We are at War

[fable]

We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

I don't think you actually mean this. The logical conclusion of such a statement is the military dictatorship that orders people's lives "for the good of the nation and its morale." I'd suggest that civil rights are never more in need of protection and exercise than when they are under threat; and protests against war are never more important than when a nation is actively at war. A government's motives and actions must be held up to constant scrutiny by its citizens. To do less is to act irresponsibly, IMO.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by RandomThug
Now how this relates, you claim the decision makers. Well the decision makers were the soldiers to shoot, the general who put them into position, the president for declaring war, the citizens for electing him.

In your example, I would blame the officer who decided to put an 18-year old kid at that checkpoint. When there is an explicit risk for suicide attacks but you at the same time want to minimize the risk of hurting innocent civilians, only very experienced soldiers should be watching that checkpoint. Hitting the right targets in a stressful, ambigious situation is a difficult task, as demonstrated by all the friendly-fire killings that occurs in all wars and so far very much in this.

Regarding how far the responsibility goes, you are on a slippery slope argument here, and I think you agree with me it is absurd to say that every person who voted for Bush in responsible for accidental killings of Iraqi civilians. One can only be responsible for things one has the possibility to foresee.

I am sorry if I come off like a prick but the fact is all I see everywhere are protesters without a mind (SYM being the only contrast). I know so many girls who dont know anything about the war yet walked in protest against it, to some thats nothing to me thats blatent ignorance. [/b]

There are many ignorant people in this world. Polls in the US show that an enormous amount of Americans have a highly distored image of the rationale behind the invasion of Iraq. Many believe some of the hijackers who where involved in the 9/11 attack were Iraqi, and that there is a link between Al-Queda and Iraq (something which have never been even close to confirmed).

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by fable
We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

I don't think you actually mean this. The logical conclusion of such a statement is the military dictatorship that orders people's lives "for the good of the nation and its morale." I'd suggest that civil rights are never more in need of protection and exercise than when they are under threat; and protests against war are never more important than when a nation is actively at war. A government's motives and actions must be held up to constant scrutiny by its citizens. To do less is to act irresponsibly, IMO.

Exactly. Isn't the coalition actively trying to encourage Iraqi citizens to protest (in the form of outright rejection of the Hussein government) and to rise up against their military? We cannot expect less from our own citizens (limited to peaceful protest and open dialog, of course).

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by RandomThug
We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

Not so. I've said it before - many do not join the military only to watch Constitutional Rights trampled upon. You might find some of the views expressed here interesting:

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/a ... asp?id=606

Of particular interest (and sadness) is the re-print of an article from The Times, entitled Dire Forecast.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by fable
We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

I don't think you actually mean this. The logical conclusion of such a statement is the military dictatorship that orders people's lives "for the good of the nation and its morale." I'd suggest that civil rights are never more in need of protection and exercise than when they are under threat; and protests against war are never more important than when a nation is actively at war. A government's motives and actions must be held up to constant scrutiny by its citizens. To do less is to act irresponsibly, IMO.

[From Jerry Lembcke's Myth, Memory & the Legacy of Vietnam]
The idea that protesting is bad for morale has grown in strength in the post-Vietnam War era. Besides helping shift the blame for America's most notorious military defeat from those who led the nation into it to those who opposed it, this notion also equates any opposition to war with disrespect for those in the trenches. It creates a powerful alibi for why we lost the Vietnam War. The alibi runs that we were not beaten by a small, underdeveloped, nation of Asians but rather by liberals in congress who "tied one hand behind our backs" and by radicals in the streets whose actions demoralized our troops and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It is an alibi that helps preserve key elements of American national and racial superiority: we were not defeated by Asian "others" but by our own kind. In effect, the alibi allows those who wish to believe that we were defeated by the only power on earth capable of beating the United States: the United States itself.

By making the issue our troops and not the policy of the war, the U.S. government gains a powerful lever with which to manipulate the American people. The myth of the antiwar movement’s hatred and violence toward returning vets also serves to alienate many from peace protestors, prejudicing folks against the peace movement and fostering political passivity.

The historical record shows that there was widespread solidarity between the anti-war movement and veterans. The earliest efforts by the anti-war movement to reach out to GIs had taken the form of legal aid for soldiers wishing to leave the service or simply fight for their rights within the military structure. Veterans of World War II active in the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade Committee in New York City were some of the first opponents of the war to propose that the movement recruit Vietnam veterans into protest activities. By 1969, large numbers of Vietnam veterans were joining the anti-war movement. During 1970, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) began conducting educational activities designed to "bring the war home" to the American people. The most effective of these activities were the guerrilla theater reenactments of village raids that VVAW members conducted in public spaces and the Winter Soldier war crimes trials that it held to call attention to the brutality of US policy in Vietnam.

Remembered as a war that was lost because of betrayal at home, Vietnam becomes a modern-day Alamo that must be avenged, a pretext for more war and generations of more veterans. Remembered as a war in which soldiers and pacifists joined hands to fight for peace, Vietnam symbolizes popular resistance to political authority and the dominant images of what it means to be a good American.

[RandomThug]

Ok first off I am sorry. I feel I am being disrespectful for not addressing you all individually but time finds me in a rush.

My last couple of posts were attempts of being intelligent but were in truth just emotion. I cant argue on these subjects because of my circumstance (and my very very non existant fuse). I get angry and say/do things I wish to forget later.

Of course it is important to protest the war, at all times everyone should be keeping up on thier government or things like Dictatorships can happen. My patriotic self finds it a most painful life right now, I deal with morons daily (both pro and anti) who declare the other side both horribly wrong and should be done something about them. Yet on SYM its compeltly different, respectfull opinions and many many many more intelligent people than I am.

So when I react as I would to those people I refer to as moronst to the people of SYM I feel really bad. I am sorry.

Perhaps its this thing that hangs over my head... I should be enlisted, I scored low on the entry test (why god only knows no damn computer questions) and I would most likely be in the fight right now. But I am not because I was to lazy to try to appeal my Letter of "Medical Reasons" to not allowed to enlist.

Perhaps its all my friends and family who are currently fighting for my country... I see people say "What about thier citizens" and not enough what about our soldiers. I know its redundant because all I see is whatever hte media wants to spin on me.. .its just.

We are at war and I believe during times of war it is mostly the countries responsibility to back our government, keep an eye on it indeed (protesting peacefully within reason is great), but over all not nit pick little things and look for reasons to doubt America.

All I see is people saying things like "Americans killed X Children" in iraq with a missle no one can claim was thiers. Yet those young boys who blew up by terrorist style suicide bomber.. I dont see enough people crying. Once again I think I got off track of the purpose of this post. an apology for my other posts.




I should be fighting for my life right now in something I always wanted. A reason to die. It sounds funny but for a kid who grew up in a Republican Household watching GI JOE religously and currently having NO religion...

I find my religion is my country and the #1 thing I wanted to do for my country (it took some balls cause I was scared hehe at 18) is enlist. When I got rejected it was like "whatever" but now i feel like If I did make it in and something I dont know.


I guess all this crap I just posted is me being insecure and scared.

I dont want my brother to die. Personally he probably protests this war heh the little SOB.


crap I've lost it fable..


btw fable you use big words, if we met in person I would so be that **** that goes "Alright COLLEGE BOY".

Anyhow... Im sorry I rant and rabble when i hate my job and such.


Pizza on me?

[fable]

Several of us have been saying for some time that this war was not against terrorism; to the contrary. It was simply going to create a lot more terrorists, and was a gift to the al-Qua'idahs of the world. Here's some depressing evidence of that fact, fresh from the UK's Independent, as well as indicating that the pristine democratic Afghanistani government is only a sad joke:


Afghan clerics call for new holy war
By Phil Reeves, Asia Correspondent
01 April 2003

Posters apparently endorsed by one of America's most wanted fugitives, Mullah Mohammed Omar, have appeared in Afghanistan calling for renewed holy war, providing a further sign that the conflict is worsening. Signed by 600 Islamic clerics, the posters appeared amid a flurry of attacks which saw guerrillas fire rockets at a United Nations base in Kabul and at US military installations.

The deteriorating situation has been underscored in the past few days by the killing of two American special forces soldiers in an ambush in southern Afghanistan and the death of a Red Cross worker, shot through the head while on a mission to install water wells.

The posters are circulating in eastern Afghanistan – a main area of opposition to the US and the Washington-backed government of Hamid Karzai – and call for a jihad against the Americans and Afghans who work with them. They aim to undermine efforts by Karzai to build a national army and police force to establish control over the country. Six Afghan soldiers have been killed.

Suspicion is directed at the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and elements of al-Qa'ida and Taliban with whom he appears to have forged links. Recent reports of interviews with Taliban loyalists in hiding in tribal regions of Pakistan say they have regrouped and built an alliance with Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami faction. Preparations are said to be under way for the next phase – hit-and-run attacks.

The US military and international peacekeepers say that recent attacks against them are not linked to the invasion of Iraq. But the text of the posters – reportedly a decree from the Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself – made a specific link: "Whenever the non-Muslims attack a Muslim land it is the duty of everyone to rise up against the aggressor. We were blamed for Osama bin Laden because they said he was a terrorist and was taking shelter with us. But what is the fault of Iraq? Iraq has no Osama bin Laden in his country."

The 5,000-strong peacekeeping force – the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) – includes nations opposed to the war on Iraq. ISAF staff were attacked late on Sunday, when a 122mm rocket was fired into their compound. Another rocket was fired near an ISAF base on Sunday night, also without causing injuries.

[C Elegans]

@RThug: Good to see you chilled out a bit

@Fable: Did you see the BBC interview with the Taliban who claims they are regrouping under Mulla Omar?

Here is a site I found which appears to try to collect information from various sources and estimate death tolls of Iraqi civilians. I don't know how reliable their methods are (choose "About the project" from the menu to the left and scroll down to read a description of their methodology) but in theory, it sounds less bad than the news reports anyway.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Chanak]

@Voo: Quite frankly, there are a number of spins concerning the Vietnam war out there that I don't pay much heed to. This writer perhaps sums up such a particular spin. Hanoi was very much involved in waging a propaganda campaign that, by and large, was a huge success worldwide, targeted primarily at inflaming impressionable youth Stateside and American soldiers in-country. While I necessarily also don't buy, hook line and sinker, some of the official US Government spins of that time, I certainly don't give much credence at all to the notion that Vietnam was a war that was "lost." Why? Because, it was a war that could never be won in the first place. Not every Vietnam veteran out there who saw heavy action would agree with Jerry Lembcke. I've spoken with some who would disagree rather vehemently. My father is one, though his role did not place him directly in combat. He was in Thailand at that time...

The fact is, the United States did indeed have a strategy for dealing with NVA and Vietcong forces. However, this involved action beyond the scope of the "official" theater of operations, limitations the US originally adhered to, and something President Nixon ended up taking much heat for when the "unofficial" war came to light. This was done because both the NVA and Vietcong were operating outside of this official theater themselves. These American men, who engaged the enemy in Laos and Cambodia under extreme conditions, lacking any sort of official support (their existence would be denied), were engaged in a war that was actually beginning to be successful. They were infiltrating the NVA and Vietcong infrastructure, and discovering lines of supply...very cleverly and artfully disguised, beyond the reach of conventional forces. Firebases were established well beyond the lines...firebases that had to be abandoned when the US officially withdrew from Vietnam. Some of these men were abandoned...left to fend for themselves, as it were, without any way of getting back home.

I served with a man...I'll call him Rick...that saw three combat tours in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. He and his fellow soldiers conducted long-range patrols deep into Laos and Cambodia as part of their time in-country. What Rick saw, and was himself subjected to, is something I'd rather not share here. He was captured once by the Vietcong, and successfully escaped. I will say that he had a chest full of medals...a couple of Purple Hearts, three Bronze Stars, and dozens of other citations and awards that made even general officers, such as the commander of our Brigade, give him a wide berth of respect. What he told me, coupled by what my father has shared with me in the past few years, reinforces literature I have read that paints an entirely different picture of Vietnam than what gentlemen such as Jerry Lembcke attempts to paint, or even the US Government released to the general public at that time.

@fable: It would appear to me that terrorists find any excuse expedient to justify their actions. The US has been a popular scapegoat of terrorists for a very long time. It is "hip," if you will, to be critical of every move the United States makes in order to justify one's position. Islamic extremists, hardly representative of the millions who follow Muhammad worldwide, employ these excuses on a regular basis. It certainly isn't anything new to me.

[fable]

Originally posted by Chanak
It would appear to me that terrorists find any excuse expedient to justify their actions. The US has been a popular scapegoat of terrorists for a very long time. It is "hip," if you will, to be critical of every move the United States makes in order to justify one's position. Islamic extremists, hardly representative of the millions who follow Muhammad worldwide, employ these excuses on a regular basis. It certainly isn't anything new to me.

There wasn't a single Afghani cleric who uttered a fatwah against the US when it invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban. That stark fact in itself should give pause to simply lumping them in with terrorists. (Not that terrorists in themselves should simply be dismissed as going after popular scapegoats. Terrorist actions have specific causes and agents, and these need to be understood independently and culturally to get at the root of terrorism. Irish terrorism would never have sputtered out if the British government declared that Shin Fein was simply targeting it as a convenient scapegoat.) The change has come from the invasion of Iraq. This has made a great difference in Afghanistan, and it's the kind of change that cultural watchers have been predicting would occur if Bush pushed ahead with the invasion. I posted it, with regret, because I think it will prove the first of many such incidents that grow over coming months.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by RandomThug
Alright I will forgive myself for making the "kid" a victim too. He is a soldier fighting a war, if everytime someone killed an American soldier or two we backed out... well we'd loose...

I think people need to place themselves in the following position:

It doesn't matter if you're 18, or 33. Your country's military have been the subjects of a number of attacks not just designed to take lives...but meant to affect the minds of those who are left alive. A car, or van...occupied by an "unarmed" civilian...drives into your base, exploding upon impact. There was no warning...no way to tell that this was a suicide bomber unless you possessed psychic powers, or miraculous technology which isn't feasible just yet. It is a time of war, and attacks upon your person are to be expected. Therefore, your commander receives the following orders from high up: the driver of any vehicle in your AO (Area of Oversight), civilian or otherwise, which does not heed one clearly visible or audible warning to stop the movement of their vehicle by authorized personnel, is to be removed with extreme prejudice.

Such actions psychologically scar soldiers, whether they are 18, or 33. The enemy can be anywhere, at any time. No, these soldiers cannot be blamed for their actions...and Command cannot be blamed for their efforts to prevent suicide bombers from taking Coalition lives.

Those drivers shouldn't have driven up like they did, not the soldier shouldn't be there.

Agreed, Thug. People who have not studied military tactics or action very closely normally don't have an inkling of what the average Coalition soldier faces out there. They don't understand - or care to acknowledge - that day and night, he faces the immediate extermination of his life. This can come in a variety of ways. You can be shot in a firefight...taken out by an artillery shell...or you can be shot by a woman, dressed in flowing robes that conceal an AK-47, a fully automatic assault weapon of Soviet design, popular the world over and certainly used by Iraqis at this very moment. Sometimes, a "civilian" will be wired with explosives, and sent into your unit's area to carry out a suicide attack. He could be on foot...or he could be driving a car...

We are at war, protesting now only brings down morale.

People also don't understand the effect protest has on soldiers involved in fighting the battle. They hear their country is divided back home...and some of them begin to wonder why they are there, and why they joined the military in the first place. They begin to lose something of that mental cohesiveness that is necessary to survive the horrors of battle that they have been trained to engage in, and plunged into. And for those who think Iraqi efforts to wage a psychological war against American and Coalition troops don't exist, I beg to differ. You saw some of the effects of that psychological battle in the example of the unarmed motorist taken out by American soldiers.

In one sense, continuing protest Stateside does indeed have a detrimental effect upon soldiers. They have been committed to battle...and many have already given their lives in this invasion. There is nothing worse than hearing the folks back home don't want you there...because you have no choice but to be there.

[Chanak]

Originally posted by fable
There wasn't a single Afghani cleric who uttered a fatwah against the US when it invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban. That stark fact in itself should give pause to simply lumping them in with terrorists. (Not that terrorists in themselves should simply be dismissed as going after popular scapegoats. Terrorist actions have specific causes and agents, and these need to be understood independently and culturally to get at the root of terrorism. Irish terrorism would never have sputtered out if the British government declared that Shin Fein was simply targeting it as a convenient scapegoat.) The change has come from the invasion of Iraq. This has made a great difference in Afghanistan, and it's the kind of change that cultural watchers have been predicting would occur if Bush pushed ahead with the invasion. I posted it, with regret, because I think it will prove the first of many such incidents that grow over coming months.

As I recall, Osama Bin-Laden called for such things in the past, and had the support of various clerics. Again, as this is off the top of my head, I am not prepared with details at my fingertips...then again, I'm also not exactly debating you either. While I agree that terrorism indeed does have a cause-and-effect basis, in reality, there are a number of extremist groups in the Middle East who craft their plans carefully in order to inflame Islamic ire as much as possible. They employ clerics sympathetic to their ideology to issue fatwahs condemning the actions of the United States as "against all Muslims worldwide." The invasion of Iraq presents such a golden opportunity...the funny thing is, Hussein and his regime are not theocratic to begin with, and are hated by a number of sects and groups. Hussein's family and relatives are Sunni, are they not? As I recall - correct me if I'm wrong - many of these fatwahs, and calls for jihad issued over the years from the general region, have received sharp criticism from Islamic scholars and figures in other Arab nations, as well as those living and working in the West.

I'm sure this was predictable by those intimately familiar with the region. I'm also equally sure that the United States government's own advisors knew it would happen. I agree that the assessment of "scapegoat" status is too simplistic...however, many of these people are the avowed enemies of the United States and her allies, viewing the West as the source of everything ungodly on earth...and are not interested in any sort of negotiation, or peaceful co-existence. That they would find fault with anything the US does is indeed predictable to me, a statement of my own opinion, I concur.

[fable]

I agree that the assessment of "scapegoat" status is too simplistic...however, many of these people are the avowed enemies of the United States and her allies, viewing the West as the source of everything ungodly on earth...and are not interested in any sort of negotiation, or peaceful co-existence.

But with due respect, I think that's demonstrably untrue. Canada is part of the West, and how many Arab terrorist attacks have there been in Canada? What about the Netherlands? Denmark? I don't think either of us believes the US is "the West." The problem is that the US, by its constant and undiscriminating economic, military and political support for the Israeli government against the Palestinians, is being seen in the Muslim world as morally bankrupt. Factor on top of this the support for many decades by the US government for what many citizens in different Arab nations regard as their despotic regimes--Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran (when the Shah was in power, and make no mistake, he was a dictatorial bastar!), Iraq (when Hussein was doing the US' bidding).

In short, whether anybody accepts that terrorism is justified or not, the particular terrorist groups under discussion have their clear and specific reasons for what they do. I would suggest that the best way to eliminate these groups is not to treat the matter as though they were ducks appearing on a rotating belt in a shooting gallery, because given continuance of perceived cause, there will be a near-infinite supply of ducks. If we want to stop this particular series of terrorists, the US needs to seriously reexamine its relationship with Israel (which doesn't mean disavowing Israel), and the "foreign aid" it provides to regimes that are considered oppressive and corrupt by their people.

But none of this will happen. The "winner take all" US political system means that no national politician truly seeking election will openly question the current US/Israeli relationship, so there's no dialog on that front. And Dubya, like his predecessors, seems incapable of perceiving that foreign aid could be funneled far more vigorously through public agencies operating in dictatorial nations rather than given directly to despotic regimes.

Then the US turns around and goes after Iraq, with Bush proclaiming a moral agenda. It just doesn't work that way. A government can't arbitrarily and heavily support those despots it wishes to, while attacking others in the name of democracy, and come away perceived as anything other than hypcritical. That infuriates the powerless, and drives them straight into the arms of the extremist organizations who (not coincidentally) often provide the only education and hospitals for the lower class in some of these countries.

[VoodooDali]

I came across this poem today.

The writer, Saadi Youssef, is an Iraqi poet.

from America, America
translated from the Arabic by Khaled Mattawa

I too love jeans and jazz and Treasure Island
and John Silver's parrot and the balconies of New Orleans.
I love Mark Twain and the Mississippi steamboats and Abraham Lincoln's dogs.
I love the fields of wheat and corn and the smell of Virginia tobacco.
But I am not American.

Is that enough for the Phantom pilot to turn me back to the stone age?
. . .
America:
let's exchange gifts. Take your smuggled cigarettes
and give us potatoes.
Take James Bond's golden pistol
and give us Marilyn Monroe's giggle.
Take the heroin syringe under the tree
and give us vaccines.
Take your blueprints for model penitentiaries
and give us village homes.
Take the books of your missionaries
and give us paper for poems to defame you.
Take what you do not have
and give us what we have.
Take the stripes of your flag
and give us the stars.
Take the Afghani Mujahideen beard
and give us Walt Whitman's beard filled with
butterflies.
Take Saddam Hussein
and give us Abraham Lincoln
or give us no one.

. . .
We are not hostages, America
and your soldiers are not God's soldiers ...
We are the poor ones, ours is the earth of the drowned gods,

the gods of bulls
the gods of fires
the gods of sorrows that intertwine clay and
blood in a song...
We are the poor, ours is the god of the poor
who emerges out of farmers' ribs
hungry
and bright,
and raises heads up high...

America, we are the dead.
Let your soldiers come.
Whoever kills a man, let him resurrect him.
We are the drowned ones, dear lady.
We are the drowned.
Let the water come.

[fable]

Some powerful lines there, @Voodoo Dali.

[Minerva]

Originally posted by Chanak
They have been committed to battle...and many have already given their lives in this invasion. There is nothing worse than hearing the folks back home don't want you there...because you have no choice but to be there.

I'm glad you have used the word "invasion", because that's exactly what it seems from the Iraqi's (and many Muslim's) point of view. Nothing worse? How about non combatants in their homes with little children hearing bombs shooting down from the sky day in day out? Soldiers (for both side) have chosen the job, and good luck to them. Ordinary people never have chosen to be bombed, however.

[Gruntboy]

Can't people choose their leaders?

[Minerva]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Can't people choose their leaders?

It is hardly possible to say even the Americans actually chose their leader, isn't it?

[Gruntboy]

Lets stick to facts. If Iraq didn't want to get bombed they could have not had 100% of its population vote for Mr Hussein. Or he could have (since he was voted in) complied fully with the weapons inspectors.

I don't see how this is any less believable than the Florida polling stations. Odd.

[James Mason]

Let's stick to the facts. Hussein did comply with the weapons inspectors.