Because it's war

[thebullet]

On another thread I posted some pictures of an American checkpoint patrol killing two Iraqi parents while their five children were in the back seat of their car. While not blaming the soldiers, I posed the question: 'Why are we in the position to be doing these awful things'.

Abstruse responded: "Because it's war." Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Below is a story which was on CNN revealing the possible plans of the Bush Administration to bomb Iran.

Two years from now when we post pictures of Iranian parents who have been killed by American soldiers, will we still write the losses off: 'because it's war'?



Washington, DC -- Monday, January 17, 2005 -- (CNN) --
The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition".

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I didn't mean to sound glib...but after watching a documentary on WWII and what ensued there with our men who were prisoners of war, after seeing the Vietnamese strap bombs to their children because they knew American soldiers would respond to a child, after seeing the better means we as a species can come up with better and more efficient ways of killing other human beings I find it hard to justify any actions during war, but it is war.

It's not fought with flowers and good wishes, it's inhumane, bloody and people die. It's a fact, there is no way to sugar coat it or justify it.

I didn't write the rules of war, but if you look back through history it is hell on earth.

We are in that position because someone decided to hate, to conquer, to obliterate people because of a cause they can justify. We are there because we can gain by this atrocity.
We are there because of presumption and a patriotic duty.
We are there because it's in our nature.

 

[thebullet]

Abstruse wrote:
We are in that position because someone decided to hate, to conquer, to obliterate people because of a cause they can justify. We are there because we can gain by this atrocity.
We are there because of presumption and a patriotic duty.
We are there because it's in our nature.

Abs: you identify why we are at war, but not why we are at war with Iraq. 1300 hundred soldiers later, 100,000 Iraqi civilians including many innocent women and children later, and we still don't have a firm reason for being in Iraq.

Yes, now it is riddled with terrorists. But that is our doing, not Iraq's. We opened the floodgates and invited them in. And so they came.

I read recently that Iraq is now the world's leading terrorist training ground. Say what you will about Sadaam, he is a beast, but he couldn't allow Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations in Iraq. He would have been their first target.

The American people, the American news media just want to ignore Iraq. They don't want to think about it. I post these little threads because I would like at least some people to continue to think about it.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I think I'm with Abs on this one. It doesn't matter whether you wage the war in the name of God, Allah, freedom, democracy, oil, or camels' testicles - those involved will always sink to new levels of depravity, no matter how civilised they think they are.

While we keep waging war on each other, these things are going to keep happening.

So yes, expect more of the same - in Iran, and in any other country that has an oil supply that the US and her allies wish to take control of.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Abs: you identify why we are at war, but not why we are at war with Iraq. 1300 hundred soldiers later, 100,000 Iraqi civilians including many innocent women and children later, and we still don't have a firm reason for being in Iraq.

Yes, now it is riddled with terrorists. But that is our doing, not Iraq's. We opened the floodgates and invited them in. And so they came.

I read recently that Iraq is now the world's leading terrorist training ground. Say what you will about Sadaam, he is a beast, but he couldn't allow Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations in Iraq. He would have been their first target.

The American people, the American news media just want to ignore Iraq. They don't want to think about it. I post these little threads because I would like at least some people to continue to think about it.

Nah, we're at a certain point. Those who still agree with the war would still be for it no matter how many 3 year olds we personally rape and then naplam and those who don't agree with the war aren't really seeing the reasons we went there coming to fruition.

So, yeah. War is Hell, but unless you want to pay for a plane ticket to take the fuckwit warmongerers into the warzone to see firsthand the horror and sin, our rage means little.

Besides, they were all heretics anyway.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Hmmmmmmm you're right. I don't think anyone really knows why. Weren't we led to believe there were WMD's? but the understanding after 9/11 was that we were going after Bin Laden and not Hussein, even though he may or may not have been a threat.
Was it perhaps because we felt it we start with Hussein we would work our way up to Bin Laden?

Do you think we were blindsided by our government?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's good to remember that Colin Powell was the only member of this administration who had any firsthand experience of war, and he was dead set against the invasion.

Now that he's gone, we can really get it on.

---dr.M.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Too bad we don't have a system like they used to in the olden days, where the ruler always led the troops into battle. I'd love to see Bush and Blair carrying out their own dirty work for a change.

 

[Belegon]

Too bad we don't have a system like they used to in the olden days, where the ruler always led the troops into battle. I'd love to see Bush and Blair carrying out their own dirty work for a change.

even in the old day's it was the rare leader of men who got down and dirty...Bush would be just as protected by those who need to use him then as he is now...don't know enough about Blair as a person to have an opinion...

 

[LadyJeanne]

On another thread I posted some pictures of an American checkpoint patrol killing two Iraqi parents while their five children were in the back seat of their car. While not blaming the soldiers, I posed the question: 'Why are we in the position to be doing these awful things'.

Abstruse responded: "Because it's war." Sorry, but I don't buy that argument.

We're in the position to do these things because the Bush administration put us there. Our representatives in Congress rubber-stamped the invasion, our media barely questioned it, and the protests of many citizens were ignored.

Now we're there because we fucked it up so badly, there's no way to get out gracefully. And our administration would first have to admit they fucked it up. And they just plain won't.

So, there we are.

 

[rgraham666]

Too bad we don't have a system like they used to in the olden days, where the ruler always led the troops into battle. I'd love to see Bush and Blair carrying out their own dirty work for a change.

Give them all the same grub and all the same pay, and the war would be over and done in a day. - Erich Maria Remarque - All Quiet on the Western Front

The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. - Bill Mauldin

There is nothing so terrible as a battle lost, except a battle won. - The Duke of Wellington

I'm not going to blame the soldiers who did this. If I was manning a checkpoint in Iraq, and a car didn't stop, I would unload on it. When you're at the sharp end, you are not concerned with patriotism, honour or any of that good stuff. Or bloodlust, viciousness or any bad stuff. You're mostly concerned with fear. And getting your ass out of that place in one piece.

I will blame the remfs who started this war.

Note: Remf is an acronym. It stands for Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers.

 

[cantdog]

On another thread I posted some pictures of an American checkpoint patrol killing two Iraqi parents while their five children were in the back seat of their car. While not blaming the soldiers, I posed the question: 'Why are we in the position to be doing these awful things'.

Abstruse responded: "Because it's war." Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Below is a story which was on CNN revealing the possible plans of the Bush Administration to bomb Iran.

Two years from now when we post pictures of Iranian parents who have been killed by American soldiers, will we still write the losses off: 'because it's war'?

Well, she's dead right, you know. Once you start a war, this is what you start. Once you settle in for an occupation, you create a resistance. War is what you ask for, random death comes with the turf.

This incident is just a slice of life as she is lived in the occupied zone run by Americans. Each such attack creates more sick and angry foes. Each attack by the resistance creates more sick, angry soldiers who then do this sort of thing.

The way to prevent it is to act in the way civilized nations act. Military force is justified in self defense and in resistance to occupation. Otherwise it is aggression and civilized countries don't do aggressive wars.

Except that we now have made a war and begun an occupation. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

And you're quite correct, bullet, in that we plan to do more of it.

We are making, quite deliberately, huge mistakes. They will be bloody, atrocious, and expensive. The electorate will continue to slaver over the slaughter of the ragheads, and will continue the program of empire.

cantdog

 

[thebullet]

LadyJeanne:
smutty minded twat

Geez, Jeanne, not to get off-thread here, but between your AV and your link, you've just gotten a loyal reader.

 

[thebullet]

By the way, the real point of this thread are the incursions into Iran by American military intelligence. According to Seymour Hersh of the Washington Post (I know, I know, just another left wing rag), they are a prelude to bombing.

I had this argument with my wife this morning: what do you think Iran will do if bombed? Does the administration expect a peasant's revolt? Are these the people who are going to welcome us with flowers strewn in our path?

Not bloody likely.

And if Bush and his neocon band of merry men think they can defeat Iran with air power, they have no clue about history. Air power won't win a war. Won't come close.

My question is: will the American people roll over and play dead while this fucked up administration involves us in another foreign adventure for oil?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Geez, Jeanne, not to get off-thread here, but between your AV and your link, you've just gotten a loyal reader.

*preens*

Hehe, I knew if I hung around here long enough someone would read my smut.

 

[rgraham666]

My question is: will the American people roll over and play dead while this fucked up administration involves us in another foreign adventure for oil?

Almost certainly.

The Iranians, in fact most of the world, are not people to many Americans. It's very easy to kill or condone killing if the people being killed are not real. If they are 'the other'.

And before someone tears a piece off of my ass, this is not limited to America.

Many Iranians think the same way about Americans.

It's a human problem. Many of us think of other people as 'the other', not like us. And as long as that thinking holds us, we will continue to inflict untold misery on one another.

 

[shereads]

It's good to remember that Colin Powell was the only member of this administration who had any firsthand experience of war, and he was dead set against the invasion.

Now that he's gone, we can really get it on.

---dr.M.

He had the power to stop it from happening. All he had to do was say publicly what he had been saying privately, or threaten to do so. There wouldn't have been an invasion.

If it sounds as if I blame him, I do to the extent that Powell was the one person who both knew it was wrong and had the power to stop it. His public image hadn't yet been sullied; he was respected by Democrats and Republicans. If he had refused to take questionable evidence before the U.N. and instead gone public with his doubts about its validity, he'd have sacrificed his career a few years sooner. And with a hell of a lot more dignity.

He let his good name be used to sell a lie, the consquences of which will affect his grandchildren.

On the atrocities of war: in Iraq as in Vietnam, we've placed soldiers in a situation where they can't possibly build and maintain relationships of trust with the locals.
It's not war. It's a fatal circle jerk that has turned everyone there into a potential deadly threat to everyone else.

If it were a war, the commander in chief would not be partying right now as if he'd been reelected during a time of peace and prosperity. He calls himself a war-time president but he's a war criminal. Guilty of criminal manslaughter, of every american soldier and Iraqi civilian who would still be alive if not for him.

 

[Op_Cit]

If it sounds as if I blame him, I do...

You're missing the most important person to blame: us.

You and I are too chicken to do what Henry Thoreau did and put his own situation on the line. Who among us is willing to do even so simple a thing as deduct $300 dollars (every billion$ = about $3/person) from his tax return and replace it with a note that says, "No, agressive war was outlawed by Nuremburg and I will not be complicit."?

If you pay taxes, if you support the system and vote then you share the blame. Because you have bought into the fiction that is government. You choose to delude yourself that government is not about personal laziness, deferring personal responsibility and blame.

Voting for the loser does not exempt you. By voting you have agreed to the terms of mob rule. And winner gets to decide in this mob called democracy.

I'm too chicken, but I've stopped voting, and soon I'll have my affairs in order enough to move to Central America, find a beach somewhere and at least not contribute (by tax or presence) to the evil government does.

But I still have the stain on my conscience that I believed the hype of mob rule, and what took place with my complicity.

 

[shereads]

You're missing the most important person to blame: us.

I know it's my fault. That was a couple of threads ago. Mea culpa etc.

 

[cantdog]

You're missing the most important person to blame: us.

You and I are too chicken to do what Henry Thoreau did and put his own situation on the line. Who among us is willing to do even so simple a thing as deduct $300 dollars (every billion$ = about $3/person) from his tax return and replace it with a note that says, "No, agressive war was outlawed by Nuremburg and I will not be complicit."?

If you pay taxes, if you support the system and vote then you share the blame. Because you have bought into the fiction that is government. You choose to delude yourself that government is not about personal laziness, deferring personal responsibility and blame.

Voting for the loser does not exempt you. By voting you have agreed to the terms of mob rule. And winner gets to decide in this mob called democracy.

I'm too chicken, but I've stopped voting, and soon I'll have my affairs in order enough to move to Central America, find a beach somewhere and at least not contribute (by tax or presence) to the evil government does.

But I still have the stain on my conscience that I believed the hype of mob rule, and what took place with my complicity.

If by "the loser" you mean to say Senator Kerry, then why? He was pro-war. He was pro-Iraq-war.

cantdog

 

[cantdog]

These pros don't necessarily know jack.
http://img77.exs.cx/img77/2888/catapult1id.gif

 

[cantdog]

Heh.
http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3483/catapult7kc.gif

 

[shereads]

Heh.
http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3483/catapult7kc.gif

This is priceless. I must borrow it. Thank you.

 

[rgraham666]

Op_Cit. That is the most arrant cowardice.

Democracy is not about getting your own way all the time. It's about participation.

If you didn't vote, don't bitch. And running away won't help. If things go really bad for the States, it's going to drag the rest of the world with it.

And there's lot of other ways to participate. Join a political party and work for what you want changed. Write your representatives and give 'em a piece of your mind.

You're a writer fer Chrissakes, create a story that catches your beliefs and moods and communicates them to other people.

But don't whine.

 

[Op_Cit]

Op_Cit. That is the most arrant cowardice.

Democracy is not about getting your own way all the time. It's about participation.

If you didn't vote, don't bitch. And running away won't help. If things go really bad for the States, it's going to drag the rest of the world with it.

And there's lot of other ways to participate. Join a political party and work for what you want changed. Write your representatives and give 'em a piece of your mind.

You're a writer fer Chrissakes, create a story that catches your beliefs and moods and communicates them to other people.

But don't whine.

There was no wining, and I fail to see the cowardice in refusing to support the slaughter of innocents. If I could make a difference taking up arms, I probably would.

As for writing, that's why I wrote that last post: on the 1 in a bazillion chance that someone with an open mind might read it and reconsider their membership in the cult that believes delegation of responsibility and authority can ever be a good thing (i.e. government). (In case you haven't figured out I'm an anarchist).

Democracy killed Socrates, and this representative republic is killing thousands of innocent people. Participating won't and has never changed that (a lot less drove Thoreau's decision). Participation is what fuels it.

Consider this perhaps:

What was the difference between the the Kansas farmer of 1942 and the German farmer of 1939 when the order came to relocate Japanese Americans/German Jews? Neither of them knew what was going to happen to their neighbors being taken away, neither of them imagined any kind of final solution or that his government would even conceive of such a thing.