tantalum 0 #1 January 8, 2005 There is news circulating in international media that the US Army mistakingly bombed the wrong house, some place in Northern Iraq. While the US Army claims that only five ppl were killed by "mistake", other reports put the civilian death toll as high as 14. Anybody else see anything wrong with this picture whether it is 5 or 14? Suffice it to say that the five or 14 will, in all likelihood, be revenged by ten-times their number. The US, unfortunately, is seeding hatred at an amazing and most efficient pace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #2 January 8, 2005 QuoteSuffice it to say that the five or 14 will, in all likelihood, be revenged by ten-times their number. The US, unfortunately, is seeding hatred at an amazing and most efficient pace. A reasonably thinking person might consider this an inevitable symptom of "liberating" a nation that did not ask to be liberated. Unfortunately, reasonably thinking persons are not in charge right now. As gandhi asked, "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #3 January 8, 2005 If those reports are true, it is a tragedy. Very sad. Quote"liberating" a nation that did not ask to be liberated. This just gets my goat a little so I have to digress... How do you determine that a nation has asked to be liberated? Do you listen to the minority of people who are oppressed, or should it take a majority ignoring the "little people"? Or should we only accept a vote asking for help, which would surely work in brutal dictatorships, right? Does the UN have a "Free Us" hotline that people can call? I've asked this before here and no one had a good answer. I think people just like to throw out the "they didn't ask to be liberated" thing because it makes their anti-war stance sound better. Keep in mind, there are people in Iraq and Iraqis in diaspora that did ask for Iraq to be rid of Saddam.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tantalum 0 #4 January 8, 2005 Trent: in my books, no politics whatsoever justifies the taking of human life! Any politcs/ideology to the contrary is out-of-line. Even if it is US American...for America has absolutely, positively no moral prerogative. These days, I'd like to think that the EU (and Russia; no kidding), are our best hope for moral guidance ahead. With its endorsement of torture, the US is no longer a member of civilized natiions. QuoteIf those reports are true, it is a tragedy. Very sad. Quote"liberating" a nation that did not ask to be liberated. This just gets my goat a little so I have to digress... How do you determine that a nation has asked to be liberated? Do you listen to the minority of people who are oppressed, or should it take a majority ignoring the "little people"? Or should we only accept a vote asking for help, which would surely work in brutal dictatorships, right? Does the UN have a "Free Us" hotline that people can call? I've asked this before here and no one had a good answer. I think people just like to throw out the "they didn't ask to be liberated" thing because it makes their anti-war stance sound better. Keep in mind, there are people in Iraq and Iraqis in diaspora that did ask for Iraq to be rid of Saddam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #5 January 9, 2005 I think we should have figured out we weren't wanted there when they didn't welcome us in the streets as Rummy predicted.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #6 January 9, 2005 Please don't confuse our goverment, with it's citizens. I can only speak for myself but I don't think the american people approve of our goverments use of torture or breaking the rules of the geneva convention in spite of propaganda that might say otherwise. As far as the "accidental" destruction of a home with the tragic loss of human life. Well thats a byproduct of any war and is sometimes refered to by the term "friendly fire" and is well known and regretable byproduct of any war. I may be wrong but I think the coalition lost more troops to friendly fire during desert storm than from enemy action. Try doing a google search on the term "friendly fire" You'll probably find links dating back to at least WW1. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 January 9, 2005 QuoteKeep in mind, there are people in Iraq and Iraqis in diaspora that did ask for Iraq to be rid of Saddam. Not only that, but Iraqis stood in front of the UN, after liberation, saying, "Why didn't anyone help us sooner?"So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #8 January 9, 2005 QuotePlease don't confuse our government, with it's citizens. I can only speak for myself but I don't think the american people approve of our governments use of torture or breaking the rules of the geneva convention in spite of propaganda that might say otherwise. What a load of Bollocks. Don't you remember there was that election last November, I think Bush's victory was a sign that the people do support the administration, at least 52% of them anyway. I don't know which way you personally voted, and if you are in the 48% that lost you have my commiserations, however as a whole the "citizens" of the USA are responsible for the people elected to power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #9 January 9, 2005 Good for them! I'm glad to see the US has (finally) started to abandon the "we're always right" approach and admit when they screw up. Everyone screws up, and admitting when you do goes a long way towards regaining people's trust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #10 January 9, 2005 QuoteI think we should have figured out we weren't wanted there when they didn't welcome us in the streets as Rummy predicted. In response to that, I rolled across the berm into Iraq on the 26th of April 2003. We were widely welcomed into Iraq by the majority of the population there. In fact the shia' were celebrating some muslim holy day that they hadn't been able to in 15 or 20 years since Saddam had outlawed it because he is a Sunni. Don't get things twisted, you act as if everybody in Iraq was happy with Saddam as the ruler, however you forget about the THOUSANDS of people who were killed under his regime. I bet if you ask the Kurds in the northern half of Iraq they would tell you that they are happy to be rid of Saddam considering he used WMDs against them and killed THOUSANDS of them. What about the conquests that Saddam made against his neighbor, or the Iran/Iraq war where MILLIONS were killed. Rethink your stance because you are wrong.The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #11 January 9, 2005 Quotein my books, no politics whatsoever justifies the taking of human life! So invading continental Europe to try to shut down the death camps was a bad idea? Or a good one? Can you elaborate on your philosophy a little? I'm particularly interested in how you would respond in a situation where some person or group of people would have to be killed to prevent their killing of some other person or group of people.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #12 January 9, 2005 QuoteIn response to that, I rolled across the berm into Iraq on the 26th of April 2003. We were widely welcomed into Iraq by the majority of the population there. In fact the shia' were celebrating some muslim holy day that they hadn't been able to in 15 or 20 years since Saddam had outlawed it because he is a Sunni. I wasn't aware; that's the first I've heard of anything like that. I see pictures and reports of demonstrations against US, though, so I am sure that there, like here, there are many differing opinions. QuoteDon't get things twisted, you act as if everybody in Iraq was happy with Saddam as the ruler, however you forget about the THOUSANDS of people who were killed under his regime. I bet if you ask the Kurds in the northern half of Iraq they would tell you that they are happy to be rid of Saddam considering he used WMDs against them and killed THOUSANDS of them. No one said everyone was happy under SH any more than they said everyone in US is happy under Shrub. But I bet there are a lot more people that disagree with Shrubs policies than there are who would like to see us invaded for our own good. As far as the death toll goes, we are still contributing to it, and you are right, so far there have been thousands. If we are so concerned about the Kurds, why are we not standing up for them in Turkey? Do you think they only suffer from government opression in Iraq? Granted, military action is not likely the best approach in their case, either, but surely we could apply some diplomatic pressure? Are not all Kurds created equal?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #13 January 9, 2005 QuoteQuotePlease don't confuse our government, with it's citizens. I can only speak for myself but I don't think the american people approve of our governments use of torture or breaking the rules of the geneva convention in spite of propaganda that might say otherwise. What a load of Bollocks. Don't you remember there was that election last November, I think Bush's victory was a sign that the people do support the administration, at least 52% of them anyway. I don't know which way you personally voted, and if you are in the 48% that lost you have my commiserations, however as a whole the "citizens" of the USA are responsible for the people elected to power. Nice try I agree with your right to disagree but lets leave the politic's out of this. Once a person is elected what they do after that they are in office is on them not on us. I don't recall voting on ignoring the geneva convention, and tortureing prisoners. Maybe your correct and the majority of americans that voted appove of this type of behavor and don't think a BJ is sex either. If you want to say that 52% of the voters are responsiable for whatever the president does thats fine with me. It's your opinion. I expressed my opinion you expressed yours and the opinon of 52% of the voters, R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DexterBase 1 #14 January 9, 2005 QuoteI wasn't aware; that's the first I've heard of anything like that. I see pictures and reports of demonstrations against US, though, so I am sure that there, like here, there are many differing opinions. The negative view is all you're going to hear. I have been on the ground in Iraq in cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Haditha, Hit, Mahmudiyah, and other various concentrations of anti-American feelings (and higher rates of ambush and use of IED's to blow up coalition vehicles) and talked with Iraqis. If you allow yourself to believe that all Iraqis hate the US for being there then your perception will allow you to condemn the actions of the coalition there. Every time I watch the news or read a paper, I see many negative stories about the conflict in Iraq. It's all the news cares to report these days when it's cool to be against the war. What the news doesn't show you is all the happy citizens of Iraq who know we're there to help and they truly appreciate us risking all we risk to be there. Why? Because they don't protest or demonstrate. You won't see any pro-us demonstrations in Iraq because 1.) it's too dangerous, and 2.) the ones who are happy about the US helping (the greater majority) are going about their lives and trying to make things better for themselves now that they have that opportunity. I've sat down and was offered tea by an Iraqi family as I was on a combat patrol that took us literally through their backyard. I've talked to military aged Iraqi men who wanted to know how to join the Marines. I've been warned by Iraqi citizens to be careful in certain parts of the street ahead because there were mujihadeen fighters waiting for us. None of these actions correspond with a people that hate us there. What will make headlines everyday around the world, a handshake among friends of different nations, a smile exchanged with two parents as we patrol past their children playing in the yard, or an ambush on a US supply convoy that kills three US troops? If all you hear and see is stories about the US taking casualties then your perception will become your reality. Edit: typos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 January 9, 2005 QuoteI agree with your right to disagree but lets leave the politic's out of this. Once a person is elected what they do after that they are in office is on them not on us. I respectfully disagree. Since we have methods in place for removing most elected officials from office, we do share in the responsibility if we allow the same person to continually make the same kinds of mistakes. I don't want it to sound like elected officials should not be responsible for their own actions, but we do choose to keep them in office if only by not initiating impeachment (or equivelent) proceedings. I believe there is an extent to which we are responsible, as voters.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 January 9, 2005 Well said, Dex.... well said!! And thank you for what you do over there...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #17 January 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteI agree with your right to disagree but lets leave the politic's out of this. Once a person is elected what they do after that they are in office is on them not on us. I respectfully disagree. Since we have methods in place for removing most elected officials from office, we do share in the responsibility if we allow the same person to continually make the same kinds of mistakes. I don't want it to sound like elected officials should not be responsible for their own actions, but we do choose to keep them in office if only by not initiating impeachment (or equivelent) proceedings. I believe there is an extent to which we are responsible, as voters. Well we mave have methods in place to remove the president and vice P. But that has only happened three times in my life time. Kennedy Spiro Agnew accepting bribes while V.P.don't recall think he resigned Nixon dumb enough to record his poor decisions. so I believe he resigned. After Nixon the presidents started to use the concept of plausable deniability The latest spin IMO is to have a staff lawyer make a legal opinion so if there's a problem the courts can decide but the presidents deisions were based on advice of legal counsel and to many go betweenfor plausable deniability. In reality impeachment at the highest level of the gov't won't happen and I hope we don't see another kennedy type impeachment or a Mcveigh. In any legal action The lawyers will slug it out call it draw and get paid. AKA watergate R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #18 January 9, 2005 QuoteThese days, I'd like to think that the EU (and Russia; no kidding), are our best hope for moral guidance ahead. You're not much of a fan of history are you?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 January 9, 2005 QuoteTrent: in my books, no politics whatsoever justifies the taking of human life! Any politcs/ideology to the contrary is out-of-line. Even if it is US American...for America has absolutely, positively no moral prerogative. These days, I'd like to think that the EU (and Russia; no kidding), are our best hope for moral guidance ahead. With its endorsement of torture, the US is no longer a member of civilized natiions. So this is a re-hash of the "violence never solved anything" argument, then? As history has proven, that mindset gets you dominated, if you're lucky....dead, if you're not.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #20 January 9, 2005 QuoteEvery time I watch the news or read a paper, I see many negative stories about the conflict in Iraq. It's all the news cares to report these days when it's cool to be against the war. What the news doesn't show you is all the happy citizens of Iraq who know we're there to help and they truly appreciate us risking all we risk to be there. Why? Because they don't protest or demonstrate. You won't see any pro-us demonstrations in Iraq because 1.) it's too dangerous, and 2.) the ones who are happy about the US helping (the greater majority) are going about their lives and trying to make things better for themselves now that they have that opportunity. Yeah you're right, the campagn has been, is currently, and will continue to be a roaring success. And the daily killings of US troops and Iraqi civilians is simply negative reporting by all the journalists working together in a big conspiracy to discredit the USA. Even the Reuters reporters are in on the scam. Makes you wonder why the puppet Iraqi government is even bothering with things like curfews if the anti-coalition sentiment is so minor, everyone is so happy and things are so rosy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tantalum 0 #21 January 9, 2005 Politics never justifies the taking of human life. Period. Now, if you personally or your country is under attack, that's a whole different ballgame. Arguably the US was not under attack or experiencing an imminent threat of being attacked by Iraq. Hence it all boils down to politics...and as stated repeatedly, politics does not justify the taking of human life. QuoteQuotein my books, no politics whatsoever justifies the taking of human life! So invading continental Europe to try to shut down the death camps was a bad idea? Or a good one? Can you elaborate on your philosophy a little? I'm particularly interested in how you would respond in a situation where some person or group of people would have to be killed to prevent their killing of some other person or group of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #22 January 9, 2005 QuoteHence it all boils down to politics...and as stated repeatedly, politics does not justify the taking of human life. Stating something repeatedly doesn't make it right, but your argument might gain validity if you actually addressed the question you were confronted with: Should we not have invaded Germany in WWII? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #23 January 9, 2005 QuotePolitics never justifies the taking of human life. Period. Now, if you personally or your country is under attack, that's a whole different ballgame. Arguably the US was not under attack or experiencing an imminent threat of being attacked by Iraq. What if it isn't you, personally, or your country that is under attack? The classic example is the one I stated above (is it morally justified to invade a foreign nation to prevent them perpetrating genocide upon their own people?), but there are others.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #24 January 9, 2005 Quote A reasonably thinking person might consider this an inevitable symptom of .... The rest of your bullshit aside, yup this sort of thing is almost inevitable, certainly lots of similar unsung stuff going on and lots of tragedy. That's the nature of war. It doesn't alter my support for this. Anyone who thought going into this that this could never happen or even that it was unlikely over the course of a campaign is a complete idiot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #25 January 9, 2005 QuoteGood for them! I'm glad to see the US has (finally) started to abandon the "we're always right" approach and admit when they screw up. Everyone screws up, and admitting when you do goes a long way towards regaining people's trust. The U.S. has been admitting mistakes and voluntarily paying compensation to victims of collateral damage since Afghanistan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites