defending Starpass, and supporting Iraqi resistance....

[mike_c]

I'm not going to go as far as Starpass and call for more bloodshed, but I've been wanting to say this ever since Will Pitt's recent post excoriating anyone who criticizes American troops in Iraq. I think the several recent posts which have questioned American troops' actions in Iraq are spot on.

Folks, we are the aggressors in Iraq. Our troops are not the "good guys." They're the foreign invaders, with questionable motives. And before anyone chimes in that the troops are only there because the corrupt and terrible Bush* boogie man made them go, and that the crimes they've committed were really his fault because he made them commit them, stop and think. The military exists for two basic purposes-- the defense of the nation and as an instrument of foreign policy. The troops in Iraq are acting as the later, i.e., as enforcers for the BFEE. They're practicing collective reprisals, they're acting like thugs, and they're inspiring a rising insurgency.

Why is it that otherwise intelligent people on DU (and elsewhere) adamantly support OUR right to defend our country against foreign aggression by any means possible, including taking up arms and killing invading troops, but deny Iraqi's the same fundamental right to self-defense? I repeat-- our troops are the aggressors in Iraq. They invaded in contradiction of international law. Why should they expect Iraqis to do anything else but fight them and kill them until they leave? That's what I would do in their place.

on edit: Starpass's thread was locked for being "inflammatory." This one might express inflammatory ideas, but that is the nature of discourse in a free society, I hope. I also hope that the mods agree that my language avoids inflammation... And edited for numerous typos.

[matcom]

1. you have NO IDEA what a MIND READER YOU ARE!!

and Starpass Too!

SHIT. cannot write anymore right now but am fighting my OWN deamons with this post.

shit.

thanks.

[arcane1]

2. the moral dillemma we are placed in (thanks to Bush)...

is not a very fun place...

:evilfrown:

[Maple]

3. Or as Rumsfield said

they volunteered to be there.

[RC]

14. No, they didn't.

They volunteered to serve their country. This administration changed the rules after they enlisted. And again after they were in Iraq.

[Maple]

22. It is no surprise in America

to join the military...and be sent to war.

They were not innocent...they knew they weren't joining any knitting society.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Saddam Hussein and those who support him are not the good guys

I don't understand how ANYONE who considers themselves to be a Democrat and a believer in democracy can say that Hussein's government was in any way legitimate. If we had a strong and functioning UN (and we don't thanks to Republicans) the Hussein government should have been thrown out and the Iraqi people allowed to build a representative government.

[Maple]

11. Who are you

to decide what is, and what isn't, a legitimate govt in another country??

It's Iraq. And an Iraqi decision.

Not yours.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. And the Iraqis got a say about Hussein's government how?

In what parallel universe? Sorry, dictatorships are not legitimate governments. As far as I am concerned, government by consent of the governed is an axiom.

[thebigidea]

and the Iraqis got a say about Bremer's government how?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. they didn't, and that's why I agree with DK

Get the UN in and the US out.

[Maple]

27. It's not up to you to decide

how other countries are run.

If the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, they could have ousted him.

They're doing a real good job doing that to Americans. Saddam would have been easy.

Your 'axioms' are cultural arrogance.

Their country...their choice.

NOT yours.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Is it up the to Kurds?

Is Iraq the Kurd's country? Who decided on the borders of Iraq, the Iraqis? You may consider my axiom cultural arrogance. Maybe. I can live with that.

Your support of "national soverignty" is just as culturally arrogant as my axiom of government by the consent of the governed.

[leanings]

64. If the blanks didn't like blank, they could have ousted him.

What a fun game! Let's try Russians, Stalin. Cambodians, Pol Pot. Chinese, Mao. Jews, Hitler. Tibetans, the Chinese.

And no, Saddam would not have been easy compared to the Americans. Saddam had no compunction about TARGETING civilians.

[Solomon]

209. You forgot to add Bush - A,mericans

to your list.

[Wellong]

80. Saddam would have been easy?

Where in the world do you get the idea that Saddam would have been easy for the Iraqi's to get rid of?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[karlschneider]

102. You have a point. We have a bogus "president" who was not elected,

and the prospects of getting rid of the lying sonofabitch are marginal.
But when a populace gets energized, even the most disgusting piece of shit in charge is vulnerable. That is our target.

[Eloriel]

66. So you are in favor of imposing democracy

at the point of a gun. Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

For that matter, we don't quite have "government by consent of the governed" in THIS country; we're hardly in any position to go making others do it too.

Further, there's a principle in international law that sovereign nations don't get invaded from the outside without provocation. There was no provocation, therefore we should not have invaded.

Eloriel

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

77. Who made Iraq a nation?

You favor supporting dictators who take over an area and a population and declare it a nation? As I said before, Hussein should have been dealt with according to international law through the UN. What Bush did was inexcusable.

Now why the hell is DU lamenting the "loss of national soverignty" of a dictator like Hussein? You can get theoretical all you want. Hussein is (supposedly) gone and that's a good thing. Instead of theorizing about how responsible US troops are for Iraq, we should be concentrating on getting Bush out of office.

Also a pragmatic argument - no one minimizing, excusing, or granting legitimacy to Hussein and his regime is going to win the elections.

[Classical_Liberal]

108. No we favor ignoring them unless they threaten us.

. I don't think American is obligated to produce democracy in any other place but here. The majority of Iraqies want us owt in 2 years so how are we different?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

115. We weren't ignoring him, that's the problem

Us companies were buying and selling with him. The UN and the US were accepting the Hussein regime as a legitimate government. We recognized his "soverignty". That's not being a passive bystander, that's being an accomplice.

[Classical_Liberal]

124. If they are accomplices what makes you think they

are helping the Iraqies now?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

137. stop letting the Republicans define this okay?

I was not for "leaving Saddam alone" - I was not against "liberating Iraq". I was against collaborating with him. I am against Bush's occupation. I was against his unilateral invasion and his refusal to follow international law through the UN.

It's good that Saddam is gone. Now our responsibility is to keep Bush from making things worse, and prosecuting him for his crimes.

[Classical_Liberal]

141. and I didn't make the democrats let the repukes define this

. I was against the war.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

143. So was I, and now I'm against the occupation

How's that?

[Scott Lee]

111. Britain made Iraq a nation - not Hussein

Your post is so full of holes its hard to know where to begin.

Let's start with the fact that "dictators" are not sovereignty. Sovereignty is a concept of the unique, free and self determinate natures of any people or nation. A sovereign nation may have a dictator, but a dictator is not a "soveriegn" unless they are royalty in the Western European sense of the word.

Secondly, It was Britain that actually carved Iraq into existence - not Saddam Hussein. Hussein merely took over in a Ba'athist revolt. And by the way, Hussein was essentially correct in noting that Iraq had some claims on Kuwait....although I still believe he violated Kuwaiti sovereignty and was therefore wrong in invading.

Thirdly, you legitimize the very Bush monster you are seeking to throw out of office by allowing yourself to be hijacked by the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. When you find yourself in the position of unconditionally supporting "the troops" regardless of how they got there, you are ethically held hostage.

Finally, I can't think of a single candidate who has "excused" Hussein's actions as a leader of a sovereign nation; and frankly, it's irrelevent. That's like demanding agreement that Drano tastes like hell.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

142. of course

"Let's start with the fact that "dictators" are not sovereignty. Sovereignty is a concept of the unique, free and self determinate natures of any people or nation. A sovereign nation may have a dictator, but a dictator is not a "soveriegn" unless they are royalty in the Western European sense of the word."

Dictators aren't legitimate governments. I have no obligation nor inclination to accept a dictatorship as legitimate government, nor should I suppor their fiction of being one by agreeing that the territory that the dictator claims is a soverign nation.

"Secondly, It was Britain that actually carved Iraq into existence - not Saddam Hussein. Hussein merely took over in a Ba'athist revolt. And by the way, Hussein was essentially correct in noting that Iraq had some claims on Kuwait....although I still believe he violated Kuwaiti sovereignty and was therefore wrong in invading."

Thanks for making my point. What right does Britain have to create a nation called Iraq? What obligation do I have to accept that? So Hussein took over, why do I have to accept his legitimacy? The Iraqi people didn't elect him, he took over in a coup.

"Thirdly, you legitimize the very Bush monster you are seeking to throw out of office by allowing yourself to be hijacked by the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. When you find yourself in the position of unconditionally supporting "the troops" regardless of how they got there, you are ethically held hostage."

I'm neither legitimizing Bush nor Hussein. I refuse to choose between Hussein and supporting Bush's illegal actions. It seems to me that some Democrats are being "held hostage" to the Republican spin and framing of the debate.

[Wellong]

86. If we want to get technical

Further, there's a principle in international law that sovereign nations don't get invaded from the outside without provocation. There was no provocation, therefore we should not have invaded.

If we want to get techinical, Iraq/Hussein was in violation of the cease fire than ended Gulf War I and the current war there could technically be called a "resumption of hostilities."

[mike_c]

116. I do remember hearing that argument made quite eloquently...

...on Free Republik.

[RapidCreek]

206. That's not getting technical...it's being 100% wrong!

Bush's claim that "material breach" of cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The first Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force...NOT GEORGE BUSH! Get it?

AWOL seems more than willing to accept the relevancy of the UN Security Council when it suits his needs...and equally willing to decry that relevancy when it doesn't.

RC

[RapidCreek]

207. Dupe

RC

[Isome]

161. Our government recognized Hussein's reign as legitimate.

We sold him arms. Rummy went to meet him shook his hand, and didn't have a bad word to say about him or his dictatorship at the time. If I'm not mistaken, we were courted him after Iran went fundie after throwing the Shah out of the country.

We just cannot go around invading countries, whether we believe their government to be legitimate or not. I don't believe * to be the rightful president of these united states, but I'd kill the first mofo to invade this country to assasinate him or any other rethuglican in his cabinet (as is/was our desire against Saddam and his people)on our behalf. It's our problem and we'll handle it in our way. The Iraqis have the same right to self-rule.

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. OK, using that strategy, you would have fought Japan

But if Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S., then their government was OK by you?

[mike_c]

12. that's neither what I said, nor in any way relevant....

Sure. We invaded because Saddam was a bad leader. Yeah. That's the ticket....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. and the reasons for war are irrelevant

to the legitimacy of Hussein's government, which was basically none.

[Classical_Liberal]

99. I don't think we have an obligation to impose democracy on the Iraqies

. None what so ever. He wasn't the only dictator in the world. People who focus on him are generally just trying to take the heat off America and Israel for their undemocratic ways. I don't think Bush is legitimate, because he was elected with a jim crow vote purge of African Americans. That is my number 1 concern. That has nothing to do with whether Hussien is legitimate. People who suspect we are just replacing him with a proamerican dictator also have a valid fear.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

112. of course Bush wants to replace Hussein with a pro-US dictator

That's exactly what Bush Sr. said he wanted in GW I. Do we have an obligation to "impose democracy" on Iraq? Answer me this, okay?

I sell weapons to a crook who invades your house and enslaves your family. I tell everyone in the neighborhood that's it's okay he did this. I say "I'm not going to get involved in what happens in someone else's house" - but of couse, I am involved. I meet with the crook and buy your TV and furniture from him.

If I kill that crook, have I imposed anything on you? I realize that what Bush is doing is killing the crook and moving in - I support DK's plan, get the UN in and the US out.

[Classical_Liberal]

117. So we are supposed to support Bush replacing Hussien with another

dictator because he installed Saddam. Sorry doesn't make sense. If you helped enslave them before why the fuck would you care about them now. The majority don't want us there. If that family wants you out, which is understandable since you funded the bugger and are a sociopath that will only help enslave them more, then you should stay out. War isn't the only way to deal with the problem anyway, certainly not an invasion.

[karlschneider]

31. Well, there were no Democrats in 1776. Just a lot of really pissed off

people who objected to King George's rules for the colonies. (And there's a huge irony right there) but notwithstanding that, what evidence do you have (given your obvious excellent crystal ball and diplomatic insight into ME affairs) that a representative democracy is wat the people of Iraq actually WANT? They have managed to cobble up a culture of sorts in spite of 3000 years of outside interference. Who the hell are you (or we) to tell them how to run their fuckin' country?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

58. Outside interference

Exactly. Did Hussein take over Iraq with only the help of Iraqis? Nope, there was plenty of outside interference. Did Iraqis manufacture all of the weapons that Hussein had? Nope.

The government of Hussein would never have existed if it wasn't for outside interference. Pretending Hussein was governing with the consent of the people is shameful. Damn, Bush's "election victory" was more legitimate than Hussein's "election victory" - and by that I mean not legitimate at all.

The crime of the US invasion of Iraq is NOT that Hussein lost power.

[kalian]

50. What planet have you been on...?

I mean...seriously.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

60. Earth! You know the one

The planet plagued by dictators and illigimate regimes and the BFEE. The one where problems don't have simple solutions. If we follow DK's advice and get the US out of Iraq and the UN in, Earth will be better off.

[kalian]

150. Maybe the US should STOP meddling in other country's INTERNAL affairs

Don't ya think? Hmmm?
Nah...you like war...its obvious it makes you feel good. If the
"reasons" sound good enough...you're ready with your little flag.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

167. let's read what you wrote

""Maybe the US should STOP meddling in other country's INTERNAL affairs"
Posted by kalian

Don't ya think? Hmmm?
Nah...you like war...its obvious it makes you feel good. If the
"reasons" sound good enough...you're ready with your little flag."

You just want to pretend - the US has been meddling in Iraqi affairs for a very long time. As long as you don't have to hea\ about it, you'll do nothing, except enjoy driving in your car with all that cheap gas? Oh wait, you don't drive right? You refuse to buy anything from any company that did business with Hussein right? No blood for oil?

[rman]

182. Where two are fighting, is one good and the other bad?

It's not like two bad guys could not possibly fight each other is it?
Then still one may be worse then the other, but the lesser evil is not necessarily the good guy.

If you take life as a sports match or a holywood movie, then you may feel the need to take sides; champion one and vilify the other, where you'd obviously take sides with who you think is the good guy (or you'd simply side with who you think will win). But life is not a sports match nor a movie.

When two are fighting and drag the world with them, then you (we) can also take the role of a third party that thinks this war should not have started to begin with. In order to stop the war it is not necessary to take sides, rather taking sides is probably counter productive.

[rman]

186. logical fallacy: "false dilemma"

you present a logical fallacy known as false dilemma.
it is not that there is only the choice between supporting either Bush or Saddam.
The fact that even Wolfowitz uses this 'argument' doesn't lend it any more credibility then it has. It a typical RW thing to try and reduce the world to black-and-white; "you'r either with us or against us".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

211. logical fallacy: "strawman"

you present a logical fallacy known as a "strawman". Instead of debating the argument made, you make up another argument that is easy to refute, such as "you are saying the only choice is between supporting either Bush or Saddam" which of course I never made, in fact, explicity rejected.

This of course is the kind of rhetoric the Republicans use.

[DealsGapRider]

5. When will you ever learn?

"Our troops are not the "good guys." They're the foreign invaders, with questionable motives."

WRONG. Their civilian leaders, who ordered them to Iraq, have questionable motives. My experience has been that the overwhelming majority of our soldiers are good-hearted people who genuinely want to see the Iraqi people succeed.

"Why is it that otherwise intelligent people on DU (and elsewhere) adamantly support OUR right to defend our country against foreign aggression by any means possible, including taking up arms and killing invading troops, but deny Iraqi's the same fundamental right to self-defense?"

Because our government is derived from the consent of the governed and those who are fighting the Americans in Iraq today are not interested in establishing a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. They are either Baathists or Islamic fundamentalists, neither of which is motivated by the welfare of the common Iraqi.

You mistakenly assume they are fighting for freedom. It is far more likely that they are fighting for the right to terrorize their people in any of a number of different ways.

[thebigidea]

8. oh?

"You mistakenly assume they are fighting for freedom. It is far more likely that they are fighting for the right to terrorize their people in any of a number of different ways."

and your evidence of this is?

Even Bremer and his stooges can't figure it out.

[DealsGapRider]

15. For starters...

...they're targetting infrastructure like water and electrical facilities, which they wouldn't do if they were generally interested in the plight of their people. Not to mention blowing up Shiite mosques and whatnot, which would be spared by anyone who respected religious rights and civilian institutions. And furthermore, we've captured a number of them who have been identified as Baathists and former members of the Feyadeen Saddam.

[Nlighten1]

13. Our troops are not the good guys?

Our troops don't have a choice in the matter. The civilian leadership ordered them to invade Iraq...they didn't ask for input from the troops.

[mike_c]

25. would you use that argument to oppose fighting foreign...

...troops "just following orders" to invade your country, city, and home? Or is that somehow "different?"

[frylock]

28. they only did as they were told..

great argument.. think I've heard it somewhere before.

[Nlighten1]

55. I take it neither of you have been in the military.

Your comments are incredibly naive.

[karlschneider]

92. I'm probably a bit out of the discussion loop here, just got back from

a charter flight, but I was in the military and I refused to follow MANY "orders." 99.9% of the time it wasn't an issue. A few, it was. What is your point, sir?

[mike_c]

18. well, it seems you either know FAR more about what's really...

...going on in Iraq than most of the rest of us do:

those who are fighting the Americans in Iraq today are not interested in establishing a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. They are either Baathists or Islamic fundamentalists, neither of which is motivated by the welfare of the common Iraqi.

You mistakenly assume they are fighting for freedom. It is far more likely that they are fighting for the right to terrorize their people in any of a number of different ways.

...or you've bought into the BFEE propoganda. Terrorists and Ba'athists, the lot of them. Thanks for clearing that up.

[DealsGapRider]

33. Right, because anyone who doesn't view the people killing our troops...

...as brave warrior poets fighting to free the people of Iraq from a vicious, Nazi-like occupying force MUST be a pro-war Bush supporter.

I for one think the Democratic candidates should campaign by voicing their support for the Iraqi resistance. That would really win us a lot of votes, huh?

[mike_c]

38. is that all it's about for you? votes?

eom

[DealsGapRider]

49. No, that's fairly low on the totem pole.

Avoiding a morally repugnant position is more important to me. But pointing out that your morally repugnant position is also bad politics is necessary.

[mike_c]

67. you consider it morally repugnant for Iraqi's to defend their...

...country from an illegal invasion and occupation force? Why is that?

[DealsGapRider]

78. No, I consider your position morally repugnant

...because you obviously think American service members serving in Iraq deserve to die.

And I don't think those fighting are "defending" their country. They're either Saddam sympathizers or Islamic radicals, neither of which has a moral claim to be fighting for the good of the Iraqi people.

[thebigidea]

87. whew

"They're either Saddam sympathizers or Islamic radicals"

you know this HOW?

You won't even admit that one, maybe TWO of 'em are just plain pissed off at America, maybe for killing a relative or destroying their home?

It must be easier to hate the enemy if you turn them into cartoons.

[DealsGapRider]

96. Right.

I'm sure they're all valiant freedom fighters who yearn to establish democracy and respect the rights of women.

"It must be easier to hate the enemy if you turn them into cartoons."

And it must be easier to love the enemy if they're killing American service members. I mean, anyone who does that MUST be motivated by noble intentions.

[thebigidea]

100. so now I love the enemy, huh? With us or against us, I guess.

" I'm sure they're all valiant freedom fighters who yearn to establish democracy and respect the rights of women."

A statement which can be just as sarcastically applied to the occupation force.

RA RA! GO USA! Hurray for Halliburton!

[mike_c]

113. when did you start thinking of the Iraqi people as "the enemy?"

State of the Union Address? Colin Powell's speech before the U.N.? Or when Bush* danced on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a tight flight suit?

[kalian]

156. Right turn!

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Isome]

163. And I don't think ...

What you think, what you know, and what is true are entirely different things.

Try putting yourself in their shoes. If some country invaded yours to liberate you, and in the process killed members of your family, destroyed your home, wiped out much of the infrastructure in the country, and then insisted that you liberatees weren't prepared to run your own country, how would you feel? You wouldn't feel the smallest amount of anger towards their haphazard way of liberating you? You wouldn't feel any resentment that your major natural resource is being managed by their country, and not your countrymen? You wouldn't feel the need to FIGHT against their occupation?

[betio]

71. Spot on post.

.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wapsie B]

6. One thing that gets lost

in all this is the fact that if we ARE supposed to be fighting terrorism and seeking justice for 9/11, we have NO business in Iraq.
Saudia Arabia should be the one invaded.

[DealsGapRider]

9. Agreed on Saudi Arabia.

Lazy, spoiled brats with a medieval view on human rights. :puke:

[Beetwasher]

7. Understanding Vs. Sentiment

There's understanding a line of reasoning and a philosophical concept and then there's expressing a sentiment. I think many posters had problems w/ Starpasses SENTIMENT. It's an emotional issue.

I can think about things on a purely philosophical level w/out attaching emotional content so I'm not attacking the understandable philosophical underpinnings that gave rise to the sentiment.

I think the whole Iraqi debacle is making many face some very uncomfortable implications of certain conflicting, confusing and bitter sentiments.

[WilliamPitt]

10. And here's the problem

America is the foreign invader. Our leaders have questionable motives. OUR TROOPS DO NOT HAVE QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES. They are the agressors there because they were ordered to go, but they signed up for a variety of reasons that have little or nothing to do with the PNAC ideal. How many troops are there now who signed up for the NATIONAL GUARD so they could CLEAN UP AFTER HURRICANES AND TORNADOES??? OR TO GO TO COLLEGE??? How many families of troopers, alive and dead, have told me their children signed up to do exactly that? More than I can count.

Sorry to yell. My father was in Vietnam. He got spat on when he came home.

Matt: WHY DID YOU JOIN THE MILITARY? Answer that question and you will understand the troops.

[matcom]

17. calling me out?

why did you just do that?

based on a PRIVATE conversation?

i have NOT released ALL my demonds to you (yet)

:wtf:

[WilliamPitt]

20. I'm replying to your response in this thread

[WilliamPitt]

35. Hello?

[FAndy9]

79. Let us utilize come history...

to answer a bit this dilemma. I'll use my example of the Argentine government as I know it.

This country's history would be comical if it weren't so tragic (I'm an argentine, so I reserve my right to critique the history of which I am part of).

Continuous oppression of US-backed dictatorships here finally were starting to give a countereffect: a huge part of our youth was getting involved as militants of socialist and communist groups, ranging from peaceful to fervently revolutionary.

First point here, compare the Iraqi guerrillas to these youngsters not much older than myself (i'm 16), who were taking a violent path to end military oppression. At my school we had the opportunity to have some militants who had spent years being tortured under the military regime. Obviously I had to ask them why, since i'm not an advocate of violent change. Their answer: "There was no alternative".

And they were right. What sort of peaceful movement can you mount when you'll get your ass killed for speaking your mind?
Now consider the Iraqi population as being on the same one. Sorry for not trusting you, but the US military isn't exactly known to be a benevolent force, no matter how humane its indviduals are.

So clearly the Iraqi guerrillas will continue to fight and chances are that you would too, if you were in their position.

Second point, I can also say the same thing for US soldiers, since in the end we are all humans. Let's just leave it at that both sides will continue to do what they do regardless of how human or otherwise we are, and the capacity to stop it is beyond our (and the Democrat's too, sadly) reach. Sad, but true. If by this point you have moral problems for being capable (or incapable) of supporting any/both/none sides, the best advice I can give is to se yourself as an objective impartial observer watching the flow of history. Siding with one or the other won't do us any good as far as this discussion goes, for now.

The second point I want to address, about the soldiers dying to end Bush's regime, can also be answered using Argentina's history.

For those who don't know, their military regime ended in 1982 when the lost the Falklands War (which was stupid BTW; could we think that we could beat the British with a half-dozen Exocet missiles?).
How, you ask? Simple. We got the crap kicked of us by the British, a few dozen 18 year olds died in the confict, which was pumped up with patriotic propaganda.

So the junta decided that they couldn't take the PR heat and it dissolved and called for elections.

And that, boys and girls, is how those few deaths have allowed me to be born under a democratic government and not a facsist School-of-the-Americas-style dictatorship.

Am I sad that those people had to die? of course, but I also couldn't be more grateful. The reality is that there was NO OTHER way in which there would have been democracy, short of a socialist revolution which would have been even worse.

Today you also have to accept that reality. Don't like the fact that these soldiers dying will bail you and the world out of this Bush nightmare? First of all, there's nothing you can really do to prevent these deaths. Sorry for sounding hopeless, but the Democrats have no spine right now and until someone really toughens up against Bush (and I mean REALLY toughen up) there will be no change.

The only thing that you can do is put those deaths to work towards the goal of getting Bush out. Shout it loud and clear to everyone that this is all *'s faul and no one else's. It is the only recouse left.

Again, I know that we would all wish we could save some lives, but fortunately (because I couldn't bear deciding who should die and who should prosper), that decision is not up to us. What we CAN, ALL, do, is to promote our goal, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, I don't like it either, but let's try to clear the fog and do what will benefit us all. It IS about choosing the lesser of two evils. Let's get over that and start working towards something.

[kalian]

151. De que parte de Argentina sos?

[iverglas]

171. excellent insight, merits some wider consideration

"Siding with one or the other won't do us any good as far as this discussion goes, for now."

That's just about exactly what I had to say (when I was "risking repeating myself" down below). None of us has any opportunity to affect the course of events; bickering over our opinions about them, let alone attempting to assign blame for what may happen to someone whose opinion one disagrees with, is quite pointless.

"If by this point you have moral problems for being capable (or incapable) of supporting any/both/none sides, the best advice I can give is to se yourself as an objective impartial observer watching the flow of history."

And I thought *I* was smart when I was 15. ;)

It took me a fair bit longer to realize the wisdom of that recommendation. But then, I'm probably a bit more exposed to the opinion-flinging practices of my southern (your more distant northern) neighbour. You just gotta have an opinion, you see; reserving judgment, or declining to pick a side, is frowned on.

Observe and try to understand. If at some point you have an opportunity to act, then you have a responsibility to act -- and if you have observed well, if you have directed your efforts toward understanding rather than having an opinion about what you have observed, you are far more likely to act wisely and effectively and morally.

"We got the crap kicked of us by the British, a few dozen 18 year olds died in the confict, which was pumped up with patriotic propaganda. ... Am I sad that those people had to die? of course, but I also couldn't be more grateful. The reality is that there was NO OTHER way in which there would have been democracy, short of a socialist revolution which would have been even worse."

And that's about what starpass was saying, as I understand it. You weren't responsible for the deaths of your compatriots, and starpass isn't responsible for the deaths of hers. And you both, having observed and analysed, recognize the effects (actual in your case, potential in hers) of those deaths, including the beneficial, if unintended, effects of deaths that you regret but nonetheless realize were/are necessary if those effects are to occur.

Yours sounds like one more of the voices from the outside at DU that USAmericans could learn a good deal from. I hope there are some listeners.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. Yuo see in this you are blaming the correct

target, just as in Argentina the correct target was the
dictartorship... not the grunts

By the way, there is this great book written by an American reporter
dealing with the epidemic which is rampant nationalism... he used the examples of Argentina, Israel and Sarajevo to show how societies are changed, and warned that this was going to happen in the states... (as it did)

Celebrating the deaths that will come out of this, is not something
anybody should do (on both sides) because then we fall into the trap of creating enemies, and denying the humanity of the other... whether these happen to be US Soldiers, or Iraqis.

now those who will inevitably commit atrocities (ON BOTH SIDES) should be called on it...

[iverglas]

181. eh?

You may have picked the wrong hook to hang your hat on, here.

"Yuo see in this you are blaming the correct target,
just as in Argentina the correct target was the dictartorship...
not the grunts"

What are you talking about? What would the "grunts" have been targeted for in relation to the Falklands war?? Committing acts of aggression, those acts of aggression being what made the Falklands war illegal (and what make the attack on Iraq illegal), is not a "crime" on the part of an individual. An individual cannot be prosecuted for participating in a war of aggression, and even though some might suggest that individuals should resist such military service, that isn't really what's in issue here. (I'm sure we all remember: "war crimes" are committed by individuals; illegal wars (aggression) are waged by states.)

If you're talking not about the Falklands war, but about Argentina's internal "dirty war", I think you'll find that a lot of Argentines did indeed want the "grunts" -- the people who carried out the orders to kidnap and torture and "disappear" their compatriots and who were complicit in those acts -- targeted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,11439,873601,00.html

Alfonsin brought in two laws designed to draw a line under the unhappy chapter of the dictatorship. The law of "due obedience" declared that junior officers were not responsible for "dirty war" crimes committed while obeying orders from above, while the "full stop law" closed the possibility of further prosecutions. The armed forces remained restive over the convictions, and when Carlos Menem became president in 1990, he freed the commanders whom Alfonsin had imprisoned.

... Last July another judge declared unconstitutional the two laws that Alfonsin had introduced, protecting the military from further human rights trials. Galtieri, and 28 high ranking officers, again faced prosecution."

Again: charges may indeed now have been brought only against high-ranking officers -- but the law declaring "obeying orders" to be a defence for their juniors was ruled unconstitutional.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. Yes, the secret police deserved blame

but did the grunts, the Drafted troops who served in teh Argentine
Army have a choice?

Beleive it or not, I know Argentines, and I know Argentine history.

The people you are thinking off, who are to blame and shoudl face
prosecution, worked for SPECIAL UNITS in teh Argenitine military
not the grunts who went to the Falklands

there is a similar case at work here... with the US Military, even if we have an all volunteer force.

Yuo should not blame the soldier serving even with the 101st or the 82nd, they have no choice.

Now some troops working in places like Guantanamo may face prosecution if MANY THINGS occurr...

Now indifividual soldiers who ENGAGE in War Crimes should be prosecuted as well... but the grunt who HAS NO CHOICE, but to obbey orders to go, and hope he comes home and hope he is NOT put in a situation where an officer might order an illegal action, you should be able to distinguish.

If you cannot you have a problem

[iverglas]

188. sweetie, you must need one of those lattes

You're really getting offensively patronizing and disrespectfully dismissive and annoyingly irrelevant.

"Beleive it or not, I know Argentines, and I know Argentine history."

Congratulations. I live in a tarpaper shack and didn't finish elementary school and have never left the mountain.

What either thing has to do with the discussion, I dunno.

"The people you are thinking off, who are to blame and shoudl face prosecution, worked for SPECIAL UNITS in teh Argenitine military not the grunts who went to the Falklands"

Whoa, I do seem to be confused, don't I?

Only problem is that this is actually WHAT I SAID I was thinking of. That's in fact why I wondered why YOU would be talking about those "grunts", since I didn't see ANYONE looking to assign any responsibility or blame or criminal liability to them in connection with the Falklands war, or anything else.

"Yuo should not blame the soldier serving even with the 101st or the 82nd, they have no choice."

Quite apart from who this "you" might be -- blame them FOR WHAT? I just don't have a clue what you're talking about anymore.

This thread wasn't actually about "blame", nor was the Argentine poster's post which I recommended -- precisely because it was actually on the topic of the thread, and made a valuable contribution to the discussion of THAT topic ... which you then seem to have wanted to hijack off into another instalment in the discussion of individual liability for internationally illegal acts.

*I* haven't blamed *anybody* for *anything*. Could you try to keep that straight? If you do a "find" for my name on this page, you might get reoriented.

I have suggested that IF a member of one of those US military units in Iraq does something that is prohibited by international law, THEN s/he should perhaps be "blamed".

I have also suggested -- in response to assertions that members of those military units are "not responsible" for being there -- which is not a matter of international law, it is simply a matter of plain old personal responsibility for one's actions, and all the degrees and qualities thereof -- that surely the "grunts" who are there are to some degree responsible for being in Iraq. That is, they cannot properly be regarded entirely or only (let alone in each and every case) as "victims" of someone else's choices, when they chose to join the military and to do and go what and where they were ordered.

I have NOT suggested that this choice on their part makes them BLAMEWORTHY or LIABLE for anything at all. I have said that, at least in some respects and to some extent, it ESTOPS them (or anyone on their behalf) from disclaiming responsibility (assigning complete responsibility to someone else) for their own circumstances.

"Now indifividual soldiers who ENGAGE in War Crimes should be prosecuted as well... but the grunt who HAS NO CHOICE, but to obbey orders to go, and hope he comes home and hope he is NOT put in a situation where an officer might order an illegal action, you should be able to distinguish."

I'm sorry, and realizing that English is not your first language, and admiring anyone who undertakes written discourse in a second or third language (amazingly, to you I'm sure, I have considerable experience in that myself), but I just can't quite figure that one out.

Distinguish someone who commits war crimes from someone who does not? Yes, I really do think that I am able to do that. Distinguish between someone who commits war crimes and someone who hopes he won't be asked to commit war crimes but does anyway? I'm having a bit more trouble with that one, if that's what you were talking about.

Distinguish between (a) the criminal liability of a person who commits war crimes, for the war crimes s/he commits, and (b) the personal responsibility of a person who joins a military, for the circumstances s/he then finds him/herself in? No problem there, either. In fact, it seems to be you who is having the discernment problem on this point.

"If you cannot you have a problem."

Well, I regret to tell you that I don't have a clue what you think my problem might be.

I think I've identified one of yours, though. You appear to be just plain rude.

.

[MissB]

21. Thank you, Will

You should just cut and paste this everytime someone starts a thread like this.

It's the leaders, not the troops.

[mike_c]

34. while all of that might be true, it's the troops, not the leaders...

...who are the sharp end for Iraqi's. I'll repeat the question I asked another poster above-- would you use that argument to justify NOT fighting to defend America from foreign invaders just because their troops were under orders from politicians? Would you argue that WE should not kill them until they leave, or we die trying to oust them, because they're "just following orders," "only enlisted to better their circumstances," etc.?

[WilliamPitt]

40. Straw man

Sorry, dude, but this one doesn't fly in the real world. What chance do you actually think there is that our troops, ordered to or not, would fail to resist an invasion?

[mike_c]

46. then why should Iraqis?

Straw man my buttocks....

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Very much so

by the way, thanks for providing more ammo to "Treason" coulter

[WilliamPitt]

56. The Iraqis can and should fight for what they believe in

but I am not going to root for them.

[mike_c]

62. this isn't about "what they believe in," Will....

I wouldn't have expected you to bury your head so firmly in the sand of comfortable illusions. This is about the illegal, violent occupation of their country by the American military. Do they have the right to oust the invaders? If they don't, but we would under similar circumstances, why?

[WilliamPitt]

68. They have that right

but I won't root for them.

[mike_c]

82. that's intellectually dishonest....

...and a great disappointment. I've much admired your essays, so I'm quite surprised to find you so reluctant to accept the fundamental moral wrongness of our position in Iraq. You won't root for the Iraqis. Who do you "root" for, then?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. I think it is quite clear that those of us

who undersant things are not as simple will choose Americans first.

Look we do owe the Iraqis reparations, we do owe the iraqis many a thing, I will do all I can to bring the troops home, but I will not root for the Iraqi resistance, and I think others agree

[WilliamPitt]

98. Justice

[mike_c]

107. do you think the forcible, violent occupation of Iraq is just?

If not, why do you think it unjust for the Iraqis to resist?

[Clark Can WIN]

159. So because it is unjust we should cheer American soldiers

deaths? That is indefensible and I find it loathsome.

[Clark Can WIN]

160. Because someone will not stand with you and cheer when people die

you call them intellectually dishonest? Stunning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. The left has a very nasty

blind spot and that is confusing policy made in DC with the grunts
on the ground, and until yuo overcome this, you will be charged by many on the right for hating your country.

How more blunt can I be?

[mike_c]

57. not to put to sharp a point on it, but...

...just to be clear, there are many things about America that I DO in fact hate, starting with it's present administration and extending to it's foreign policy for at least the last 50 years. Right wingers take note: I do hate a number of things about America. Now that we've cleared that up, do you have any substantive comment to make about the rights of Iraqi's to shoot American troops occupying their country illegally?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Again you are confusing Apples and Oranges

the Iraqis have a right to defend themselves, it is part of the
natural law cited by many of our founding fathers, starting with
Thomas Paine

By the same token you are also confusing the grunt on the ground
WITH NO CHOICE, who has had a social contract with the nation going back 286 years, with current policies in DC that has broken from that 286 year old tradition. This social contract is I will DEFEND the country when attacked in exchange for minimum pay... nobody goes into the armed forces to get rich, btw. The new policy also violates the US Constitution.

That said wishing death and destruction on OUR troops is just as wrong as the righties wishing DEATH and DESTRUCTIOn on the Iraqis

In that sense you are no different from them...

See the world is not black and white, even if you, and your counterparts on the right, think such.

[kalian]

154. Oh really?

Interesting theory you got there.
The left also realizes that the military of this country has been
used (post WWII) in the most incorrect manner. We have meddled
far too long in other country's affairs and we have managed to be
at the top of the shit lists of more than one group.

The concern of the left is that the military establishment has
HUGE ties with the corporate world and when repukes control the
government...BAD things tend to happen.

Soldiers...no matter what lowly rank they hold...have the OBLIGATION
to question orders that are in clear violations of the Geneva Accords.
They can and should file complaints to their commanding officers
and actions should be taken to investigate any wrong doings.

"Just following orders" does NOT absolve ANYBODY. They are then
ACCOMPLICE to the attrocities and the illegalities committed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

168. Just like Nam

you are about to make the same mistake and ALIENATE the
military for the next generation

Free clue, the lowly enlisted cannot just drop his or
her rifle and say HELL NO I WON'T GO! This is the
mistaken assumption by the LEFT back in the 1960s.

Yes troops can disobey ILLEGAL ORDERS, but to do such is far
more complex than YOU are willing to admit or even see.

By the way, by doing this you only manage to alienate the troops
from the body politic. For the record so does the Right
but by other means.

Now I will tell you this... I WILL NOT cheer the deaths of US
SOLDIERS... just as I do not CHEER the death of Iraqis.

Unlike you, I do not deny the humanity of either the 19 year old
in country, because he was ordered there, or the humanity of the
NON Combatant who got caught in the middle of the shooting... as has
happened.

I refuse to see the Iraqis as the enemy, but I also refuse to
see the US Personnel as the enemy... but I also realize something you
do not realize... life is far more complex than you are willing to
believe... there are these shades of gray permeating all.

Wake up and smell the coffee before YOU make the same mistakes that
drove the National Security Conscious voter (yes there is such a
group) away to the GOP once again.

Today we have a unique oportunity to aproach that voter and prove, once and for all, that the GOP IS BAD for America, is bad for the Armed Forces and is bad for the world... but in your ideological
blindness you are missing that... congrats.

By the way, Anne Coulter will have a field day with all of you who
celebrate American servicemembers deaths... as you are proving her thesis.

But that I am sure never entered your considerations... never has
never will.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

175. Will you support the troops when they shoot their officers?

If you will, say so.

[iverglas]

105. seems easily solved

"How many troops are there now who signed up for the NATIONAL GUARD so they could CLEAN UP AFTER HURRICANES AND TORNADOES??? OR TO GO TO COLLEGE???"

If that's why they signed up, then why are they doing what they're doing now?

Simple question.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I tend to take a pretty nuanced view of most things, and, especially, very rarely start assigning blame willy nilly for much of anything.

But when faced with such simplistic and doctrinaire assertions as yours on this point are, I find that about the only way to respond is ... well, with the obvious response.

If they didn't sign up to participate in an unlawful act of war and commit war crimes, then there's a simple solution. Don't do it.

And, like all the rest of us, live with the consequences of all their actions, whatever they choose to do.

"Necessity" just IS NOT a defence to killing people. "I had no other way of getting an education" just is not the sort of thing that impresses the families of dead non-USAmericans.

.

[Classical_Liberal]

114. OYe My father was in Viet Nam too.

The troops do not have questionable motives, but for god sakes it doesn't help anyone to spread the Vets got spat on cannard. The right wingers use that against anyone to the left of Attilla the Hun including you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. They will use it again

and right now some are spittng on the troops in a virtual way.

[Classical_Liberal]

127. Cointelpro was probably responsible for alot of obnoxiousness in the 60s

and it wouldn't surprise me if that were going on online, since it is pretty easy to be dishonest about who you are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. I agree it seems today

I have met some who fit that probably description

[WilliamPitt]

128. MY FATHER GOT SPAT ON

and that's no lie.

[Classical_Liberal]

129. Who did it? where did this happen? and when did it happen?

?

[bpilgrim]

145. really, thats disgusting...

what where the circumstances?

peace

[newyorican]

135. You'd think that...

the tarmac was awash with saliva when vietnam vets came home. The use of this "cannard" (a much too polite word for this dreck) provides some evidence that it's not going to be an easy step to admit we were dead wrong to go into Iraq the way we did. It's going to be an even harder step to admit that nothing good can come from something that started so badly.

[Classical_Liberal]

138. I think many vets felt abused for having been sent there

which is more than understandable. Turning the left into the whippin boy when it was the right wing fuckers that sent them does no damn good at all. Granted the right has been known to play little mind games, with cointelpro. It is probably much worse now that we have this anonomys environment called the internet. This is dysfunctional family stuff, and you need a psychotherapist to deal with it.

[St_Just]

195. Spat On? PROVE IT!!!

Spat on? PROVE IT!!!

And the troops you describe are either extremely stupid or extremely and morally repugnant- maybe both.

PROVE IT!!!

[Guaranteed]

202. It happened.

For Christ's sake.

[DS1]

208. what do you want? DNA evidence? full color video? DISPROVE IT!

so there! :eyes:

[DoubleYellowDog]

23. There is no defense of wishing harm on American soldiers

You can't polish that turd no matter how hard you try.

[G_j]

47. wishing harm on anyone

is karmic/mojo I'd rather avoid.

[mike_c]

94. reread my post-- I didn't "wish harm" on anyone...

...I sinply defended Iraqis' rights to defend themselves. It's unfortunate that our military is the aggressor in this situation, but that doesn't negate the Iraqis' rights, IMO.

[G_j]

109. didn't say you did

I was responding to the previuos post but expanding on it. It's possible that as many as 20,000 Iraqis may have died in this mess. Sometimes I think we forget that.

Your post merely asks people to think a little deeper about the situation, I have no problem with it.

[mike_c]

118. thanks for clarifying that.

eom

[iverglas]

174. if wishes were horses

... then beggars would ride, right?

Wishes aren't horses, beggars don't ride, and USAmerican soldiers don't die because someone wishes they would (even if anyone had actually expressed that wish ...).

I'd think that we'd all grown out of magical thinking.

And I can't think of why anyone would have to "defend" a wish that s/he had never moved an eyelash to convert into a fact. Even if s/he had expressed that wish.

Surely there are more productive things to discuss, and ways of discussing them, than expressing opinions about people's (supposed) wishes.

I saw an allegation of fact in starpass's post -- that the deaths of USAmerican soldiers will, or at least could, bring about positive change in the US -- that might actually be worth a little examination.

If the possibility asserted is a real one, someone might want to consider not letting the opportunity to actualize it slip away.

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. Nuremberg, a soldier's duty, and defending the country

I've seen a lot of posts that disagree with the Nuremberg premise that "following orders' is not a defense against war crimes.

This is an argument that is most credible when made by someone who extends it to orders to harm their own family. Should the soldier obey that order?

My personal opinion is that each human being is responsible for his or her own actions, whether that is giving orders, following orders, taking an action or failing to take one, but everyone has their own value system.

That having been said, if the soldier's duty is to defend the nation, then they should really be storming the White House, not torturing people in a desert far away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Here is the trick

The theory is fine and dandy but yuo are talking about
SPECIFIC ORDERS and YOU"D better be so sure of it that it
is not even funny.

Just like Nam you are making the same mistake all over again,
blaming the troops for policy made in the White House

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. Should a soldier obey an order to harm your child?

Where should he draw the line?


Shoot her?
break her arm?
block a truck bringing her food?
bomb your house and then not let the ambulance take her to a hospital?
slap her around a little?

I could go on but my point is not to sensationalize, my point is that as you say, it is a specific order, that leads to another that leads to another. and each soldier has the free will, and in my opinion, the moral responsibility to decide for himself which orders he will and will not obey, including the one that says "go to Iraq," because once there, his position will be more difficult, but his moral responsibility will remain unchanged.

I think that we all hope that the soldier who is ordered to harm our loved ones will refuse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. That would be clearly an ilegal order

thanks for giving us a black and white example.

I take it you HAVE NEVER SERVED, or know anybody in the SERVICE.

[DuctapeFatwa]

72. And it was an illegal order to invade Iraq

And once there, there have been many other illegal orders.

If you will forgive me, with all respect, I consider the details of my personal history to be somewhat less important than what is happening in the world at the moment.

[Nlighten1]

81. If only it were that simple.

It isn't

[DuctapeFatwa]

97. Yes, it is exactly that simple.

An order is an order.

Let's assume for the purposes of argument that it is given to you by a duly authorized official commanding officer of the armed forces you have sworn to obey.

You are the only one who can decide if that is an order, however technically legal, that your personal moral values will allow you to obey.

You, and you alone are responsible for your decision.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Your example is flawed as it falls

under the clear definition of AN ILLEGAL ORDER...

You cannot see it, not my problem

[DuctapeFatwa]

134. I do not agree that it is legal to shoot an Iraqi child but not American

On that point we will just have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate your candor, and your help in illustrating my point :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Read bellow about the Geneva Convention

the UCMJ, etcetera, things are NOT as simple as you think.

And as a former Red Cross Worker I have had to deal with his
IN REAL LIFE, it seems yuo have not... so where do I send the check
for that damn latte

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Under strict definion of the law the order

was not ilegal under US law...

The President got that force authorization from Congress...
which made his order to execute the plan legal under US law.

Was it wrong under International Law? Yes once it becomes clear that
the CASUS Belli, (WMDs) are not there... if they should appear, somehow then this becomes a tad more legal. But the casus belli was the right of self defense, under the UN Charter, and teh justification was WMDs.

As I said, things are NOT as black and white as you would like them to be.

Do I support the war?

No

Do iraqis have a right to self defense, yes, under natural law and even international law. Am I going to root for them? NOPE.

[DuctapeFatwa]

91. And that same legality covers the soldier's order to harm your child

His commanding officer, chain of command, authority, all that jazz.

That order is just as legal as the order to invade, on paper.

The question is whether it is within *that soldier's* moral code to obey it.

That is a decision that only he (or she) can make.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. I wish it was that simple

alas it is not....

by the way, have you ever served and have yuo ever been subjected
to the UCMJ or any other equivalent military code of justice?

[DuctapeFatwa]

106. It is as simple as whether the soldier shoots your child, or does not

The soldier's commanding officer may have every credential and authorization, the regime he fights for may have decreed that it is a legal order.

He has followed all the succession of orders that has led him to your house, with a gun to your child's head.

Either he shoots her, or he doesn't.

It is the soldier's call. Not yours, not mine, and all the documents and decorations and regulations are irrelevant.

That's one soldier, his conscience, your little girl.

It's as simple as that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Read above

your example is one that fits perfectly the definition
of an ilegal order

Thigns are NOT BLACK AND WHITE, too bad you cannot see it

[DuctapeFatwa]

131. I think you mean illegal if it's YOUR child, but legal if it;s an Iraqi

I cannot tell you what your personal moral code should be.

That is between you and your own conscience, and if you are religious, your God.

What I can tell you is that for the soldier whose commanding officer has given him an order that is, within the military force he serves, and the regime under whose banner it fights, the order is every bit as legal as an order given in Iraq right now to shoot an Iraqi child.

The American soldier who chooses, of his own free will, to obey or disobey the order does the exact same thing as the soldier who decides whether to obey the order to shoot your child.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. No I mean it in the true meaning of the UCMJ

which you will never understand

First rule of war...

Young people die

Second rule of war,

you cannot change that

Third rule of war, civilians die in warfare

But there are rules and regulations that determine what order is or is not legal. Unless you have been in the military or have taken the time to study it, these rules are quite clearly spelled out in the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention

I will use your example under the clear rules of warfare (which I had to enforce as a Red Cross worker, and why this is NOT theory to me)

If lets say Lt gates orders his troops to form up civilians and open fire on them, that is a war crime... this falls under the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. In this case the troopers not only have the right but the duty to DISOBEY that order. Yes they can take any and all measures necessary to avoid obeying that order including, well taking that Lt down.

Now lets say that this same Lt, is advancing on a group of UNIFORMED and CLEARLY identifiable ENEMY COMBATANTS, his soldiers have the right to fire (and yes even kill) the enemy, unless the enemy surrenders, in which killing them is again, a war crime... what is a claerly identified enemy combatant is actually clearly spelled out in the Geneva Convention, and it includes a uniform and patch, as well as military ID. The only ones you are not suposed to shoot at are the medics, which is a nice theory.

Now where things really get muddy...

Lt Gates and his squad are advancing in a town, and they receive fire from a house... they have the right to return fire... if this happens to kill civiilians caught in the cross fire, this is NOT a war crime... will those troops live with this for the rest of their lives? Absolutely, but they will not realize this until WELL AFTER they leave the combat zone

That is why your example is so easy... it is actually one of those black and white and very rare ones where thigns are easy to tell.

Now while you drink your lattes some of us have actually dealth wiht this in REAL LIFE... have a good day... and welcome to the wonderful world of shades of gray.

[DuctapeFatwa]

144. I'm sure you will forgive me for not returning your ad hom

Since you have once again, so graciously illustrated my point.
I assure you that it is not personal, just my preference, and no value judgment is intended.

In addition I cannot help but appreciate your assumptions, the creativity of which renders irrelevant their accuracy or lack thereof.

The soldier's commanding officer tells him that "enemy fire" has come from where your child is standing, or that she is an "enemy combatant."

You are correct that when it gets to that point, the soldier has a difficult decision to make, and one that if he makes the wrong call, he may live with for the rest of his life, depending, again, on his individual moral code, as well as whether he considers the regime whose uniform he wears a legitimate one, and therefore authorized to give him these orders.

He chose to take each successive step that brought him there.

Elderly people from Germany can be very informative sources for information about successive steps.

Even an old Red Crescent/Cross hand might learn a thing or two about how very black and white and simple it gets, once you have taken those successive steps.

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. Yuo are simplifhying

and in ways that yuo will never understand.

Look once again, PM me with an adress, I will send you the money
for the latte you can drink and think yourself so superior to the
soldier who has all but two seconds many a cases.

YOU SIMPLY BLAME THE TROOPS, tell you what, we will ALWAYS NEED
an armed force... we are not in a world living in kumbaya.

While you blame them, some of us will do what we can do to LEGALLY
and PEACEFULLY get them back home

And NO unlike you, I WILL NOT TURN and GUN for the troops.

I know the shades of gray, you don't.

Oh and what you thnk is creative are actual examples, try for a change
reading the Geneva Convention... may prove incredible to you.

You may even learn something... but at this point you are so blinded
by your assumptions that I am not holding my breath.

[DuctapeFatwa]

147. It is not I who simplifies, but the child and the gun, and I see your

hostility as a positive sign.

I hope you will consider my recommendation that you spend some time with elderly Germans. As I said, you may be surprised how much even someone with your considerable knowledge of rules and regulations could learn from them.

About orders, about successive steps, and about the profound horror and finality of simplicity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. I sugest you read the Geneva Convention

And then the UCMJ

I also sugest that you seriously stop attacking the troops..

Right now those troops need all the suport from us... so they
will vote WITH US against those who have broken that social contract.

I know this is too complex for the black and white crowd ON BOTH
the RIGHT and the LEFT...

[DuctapeFatwa]

169. the best way to support the troops is to hope and pray, if you pray

that they have the strength to find the same courage you would hope to see manifested in the soldiers who are deployed against your own family.

If I condemn atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, neither can I condone atrocities committed by Americans.

And if you wish to persuade anyone that the troops are acting legally, you should probably not suggest the Geneva Convention as reading matter, as it has been, like the Constitution, shredded and given a new place of honor on a very elegant roll holder in the most private bathroom in the west wing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. Sorry but you are making the

same mistakes the left made in the 1960s,

By the way, while you pray, I contact congress

by the way, while you pray I take actual real actions

By the way, while you accuse the soldiers and celebrate their deaths
I am not only revolted by this, I will continue to act in ways that will bring those troops home.

Oh and yes, where do I send the check for that damn Latte? Seems that you live in teh world of theory... I rather function in the REAL WORLD where I can make a difference.

Oh and you know nothing about the Geneva Convention, or anything like that...

You have this huge black spot in your view of the world, which automatically assumes that soldiers can automatically disobey orders and go home. Sorry I live in the real world. In the real world I do hope taht those WHO GAVE THE ORDERS are prosecuted some day, as some other beasts were prosecuted at Nuremberg, but realize that this will not happen today or tomorrow and I also realize it is not teh soldiers who you blame, who are responsible for policy. It goes a tad higher, actually a lot higher.

So where do I send the check for the Lattee, and a copy of What is to be Done? Or would you rather have a copy of Marx's Manifesto? Maybe I can interest you in Derrida or Foucault?

[DuctapeFatwa]

173. While I am not able to respond to personal attacks, I think you forgot

to include a link to a post where I celebrated the death of any human being.

To reiterate, I see your hostility as a good sign. It means that you are thinking, and feeling, and that is a positive.
:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. You know what you perceive as hositility is not hostility

but I will tell you a tale, that may give you some insight as to where I am coming from.

I spent ten years in the field, while you drank your lattes and
revelled in theory, ENFORNCING that Geneva Convention you make so much light off.

While you drank your lattes, I worked in conditions that were indeed combat conditions... I pulled people out of shoot outs for instance. My unit was shot at on a regular basis, for a period of months... it had a nice target acquistion device, called a Red Cross on its side.

I have seen things that you WILL NEVER SEE. I have experienced things you will never experience... I have done things that I doubt you will ever experience, and like most WITH THAT practical experience, I realize that there are shades of gray. So while you accuse me of personal attacks, you are blind. those are not personal attacks but a statement of fact.

So again, while you drink your lattes, some of us will try to get those troops home and will not blame the grunts... but those who
gave the orders, aka George Bush.

You cannot accept that the American Left, extreme left, is playing into Ann Coulter's game? You are... when you basically say that the US trooper has no heart, and no morals.

Keep blaming the troops, you are doing a fine job... and by the way, giving the Ann Coulter's of the world and the Right Wing more ammo for the left hate America crowd that I have to conclude does exist, it is in the fringes, not as powerful as you think you are.. and indeed with a very unpopular message, full of the same mythology that the Right Wing is full off, but enough based on reality to make me realize, Ann Coulter has a point, there are some Americans who truly hate their country. The point she forgets is that they exist on both sides of the political divide... but never the less it is sad when I find out, she is right... there is a fringe that hates this country and will just critize and NOT DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE to make this a better place.

Guess what? You and the Extreme Libertarian America First Crowd are in the same boat.

How sad.

[DuctapeFatwa]

179. I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else?

You have made several remarks that at first I thought were amusing assumptions, but you have repeated them so often that I have begun to think that perhaps you are mistaking me for someone you know?

I have not shared my personal history on this or any message board, nor do I have an interest in doing so, as I said, I believe that the events transpiring on earth are of more importance and of greater interest to most people.

I would also like to remind you to please provide the link to the post where I celebrate the life of anyone, of any nationality.

You have twice forgotten to do so, or again, maybe you have me confused with someone who made such a statement?

I am not attracted by the notion of condoning crimes against humanity for political gain, although I acknowledge that it is indeed a popular practice; like the commission of the acts themselves, a matter of conscience, or as a rather sharp gentleman who had occasion to give the matter of obeying orders and whatnot some thought said:

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it
Albert Einstein

[iverglas]

184. heh ... you 'n me both

Check out the posts 90 - 130 - 180 sequence down near the bottom.

Me, I don't know what I'm talking about -- but I too do seem to have been saying things in my sleep. I don't appear to have acquired your taste for lattes, though. From what I'm reading, you may be in need of some intensive rehab for that little problem; sounds like it's really interfering with all kinds of stuff you oughta be doing.

Salut -- a café au lait for you, if you can stand one more, and make mine diet coke.

:toast:

Oh, and don't forget to read post 179, the utilizing history one.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. No I am not

you are the one giving a very simplistic (usually not present) example of kiling a child in the name of the state.

I told you that was a black and white example.

I repeat things are not as black and white as taht in real life.

Have been there done that... I think I have an insight into real
life.

For the record, I wish things were that simple... would make life
so mucy easier.

[mike_c]

104. you'll admit that the Iraqis are in the right, but you still oppose...

...their right to oust the foreign occupation force? What would you do in their place, I wonder? I'd be making pipe bombs in the basement, and no apologies whatsoever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. I am not oposing their right to

fight for their independence, under NATURAL LAW they have that
right.

Unlike you, things are not black and white I will not root for them

If you cannot accept that answer so be it

[Muddleoftheroad]

197. Why?

The U.S. had signed a treaty with Iraq after the last war and Iraq repeatedly violated the treaty by shooting at U.S. planes and going around sanctions.

I think the war was stupid and opposed it from the beginning, but it was legal.

[mike_c]

43. agreed, 100 percent.

Thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. You have never served I take it

Until you walk one second in them boots and understand the UCMJ,
or have had the luxury of knowing many good people who happen to
serve, you will not understand.

[DUreader]

26. Do the troops know that they can refuse ?

I don't think they know.

If they did know I think many would have refused.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Many have applied for

conscientous objector status, most have been refused

[Guaranteed]

203. Conscientious objector status is extremely difficult

to attain. In order to be a legal conscientious objector, you have to be able to state under oath that you would never, ever, even if you or your family were being threatened with death, use any kind of lethal force on someone. It's basically a religious issue- you have to be a total and complete pacifist.
I hardly believe that anyone already in the military could legitimately say that they're %100 pacifist. You'd think they usually root those about before enlistment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Look people

The troops were sent there becuase they HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER.

Start blaming the ones who put them there, and not the troopers.

By the way, when you type tripe like this you give the An Coulters of the world more ammo

I will be very blunt... the ARMY was DRAGGED kicking and screaming
into this.. (evidence: the series of leaks the summer before
the invasion... that is A FIRST)

Now get your heads out of your ass... and realize the troops have no choice as to who sends them or where. They will go whether the order is given by the devil or jesus christ himself. When yuo understand this then you will realize the social contract between the Army and the civilian leadership was broken by this crew. Taht social contract is very simple, really, the Armed Forces are here TO DEFEND the country. the way the current leadership has abused them, is NOT what any of those troopers signed for, but THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

[mike_c]

122. and would you arguethat troops invading America also...

...deserve our sympathy, rather than our resistance, because their leaders made them do it? Why are we any different than the Iraqis?

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. I already told you

the Iraqis have a right to defend themselves under natural law

If and when this country gets invaded we will have the same right

That does not mean that I will root for Iraqi resistance or wish
harm on our troops.

You do that, you are playing into Ann Coulter's hands.

There are ways of bringing the troops home, (and leaving Iraq),
but blaming the troops for decisions made in DC does nobody any good.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kalian]

41. Oh really? In what way?

Tell me, what the hell have the troops done for you and me? Huh?
Follow ILLEGAL order BLINDLY? Perpetrate the wishes of some damned
cabal that we all here, I hope, agree are taking this country down
a VERY dark path.

Let me tell you something, just because some kids decide to throw
on a uniform and play soldier does NOT make them any better than
ANY fellow American.
They are INVADERS in this conflict...plain and simple. They are
not standing guard at our borders defending us from impending doom.
What's more, if that were the case I would be there alongside them.

You're "holier than thou" attitude disgusts me.

[Aidoneus]

52. don't interupt him when he's going off like this

unless it's in the script he's running off in his head, he won't acknowledge anything you say when he's like this.

speaking from experience.. he's had very fine conversations with me where I wasn't needed to keep it going.

[jiacinto]

63. Do you hate the military

What have you ever done to serve this country? Those patriotic soldiers have done mor ethan you ever have for this country.

[thebigidea]

69. you already used that line

I think you should've used "its comments like these that make us lose elections and alienate the mainstream" instead.

Routine 47, Carlos. Stay on script!

[iverglas]

76. may I ask

"Those patriotic soldiers have done mor ethan you ever have for this country."

... how exactly you KNOW this??

If you're asking:

"What have you ever done to serve this country?"

... then I'd have to assume that you DON'T KNOW it.

So then I'd be wondering WHY YOU'D SAY IT. I mean, other than as a bit of ad personam argument -- why address the argument when you can try to discredit the speaker, eh?

I dunno. You got an alternative answer to offer me?

.

[kalian]

149. Its not about "hating" a specific organization....

Its about whether you want to "love them" in order to be considered
a "patriot".
I think you need to do some soul searching Jiacinto...I really do.

[Zhade]

191. deleted

deleted

[kalian]

42. Damned dupe....

Edited by me...dupe message.

[Maple]

45. Folks...you have a VOLUNTEER military now....

who know very well they won't get sent on any holidays to the French Riviera.

Please stop painting them all as innocent victims of evil masters.

They aren't.

For WHATEVER reasons they joined the military...they joined the MILITARY voluntarily. Not some knitting society.

Didn't work at Nuremberg...won't work now.

Sorry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. And yuor point is

Those kids JOINED to PROTECT The country, they have and are being
betrayed

Now I will ask you a question yuo will not like

So the right is abusing them, and the left hates them... where
are they suposed to go?

Oh and in case you wonder troops were NOT prosecuted at Nuremberg
but the people SENDING them... to do their bidding... in this case
the Joint Chief is liable, not the grunt on the ground...

Oh and the precedent of Nuremberg I suspect, will be used, to go
after those MAKING THE POLICY, not those with no choice.

I suspect that you are talking out of your ass, as many in the left
who have a very black and dark spot coming all the way from Nam

[iverglas]

90. good grief

"Oh and in case you wonder troops were NOT prosecuted at Nuremberg
but the people SENDING them... to do their bidding... in this case
the Joint Chief is liable, not the grunt on the ground..."

You might want to try actually knowing something about the Nuremberg trials. Where on earth do you think that the notion of "just following orders" being a bad defence for war crimes came from?

That's just a side note. This thread isn't actually about war crimes.

On your main point --

"Those kids JOINED to PROTECT The country, they have and are being betrayed"

Is stupidity -- or even extreme naïveté -- always a defence?

When I was 15, I knew that the Vietnam War was an atrocity. Sure, I was really smart, and I was Canadian. But does believing that George W. Bush will send you to protect your country and not to protect his pals' profits relieve you of responsibility for what you end up doing??

Now, those who signed up under a Democratic president, maybe they'd have a little better excuse ... but really. Is nobody who voted for Bush responsible for what they did? Not even a little bit? Is joining the military to serve under Bush not just a tiny bit problematic?

How can you possibly say that someone who voluntarily did this had NO CHOICE??

Just questions.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Here are your answers

NOBODY bellow the rank of Colonel was tried during Nuremberg...

IN fact very few enlisted, many years later, belonging to the SS
were tried... in fact I count three... and in fact we even had
two people deported from the US. Those cases were GUARDS at CAMPS... (NOT WERMACHT TROOPERS)

In fact insofar as the German military was REGULAR concerned, nobody bellow the rank of Marshall was tried. Marshall is GENERAL, ONE STAR.

And by the way, you have no idea what yuo speak off... STOP BLAMING the troops, they are not the ones RESPONSIBLE for the POLICY COMING out of DC.

On the other hand WE have the only military to ever try one of our own for War Crimes, May Lai, and LT Calley... for the record NONE of the enlisted involved in that mess WAS tried...

[iverglas]

180. uh huh ... and OJ Simpson

... didn't kill anyone. After all, he was found "not guilty" by that court, right?

"NOBODY bellow the rank of Colonel was tried during Nuremberg..."

And this says what about the principle that "obeying orders" is not a defence? Any more than Simpson's acquittal says about the principle that homicide will not be tolerated?

The principle that "obeying orders" is not a defence was applied in the Nuremberg trials; the rank of the people to whom it was applied is not determinative.

Who may have been tried by a tribunal a half-century ago, at the very dawn of the law and jurisprudence of international criminal law applicable to warfare (criminal law being law that applies to individuals), really does not determine what the principles are, or how those principles should be applied.

You apparently have some relevant experience and knowledge in this field. You really ought not to assume that none of your interlocutors have other relevant experience and knowledge.

"And by the way, you have no idea what yuo speak off... STOP BLAMING the troops, they are not the ones RESPONSIBLE for the POLICY COMING out of DC."

If you are suggesting that I have "no idea" about international criminal law and the laws of warfare, you would be quite wrong. And I have no idea why you would make such an allegation.

You appear to be claiming that I have "blamed the troops". For what, I just dunno. Perhaps you could re-check the post of mine you were responding to, and let me know where your problem arises.

And where might I have said that the troops were responsible for the policy coming out of DC? Nowhere, as far as I know.

Of course, I did ask what responsibility they, as (presumably) voters, might have for *why* that policy is coming out of DC. And certainly I would ask what responsibility they might be assigned for what they do.

If you knew anything about the person you were speaking to, you'd know that I am quite concerned about degrees and qualities of responsibility, in many realms of life. I recognize diminished responsibility, and shared responsibility, and collective responsibility, and chains of causation, and so on and on. I'm not often eager to assign blame and demand that retribution be exacted when there is obviously diminished, or shared, or collective, or sequential responsibility. But I'm also not infrequently reluctant to absolve anyone entirely of responsibility for what they do.

It seems I'm just not the target you were apparently looking for.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. Sorry but this is not waht I am gettng from many a posts

on this thread and yes, I see the creeping blame the troops
for what is going on in Iraq RIGHT NOW, just as it happned in
Nam.

History may be of use here...

This is the RIGHT WING MYTHOLOGY.

The Left hates America, I am sure you have heard Ann Coulter say this.

Now Annie has her right to an opinion, but when she repeats this often enough, people pay attention, and especially when she provides examples, (some of them based in mythology, some in reality)

I am just telling people blame those who should be blamed for this, chieftly those behind the policy.

But when people and lets be honest this started as justification of celebration of the death of US Troops, then Annie has a very good basis for her assertion... and I personally do not want to give Annie that justification.

If some in the Radical Left want to do that, go for it, not necesarily you, but some are. (By the same token, there are some in the Radical Right who also hate this country)

I clarify so this is clear.

I just fear the left is about to make the same mistake that it made in the 1960s and cannot wait from some of those same lines that came from the Sixties... we have a unique oportunity RIGHT NOW to get what is called the National Security Voter thinking, you know what, maybe that GOP is NOT good for the country... care to join in this? If you are, don't blame the troops, at least not the grunts on the ground... blame the ones who should and deserve all the blame in the world... the PNAC crowd

[iverglas]

189. lessons of history

Here's what I kinda hear starpass as having said, combined with some of my own.

The distress being experienced in the US today in respect of the deaths of USAmerican soldiers in Iraq offers an opening for the left in the US (note that *I* do not use "left" as a curse word) to raise consciousness and mobilize efforts against the current US administration.

You refer to Vietnam, and say:

"I just fear the left is about to make the same mistake that it made in the 1960s"

Well, the mistake that *I* think was made by the left in respect of the Vietnam war was to enable the persistent ethnocentric navel-gazing of the USAmerican people. All those body bags on the teevee screens, all those dead USAmerican boys, all that angst ... and not a scintilla of a whiff of analysis on the part of the angst-ridden population.

No tiniest bit of increased understanding of WHY it had all happened, of HOW to prevent it from happening again -- of WHY it should not have been ALLOWED to happen or be allowed to happen again. Of why it was WRONG.

It was just a "failure", not a huge hideous offence against ethics and humanity.

And that's exactly how I expect the Iraq aggression to culminate. A bunch of self-absorbed, whining USAmericans all upset that things didn't work out for them the way they wanted them to, demanding that their boys and girls be got out of all that harm's way, and taking not a fucking bit of responsibility for what their leaders have done and what the consequences of what they have done will be for other people way over the horizon of their little tiny self-absorbed world.

Of course, the consequences for themselves will be pretty unpleasant as well, if they don't open their eyes and minds this time either. They'll be getting more Bushes way beyond that horizon too.

"blame the ones who should and deserve all the blame in the world... the PNAC crowd"

At exactly what point do I get to blame some of the people who FUCKING VOTED FOR the ones you think deserve "all" the blame, for what other people are suffering as a result?? Or at least suggest that they bear some of the RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN circumstances, that they are not great big ol' victims all the way from sea to sea and yesterday to tomorrow and from wherever you look at it?

The deaths of USAmericans in Iraq can surely be seen as an OPPORTUNITY to grab some of those people by the ear and prop their eyelids open with toothpicks and say LOOK AT THIS. This is what the people you elected did, to you and to other people, and this is what you now CAN and MUST take responsibility for doing something about, for your own sakes and for the sake of everyone your abdication of responsibility has hurt and will continue hurting until YOU do something about it.

"we have a unique oportunity RIGHT NOW to get what is called the National Security Voter thinking, you know what, maybe that GOP is NOT good for the country... care to join in this?"

Hallelujah.

And what exactly did you think that starpass was saying in the first place?

Where exactly did you think that this OPPORTUNITY would have come from if not from the angst that is coursing through the veins of the great USAmerican public as a result of the deaths of USAmerican soldiers in Iraq?

NO ONE here is to blame for those deaths. No one's wish for an opportunity to defeat the present US administration caused those deaths. No one's recognition of the legitimacy of (at least some of) the Iraqi resistance caused those deaths.

If your uncle dies and leaves you $1,000, should you feel guilty? even if you hated him? Should you burn the money?

If Bush sends your boys and girls to war and some of them are killed, should you feel guilty even if you believe that what they are doing is wrong and they bear some responsibility for doing it? should you pretend that the deaths have not happened?

But hmm, I have to backtrack on my hallelujahs a bit, I'm afraid. Getting the "national security voter" thinking that the present administration is not acting in his/her interests ... without insisting that s/he examine those so-called interests and also the interests of other human beings in the world, and make a few of the connections and perhaps even sacrifices that have to be made ... Nah. That one sounds a little too 70s for me.

The opportunity has to be taken to DO something, not just get votes from people who want the same things they voted for Bush to give them.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. That sweetie is NOT what I am reading

in her posts... or yours for that matter SWEETIE.

Your attitude is the them US Voters who voted for BUSH, here is a free clue... BUSH LOST the popular election... the USSC gave the election to Bush

Get off your high horse, because you are ON IT.

And YES YOU ARE BLAMING THE TROOPS... and YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF
the LESSONS of Nam...

Get a F**ing clue... because YOUR POSTS are alienating people like ME and others who are going, here we go again, with the LEFT, now unlike most I can distinguish between the Fringes and the left, but Annie Coulter will use your views and accuse you of hating this country... and sadly, she will have a point sweetie.

Oh and sweetie I will NOT cheer when US Troops get kiiled in action... you may, I won't

[iverglas]

192. getting a clue

... and suspecting there's something harder than café au lait involved here.

"Annie Coulter will use your views and accuse you of hating this country... and sadly, she will have a point sweetie."

It may actually have dawned on you ... I can't tell ... that I am not a USAmerican and do not reside in the USofA. So I'm afraid that threats of Ann Coulter using my views for much of anything really do ring rather hollow. Would she really think it worth mentioning that a Canadian is not (so you say she might say, anyhow) a huge fan of the US?

Perhaps you can imagine how much I care what Ann Coulter thinks or says about anything I might think or say.

You know the drill ... I'm not responsible for the killing of US troops in Iraq, regardless of what I might think about it; and I'm not responsible for anything that Ann Coulter says about me or about anyone or anything else.

"Oh and sweetie I will NOT cheer when US Troops get kiiled in action... you may, I won't"

If that "you may" was you giving me permission to cheer -- "you go ahead and cheer": thanks, but I wouldn't want to deprive anyone else, so I'll pass and let the next one in line take up the option.

If that "you may" was speculation that I will cheer when US troops are killed in Iraq -- "you might be cheering": stuff it, unless you can come up with some basis in something I have said that would support that speculation.

Looks like somebody's managed to treat at least a couple of people (who happen to be of the take-no-shit personality type) with sufficient disrespect that I'll be expecting to see a thread-locking next time I take a break from working to this morning's deadline.

Oh, and ...

"YOUR POSTS are alienating people like ME"

... perhaps you can imagine how much I care about that one too ... and for that matter, how responsible I feel for it.

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Then stay out of this one

If yuo are NOT AN AMERICAN stay out....

We are the ones who have to make this mess work, (for the record
that means getting OUT of Iraq and other things)

But do me a favor, STAY THE hell out of this discusion because
YOU MAY be giving Annie weapons.

We do not need that kind of an ally, to be honest...

And yes you are responsible.

[Spentastic]

194. Quite simply

This is a massive problem for the U.S.

Those on the left within the country can't criticise because they give ammunition to the right.

Those on the left outside the U.S can't criticise because then we're just U.S hating liberals.

So no one criticises and the U.S continues to blunder about the planet like an enraged school child.

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. there are ways of critizing, and then there are ways

I will give you a method to the madness

Understand the myth that the right creates (I fully recomend you read Joe Conason's big Lie... great at explaining the myths

Now lets keep this specific to the armed forces.

The big lie regarding the military and the left.

"The left hates the US Militay and the Left is bad for national security."

Try to read this thread from the POV of Annie Coulter... if you do you will quickly conclude that she is right, the left indeed hates the military and celebrates in their deaths. After all some are going this is good for America... now read any of Annie's colums after you are done here... and you will see what I mean.

So what do you do to turn this myth on its head when talking to Joe Sixpack many a times a member of the National Security Voting group... you root for the troops by telling Joe that the troops are being mistreated and you show Joe every article you can get on how the troops are being mistreated, but at no time you blame those troops, or you will play into Annie's little world view... remember you need Joe to start seeing you as an ally and a friend of the armed forces. Oh and preferably use those from the Army Times and the Stars and Stripes... very effective.

Now once you manage to break this first stereotype, you go on and explain to joe how good the Liberals are for the armed forces... (I mean the troops.. last two increases in salary were under both Carter and Clinton... not under any Repuke I know off... and the statistics are out there.)

Now once you have Joe thinking, hmmm, maybe them damn libbies are not against the armed forces, they care for my son's actual living conditions, you can move to the next step... which is.. the right has made alliances with our enemies (Reagan and his selling of WMDs to Hussien, and the many events where the GOP has blocked actual national security, such as actually going after Usama bin Forgotten. read Connason, he has listed ALL OF THEM, and the record for the GOP is a sad one, but needs to be exposed to Joe Sixpack.

Now see you can critize, but when you go and say, the troops are guilty of murder and worst... you are giving ammo to the right because you are playing into Annie's little stereotypes... read Connason, and if you have the stomach read Annie's great myth making.

The myths by the right are easy to destroy, but only if you do not truly play the lines that the right expects you to say, and will use against you.

[iverglas]

198. I'm just curious

What is the reason for your obvious and pervasive assumption that the people you are speaking to are really, really stupid?

*I* didn't actually think that I was talking to "Joe Sixpack National Security Voter" in this thread on this discussion board.

As far as I can tell, Ann Coulter is going to tell whatever lies flit into her head about whatever she takes a fancy to lying about, quite despite anything that *I* say about anything at all.

If I spent my time, when talking to people whom I assume to have goals and priorities similar to mine, saying only things that Ann Coulter might approve of, I'd be living quite a wasted life.

You really can prettify what you're saying up as much as you like ... but what I see you doing is attempting to stifle speech that you do not agree with.

I don't recall ever suggesting that your condescendingly named Joe Sixpack was the intended audience for anything I have said. Given everything else you've done, I might assume that you've run for and occupied several public offices ... but just in case not, let me assure you that I've run for more than one, and am really quite capable of addressing issues in ways that speak to the concerns of the people whose votes I am seeking. And thousands of them did vote for me ... just not enough to overcome the bred-in-the-bone party loyalty of a large chunk of that particular electorate.

What I did not do was pander to them. Or patronize them.

If Joe Sixpack's concern is "national security", I wouldn't be out there out-national-security-ing my right-wing opposition. Because that would be dishonest. (And let's face it, your handholding of Joe in regard to the plight of individuals in the US miltary doesn't even address "national security" concerns anyway.) I'd be bringing the real issues, and real ways of securing national security (like not exploiting, oppressing, attacking, invading, occuping and colonizing other people and their countries), to the table. Not pissing around with vote-buying ploys on military wages and working conditions as a solution to all the bogeymen lying in wait for Murrica all over the world.

Joe needs to understand *and admit* that the troops are being used to mistreat other people. Because if he doesn't, if I let him focus his field of vision in on that navel consisting of military wages and working conditions, and no Murrican boys and girls dying in wars, all those other people will still be at risk.

And I'm not so arrogant that I think that Joe's vote will be so easiliy won over by promises of $$ for soldiers. I think that Joe occasionally does a little thinking for himself, and is a little more complex than all that. I think I'd be dreaming in technicolour if I imagined that all I need to do is offer his son a pay raise and say "Now see, Joe? Look at everything else I can give you!" And I just think Joe needs to take a little responsibility for his own choices and actions -- and that in any event, since he is responsible for them, I can no more control his response to all my primary-school cajoling and prodding than I can control what Ann Coulter writes. Joe isn't a blank canvas or a ball of silly putty.

"Now see you can critize, but when you go and say, the troops are guilty of murder and worst... you are giving ammo to the right because you are playing into Annie's little stereotypes..."

Yeah, and if Spentastic had gone and said that, you'd have a point.

I'll bet African-American folk shouldn't eat watermelon, 'cause that plays into the KKK's stereotypes. Tough for any of them who actually like watermelon, that. Just like it's tough for the rest of us who really kinda want to express complex thoughts to have to refrain from doing it because Ann Coulter might misrepresent what we say.

As for your last little diatribe to me ...

"Then stay out of this one
If yuo are NOT AN AMERICAN stay out...."

... well darn, what can I say?? How about: "Yankee Go Home!" About the most appropriate response to *that* that I can think of.

Given that my entire point has been that it's bleeding high time that USAmericans took responsibility for the effects of their actions on other people, yeah, it makes perfect sense for those other people to just stay out of it.

"We do not need that kind of an ally, to be honest..."

Why do I hear the voice of Paul Celucci all of a sudden?? (I'm sure you know, knowing it all as you evidently do, that he is the US Ambassador to Canada.) The US only needs "allies" who do what they're told, and who don't ever presume to think that they might have something worthwhile to say or that the US oughta listen to them, if only because what the US does affects them and they for some bizarre reason think that this gives them a wee bit of entitlement to comment on it and, gasp, even attempt to influence it. Yup, we know all about that one.

"And yes you are responsible."

Ah, if only we knew what poor Spentastic is responsible for ... I mean, you did realize you were talking to a new person, right?

.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Here are your answers

NOBODY bellow the rank of Colonel was tried during Nuremberg...

IN fact very few enlisted, many years later, belonging to the SS
were tried... in fact I count three... and in fact we even had
two people deported from the US. Those cases were GUARDS at CAMPS... (NOT WERMACHT TROOPERS)

In fact insofar as the German military was REGULAR concerned, nobody bellow the rank of Marshall was tried. Marshall is GENERAL, ONE STAR.

And by the way, you have no idea what yuo speak off... STOP BLAMING the troops, they are not the ones RESPONSIBLE for the POLICY COMING out of DC.

On the other hand WE have the only military to ever try one of our own for War Crimes, May Lai, and LT Calley... for the record NONE of the enlisted involved in that mess WAS tried...

[Guaranteed]

204. Does that mean they aren't our sons and daughters anymore? nt

[Warren Stuart]

70. I respectfully agree

When we wish ill upon our own armed forces, we lose credibility as to how the country is run.

It's not the soldiers fault they are there. Mostly they are poorly trained, poorly equipped, stuck in a poorly planned conflict for a lot longer than they bargained for.

They have a tough job, I hope every single one comes home safely.

[ithacan]

74. then please go enlist then

[enki23]

51. you aren't wrong.

and the problem has never been that you're wrong. our nation is the aggressor. and we, as the opposition to that aggression, are in a very delicate situation. we know damned well why some iraqi people are attacking our troops. i wouldn't, but some of us would. anyone who can simultaneously wave the flag and shake a fist while saying they can't understand this is dishonest. they understand. they just don't admit it. they don't admit it because the cognitive dissonance would kill them.

we know why we're being attacked. we know the iraqi people don't want us to tell them what to do with themselves. we know that, to them, we look like aggressors. we are agressors, even if you believe we had sufficient reason. and we are there.

and that's the real reason. we are there. these people are frustrated. with saddam, with us, with life. they're frustrated. and we are there, we are in power, and we are *not* the power they want. you can't change that in the short term, and likely can never change that. at least not for the price we were quoted. not for anything *near* the price we were quoted. it simply will not happen.

so what will become of iraq? it might work out, but it won't be because we are doing anything right. we aren't. and it probably won't work out well at all. but we can still hope it does. i do, at any rate. i hope so for the sake of the iraqi woman on the street who used to be a sales clerk and now hopes like hell she'll have a job next year. i hope so for the sake of the man whose child was lost to an errant bomb. i hope so *in spite* of our inept leadership, and the violence they've covered in a thin skin of populist pap. they didn't mean it when they said "the iraqi people." they don't care about "the iraqi people." they don't care about the *american* people, except so far as we can buy them a new vacation home overseas. they *do* *not* *care*

get over that. most people don't care. even liberals. even me, most days. but you do. so fuck most people. do what you can, because that's really all we've got to go on.

holy fuck, i'm getting all populist and sentimental.

[iverglas]

65. risking repeating myself

I managed one of those post-after-locking tricks in the previous thread, and really did want to say this.

I was responding to:

"I support our troops, I want them to win, and I want them
back home in time to see Bush imprisoned."


Leaving aside the other very interesting question (what's this "winning" all about, in Iraq ...?), let me just ask, on the "Bush imprisoned" bit of it ...

And exactly how likely is this to happen?

In starpass, I see someone who has absolutely no control whatsoever over what happens in Iraq, how many USAmericans die (I'm sure someone somewhere sometime spares a thought for all the Iraqis dying ...), or anything else that goes on there, suggesting that the only way that it is likely that Bush will "pay for" what he is done is if it causes enough harm to enough USAmericans that they revolt in the next election.

That's sad, but unfortunately probably true. It seems to be the speaking of it that causes such distress.

And then I see you, who also has zero control over what happens, in this case what happens to Bush, suggesting that the outcome of a "win" in Iraq is that Bush will be imprisoned.

Fact? Remotely possible eventuality? Abject nonsense, says I. A president attacks a foreign country, "wins" the war he started, and gets imprisoned??

I think someone was saying something about la-la land.


Me, what I'd like to see is a crisis of conscience on the part of the USAmerican people that causes them to wake up and say "we are doing evil to others", and then quickly get rid of the people who are doing it on their behalf and start doing some good for a change. Hey, we all have our own private la-la lands.

In the meantime, I have no control over what goes on in Iraq, so whether I lament or applaude the deaths of USAmericans is of really very little consequence.

I actually tend to take a slightly more nuanced view of the whole thing, if anyone cares. Since I doubt that the motivations of many of the people doing the killing of the USAmerican troops are anything that I'd support -- things like peace and democracy and justice, those being things that I happen to care about a little more than I care about, say, the fortunes of the US Democratic Party -- and since I do have a degree of sympathy for the exploited USAmericans doing their masters' bidding over there, I don't see much for me to be choosing between, and either mourning or applauding.

I see the US doing exactly what I expected it to do when I was out on the streets in the freezing rain and mud and wind and snow protesting its plans and ultimately its actions last winter. And so far, I'm seeing pretty much exactly the consequences I expected to see. And in any event, if anybody's responsible for any of it, it sure as hell ain't me to any significant extent.

I see the working classes, as usual, being proxied out for profits, and oppressing some other working class types, who are themselves likely going to be victimized once again by either their own indigenous oppressors or the invading one, for the foreseeable future.

And on the USAmerican side, at least, I see the usual dearth of serious discussion about anybody's responsibility for anything -- like the responsibility that those working class kids and their families and supporters might just have for what they are doing in Iraq ... and a whole lot of fucking stupid baseless pointless blame being lobbed around at people like starpass who really aren't responsible for much of anything. It's the Amurrican Way, right?

Oh, Oh, Oh What A Lovely War!

... International slaughter is, after all, the most civilized of games.

and unless and until some of you start refusing to play by THEIR stupid rotten rules ("support the troops!" just for starters), it will just go on and on.

.

[G_j]

85. good one

:toast:

[iverglas]

172. Ta! and may I recommend post 79

"Let us utilize <some> history..." by FAndy9, up above.

Much the same as what I, and I think starpass, think, spoken from outside the fray and from a perspective (in the sense of both a point of view and a grasp of the relative importance of / relationships among things) not available to many in the US.

.

[jonnyblitz]

75. interesting post with the typical patriotically correct knee jerk

hysterical responses attributing to you things you never even said or implied. How can anyone who has the capacity to reason not understand we are the aggressors. How can one blame the Iraqis for fighting foreign invaders. Whether one supports or doesnt support the troops is beside the point. We invaded their country, what would we do if our country was invaded, sit back and let them?

[gulliver]

83. Simplistic much?

The Iraqi right to "self-defense" is there. It just doesn't predominate. It's a footnote fact when the whole page should shout "THIS IS BUSH'S STUPID IDEA!" You are just quibbling. It's just noise.

I'm not even offended on behalf of the troops. Some of them who supported Bush are idiots (and are starting to get that I hope). The others just got dragged into Bush's mess when all they wanted was to support themselves, get an education, and have a future. I feel sorriest for those. Hell, I even feel sorry for the ones Bush and his corpo-loyalist ilk duped.

[FAndy9]

103. Please...

I believe the point of debate is moot here, as we're not the ones who have the choice as tho whether the US should continue its war or the blame game.

What we DO have here is a concrete situation which demands action. What else is there to debate? You know the Iraqis fight for somethign and if you were them you would do the same. You know if you were an American soldier you'd follow orders because you have no choice. You also know some kids recruited because they were truly gullible while other knew this shit could happen.

The only argument here is what to do with the facts at hand: that is, people are dying, the US is losing control, and we can't have Bush next term or else all hell WILL break loose.

[Scott Lee]

93. Inflammatory - and right on the money

I applaude your candor and foresight.

I won't try to recount all the times I have asked those who scream at me in a knee jerk fashion for refusing to demand human nature be put on hold just because its US troops in the crosshairs. But, there are several questions that are continually avoided on this subject. To wit:

Are we to have the same "sympathy" for an all volunteer force under attack in a foreign land, rather than the victims of a draft?

Are US soldiers dying for my rights and freedoms in the USA, or are they dying for the egos of a corrupt cabal in the White House?

When did the natural human right of self defense suddenly evaporate in time to benefit US troops?

What would you have those horrible Iraqi freedom fighters do to dislodge the invader in their midst?

I certainly don't expect any answers to these questions, but see if someone can surprise me.

[Starpass]

101. Since I seem to be part of this thread I thought I would jump into the pit

one more time. Our soldiers are like the Brownie Troop I lead 15 years ago. If I told them to take a crap, they did. If I told them to stop fighting, they did. If I told them it was time to knock it off and go to sleep, they slept. They had no choice---I was bigger. My point (which is usually pointless to post here) is that their deaths are the only thing (so far) that's getting through to these dumbass Americans. We watched all sorts of criminal activities by Bush and the Americans yawned, scratched their nuts and flipped the channel. But,they are getting uncomfortable about the deaths. These GI's are told they are fighting for Iraq, terror, blah, blah...bullshit. Their deaths mean squat nothing to those endeavors. BUT it is in the sheer numbers (because Americans don't give a flying fuck about individuals and real people) that they are boring into the souls of America. If Bush stopped this now, America would yawn, scratch it's nuts and re-elect these fucking human pieces of shit who would wage war into god knows how many countries in the next four year term and kill how many more of these GI's and how many more innocent civilians and totally bankrupt this country so the goddamn corporations could put their goddamn McDonald's on every corner in the newly conquored land. THAT's why I said the killing needs to go on---to go on until we gag and say "this is pointless and this administration needs to be replaced". These GI's are actually fighting for their country but in a way they don't understand.

[FAndy9]

110. I agree Starpass

And however disgusting you find his logic, you have to understand that there can be no compromise here - it either one evil or the other. Sure one is damn bad, we all admit it (Im sure Starpass does too), but that's what will do the best for all on the long run.

[G_j]

125. I'm just not sure

the American people really even care about the 'troops'. They seem more concerned over the money being spent.

[DrWeird]

133. What you've got to ask yourself is...

If you're a German in 1942 do you support the troops because it's the patriotic thing to do? Or do you hope Germany loses because it's pure fucking evil.

This is a race war. It's not about making the world safe from terrorism of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. If you really believe that you've got to stop watching Triumph of the Will and pull your head out of your ass.

This war is about blowing up muslims. That's what the people who support it want. We targeted Iraq specifically because they are easy targets. And the powers that be push this war because they're getting rich off of it.

And I refuse to believe that "just following orders" is a good excuse. And if you're so incredibly stupid as to believe fighting in Iraq is serving the country then I don't give a shit what happens to you. I'd say that everybody can just stay there and get there asses shot, but that would be unfair to the iraqi people who, unlike the US troops, didn't have a choice to get involved.

[kalian]

148. Great post....right on the money.

:toast:

[Minstrel Boy]

199. Words from the White Rose

the tiny resistance group of German students, who challenged the Nazis in 1942:

Why do German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? Hardly anyone thinks about that. It is accepted as fact and put out of mind. The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals; they give them the opportunity to carry on their depredations; and of course they do so. Is this a sign that the Germans are brutalized in their simplest human feelings, that no chord within them cries out at the sight of such deeds, that they have sunk into a fatal consciencelessness from which they will never, never awake? It seems to be so, and will certainly be so, if the German does not at last start up out of his stupor, if he does not protest wherever and whenever he can against this clique of criminal, if he shows no sympathy for these hundreds of thousands of victims. He must evidence not only sympathy; no, much more: a sense of complicity in guilt. For through his apathetic behavior he gives these evil men the opportunity to act as they do; he tolerates this "government" which has taken upon itself such an infinitely great burden of guilt; indeed, he himself is to blame for the fact that it came about at all! Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! It is not too late, however, to do away with this most reprehensible of all miscarriages of government, so as to avoid being burdened with even greater guilt. Now, when in recent years our eyes have been opened, when we know exactly who our adversary is, it is high time to root out this brown horde. Up until the outbreak of the war the larger part of the German people was blinded; the Nazis did not show themselves in their true aspect. But now, now that we have recognized them for what they are, it must be the sole and first duty, the holiest duty of every German to destroy these beasts.

http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/leaftwoeng.html

[bpilgrim]

210. it is our duty for those who see it this way to pass the word...

many are not guilty because they DON'T KNOW.

our 'leaders' are fair game cept Robert Byrd ;->

peace

[squanto]

152. I will not support the killing of Americans by anyone!!!!!!!! n/t

[kalian]

157. How about invading countries....?

and conquering people? And killing them? And stealing their natural
resources? And...oh never mind.... :eyes:

[squanto]

164. I don't care what you think

Anyhone calls for the death of Americans in my presence is gonna get hurt.

[thebigidea]

165. a perfect example of why we have wars

depressing, isn't it.

[Clark Can WIN]

153. Yes we are the aggrssor nation

But I cannot cheer for someone who kills my neighbors children.

[kalian]

158. That is why....

we need to get the hell out of Iraq...now.

[neuvocat]

177. Extremely well said.

[Minstrel Boy]

205. "I cannot cheer for someone who kills my neighbors children"

I initially misread this. I thought you were calling the Iraqis your neighbors. I thought that was profound. But now I see that's not what you meant.

But are not the Iraqis your neighbors? Are their children so different from yours?

It's sad for me to see the cognitive dissonance even here, which has been an oasis of rationality in the middle of an America gone mad. There are evidently many here not far removed from the Bush dictum of "finishing what we've started."

Yes, you are the aggressors here. And while I do not cheer for the deaths of your soldiers, neither do I cheer for you.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

200. I CONCUR!

[G_j]

201. I simply wonder sometimes

if folks value all lives equally. I would never wish harm on our troops, nor would I wish harm on anyone.
People lose sight of the Iraqi lives lost. Americans finally became outraged at American deaths in Viet Nam. It's questionable if they were truly outraged over the millions of Vietnamese deaths.

I am a peace activist, which means to me I value the lives of all people affected by war. period.

p.s. :hi: ED