The War in Iraq, good or bad? speak your mind here!
- Thread starter Gunwing
- Start date
- Status
Jack said:
You do realize that my personal hypocrisy (or lack thereof) does nothing to invalidate the question itself, right? It's a red herring.
Your response also totally ignores the question which is: why aren't we all concerned with eliminating dictatorships around the world?
I suspect the answer is: we don't want to be bothered. I believe that there are many people who honestly oppose the war, certainly. I also believe there is a strong undercurrent of "we don't want to do anything and we don't want to have to face any awkward questions by others if they do something either. Better to try to make sure no one does anything."
Upvote
0
I know this thread is about Iraq, but there was no way we were going to win the war with just defending South Vietnam. General MacArthur said that he could take an armored division and take Hanoi in a week, and I think he was right. If we had taken an offensive action and actually invaded North Vietnam, the US and South Vietnamese might have been able to defeat them. Increased bombing raids would knock them into submission. Just look at how effective Linebacker II was. If we had kept up with the bombing raids and invaded North Vietnam, we may have won the war.Zeddifoul said:
Upvote
0
Spade said:
Fine, replace 'argument' with 'opinion' in my post. Now answer the question, please.
I'm genuinely sorry for you, having spent 4 years of your life doing that. I sincerely hope that you didn't inhale too much depleted uranium and that your psyche came out relatively unharmed.
However, your experience there does nothing to improve your objectivity about these issues. I would say that it's rather the opposite. Sure, I'm sitting here in my chair very far from any form of armed conflict, but this provides me with the chance to collect much more information, from different sides and sources, than I would be able to if I were a soldier fighting in Iraq. I'm also not personally involved in the way that you are, and thus I'm more free to form my opinion. I'm not driven by fear, patriotism or affected by hatred and other clouding emotions due to friends being killed and so on.
What your country is doing, and what you participated in, is nothing but state-terrorism. Sorry. Having an uniform and getting paid does not make you any better than the guy strapping explosives to his own body and speeding his car towards some checkpoint or roadblock.
Upvote
0
I first started to not like the external politics of US during the first Gulf War when one official (think was Collins Powel but I'm maybe wrong) categorized the iraqian civilian victims as "collateral damage". What an ugly word for some innocent lifes! On CNN and other media you can see over all the "collateral damage" attribute! When US civilian are dead they are heroes but when you kill opponents civilians are just "collateral damage". Both are heroes.
At this point you can see how much they care about humaniatrian aspects.
I'm sure that most of the american peoples have big hearts and would do a lot to help other peoples and this is exactly why the US goverment is trying to convince them that the war in Iraq is kind of "humaniarian war".
Personally, I don't really care as much as is not affecting me in an unpleasant way. I am not the militant guy nor the soldier guy. But I don't like when the people try to talk to me like i'm an idiot or they beg for respect 'cause they are "soldiers" (actually they should be somehow ashame folllowing such orders).
At this point you can see how much they care about humaniatrian aspects.
I'm sure that most of the american peoples have big hearts and would do a lot to help other peoples and this is exactly why the US goverment is trying to convince them that the war in Iraq is kind of "humaniarian war".
Personally, I don't really care as much as is not affecting me in an unpleasant way. I am not the militant guy nor the soldier guy. But I don't like when the people try to talk to me like i'm an idiot or they beg for respect 'cause they are "soldiers" (actually they should be somehow ashame folllowing such orders).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
hachichin said:
That is exactly the kind of post that is going to get this topic locked.
If you must post over the top hyperbole like this, I would suggest a healthy sprinkling of "in my opinion" and "I could be wrong about this, but...".
Please tone it down in the future.
Upvote
0
radix said:
"Collateral damage" is a term that's been in use since the Vietnam war, along with "friendly fire".
If you care to suggest another term, then please do. A rose by any other name.
I think you are being a bit judgemental to come to the conclusion that "they" don't care about humanitarian aspects by the use of this word, but that's just me.
Upvote
0
I'm interested in how Dingbat, being Canadian, could have held his opinion for as long as he had. Without a single person saying he was 'blinded by propaganda' if they thought he was an American. I find it incredibly hard to have an opinion without someone say its been affected by propaganda. Considering how often we watch TV and how we are on the internet all the time. Its hard NOT to be affected by propaganda in some way.
A soldier in Iraq would have just as much valid opinion as you in the matter as any expert. Considering the war is not even OVER and information is still being either discovered or withheld. That's not even to say your already preformed opinion whether or not you watched a few programs about the war in Iraq.
Upvote
0
I'm against the war in Iraq.
It all has to do how I think about life and our purpose on this planet.
I happen to believe we all choose our global fate before we were born. Some call it karma, eventually leading to spiritual growth.
From this point of view I daily try to tell myself: "we all choose our own destiny, who are you to interfere with someone elses goal in this life". So judging others for their deeds becomes something ridiculous or at least something not very usefull.
The only difficult thing is: my main thoughts and feelings are still very down-to-earth (quite natural since I'm still living this earthly life). So when I see "injustice" (something I consider not right, others may find it very normal), I have the tendacy to act.
So in fact Iraq and other ethical issues still cause some internal conflict within me at first. When I contemplate about them a little bit longer I feel it's the natural order of things bound to happen.
There is only 1 thing you can trust: your feelings.
If something feels wrong, just don't do it.
Iraq feels wrong.
Enjoy life gents, Monk.
It all has to do how I think about life and our purpose on this planet.
I happen to believe we all choose our global fate before we were born. Some call it karma, eventually leading to spiritual growth.
From this point of view I daily try to tell myself: "we all choose our own destiny, who are you to interfere with someone elses goal in this life". So judging others for their deeds becomes something ridiculous or at least something not very usefull.
The only difficult thing is: my main thoughts and feelings are still very down-to-earth (quite natural since I'm still living this earthly life). So when I see "injustice" (something I consider not right, others may find it very normal), I have the tendacy to act.
So in fact Iraq and other ethical issues still cause some internal conflict within me at first. When I contemplate about them a little bit longer I feel it's the natural order of things bound to happen.
There is only 1 thing you can trust: your feelings.
If something feels wrong, just don't do it.
Iraq feels wrong.
Enjoy life gents, Monk.
Upvote
0
DingBat said:
Is this the term that US gov is describing their own civilian causalities? No. Why? Because is "unpersonating" (sorry about my very bad english) the victims. Collateral damage can suggest also a building, a facility or any other thing. Saying "civilian casualities" or something similiar cannot suggest something else and who want to recognise that a mistake it was made?
Anyway back ot. All my post can be ignored 'cause I am not a hystorian nor international politics expert.
I'm here just to have fun and play RO
Upvote
0
DingBat said:
Dingbat, with all due respect, I think you have taken your own argument in a circle
Your hypocrisy has everything to do with it, in so far as you are human being like the rest of us. You are not outside the equation anymore than the other citizens of your country, or of any country, and hence any hypocrisy is illustrative of what others that you critique may be marked by.
How does my response ignore the question? You ask why we aren't all doing more to stop despotism, and so I rehetorically ask then, "Yeah, so why aren't you doing more yourself?"
The idea is that there is a difference between encouraging the volunteering others for a cause, and volunteering yourself.
My central point is to consider yourself are like millions of others. Hence, you can see where others have reservations, which you did towards the end of your post. The fact that there are large portions of the population who do not desire to abandon their life for a certain cause says something about the feasibility of fighting for such a cause.
As I said earlier, no nation has ever done what you and others are speaking of, it is just not economically or socially viable.
A nation state has to watch out for its constituents. Domestic concerns should ultimately be of the highest priority, or else, why have a state to begin with? Does a state exist for the protection of the rest of the world?
Having said that, how adequately are the needs of the citizens of states such as the USA being met when resources are diverted to fighiting despotism abroad?
Was taking down Saddam worth the huge deficit, the higher cost of living, the death knell of medicare and social security, or any other things? Not to speak of the human cost, and of constrainst on civil liberties in the USA imposed by the regime in the name of upholding freedom?
If the USA was simply acting "in its best interest," whos interest is it really? The average citizen? On the other hand, lets make a list of who has clearly benefitted.
Granted, you cite how humantarian efforts have been underway in Iraq, which is good. But we must also recognize that truly good and selfless acts can arise anywhere, regardless of the circumstances.
What I mean is, the humanitarian efforts that take place within the midst of a conflict do not justifiy the conflict, it merely demonstrates that humans will always bring a bit of light even in darkness.
There is always a bit of light in the dark, and dark within the light. We have helped many Iraqis, but we have also killed over 34,000 of them at the same time.
You can make this dichotomy in all other aspects as well:
-We have brought political freedom to Iraqis, but also have almost ensured the country will be factionalized among three distinct lines, creating continuing political turmoil
-We have eliminated the terrible practices of Saddams regime, yet also had to make use of the same prisons, the same barbous methods that he used to keep order. Everything from Abu Graihib to employing balaclava clad "police" which are becoming implicated more and more with indiscriminately killing citizens of rival Muslim factions.
-We have supposedly eliminated a regime which could harbor and support terrorits...yet at the same time created a catylyst for furture terrorism by fueling Jihadists rationales through our invasion. Iraq has now become the hotspot for Jihadists, attracting them from outside the region, while the deaths from the war (and fears of future political persectuion, such as with the Sunnis) have persuaded many to join the insurgency.
-We have glavanzied our image as a nation that acts on its convictions...while also being internationally condemned for profiteering from the conflict and for human rights abuses.
The list goes on.
Upvote
0
"Collateral damage" is, as Radix pointed out, a term used to depersonalize civilian casualties. The US has always created such terms to downplay otherwise grotesque actions.
Along the same lines, "improvised explosive device" is just a fancy term for homemade bombs placed by the side of roads or in cars. The government doesn't want the American public to think that the majority of elite US troops' casualties are from homemade bombs. The terms "improvised explosive device" or, even better, "IED" make the weapon sound fancy. The US doesn't want the world to think that the mighty superpower is being hindered by chunks of explosives with a fuse attached to them.
Along the same lines, "improvised explosive device" is just a fancy term for homemade bombs placed by the side of roads or in cars. The government doesn't want the American public to think that the majority of elite US troops' casualties are from homemade bombs. The terms "improvised explosive device" or, even better, "IED" make the weapon sound fancy. The US doesn't want the world to think that the mighty superpower is being hindered by chunks of explosives with a fuse attached to them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jack said:
Here's what I don't get then: if not doing anything is the natural order of things, is this then why everyone is so pissed that the US actually went out and did something?
See, here I think we're getting close to the heart of the matter. Actually doing something has become a rarity in this day and age. Are we more upset with the US because of what they've done or simply because they've actually done it?
Let's set Iraq aside for a second. Take Rwanda. It's more difficult to argue that we shouldn't have done anything there, yet that's exactly what happened: nothing.
I suspect the international "peer pressure" these days is on not rocking the boat. Having the US do something is upsetting because it brings up this question of international responsibilities, something we'd all rather ignore.
Upvote
0
Zeddifoul said:
A small nit, but before you lay this on the door of the US alone, check what terms your local military and media use.
Again, I submit you are reading too much into this. The military has a five word phrase to describe a hammer, for god's sake. Yes, collateral damage is intentionally bland and neutral. Does it automatically imply an indifference to suffering? No.
Upvote
0
Sclass12 said:
ehem, excuse me but, Mcarthur?!? the same Mcaurthur that got fired during the Korean war? I think you mean General Westmoreland.
Upvote
0
Just to add, "Collateral Damage" has been around a lot longer than the last 2 Centuries...even if it had different names and excusatory descriptions at some point, it has nonetheless been around as long as we have.
Hell if you want to set the cat among the pigeons, wouldnt the Great Flood and destruction of nearly all life on Earth except for the few in the Ark be considered the ultimate example of collateral damage? Good job im not religious But im not picking on christian belief, just pointing out one single example from the hundreds you could easily find, biblical or "real" history...give it a try, you might be surprised how many historical events could be tied to it as well.
That doesnt necessarily make it right, and nor am i saying as such - but to call it a "US Invention" is being extremely blind to the realities of history stretching back centuries...i expect a lot of people doing the finger-pointing over it would be in for a few embarrassments if they checked their own country's past a little deeper.
Anyway carry on gents, please continue to keep it mature as it has been so far - this thread has had some good points argued, dont ruin it.
Hell if you want to set the cat among the pigeons, wouldnt the Great Flood and destruction of nearly all life on Earth except for the few in the Ark be considered the ultimate example of collateral damage? Good job im not religious
But im not picking on christian belief, just pointing out one single example from the hundreds you could easily find, biblical or "real" history...give it a try, you might be surprised how many historical events could be tied to it as well. That doesnt necessarily make it right, and nor am i saying as such - but to call it a "US Invention" is being extremely blind to the realities of history stretching back centuries...i expect a lot of people doing the finger-pointing over it would be in for a few embarrassments if they checked their own country's past a little deeper.
Anyway carry on gents, please continue to keep it mature as it has been so far - this thread has had some good points argued, dont ruin it.
Upvote
0
DingBat said:
I wasn't trying to imply that the US is the inventor or sole user of terms like "collateral damage." Of course every government has its own propaganda machine that creates such terms.
No, the term "collateral damage" doesn't automatically imply an indifference to suffering. But it does undermine the seriousness of the action for American people who hear it from the media. It's much easier for a government to gain support for a war when "civilian casualties" are replaced with "collateral damage." The use of terms such as "collateral damage" is effective in reducing the number of people who would be opposed to the war. That's why it has been in use for many years now (and by many countries).
Upvote
0
Yes, General Douglas MacArthur. He said this sometime in the early 60's.Mikhail Kalashnikov said:
Oh come on now, are you serious? This is the most ignorant thing you have said. You do not know the proper meaning of propaganda and you are just looking for anything to slam the government with. I have no idea how anyone can even see that as being propaganda.Zeddifoul said:
Upvote
0
Sclass12 said:
Definition:
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
Terms such as "collateral damage" are pieces of information that are used for the purpose of retaining supporters of the war. Therefore, it can be classified as propaganda.
Also, I wouldn't seriously consider anything MacArthur was saying in the '60s. He was full of terrible ideas by that time. He once wanted to drop multiple nuclear weapons on North Korea. This was before higher-ups decided he was a lunatic and removed him. He may have been a great military commander at one point, but I would take any advice he had for the Vietnam War with a grain of salt. Plus, we lost the war, so making predictions of how we could have won it is pointless.
And even if we had "won" the Vietnam War, we would have a situation like Iraq with constant rebel activity. I don't really consider that winning.
Upvote
0
- Status