What to do... You always talk about the defensive, i.e. how to respond to violence and aggression. I'm more concerned with people letting it start in the first place, but let's look at defense for a bit then. Americans don't even ask why we were attacked in 2001. We got a **** 'n bull story about the "terrorists" "hating our freedom." Does anyone seriously buy that?? Who's going to strike the US and kill themselves in the process because they hate freedom? They did it because of our policies, especially where Israel & Palestine are concerned. That situation has driven many in that part of the world to both frustration and indignation. Our country has been militarily and montarily supporting a violent regime that's been taking many liberties (in more ways than one) in Palestine. That is what led to our being attacked. We could have avoided 9/11 by not letting our government support Israel in its murderous and (in Muslim eyes at least) sacrilegious actions. Well, OK, so probably actually could not have, since our government has been dictating terms to us for a very long time now, and not the other way around. We're not even all that aware of what's happened there - our media ignored that miserable situation, and so we did, at least until some crafty & highly religious Muslim extremists finally brought the conflict to our doorstep. We've further escalated the violence in response, seeking revenge for what was done here while propagandists trumpeted notions of "liberation" and "defending freedom" while remaining mum about just why we were attacked. To reiterate, that buttplug who sat in the nation's highest office for 8 years claimed it was because they "hate our freedom." I suppose that works for a lot of undereducated, over-emotional flag wavers, but I find such a claim and the rabid, violent "patriotism" that sprang up in response to such claims and ideas simply revolting.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=0514 I lean towards the 'no' section, myself. While I don't know if 'racism' was involved or not, I do know that it was used for show against the Soviets. Obviously, there should be implications of that action - to atomically destruct two cities to wow and warn the newest public enemy #1. Look at the military officers who were saying 'no' to its usage. What, you don't trust Dwight?
You think listing (*)(*)(*)(*) countries provides a basis for war? Sorry, try again. A lot of the atrocities that occurred in these examples could have been deterred by means other than war, quite easily.
Indeed, that is the problem with Mushroom's argument - he focuses on one incident of history when in reality he should be looking at the entire serious events leading up to it because it a lot of instances it is a "good" country like the US or its allies that has developed the situation to a point far worse than it would have otherwise been if they had of left it alone. He forgets, for example, that the US has been supportive of the Baathist regime in Iraq for decades, Saddam included. I recall the joke by Bill Hicks: How does the US government know 'evil countries' have such deadly, awesome, threatening weapons? Because they have the receipts! Israel-Palestine is a brilliant example, which you point out. There is a clear solution to the problem, which about 95% of the world supports - its only stopped because of the US, who has veto powers in the UN and rejects almost every significant step towards a resolution. But then Mushroom will turn around and say "oh well we'll have to just start a war in Palestine!" Entirely ignorant and nonsensical.
Obviously you understand nothing about fanaticism. Fanaticism is the basis for almost all homocidal or suicidal actions. This is what causes people to plant bombs at the sites of Olympic events, and at medical offices and car lots. It can make a mathematician mail dozens of bombs to various individuals including airline CEOs and a small computer store owner. It can cause one failed songwriter to try and kill a President, and another failed songwriter to order a string of murders. It can cause almost 3,000 individuals, both highly trained pilots and untrained individuals to purposfully engage in suicide attacks. It can lead a nation to build almost 1,000 specially built suicide aircraft, 9,000 boats, and 600 manned torpedoes. In total, over 11,000 craft, designed from the very beginning to carry the operator to their death. And it is not about "freedoms", it never was. The current struggle is about fanaticism, and trying to spread a fanatical religion. One in which a basic belief that death in it's service is rewarded with a glorious afterlife. This is the same thing that caused centuries of unrest in Judea, and the eventual conversion of Roman religion. It can be almost impossible to fight an enemy willing to die for their cause. Personally, I have no problem with assisting them on their way.
Once again, world of "what if" and make believe. Then tell me, name a single case where a nation was "talked out" of genocide. Of where a genocide was stopped short of war. And how well is that working in Darfur? Have we talked them out of slaughtering people yet?
Shack. I avoided this thread because I knew it would primarily be a bunch of pimply-faced leftists arguing with the heart rather than the mind. I was right. "This is war." LMAO. People that never had to fight for anything trying to quantify war based on their feelings.
You may have revealed THE fundamental flaw that allows war to be tolerated and even supported - disconnection of feeling, of compassion and empathy, from the fighting and its consequences. Of course, we all know well enough that "the enemy" is dehumanised and treated rather like a scapegoat for the other side's rage.
Here is the fundamental flaw in your response: I am not disconnected from feelings, nor do I lack compassion and empathy in combat. I highly doubt any of the other military personnel that post here are different. In fact, those feelings help us do our jobs better. What allows war to be tolerated and supported is the idea of a threat. Granted, that has been lost as of late (which is why the current wars lack support), but sometimes force is a necessary, and completely acceptable answer.
I know our soldiers go over there with hate in their hearts, ready to exact revenge on "those *******s" for this or that reason. I've heard about that firsthand. Then there are incidents like the corpse pissing - still further signs of what our people really think and feel over there. Then of course you have terms such as "collateral damage" to help lessen the impact of maiming and killing people who aren't fighting, aka "non-combatants." Renaming the atrocities and ignoring their real impact on others only makes things worse, because you're more likely to cause them in the first place. You become what you think you're fighting against.
First of all, you know about that how? A couple of your buddies you take as the voice of the entire fighting military? Wrong. And pissing on a corpse is not a behavior many think of doing prior to being deployed. They are not on a C-5 thinking "I cannot wait to (*)(*)(*)(*) on some dead Taliban." It is something that happens without thinking clearly after being sent to a Hell hole multiple times through your ADSC. I cannot speak for the ground forces, but I can say with confidence that the mental beating they take from constantly being deployed in combat areas wears them thin. Sometimes some people will act out illogically and without reason. It is to be expected. That does not bother me, especially considering people willingly harbor the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their homes. Collateral damage is an ugly side of war, but I- nor is any other combatant- do not bear responsibility for people hanging around for hours around a firefight. It is something you will never understand, having never been in that position. As far as I am concerned, they are aiding in the attack on American or allied forces. I do not take innocent lives in order to invoke any message of fear. I do not torture and habitually oppress innocent people.
I never once aid what if. A liar as well as ignorant. Not surprising. Why should I do that? Nope. Your point? Oh I see, everywhere is the same as Darfur?
Wow Buddy, You "heard" firsthand that soldiers go over with hatred in their hearts? Sorry, but you don't come off as very intelligent if you think anecdotal hearsay is sufficient to judge the emotional state of hundreds of thousands of diverse people. Most soldiers go over there to do a job that they train extremely hard for. Most of them have deployed before, and all of them have received extensive counter-insurgency training. They realize the war isn't against the Afghan people, but rather the Taliban. They most certainly do hate the Taliban (who are among the most brutal enemy the U.S. has ever fought), but that's 100% natural and to be expected. Probably only 1 out of every 100 Afghan is actually a member of the Taliban. For every firefight and IED a soldier experiences, they probably spend a hundred hours patrolling, interacting, and helping Afghan civilians. The guys on the ground more than anyone understand the realities of the war. They realize that Afghan civilians are just dragged into it. If you spend hundreds of days patrolling through impoverished towns that are brutalized by the Taliban you quickly gain sympathy for the populace. The Afghans are among the poorest people on earth and have been for decades. You probably haven't stepped out of your comfort zone and actually been to such a place, but it's almost impossible to not have some sympathy for those people. For some reason the media/hollywood/Ivory tower types etc. love to think of soldiers as brainwashed crazies who only think about killing. This is not true. When human beings are put into dangerous and uncomfortable situations together they tend to empathize. The private sweating his ass off on patrol in 120 degree weather hoping not to get blown up is going to sympathize with the 10 year old afghan boy sitting in the mud next to him because they're both experiencing the same (*)(*)(*)(*). That soldier is going to sympathize and relate to the 10 year old Afghan boy more than any liberal pundit sitting in their tv studio or typing from their faculty lounge. I just don't understand how people who've never set foot in a war zone can really understand war and suffering. Is it not telling that the people who actually spend time in these war zones are the ones supporting it while the ones so adamantally against it have never come within 1,000 miles?
I have no problem with that if it serves a greater good, as in WWII for example. Modern war is much less brutal than almost any warfare of past generations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a blessing to Japan - the Imperial Japanese govt had a policy of no surrender and forcing all civilians to fight to the death - had America invaded Japan then millions more would have been killed, and the Japanese people might have been exterminated entirely - thankfully for the people of Japan, the atom bomb intimidated the Emperor into surrendering while he otherwise may have not. Yet another bleeding heart liberal who has no understanding of history.
...and in turn the U.S. stomped their organization into the ground. They were also doing what they believed was their "greater good", a good that a significantly more power entity (the U.S./western world) deemed evil. At some point feelings and perspectives go out the window and it comes down to power and interests. The Japanese people, to some extent, were responsible for their leaders and their country's actions. They put their leaders in power and fought their brutal campaigns. In a war it's not about the interests or feelings of the other side, it's about promoting your interests over your enemies. It's often a zero sum game.
Agreed, and that's why it's all so unnecessary, or rather should be. Most people don't violently assert their interests over those of others; in fact, we generally have laws against that sort of thing.
And here is one of the most common attacks the Left uses against the military. It is an unhuman monster that dehumanizes it's enemies, and only cares about killing. No compassion, no empathy, all it lives for is to kill. Funny, how they are projecting this onto the military constantly, an act in and of itself is exactly what they claim the military does in the first place. Talk avout cyclic.
