posted
It happens like every morning now. I'm driving to work or church, listening to talk radio, and some idiot calls in and pisses me off.
Okay, granted, people who call into radio stations to make political rants are, by definition, obnoxious hacks. BUT lately, they've all been falling into the same general category.
Yesterday, for example. Someone called in and made the brilliant statement (paraphrased):
quote:What they should do in Fallujah is, line up all the prisoners, and then get Al Jazeera over there with their footage of all the recent beheadings. Then they should show the beheadings one by one, and each time a head comes off, shoot twenty-five prisoners. That will make the point to these people that you can't just go around killing people!
Seriously. He didn't even see the irony. The day before, different dude:
quote:What we need to do in Fallujah is just bomb that place into a crater. Why are we putting American lives at risk for a bunch of terrorists? Just level the place, and then count the bodies afterward!
You know why we don't do that stuff? BECAUSE WE'RE THE FRICKING GOODGUYS, THAT'S WHY!
Seriously, it just shocks and offends me that there are people out there who can sit in their comfy armchairs, listening to their radios and eating their yummy doughnuts, thinking about how all these other people across the world should be killed or incinerated. I mean, WHO THE HELL ARE THEY?
Yes, there are times when a good person can argue in favor of war for a good cause. But never at ANY point can a good person take lightly the cost of that decision. When you carpet-bomb a city, hundreds or thousands of innocent people die. When you shoot helpless prisoners, you violate all the standards of "civilized" warfare.
As Americans, our military personnel have risked their lives to engage in a higher standard of warfare and to preserve the lives of civilians. Instead of carpet-bombing, we make dangerous incursions into enemy territory. We prosecute soldiers who violate or kill helpless prisoners to the fullest extent of the law. That is what gives us what little moral authority we still have. That is why we are the good guys. We don't just risk our lives to preserve American ideals and American civilians. We risk our lives to protect foreign civilians, and even to preserve the most vicious of our enemies.
So when I hear these little armchair Hitlers [my apologies to Godwin] clamoring for us to abandon our high moral standards and return to the rules of war practiced by the Vikings and the Mongols, it REALLY PISSES ME OFF. (And incidentally, even Genghis Khan didn't torture people. I remember back in 2001, these same people were calling for us to torture prisoners with impunity ... without even any specific reasons or situations to justify it. Like they were just waiting for a chance to torture someone, and the WTC attack was the perfect opportunity.)
Do they even get what America is supposed to be? Do they care? Can I get them shipped to a war zone in central Africa, so they can see what it's like when people make decisions like that?
posted
When it starts affecting your bloodpressure, it's time to find a different radio station. I avoid call-in shows in general. You maybe should too.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[sigh] For the first time, I'm beginning to realize that there really are people out there in America who would just love to have their own people in charge of some terrible police state, and see every opportunity to kill, torture, or abuse an "enemy" as a thing of beauty. Another step towards their ideal America. Those people scare the crap out of me.
[Luckily, they're still in the vast minority. I would like to call a moratorium right now on people laying this particular charge against the Bush administration We've had enough of that already, and I'm in no mood.]
I attempt to influence people through thoughtful conversation where I can. Where I cannot, I plug my ears and yell "I'm not listening!" really loud. Talk radio falls in the second catagory.
But I'm not moving to Canada. Yet.
Edit: I don't think it's a vast minority. And I wouldn't dream of blaming the Bush administration for them. I'm blaming them for the Bush administration.
posted
This thread made me think of the convictions in the ICTR for incitement to genocide via radio.
Much, much more extreme than arm-chair idiots but nonethless a reminder of how powerful a broadcast opinion can be.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
even more scary is meeting these people in person. I've been told by a normal seeming guy that the Inquisition was really a good idea, and that the state NEEDED to be able to weed out people whose faith was impure. VERY normal seeming guy, but honestly believed this and a bunch of other stuff (like that slavery was a good idea, just people abused it)
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, when I saw the thing about the Marine who killed the injured Iraqi, I was sick. However, as the day went on and I listened to all the mitigating factors, I could see why someone might do that. I even thought that if I were a different person, I might react the same way. Yet it still was bothering me a lot. Yeah, their side is doing horrible things, like pretending to surrender and then killing our troops. So I couldn't figure out why it was bothering me so much. Why did I care about a dead Iraqi who probably would have tried to kill a different Marine once he was healed?
I finally figured it out last night and it was exactly the reason Puppy gave. We're supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to behave like them. I think that's what bothers me about the images of our troops acting all excited on camera about some upcoming assault. We're supposed to be the good guys. We aren't supposed to be blood-thirsty.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a deeper reason to why America (and the other countries with troops committed) have to be the good guys in Iraq.
The justification for the invasion was, ultimately, one of morality. Because the very presence of foreign troops is in Iraq is predicated on the protection and liberation of the Iraqi people any immoral actions taken by those troops against the same people is especially heinous.
By comparison the Iraqi resistance are fighting the foreign troops on the basis of soveriegnty - their country was, after all, invaded. This in no way justifies the actions they take, or the many killed, but because their cause is not based on protecting or helping the foreign troops, the same disparity between objective and action does not exist.
posted
This is why I get so angry about incidents like the tortures in Abu Gharib. We are supposed to represent honour and justice. None of this "bomb them into a crater." or who cares if a few thousand of them die as long as it saves 1 American life nonsense. I am disgusted to share the same country as people like this. Like I said before. It's not enough to say you have honour. Your actions must prove it.
And don't listen to talk radio! Listen to jazz, man. It's all about the jazz! That is the reason why I just can't wake up to NPR.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It amazes me the people who think we should be nice during a time of war. Lets do everything possble (good or bad) to win, and then start talking about becoming the good guys again. It is this "lets play nice" that continues to put America in quagmire wars. The same people who complain about the number of dead American soldiers (that usually end up that way because they do play nice and open themselves up to less protection in the name of civility?), are also the ones who complain about the soldiers doing things to make sure to stay alive.
Do you want soldiers getting the job done and coming home safe, or do you want humanitarianism? You can't have both.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of being nice, it's about honour. If America is representing itself as a good guy, as a liberator then it puts them in the position of having to be as surgecally precise as possible. Sure the war could be won with one well-aimed nuclear weapon. But do you want that blood on your hands? Do you want to live knowing that in order to "win" this war millions of Iraqi men, women and children would have to be crushed into pulp for it to happen? Do you REALLY want people to be tortured in your name? I certainly do not!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It amazes me the people who think we should be nice during a time of war.
You read a thread about people talking about killing prisoners of war and bombing an entire city to the ground, and you're surprised by the people who are against it?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we can do the same bad things that we went to war with another country over, because we're the good guys . . . wait . . .
Your lack of morality offends me, Occasional. Are you sure you're an LDS member? Because I seem to recall some positions by that church on moral conduct.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
War in and of itself is immoral, although at times necessary. All I can say is this, then. Don't complain how long the war lasts or how many American soldies die if everything is done that it takes to be the "good guys."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Winners? Alive? I don't see the job of soldiers as that of other citizens. For the U.S. its an arm of the government. What they do has little effect on the Country as Community as a whole. On the other hand, for the current "enemy" what they do is part of their culture. Its the different between a function and a lifestyle.
posted
I will complain if I want to if I believe the war is wrong and that the soldiers deserve more protection. Winning a war without honour is not worth it.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So we can do the same bad things that we went to war with another country over, because we're the good guys . . . wait . . .
That's exactly the point that you are missing Occasional.
In this war, we didn't invade because we our security was threatened. America, or Australia or any other members of the coalition of the willing for that matter was not at risk from Iraq. The reasons for going to war given by our leaders were those of morality and the protection of human rights.
(After the whole WMD thing of course.)
There is no justification invading a country to protect human rights and uphold morality only to turn around and committ immoral acts on the citizens of that country. We have to be the good guys here. Otherwise there is no justification for why we sent the troops in the first place.
posted
And you are missing my point about what kind of people we are at war with. We cannot be the good guys if we are going to win. The Terrorists won't give us that option if we want to get rid of them.
Those who don't play by the rules can't be played with.
posted
And there are still rules of engagement. If those in the larger force can't uphold those rules, then those rules are pointless, and so is any war that supposedly fights to free people from tyranny.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional are you suggesting that if one side does not follow the rules of war and international combat then the other side is no longer morally bound to do so as well?
[Edit: I ask morally bound because as a matter of international law such a statement is certainly not true.]
posted
Why do we deserve to win? Because our Non-Military ideals are worthy of survival and expansion.
Again, its a matter of believing if the military is the same culture as what it seeks to protect. I don't believe that it is. If it was we would be living under a military rule.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so so long as we win its okay to do anything?
Does this only apply to war? If so, why?
Also, if you agree war is a moral wrong, why are you supporting it? Not to mention, apparently you think one moral wrong justifies all moral wrongs committed along the way, which seems strange to me.
Lets play the examples game!
You're commanding a small unit. You know the enemy's nearby. You stop at a local village and ask where the enemy is, but you don't trust them (other villages have given incorrect information in the past), so you torture a few. After you've killed one or two, maimed a couple others, and blinded three, they give you a new answer, which turns out to be correct. You go out and you kill that group of "the enemy".
Your conscious is of course untroubled beyond that it would be for any other war, because as we all know when we're at war anything is justified.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen said it better than I could. If they have claimed that this war is about giving democrasy to the Iraqis, that it is meant to help them then we cannot crush civilians and make enemies out of them for several reasons- Because it will create more terrorists. Because the whole entire world will be justified in being against us. You are not dealing with eggs and omlettes but HUMAN BEINGS. They are not just the enemy but people with lives and connections... But, I don't really believe a war on terrorism can be fought with weapons in the first place..
Let me get this straight. If they justified torture, you'd support that? You'd have no problem with being lumped up with people who do things as bad as if not worse than the enemy?
posted
And, of course, I don't believe anything you said Syn, so whatever. And I don't believe we are dealing with human beings. At least they haven't given me a reason to see them as anything other than animals.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
How about crimes? After all, the criminals have done a pretty analogous thing to the terrorists, at least in some cases. If not when dealing with crimes, why not? What is the crucial difference?
Of course, I have an example handy
Say we think you have information that may lead to a murderer, yet you won't tell because it was told to you as intercessor (don't know if that's sacrosanct in the LDS faith) (its not information about the murderer himself, just information that the police think'll help lead to him). So the police start pulling off your fingernails and toenails with some plyers to get you to tell.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if the would-be crater people really wanted freedom, why don't they fight the terrorists (well, some of them are, but not nearly enough). If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now you are making me so angry. Will you at least TRY to look at it from their perspective? From the perspective of innocents that would die because of an "anything goes" approach to war? Could you at least put yourself into their position enough to realize what you'd do? You'd be pushed over the edge. I hate terrorists as much as anyone does, but I do not want to create more terrorists. I don't want innocent children to die and get blown to bits because of decisions my country is making! I don't want that sort of blood on my hands. These people are not "animals" as you call it. Don't you see how they can see the Americans in the same light as being animals when they lose their children in a war? ARg! Why do I bother?!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I admit I am an animal when it comes to the terrorists. It is sure how they treat civilians.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac - Got it... I think. Probably a good comparison to keep quiet, if at least to minimise Goodwin and all that. (*feels less dumb*)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if the would-be crater people really wanted freedom, why don't they fight the terrorists (well, some of them are, but not nearly enough). If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.
Any time part of the moral justification for an action is that the people being hurt by the action aren't human beings, there's a good indication you're way off base.
Humans are capable of a range of violence and cruelty that goes far beyond what animals can do, even without taking technology into account.
And condemning thousands of people to death who may be doing nothing more than being afraid for their lives is not a particular humane response - although it is depressingly human.
posted
You aren't out there hunting down criminals, Occasional, so clearly we should lock you in jail -- if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
You aren't out there fighting against terrorists, Occasional, so clearly it doesn't matter if someone kills you -- if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Have you talked about these issues with the leaders of your church? Have you mentioned that in a war you feel it is justified to (in order to extract military information, of course), inflict slow, painful wounds over an extended period of time, cut off someone's genitals, and then sodomize them with a broomstick? I suggest you bring such acceptance up, you might find the responses surprising.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We've had enough of that already, and I'm in no mood.]![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
