Trained killers sometimes do bad things

Hiro, you are absolutely correct. History has shown that struggles can be won without going to war and every sane American supports this option.

You're right about our hand in creating our own mess. I'm glad that we are finally setting it straight. I'm sorry it took so long.

You're right about the WMDs, though I believe that Saddam had time to move them to other countries before we came in. However, this was not the only reason we invaded Iraq. And, even if it was, it does not change the fact that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do.

-Kiamat Dusk

I would LOVE to see you try to say this to the face of thousands of soldiers registered Democrat, or that served in the last few wars. Funny, when soldiers are in the field, I doubt very much they worry if the guy next to them worries about abortion rights.

Benedict Arnold was a soldier.

-Kiamat Dusk

However, it was the only reason we provided at the time. It was the only reason we could get our allies on board. What does this say about our need to improve world diplomacy?

And even if Saddam needed to be deposed:
(a) We screwed up the entry big time by relying on faulty intelligence (CIA and Chalabi).
(b) We screwed up the securing of Baghdad by not having the forces to guard industries and museums with some of the oldest artifacts in the world.
(c) We screwed up keeping insurgents in prisons and letting the CIA tell our troops torture was okay.
(d) We screwed up in GITMO holding people not even in combat indefinitely, a policy overturned by our Supreme Court. Additionally, we have practices there that our own FBI (let alone the Red Cross) say are torture, beyond interrogation standards, and produce unreliable information, resulting in a P.R. nightmare.
We ignored our biggest threats, North Korea and Iran, who really do have WMDs. I hope to god that we have an anti-missile shield already in place.
(f) Multiple independent studies have shown our post-9/11 efforts to secure our borders, airports, and seaports have made us no safer than pre-9/11
(g) By not getting our allies on board, we have spent hundreds of billions in Iraq that could have been reducing our deficit / solving social security / guaranteeing no child is left behind in school. (let alone the non-Bush backed programs)
By going into Iraq we pulled out the majority of our Arab speaking translators, special forces, and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan, letting Osama slip by us.

I would LOVE for you to call the thousands of decorated war vets who happen to be democrats Benedict Arnold.

By the way, Hitler was a conservative. So there.

-Kiamat Dusk

The statement that no group of people can be defined simultaneously in general and absolute, does not need a proof. However, the statement that no "liberal" has ever fought in a war does. Even accepting the argument that no "liberal" would ever fight in a war (which is false), there have been drafts, haven't there?

The reason that qualifying your statement with "vast majority of", won't help, is that it's still a supposition. Fundamentally, all your arguments fail logically because your are generalizing, speaking in absolutes, and supposing.

This statement is again a generalization backed by biased anecdotal observations.

Again.


I think I've looked at enough of your posts to get a feel for your writing style. It appears to be high-school level rhetoric which relies heavily on generalizations, absolutes, and suppositions. Let me take a break from pointing each of those out to you to talk about something a little more important.

You seem to be suffering from an ugly bout of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the viewpoint that one’s own group is the center of everything, against which all other groups are judged. Ethnocentrism is a general term for such black things as racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, and xenophobia (to name just a few). In your case, you seem to have an irrational and ignorant dislike of "liberals". I say irrational and ignorant as the substance of your arguments is, as I said before, generalization, absolutes, and supposition.


To see how ugly your language is, compare your words to those of this infamous anti-Semite, who said, "The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but they are not human." Compare that to your statement, "Liberals do indeed lack anything resembling a spine. They are like water, they can fit any situation." Same generalizations and suppositions. Same hate. Same ignorance.

I suggest seriously examining whether you want to be in the same league as anti-Semites, racists, xenophobes, and misogynists.

~Ulrika~

However, it was the only reason we provided at the time. It was the only reason we could get our allies on board. What does this say about our need to improve world diplomacy?

-If you look at the congressional authorization for war, you'll see a list of a lot more reasons.

---> Yeah, but you and I know very well that the thing plastered all over the media was WMDs, and the thing promoted to the UN was WMDs. Additionally, there are many, many Congressmen who has specifically stated that they would reconsider their vote to authorize war if they had known the WMD info was faulty.

And even if Saddam needed to be deposed:
(a) We screwed up the entry big time by relying on faulty intelligence (CIA and Chalabi).
-By screwing up, you mean getting to Baghdad ahead of schedule by cutting through the enemy like at hot knife through butter? Yes, the intel was faulty, but it's not an exact science.

---> I'm referring to WMD intel as well as taking advice to disband the entire Bathe party (which included teachers, government workers who only were in the party to have a job) Iraq Army rather than to turn them into the new Iraq army. (Many became insurgents.)
I fully agree our Armed Forces' military intelligence was excellent.

(b) We screwed up the securing of Baghdad by not having the forces to guard industries and museums with some of the oldest artifacts in the world.

-Agreed

(c) We screwed up keeping insurgents in prisons and letting the CIA tell our troops torture was okay.

-No one said torture was ok. It is well known in US military that torture is a very UNRELIABLE source of information. A person will say ANYTHING to make the pain stop. Doesn't have to be the truth.

---> No one said torture was okay, BUT the definition of torture seems to have been severely scaled back. Many of the practices that are "ok" now very much seem like torture.

(d) We screwed up in GITMO holding people not even in combat indefinitely, a policy overturned by our Supreme Court. Additionally, we have practices there that our own FBI (let alone the Red Cross) say are torture, beyond interrogation standards, and produce unreliable information, resulting in a P.R. nightmare.

-The Supreme Court didn't say anything about non combatants. It simply said we couldn't hold folks indefinitely without some sort of hearing into their status.

---> They said anyone in GITMO deserved their day in court to prove their innocence. That includes non-combatants. What's disturbing is that US Officials have said it is possible that a grandmother in Norway who merely suspects her distant relative "might" be involved in suspicious activities, but did not report them, could be held in GITMO.

We ignored our biggest threats, North Korea and Iran, who really do have WMDs. I hope to god that we have an anti-missile shield already in place.

-I agree with you on the missile shield. Think about that the next time the Democrats are whining about what a waste of money it is. We didn't "ignore" North Korea, but we can't just run in there guns blazing. It's a far different military picture than Iraq. Again, I'd like to point out that NK wouldn't even BE a nuclear threat if not for Clinton's "diplomacy". And I believe that Iran should be next on the list.

---> I loathe Clinton, too. As for the missile shield, though, Clinton publicly forwarded the cause - one of his few good actions. I think Congress is left in the dark about what secret weapons are out there - just like the Stealth, A-Bomb, etc etc etc

(f) Multiple independent studies have shown our post-9/11 efforts to secure our borders, airports, and seaports have made us no safer than pre-9/11

-Yes, amazingly, there hasn't been another attack since.

---> In the US. Al Quaida hit Spain, and continue to operate in Iraq. It's common sense that they should lay low and hit the easier targets while it's easy. It also was 8 years between the first World Trade Center Bombing and the 9/11 attack, and yet they did not have the Patriot Act then. Most counter-terrorism experts agree that Al Quaida are looking to score big, and that it's a matter of when, not if. If that's true, then it's very likely that a large attack on the US would require years of planning.

(g) By not getting our allies on board, we have spent hundreds of billions in Iraq that could have been reducing our deficit / solving social security / guaranteeing no child is left behind in school. (let alone the non-Bush backed programs)

-Allies? You mean Germany, France, and Russia? The ones who were bought off by Saddam? Doesn't sound like they were very good allies.

---> No, I mean the rest of them. France and Germany are led by traitors, and Russia is known to be corrupt. We've got 90% of the forces, and while Japan, England, Australia, and Italy's support is appreciated, you have to be blind to the numbers to say that we have our allies support. Hell, we couldn't even get Canada, and they (a) Speak English (b) Have been with us on every major conflict in the 20th century AND Afghanistan. We are spending the overwhelming majority of moneys and troops (other than Iraq).

By going into Iraq we pulled out the majority of our Arab speaking translators, special forces, and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan, letting Osama slip by us.

-They speak Urdu and Pashtu in Afghanistan-not Arabic.

---> You're correct. However Al Quaida is widely Arabic-speaking, and specialists are cross-trained in languages and cultures of the region.

Yet, you've failed to provide any proof to the contrary, Ulrika.

Instead, you affect a holier than thou air, dole out high brow insults and carry on your merry way. You've yet to inject anything the least bit constructive to this or any thread in which I've participated. Are you simply a referee?

Lastly, I never said that Liberals never fought in a war.

-Kiamat Dusk

I'm assuming that was at Ulrika. hehehe

yeah?

The reason I haven't engaged you within the scope of your discussion, is that arguing about race with a racist is vastly less productive than discussing racism with a racist. (In this case, it's not racism but ethnocentrism of the irrational liberal-hating type.)

Given that you mentioned morality and ethics in a previous post, I hope you'll take some time to reflect upon the fact that you just might be one of those monsters. You know, the ones that make the colored folk sit at the back of the bus, or laugh at the jew bending over to pick up a coin, or talking about liberals as lacking anything resembling a spine.

Just something to think about.

~Ulrika~

I'm half black and I really don't care where they sit on the bus.
Interesting that you mention the Jews. When was the last time you supported Isreal over the Palestinians? Or do you believe that Israel is the agressor in that little debaucle?
And, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will maintain that Liberals are utterly lacking in morals and ethics of any kind. Or a spine for that matter.

This is not racism. The best you could say is it is prejudice since it is based on my experiences with Liberals.

-Kiamat Dusk

Does anyone else find it deliciously ironic that you can condemn a few isolated acts of torture while heartily engaging in mass murder?

Kiamat, your argument fails in a very simple way: You are begging the question.

You have redefined what a liberal is, so that "spineless" is part of the definition. Hence you are just restating your original argument as the defense of your original argument. Begging the question.

I point out that plenty of liberals have served in wars, are barve police and firefighters, are war reporters (considered one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs). I could point out that Castro, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung are leftists commies, and that they are all men who led revolutions. (Clearly not spineless, however dispicable.) I could point out that FDR was one of the US's biggest warhawks, a man who bravely fought polio to be President, and yes, a liberal. Or JFK, who served in wartime, was also a liberal.

But it doesn't matter to you, because you'll just say they were exceptions, or that they weren't true "liberals".

And what is spined and moraled? Bush? Bush, who never saw combat because his daddy got him in the guard? (Back when the Guard wasn't a back-door draft?) Bush, who has spent nearly 40% of his entire Presidency on vacation? Bush, who makes "difficult choices" for the nation that soldiers have to pay the price for? Bush, the only President to be elected with a criminal felony (DUI)? Perhaps Tom Delay, embattled in an ethics scandal? Rush Limbaugh, a drug abuser? Ann Coultier?

Being liberal or conservative doesn't make one moral or immoral. One's actions do. My beliefs can be pure, my actions impure. My beliefs could be radical, but if I never employ them in a way that hurts people, then how is that immoral? This is why I'm a moderate, because I can think about what I like to stand for, and not have to go to a stereotype based on party lines or boxed-in ideologies.

No Eggy, I don't find it hilarious at all. As a matter of fact, due to my involvement in the first chapter back in '03, I usually don't sleep nights.

Kiamat is having an extra-bitter day today 0_o

Have a cookie Kiamat. Hit the gym, blow off a little tension.

I said, "in your case, it's not racism but ethnocentrism of the irrational liberal-hating type."

Given that you mentioned morality and ethics in a previous post, I hope you'll take some time to reflect upon the fact that you just might be an ethnocentrist. You know, the ones that make the colored folk sit at the back of the bus, or laugh at the jew bending over to pick up a coin, or talking about liberals as lacking anything resembling a spine.

As a matter of fact, you admit it yourself by saying, "... it is prejudice since it is based on my experiences with Liberals." Replace the world "Liberals" with "Jews", "blacks", "foreigners", "women", "Mexicans". It is a confession of an irrational group-based hatred. It is exactly analogous to racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia.

This is a very bad thing.

~Ulrika~

Is it ethical to put a bullet in the head of an Iraqi soldier for no reason beyond giving his mother will the ability to criticise her government without being afraid of going to jail?

Oh, wait. We needed to stabilize the Middle East so that we'd have a reliable supply of oil. That certainly changes the equation.

Iraq is not really a better place to live yet, but let's suppose that in a year or two it gets to be that way. Will it have been worth the lives of a hundred thousand Iraqis? My ethics say that it's not your place to make that decision.

And they're angry at us, why? Because they hate freedom? Sigh.

Maybe they just hate having it rammed down their throats.

We're going to be living with the consequences of this for generations to come. The best we can hope for is that things go really well from now on in Iraq. In that case a dozen aggressive regimes around the world will say to themselves, "Well, that worked out pretty well; it just shows that military power can be used in a constructive way". Watch out, Taiwan!

Of course, it's more likely that it won't. A generation of Iraqis is ripe for terrorist indoctrination now.

One really smart liberal thinker put it this way: what you sow you reap.

You can't sow war and reap peace. Not that it's a bad thing to try; but it just isn't going to work.

--Allie

You speak with such absolutes.

Sometimes yes, evil people will start wars and sometimes good people will be forced to fight them... but today war isn't about fighting for what you believe in. Read up on the warcrimes in Iraq, see if you can find the documentaries and blogs popping up showing footage of thousands of Iraqi's living in camp towns outside the cities bandaging missing limbs and battered children.

Watch when they tell you about how their wives and neighbours were shot in the back running. How American soldiers raided their homes in the night. How tanks just rolled in one day and they were fleeing for their lives.

And soldiers sitting in their tanks listening to Dead Pool? Come on.

How about rebels (sorry insurgents) throwing carbombs out killing their own in? Why are they doing that? Maybe to get at the Americans? To drive the corruption in their country? To get some reliable phone service for more than 4 hours a day?

What about the American soldier? Sent in to a war and getting shot at by people he can't understand? Following orders because he is told to -- standing in front of an enemy at the end of a plank with a big gun in his hand and more questions than answers?

War IS ugly. Always will be. And no one is winning from Iraq -- those who talk about peace in Iraq had only been there for a day or two under heavy guard. They still fly home and order a pizza. Play some xbox. Buy some new clothes for their daughters and go out with the guys for a beer and laugh about the latest episode of the simpsons.

While some guy got his house blown up, doesn't know where half his family is and is craving a cup of water. He'll probably wind up dead in some cross-fire, or walk on a mine or something. Hell, maybe he'll live.. find a place to stay in some border-villiage in a cheap hotel where he gets only 2 hours of light in the evening.

Real pretty. Really worth it.

Forgetting about the questions of whether war is necessary, etc and focusing
on the original question -

Surely, it must tip some people over the edge shooting people and getting shot on a regular basis. Then some come home, are having nightmares, can't handle normal home life and take it out on others. Plus the military has trained them professionally how to kill and be destructive in the most effective way.

I knew someone for a while who was in Vietnam. He was not a violent type but it really messed up his life. Twenty years after the war and he was having nightmares all the time and was most unhappy.

I'm curious- how do you personally classify someone as a liberal? Although I don't consider myself a liberal (or a conservitive, for that matter), I often vote for democrats and am sympathetic to some issues associated with liberals, for example, legalizing gay mariage, and seperation of church and state. Do I fit into the liberal category? If so does this mean someone in my position lacks morals and ethics? How and why?

*rubs his temples.....

Ok...if you haven't been to Iraq or personally know someone who has-shut up.
If you haven't done your research on life in Iraq during Saddam's regime-shut up.
If the most military experience you've had is playing 15hrs of SOCOM a day-shut up.

Why? Because you have no idea what you're talking about and are, therefore, not adding this to this discussion.

Actually, I shouldn't say that. Speak all you want. But just know that I'm not going to sit here and take all the time required to educate you.

Just keep in mind a few things:
1. The only news that sells is BAD news-so the only scenes of Iraq you'll see are ones of blood and desctruction.
2. The majority of terrorists in Iraq have been shown to be foreigners. Outsiders preying on the Iraqi people in hopes of igniting a civil war. And you are their patsies.
3. It's right to put a bullet in the head of an Iraqi soldier if it comes down to him or you. They were given every opportunity to surrender.

-Kiamat Dusk

What makes a Liberal?

1. You consistently root for America's enemies or blame America for attacks against her.
-Ward Churchill
-Michael Moore

2. You are a communist/socialist or make excuses for them.
-Both the Truman and Roosevelt administrations were fraught with communists spies as proven by the declassified Verona cables. Both turned a blind eye when warned by the FBI then turned and mocked people like McCarthy who were working to expose these people. The concept of McCarthy being a witch hunting monster is one the greatest lie the Left has ever told, right up there with the myth of the Global Warming "Crisis".

3. You are pro abortion (ie pro-choice), especially late term.
-This is where the morals/ethics issue. Anyone who would condone the murder of a child unborn or otherwise is devoid of both.

4. You talk about religious tolerance out of one side of your mouth while cursing Christians out of the other.

5. You are more than happy to spend my money on "art" like "Piss Christ" (see #4)

6. You agree with the head of PETA who said, Even if animal research develops a cure for AIDS, "we'd be opposed to it anyway because we always take the animals' side of the case."

7. You don't believe in absolute right and wrong. Liberals like to see everything in the grey haze of relativism. Everything can be excused. Everything is to be tolerated. Let them stone women to death in Iran, I don't live there.


That's it for now. I'll add more as I think of them. Any Conservatives out there have any to add?

Now, I understand that some may subscribe to some of these and not others. When I use the term "Liberal" its a blanket way of dealing with the group as a whole.

-Kiamat Dusk

Everybody in the United States is a liberal. Or they're so far outside the mainstream the FBI maintains around-the-clock surveillance on them. If you know anything about western politics, you'll know why.

Ronald Reagan was a liberal. Both Bushes are liberals. Every mainstream registered Republican is either a liberal or supports a liberal agenda. Yep, Rush Limbaugh, Bilious O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are all liberals, just like Al Franken. (Ann Coulter? Naw, she's just a nut. And surveilled by the FBI.)

This is a nonsensical discussion because the terms are nonsensical. By national, constitutional, and traditional definitions, there are no conservatives, neo- or otherwise, in political authority today. We're all part of the liberal fraternity. You can't be an American and not be liberal. Liberalism is the essence of the United States. That's not an opinion. That's a cold, hard, demonstrable fact.

Kiamat, you're a liberal. Get over it.

I hope you know what I'm talking about. Because if you don't, it's back to the books for you.

Considering that you are making blanket statements, I can only take your attack on Liberals as a personal one that includes me. So here's a little about me:

Liberal, yes (Democrat, no).

1. I do not root for America's enemies. I am pro-empire to a degree, but have a plethora of problems with the power structure in American society and feel the need to question every single thing that our government does with suspicion.

2. I am neither a communist nor a socialist. I am a capitalist, but I really have no problem with communism or socialism as long as it's not the government I pay my taxes to (side note: because I have problems with the power structures in my own government, I also dislike paying taxes in my own country).

3. This is where I'm going to pull the hypocrite card on you and invalidate this question altogether. Any government-sanctioned killing is still murder. Killing is killing. "Oh, but it's done for the right reasons when we kill 'criminals.'" Alright, so murder is OK in some circumstances, so let's agree on that fact without muddying it up with any creative euphemisms.

Now let me ask you this- Which has accrued more social value, an unborn human (one that could potentially be born retarded or deformed), or an adult with a lifetime of experiences and is part of a society? Babies couldn't even take care of themselves without us, so we play God just by feeding them.

The religious right has no problem supporting the death penalty or putting bullets in the heads of non-Christians in other countries, but, oh no- heaven forbid we should off a few unborn babies!

Life is not intrinsically precious. If it was, I wouldn't use antibacterial soap.

4. I NEVER talk about religious tolerance. Period. My personal opinion is that religious people are very unfortunate. I understand that religion is very useful to absolve people of personal responsibility, act as an emotional crutch, or pacify and control the masses. I also understand that it is very important and desirable to have in a society like this one where greed is the highest virtue, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend to like it. I will never, EVER, pretend I respect them just to appear tolerant. I don't need a goodguy badge, so no side-talking from me.

5. You're right to criticize government spending on art. I think the government should address the hierarchy of needs before moving on to luxuries, and guess what else isn't on the hierarchy of needs? Most government spending.

6. Gee... this one doesn't fit with me either. I'm a strict vegan, but I'm not a member or supporter of PETA. Ironic, huh? Domesticated animals are playthings that we've created over many centuries of selective breeding. Many of them would do very poorly in the wild. The amount of food wasted on them is completely irresponsible and the waste they produce is monumental. Speaking of selective breeding, even dogs are descended from wolves that we selectively bred to be adult puppies (adult wolves don't bark ); in essence we've made a species of retarded animals... And now, owners have to tote the crap of their retarded beasts while walking them. How humiliating.

It isn't animal "rights" that bother me, it's the volume of them that we choose to keep alive. ...And when it's not the issue of volume, it's often their existence that bothers me (though I'd choose to overlook that if the volume was significantly lower).

7. You almost had me on this one. I almost said, "you are absolutely right that there is no absolute right and wrong"-- but that would invalidate your assertion that I don't believe in absolutes, so I guess you don't peg me on this one either. Maybe what you should have said is that I don't believe in YOUR absolute rights and wrongs. That I could agree with.