posted on March 29, 2003 02:52:08 PM new
There's a WWII movie that plays on TCM every so often with Cary Grant in it. He's the commander of a U.S. sub, I think. There's not much memorable about this movie, except for one line Cary delivers, sort of casually, making conversation with other guys on the sub with him, he says something like this:
You know, there's no word in the Japanese language for "love," between a man and a woman, not the way that we use the word, there's just no concept of that for them."
I don't have to know anything about Japanese culture then or now to know that's total B.S. All people are basically alike, here, there, past, now.
If you think that if the situations were reversed we'd be behaving better because we're different, you're deluding yourself. People aren't different.
No matter that we keep calling this a "liberation," I believe to Iraqis it looks like an "invasion." Choosing between the two, I'd say it's an invasion also.
If you were here, and a foreign army came into your country, what would you call it? I live in Georgia. If foreign guys came in to take over Georgia, they'd be invading. If Georgian National guard came out to repel the foreign army, how far would you want them to go to protect our sovereignty? If a bunch of Georgians, say people like me, decided to rise up against the Georgia National Guard to help tilt the battle to the side of the foreign guys, would you expect that the National Guard would consider me as much of an enemy as the foreign guys, and mow me down? Or wouldn't you want them to... should I be left to go about my business of insurgency against my own government, at the risk that I'd contribute to the victory of a foreign nation over my own?
If the U.S. was at risk of falling to a foreign power, would you want your army to fight as hard as it had to to prevent that? Or, if the measures to be taken required your army to fight from inside a hospital, would you say - Let our country fall into foreign hands, but don't fight from inside that hospital?
We're not different. Our situations are different, so it's easy enough to say - we're better, we're not doing that (whatever that is).
We're not doing that because we don't have to. If we had to, we'd be doing that, don't kid yourself.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:09:29 PM new
::And as I pointed out before, we started this war, knowing that it would involve this type of warfare with millions of innocent victims in Baghdad. Is it fair to fault only the soldier on the field? ::
Yes Helen, when Soldiers thaat are not under active attack start shelling their own citizens for leaving - It is absolutely fair and right and just to find fault in their action.
While you have carefully danced around the issue at hand you have still failed to come up with any justification for Iraqi soldies to kill their own people for trying to flee a battlefield.
I am asking a direct question, yes or no. Do you excuse Iraqi soldiers for ftargeting their own citizens for death as those civilian citizens attept to leave areas of impending battle?
posted on March 29, 2003 03:12:57 PM new
:: If a bunch of Georgians, say people like me, decided to rise up against the Georgia National Guard to help tilt the battle to the side of the foreign guys, would you expect that the National Guard would consider me as much of an enemy as the foreign guys, and mow me down?::
I would expect them to mow you down, if on the otherhand you packed up the family and decided to head for Florida I would expect them to let you go. I would be rather appalled as I am sure you would be if the guard stationed Hueys at the Georgia border and strafed every car that attempted to leave.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:29:03 PM new
Typical Helen statement. She see's no difference in any area between her government and Iraq's What a shame, how sad to be so very blind.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:32:37 PM new
If Georgia had decided that the foreign troops were vastly more well equipped than the defending forces were, and the Georgia National Guard's only hope to repel them was to use one of the few resources they outnumbered the other side with, what would you expect the Georgia National Guard to do?
How far would you want, or expect, your government to go to protect your National sovereignty? If the U.S. were being invaded, would you expect us to fight down to the last man?
I agree with Helen if she's saying that war is a dirty business where desperate ugly measures are used. That's an indictment of war, not a difference between us and them.
News tonight said around 2,500 which was a lot when I realized most of the local TV channels didn't announce it nor any of the local Newspapers.
America...RESPECT IT OR LEAVE IT.
Seems so many of the posters have forgotten just where their freedoms came from. I can accept it from the morons that scream "It's about the oil" because they may very well be just retarded but I thought some were a little brighter.
My mistake.
Amen,
A special thanks to Britain and Australia,
Reverend Colin
I agree with Helen if she's saying that war is a dirty business where desperate ugly measures are used. That's an indictment of war, not a difference between us and them.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:38:46 PM new
I don't have to tell lies about you Helen....your statements are here for all to read.
You watch the Iraq military using their own people as human shields, you see Saddam ordering his own people murdered, you read and know he tortures his own people and you see it the same as the way our government, our military treats others. It's just not true.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:40:10 PM new
::How far would you want, or expect, your government to go to protect your National sovereignty?::
What good is sovereignty if all the citizens are dead?
I expect my governement to protect its citizens, their freedom and their way of life, not to shoot unarmed civilians because they decided that maybe a battlefield was not where they wanted to spend Sunday afternoon.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:46:34 PM new
"Reverend" colin, why all the jabs? Anti-American, 'real' Americans, morons, retarded... all because you don't agree with something???
posted on March 29, 2003 03:48:14 PM new
I was watching CNN earlier, reports from one of these embedded reporters that the shallow graves of 9 American Marines had been found near Nasiryah (sp?) When we bury their guys, we do it with backhoes. A backhoe grave is a bit nicer than a shallow grave, but I think it's a nice gesture on either side, to take time to bury a foreign stranger as best you can. To be able to take the time to bury a stranger is a luxury you hope you'll be able to afford.
When the U.S. forces went into Nasiryah, they found what the news guy described as evidence that some of these Marines might have tried to take shelter in a civilian residence - U.S. army equipment, even letters from the back home.
It might be that the Marines had tried to escape into this residence, it might be that they were never there and their gear was stowed there later by the other side.
If the Marines had tried to take shelter in this residence... would that horrify you? Or would you say - people do what they feel they have to in war?
posted on March 29, 2003 03:52:24 PM new
donny - [i]You know, there's no word in the Japanese language for "love," between a man and a woman, not the way that we use the word, there's just no concept of that for them."
I don't have to know anything about Japanese culture then or now[/i]....
It was a MOVIE.....there's always been a word for love in the Japanese language. It's "ai", pronounced "i".
posted on March 29, 2003 03:56:00 PM new
"What good is sovereignty if all the citizens are dead?"
Well, that's the way I feel. Anything worth dying for is worth living for, and you wouldn't catch me out there defending squat. Let me know when it's over and I'll come out and swear that I'm thrilled that victory has come, I'll praise the victor loudly, just tell me who it is.
But I'm not a patriotic kind of guy while our country, and other countries, are full of patriots.
posted on March 29, 2003 03:56:25 PM new
::If the Marines had tried to take shelter in this residence... would that horrify you? Or would you say - people do what they feel they have to in war?::
Depends
If they took shelter in an abandoned home - I have no problem with it.
If they held unarmed residents in front of them to block the fire of the enemy, I have a problem.
Since you do not mention blood or bodies in the house, I assume the first to be true. If this was you attempt too equate US actions with the Iraqis shelling groups of civilians attempting to leave Bagdahd, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
posted on March 29, 2003 04:07:01 PM new
Hey Colin - Welcome back. GREAT pictures. I bet it was great to be around those who are supporting our troops and government.
posted on March 29, 2003 04:13:42 PM new
What you're really saying Linda, is that it's great not to be anti-American but a real American, and it's great not to be a moron or retarded.
posted on March 29, 2003 04:16:59 PM new
donny - I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding your statement.
"What good is sovereignty if all the citizens are dead?"
Well, that's the way I feel. Anything worth dying for is worth living for, and you wouldn't catch me out there defending squat. Let me know when it's over and I'll come out and swear that I'm thrilled that victory has come, I'll praise the victor loudly, just tell me who it is.
But I'm not a patriotic kind of guy while our country, and other countries, are full of patriots.
Are you saying you'd never defend your country? Are you saying if Iraq should win the war you'd come out and praise him loudly as the victor? A yes or no please, if at all possible.
I think I've missed something here..I sure hope so.
posted on March 29, 2003 04:23:05 PM new
I was just referring to colin's post where he implies people with different beliefs than him are all of the above. (I was trying to be a wise-cracker.)
posted on March 29, 2003 04:31:18 PM new
Thank you KD - Well....I agree with Colin. In my mind as in the majority of American's minds...we support our government our troops. We think we/they are just a little bit above the other countries in our humane behavior and how we treat our citizens and even our enemies.
I asked Helen questions that you'll notice she never answers from me or anyone. About how the Iraqi government is currently treating it's citizens. She is always very quick to be critical of EVERYTHING her country does, but will never say anything negative about the horrendous things that people like Saddam do, even to their own people. Even BEFORE the war/invasion.
While many of us see and will speak about our nations 'warts' at times....have you ever seen a post where she said ANYTHING she has ever liked about her country? Because if you have I'd enjoy reading it. This isn't only about this war.
posted on March 29, 2003 04:43:41 PM new
"Are you saying you'd never defend your country?"
I'm agreeing with - what use is sovereignty if all the citizens are dead, and I'm expanding that to - what use is my liberty to me if I'm dead. Would I defend the sovereignty of my nation to the point of dying for it? No. But, there are always plenty of people on both sides that don't hold that view, enough to gather up enough on both sides to have wars back past memory and probably far into the future.
"Are you saying if Iraq should win the war you'd come out and praise him loudly as the victor? A yes or no please, if at all possible."
Absolutely not, in my circumstances, because I'm an American and whichever way this war turns out, the sovereignty of our nation won't change, and my survival won't depend on declaring allegiance to one or the other.
However, if I was an Iraqi, I'd be praising Sadam while he was in power, and when the Americans took over I'd say - Thank goodness you're here!
posted on March 29, 2003 05:02:41 PM new
"If this was you attempt too equate US actions with the Iraqis shelling groups of civilians attempting to leave Bagdahd, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel."
No, the actions don't equate, and I say that's because the circumstances don't equate, not because of some inherent difference in the nobility of our warfare vs. the inherent innobility of the other sides. People are basically the same, the difference is in their circustanaces. Desperate times require desperate measures. When you're not desperate, you can afford to act better.
Now, maybe you or I wouldn't rush into a house full of civilians if we were under attack and we'd stand there and die rather than put an innocent in harm's way, or we'd never take advantage of an enemy's distraction to lob shells, no matter if the distraction was caused by our own defectors and they'd come at risk of dying as well.
If your circumstances are that you have few military, and many civilians, sticking to that script is not going to win. If winning means preserving as many people as possible, most wars would never take place. In fact, if that was what we'd consider "winning" in this situation, we wouldn't be there at all. More people will die today in Iraq, Americans, British, other coalition forces, Iraqi soldiers and civilians, than would have died today if this war weren't on.
We'll sacrifice their innocents, and they'll also sacrifice their innocents, to win. Because the goal is not to protect innocents, the goal is to win, and they're not automatically the same.
I have a dog. She's fat and pampered. I eat ice cream, she eats ice cream. I love this dog. Lots of people here love their pets. They mourn them, they dress them in outfits. We're a pet loving people.
In a country where there's famine, you don't find many dogs roaming the streets. People eat them. Does that mean Americans are inherently more dog loving than those other people? It means those other people are more desperate. These are the differences in circumstances that we pretend are differences in people.
posted on March 29, 2003 05:35:27 PM new
::Now, maybe you or I wouldn't rush into a house full of civilians if we were under attack and we'd stand there and die rather than put an innocent in harm's way::
You mentioned nothing about inhabitant of the house, as I said, since you mentioed no evidence of their presence at the time, I assumed they had already left. No blood, no bodies, no mention of them at all. Who was in harms way?
::we'd never take advantage of an enemy's distraction to lob shells, no matter if the distraction was caused by our own defectors and they'd come at risk of dying as well. ::
That's a nice theory Donny and a good picture except for one very large hole. Our soldiers were no where in the vicintity of Bagdahd to be distract by the shells that were lobbed into the groups of fleeing citizens. They were trying to leave before we got there so as not to be in harms way. Problem is that the Iraqi republican guard wants as many civilians in harms way as possible so as to give us a second thought about attacking them as well as to have bodies to point at and assign shame to us for their deaths.
posted on March 29, 2003 05:39:36 PM new
donny - Thanks for answering honestly.
We'll sacrifice their innocents, and they'll also sacrifice their innocents, to win. Because the goal is not to protect innocents, the goal is to win, and they're not automatically the same.
If the goal were **only** to win...American would have dropped a ton of bombs right in the center of Baghdad...and all the other cites. Issue dealt with. The reason it's being carried out this way is to avoid killing more civilians that is absolutely necessary. I'm surprised you don't see that.
what use is my liberty to me if I'm dead. Would I defend the sovereignty of my nation to the point of dying for it? No. But, there are always plenty of people on both sides that don't hold that view, enough to gather up enough on both sides to have wars back past memory and probably far into the future. Lucky for you and your that others are willing/have been willing to die defending our nation. For me, I see it if all people felt as you do, we'd have been speaking German now. I thank my God everyday for the soldiers who were willing, and are willing, to place their lives on the line to die for, all the following generations that follow and have continued to enjoy our way of life.
No, the actions don't equate, and I say that's because the circumstances don't equate, not because of some inherent difference in the nobility of our warfare vs. the inherent innobility of the other sides. People are basically the same, the difference is in their circustanaces. Desperate times require desperate measures. When you're not desperate, you can afford to act better. I feel differently here too, people aren't basically the same. Some people are serial murders, some never kill. Broad brush there. Same with different countries. I feel America IS more nobile than nations with rulers like Saddam. And I really believe this is, in part, a difference that comes about from believing there is right and wrong. Good and evil. There have been many people who have been desperate, who would never choose to steal, kill, or etc....others in order to survive. To me it's one's 'moral beliefs'. Nor speaking religious moral beliefs here...must moral in general.
Thank you KD - Well....I agree with Colin. In my mind as in the majority of American's minds...we support our government our troops. We think we/they are just a little bit above the other countries in our humane behavior and how we treat our citizens and even our enemies. I asked Helen questions that you'll notice she never answers from me or anyone. About how the Iraqi government is currently treating it's citizens. She is always very quick to be critical of EVERYTHING her country does, but will never say anything negative about the horrendous things that people like Saddam do, even to their own people. Even BEFORE the war/invasion. While many of us see and will speak about our nations 'warts' at times....have you ever seen a post where she said ANYTHING she has ever liked about her country? Because if you have I'd enjoy reading it. This isn't only about this war.
Linda
Linda, you seem very angry and upset. Am I your topic now??? As you sometimes say, "a yes or a no if at all possible".
The first post that I made to this board was about Gore's concession speech in 2000. Since that election debacle I have found NOTHING to praise about the Bush administration.
Dislike of our current administration does not indicate that I am anti-American. You make the illogical assumption that my allegiance to the country changes as the party in office changes.
