specific points.
1- Soviet were not installing dictature in South America. USA installed dictatures not again Stalinist dictatorships, but against popular will and any kind of left wing government. Allende was not a dictator. There were no Soviet presence in Argentina. The fact is that in their paranoid crusade against the "reds" (operation Condor, someone?), America installed and supported fascist dictatorship on the whole continent in democratic countries which hadn't asked anything. The ennemy was not soviet dictature, it was any movement of emancipation or any communist/scialist influence, idea or movement.
As I told you my mother fled Argentina. At the time, a young person was a suspect. If you were a friend of a "subversive" that was enough to make you disappear. Systematic torture, executions, denonciations, have been the common lot of Argentina for more than a decade. The question is not "communism vs capitalism". Question is about an imperial power and its ideological paranoic stance against whole people's will. USA has fucked up the whole South American continent for half a century. And believe me, I know very well what I am talking about.
Just a little thing: FARC and other terrorist groups are completely irrlevant. Counting the number of death caused by people who claim being marxist and say that it's the crime of communism is as stupid as counting the number of death made by vegetarian people and saying it's the crimes of vegetarianism. USA foreign policy is a coherent whole. "Marxists in South America" in the other hand doesn't mean anything. There is no link whatsoever between leftist in Argentina or Salvador Allende adminsitration and FARCS.
A minimum of 60 000 death, probably much more. Please, read the whole article. You may learn stuff which are not really talked so much about in mainstream american medias.
2- Let's make it clear. You didn't go to war for the interest of America. You went to war for the private interest of members of your adminsitration, linked very closely with industries which benefited enormousy from the war. Namely oil, but also weapon, security and construction industries. This war is the result of your politcal system, which is the definition of corruption: collusion between private and public interest. Your political institiution is structurally corrupted, if we agree on this definition of the word.
3- America has been hysterical for years after 11/9. It's not that I think you guys are idiots. It's ust that it has been a huge traumatism and that's kind of normal. The general consensus for a war which made no sense at all, the lack of opposition for stuff such as the patriot act which is the most anti-democratic bullcrap you ever had, or the ridiculous reaction to France which was the only country who really pointed out that it made no sense at all (lol liberty fries) is what I call a hysterical climate. Your government exploited it.
4- Nobody ave a crap about democracy in Irak. Your administration didn't go to war because of MDW and they admitted it. Two lies. They manipulated public opinion with fear of MDW although they knew perfectly that the reason to suspect that Saddam had any were loosy and that in this regards, countries like North Korea were much more dangerous.
5- You talk about protection of victims. The victims are victim of a civil war and chaotic situation that we created with our armies. You invade a countrry, it turns into total chaos, and then we say lucky we are there because people are getting killed. Irak war was the best thing which could happen to Al Qaeda and other fundamentalists and extremist groups.
We have fucked up middle east. We european, american and russians. Afghanistan didn't have any problem before russians invaded it. Saddam was helped enormously by euro americans a some point because he was fighting Iran. Iran was screwed up by British who installed the Shah to be able to exploit oil. etc etc etc etc... This area is a victim of imperialism, european, soviet and american and theses invasions are just the last chapter of that history.
I'm sure you can now understand, even if you don't agree, why I don't feel full of pride and respect when I see american soldiers in middle east. I don't think you say anything stupid, but I have reasons to have a completely different point of view.
Let's leave it there if you agree.
I agree categorically with everything you present except for blaming the CIA (and the school of the Americas, for that matter) for installing the National Reorganization Process in Argentina, which is entirely to blame on the Argentine oligarchy in collusion with the army to install a plutarchy. This is offtopic, so im not going to delve any further but still point out that the US influence in this process had a tangential, secondary support role at the most.
I'm second hand argentinian, so you probably know the matter much better than me. Do you know that French officers from the Algier Battle (such as Aussares, etc...) were sent by France to Argentina to teach counter-inserruction and anti-subversive methods (read: how to torture suspects) to the Argentinian military?
Such a dark page of both countries history. But yeah, that's really off topic.
There are lots of testimonies of other US soldiers about Iraqi opinions of them, and other sources as well. Your landlady is a silly example, she wasn't in Iraq at the time was she? He was.
Its funny how polite people will be to US soldiers when they are holding a gun. No one is really rude to gun totting thugs either. Iraqis (justifiably) and Afghanis (even more justfiably) hate american soldiers. Any testimony of US soldiers is moot because of bias anyways.
2. Yeah okay. Bush started his campaign at the UN on September 11, 2002, we invaded 9 months later. This "scared us into it" is crap. NINE MONTHS. We weren't scared stupid for NINE STRAIGHT MONTHS. That is just insulting.
America has been scared stupid since its inception. Scared of the natives, scared of the british, scared of the blacks, scared of the japanese, scared of the germans, scared of the jews, scared of the hippies, scared of the commies, scared of the chinese and now the latest scared of brown people.
The fact that Bush got voted in in 2004 is evidence of the fact that the majority was afraid (and stupid too).
3. Democracy wasn't a lie, WMD was a mistake not a lie.
1. Iraq still doesn't have a democracy. The funniest thing with this recent intervention is that Iraqi protests were subdued and are never mentioned in the american media. 2. Other then glenn beck no one actually believes that the WMD execuse wasn't an outright lie. Rummy said "we know where they are". Thats an outright lie. 3. Suppose it was a mistake. So what? The murder of 100,000+ people, the displacement of millions more is acceptable because the americans behaved like morons?
5- You talk about protection of victims. The victims are victim of a civil war and chaotic situation that we created with our armies. You invade a countrry, it turns into total chaos, and then we say lucky we are there because people are getting killed. Irak war was the best thing which could happen to Al Qaeda and other fundamentalists and extremist groups.
Infact there are numerous studies that show intervention in the internal affairs of a country has a very low chance of not fucking things up.
Finally, a 2010 article by Goran Piec and Daniel Reiter examines forty-two "foreign imposed regime changes" since 1920 and finds that when interventions "damage state infrastructural power" they also increase the risk of subsequent civil war.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
Nice. You gave me the best definition of what "right wing" means I have seen in my life.
Philosopher Gilles Deleuze was saying that the principle of a right winger is the same than the adress on a postacard: I care first of all about me, then my family, then my neighbourhood, then my racial group, then my country, then my cultural area, then my continent and finally the world.
Being a leftist would consist in exactly the contrary: you start with a universalist stance and then step to step, to yourself. From a left-wing point of view, "you" is the last, and the least important step.
I had never met someone to formalize it, though, so congratz.
"I don't care about brown people living far being killed, tortured, have their lives broken and losing their beloved if that's enough to keep me and my family rich and confortable." That's what you are saying. I'm not quite sure you do realize how despicable such an egoist and cynical statement is for anybody with a fraction of moral consciousness.
Other then glenn beck no one actually believes that the WMD execuse wasn't an outright lie. Rummy said "we know where they are". Thats an outright lie.
It was hardly an outright lie. A lot of countries shared the belief that Saddam had WMD.
Here's what Hans Blix said:
n the Administration's defense, Blix notes that the Americans weren't alone in suspecting Iraq was hiding WMD. He says before the invasion, he got the impression that the German, French, and "most other" governments were also "convinced that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction."
Blix also said that it was his own "gut feeling" that Saddam still had WMD.
Trumped up, exaggerated, faulty, sure. I probably wouldn't have said anything if you just said "a lie." But throwing that word "outright" in there is a step too far.. It's not like they pulled that shit out of thin air. They had a picture they wanted to sell and they tried to find the pieces that would make it fit.
Other then glenn beck no one actually believes that the WMD execuse wasn't an outright lie. Rummy said "we know where they are". Thats an outright lie.
It was hardly an outright lie. A lot of countries shared the belief that Saddam had WMD.
n the Administration's defense, Blix notes that the Americans weren't alone in suspecting Iraq was hiding WMD. He says before the invasion, he got the impression that the German, French, and "most other" governments were also "convinced that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction."
Blix also said that it was his own "gut feeling" that Saddam still had WMD.
Trumped up, exaggerated, faulty, sure. I probably wouldn't have said anything if you just said "a lie." But throwing that word "outright" in there is a step too far.. It's not like they pulled that shit out of thin air. They had a picture they wanted to sell and they tried to find the pieces that would make it fit.
Scaring a whole nation to death with a loosy threat that you know is unsignificant and uncertain, and telling them that's the reason they should go to war although you clearly do want the war to happen for completely different reasons is not a lie? I wonder what's a lie then.
Bush administration said America went to war because of MDW. America didn't go to war because of the MDW. Bush administration lied. Simple.
On March 30 2011 18:02 redviper wrote: The fact that Bush got voted in in 2004 is evidence of the fact that the majority was afraid (and stupid too).
It pretty much is just a poll on who you like, the actual votes don't matter. They tell people here we live in a democracy, but it is just not true.
need a revolution...
The fact that American mass medias are owned by a couple of people such as Rupert Murdoch and are for most of them a war machine against intelligence, closer to Goebel's propaganda than to anything else doesn't help to have a healthy democracy.
Representative system is democratic if citizens are educated and enlightened. Right now it's about who has the most money and power to manipulate public opinion with false facts and unfounded fear.
This happens in every war I don't see why it's news worthy. Military is just a composite of society since that's where they draw from. There are psychopaths in RL and in the Army as well. Good to see them prosecuted.
On September 28 2010 09:45 sikyon wrote: Do you think the military is made up of people in the top 10% of their class in high school or the bottom 10%?
People are not nice. The world is not a nice place. Worse shit than this happens everywhere in the world. That doesn't make it excusable, but it happens. I am willing to tolerate, to a certain extent, a violation of my morals to ensure that I can keep on living my comfortable life.
Does valuing myself, my family, and my friends, and my countrymen over strangers make me a bad person? Possibly, but it doesn't bother me much as long as I just compartmentalize it.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.realone.com/assets/cs/905/00963905.jpg)
Every living creature even soulles ROCKS know why US is in ME. Stabilty, democracy, WMDs etc, ----- pleaseee. 
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NaPjS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GgMXR.gif)
