An unleashing of mega-violence by an Empire upon a people who were no threat to them. Zero.
A unilateral assault by the United State of America on a small nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, that in fact despised and were threatened by the Saudi fundamentalists that perpetrated 9/11 just as much as us.
No, what happened in Iraq was no war.
It was a crime.
And if the United States weren’t the armed to the teeth and the economic bully of the world, we would be held accountable.
If you had any doubts whether this was a “war” or something else, all you had to do was watch the sad spectacle of the new leader of our Empire standing up there ALONE declaring “war is over.”
News flash: it takes two side to have a war. Where was the “enemy?”
No surrender, no peace treaty or armistice, no enemy bowing before us — or alternately if they had won preening and primping in victory.
The second clue this was not a war is that you cannot end a war by unilaterally stopping. That's how you end an invasion or attack, not a war.
A war ends when someone wins or loses. If we won, what did we win? Who did we defeat? Where are they?
In fact trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dead later we lost by creating a nation where none before existed now open for business for violence, tribalism, lawlessness, fundamentalist extremists, and now full of people who hate us to the core and would most certainly harm us if they could.
A war ends when two sides make moves or come to terms.
An attack ends when the rapist stops raping, the murderer stops murdering, the bully stops bullying, or in this case when an Empire who cannot even admit it is an Empire tires of beating a tiny nation to a pulp.
The third clue that this was an invasion, an attack by an Empire, not a war, is the decision of the Emperor that the other side “doesn’t count.”
Evil genius!
No more guilt over innocent people’s brains blow out, arms and legs flying across the street into someone’s yard, children incinerated as they slept, babies dead in a dead mother’s arms. Simply decide they “don’t count.” By not counting them.
Our “war president” a guy who will go down in the annals of history with other stupid, violent, rulers of empires as a tragic character, who decided in his insanity that the way to deal with our slaughter was to pretend it doesn’t exist.
And we, the people of Empire, went along with it.
They do not count. But our people do.
We know the names and numbers of the 9/11 victims 2,997.
We know the names and number of our own troops killed: 4,484 in Iraq.
We know the names of number of those killed in the chaotic carnage of Vietnam, of World War II, and World War I, the Korean War, the Spanish-American conflict, the Civil War, and even the Revolutionary War.
We know how many were killed in the Titanic, roughly how many Jews were lost, how many people were gassed by Saddam, how many have been slaughtered in Syria.
Those people count, so we try to count them.
But in Iraq the most technologically-advanced, wealthiest Empire there ever was claims we have no clue or estimate as to the number of Iraqis killed. Umm, killed by us.
The lowest estimate I could find for civilians alone was 100,000, the highest, 1,000,000.
Killed for our benefit, or more accurately our collective delusion we are in a “war.”
And do the good People of Empire clamor for this accounting, to make sure that Iraqis “count” as much as people from Brooklyn or Oakland or Chapel Hill?
No.
It’s not too late.
We need to count the bodies: those killed in our name. Iraqis are human beings too. They count. Count them.
We need to apologize for the invasion, the attack, the killing, the slaughter, the ruin of a civilization that we might not have liked, but was not our toy to blow up when we tired of it.
We need to make reparations to the Iraqi people even if it means we go without at a very, very difficult time. We need to make them whole, even if it means our own ruin.
We need to hold our leaders accountable for the dead, the tortured, and any war crimes.
We need to hold accountable any of our troops or contractors who killed or destroyed wantonly.
We need to admit to the world we were wrong and ask for help in changing our ways.
Our troops that have returned from this terrible errand need to be take care of, and apologized to, including the families of the dead.
Of course we are going to do none of this.
We’re the Empire of Delusion.
Our conservatives declare their mental illness by wanting to leave more troops to defend freedom and fight terrorists and keep Iraq from failing.
Seek help immediately, FOX and friends.
From America you can see a violent failed state where people are having their heads cut off and terrorists are in charge. Stand in El Paso with binoculars and look over the river to Juarez. Invade them and see how that goes.
And my fellow liberals, those of us who had an “anti-war” movement because we did not have the balls to have a “stop the war” movement, we can be so sad about all this, but in the end we accept it.
We're so sad, we will be booking flights on jets filled with thousands of gallons of oil presented to us as plunder of our violence around the world, and our violence against the planet.
I’m so sad about “the war,” but I am the special me, after all. Excuse me while I use the fruits of Empire to make myself happy.
That’s what Empires do: invade, attack, pillage, plunder, get, consume, dominate. For the people. For the common good. For prosperity. For peace.
And then deny deny deny. Disown: I am a good Roman. I am a good German. I am a good American. I'd stop it if I could.
Excuse me I have to watch get my nachos and watch the Lions.
Empires have always been this way. And all their people, those lusty for empire, and those sad about it, live a good life, or at least a life better then the ones they pillage and plunder and brutalize.
Warning: when the Empire begins to crack, chickens come home.
The dogs of war we let fly around the world, the crazed machine of war and might and brutality and control, is unleashed on its own people.
After all, they might be terrorists.
Then there is the sad fact that Iraq is not a democracy after all the needless deaths and billions wasted for the past 8 years. It's especially bad for women.
Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, joins us to discuss the impact of the nearly nine-year U.S. occupation, particularly on Iraqi women. "The Iraqi cities are now much more destroyed than they were, I would say, like five years ago," Mohammed says. "In the same time, we have turned to a society of 99 percent poor and 1 percent rich, due to the policies that were imposed in Iraq." Mohammed decries the repression of Iraqi protesters that joined the Arab Spring in a February 25th action. "The women are the biggest loser in all of this. We went to the Iraqi squares. We demonstrated. The Arab Spring was there very strongly but got oppressed in ways that were new to Iraqi people. Anti-riot police of the American style was something that we witnessed there... This is not a democratic country." [includes rush transcript]
And "As David Letterman pointed out, we might tell the last American troops leaving Iraq this month to turn out the lights, but that isn’t necessary since there’s no electricity."
Goodbye, Iraq Robert Dreyfuss on December 12, 2011 - 10:42am ET
As David Letterman pointed out, we might tell the last American troops leaving Iraq this month to turn out the lights, but that isn’t necessary since there’s no electricity.
Today, President Obama meets Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to ceremonially mark the end of the war. After eight and half years, the United States is leaving behind a nation and a society that has been utterly devastated by the misguided and illegal war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and an entire generation of children is scarred and traumatized. Iraq’s infrastructure and its industry were destroyed. And in place of Saddam Hussein is Maliki, a religious Shiite fundamentalist with close ties to Iran who is fast building an authoritarian regime.
But that’s not good enough for neoconservatives and many Republicans, who want to expand and continue the war and the American presence.
As the Washington Post reported over the weekend, Iraqis don’t exactly have fond feelings for the United States. The legacy of sectarian and ethnic massacres and mass killings by US forces lingers. The Post’s article, “Civilian killings created insurmountable hurdle to extended U.S. troop presence in Iraq,” highlighted the horrific massacre at Haditha, where US Marines shot and killed nineteen civilians, including ten women and children, in a frenzy of savagery. Reports the Post:
On those facts, U.S. and Iraqi accounts agree. On just about everything else—why it happened, whether it was justified and how it was resolved—they do not.
And in those dueling perceptions, over the killings in Haditha and others nationwide, lay the undoing of the U.S. military’s hopes of maintaining a long-term presence here. When it came to deciding the future of American troops in Iraq, the irreconcilable difference that stood in the way of an agreement was a demand by Iraqi politicians for an end to the grant of immunity that has protected on-duty U.S. soldiers from Iraqi courts.
In the Christian Science Monitor, describing the experiences of the Khafaji family, Scott Peterson reminds us of the almost unimaginable losses suffered by Iraqis, many of whom blame the United States for their trauma even if some of the deaths were caused by Iraqis, including the resistance:
Iraq’s fragile social fabric has been shredded by the kinds of bombings, killings, torture, and upheavals that afflicted so many like the Khafaji family—whether at the hands of Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda, Shiite militias, or US and Iraqi forces. While the US lost more than 4,500 soldiers—and spent nearly $1 trillion—the human toll on the Iraqi side is virtually unquantifiable and unimaginable, with estimates of the number of people who perished in the years of insurgency and sectarian civil war reaching into the hundreds of thousands.
Fred and Kim Kagan, in a Post op-ed, point out correctly that Maliki is aggrandizing power, rounding up Sunnis and supposed Baathists willy-nilly, while refusing to relinquish his hold on the defense and interior ministries. But they overstep by criticizing the Obama administration for not taking stronger action to try to shape Iraqi politics and security affairs to American liking:
Obama administration policy presumes that Maliki generally shares U.S. interests and will pursue them even without significant American assistance. Were that true, Maliki would aggressively protect American civilian and diplomatic personnel who have been threatened by the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and recently targeted to such a degree that the embassy has restricted their travel. He would direct security forces to act against Iranian-sponsored militias in Iraq. Rather than abstaining, he would have supported the Arab League’s vote to suspend Syrian membership. He would see to it that Ali Mussa Daqduq, the Lebanese Hezbollah operative responsible for the execution of American soldiers in Karbala in 2007, is transferred to U.S. custody or tried in Iraq and punished for his crimes. He would appoint a permanent minister of defense and an interior minister acceptable to Parliament rather than concentrating those powers in his office.
Fact is, Maliki runs Iraq, not the United States. He’s there because the United States catapulted him and a bunch of other exiles, many linked to Iran, into power after 2003. There’s little or nothing that the United States can or should do to insert itself into Iraqi politics now. With luck, Iraqi nationalism will reassert itself vis-à-vis Iran, and Iraq will likely rely in the future on cash and investments and technology from Western countries and the Arab nations of the gulf. But if not, and if Iran begins to transform Iraq into a client state and ally, so be it.
The case of Daqduq is especially troubling, since many neocons and Republicans want Obama to sneak him out of the country and put him in Guantánamo, even though doing so would be illegal and a blatant violation of Iraq’s national sovereignty. But as the Times notes, it’s all political:
Republicans, however, are seeking to frame the withdrawal in different terms: that Mr. Obama endangered national security by pulling out of Iraq too soon, and that he should have persuaded the Iraqis to allow United States troops to stay beyond the deadline agreed to by the Bush administration three years ago. Elevating the profile of Mr. Daqduq and highlighting any unsatisfactory outcome to his case could bolster such efforts to cast Mr. Obama’s Iraq record in a negative light.
It’s time to celebrate the end of the war in Iraq, which did not go well. And to remind President Obama that it’s time to end the war in Afghanistan, too.
I would point out all the flaws in the "article" you posted, but seeing as how you utilize Michael Moore as a news source, a source mind you that is just as, if not MORE biased than Fox News, I'll spare myself the waste of time in trying to convince you.
It Was Never a War. It Was an Invasion and We Are the Empire.
What an awful title. Invasions happen in the course of war, and whether or not we are an empire has no bearing on whether or not we are engaging in warfare.
Oh man, some highly opinionated people are using sweeping generalizations to make another generalization based solely on their opinion. But they say America is an evil nation so they must be right.
Wars never "go well", soldiers are going to die and so are some civilians. When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
halonachos wrote:Oh man, some highly opinionated people are using sweeping generalizations to make another generalization based solely on their opinion. But they say America is an evil nation so they must be right.
I'm wondering whether you're the pot or the kettle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Yes, when the enemy hides behind the soldier/civilian distinction the civilian toll will rise.
mattyrm wrote: The article is so badly written it doesnt warrant a lengthy and intelligent response, so I shall simply say..
Hippy crap!
Agreed!
Albatross wrote:Though the Michael Moore article was appallingly written, the USA is an imperial power and its citizens need to make their peace with that.
well yes..personally I'm just waiting till we colonize europe
MTV is doing that nicely for us. Now if they loosen up some gun laws maybe their chavs will start offing each other off. Mustangs and Chargers though be a hard sell over there. Unless their old school muscle cars then you can sell 3 times more then what you can sell in the states
Let's be honest, the whole thing was a shambles from start to finish.
I read a good report about how the Iraqi army's main munitions dump was left unguarded for 4 months. Despite the pleas from locals to the US army, tonnes of high grade explosives went walkies in the middle of the night. Dozens of dodgy looking characters turned up on a day-to-day basis with their trucks, and just drove away with the stuff.
Weeks later, US troops started getting blown to bits from roadside bombs.
mattyrm wrote: The article is so badly written it doesnt warrant a lengthy and intelligent response, so I shall simply say..
Hippy crap!
Oh well, what's done is done. People said all the same things about Vietnam.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Though the Michael Moore article was appallingly written, the USA is an imperial power and its citizens need to make their peace with that.
Yeah, agreed. If you get over the fact that we ARE an imperial power, the conflicts abroad are much easier to digest. We aren't the same nation we were when the founding fathers said we would never be an aggressor.
Yeah, agreed. If you get over the fact that we ARE an imperial power, the conflicts abroad are much easier to digest. We aren't the same nation we were when the founding fathers said we would never be an aggressor.
True. The real question is, "How do you feel about that fact?"
Any and every country that gets influential enough will become imperialistic in some regards, because the interests of the country cannot be contained in merely the country alone in the age of globalization.
Yeah, agreed. If you get over the fact that we ARE an imperial power, the conflicts abroad are much easier to digest. We aren't the same nation we were when the founding fathers said we would never be an aggressor.
True. The real question is, "How do you feel about that fact?"
Sadly, for many Americans the answer seems to be 'Waaaaa! They're saying mean things about us! Waaaaa! They're blowing us up! WHY DON"T THEY LOVE US AS MUCH ASWE LOVE OURSELVES!?'
Stuff like that. It's almost as if some people can't understand that torture, kidnapping, imprisonment without trial and almost constant military agression towards weaker countries for half a century might invite criticism...
EDIT: Felt that 'many' was more accurate than 'most', on reflection.
Jihadin wrote:How soon before the world economy tanks?
Depends on how hard Europe feths itself up (we all know they're going to, it's just a matter of degree) and if the republicans continue to try to drive the US economy into the ground with their budget scares.
Yeah, agreed. If you get over the fact that we ARE an imperial power, the conflicts abroad are much easier to digest. We aren't the same nation we were when the founding fathers said we would never be an aggressor.
True. The real question is, "How do you feel about that fact?"
I don't see why this would give anyone any pause!
I'm a staunch imperial and a classic movie villain though, so it might just be me.
I would happily destroy an entire planet just to upset Princess Leah for example.
I might sound incredibly nerdy, and I'm probably going to get major hate for this, but first off, you utilize incredibly biased articles to make us believe you. Part of making a good summary is to use information that is unbiased and other sources that are biased both ways.
Second, lots of wars are sparked by invasion. The Carthaginian War, for example, was caused by invasion.
Third, I wouldn't call the war in Iraq an invasion. Invasions are where you aim to take over land via violent means. Seeing as American troops are now being shipped out, and there is no US land in Iraq, they clearly haven't invaded.
Finally, since when has the US been an empire?
halonachos wrote:When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Just to play devils advocate: what other option did they have?
If you think of the US in terms of the schoolyard bully, they are an eighteen year old thug picking on pre- schoolers. Fighting the US conventionally is suicide. War is no longer chivalric or fair. When the enemy can kill you in various ways accurately and from great distances with overwhelming force, you are left no option but to adopt guerilla tactics...
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Finally, since when has the US been an empire?
I may be mistaken but I believe it was just after the Spanish-American War that America gained some of its first (major at least) colonies...
My guess is that when people say "America is an empire" they don't mean in the tradtional sense such as the Roman empire or the British empire where the state either conquered lands and absorbed them into their states or established colonies dedicated to the commonwealth everywhere...
But America now has the power to be practically everywhere at once...we have bases all over the world, our navies patrol not only our waters but ever sea and ocean over the globe...and we take upon "improving" other smaller third world nations as a hobby...
so in that respect there a several people who think America is an Empire of sorts...
If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc
Their vision is to secure and maintain America's position as the dominant world power, and the best possible financial circumstance for those citizens within it who possess most of the money and power. Like most Empire's to be honest.
America just uses financial colonialism in 90% of the cases as opposed to military colonialism.
America will cease to be the global dominator eventually though, historical trends seem to portray that much with relative certainty.
Never bought the cheap oil argument - plenty of oil in Alaska.
One of the good things about the rise of China is that it might provoke a reaction in the West i.e China is totalitarian, so we'll be a counterweight and let our citizens have loads of freedoms to shame China I live in hope.
Any and every country that gets influential enough will become imperialistic in some regards, because the interests of the country cannot be contained in merely the country alone in the age of globalization.
Oh god melissia, you explained it perfectly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If the USA is an Empire, and I believe it is, then what is their vision? The British had the dream of the Cape to Cairo railway, sun never sets, make the world England etc
To spread Democracy... right? I think we've done an alright job too. Russia, India, Japan, germany... Countries that were infamous for their despotic kings and rulers are democracies.
Although after every single country is a democracy, I can imagine the world would be a pretty boring place, so we'll probably have to change that goal.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Finally, since when has the US been an empire?
I may be mistaken but I believe it was just after the Spanish-American War that America gained some of its first (major at least) colonies...
What I mean is that an empire is a group of countries under one single ruling body. The seperate states could count I suppose.
That's a Federation/Confederacy, like the EU. It's just grown into more of a single nation over the years, instead of a group of allied but largely independent states.
The US isn't properly an empire; it meddles in certain issues, but that's politics, not imperialism.
And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.
Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.
"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.
Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."
You have to admit that if the Iraq War was a response to 9/11, then the balance sheet looks a bit rubbish.
3000 American lives lost on 9/11
Over 5000 Allied lives lost in the Iraq War as part of the response.
Well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives lost either during the war or the the power vacumn that followed with suicide bombings on the like.
You surely don't have to be an anti-war hippy type person to see the insanity of it all?
I'll be honest and say I was pro Iraq War prior to the invasion because I thought the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good idea (I never believed any of the WMD nonsense - Saddam probably did have them at some point but I never felt threatened by their existence). 8 years down the road, I can see what a catastrophic doo daa the whole shebang has become and will never support a war of its like again.
With apologies to those on Dakka who fought in these conflicts. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, but I can no longer rationalise in my mind that this or Afghanistan was/is a good idea.
Honestly, Brass Scorpion, we get it. You dislike the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is over. Using a soldier's death to make try to make cheap political point in a forum dedicated to toy soldiers is childish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote:You have to admit that if the Iraq War was a response to 9/11, then the balance sheet looks a bit rubbish.
3000 American lives lost on 9/11
Over 5000 Allied lives lost in the Iraq War as part of the response.
Well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives lost either during the war or the the power vacumn that followed with suicide bombings on the like.
You surely don't have to be an anti-war hippy type person to see the insanity of it all?
I'll be honest and say I was pro Iraq War prior to the invasion because I thought the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good idea (I never believed any of the WMD nonsense - Saddam probably did have them at some point but I never felt threatened by their existence). 8 years down the road, I can see what a catastrophic doo daa the whole shebang has become and will never support a war of its like again.
With apologies to those on Dakka who fought in these conflicts. I have the utmost respect for our armed forces, but I can no longer rationalise in my mind that this or Afghanistan was/is a good idea.
I can respect that opinion. Was the Iraq War worth it? I don't know. Time will tell. Was Americas entry into World War II (at least on the European Front) worth it? The fact that Western Europe is today an economic powerhouse and bastion of democracy instead of suffering 50 years of Communist rule seems to indicate that it was. IF (and it's a big IF) ten years from now Iraq continues to be a democracy and life is improving for the Iraqi people then I will say that yes, it was worth it.
halonachos wrote:Wars never "go well", soldiers are going to die and so are some civilians. When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Exactley. War is horrible, and can be a nesscessary evil sometimes, and civillians will die.
BrassScorpion wrote:And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.
Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.
"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.
Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."
It's fine that you express your view, but please don't force us into agreeing with you. It makes things far worse.
The Iraq War is like the perfect Rorschach inkblot test. Stare into it and tell me why you believe it happened, and it'll say everything about you and your politics.
If you see an empire embarking on its latest conquest, well that says a lot about your politics, and very little about the actual reasons for the Iraq war.
If you see a nation responding to an international threat, well that says a lot about your politics, and very little about the actual reasons for the Iraq war.
This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened. It was a bizarre, needless, ahistoric screw up by a select group of people that found themselves in control of the most powerful nation on Earth for a short period of time.
Which is pretty much how everything works. People coming to power for relatively short periods of time, sometimes doing good, sometimes doing bad, and just sometimes doing epically, horrendously bad. Seems like people like to pretend there are these great patterns to be found in one-off decisions, but I just don't think it works that way.
sebster wrote:
This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened.
To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.
What Flashman said is what I was trying to say. The whole thing was a tragedy from start to finish.
Saddam was a bad guy (obviously) but there are a lot of bad people in this world. Some get missles knocking on their door, others get diplomats and trade envoys looking for billion dollar/pound investments.
On a final note, it is possible to like ordinary Americans, but be against their government.
sebster wrote:
This is because the Iraq war was an utterly stupid, absurd enterprise undertaken for reasons that are almost impossible to fathom in the light of what eventually happened.
To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.
AMERICA: making the world a "better place" one carpet bombing at a time...
dogma wrote:To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.
Except that argument is, fundamentally, a nonsense. There is no great political desire in the US, in either in the population as a whole or in either major party to go about making other countries better places. No-one is getting into the Whitehouse with the intent of invading other countries and churning up American lives and treasure to make them better places for the people living there. Better places for trade with the US, sure, but that's a different matter entirely. Look at the political response to Libya, despite being entirely clean people were still scathing of any US involvement.
There were a whole bunch of reasons for Iraq. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and a whole bunch of others were writing about them for years before the invasion. It's just that none of them make any sense in the light of what followed the invasion. Democratic dominoes. Middle eastern re-awakenings. US political dominance developed through liberalisation. They all just seem ridiculous now, and to people who actually knew what they were talking about they were ridiculous at the time (I myself did not know how silly and impractical they were, and ended up in the 'wrong reason for a right war' camp).
But to people like the writer of the OP's article, there can't be any mistakes, ahistoric fuckups that buck the political sensibilities. Instead there's evidence of empire.
sebster wrote:The Iraq War is like the perfect Rorschach inkblot test. Stare into it and tell me why you believe it happened, and it'll say everything about you and your politics.
In that case, its interesting why you hold the opinion on it you do....
Moore's bitchings about new theocracy/women's rights in Iraq isn't the US' fault, it's the Iraqi peoples for choosing Islamist groups to democratically lead them.
In which case I wonder if he supported the "Arab Spring" against Mubarak. He actually is documented as doing so, despite the fact it has led to Islamists gaining power in Egypt. Basically he advocated the exact opposite as here.
dogma wrote:To be fair, this also says a great deal about your politics. Though perhaps less than those who defend the invasion as a legitimate response to security concerns, as very few people are willing to go that route. More common is the "We made Iraq a better place." argument.
Except that argument is, fundamentally, a nonsense. There is no great political desire in the US, in either in the population as a whole or in either major party to go about making other countries better places. No-one is getting into the Whitehouse with the intent of invading other countries and churning up American lives and treasure to make them better places for the people living there. Better places for trade with the US, sure, but that's a different matter entirely. Look at the political response to Libya, despite being entirely clean people were still scathing of any US involvement.
There were a whole bunch of reasons for Iraq. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and a whole bunch of others were writing about them for years before the invasion. It's just that none of them make any sense in the light of what followed the invasion. Democratic dominoes. Middle eastern re-awakenings. US political dominance developed through liberalisation. They all just seem ridiculous now, and to people who actually knew what they were talking about they were ridiculous at the time (I myself did not know how silly and impractical they were, and ended up in the 'wrong reason for a right war' camp).
But to people like the writer of the OP's article, there can't be any mistakes, ahistoric fuckups that buck the political sensibilities. Instead there's evidence of empire.
I disagree that there is not a great political desire in the US to go and make other countries better places. Liberals groups want to go into places like Darfur or humiliate the government of Turkey with the Armenian genocide. Conservatives want to go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nukes. We (Americans) have not learned anything because as a collective group Americans choose to remain willfully ignorant. This year alone we have been involved in 4 wars and have used military force to kill people in 5 nations.
Ketara wrote:In that case, its interesting why you hold the opinion on it you do....
Maybe, except my is 'it has no greater meaning beyond being something that made sense to the people who ended up in charge at that particular time and doesn't really reflect greater US trends' is a bit like saying 'it's just an ink smudge on the page'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:I disagree that there is not a great political desire in the US to go and make other countries better places. Liberals groups want to go into places like Darfur or humiliate the government of Turkey with the Armenian genocide. Conservatives want to go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nukes. We (Americans) have not learned anything because as a collective group Americans choose to remain willfully ignorant. This year alone we have been involved in 4 wars and have used military force to kill people in 5 nations.
Except of course, some guy on the street wanting the US government to ban shaving poodles doesn't really make it a
The fringe of the left wing does talk a lot about Darfur, but entirely in a rhetorical sense (if you're going to invade somewhere, why not Darfur?) The right wing talks about Iran in almost entirely fantastical terms (just nuke it!). None of these people actually have arguments put forward to congressmen, there are no lobby groups in Washington that are pushing invasion. Do you honestly believe any of them would genuinely support a sustained peacekeeping operation, and the US casualties that would be suffered?
The 00's were a strange time. You had a strange administration, in the wake of a generation defining terror attack. The invasion of a country that was pretty just sitting there being poor, isolated and disfunctional was the rather odd result of all that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:What Flashman said is what I was trying to say. The whole thing was a tragedy from start to finish.
Saddam was a bad guy (obviously) but there are a lot of bad people in this world. Some get missles knocking on their door, others get diplomats and trade envoys looking for billion dollar/pound investments.
On a final note, it is possible to like ordinary Americans, but be against their government.
The US is like that thing about the Imperium. There's good people in it, but as a whole it's a corrupt mess of a country.
sebster wrote:There is no great political desire in the US, in either in the population as a whole or in either major party to go about making other countries better places.
When sold as humanitarian actions American wars tend to see about 60-65% domestic approval. When sold as matters of national security, they see about 40-45% domestic approval, unless proceeded by an attack on Americans or America.
sebster wrote:
No-one is getting into the Whitehouse with the intent of invading other countries and churning up American lives and treasure to make them better places for the people living there.
Not if they explicitly say it during the campaign, no. But then, no one is getting into office by claiming they will engage in warfare of any kind. No legitimate candidate will speak directly to the idea of invading another nation, for any reason, as it pretty well just makes him a warmonger.
sebster wrote:
Look at the political response to Libya, despite being entirely clean people were still scathing of any US involvement.
That has more to do with the unpopularity of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent sense of isolationism that has crept back into US politics. Plus, as a Democrat who is highly unpopular with the Republican Party, Obama was unlikely to garner support from the supporters of the party that tends towards hawkishness.
sebster wrote:
But to people like the writer of the OP's article, there can't be any mistakes, ahistoric fuckups that buck the political sensibilities. Instead there's evidence of empire.
Empire is a euphemistic term in this case, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that we get into these situations, and make these mistakes, because we view ourselves as internationally unique due to our national history (exceptionalism) and position in terms f geopolitical power. In essence, we don't have an empire per se, but because we have such broad-based economic and political interests, we often exhibit behaviors that are reminiscent of one.
In essence, all nations makes ahistoric mistakes according to the the vagaries of the people in power, its just that when the US makes those mistakes it has a much greater chance of doing so on the other side of the world.
halonachos wrote:When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Just to play devils advocate: what other option did they have?
If you think of the US in terms of the schoolyard bully, they are an eighteen year old thug picking on pre- schoolers. Fighting the US conventionally is suicide. War is no longer chivalric or fair. When the enemy can kill you in various ways accurately and from great distances with overwhelming force, you are left no option but to adopt guerilla tactics...
If the U.S. the school yard bully you paint us to be, why would we care if you're hiding behind civilians?
Exactly right. I don't give a rats ass about Afghan civilians, we only take care not to kill any that don't deserve it because its a sure fire way to lose the war. Hearts and minds is the way forward, and because we are unwilling to commit mass genocide it really is the only way to win.
If you go around blowing up kids willy nilly, you create ten more fighters for every one you kill.
Its got absolutely nothing to do with us being jolly nice chaps!
Relapse wrote:
If the U.S. the school yard bully you paint us to be, why would we care if you're hiding behind civilians?
Because killing civilians tends to produce unfavorable outcomes when your goal is essentially creating a more sympathetic local populace.
We don't avoid killing civilians out of altruism.
Just to take an example, in Somalia when the troops went in to rescue the Blackhawk crews, the terrorists there were using civilians as human shields. This prevented our troops from firing several times because they were trying not to hurt civilians. If the U.S. Were as indifferent as is being said, this would certainly be an instance where the troops would have just blazed away indiscriminantly, as their own lives were on the line.
Relapse wrote:
Just to take an example, in Somalia when the troops went in to rescue the Blackhawk crews, the terrorists there were using civilians as human shields. This prevented our troops from firing several times because they were trying not to hurt civilians. If the U.S. Were as indifferent as is being said, this would certainly be an instance where the troops would have just blazed away indiscriminantly, as their own lives were on the line.
If they did that, then their careers would also be on the line.
Granted, self-preservation is a powerful instinct, but much of military training is about being able to maintain control in a fight or flight situation.
That being said, I'm sure that most US soldiers would be uncomfortable gunning down civilians, even on a purely moralistic level. The US, and the West as a whole, culturally frown on that sort of thing. However, that moral reaction doesn't necessarily extend to the upper echelons on the military and civilian apparatus due both to disconnection, and an emphasis on morally neutral analysis of possible outcomes.
Interestingly, this is a sort of role reversal given the origins of the civilian/combatant distinction, which was previously largely grounded in the desire of those in power to maintain the relative integrity of the people they intended to conquer. Serfs can't till the soil if they're dead.
The troops involved were trained not to kill civilians. That training came from programs approved by upper echilons.
Coupled with the fact the average soldier, as you say, is uncomfortable gunning down civilians, shows what a fallicy it is to say the U.S. Troops are representative of school yard Bullies as stated by CT Gamer
Relapse wrote:The troops involved were trained not to kill civilians. That training came from programs approved by upper echilons.
Sure, but that training wasn't provided because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians, It was provided because it is not expedient, politically or militarily, to kill civilians.
Relapse wrote:
Coupled with the fact the average soldier, as you say, is uncomfortable gunning down civilians, shows what a fallicy it is to say the U.S. Troops are representative of school yard as stated by CT Gamer
I think he was referring to the US as a whole, and the manner in which it uses its troops, though I generally agree with you.
Albatross wrote:... the USA is an imperial power and its citizens need to make their peace with that.
I'm at peace with it, personally.
I was watching a clip from your Remberance Day, with the Grenadier Guards Band playing Nimrod from Eldar's Enigma Variations at the Cenotaph. I thought, this little island established the largest empire that human history has ever known. It's an impressive thing. I won't dismiss the greed that partly drove it or the lives that paid for it. But it's a damn impressive thing.
As far as Iraq goes, how do you define terrorist or even insurgent? For example, I read a news feature about a taxi driver, who at the start of the invasion, sat on the fence. Unfortunately, his family were accidently killed by British troops in an airstrike, so he took up arms against them.
I doubt if this was an isolated example.
I suspect that there are very few people on this site who wouldn't have done the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Manchu. Part of the reason for that empire being established was that the people doing it were unashamed. Make the world England was their motto. America's problem is that they have an empire IMO, but either don't want to admit it, or lack the will to see it through. The problem with this halfway approach is that is effects the decision making process.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As far as Iraq goes, how do you define terrorist or even insurgent? For example, I read a news feature about a taxi driver, who at the start of the invasion, sat on the fence. Unfortunately, his family were accidently killed by British troops in an airstrike, so he took up arms against them.
I doubt if this was an isolated example.
I suspect that there are very few people on this site who wouldn't have done the same.
Did he blow up or kill people that were non military on purpose? Terrorist
Did he try to confine his attacks as much as possible to military personel? Insurgent
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Manchu. Part of the reason for that empire being established was that the people doing it were unashamed. Make the world England was their motto. America's problem is that they have an empire IMO, but either don't want to admit it, or lack the will to see it through. The problem with this halfway approach is that is effects the decision making process.
I dunno. It seems to me that it only directs the press. Americans love to talk gak about ourselves. We love worrying that Chinese kids do math better than us or that the someone might win more medals than us at the Olympics. Deep down, Americans are okay with having an empire whatever Michael Moore thinks. We also insist that it appear to be benign, at least to ourselves, which is why Michael Moore isn't even popular with leftists. We want you all to obey us because you like us, but in the end, obeying is more important. It's also different in that the American empire has grown up in the context of post-colonialism and as a former colony we're not as comfortable with outright empire along the British or even French models.
Long ago, I realised that there was little I could do to change the world for the better. The way I see it, the world was fine before I was here, and it'll be fine long after I'm gone. Forgive me if I'm being sentimental, but empires rise and fall, women will never change, and GW will still be over-charging. All you can do is eat drink and be merry.
Drunken rant over
halonachos wrote:When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Just to play devils advocate: what other option did they have?
Not being terrorists?
True.
But I was referring to tactics.
It is suicidal to fight US forces conventionally.
Also the hope is that civilian deaths will help you in a number of ways (bolster anti-US sentiment locally and nationally, etc.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
halonachos wrote:When the enemy decides to hide behind civilians, the civilian toll will rise.
Just to play devils advocate: what other option did they have?
If you think of the US in terms of the schoolyard bully, they are an eighteen year old thug picking on pre- schoolers. Fighting the US conventionally is suicide. War is no longer chivalric or fair. When the enemy can kill you in various ways accurately and from great distances with overwhelming force, you are left no option but to adopt guerilla tactics...
If the U.S. the school yard bully you paint us to be, why would we care if you're hiding behind civilians?
Because the war still has to be sold to the people and the global court of public opinion.
If it wasn't a factor we would do as Mattrym suggets he would prefer (kill them all)...
Those we are fighting know this fact, and try to use it for their benefit, which was my point. It makes no tactical sense to openly oppose US forces in a conventional way. Actual victories seem to have to be traded for sowing fear, confusion, creating political flack, draining resources, etc.
I find that it takes a certain person to put too much thought into civilian deaths. Most of the people I'm in direct contact with could give two gaks about how many civilians die. Not saying that civilian deaths are unimportant or that I agree. Any loss of life is terrible, American or not.
I love how plenty of Americans will boldly bash the military based on civilian deaths alone though.
AMERICA: making the world a "better place" one carpet bombing at a time...
Are you implying we carpet bombed cities in Iraq? I would sure like to see something to back that up.
Are you implying that everything said in a discussion by nerds in the off-topic section of a wargaming forum is too be taken literally, or that I stated it was fact instead of a figure of speech?
AMERICA: making the world a "better place" one carpet bombing at a time...
Are you implying we carpet bombed cities in Iraq? I would sure like to see something to back that up.
CT Gamer can't back it up. Like alot of people on this thread (myself included), our minds are made up and no amount of reasoned logical debate will change our minds. Human psychology is funny that way. One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.
EDIT - and then be willing to modify or completely reverse their views if the evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions.
AMERICA: making the world a "better place" one carpet bombing at a time...
Are you implying we carpet bombed cities in Iraq? I would sure like to see something to back that up.
CT Gamer can't back it up. Like alot of people on this thread (myself included), our minds are made up and no amount of reasoned logical debate will change our minds. Human psychology is funny that way. One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.
The "buzz term " that got thrown about as fact was "surgical strikes" and "precision bombing". The media had massive hard-ons for discussing how "smart" all the weapons being used were, etc., etc. no doubt fed all the right lanhuage by the military.
It seemed so exciting that we could be having such success destroying a countries military/infrastructure and yet supposedly very few civies were dying.
Plenty of research and reports exist that attempt to debunk the perception that our use of ordnance was as "smart" as we are meant to believe.
Did we carpet bomb in the traditional WWII sense?
Carpet bombing violates Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I which prohibits indiscriminatemulti- area bombing.
Any bombardment that treats a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located within a city as a single military objective is prohibited.
Basra and most of southern Iraq and Kuwait where Iraqi forces were deployed were treated by U.S. military planners as a single area they designated a "a low density target."
General Norman Schwarzkopf's order at the start of the ground war was "not to let anybody or anything out of Kuwait City."
The result of this order was what came to be known as the "Highway of Death."
In addition to retreating soldiers, many of whom had affixed white flags to their tanks which were clearly visible to U.S. pilots, thousands of civilians, especially Palestinians, were killed as they tried to escape from Kuwait City. An Army officer on the scene told reporters that the "U.S. Air Force had been given the word to work over that entire area [roads leading north from Kuwait City] to find anything that was moving and take it out.''
So by use of careful wording and designation of whole regions as "one area" coalition foces found a way around what the geneva convention forbids...
So, there is no difference between bombing in discrimenantly and doing everything in one's power within the limits of technology to limit civilian casualties when the enemy is closely intermixed with civilian targets?
We should tell the Pentagon quick, they could save a bundle on J-DAMs. We can simply nuke 'em instead.
You seem to have a very mixed up view of what war actually entails.
I see you have the First Persian Gulf War mixed up with The invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on your edit. The Iraqi army had not surrendered at the time of the "highway of death." Surrender usually means you stop fighting and give yourself up to enemy control. Simply retreating while flying a white flag does not constitute a surrender.
B52 carpet bomb in Afghanistan...think 98....no towns involved...just a bunch of insurgents stuck up a valley...no water...no canoe...AK47 as paddles though...but they were up the creek...
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Though I can see the Americans dont
Then you see about as well as an old man with glaucoma and cataracts.
You attack two of my comments but yet you leave the last one. Well I guess it is true. Remember, this isn't Fox News, you cant just go after the things you think will give you a plus in the arguement. You have to look at the whole story/comment.
And when I said love, I meant that by the literal text, not the emotional text. Unless you need me to explain the two for you?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:" Surrender usually means you stop fighting and give yourself up to enemy control. Simply retreating while flying a white flag does not constitute a surrender.
You are familiar with UN rsolution 660 which demanded that all forces cease hostilities and leave? How else would they do this then by driving out under white flag?
Also you have sub-incidents associated with the larger Highway of death incident like the 350 or so Iraqi soldiers that attempted to surrender to a US checkpoint and where instead gunned down...
Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets. Gimme a link to the 350 soldiers who tried to surrender and were gunned down (and no, I don't mean democracynow.com) and I'll take it under consideration.
Also, what does this have to do with carpet bombing civilian targets?
EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment. Of all the American "attrocities" you could have cited, the elimination of rapists, thugs, and murderers has got to rank pretty low on the list. Are you seriously implying that anytime I wish to not die, I must simply raise a white flag and turn my back and start heading the opposite way? Must an enemy accept that as surrender even though there is nothing keeping me from turning around 50 miles down the road and continuing the fight?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Manchu. Part of the reason for that empire being established was that the people doing it were unashamed. Make the world England was their motto. America's problem is that they have an empire IMO, but either don't want to admit it, or lack the will to see it through. The problem with this halfway approach is that is effects the decision making process.
I dunno. It seems to me that it only directs the press. Americans love to talk gak about ourselves. We love worrying that Chinese kids do math better than us or that the someone might win more medals than us at the Olympics. Deep down, Americans are okay with having an empire whatever Michael Moore thinks. We also insist that it appear to be benign, at least to ourselves, which is why Michael Moore isn't even popular with leftists. We want you all to obey us because you like us, but in the end, obeying is more important. It's also different in that the American empire has grown up in the context of post-colonialism and as a former colony we're not as comfortable with outright empire along the British or even French models.
This sums it up perfectly. And it's worth pointing out that I am strongly in favour of imperialism. Though it may be paternalistic (some would even probably, though mistakenly, consider it racist), there are parts of the world that would, without question, be better off being run along American lines, and under American rule. It's just a simple fact. The same was true of Britain in the preceding 300 years. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with culture - there are places where corruption and brutality are the order of the day, where starvation, pestilence and civil war blight the lives of millions. It's not evil to want to change that. It's not wrong to create industry, investment and opportunities in places where there was none.
It could work. Americans just have to believe in themselves the way our forefathers did, and embrace their destiny.
You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.
dogma wrote:When sold as humanitarian actions American wars tend to see about 60-65% domestic approval. When sold as matters of national security, they see about 40-45% domestic approval, unless proceeded by an attack on Americans or America.
But the difference isn't just in the selling, it's in what the nature of the operation actually is. Even the lowest of low information voters can tell the difference between a humanitarian action prompted by a civil war or somesuch, and an invasion designed to overthrow a bad but stable foreign government.
Interesting figure on the support for various operations. Do you have a cite? Not because I don't believe you (in fact it sounds about right) but becaues I'd like to use that on another site, and I know they'll want a cite.
That has more to do with the unpopularity of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent sense of isolationism that has crept back into US politics. Plus, as a Democrat who is highly unpopular with the Republican Party, Obama was unlikely to garner support from the supporters of the party that tends towards hawkishness.
Yeah, there was definitely a large element of Obama being criticised by much of the left because they like to talk about being doves, and much of the rightwing because they just really bloody hate Obama.
Empire is a euphemistic term in this case, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that we get into these situations, and make these mistakes, because we view ourselves as internationally unique due to our national history (exceptionalism) and position in terms f geopolitical power. In essence, we don't have an empire per se, but because we have such broad-based economic and political interests, we often exhibit behaviors that are reminiscent of one.
In essence, all nations makes ahistoric mistakes according to the the vagaries of the people in power, its just that when the US makes those mistakes it has a much greater chance of doing so on the other side of the world.
I agree with all that, and think it's a good way of expressing the position of the US right now.
But ultimately, no matter what the entanglements the US has gotten itself into in the past, I don't think it's that big of a claim to say that Iraq, being the invasion and overthrow of a despicable but stable government that wasn't in open hostilities with anyone else was a unique piece of US foreign policy, and not a thing we can reasonably expect to see again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I dunno. It seems to me that it only directs the press. Americans love to talk gak about ourselves. We love worrying that Chinese kids do math better than us or that the someone might win more medals than us at the Olympics. Deep down, Americans are okay with having an empire whatever Michael Moore thinks. We also insist that it appear to be benign, at least to ourselves, which is why Michael Moore isn't even popular with leftists. We want you all to obey us because you like us, but in the end, obeying is more important. It's also different in that the American empire has grown up in the context of post-colonialism and as a former colony we're not as comfortable with outright empire along the British or even French models.
There's also the issue that the US empire has risen up in a world that's a lot more aware that the racial justifications for colonialism were, well, racist bs. It makes it much harder to justify dropping soldiers in another country to run things when you can't pretend the locals are just more primitive.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets.
EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment.
Marlin Fitzwater promised on the record that the U.S. and its coalition partners would not attack Iraqi forces leaving Kuwait.
The vehicles on that highway were responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. They were not initiating a military maneouver, nor moving to engage. The vehicle convoys on that road where moving as a direct result of being ordered to withdraw in compliance with resolution 660.
In fact Prior to the highway attack Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660.
As for the gunning down of iraqi soldiers trying to surrender at a US checkpoint following the highway attack it was reported in detail by Semour Hersh, a respected Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with war correspondant experience stretching back to Viet Nam. He also had a hand in revealing the goings on at Abu Gareeb prison. You can easily google his name/work if you choose.
sebster wrote:
But the difference isn't just in the selling, it's in what the nature of the operation actually is. Even the lowest of low information voters can tell the difference between a humanitarian action prompted by a civil war or somesuch, and an invasion designed to overthrow a bad but stable foreign government.
I disagree, because even people that study this particular segment of international relations have extensive debates over exactly that distinction. Debates featuring thousands of pages of academic research. Add in that humanitarian intervention doesn't necessarily preclude overthrowing a stable state, and the issue gets even murkier.
sebster wrote:
Interesting figure on the support for various operations. Do you have a cite? Not because I don't believe you (in fact it sounds about right) but becaues I'd like to use that on another site, and I know they'll want a cite.
I'm pretty sure this is it. Its definitely the author, but it might not be that specific article.
sebster wrote:
But ultimately, no matter what the entanglements the US has gotten itself into in the past, I don't think it's that big of a claim to say that Iraq, being the invasion and overthrow of a despicable but stable government that wasn't in open hostilities with anyone else was a unique piece of US foreign policy, and not a thing we can reasonably expect to see again.
For sure. In fact, if that article is the one I'm think of, then its interesting to note that the highest coefficient for support regarding military action is the association of the action with Saddam Hussein; something like 75-80% if I recall correctly.
Again, how does this pertain to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Also the night of the 26th to the 27th was the night of the "highway of death." Unlike "24" or "Mission Impossible" communiques do not travel instantaneously from a bunker in Baghdad to Washington, to Saudi Arabia to an A-10 in the middle of a strafing attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Until they surrender (Like thousands of other Iraqis did), they are valid military targets.
EDIT: Further more, a "retrograde action" whether under a white flag or not, does not constitute a surrender, especially when you are talking about 2 divisions worth or more of troops and equipment.
.
As for the gunning down of iraqi soldiers trying to surrender at a US checkpoint following the highway attack it was reported in detail by Semour Hersh, a respected Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with war correspondant experience stretching back to Viet Nam. He also had a hand in revealing the goings on at Abu Gareeb prison. You can easily google his name/work if you choose.
Ah yes, I was wondering when you'd bring up Seymour Hersh. The man who also accused American troops of being pedophiles and claimed that Hillary Clinton's hawkish view on Iran was due to "Jewish Money." The man may be a pullitzer prize winner, but then, Yasser Arafat is a Nobel Pease Prize winner as well.
Relapse wrote:The troops involved were trained not to kill civilians. That training came from programs approved by upper echilons.
Sure, but that training wasn't provided because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians, It was provided because it is not expedient, politically or militarily, to kill civilians.
How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?
Hordini wrote:
How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?
Because I study military and security policy, and have worked with the people involved in making it through professional development courses, and direct interview research. Many of them likely have moral reservations when it comes to putting civilians in harms way, but when it comes to the formation of policy that isn't generally how they think. Its all based on a sort of objective-driven calculation where methods are compared according to how they best fulfill mission objectives given past results.
That said, I wouldn't doubt that, on some level, moral reservations are involved. I would just be very surprised if they were an especially significant factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.
EDIT - and then be willing to modify or completely reverse their views if the evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions.
The first time you can rebut a professor and then systematically deconstruct his criticism you begin to understand why it was all worth it. Its seriously about the biggest ego boost you can experience, and most academics are nothing if not egocentric.
Hordini wrote:
How do you know part of the reason isn't because we believe its morally wrong to kill civilians? Why can't the reason for such training be a bit of both?
Because I study military and security policy, and have worked with the people involved in making it through professional development courses, and direct interview research. Many of them likely have moral reservations when it comes to putting civilians in harms way, but when it comes to the formation of policy that isn't generally how they think. Its all based on a sort of objective-driven calculation where methods are compared according to how they best fulfill mission objectives given past results.
That said, I wouldn't doubt that, on some level, moral reservations are involved. I would just be very surprised if they were an especially significant factor.
I guess it depends on what level we're talking about. At the upper echelon, policy-making level, morality or moral reservations might not be an explicit factor. However, when those policies begin to reach lower levels, like the level where such training is actually implemented, moral reservations might take on a more prominent role.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: One of the things I most admire about Ph.D. candidates and Professors is that they must be willing to take that kind of opinionated abuse (your theory/experiment/essay/dissertation is crap and here's why) and not only persevere, but PROVE the other guy wrong.
EDIT - and then be willing to modify or completely reverse their views if the evidence doesn't support their preconceived notions.
The first time you can rebut a professor and then systematically deconstruct his criticism you begin to understand why it was all worth it. Its seriously about the biggest ego boost you can experience, and most academics are nothing if not egocentric.
My girlfriend is a Ph.D. candidate at Howard, so I get the inside scoop.
BrassScorpion wrote:And the improvised explosive devices just keep coming. The US is gone and the Iraqi people are still left with the continuing violence, corrupt undemocratic government, broken infrastructure and innumerable dead.
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — As the last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq on Sunday, friends and family of the first and last American fighters killed in combat were cherishing their memories rather than dwelling on whether the war and their sacrifice was worth it.
Nearly 4,500 American fighters died before the last U.S. troops crossed the border into Kuwait. David Hickman, 23, of Greensboro was the last of those war casualties, killed in November by the kind of improvised bomb that was a signature weapon of this war.
"David Emanuel Hickman. Doesn't that name just bring out a smile to your face?" said Logan Trainum, one of Hickman's closest friends, at the funeral where the soldier was laid to rest after a ceremony in a Greensboro church packed with friends and family.
Trainum says he's not spending time asking why Hickman died: "There aren't enough facts available for me to have a defined opinion about things. I'm just sad, and pray that my best friend didn't lay down his life for nothing."
First of all, if you actually read the article it doesn't say that he was killed after they left, they just say that he was the last American soldier to be killed. As far as this article is concerned there are no more IEDs, but there was a last soldier to be killed by an IED. The article did not mention anywhere that there has been a continuance of IED attacks. Also, if you read the article you would've seen this gem.
The one thing she doesn't have, she said, is guilt. Though she talked her son out of enlisting in the military a couple times over the years, the reasons began and ended with concerns about the safety for her only child.
But after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, she knew there would be no talking him out of enlisting. Besides, she said, "If I was young enough I would have gone in, too."
Even though the country's mood was much different in 2009 when Hickman joined the Army, he had no doubts about his decision, Trainum said.
"When I talked with him on the phone a week before, he wasn't unhappy about where he was or regretting being there at all," Trainum said. "It was just going to work for him, and he was looking forward to getting his work done and getting home."
@CT Gamer
Just because going up against the US was a suicidal option doesn't change the fact that they used that tactic and it doesn't change the fact that it was the cause for a high civilian death toll. We also had civilians being killed not by American forces, but by those so called "freedom fighters". All of those civilians killed while trying to join the Iraqi police force, insurgents. All of those civilians killed while driving along a highway, insurgent IEDs, all of those civilians killed in markets, most likely insurgents. The US has killed civilians on accident with predators or airstrikes, the insurgents killed them on purpose with crude explosives. Our conscience should be clear because the biggest difference between us and the insurgents is that we did not use civilians as shields nor did we intentionally target civilians.
Whats really sad about this whole thread is that THE OP IS RIGHT. And all of you silly Americans cant even admit that what the American government and military did to Iraq was state perpetrated terrorism. Yes TERRORISM. And yet you guys wondering around the world like tirgger happy gun ho idiots screaming we are the defenders of peace and the beacon of hope.
Most of the comments and posts arn't even releavent to the what the OP said. The main one which made me laugh was that some tard started to go on that how bad the OP's comments were and how many flaws he can point out. But he said he wont cause of how stupid or dumb it was. SO RIGHT THERE HE ADMITS he and the nation is wrong in what they have done but tries to hide behind some top class bull crap.
Im really sick of seeing so much usless American propaganda in the OT forum. And when something brilliant as this post comes along, it gets spat on by a bunch of pro-military and pro-terroists.
Expecially in this post their is so much useless crap said, that Im not even sure where to begin.
SOMEONE EXLPAIN TO ME THEN THE fething justification of why you guys invaded Iraq CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN. Tell me about the WMDs. Tell me ab out these so called Iraq terrorists that were out to get America.
Well New Zealand be in their expansion sphere. Of course like I mention before the US can go back to isolation beforr WWII and focus on our problems and let the rest of the world hang. Ever consider what would happen if the US were not involve in the world?
What would happen if the US isolated itself from the rest of the world? In no way am I advocating this, I just think it would make an interesting topic.
We spend BILLIONS of dollars a year on foreign aid alone. These are not loans, they are gifts to other countries. Just imagine what this could do for our infrastructure and economy if this money stayed home.
Also, how much money do we spend on the military in foreign countries. I'm just talking about our military based in foreign countries, not combative operations. If those troops and machinery were to be housed in the US, not only would the budget be lower, but our borders would be much more secure than they are now. Would this eliminate terrorism against the US?
These actions, of course, would have adverse effects as well. If we were to eliminate foreign aid, what would happen to the other countries around the world dependent on us? Would they survive? What kind of impact would this have on the US, and more specifically, the world?
What would happen if the US military presence around the world were to leave? Would countries fall into disarray and would anarchy reign?
Could the US economy survive on its own? Exactly how dependent would we be on foreign imports if we kept all of our money at home? Would we open ourselves up to attack by simply keeping our money and resources home?
The problem is that like all internet debates we have very quickly moved from a rational examination of the evidence to the extreme positions that the USA is either perfect or the Evil Empire.
The truth of course is that the USA is not perfect and has made errors in foreign policy as do all countries. Nonetheless, it is still the major part and effective leader of a broadly friendly coalition of countries such as the UK, Japan and the Czech Republic, all of which have a mututal interest in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and free trade, in a world much of which is unfriendly to these concepts.
It does no service to the overall cause to either ignore or exaggerate the times when US/Western involvement has been done badly. We should also recognise the successes, such as our involvement in Libya this year.
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.
I think so. There is no such thing in 2011, in any part of the Earth, as a "racially primitive" human being. But the existence of "culturally primitive" human beings seems beyond question. They certainly exist within advanced societies (insert Jerry Spinger/Jeremy Kyle jokes). These people are ruled, perhaps with their consent (that is debatable), within advanced societies by cultural elites. It's not hard for me to accept that these same cultural elites do and indeed ought to similarly rule the cultural primitives of other societies and to rule entire societies to the extent that they are primitive. To the extent that it is more advanced, it is capable of "self-rule" and self-ruling vassal states (i.e., so long as the "autonomous" government friendly to American interests) is the preferred American approach to imperialism. In my view, the moral hangover that is post-colonialism is something of an overstated case. The rulers of the United States do not govern in a way that is necessarily beneficial to the type of people we see on day-time TV talk shows; I'm not sure what greater moral obligation they could owe to the rednecks/chavs/boguns/etc of other societies. (I also fully realize that sometimes "primitive" can mean "not in line with US/Western European interests.")
ParatrooperSimon wrote:SOMEONE EXLPAIN TO ME THEN THE fething justification of why you guys invaded Iraq CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN. Tell me about the WMDs. Tell me ab out these so called Iraq terrorists that were out to get America.
Sure I can explain it. The justifications is because enough people wanted one and once you start a war, it is really hard to stop one.
On to the point about using civilians as human shields: All is fair in love and war.
Also, creating civilain shields is a logicial alternative when being attacked by weapons that you can not remove from the enemies possession or counter any othe rway such as aircraft, artillery, cruise missiles, and Nukes. We essentially do the same with Nuclear War, only we give it a fancy name called Mutuallty Assured Destruction. Essentially, we are using the massive civilain populations as shields and hostages to aggresive enemy nuclear attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.
Wow.
<Checks Watch>
For a minute there, I thought I got thrown backwards in time. Nope, still December 2011.
How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?
mattyrm wrote:The OP wasn't "brilliant" it was left wing nonsense, and a vast amount of people who said so aren't even American.
Also, you shouldnt call people tards when your own post is so hard to understand.
In fact, did you even type it? It looks like you put a rat in a shoebox and then left it upside down on your keyboard for an hour.
Matt, I think you could tack the adjectives "crosseyed and ilitterate" in front of rat and you'd have a closer description as to what that post seems to have been written by.
Easy E wrote:How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?
How about comparing the number of people killed as witches, cross referenced with the number of ritual female genital mutilations in the last decade? Women's rights, health care, democracy...
A lot of the world could do with a bit of civilizing.
Manchu wrote:There is no such thing in 2011, in any part of the Earth, as a "racially primitive" human being. But the existence of "culturally primitive" human beings seems beyond question.
This.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.
Easy E wrote:How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?
It's not a fine scale. Deciding whether the sonata-form symphony is more "advanced" than Hindustani dhrupad is not possible or even meaningful. Fortunately, this is not what we mean to consider.
Rather:
I know for some that this is irresistible hypocrisy-bait. Perhaps someone will find some pictures of Detorit slums. Or talk about murder rates there. Etc. Yes, cultural poverty can exist in the United States, as well, right alongside of material poverty. Yes, American cultural elites do impose this kind of poverty on people. But that's not the whole story, obviously. Getting bogged down in the fine-scale of hypocrisy doesn't supplant the larger disparities. The middle class may be endangered in America, but at least it exists. Consumerism may be a spiritual wasteland, but at least most Americans have ready access to food, water, and shelter. American democracy may be shallow and under-representative, but American citizens are not oppressed and murdered by their own government as a matter of its definitive practice.
I know that people can be sensitive about phrases like "culturally primitive." At the same time, to put it bluntly, I would never want to live in or even visit a place like Somalia because it is culturally primitive. Give me Detroit over Somalia any day. And I think Somalia briefly benefited from brief American intervention in the 1990s. What kind of American intervention would bring more lasting peace to Somalia? Let's ask the British -- although we may have to go back in time, as you mentioned.
There is a whole bunch of signifiers used by the UN Human Development Index, including infant mortality, bribery rates, democratic participation, women's rights, and so on.
It can be argued that these are all predicated on a subjective moral relativism based on western values and therefore irrelevant.
As the U.S. military leaves Iraq, the New York Times has recovered hundreds of pages of documents detailing internal interrogations of U.S. Marines over the 2005 Haditha massacre of Iraqi civilians. The documents — many marked secret — were found among scores of other classified material at a junkyard outside Baghdad as an attendant used them as fuel to cook his dinner. The documents reveal testimony of Marines describing killing civilians on a regular basis. "In some ways, this is one of the most grotesque episodes of the entire war in Iraq and I’m afraid to say this is part of our legacy," says Time magazine contributor Tim McGirk who first broke the story of Haditha in 2006. It was November 19, 2005, when a U.S. military convoy of four vehicles driving through Haditha was hit by a roadside bomb, killing Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. The next night, Marines burst into several homes in the neighborhood, killing 24 Iraqis — including a 76-year-old man, and women and children who were still in their nightclothes when they died. "Nobody is behind bars for this," McGirk notes. Charges from the episode were dropped against six of the accused Marines, one was acquitted, and the final case is set to go to trial next year.
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.
How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?
You measure it by metrics that the culturally superior deem to be significant.
Premarital birth rates are not significant. Access to abortion is significant.
Church attendance is not an indicator of cultural superiority. Level of government participation is an indicator.
Fortunately, every country has people who label themselves culturally superior and meet these metrics, so when they get together and determine that these metrics are relevant, there's an international consensus.
Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.
biccat wrote:Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.
You pose it as a sarcastic sneer; to me, it is a self-evident fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there's this:
Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:It can be argued that these are all predicated on a subjective moral relativism based on western values and therefore irrelevant.
Appropriately enough, that relativistic criticism is often used by governments with absolutist moral/social outlooks.
albatross wrote:This sums it up perfectly. And it's worth pointing out that I am strongly in favour of imperialism. Though it may be paternalistic (some would even probably, though mistakenly, consider it racist), there are parts of the world that would, without question, be better off being run along American lines, and under American rule. It's just a simple fact. The same was true of Britain in the preceding 300 years. It has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with culture - there are places where corruption and brutality are the order of the day, where starvation, pestilence and civil war blight the lives of millions. It's not evil to want to change that. It's not wrong to create industry, investment and opportunities in places where there was none.
It could work. Americans just have to believe in themselves the way our forefathers did, and embrace their destiny.
You can keep Ke$ha, though. No really, you can. We're fine.
biccat wrote:Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.
You pose it as a sarcastic sneer; to me, it is a self-evident fact.
I understand that. But the logical conclusion of your argument is Pax Americana.
It's easy to make the argument of "cultural superiority" between the slums in Rio de Janeiro and the Upper West Side. It's a lot more of a close call between the slums of Rio and the slums of East St. Louis. Or between the Upper West Side and Kensington.
Also, I'm not sure why the "culturally superior" should have any superior claim to leadership under a system of self determination simply due to cultural differences.
Again, I don't believe we're dealing with a fine scale. I'm not trying to decide between a Ming vase and a Faberge egg. To use your own example, I truly believe that subsistence farmers are not capable of governing any society beyond their own household (to some extent). To me, the contrary is merely a Maoist fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.
Manchu wrote:As to self-determination, I think that concept is a bit of a farce.
Yes, I am a confessed American Imperialist.
Fair enough. I disagree, but it's good to know where you're coming from.
Out of sincere curiosity, what about self-determinism strikes you as coherent/practical/ideal/etc?
I think people should be free to choose the type of life that they want to live in the environment that they want to live in. This isn't an anarchist ideal where everyone does whatever they want, but rather a macro idea that governments "by the people" are ideal. Democracy is one expression, but it could also be an anarcho-syndicalist commune.
Basically, I reject the idea of any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed; which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.
biccat wrote:Basically, I reject the idea that any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed, which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.
First, I think that may be an incomplete sentence. Second, I don't think you can simply disclaim anarchism. Third, do you think democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination?
biccat wrote:Basically, I reject the idea of any claim of authority that is not based on the consent of the governed, which is usually evidenced by the use of force (either police or military) to suppress dissent.
First, I think that may be an incomplete sentence. Second, I don't think you can simply disclaim anarchism. Third, do you think democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination?
Hm...You're right. Fixed in the quote.
You're right that anarchy would be a self-deterministic government. I was saying that self determination does not require anarchy.
And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.
Manchu wrote:@Easy E: What do you think culture is?
Hey, your the one claiming you can somehow determine one culture is superior to another, not me.
However, I'll take the bait and reach for this definition:
-The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization, or group
So about that slum? Are you saying that the shared values of that community is to create systems that perpetuate slums, and therefore; since our US system does not try to perpetuate slums that we are Culturally superior?
@Easy E: I had to ask because I suspected, correctly, (but did not want to assume) that you felt culture was something intangible and therefore "subjective" in the sense of being immeasurable. Culture is expressed materially as well as through values; in fact, these are interrelated. A neat row of houses in suburbia implies a very different culture (yes, even in the sense of social values) to the squalor of the pictures I posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.
Can you extrapolate a bit? If not via representative democracy (which I would argue does not really entail self-determinism as practiced) than how is our system self-determinative?
Easy E wrote:So, really it is not "Cultural" superiroity, but economic superiority?
No, not even close.
Then I am confused. You showed a picture of a slum as an example of cultural superiority? Is that culture or economic?
Culture is the way we make meaning from (and of) our environments via means of lived practice. That's the most succinct way in which I can describe it. It's both the way we do what we do, but also the things we choose to do, or not to do.
Democracy is part of human culture, as is female genital mutilation. So are slums and high-rises, Beethoven and Bieber. Mods and rockers, Hutus and Tutsis.
biccat wrote:And yes, I think that democracy as practiced in the USA is reflective of the principle of self-determination. However, I would restate it as the American system of government is reflective of self-determination. We're not really a democracy.
Can you extrapolate a bit? If not via representative democracy (which I would argue does not really entail self-determinism as practice) than how is our system self-determinative?
We have a system where people agree to live under the decisions made by a majority of our elected representatives and where everyone is free to participate in the government to the extent that they're interested in shaping the laws and policies of the country.
If you're not happy how the system is being run, you're free to campaign to get others to support you, or leave the system entirely for another.
Systems that deny speech critical of the government, organized political opposition to the current form of government, or substantially limit (yes, this is a bit weasely) participation would not meet this standard.
I daresay a major difference in our viewpoints has to do with the social contract. My own view is that it's a post hoc rationalization and, more currently, a kind of sentimentality but that it does not reflect actual political circumstances.
As for those systems which suppress opposition, I would consider them to be culturally inferior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:think technology plays into cultural superiority theory.
Real freedom fighters carry weaponry of their own...
Show and tell on our privately owned um...arsenal is another thread....but I'ma bit leary on playing that....never kow who might be monitoring looking for...you know
Real freedom fighters carry weaponry of their own...
Show and tell on our privately owned um...arsenal is another thread....but I'ma bit leary on playing that....never kow who might be monitoring looking for...you know
This thread has taken some amusing turns.
It was claimed just a short ways back that the US is spreading democracy and that other "inferior" places in the world that we invade/occupy/bomb the feth out of deserve it because they don't allow people freedom, etc., etc. and are inferior.
Then the second someone tries to exercise those same rights/freedoms (freedom of speech, right of assembley, demands for justice and equality) and questions this government the first response is a call to break out the water cannons.
So which is it? Freedom of speech and democracy only as long as it supports and blindly obeys the status quo? I don't think that is true freedom or democracy.
I hadn't realized not being able to carry around a grenade launcher was so oppressive to freedom that is essentially the same as living in a third world dictatorship with no freedom.
So technology is Cultural, but Econonics isn't? Plus, Culture isn't only an abstract concept but what that concept produces?
Look Manchu, I'm really trying to udnerstand your rational for neo-colonialism. I defined what I thought culture was, help me out and define your version.
Anyone British may remember a special on Panorama maybe a year ago. It showed the reckless tactics that they use. This includes clearing mines out of villages using mortars, without warning the people in the village. They managed to blow someone's house open, but all they did was give them a small amount of money in return.
The US never took part in an invasion. Although several tactics were reckless and foolish, we cannot rule out that they were actually trying to help the civilians in Iraq.
For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.
Some people want to understand how other people see the world and think about the world.
Or maybe it is just me. I'm really curious about it.
Ahtman wrote:I hadn't realized not being able to carry around a grenade launcher...
Since when is it illegal to carry around a grenade launcher?
It has been illegal before, and some are still not legal now; I didn't think I had to say loaded grenade launcher, as the grenades are illegal, and without them, you are just carrying around a tube and looking like a douche.
Ahtman wrote:I hadn't realized not being able to carry around a grenade launcher...
Since when is it illegal to carry around a grenade launcher?
It has been illegal before, and some are still not legal now; I didn't think I had to say loaded grenade launcher, as the grenades are illegal, and without them, you are just carrying around a tube and looking like a douche.
Grenades aren't illegal either.
Could you explain when carrying around a grenade launcher was illegal?
BlapBlapBlap wrote:For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.
Some people want to understand how other people see the world and think about the world.
Or maybe it is just me. I'm really curious about it.
I understand this, it's just the OP appears to be forcing ideas onto people who might not want to believe. It may have come across better if he said "This is what person x said" but he appears to be using bad articles to back up his point. Editing the title wouldn't hurt either.
Monster Rain wrote:The difference is they aren't being sprayed for dissenting in the US, but for knowingly breaking the law.
But in whose eyes is dissention and breaking the law decided?
Lets look at the 'Arab Spring', using Egypt. Western Govts looked at the occupation as a legitimate protest, however now look at taking that protest to the USA or the UK and that protest is now breaking the law as an illegal demonstration as so knowingly breaking the law.
biccat wrote:Could you explain when carrying around a grenade launcher was illegal?
At least since the National Firearms Act listed some of them as Destructive Devices. Yes, not all grenade launchers are illegal to own, and not all types of grenades are illegal to own, and yet some are. I suppose I could have listed a very specific type of launcher and a very specific load-out for it, but that doesn't have a lot of poetry to it and I'm not writing legislation, so I don't think the vast majority of readers were wondering what kind of grenade launcher and whether it was loaded or not.
Ahtman wrote:I hadn't realized not being able to carry around a grenade launcher...
Since when is it illegal to carry around a grenade launcher?
Don't think it is, exactly. I believe it's illegal to carry grenades though. The launcher is little more than a hammer, tube and trigger.
Sort of a similar thing to AR-15 Sears. The Sear is considered a machine gun in itself. You cannot own an AR-15 and an Unregistered Sear, or you can be arrested for possessing a machine gun. Although possessing the unregistered sear is perfectly legal.
Manchu wrote:CTGamer, your binary is false. The statements represented on either hand were not made by the same voice. But keep on fighting the power, man.
Just as false as assuming anyone who disagreed with you is OWS?
I appreciate your dedication to white knighting the opinions of trolls though...
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.
How do you define or measure Cultural Superiority?
You measure it by metrics that the culturally superior deem to be significant.
Premarital birth rates are not significant. Access to abortion is significant.
Church attendance is not an indicator of cultural superiority. Level of government participation is an indicator.
Fortunately, every country has people who label themselves culturally superior and meet these metrics, so when they get together and determine that these metrics are relevant, there's an international consensus.
Presumably you could get the same level of international consensus on entirely different metrics if you only asked subsistance farmers. But they're not culturally superior, so their opinions don't count.
Surely following this argument to its conclusion, the subsistence level farmers opinion is morally no more valid or objective than that of Manchu. Both views have equal moral weight.
In which case, Manchu's view is as good as any, and cannot be deemed immoral, or inferior to any other views on ways or standards of measuring cultural progress. Therefore it must be considered as good a compass as any to use for such measurements.
CT GAMER wrote:Just as false as assuming anyone who disagreed with you is OWS?
Or assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?
OWS came up in part due to your comments about how oppressed US citizens are, and some posturing about "real" freedom fighters and how they would react to pepper spraying in contrast with old ladies. Unless there's some other contemporary issue involving hysteria re: Police States and Pepper Spray that I'm unaware of, that is.
Albatross wrote:Aren't they though? In a cultural sense, I mean.
Yeah, they are. Thing is, exactly how that society is more primitive is really complex, and exactly why is even more complex.
I don't think we like to think of ourselves as products of systems that have been evolving for hundreds, even thousands of years before we got here. Instead, we instinctively think of ourselves as self contained, containing inherent qualities that are reflected in the systems around us. So it was natural and easy to see the weakness and poverty of the systems in Africa and think 'that's because the people there are simpler', and in turn it was natural to say 'therefore we are doing a good thing in going there and using our bigger white people brains to look after them'.
Except it became clear, eventually, that they are just as smart as us. It remained obvious their systems were dysfunctional compared to ours, but that's not a thing we like to think about. So instead we just kind of don't think about it all.
Monster Rain wrote:No one in the US has been machine-gunned or blown up with helicopters, nor even stripped and beaten in the street.
There have been many protests in the US, other than OWS, that haven't been nearly as unpleasant.
One time we had a fighter-bomber accidentally drop a training bomb(dud) on a storage facility around where I live, I'm sure that's on par with death squads rolling around in technicals and killing people without beards or gunning down women and children as they attempt to get foodstuffs that were airdropped for them.
Actually the really popular video of the cop leisurely pepper-spraying college students sitting on the ground is a good example of blatant video editing.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:The US never took part in an invasion. Although several tactics were reckless and foolish, we cannot rule out that they were actually trying to help the civilians in Iraq.
Trying to help people doesn't rule out something being an invasion. If you go and land troops in someone's country when they weren't at war with you, it's an invasion.
For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.
Arguing a political point, no matter how constantly, just cannot be considered forcing your ideas on someone. Because the rest of us have our own brains, and therefore have the ability to consider those arguments, and accept or reject them as we please.
Ketara wrote:Surely following this argument to its conclusion, the subsistence level farmers opinion is morally no more valid or objective than that of Manchu. Both views have equal moral weight.
In which case, Manchu's view is as good as any, and cannot be deemed immoral, or inferior to any other views on ways or standards of measuring cultural progress. Therefore it must be considered as good a compass as any to use for such measurements.
You seem to be missing the argument. By quite a lot, in fact.
Hint: I'm not suggesting that tyranny of the "culturally superior" should be replaced by a tyranny of the "culturally inferior." (to use Manchu's metric)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:At least since the National Firearms Act listed some of them as Destructive Devices. Yes, not all grenade launchers are illegal to own, and not all types of grenades are illegal to own, and yet some are. I suppose I could have listed a very specific type of launcher and a very specific load-out for it, but that doesn't have a lot of poetry to it and I'm not writing legislation, so I don't think the vast majority of readers were wondering what kind of grenade launcher and whether it was loaded or not.
Destructive Devices are not illegal to own under the National Firearms Act.
Grenades and the like are classified as Title II weapons, which are legal to own, although highly regulated, and therefore expensive to obtain.
I would wager that there aren't a lot of grenades available on the market, but that doesn't mean they're illegal.
Ketara wrote:Surely following this argument to its conclusion, the subsistence level farmers opinion is morally no more valid or objective than that of Manchu. Both views have equal moral weight.
In which case, Manchu's view is as good as any, and cannot be deemed immoral, or inferior to any other views on ways or standards of measuring cultural progress. Therefore it must be considered as good a compass as any to use for such measurements.
You seem to be missing the argument. By quite a lot, in fact.
Hint: I'm not suggesting that tyranny of the "culturally superior" should be replaced by a tyranny of the "culturally inferior." (to use Manchu's metric)
I never claimed you were. Allow me to extrapolate further, as you seem to have missed what I was getting at.
Manchu deems Western culture to be 'superior' or more 'advanced' and less primitive.
When queried why, he can provide a list of things that he deems to be the hallmarks of an advanced civilisation or culture, eg. womens rights, technology, democracy, etc.
You respond that any list of traits that can be deemed to signify an advanced culture will be determined by that person, their culture and surroundings, so a subsistence level farmers view (or someone from an 'inferior culture''s view) is therefore equivalent and has equal weights to Manchu's.
To which I am essentially responding that in that case, if their view is equivalent, and any standard of measuring civilisation or advancement of culture is going to be irrevocably tainted by cultural bias, then Manchu's view is as good as any. And pointing out that his view is no better or worse than any, is at best, a non-argument. It doesn't lead anywhere. It's like walking up to someone compiling an encyclopedia, and telling them using a philosophical argument, we can't know anything. It doesn't advance the compilation of the encyclopedia, aid in determining a better set of facts to place in it, or even prove their chosen facts incorrect.
It is in short, a bit of a waste of time, and stating the obvious. And in no real way a counter-argument or productive to anything being advocated in here.
Ketara wrote:I never claimed you were. Allow me to extrapolate further, as you seem to have missed what I was getting at.
And you seem to have missed what I was getting at.
Yes, you're correct that Manchu's standard is no more valid than any other person's, at least from a moral standard. However, unlike the subsistance farmer in Laos, Manchu has the ability to impose his belief by virtue of being able to influence a powerful government and military. And note that the validity is only limited to perceptions of the subjective "culture," not to objective measurements like wealth, military power, and industry.
However, pointing out that his standard is no more valid than another's is not worthless, in fact it has great value in attacking the underlying premise - that cultural superiority lends itself to authority.
Turning to your Encyclopedia example: the philosopher's argument that we can't know anything is a criticism against compiling the work of an encyclopedia. It doesn't contribute anything to the enclopedia itself, but it does raise the question of whether compiling an encyclopedia is a worthwhile endeavor.
I'm not saying that Manchu's standards are poor, they're pretty good (in my opinion at least) if you're interested in promoting superior cultural values. I'm saying that the idea of promoting superior cultural values is itself the wrong goal.
Ketara wrote:I never claimed you were. Allow me to extrapolate further, as you seem to have missed what I was getting at.
And you seem to have missed what I was getting at.
Yes, you're correct that Manchu's standard is no more valid than any other person's, at least from a moral standard. However, unlike the subsistance farmer in Laos, Manchu has the ability to impose his belief by virtue of being able to influence a powerful government and military. And note that the validity is only limited to perceptions of the subjective "culture," not to objective measurements like wealth, military power, and industry.
However, pointing out that his standard is no more valid than another's is not worthless, in fact it has great value in attacking the underlying premise - that cultural superiority lends itself to authority.
Turning to your Encyclopedia example: the philosopher's argument that we can't know anything is a criticism against compiling the work of an encyclopedia. It doesn't contribute anything to the enclopedia itself, but it does raise the question of whether compiling an encyclopedia is a worthwhile endeavor.
I'm not saying that Manchu's standards are poor, they're pretty good (in my opinion at least) if you're interested in promoting superior cultural values. I'm saying that the idea of promoting superior cultural values is itself the wrong goal.
You seem to have missed this.
You also still seem to be missing my point I'm afraid. To continue with the encyclopedia example, your questioning as to 'why bother compiling the encyclopedia at all?' leads to a position known as hapless relativism, whereby there's absolutely no point in doing anything at all. Ever. Because we can't know anything, and everybody's thoughts, views and opinion are entirely subjective, and absolutely nobody's views or concepts are ever superior to one anothers, because there is no objective standard to be measured against. Including curiously enough, your idea that 'promoting superior cultural values is itself the wrong goal', as all I have to simply do is proclaim the opposite, and under the tenet you're advocating, my view would have equivalent weight and validity to yours.
That's why I called it ' a bit of a waste of time, and stating the obvious. And in no real way a counter-argument or productive to anything being advocated in here. '
It's the intrusion into real life of abstract philosophical constructs that in no way contribute to anything. Every time I look at an apple, I don't wonder if its a hallucination, or if my desire to eat it is real or if I'm in someone's dream. I just eat the apple. In an equivalent sense, every time I have a discussion with someone over politics, I don't tell them that my viewpoint that chickens should be fired from bazookas is technically equivalent to their viewpoint that we should have animal rights, because all opinions are ultimately subjective, every time they disagree with me. It would be silly, and get no-one anywhere.
To carry it on, every time someone mentions ways of measuring cultural progress, I don't tell them that everyone else's viewpoints on the matter are all just as good as theirs, because its all ultimately subjective. Because that also gets no-one anywhere.
Ketara wrote:To carry it on, every time someone mentions ways of measuring cultural progress, I don't tell them that everyone else's viewpoints on the matter are all just as good as theirs, because its all ultimately subjective. Because that also gets no-one anywhere.
I don't see any problem of someone trying to measure cultural progress. I see a problem of someone trying to use that measurement of cultural progress as an excuse to exercise dominion and control over others.
Ketara wrote:To carry it on, every time someone mentions ways of measuring cultural progress, I don't tell them that everyone else's viewpoints on the matter are all just as good as theirs, because its all ultimately subjective. Because that also gets no-one anywhere.
I don't see any problem of someone trying to measure cultural progress. I see a problem of someone trying to use that measurement of cultural progress as an excuse to exercise dominion and control over others.
I understand what you're saying.
Fair play then. I've no quarrel with that.
It was just the philosophical argument technique I was arguing against.
I think it's worth noting that my analysis has been purposefully amoral. I refer to "ought" in the sense of policy rather than morality. At the same time, I'm not convinced by a moral critique of imperialism premised on the notion of self-determination. Cultural "superiority" has been somewhat tangential. I am just as much for the exercise of imperial dominion over our cultural betters as our inferiors.
I don't have any science behind this opinion, but I would consider a culture in which it is okay to throw acid into a young girl's face for having the audacity to go to school to be an inferior culture.
As you might imagine, I completely agree. Acid-hurling misogynists are obviously less sympathetic than the hypothetically pleasant and hardworking "salt of the earth" subsistence farmers that biccat mentions. I don't think we should confuse cultural superiority with moral superiority, which is I think at least part of biccat's objections.
BlapBlapBlap wrote:The US never took part in an invasion. Although several tactics were reckless and foolish, we cannot rule out that they were actually trying to help the civilians in Iraq.
Trying to help people doesn't rule out something being an invasion. If you go and land troops in someone's country when they weren't at war with you, it's an invasion.
No, it isn't invasion is when you aim to take over land for yourself. Fighting a war abroad is not necessarily an invasion. By what you've quoted, armies that have traveled through countries to get to another are apparently invaders.
sebster wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote:For your post, you seem to be trying to brainwash us. I think this post is simply you trying to force your ideas upon someone else. Forcing ideas upon people is edging towards fascism, and you are only going to get through to like minded people. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to make us see through your eyes, you're only going to receive hate posts and PMs in return.
Arguing a political point, no matter how constantly, just cannot be considered forcing your ideas on someone. Because the rest of us have our own brains, and therefore have the ability to consider those arguments, and accept or reject them as we please.
You might call it boring, but it isn't facism.
It is close when you consider that these articles are incredibly biased and whenever you raise a point against what they say someone will write a rant about how wrong you are. I'm sorry if I came across wrong but many people are hurling insults at each other if they don't believe what they believe. In this world people have to get along, and differences should be over looked. I just want people to understand that there are other people on the thread, and they are entitled to their own opinions and views. Insulting them is actually bullying, and that is how some people have come across.
I'm sorry that I may have incorrectly worded my post, and I'm sorry if you disagree with what I have said, but I find it hard to put into words. It isn't boring, I just wanted to see some evidence of the facts.
Manchu wrote:I think it's worth noting that my analysis has been purposefully amoral. I refer to "ought" in the sense of policy rather than morality. At the same time, I'm not convinced by a moral critique of imperialism premised on the notion of self-determination. Cultural "superiority" has been somewhat tangential. I am just as much for the exercise of imperial dominion over our cultural betters as our inferiors.
In essence, then, you're defining quality (superiority v. inferiority) as an inherently subjective measure roughly equivalent to preference?
CT GAMER wrote:Just as false as assuming anyone who disagreed with you is OWS?
Or assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?.
Someone made the statement/implied that the US does not oppress its own people. I stated that this is debatable.
If someone refuted my claim via discussion or opinion then no it would not be trolling, it would simply be a differing opinion.
However the response to my statement was instead a snide reference to OWS and a quip about getting water cannons.
This was in no way a productive response intended to refute my opinion or continue the discussion it was in fact a troll and a further attempt to carry on the OWS-bashing that is a popular past time here in Dakka OT.
I live in hope.
