|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
posted May 08, 2004 02:49 AM |
|
|
I know that ill treatment of prisoners of war happen all the time, always has always will. But not around me or if I have any say so in it. I can't speak for all soldiers as I have stated before, But there is an oath that you swear to and A code that you live by as a honorable soldier.That is the root of who I am. The ill treatment of prisoners is wrong, and all of those american soldiers that were invloved or knew about it and did nothing,need to be punished and it made known to others what will happen when you abuse the rights of others.
On the other side of the coin so to speak, I am a combat soldier and my job in all essence is to fight the enemy, and in doing so people die,are hurt,maimed,and disfigured. That all happens when to armed soldiers face each other and fight. When the fight is over however, one man has won and has killed the other or taken him prisoner. This is were the conflict stops, and at no time does it require brutallity to control your prisoner nor is it condoned.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 03:30 PM |
|
|
That's all well and good redhawk, but I gave this a bit of actual thought (big deal for me).
I'm not condoning their actions, just trying to understand them and play devil's advocate for a bit.
They look pretty young in their pictures, I'd say 25 tops.
So, you have a bunch of young people under 25 and they're over in Iraq - fighting for peace, justice, oil and puppy dogs etc.
You've been trying to root out these goddamned ungrateful Iraqui a**holes from whatever little town they have holed up. While you're doing this, the bloody Iraquis have managed to kill the guy that sleeps next to you in the barracks (No jokes plz), a few of your friends, and maybe a hot chick you'd been hitting on back at the camp.
So, what do you do? After he's killed all your buddies he throws down his weapons and says - Okay I surrender.
Now, all I can say is that the Geneva convention would be the last thing on my mind.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 05:38 PM |
|
|
I'm going to have to concur with that statement...
However, this went on for months, not just a "crime of passion" type of thing.
____________
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted May 08, 2004 06:15 PM |
|
|
It does not matter how bad a situation is, or how many of your buddies die. As a soldier in the u.s. Army, you are supposed to be better than that, better than the other guy. The rules of warfare and engagement must prevail over personal feelings,or we become no better than the ones we are fighting.If you loose control of yourself, you become that wich you despise.We donnot have the whole story of this brutallity issue, and probable will never know what really happened. All we have is some pictures and video clips and a lot of speculation. What it has done is ruin Americas credibillity even more and given other soldiers a big black eye.So it will make my job over there, even more difficult,It is going to take a lot of work to fix this situation.I cannot even fathom the damage that those mp's have caused. so to try and make it right for the Iraqi people,those that were involved in it, need to be made an example of, regardless of there reasoning for there actions.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 09, 2004 12:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Good morning fellas!
Svarog, my friend --
Quote:
That it is a deep conflict of power - I agree. However, I strongly object that it's conflict of religion and culture. On the contrary, I think this is a very dangerous thesis for everybody.
Can you explain more about why you think it is dangerous to think of this as a conflict of religion and culture? Did you mean viewing it only in those ways was dangerous?
What would you think of the proposition that failing to take the aspects of cultural and religious distinctions into account might be a dangerous strategic mistake in the "war against terrorism?" Many people suspect that the overbearing nature of the Western culture and ecomony (now globally dominant) combined with Religious fanaticism (probably on both sides but primarily in the Muslim tradition)is at the root of the terrorist movement we are presumably at war with (whoever "we" is).
Look forward to you response.
Peacemaker, are you still looking forward to my response or you’ll overlook now, after my laziness and HC crash prevented me to answer you much earlier. My apologies.
Cultures differ, no doubt. But can that differiation lead to conflict? If so, then it would be necessary to say that one of those cultures has military elements and cannot coexist with others, and therefore will have to be eliminated at one point or another. It is then when you enter the swirling circle of war and utter extermination. (it is as Athimus mentioned: “If peace can’t happen, than I hope we’ll win.”)
Now let me tell you an example. How come in nature very different species don’t necessarily come in conflict, even if they come in contact too often? What makes different species (cultures) come in conflict? Even in the same species lies the very same reason for conflict. Struggle for recourses.
Let’s view the situation with Iraq now having that in mind. The two cultures are in conflict now, of course. But to say that the conflict is caused by the cultural distinctions, even in small percent, can be extremely dangerous, since there would be no other way to resolve the conflict between them, other than:
A) one of the cultures alters its elements and is assimilated by the other in some respect (which is what US government want us to think, with their “fight for democracy in Iraq” or “war against terrorism” whatever)
B) one of the cultures is destroyed (what some elements on the both sides hope for)
Is war between cultures inevitable? That is what the big guys in the game would want the masses to think, in order to secure their support. Every person is protective to their culture. That is why they (both USA and Islamic extremists) push their reason for the conflict that aggressively, and not that their only concern is to put hold on as many recourses as they can get.
“What would you think of the proposition that failing to take the aspects of cultural and religious distinctions into account might be a dangerous strategic mistake in the "war against terrorism?"”
I would formulate this question a bit differently in order to give a positive response.
Not “the aspect of cultural and religious distinction”, but “the aspect of cultural and religious tolerance”. Because only cultural tolerance can be the barrier to protect us from the attempts of indoctrination that cuture is what causes the conflict.
Note that the “overbearing nature of Western economy” is not an element of culture, but of government policy and “the religious fanaticism” is the element of culture that is used as a way to justify and intensify conflict among the people, but not the real reason. Think about this very good before you bring any conclusions.
Love, Peace and Peacemaker. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted May 09, 2004 04:35 PM |
|
|
I apologize for posting before peacemaker zvarog, I want you to know that I agree with you on the overbearing western influence, I don't believe we as a nation should try to change another nation just because they are different. We took out an evil dictator and his cronies for the Iraqi people and the world. As soon as the country is stable and they can countol there people, we need to get the heck out of there. If only the fanatics in Iraq would see this, it would take alot less time. We could have already left if the street thugs would have held off causing problems and attacking soldiers and civilians.
Changing the culture of Iraq is not in the interest of the American people,nor would it benifit Iraq. The Iraqi people need to be able to choose for themselves wich direction they want there future to go,they are the ones that need to stop the millitant factions, so we can go home.I feel that the Iraqi people are so used to the killing and violence, that they have become complacent with it and do not know any other way. Changing anything in there lives is to difficult for them so they will just accept another dictator when we do pull out and nothing will have been solved and all of my brothers and sisters will have died for nothing. We will win the battles,but loose the war because the arab world thrives on conflict, always has ,always will and nothing is ever going to change it.
Still, I will go there and try my best to help,to let my brothers come home,and to try and keep others alive.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 11, 2004 05:51 PM |
|
|
Divisional States Or Unified Country?
I've been stuck on a comment I made a long time ago in this thread. I said something about considering the Iraq war to be a humanitarian project of the new millenium.
I've thought, watched, listened, read articles, and formed many questions.
I think I am finally decided on an opinion and stand point.
From all that I have gathered, it's clear to me that Iraq is not a unified country. There are many who have a sense of nationalism but there are also a great many who don't.
Take the Kurds(did I spell that correctly?) for example. They were brutalized, oppressed, and gassed by Saddam Hussein. Now that they are free they are in large disagreement with the American occupation for an interesting reason. The american occupation leaders are equally rationing resources, defense, technological aid, and food to all parts of Iraq. The Kurds are arguing that they are Kurds first and Iraqi second. They don't want to be Iraqi citizens. They want to form their own country.
Personally, I am not there and don't truly have a good understanding of what is going on. I do, however, realize that civil war is not possible right now because neither sect of peoples within Iraq have any military. Each segment of the localized population only have their own police force. Keeping the peace and protecting your country from invasion require two very different approaches.
I ask and ask, "What will happen?" All can bring myself to answer is that whatever the case, Iraqis want to run their own affairs. They don't want americans involved.
I think our support from the Iraqi people is quickly dwindling. Everday more and more Iraqi people want to decide for themselves what their country will do for itself. I think this is good that they should but one very obvious thing remains nagging to everything and everyone. The americans have dissolved all Iraqi military.
How then, does a country go to civil war without a military? This is very confusing for me. I wonder what will come of the growing resentment for american troops in Iraq.
As for the religous Islamic extremists within the country. I'm not worried about them in the slightest. At the very least, the american occupation will make sure these people are kept from causing any major damage.
What will happen when the americans leave? I'm not worried because they will not be leaving completely. From a political standpoint, one can clearly see that the americans will try very hard to bring little attention to themselves as occupiers. They will be forced by our government to keep quiet and only help protect the peace. The problem with this is, which weapon is better for protecting the peace? A gun or a rocket propelled grenade? I say gun and I think the american government would agree.
But still, what will Iraq do? Will they unite or will they seperate? If you ask the Kurds, then it would appear that Iraq will seperate. If you ask the central Shiites, whose ancestors dealt with the Brittish, then it will agressively be held together. Either way, americans will need to keep out of their affairs if they can.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 11, 2004 07:46 PM |
|
|
Hello Svarog! Sorry for the delay in my reply.
Some thoughts on your post. First, a comment on our apparently differing use of the term "culture:"
Quote:
Note that the “overbearing nature of Western economy” is not an element of culture, but of government policy and “the religious fanaticism” is the element of culture that is used as a way to justify and intensify conflict among the people, but not the real reason. Think about this very good before you bring any conclusions.
Now there are many different but legitimate usages of this term "culture". I have typically used the term as it is defined in Merriam Webster's American Dictionary:
"The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group."
Under this definition, manifestations of Western civilization, its social forms and customary beliefs are very much a "culture." I further submit that the form of a county's government is perhaps one of the most critical vehicles for perpetuating a given culture.
Quote:
Let’s view the situation with Iraq now having that in mind. The two cultures are in conflict now, of course. But to say that the conflict is caused by the cultural distinctions, even in small percent, can be extremely dangerous, since there would be no other way to resolve the conflict between them, other than:
A) one of the cultures alters its elements and is assimilated by the other in some respect (which is what US government want us to think, with their “fight for democracy in Iraq” or “war against terrorism” whatever)
B) one of the cultures is destroyed (what some elements on the both sides hope for)
Well, it depends again on what we mean by "culture." I think we are saying something very similar, but using differently defined terms to do it.
One of my primary gripes about the American mentality has always been that America has no "culture" per se, but that "culture" is something everybody else has because they haven't become sufficiently americanized yet. It is as though America perceives itself as the pinnacle of humanity and everyone else is presumably simply trying to catch up.
I'm sure you would agree that that is hogwash. There are multiple tragectories that human civilizations can take, with the currently dominant westenized model being only one of them. On behalf of all non-western peoples, I for one resent that centric perception. The mentality of Western civilization does not represent the only, or even necessarily the best, option for human existence and development. Thus, I think the danger is not in blaming "culture" for conflicts with other "cultures," but rather the failure of people on both sides to recognize legitimate cultural differences, thus passing unfair and inaccurate judgments upon them.
Quote:
Is war between cultures inevitable? That is what the big guys in the game would want the masses to think, in order to secure their support. Every person is protective to their culture. That is why they (both USA and Islamic extremists) push their reason for the conflict that aggressively, and not that their only concern is to put hold on as many recourses as they can get.
Yes, I agree that resources come into play here. But the motivations go beyond that. Islamic extremists view the United States as standing for a threat to morality as it is defined in their religious terms. Alternatively, American zealots believe that Islamic extremists represent a larger mentality that is antiquated and threatening to them. Since religion is part of culture, once again there is a cultural conflict at the root here.
However, that "conflict" need only make war inevitable if the humans in charge on both sides fail to recognize their own cultural biases and account for them in their strategic decisions. So I suppose the conflict is "inevitable" unless and until we all adjust our perceptions of the other side. In my view, neither is sufficiently accurate for the parties to make sound decisions. The thing about people is that they can make changes in their conditioned responses, it's just a question of whether they will actually make that choice.
Quote:
“What would you think of the proposition that failing to take the aspects of cultural and religious distinctions into account might be a dangerous strategic mistake in the "war against terrorism?"”
I would formulate this question a bit differently in order to give a positive response.
Not “the aspect of cultural and religious distinction”, but “the aspect of cultural and religious tolerance”. Because only cultural tolerance can be the barrier to protect us from the attempts of indoctrination that cuture is what causes the conflict.
Exactly. This is what I was trying to say about adjusting our inaccurate perceptions. Tolerance is a major key. However, the guy with the bigger guns has historically had less motivation to become "tolerant." Thus, we have a globe dominated by the western way of thinking, building, trading, educating, developing the society, and expanding the Western "culture" as it were, because the West has always had the bigger guns and therefore has never been forced to become more "tolerant."
There is an enormous lack of awareness on the part of the western mind that things are the way they are today because of that habit. The West has intruded into every corner of the planet, whole peoples have been colonized, destroyed or assimilated. But the western mentality fails to recognize any reason for resentment on the part of others. I fear that unless and until that failure on the part of the Western mind is corrected, nothing will change.
This is America's biggest weakness, and I fear it will be the end of us if we don't get on the ball, and instead continue to resort to the gun in order to solve the problem.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 11, 2004 11:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Aug 2004
|
YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED
Quote:
There is an enormous lack of awareness on the part of the western mind that things are the way they are today because of that habit. The West has intruded into every corner of the planet, whole peoples have been colonized, destroyed or assimilated.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.....
***minor note***
 Word of the day
"~Antiquate~"
--->To make old or obselete; cause to become old fashioned; To give an antique look to
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 07:06 AM |
|
|
Been a while....Wolfman congratulations on becoming a moderator
Got to say since seeing the whole decapitation....I am feeling I may have been wrong about bringing democracy to the middle east, and we should just nuke them all. Of course I don't mean that, but I do feel that way at this moment.
Those militant terrorists are the most inhumane, barbaric, evil beings one could ever imagine....the feeling of rage in me are so intense!
But I guess in the end it is but another example and wake up call of our duty and struggle ahead in the war against terrorism...there is no reasoning...there is no appeasing them...they simply must be eliminated one by one.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 07:49 PM |
|
|
@ Peacemaker
Merriam Webster’s American Dictionary you say? OK, so be it. (I’m always forced to accept your definitions, you being a native speaker and all. ) Basically you can always say culture is everything that we’re not born with. And it really makes it impossible for the debate to be concentrated on one thing, but I’ll try.
What I mean is that we mustn’t allow culture, in terms of traditions, customs, religion, art, meaning the ethnical traits of a community which distinguish them from other communities be thought as the reason for the war. The “We are so different, we must fight till one of us is exterminated.” attitude is what deludes people in believing that they must act in support for the war since their cultural identity is at stake.
But the thing is, you see, I don’t think the aggressive nature of Western cultural domination is in fact the reason for the war, even if you consider it to be a cultural element. However it still stands as true.
It would be like saying: “Oh, look at us. We, Americans are so advanced that we want to spread our values in the rest of the world, so that our Iraqi brothers too can have freedom and democracy.” I believe this is what you try to point out as the wrong approach. I agree that it is a wrong approach, but I strongly believe that spreading freedom and democracy is by far not the motive that US entered into war for.
USA couldn’t care less about freedom and democracy when they supported dictatorial regimes when they suited their own interests. Some of them were even the same regimes they are now fighting against!
That leads us to conclude that whenever the USA acts in the way of spreading their own culture, it’s only so that they can have economic benefits from it. Otherwise, do you honestly believe US government is so philanthropic and wants nothing in return, but to see the Iraqis happy and free? Sorry, but I would call anyone who believes such thing naïve.
Therefore the reason for war is not the clash of cultures, but the clash of economical interests. The cultural differences are only used to manipulate with the public, since people tend to identify with their culture closely and when someone attacks their core principles they react blindly and aggressively defending them. And this is when tolerance comes into play, thus making us immunes to such manipulation.
Why was US attacked by terrorists? Do you think someone would really crash themselves in a building in a foreign country just because they don’t like democracy? Hell no. Their powerful positions have been endangered in their home countries by US pressure for “democracy” so that they (USA) can take advantage of the country’s resources. And when the powerful oligarchs in the Middle East felt their power crumbling beneath them they radicalized and manipulated their subordinated fanatics into becoming terrorists.
That is what I’m trying to point out: culture is not the root of the problem, like the governments want us to think, it is only on the surface and while we try to eliminate the threat cause we can see it, the problem’s still buried deep underground and when the conditions are ripe, war will come again, and other reasons might be created the next time. There wasn’t really a big cultural difference between European states and they still slaughtered among themselves for centuries.
The guy with the biggest gun is the greediest and the one who wants to acquire as much as he can. He is only less tolerant, because he sees cultural domination as a very efficient way and excuse to conquer new territories and goods. Fabricating cultural differences as the reason of conflict has been the main preoccupation of governments for as long as nations have existed.
Quote:
On behalf of all non-western peoples, I for one resent that centric perception.
Hey, I did restrain from quoting but this one was so intriguing. Don’t you see yourself as a westerner, or my english screwed me again?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 14, 2004 10:53 PM |
|
|
Has anyone else seen the full video of that poor guy getting his head cut off? I just did, and it took them about a minute to get his head off with that little knife. He was alive for most of it too, it was disgusting.
That is who the enemy is.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 04:46 AM |
|
|
No worse than a lot of what used to be done by the US forces against the native american peoples less than 100 years ago, sometimes on the very orders (and on others with their knowledge) of the people that are often now revered in the states as great leaders...
Not that what they did was pleasant, that's not my point, but public executions and the killing of innocents is only maybe 200 years back in Western history as well. From what I've been told by soldiers who served there, the Jewish terrorists before 1948, "Irish" terrorists on both sides and Cypriots on both sides during the crisis there weren't much more pleasant either. This is a terrorist thing, not a national thing as some in my country are inclined to believe.
However, identifying your enemy and finding the right strategy to defeat him are not quite as easy as just going "this is what we're dealing with". In my experience not every terrorist problem is going to be resolved with force of arms until they are eliminated "one-by-one".
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:19 AM |
|
|
Would you shut up for a second.
Have you seen the video?
None of this "You do it too" nonsence, you didn't like it when I did it.
This isn't even about public executions. He was completely innoccent, and they sawed his head off with a six inch blade. He was alive when it was happening. He was squirming around and making a gurguling noise as he choked on his own blood. They had to sit on him for them to do it.
After you've seen the full video, then you can give your perception of it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Would you shut up for a second.
No.
Quote:
Have you seen the video?
Yes. Therefore your following assumptions and comment were unessecary. Since I have seen it I don't need you pointing out the blatant bits in it to emotionally embelish your point. Since I did not go into detail about the torture of Iraquis by allied soldiers (though that is not the same level) I fail to see why you feel the need to draw an emotional point on this.
Quote:
None of this "You do it too" nonsence, you didn't like it when I did it.
Since you utterly failed to see the point I was making I'll make it clearer. It was not a "You do it too so it's ok". I was saying that it is a terrorist thing, not a cultural thing specific to that area or religion. As I pointed out, to single out either the area or religion as an example of killing innocents and public executions and claiming that "we" (culturally or geographically) would never do that is wrong. We have in the past, we revere in some cases those that do it, both here in the UK and the US. Does that make it right, no, but that was not the point I was making, the point was to say it is not specific to the culture, religion or area.
I then remarked that whilst some terorists/extremists do have to be hunted one-by-one, it would be a mistake to say that all of them have to be. Further to this to use the video as evidence that they do all have to be hunted to the last man and killed is both pointless and unrealistic in my opinion. The depth of violence is not relevant to any of those points, nor was my reply particularly aimed at you, so the rather strange way you leap about as if I just shot you in your defence is your choice, don't blame me for it though I do admit that since it came after your post the first paragraph can be possibly seen as directed solely at you, however it was more a general reply to many in the west who seem to have a rose-tinted view of here and what our culture has and will do compared to others.
Next time though do yourself the favour of checking to see if I've seen it before trying to rant at me for it...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
[
Yes. Therefore your following assumptions and comment were unessecary. Since I have seen it I don't need you pointing out the blatant bits in it to emotionally embelish your point. Since I did not go into detail about the torture of Iraquis by allied soldiers (though that is not the same level) I fail to see why you feel the need to draw an emotional point on this.
Because, anyone who can even attempt to defend the actions of those sick individuals who beheaded Nick Berg are disturbed people. I could easily defend American soldiers who publically humiliate their prisoners. That happens all the time. It's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. (That didn't come out right) Anyway, your right PH, the slow, torturous, and painful beheading of an innocent man is NOT on the same level as the humiliation of POWs so your point is rendered invalid.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, your right PH, the slow, torturous, and painful beheading of an innocent man is NOT on the same level as the humiliation of POWs so your point is rendered invalid.
Which point would that be then? If you mean about bringing emotional descriptions into play, then I don't think they're needed or necessary. We're all quite aware that the events in the video were horrendous, using them as some form of emotional blackmail to support a mostly unrelated point is just silly.
You might care to note that I have not even attempted to defend their actions. I have though defended the point that the actions are not those typical of the overal people of the area, or those of the culture or those of the religion. Or to be precise no more typical than you could claim it was of our people not so long ago.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:46 AM |
|
|
Would you like to point out when I, or anyone else said it was a religious or cultural thing that only goes on over there?
It seems you're defending a point that was never even made.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:51 AM |
|
|
It's made quite often in our press and public (for example letters to newspapers here). Since some of the comments here seem to superficially link to that, and since PM and Savrog are having a culture debate above I thought I would add my own take on things.
As I said above since you seem to have missed it, I did say nor was my reply particularly aimed at you
I do wish people would cease to jump to conclusions...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 15, 2004 05:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I have though defended the point that the actions are not those typical of the overal people of the area, or those of the culture or those of the religion.
No one made that point...
Poor word choice or you would rather attempt to make me look bad by saying I jumped to a conclusion. It seems you did though...how 'bout that...
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
