<Can sustainable farming feed the world? The Oil Drum The Oil Drum Celebrates Its First Year Today>

68 comments on More on the Military concerns

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Oilrig medic on March 23, 2006 - 12:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
   Only the dead have seen the end of the war. Plato.

   I think the day a US soldier compromises his/her honor and MURDERS an innocent is a very sad day indeed.  But look at the broader picture...if you take a group any group. Accountants, Irish, African americans, single divorcees you will find that one of them is capable of murder.  This enemy we are fighting...the "Evil Doers" they are the flip side of our military industrial complex.  A close friend of mine was killed by a woman pretending to be pregnant who was actually strapped with explosives.
www.militarycity.com/valor/256559.html
SSG Nino Livaudais
  Unfortunately young boys of all nations fight wars while old men talk about them.  Boys that are not men yet and scared.  Things like what happened to Nino happen every day in Iraq.  It changes soldiers.  
   I think Friedrich Nietzsche said "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster"  These "Evil Doers" are not all evil. They are scared young men raised in poverty and ignorance following the guidance of old men who talk to much. I walked away from the Army a changed person and a good one I believe, but there is no penance for the things I've done and no forgetting the things I've seen.
   So go then and slay a few dragons and then tell me if you sleep better.  Or will you wake up crying.  And before we convict a soldier in the trial of media, pause for a moment and think "Who cuts heads off of bound prisoners?".

There is nothing good in war.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on March 23, 2006 - 9:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"This enemy we are fighting" - is one we sought out and choose to fight.  

A war of choice, a war for profit.  WE are the aggressors, we did not have to do this, which only compounds any crimes committed by individual soldiers.  In any violent crime, be it in times of war or in civilian life, when one looks at the circumstances it is often true that the perpetrator is also a victim.  It's a sad state of affairs when we put young people in such situations for which they are not prepared, where they are in the wrong, and their responses are often predictably bad.  But that does not excuse the crime, it only makes those who sent them at least equally guilty.    

Yes, there is nothing good in war.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oilrig medic on March 23, 2006 - 2:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We agree then there is nothing good in war.

Yet some wars must be fought, when diplomacy fails.  I am speaking of the War on Terror, and there is no diplomacy with these people.  They are murderers and readily admit to their willingness to kill innocents.  We did not choose this war just as 99% of muslims did not.  An extreme faction of that religion attacked us on our own soil.  We must act in response.  I would prefer covert operations and CIA involvement.  Westerners on arab soil bolster our enemy and gain support for the terrorist. But make no mistake we need to seek this enemy and fight them.  
Iraq was an opportunity to gain a foothold in the mideast and stabilize the region. Colonialism has had a very unsuccesful past and I don't think democracy building works.  You must have an educated public for democracy and that prerequisite is not met.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on March 23, 2006 - 9:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm sorry, but this is delusional.  Iraq had nothing to do with ANY attack on US soil.  The people WE attacked with the full force of the US military were innocent, which we knew.  Is that not murder?    

We did everything in our power to sabatoge the diplomatic efforts in the run up to the Irag war, because war was the goal.  And now much of the rest of the world looks at the US and thinks "there is no diplomacy with these people" - unless you have nukes.  

We absolutely do not need to seek this enemy and fight them - and doing so is morally unsupportable.  The oil does not belong to us, and we have no right to take it by force. We used our up, now we are free to BUY what we can of other's.   Beyond that the effort is doomed to failure.

Terror is a tactic - and if the people who planned the 9/11 attack were indeed Bin Laden and his crew, then you must keep in mind that he was our boy, just as was Saddam.  WE made them both what they became, because at one time we thought they would be useful tools in our effort to control ME oil.  

Indeed, you must have an educated public for democracy, and that prerequisite is not met as long as people believe complete falsehoods like the ones you have stated above.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BOP on March 23, 2006 - 10:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Twilight - Thanks for your post. I was saddened when I posted the column from the Independent. I have spent some time trying to identify the source of that sadness.

I am not an American. To many of us who are not Americans, the United States has been seen as a shining city of light, a beacon, a living monument to the highest ideals of humankind.

I do not wish to sound too gushy but I grew up when a pair of kids of my age were dismantling an American presidency and using nothing more than the truth as their weapon of choice. And I later met a women confined for life to a wheelchair due to the military violence at Kent State; I have had nothing but respect for the past ability of America to confront evil and seek a return to core values respected by all persons who respect honest debate and work to preserve freedom.

My sense is that America is now a rogue state, one which no longer respects the ideals of her founders, or the freedoms they sought to protect. I fail to understand why her people are so silent.

I don't believe I am alone in this negative view of America. This growing negative perception does not auger well for Americas future place in the commonwealth of nations. When we write the story of peak oil, I believe we will also be writing the decline of the American state and the American empire.

With regard to Iraq I would send them an endless supply of New Hampshire license plates. I disagree with their notion of freedom but I can see no way to counter their desire to achieve what America seeks to forfeit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oilrig medic on March 24, 2006 - 4:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds he admitted to this.  The Israelis had to take out his Nuclear production in the 80's.  Saddam repeatedly stated he wanted WMD's. Nevertheless read my post above...I am against occupation/invasion of Iraq I believe it seeds new terrorism.
  The "Enemy" I speak of is the extreme faction of Islam which publically endorses harming innocent nonmuslims. We must support moderate nations like Saudi, Jordan and Egypt, while surgically taking out the bad guys. One Air Force sorte costs more than 12 commandos behind enemy lines.
  Guerrilla warfare is a tactic, terrorism is murder and morally wrong, and violates the rules of war, and the Koran.
  If you think I have posted something false, debunk it.  Calling me delusional is simply a fallacious cop-out.
  How can you not morally support hunting down and killing the murderers of 9/11, the same killers pressure young men and women to strap bombs to themselves with lies of martyrdom.  These suicide bombers kill as many innocent muslims as Israelis or Americans.

  Twilight your statements are inconsistent, and your moral compass is spinning.  It saddens me that you can have such a narrow minded view of your country.  If these isolated cases of soldiers ALLEGEDLY murdering civilians are wrong what is your standpoint on a suicide bomber willing to kill his own countrymen in a cowardly attack on civilians?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on March 24, 2006 - 6:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think I already did itemize several of the factual errors in your post:  

We are also murderers and willing to kill innocents.  We absolutely DID choose this war - if you dispute this, please provide one reason for attacking Iraq not based on things that were obvious lies beforehand.  Diplomacy did not fail, we killed it.  

You oppose the Iraq war because "Westerners on Arab soil bolster our enemy and gain support for the terrorist.",  i.e. because it is ineffective.  I oppose it because it is utterly, totally morally bankrupt to attack a country that has not done anything to you.  Also, perhaps you can state who "this enemy" is that you refer to?  Is it Arabs?  Persians?  Muslims?  The Saudis who made up most of the 9/11 attackers?  Anyone who disagrees with us?  Maybe just those who have something we want?  

At the time the chemical attacks on the Kurds occurred, the US analysis was that it was Iranian chemicals that had killed them, and that the town had been caught in a crossfire between the two sides.  I'm sure you must be aware that the US and Europe supplied much of the chemical weapon technology that Iraq was using during the Iran/Iraq war - this was done because Iraq was getting it's butt kicked, and we were worried that Iran would win.  

Modern weapons of war are far more effective at killing large numbers of civilians than are suicide bombers.  We have killed, and are killing civilians in large numbers - but does it matter which method is more effective?  Just what is it that would make someone willing to strap on a bomb and obliterate themselves just to strike at their enemy?  

You say that "terrorism is murder and morally wrong, and violates the rules of war", but what the US is doing in Iraq (an unprovoked war of aggression) is also morally wrong, and in fact is about the highest war crime known.  Our continued support of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is also morally wrong.  They do not hate us because we are free; they hate us because of our actions.  

If we had used the billions we have spent on war to make the lives of people in the ME tangibly better, had dealt with them in good faith - in short if we had behaved the way our national myths of self image tell us we should, then there would be no support for the madmen in the ME.  And we would be far safer than we are now.  

I see little difference between a soldier killing a civilian in support of a nation trying to steal the oil resources of another vs. a terrorist killing civilians in an attempt to strike back.  Is the bomb dropped from an F16, or the sniper's bullet, more moral than the home-made bomb?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oilrig medic on March 24, 2006 - 7:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Valid Reasons for Military Action in Iraq
  1. Saddam stated his goal was to erradicate Israel/US
  2. Saddam like Hitler/Stalin and countless other dictators in history ran a murderous regime (minority driven by the way) with gross human rights violations.
  3. Stabilize the region/ build democracy.  I disagree with this one but many analysts liberal and consevative thought it a good idea pre-shockandawe.
  4. Oil....not to steal it but to secure it.  Stealing would be going into a stable country IE Kuwait for the sole purpose of killing and controlling the locals and taking the oil.  We pay the Iraqis for all the oil we get from them. We also pay them higher than market value for a host of services.  We also train their military and police and equip them.
  5.  Saddam paid bounties to families of suicide bombers in palestine.  On sept 12 Bush said terrorists anywhere and those who support them will be hunted and killed/captured.  
  6.  Saddam said he wanted WMD's and there was legitimate fear he would cooperate with a terrorist faction.

When a bomb dropped from the sky on a legitimate target kills innocents it is called "collateral damage"  Saddam used his women and children as shields to make the us look bad. Intentionally in Desert storm and the recent conflict he did this.  If you can't recognize the moral difference between intentionally targeting civilians and legitimate military targets then you are obviously "morally bankrupt" yourself.  Snipers are highly trained in target recognition.  Their role on the modern battlefield saves lives on both sides by taking out highlevel threats without full on engagements or large amounts of ordinance.

There is a difference between killing a soldier and murdering a civilian. It is a soldiers job to put his life at risk.  He is a fair target.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Show me any violations the US has allegedly made and I'll show you 100 the Enemy has.

The "Enemy" as I already put it is a tiny fraction of Muslims the footsoldiers of which are often uneducated young men being led by power hungry often highly educated leaders.  They are being recruited from all the disenchanted youth across the Islamic nations.  The religous rhetoric combined with poverty and squalor makes for a powerful recruiting tool.  

Twilight every time you post it seems like you have not read my post.  I am all about protecting human life.  The murders we are fighting are an enemy to the US, Israel, and Islam.  When the World Trade Center was attacked the planners knew there would be an american response.  Just as every american knew we must respond.  You repeatedly confuse my statements against terrorism for a pro Iraq war argument.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on March 24, 2006 - 7:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I should have quit this one long ago - clearly we live in different worlds, and are failing to communicate.

And this is not the right forum for this discussion, so I appologize to the TOD community for increasing the noise.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
worried on March 26, 2006 - 11:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have to jump in here, increasing the noise level only because I think most people will have left this thread by now, but that I can't see this comment left alone. Also, forgive my laziness in not using quote formatting.

1. Saddam stated his goal was to erradicate Israel/US

Israel has stated its goal is to erradicate Palestine, Iraq and Iran. US has stated its goal to erradicate (sorry, spread democracy) to Afganistan, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Cuba..... Ok, to be fair, they never have stated that as their goal, but I would like to see quotes from Saddam saying he wanted to erradicate Israel/US. Would that have been after the famed meeting with Rumsfield, after the years of CIA support? I find it so hard to believe that a country the size of California, half the world away, was considered a serious threat. You were worried they would invade you?

2. Saddam like Hitler/Stalin and countless other dictators in history ran a murderous regime (minority driven by the way) with gross human rights violations.

Ignoring the H word, it is also true that the US is running a murderous regime with gross human rights violations. Have you not heard about the latest UN and Amnesty reports? Covert operations are terrorism from the other side. Gulags anyone?

3. Stabilize the region/ build democracy.  I disagree with this one but many analysts liberal and consevative thought it a good idea pre-shockandawe.

Yes, bomb them into stabilization. Bomb them until they vote. (bombing was carried out from Gulf war I)

4. Oil....not to steal it but to secure it.  Stealing would be going into a stable country IE Kuwait for the sole purpose of killing and controlling the locals and taking the oil.  We pay the Iraqis for all the oil we get from them. We also pay them higher than market value for a host of services.  We also train their military and police and equip them.

I'm not sure there is a difference. I believe that when the war started, it was stated that it would be paid by Iraqi oil, and that reconstruction would be paid by Iraqi oil. Bomb them and make them pay. Higher pay as a rational for war? Disband an army then claim credit for trying to start a new one?

5.  Saddam paid bounties to families of suicide bombers in palestine.  On sept 12 Bush said terrorists anywhere and those who support them will be hunted and killed/captured.  

Israel should abide by all UN resolutions against it. How about the right of return for 4 million refugees. How can you justify supporting an apartheid nation? Why didn't Bush say he would seek justice on only those who pepetrated 9/11? Why is that an excuse to attack anyone now labelled by Bush as a terrorist? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

6.  Saddam said he wanted WMD's and there was legitimate fear he would cooperate with a terrorist faction.

Now the whole world wants WMD's, as it has been proven if you don't have them, you will be attacked by the US. Is the US now the world's thought police, attacking states because they might cooperate with someone that the US doesn't agree with, because they might want something?

Really what I find amazing is that some Americans (there are so many representations of smart and well informed ones here on this site) cannot see the other side. Up until the start of the Iraq war I also believed most American propaganda about how the US is good for the world. Its only because it has been so badly bunged up by Bush that I started researching other sources and other points of view. The more I read the more shocked I am. As been repeatedly stated here, Bush has worn through all the goodwill the US had. More and more people I talk to are coming around to understand the role the US has had in trying to dominate the world through force. While I know I will not change your opinions, you must realize that you are becoming part of a smaller and smaller section of Americans (latest polls say only 1 in three supporting Bush).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oilrig medic on March 26, 2006 - 6:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Saddam formally assumed the Iraqi presidency in 1979. He maintained power through the devastating Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the first Gulf War (1991), which both corresponded with a sharp decline in living standards and the human rights situation. While hailed among some sectors of the Arab world for standing up to the West and his unflinching support for the Palestinians, the United States continued to view Saddam with harsh scorn following Iraqi defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. He was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and was captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/s/sa/saddam_hussein.html

Right and wrong are not a matter of the whims of the mob.  I do not care what opinions are held.  In the entire post above I have stated I do not support an occupation or democracy building. In the current trial procedings saddam said it was a duty of muslims to destroy Israel. I am in support of hunting down this perverted faction of Islam and killing them any means neccesary. Very few countries have WMD's and we have not invaded th others.  Are we in Venezuela?

"While I know I will not change your opinions, you must realize that you are becoming part of a smaller and smaller section of Americans (latest polls say only 1 in three supporting Bush)."

Public opinion should not sway a presidents will.  His conscience should.  For whatever successes and failures he has I truly believe GW believes he is acting in good faith.  I disagree  with his tactics but not his principles.  You will not change my opinion unless you can yank back some ficticous green curtain and show me the true OZ.  

The bombings continued through clintons era because Saddam was a threat. Left alone he would eventual have made something nasty.  Saddam SAID he wanted to.

Once again I hate war.  Many of my buddies are dead in the past five years.  I hope you understand a large percentage of moderate democrats are fed up with the lunacy of that party.  This election will be up in the air and I think dems could win but they will probably run a far lefter and alienate the country.  4 more years republican. :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

68 comments on More on the Military concerns

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version