This war is really getting to me

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally posted by: madape
On a personal note, I'd like to apoligize for not being able to dismiss the reality of the world I live in. I'm sorry for not being willing to join in the circle jerk of hippies and potheads on this thread who infer that our fight against terrorism is some kind black mark on humanity. I'm sorry I don't condemn this war on moral grounds, becuase "War is bad.....mmmmkay". Shame on me for making this thread politial.

This was never a moral statement about the good of the war. I think most people would prefer not to go to war. I also remind you that many people who support the war now also believe that peace is the best solution but that solution wasnt given to us when someone else used violence.

Do you honestly want to go to war? If there wasnt a good reason would you still want to crack heads open?

I honestly started this thread as a way for people to share their experience of war without a political/moral statement of whether the war was a good thing. Seperate of war, losing our young people is horrible.

[mavsman55]

I think madape has some good points here. And all of you guys can't just ignore the holocaust that Saddam Hussein was putting his people through in Iraq. Have you ever read about the millions of innocent people he killed for being different from him? Have you seen the torture chambers that he'd send his innocent victims to? This crazy guy is out of office, and I think that was definitely worth going to war over. I care about all people, and I think that the lives of 500 brave American soldiers are worth saving the lives of possibly millions of more Iraqi people. Remember that the majority of these Iraqi people are innocent, and didn't deserve to be living the way they were with Saddam leading them. This war was a good cause.

[twelli]

I think, what Tillman did was remarkable, a big decision. He might be a hero for some, but someone who chooses to become a soldier, chooses to become a killer at the same time, no matter if the people he kills are guilty or innocent. A soldier has to accept the fact that he might get killed as well, so I wouldn't mourn to much about him or all the other soldiers who die on the battlefield.

To get rid of rulers like Milosevic or Saddam or terrorists like Osama, war might be the only solution, but the US should spend less money on sending troops overseas and spend more money on finding solutions for the Isreal-Palestine conflict and on doing things that changes the views of the general masses in the Middle East. Why is it that the US is not much liked around the world and seen as an agressor rather than a peace-maker?

Real heroes are those preventing conflicts by creating understanding not those trying to end conflicts by using force.

[Usually Lurkin]

It is good and well to lament the sacrifice that is being made, and to mourn the loss of life, and to lament the atrocities of tyranny, and to lament the terrorist fundamentalism that has forced us into a state of war. And I do hate the fact of all of those things. If person A tries to kill person B, then it is very sad that one of them will probably have to die. But to suggest that person B is an unevolved form of human for trying to defend him- or her-self just doesn't seem right.

It's just wierd to lament the fact that humanity hasn't "grown past" such a thing. It's like lamenting the fact that we haven't evolved wings, or developed telepathic powers, or haven't properly colonized the sun yet, or the fact the I, personally, am not the Grand Pubah of All Things Large and Multi-Colored. Such a lament compares the true state of things to an impossible fantasy - and hence an unreducible difference.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: twelli
I think, what Tillman did was remarkable, a big decision. He might be a hero for some, but someone who chooses to become a soldier, chooses to become a killer at the same time, no matter if the people he kills are guilty or innocent. A soldier has to accept the fact that he might get killed as well, so I wouldn't mourn to much about him or all the other soldiers who die on the battlefield.

The hollow-headed and spoiled stupidity of your above post is making me nauseous twelli...

You casually blather on and feyly label Pat Tillman as a "killer" who you "wouldn't mourn so much", a killer who should have "accept[ed]" the fact that "he might get killed as well", but while you are so coyly crapping in your own pot, you neglect to mention the role of the real damned "killers" who actually started this fight.

The original "killers" in this war were the coddled, middle-eastern oil children who tied up stewardesses and slit their thoats with box cutters; well-heeled jihadist Saudis who left mothers and fathers choking and burning to death as they desperately tried to call their loved ones one last time before succumbing to roasting asphyxiation; scum who took glee in resourcefully employing the lives of hundreds of airborne civilians to kill thousands more as they began their workdays in the Pentagon and World Trade Center; murderers whose masters were probably frustrated that the twin towers stood for so long after the initial blasts, as 30,000 dead would have been so much more satisfying than 2,995.

These Jihadist animals "lived by the sword" as they consigned thousands of innocents to their deaths on September 11, so in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing unjust about the thousands of their plotting Mohammaden brethren who have "died by the sword" during our campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else that American might has run them into the ground.

If bleating on about the plight of Palestinians, minimizing the importance of the thousands of men and women who died on 9-11, and casually dismissing the worth of the service and sacrifice of a man like Pat Tillman makes you feel worldly and wise twelli, then more power to you. But I will say that in my opinion, you and your ilk are barely deserving of the protection and service of men like Tillman who put their lives on the line to ensure you have the freedom to spout your coddled and craven idiocies...

[LRB]

Unfortunately mankind has a basic desire for power and control over others members of the human race. Until we learn to completely subdue this desire, warfare will be a natural result. It is not enough for most of mankind to learn to subdue this basic desire, all of mankind must learn to do so. Generally wars are started by a few individuals and their quest for power. But I do believe that there needs to be a distinction made between those who fight solely to project their power and control over others and those that fight to protect themselves from being in the power and control of others. Admittedly this can be difficult for some to discern, but I believe it to be found for all who truely look.

Yes, it is sad that we have to still have wars among ourselves, but hardly unexpected. I do not expect a change anytime soon. For a free society, such as that in the United States, war is a necessary component to maintain those freedoms and probably always will be in this world. I do believe thought that war can be limited. We need not turn to war as the 1st nor even 2nd solution to every disagreement. I certainly do not feel that this is the case here in America, nor in many of the countries around the world.

Could we improve? Certainly we can. But in most cases improvment means removing the causes of war, which in almost all cases the primary causes are individuals. However we are often reluctant as a society to take definitive action actions those individuals until a large scale war must be the end result. Often in our misguided attempts at peace, we create the very conditions which allow a power hungary individual to gain the power and resources to necessitate a large scale war to remove him or at least hold him in check. And in war, even under the best of circumstances, it is the innocent who suffer more than the guilty as a general rule.

War is inevitable and cannot be avoided. We can only hope to limit it. I pray that those soldiers who have died in Iraq have done so in a successful attempt at limiting war. I would rather have a smaller war today than a larger one tomorrow. Quite often, that is the only choice offered to peace loving people by warmongers. If we set realistic goals, then we can have improvement and success. However if we set unrealistic goals, then we have only failure to look forward to, and it is a good chance that we may end up in a much worse situation.

[EricaLubarsky]

give me a break evilmav. Puh-lease. Saddam had no part of the September 11th attack and I do not want to see any more pissed off september 11th rants. give it up.

No one wants to see pictures of the WTC. It's disturbing and it only raises the emotional ante of the thread without making a statement about the war in Iraq.

[madape]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
give me a break evilmav. Puh-lease. Saddam had no part of the September 11th attack and I do not want to see any more pissed off september 11th rants. give it up.

No one wants to see pictures of the WTC. It's disturbing and it only raises the emotional ante of the thread without making a statement about the war in Iraq.

I see nowhere in evilmav's rant where he even mentioned Iraq. So while most of the world considers Iraq to be a major battle in the war on terror, and experts agree that a victory there would certianly push back the tide of the facist, fundamentalist, anti-western, mulsim theocracies that bred the islamic terror movement... Iraq really isn't the issue here. Tillman died fighting the Taliban in Afganistan, not Saddam in Iraq. So your wild retort to EvilMavs well thought-out response doesn't make much sense. Now, if you want to make some crazy arguments about how the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, go ahead. I'd love to hear them. But I have a feeling it will make you look even more foolish than you already do.

I realize that you don't want to see pictures of the world trade center. This whole fucking thread is your lame attempt to evaluate this war without considering any reasons behind it. When someone mentions the reason, you go balistic and call them names like "asshole" in private messages (I'm taking that into consideration, BTW). God forbid Evilmav remind us all why our president sent troops into Afganistan in the first place.

You may want to forget 9-11, but most of us never will. The US is fighting this war so that we'll never again be forced to witness images like the ones posted on this thread. Hundreds of real Americam heroes, including Pat Tillman, have given their lives so people like you who don't appreciate their sacrifice can still tuck themselves in at night without worrying about a smallpox outbreak... or about New York City going up in nuclear fire

Sleep tight you ingrate.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: EricaLubarsky
give me a break evilmav. Puh-lease. Saddam had no part of the September 11th attack and I do not want to see any more pissed off september 11th rants. give it up.

No one wants to see pictures of the WTC. It's disturbing.

What exactly did I say about Saddam?

I was responding to twelli's callous references to Pat Tillman. Pat Tillman was an army ranger who decided to serve his country in the aftermath of the Pentagon and WTC attacks, and who was killed by Al-Queda/Taliban ambushers in Afghanistan. Thus his story is inseperable from the reality that Mohammaden madmen murdered almost 3000 civilians on the black day of September 11, and your criticism of my post is off-point and incoherent.

And on the subject of 9-11 and American foreign policy activism... Why do you think the United States has troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and many other Islamic countries? Oil? Are we trying to form an American Empire? Is Bush a blood thirsty war monger? Or is the United States just some kind of renegade cowboy country that loves to ride roughshod over the rest of the poor world?

The answer is, none of the above. The reason thousands of American troops are serving in combat overseas is because that after the events of 9-11 it has become critically obvious that it would be insane for the American people or government to ever again assume that it is safe to ignore the rest of the world. For the United States to revert to burying our heads in the sand, driving around talking on our cellphones, and ignoring the plottings and threats of Mullah's and Saddams and Chinese would be a madness that borders on the suicidal. The reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan has everything to do with the waking up of the American people to the kinds of threats that 9-11 exemplified, the realization that there are many, many millions of unbalanced people around the world who hate America, and the importance of any American government making sure the next "smoking gun" we find doesn't arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud.

You may think it is passe to think that 9-11 mattered much, and my "rants" about the criminal monsters who murdered thousands of your countrymen may bore your jaded, 20 year old soul, but I for one will not forget that the American people and Union were viciously violated on that day. That is the single most important predicating reason we have GI's putting their lives on the line overseas to protect your right to post on internet boards, freely indulge in your right of free speech, and saunter off to class without worrying about putting on your veil, being blown up by Arab suicide bombers, or being accosted by secret policemen or paramilitary bravos.

The world changed on 9-11, and I find it disturbing that so many folks find it so easy to forget exactly how this war on terror started. Forgetting the thousands of 9-11 dead, and condemning the showing of "disturbing" 9-11 photos does a disservice to both the victims of that crime and to the American troops who are bravely protecting the liberal traditions of the free world by fighting the forces of despotism and religious fanaticism in various shit-holes around the globe.

[EricaLubarsky]

I don't forget how the war on terrorism started and I still remember Bush's good intentions. I still do not believe that Bush is effectively protecting the United States and the world from terrorism.

[dalmations202]

Sorry, but for all you youngsters who are on this board, I had to get this off my chest.

I am an ex-vet, and reading threads like this make me laugh at times. I have "been there", and done that, and came home. I don't like war, but realize that it will happen, whether we as humans like it or not. It has been happening since Cain killed Abel. There will always be devils, and demons, and human nature.... till the end of time as we know it.

The reason I laugh is that we PICK the things we want to get all upset over.

*The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116, compared to 41,945 in 2000.
As early as the 1920s, about 30,000 crash deaths were occurring each year. Deaths subsequently increased very rapidly, reaching a peak of 56,000 in 1972. Since then, deaths have dropped to about 41,000 annually, ........
*More than 20,000 people die from the flu and its complications every year.
*There were an estimated 15,517 murders in 2000, virtually no change from the 1999 murder estimate of 15,522.

In a year, US lost 500 men in Iraq. 500. 1/10 of the people we lost in the Vietnam years. Less than 1% of the numbers we lost on 1972 highways in the US.

In the 10 years of Vietnam we lost about 58,168 men...that averages to 5817 a year.

And if you believe that abortion is taking a life........

Total killed due to abortion since 1973
44,670,812 (44 MILLION) deaths
as of April 22, 2004
~ 1,440,994 a year........
Source: National Right To Life

So for all the Worries about Iraq, and Afghanistan, don't worry.
You can PICK the condition that you want to "bother" you.
You decide whether we should be doing that or not because you agree/disagee with it. This is America.

BUT Don't start saying it is about life/death though.
Don't think that Pat Tillman gave any more than any other fallen hero....he just gave alot more to put himself in that position. Your life for someone else is priceless. I have to respect what Pat Tillman did, but I also respect all the others that are willing to defend and die to keep this country free.

So if you are a liberal or conservative, want peace or war, or Republican or Democrat........just remember: It is still just a choice.

I myself don't want anyone to die in WAR, 1 is too many, but I also realize that "you are bending down worrying with a penny while thousands of dollars are dropping out your back pocket, if this is the worry you have at this time."

[madape]

Good reply dalmations, but I'll make one minor correction. You claimed that we've lost one tenth of the lives lost in Vietnam.

We lost over 58,000 lives in that nightmare. Our current death toll in Iraq is around one one-hundreth of the Vietnam tally.

[dalmations202]

Originally posted by: madape
Good reply dalmations, but I'll make one minor correction. You claimed that we've lost one tenth of the lives lost in Vietnam.

We lost over 58,000 lives in that nightmare. Our current death toll in Iraq at less than one one-hudreth of the Vietnam tally.

I was thinking about from a yearly basis (500 - 5800), and if this drags out at its current rate, 10 years may happen. You are correct though.

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: twelli
To get rid of rulers like Milosevic or Saddam or terrorists like Osama, war might be the only solution, but the US should spend less money on sending troops overseas and spend more money on finding solutions for the Isreal-Palestine conflict and on doing things that changes the views of the general masses in the Middle East. Why is it that the US is not much liked around the world and seen as an agressor rather than a peace-maker?

Real heroes are those preventing conflicts by creating understanding not those trying to end conflicts by using force.

Yes, he chooses to become a killer - to defend his home and family (ultiamtely) by fighting for other people who are being terrorized by their own leaders. Yes, he chooses to die - that is why his contribution is so enormous. He chooses to die even though fools like you will discount the huge sacrifice even while you go about your merry little life. WE MOURN THE LOSS OF SOLDIERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD BECAUSE THEY MAKE SACRIFICES WE ARE NOT WILLING (PERHAPS ABLE?) TO MAKE. They are the reason we live such peaceful, FREE lives. The deaths of each of these people - OUR COMPATRIOTS, Defenders of our way of life - is an enormous loss. You should mourn that loss, if you have any decency in you. They not only are lost to their friends and families through death, they were lost while defending you - you and your cushy, spoiled, ungrateful way of life. Whether you approve of war or not, how can you not mourn them?

You think peace can be bought with money? Or maybe money can fund RESEARCH into "conflict and peaceful resolutions". How ridiculous. You don't answer violence with open arms or a handout. You think that money, propaganda and literature campaigns are going to change the way the "general masses in the Middle East" view the West? SINCE WHEN DID THE GENERAL MASSES OVER THERE CONTROL ANYTHING? It's the leadership of those nations, NGOs etc. that dictate what the people will do and when and how often. EVEN if we could change the views of the masses, their evil leaders (let's say that not all the leaders are evil) are still in control. Liberate the people to make their own judgements of us. Watch and see.

And I am grateful to be reminded of the lives lost on September 11th - as wrenching as it is to think of. It is so easy for forget, and to take my life for granted. Please, please don't forget. Help me to remember - so that I might honor those people in my memory.

Tillman makes a good example because we are familiar with him as an individual. I'm certain we value each soldier's life and death as much as his.

edit: quote

[twelli]

EvilMav, you got me all wrong. I have the highest respect for all people defending their country thus allowing all the others to live in prosperity and peace (that includes the police as well, of course).

What I meant about Tillman is that it was his own decision and that he decided to become a soldier knewing that he could get killed. I think he didn't want to be a hero, but just do the thing he thought was right.

I agree with you that all the terrorists on earth should be hunted down and brought to justice, but, and that's the point I want to make, what if sending troops to the Middle East creates even more of those USA haters? These radicals hate two things most: Israel in Palestine and US-troops in their holy land.

The only way to stop the escalation of violence and terrorism is to solve the Israel conflict first in a way that the majority of people on both sides there can live with the solution and will no longer be instigated by the radicals.

As to American troops in the Middle East and places like Afghanistan, it should never be the US alone, it should always be a concerted effort with the countries in the region, the UN, Europe, Russia, China, whoever.

In general, I feel that most people in US don't really understand why so many other countries dislike or even hate the US. Is it just the price a super-power has to pay or could the US do more to change this negative perception?

[u2sarajevo]

So twelli, is it your contention that Osama's minions brought down the Twin Towers because of our involvment in Iraq? Our occupation of Saudi Arabia?

These "radicals" as you call them will not stop until they are satisfied. We will not satisfy them until we either become an Islamic nation or we stop supporting Israel, whichever comes first.

So what if it creates more USA haters. We can't bow down to their wishes because we don't want somebody to hate us for it. There are two sides to everything and no matter what we do somebody is going to hate us for it.

And of course hatred towards the US is caused because we are the greatest nation in the world. We are a free country (something that Fundamental Islamic people hate), we are a rich country, our citizens are not oppressed and are not told how to live their lives.

The only way to stop the escalation of violence and terrorism is to solve the Israel conflict first in a way that the majority of people on both sides there can live with the solution and will no longer be instigated by the radicals.

That is a very naive statement. That conflict/hatred is bred in the Palestinians. It has existed for longer than you've been alive. Somewhere along the way we got lumped in because Israel is our ally.

[twelli]

Yeah, I admit, I am probably to naive...

Is there no other way to get rid of these radical fundamentalists than to hunt them down?

I thought, maybe, if they wouldn't be supported by the masses, and there weren't so intense anti-American feelings among the common people there, it would be more difficult for those terror organizations to carry on.

[MavKikiNYC]

It's those damned gays in the military.

[Dirkenstien]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC


It's those damned gays in the military.

disturbing stuff....what a shame

[Chiwas]

I have tought a lot about the words of dalmations, they make a lot of sense.

Then the inmorality could come from the $120 billion expended so far. With a tenth of a tenth -same as the one hundredth mentioned- the malaria in the whole Africa could be controled, for example.

How much of that money had been enough to get the head of the Dictator and to control the government without a war? 20 millions, 100 at most?

[Chiwas]

Scientific American
SKEPTIC
August 2003 issue

The Ignoble Savage
Science reveals humanity's heart of darkness
By Michael Shermer

In 1670 English poet John Dryden penned this expression of humans in a state of nature: "I am as free as Nature first made man.../When wild in woods the noble savage ran." A century later, in 1755, French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau canonized the noble savage in Western culture by proclaiming that "nothing can be more gentle than he in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the pernicious good sense of civilized man."
From the Disneyfication of Pocahontas to Kevin Costner's eco-pacifist Native Americans in Dances with Wolves and from postmodern accusations of corruptive modernity to modern anthropological theories that indigenous people's wars are just ritualized games, the noble savage remains one of the last epic creation myths of our time.

Science reveals a rather different picture of humanity in its natural state. In a 1996 study University of Michigan ecologist Bobbi S. Low analyzed 186 pre-industrial societies and discovered that their relatively low environmental impact is the result of low population density, inefficient technology and lack of profitable markets, not conscious efforts at conservation. Anthropologist Shepard Krech III, in his 1999 book The Ecological Indian, shows that in a number of Native American communities, large-scale irrigation practices led to the collapse of their societies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anthropologists have searched for peaceful societies much like Diogenes looked for an honest man."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even the reverence for big game animals that we have been told was held by Native Americans is a fallacy--many believed that common game animals such as elk, deer, caribou, beaver and especially buffalo would be physically reincarnated, thus easily replaced, by the gods. Given the opportunity to hunt big game animals to extinction, they did. The evidence is now overwhelming that many large mammals went extinct at the same time that the first Americans began to populate the continent.

Ignoble savages were nasty to one another as well as to their environments. Surveying primitive and civilized societies, University of Illinois anthropologist Lawrence H. Keeley, in his 1996 book War before Civilization, demonstrates that prehistoric war was, relative to population densities and fighting technologies, at least as frequent (measured in years at war versus years at peace), as deadly (determined by percentage of deaths resulting from conflict) and as ruthless (judged by the killing and maiming of noncombatants, women and children) as modern war. One pre-Columbian mass grave in South Dakota, for example, yielded the remains of 500 scalped and mutilated men, women and children.

In Constant Battles, a recent and exceptionally insightful study of this concept, Harvard University archaeologist Steven A. LeBlanc quips, "Anthropologists have searched for peaceful societies much like Diogenes looked for an honest man." Consider the evidence from a 10,000-year-old Paleolithic site along the Nile River: "The graveyard held the remains of 59 people, at least 24 of whom showed direct evidence of violent death, including stone points from arrows or spears within the body cavity, and many contained several points. There were six multiple burials, and almost all those individuals had points in them, indicating that the people in each mass grave were killed in a single event and then buried together."
LeBlanc's survey reveals that even cannibalism, long thought to be a form of primitive urban legend (noble savages would never eat one another, would they?), is supported by powerful physical artifacts: broken and burned bones, cut marks on bones, bones cracked open lengthwise to get at the marrow, and bones inside cooking jars hacked so that they would fit. Such evidence for prehistoric cannibalism has been uncovered in Mexico, Fiji and parts of Europe. The definitive (and gruesome) proof came with the discovery of the human muscle protein myoglobin in the fossilized human feces of a prehistoric Anasazi pueblo Indian. Savage, yes. Noble, no.

Roman statesman Cicero noted, "Although physicians frequently know their patients will die of a given disease, they never tell them so. To warn of an evil is justified only if, along with the warning, there is a way of escape." As we shall see in part two of this column, there is an escape from our disease.