Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2007 16:27:39 GMT -4
That doesn't vary much from past wars. Particularly in the Pacific Theater of WWII. Which was not entirely free of atrocities and a "disregard" for the enemy not shown on other fronts. The point being that Vietnam didn't differ as much from prior wars in the number of atrocities committed as the mythology around it seems to make out. I imagine that any soldier has to dehumanize his enemy to some extent and for at least limited amounts of time in order to do his job. It would be very difficult for me to shoot someone while thinking how he was just like me, with his own family and friends, even if he were shooting at me at the time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2007 16:40:42 GMT -4
There's an interesting story in USA Today today about wounded soldiers who cheated on tests designed to determine if they had serious wounds from explosions so that they could be returned to their combat units rather than shipped home: www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-11-06-cheating-troops_N.htmSo at least some soldiers are so concerned with staying in Iraq that they were willing to cheat on tests to do so.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Nov 19, 2007 1:12:59 GMT -4
I want to address the point that was brought up earlier in this thread about leaving Iraq/ending the war/call it what you will. I've heard for a few years now the notion that "bringing home the troops before the job's done will be a disservice to those who have served and paid the ultimate price; that their sacrifices will have been in vain." That sounds great to an armchair general safe at home or to people playing a game of Risk or something, but I've grown tired of hearing it bandied about in real-world discussions about live troops. Whether the US pulls out (or starts to pull out, as it's doubtful that the US would--or should--utterly abandon Iraq) five days from now, five months from now or five years from now, someone will still utter that phrase, or something close to it. But let's put it in a more human way. Instead of the abstract "If we pull out before the job's done," how about "If just one less soldier is killed before the job's done, it will be a disservice to those..." etc. How'd you (a collective 'you') like to be that one last soldier that has to get killed before the 'job' is done?
And another thing, when did it become acceptable to use the sacrifices of soldiers to justify keeping even more soldiers in active combat (in harm's way) indefinitely? With that logic, no war should ever end until there's no one left to kill; surrender wouldn't even be an option, because it could just be brushed away with the 'sacrifices must not be in vain' argument.
************
So, what happened to the stuff about Clinton vs the conspiracy theorist?
edited to clarify wording and to fix caffeine-induced typos
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 19, 2007 6:52:52 GMT -4
Hear, hear!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 19, 2007 11:54:24 GMT -4
Every war has casualties - that's unavoidable. Every war also has stupid mistakes that result in unnecessary deaths. Your criticism is correct as far as it goes, but the trick then becomes determining when the unavoidable sacrifices that must be made in any war are in vain. In other words, when no more good can be done and we're just wasting our troops lives. We on this board aren't in a position to determine this. We don't know the situation the way those who are leading the fighting do. We don't see the intelligence briefs, and we don't interview the people on the ground. As far as I can tell, none of us are professional soldiers. We can't come to a reasoned judgement on whether the war is truly lost or still winnable. Therefore we must defer to the generals who are in charge and the judgement of their civilian leaders, both of whom are much better informed than we are and have the experience to make a better determination. The lead General Petreus says that progress is being made and the President says he feels victory is still possible. Who are we to disagree with them? What do we know that they don't?
|
|
|
Post by cr on Nov 19, 2007 13:52:13 GMT -4
"We" are technically the President's employer. He's supposed to uphold the US Constitution, and by extension, the US citizens. Whether he likes it or, whether we like him or not. Obviously, we don't know all the details, but I find it interesting that we keep hearing about 'victory in Iraq' with no real clue about what that entails. Like the conspiracy theories discussed on this forum, the goalposts keep shifting. WMD's? Didn't find any. They either had been moved recently, or a long time ago, but they weren't there. Getting rid of Saddam? Yes, that's done. (And arguably should have been done during the elder Bush Administration, but then-Security Advisor Dick Cheney reccommended against it because it would result in more problems than it could solve.) Democracy? Well, elections have been held, provisional government set up, they are trying to get it going. Ending sectarian violoence? Um, is that our job? To intervene in stuff that's been going on for ages? Train Iraq forces for... what? (And hope that they don't turn against us.) What are the goals over there? I'm not talking about a timetable for withdrawl, I'm talking about clearly defined goals (not a revalation of military tactics, as that would put troops in jeopardy) so that not only our military, but our citizens, and indeed the world, know what 'victory' actulally means. Stop Al Qaeda? Where's Osama? You know, the perpetraor of the 9/11 thing? Unless, of course, that was an inside job. (See, I'm trying to get this back on topic. Sort of.) By the way, Al Johnston, were you "Hear, hear!"-ing my comments, or my question about what happened to the Clinto vs inside jobber?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 19, 2007 14:48:54 GMT -4
Obviously, we don't know all the details, but I find it interesting that we keep hearing about 'victory in Iraq' with no real clue about what that entails. Victory in Iraq will mean a relatively stable nation with democratically-elected leaders that respects the human rights of its own people and will not actively support terrorists who may threaten its neighbors or the U.S. Perhaps the administration hasn't stated that in so many words (a mistake on their part), but that does seem to be the objective.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 19, 2007 15:50:04 GMT -4
It is, in fact, the job of every responsible citizen to question its government. Oh, I know that makes me sound like a CTist, but I swear to you, it's true. The difference is the level of reasoning that you use. I can question, for example, the allocation of government funds into the health care system without coming up with some theory about how the government is trying to make all crazy people commit suicide and stop taking up valuable resources.
In that sense, it's a sensible thing on the face of it to say, "Could this have been an inside job?"
However.
You have to move beyond just the question. You have to look at the evidence, and there simply isn't any that indicates anything beyond a failure of the intelligence system--a failure that's only going to get worse if the US government keeps firing its few interpreters--and it never had enough--because of details of their private lives.
Similarly, the fact that an agenda from March 2001 included a discussion of when and how to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein is pretty conclusive evidence that the invasion had nothing to do with 9/11.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 19, 2007 15:53:22 GMT -4
Getting rid of Saddam has been official US policy since the Clinton years. There's nothing suspicious about a new president discussing official US policy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 19, 2007 15:55:38 GMT -4
We even have plans on the books for invading Canada. That simply means that we don't want to be caught unprepared, not that we actually plan on invading Canada.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 19, 2007 17:57:16 GMT -4
By the way, Al Johnston, were you "Hear, hear!"-ing my comments, or my question about what happened to the Clinto vs inside jobber? The comments ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 19, 2007 19:57:49 GMT -4
We even have plans on the books for invading Canada. That simply means that we don't want to be caught unprepared, not that we actually plan on invading Canada. Thanks for letting us know! Is this a new Manifest Destiny on the books? Bye for now. I just got the new issue of Time magazine to read, while watching CNN. Then I'm going out to Walmart to pick up some Goodyear tires for my Ford. So I have to leave my Dell computer alone for awhile, and grab a McDonalds burger before I go shopping.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 20, 2007 0:17:54 GMT -4
Maybe we would invade Canada if there were anything worth invading it for. But we already have Shatner.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 20, 2007 1:10:24 GMT -4
The longer Americans continue to believe there is nothing north of the border worth taking the better. Meanwhile, we'll continue to sell you oil.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 20, 2007 6:22:25 GMT -4
Well, if the planning's as good as the last invasion ...
|
|