posted on March 30, 2003 04:55:46 PM new
Neonmania, Iraq is one gigantic human shield.
We can demonize the Iraq government for using their civilians as cannon fodder, that's the message that's given to us, over and over, and it's easy for us to swallow. The other side is, we're also using their civilians as cannon fodder.
We're all demons, and I consider us to be the more cold-blooded of the two. When they're doing it now, there's mitigation in response to the desperation of their circumstances, the danger of losing their national sovereignty. But us doing it is 'at the time of our choosing,' for no immediate threat to our own nation.
(And I'll add here, if anyone thinks that the U.S., seeing civilians in the crossfire issues as order to cease fire, you're wrong. This question was asked of one of the British army guys at one of their press briefings, and he shuffled around a bit and hemmed and hawed, and said something like - well, we don't intentionally target civilians, but in the heat of battle, if they're in the way, things can't be helped.)
And I don't for a minute think that, if the situations were reversed, we wouldn't be doing the same thing. I could paste examples of U.S. government disregard for its own civilians and innocents, cavalierly carried out with very little mitigation of circumstances, although not in so dramatic a fashion. People suck, and we're all people.
Linda, are you going to address this:
"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."
How do you reconcile those views of morality in regards to the U.S. waging war on Iraq, remembering that our first justification for waging war on Iraq was our assertion that they were a threat to our safety?
We have chosen to kill others in order to survive, by our own reckoning. Is that moral, or not?
posted on March 30, 2003 04:58:21 PM new
::It's your answer that's naive, neon. When you take a soldier, remove his privilege to criticize and think so that he will follow orders, kill without flinching and then put him on a battlefield to make split second decisions under fire, I don't see how you can fault a guy under those circumstances no matter WHO his leader is for making a mistake. ::
They are not under fire from fleeing civilians Helen. Yes, I can fault the guy that lobs bombs into a group of the civilian population he is supposed to be protecting because they are trying to get out of harms way.
::People will sometimes make decisions that are not acceptable and mistakes that should be forgiven ::
~~~~~~~~
March 28 - OUTSIDE BASRA, Iraq (AFP) - Iraqi militia began shooting at civilians who were trying to flee the main southern city of Basra in their hundreds,
~~~~~~~~
March 29 -AP - Earlier in the day, the paramilitaries opened fire on civilians trying to flee the city.
~~~~~~~~
This is not mistake. This is a doctrie of behavior. Shooting people as they try to leave, shelling groups. Even humanitarian groups against the war have come out against these actions. Helen you may be very much against war but to deny that Saddams regime and his elite forces are anything but saddistic and brutal is closing your eyes to the truth.
posted on March 30, 2003 05:03:41 PM new
::"Donny, nope, not the Syrian bus, it was during one of my nights of insomnia, I was watching NBC and one of the reporters, (I want to say it was a woman on a phone but don't quote me on that ) talked about soldiers firing at groups of people attempting to leave the city.
You didn't know diddly squat about what really happened in this situation. If you want to argue about hypothetical issues then say so. ::
I think I was very clear there about what I was unsure bout - the details pertainin g to the specific reporter givng the report.
I thought I was being rather reasonable in my dicussion with you, why the harsh attitude?
posted on March 30, 2003 05:26:29 PM new
Interesting post, Donny. I read it a couple of times and have spent a bit of time reflecting on the points you made, especially the notion that both sides are using civilians as cannon fodder. I can agree with that if you are referring to what the coalition would call "collateral damage" as cannon fodder. The coalition says, "we're going to bomb military and strategic sites" but implicit in their message is that innocents will most certainly die. So in that way, civilians are used as cannon fodder. Of course a distinction can be made that the coalition is not intentionally targeting civilians but that distinction won't mean a whole lot to the families of the dead civilians.
However, I disagree with, "I consider us to be the more cold-blooded of the two."
I guess it comes down to how one defines cold-blooded but I consider shooting your own people in the back as they try to escape a war zone about as cold-blooded as it gets.
posted on March 30, 2003 05:41:26 PM new
::Neonmania, Iraq is one gigantic human shield. ::
Perhaps you should research the definition of that phrase considering the definition you seem to apply to it below.
::We can demonize the Iraq government for using their civilians as cannon fodder, that's the message that's given to us, over and over, and it's easy for us to swallow. The other side is, we're also using their civilians as cannon fodder.::
There are taking specific aim at civilians and killing them.
We are literally dying trying to protect them. How many of our soldiers are now dead because they did not take aim on indivuals dressed in civilian garb that ended up being soldiers, or suicide bombers.
Not only are Iraqi forces taking aim at their civilians but their are taking action aimed at forcing us to do the same.
::And I'll add here, if anyone thinks that the U.S., seeing civilians in the crossfire issues as order to cease fire, you're wrong. This question was asked of one of the British army guys at one of their press briefings, and he shuffled around a bit and hemmed and hawed, and said something like - well, we don't intentionally target civilians, but in the heat of battle, if they're in the way, things can't be helped.) ::
Yes - if they are in the middle of an active battle they will become "colateral damage". Big difference from firing upon them specifically because they are trying to avoid being in the battlefield.
posted on March 30, 2003 05:45:47 PM new
::Briefly, You accused me of twisting your words...when in fact, I copied and pasted your words. ::
;Forget about it. I don't want to interrupt your and Linda's answer to donny above. ::
Ok - I answered, Now - you twice posted that I had no idea what the report I saw said when it was spelled out in clear and simple english that the fact that I was not sure of was the identity of the specific reporter. That seems to be a clear misrepresentation of my words.
posted on March 30, 2003 06:03:30 PM new
Yes, when we kill civilians it's "collateral damage," and when they kill civilians, they kill civilians. This is a distinction without much of a difference when you're a dead civilian, a matter of semantics of the most self-serving sort when we use it. I don't buy that, ever, and I especially don't buy it when we're in a war of "our choosing." They target them intentionally, and we target them... unintentionally, as peripheral to our larger objective.
One of the themes you hear most often is that this is a matter of Good versus Evil. When a poster like Helen tries to say that's not the proper framework, the mischaracterized reponse is that Helen is trying to say that the other side is Good. This puts a poster like Helen in a position that's indefensible.
I'd also say that Good versus Evil is not the proper framework. The proper framework is Evil versus Evil. In that context, the Iraqi regime is usually more Evil, but right now, we're more Evil. When we argue an Evil vs. Evil scenario, we're spinning our wheels... for 8 pages now
Once I saw a poster state that a view that went something like this - Liberals believe that all people are good. Since they have no concept of 'evil,' they allow evil to flourish, while good is in danger.
And my point is, at least from my perspective, that's an erroneous statement of a view. In simple terms, I do not believe people are inherently good. I believe people are inherently evil.
posted on March 30, 2003 06:42:29 PM new
"Yes, when we kill civilians it's "collateral damage," and when they kill civilians, they kill civilians. This is a distinction without much of a difference when you're a dead civilian..."
Pretty much exactly what I said.
"They target them intentionally, and we target them... unintentionally, as peripheral to our larger objective"
While I agree that to the dead civilians this distinction doesn't mean a whole lot, I can't just dismiss it as a matter of semantics. I am not convinced that coalition forces "intend" to target civilians and am quite convinced that the Iraqi military has. From where I sit, intention plays a big part when forming opinions.
"...the Iraqi regime is usually more Evil, but right now, we're more Evil."
Evil versus evil is not a characterization I would agree with, but then, I'm not predisposed to viewing people as inherently evil. For that reason you and I will always differ on certain points as we have no common frame of reference. I can counter your opinion that people are inherently evil by saying I believe the opposite but in the end have really done nothing to further the discussion. You think the coalition is more evil, I think Saddam's regime is more evil. Given how we view the world, I highly doubt either of us will convice the other to change his/her mind.
But then again, changing people's mind isn't why I post.
I would also add as an aside that Helen hasn't been put in a position that's indefensible. I'm not sure how thats even possible on a message board. She states an opinion and people either agree or not, either way its always defensible as her opinion - just my opinion
posted on March 30, 2003 07:07:56 PM new
I can't stay long - have auctions ending tonight.
Donny are you a pacifist? You did state 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.
------
Your statement We're all demons, and I consider us to be the more cold-blooded of the two....really saddens me. It's just inconceivable to me that an American can feel this way about their own country. And that you see people not as some are good and some are evil, but rather all are evil, is just something I can't begin to comprehend.
Then you hold the opinion that Helen is put in a tough place. [rolling eyes here] Not true, imo. She excuses behavior that is not the way people of conscience live by and it appears that you're in agreement with her. [all are evil]. The fact that you see no difference between the regime of Saddam's regime and the actions of your own government....just leave me speechless. [but I won't let that hold me back ]
You ask me: How do you reconcile those views of morality in regards to the U.S. waging war on Iraq, remembering that our first justification for waging war on Iraq was our assertion that they were a threat to our safety?
We have chosen to kill others in order to survive, by our own reckoning. Is that moral, or not.
I'm going to answer it this way, giving some of the reasons I feel we're more moral in our total actions. I do believe, with every cell in my body, our country is based on a more moral ground than the regime of Saddam. We are not a terrorist nation.
Our country is known for it's generosity to other nations. Even in times of war we think and do all we can to take care of the innocents...ie: providing food, water, medical aid. Do you think Saddam would do that for us? Hell...he won't even do it for his own people. We value the lives of others, he does not. Our government is not based on fear and dominance of it's own citizens. It's not killing its citizens, we don't have government sponsored rape squads that silence those who wave to somebody, cut their heads off, cut our their tongues. We don't torture our people. We enjoy many freedoms their people aren't going to know until they're free. These actions I see as evil and immoral.
On my justification for going to war with Iraq. America is beginning to wake up and see that ignoring the past actions of terrorists didn't change those actions, they only continued. They only got worse [9-11]. So the dilemma is do we do nothing or do we act proactively to minimize these threats to the best of our abilities. Our government has decided, the past three administrations, that Saddam threatens the stability [safety] of our country and the world. So...what to do. We've tried for 12 years to disarm this madman. It didn't work. That's a lot of chances and none changed anything. So...he's given a final warning....either show us you no longer have the weapons we KNOW you have, or destroy them. He doesn't do either. HIS choice....can't lay the blame on anyone but him,imo.
Moral dilemma is if we go to war there are going to be lives lost, on both sides. To do nothing allows the threat to grow and spread. To show weakness encourages their resolve.
So a choice is made by a leader who is commander-in-chief. He makes the final call after hearing all sides of the debate....As have all presidents before him.
Does any one want war? No....but sometimes it's necessary, for a lot of different reasons. Is taking pre-emptive action right? To many it is. That in NO way compares to Saddam's regime, army killing their own people for wanting to avoid war. Those, like you who say you aren't willing to fight for your liberty aren't shot by your government. And those who are defending your way of life, have volunteered to do so because they want to continue enjoying our form of government and their lives as we currently all do. They aren't selfish and only think of themselves....they're thinking off all of us...and future generations that will come. I honor them all. I respect them all and I hold them in VERY high esteem.
posted on March 30, 2003 07:11:47 PM new
neonmania - I see you get to see how Helen reacts when you don't agree with everything she says. Doesn't matter if you agree with 99.9% of what she says...the .01% you don't brings out another side of her personality.
--------------
Helen's post at 6:00:09PM I'm sure that was edited for grammar, spelling, typing error or to change word usage.
posted on March 30, 2003 07:34:46 PM new"neonmania - I see you get to see how Helen reacts when you don't agree with everything she says. Doesn't matter if you agree with 99.9% of what she says...the .01% you don't brings out another side of her personality."
Linda,
...the .01% brings out another side of her personality....Yes, it does, especially when the disagreement is laced with misinformation and insults. Otherwise, I'm probably less evil than you are. LOL!
posted on March 30, 2003 07:59:28 PM new
Helen
I'm sure I'm not even on your compass!
the .01% brings out another side of her personality....Yes, it does, especially when the disagreement is laced with misinformation and insults. Otherwise, I'm probably less evil than you are. LOL!
Who insulted whom, when kraftdinner asked ME 'what are you thinking?' and your post to her was 'Thinking?' LOL
Thats not an insult? where was the misinformation?
When it suits you.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 30, 2003 08:19:46 PM new
The idea that people are inherently evil is a real eye opener for me...minute by minute. I feel like I've been born again.
posted on March 30, 2003 08:43:58 PM new
Helen, you can step down from the witness stand but you may be called upon again tomorrow. Don't forget, you're under oath.
posted on March 30, 2003 09:46:06 PM new
copy and paste and all you like, go back years... but make sure you have what you had said to me, right before it. I don't go out intentionally insulting anyone, including you. Well then again, you edit your comments so much, that probably won't work
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 30, 2003 10:07:49 PM new
Yes, I generally do that too. Now, I see insults in threads in which I haven't posted so I'm just following the trend of everyone else, including you.
I don't hold grudges and I've forgotten an insult a few seconds after it's directed to me.
About edit. I don't mind edits like some people do. I edit whenever I feel it's appropriate...usually to correct a typo or ubb that doesn't work.
Remember the time you edited an entire thread? LOL! I did that once too.
Helen
ed. hahaha
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 30, 2003 10:09 PM ]
posted on March 30, 2003 10:39:53 PM new
edited an entire thread.... no I don't remember that. Was it interesting? as you archive everything don't you? You must have a library of CD-R's
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 31, 2003 01:07:13 AM new
Getting back to the topic. Have none of you been to the Christian Rapture Ready Message Board? http://www.rr-bb.com They have 7099 members, and the place is always jumping.
If you want to know how born again's view the world and current events in association with prophesy this is a good place. But, I have to warn you, you'll either laugh your butt off, or get skeered silly.
Start at "End Time Chat"! Here's a couple of threads for your reading pleasure, "What happens when you go missing?", and "Tribulation and Christian Sacrifice."
posted on March 31, 2003 08:18:36 AM new
chococake,
The site seems to prove my theory about lonely people needing a group to support a cause.
Makes little difference what the cause, Religion, Ideology, Race, Culture. It's really all the same. The same rhetoric with the subject matter being changed...sometimes.
posted on March 31, 2003 08:34:15 AM newWe have chosen to kill others in order to survive, by our own reckoning. Is that moral, or not?
donny, by whose morals are you equating this to?
Everybody on this planet has a different set of morals and values they use everyday, to try to use morality as a justification to allow people to die at the hands of terrorists is not a well thought out excuse.
Morals really have no play in survival, that is as basic an insticnt as you can get, anyone not willing to do something to survive, is not using morals for a justification, but a lack of fortitude and self-worth.
Look at the Iraqis still fighting, that is only a will to survive, but to kill their own people is like the hijacker who kills all the hostages because he doesn't get what he wants...
They have no justification for it, only a sad commentary of "If they won't support me, they die" attitude.
That is the attitude of a dying animal...
You have called us invaders, in a sense I can agree to that, but at what cost are you willing to go to slow/stop terrorism from happening on US soil again?
As Linda pointed out we have helped, protected or given aid to most coutries on this planet, our time in need was ignored by these same countries, so when we now decide to protect ourselves and eventually others, we are labeled "evil" hardly, we should be labeld "just".
posted on March 31, 2003 09:43:36 AM new
Hussein is no more "evil" than Bush; the atrocities committed by Hussein are no worse than the atrocities committed by the Bush administration; people are treated no worse in Iraq than they are treated in America.
In essence, America is just as "evil" as Iraq.
What a load of rubbish.
This topic is 9 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new
And I'll add here, if anyone thinks that the U.S., seeing civilians in the crossfire issues as order to cease fire, you're wrong. This question was asked of one of the British army guys at one of their press briefings, and he shuffled around a bit and hemmed and hawed, and said something like - well, we don't intentionally target civilians, but in the heat of battle, if they're in the way, things can't be helped.) ::
]
