|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 08:05:43 [Permalink]
|
GORGO: | Oh, it happens. Entire cities are of course bombed. |
BORON: The article in your link does not cite the bombing of an entire city. It does, however, mention the city of Fallujah, which was the scene of two battles. Your article describes some of the horrible things that result from the realities of war.
I understand that you think all modern warfare is illegal. Please show me a law that is violated, rather than an op-ed piece describing how bad war can be. |
GORGO: | All kinds of atrocities go on. |
BORON: Yes, there are atrocities in war. The US military systematically investigates any report of wrongdoing.
This article seems to raise some interesting points; I will peruse it soon, too. In the meantime, do you have any objective data about military-endorsed war crimes? It seems the majority of veterans interviewed for this article were intentionally |
GORGO: Do you still say that neighborhoods don't get bombed? I didn't say the military condones it, but they don't do much about it, and we all know about "collateral" damage enough to say that neighborhoods get bombed, and while it is not officially condoned, everyone knows it will happen when a war is started. Not every bomb is a smart bomb.
When you rob a liquor store and the owner has a heart attack, you are responsible for his death. If you accidentally shoot him, you are even more responsible. When you start a war, simply to conquer, then you are the worst of criminals, as that action will inevitably cause deaths. It is murder. It is intentional. |
BORON: | If a residential target is unavoidable, the military attempts to extricate all civilians prior to the assault. Of course the US military actively tries not to kill civilians, since it would cause undue strain and doubt among the servicemen and -women doing the killing, and since any word of that would rally popular opinion against it's actions, leading to an unsupportable military operation. You have not provided any evidence that "they don't do much about it." To my knowledge, dumb bombs are not used in residential areas for the reasons I cited above. Do you have any example otherwise? |
|
Gorgo, you originally brought up the bombing of cities in response to my statement about the Nazi who turns on the gas at a concentration camp. But obviously you were being disingenuous. Your comparison would apply if the Nazi at the concentration camp was meaning to do something else and as a consequences some captive Jews were killed even though they were not being intentionally targeted. But the Nazi who turns on the gas meant to kill all the poor human beings inside the chamber. Killing innocent and unarmed people was the point, the goal, of his action. It is not the point or goal of any official US Military action to exterminate innocent civilians.
GORGO:| I also did not say that every military action is a violation of international law. I don't know that. nor again, do I particularly care about the law of the conquerors. I am just mentioning the law to show that they use it when it's convenient, and ignore it when it's not. |
BORON: | If you don't care about the law, why do you continue to insist the war is illegal? |
|
I second Boron's question. I thought the legality of the war, and the extent of any illegality, was the topic of this conversation. It seem that you, Gorgo, are just throwing out that argument when it is convenient or when you think it will make your criticism stronger or more persuasive. But it sounds like you haven't thought much about actual legal arguments.
Gorgo wrote: | And screw human lives, and screw international law, and screw any chance of the U.S. using that moment in history to change their conquering ways and actually do something to increase peace and prosperity. Screw any chance of building an international body which has the interests of the people of the world in mind, rather than just the interests of the conquerors. |
I basically agree with everything except how you are using international law. Laws are invented by people. They need to be interpreted. They can be easily interpreted in very different ways. It is a weak argument to say that that so much law breaking is going on because it is easy to argue against. The arguments against all these military actions from a moral or ethical base combined with an argument about practical goals and concerns is much stronger than the legal argument.
I'm outraged too. I think war is way too overused, and way too glorified and romanticized in human cultures, including in our own American society. When I allow myself to sit down and really think about it in a deep way, I will start to cry. I cry pretty regularly when I hear things on the news that tell personal stories about the atrocities of war. But my sympathies, tears, and outrage mean nothing and do nothing to help anything. We all as individuals have to figure out what we think we are capable of doing to improve the world, and what we think is the best way to go about achieving those small, individual goals. Personally, I don't think a good argument can be made that all the actions you've called illegal here are actually illegal. In my heart of hearts I wish George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for starting a war and occupying a country under false pretenses. But that isn't going to happen.
I think you and I have very different ideas about how to go about making the world a better place. I, and I suspect others here, think it is more effective to keep our mindset within the bounds of the mainstream, and work within the system. You seem to favor another approach. I think the problem a lot of people on SFN are having with you is that you often come off as self-righteous, as if your mindset and approach to making the world a better place is the correct one. Consider this you said: | As to not paying taxes, taxes do a lot of good things. I could symbolically not pay a percentage of my taxes, but that would just mean that they would probably do less of what I want them to with my money, not less of what I don't want them to. I state it to help me see why it is or isn't a rationalization. |
I think it is a rationalization, but it is one I also use for myself and am fine with. But someone else could come up and say to you that you should not pay any of your taxes and then use the money you didn't pay and donate it to institutions that you agree with. This person could say that even thought some of your taxes go toward things you agree with, that isn't worth the price of peoples' lives. Any money you give that goes toward the war is blood on your hands. This person could make a persuasive argument that you are a murderer, a criminal, a war monger, for paying your taxes. And if this person was insistent about it, they would come off as self-righteous. And I doubt they'd convince you to stop paying your taxes.
This is sort of what I often feel like when you are pontificated about the ethics of this war. You will often disagree with what others on SFN are saying in a rather self-righteous way. And this just turns other people off.
I think the idea that the US is violated International law is interesting, but if you are going to say it, don't say it like a fact because it is not a fact. Say it like it is one position, one argument, and then make the argument persuasively and intelligently, without self-righteousness.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2007 : 13:04:44 [Permalink]
|
And hey, I don't expect you to agree with me on this Gorgo. So what's new?
|
I appreciate your comments, Kil, and I will look into that some more.
Even if it were true that George Bush cried and begged for reasonable negotiations, that was not the time to threaten the lives of millions, and kill more people than were killed on 9/11, and help some people take over (part of) the country that were about as bad as the Taliban. That was the time to build international institutions that actually worked for the people of the world. Instead, our tax dollars go to impoverish and further enslave and kill the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, and for that matter, the U.S. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/20/2007 13:11:45 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 13:25:41 [Permalink]
|
This is sort of what I often feel like when you are pontificated about the ethics of this war. You will often disagree with what others on SFN are saying in a rather self-righteous way. And this just turns other people off.
|
Here's something even more self-righteous. This goes to you and Boron. Stop reading the ghosts in your head and read the words on the page. I've spent days here saying 'A', while Boron says, "now why do you say "B?", and then you come and write something that says I said "Y" and that I'm being self-righteous about it. Read the words on the page. Think about them. Try to understand them. Then reply. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 16:49:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Here's something even more self-righteous. This goes to you and Boron. Stop reading the ghosts in your head and read the words on the page. I've spent days here saying 'A', while Boron says, "now why do you say "B?", and then you come and write something that says I said "Y" and that I'm being self-righteous about it. Read the words on the page. Think about them. Try to understand them. Then reply.
|
You should follow this advice as well Gorgo. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2007 : 20:12:32 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: | Here's something even more self-righteous. This goes to you and Boron. Stop reading the ghosts in your head and read the words on the page. I've spent days here saying 'A', while Boron says, "now why do you say "B?", and then you come and write something that says I said "Y" and that I'm being self-righteous about it. Read the words on the page. Think about them. Try to understand them. Then reply. |
Do you think I'm being malicious? Do you think boron is? Do you think that I or he are intentionally coming up with straw man arguments against you? If indeed I and boron are saying you said something you didn't say, then clarify. Point out the mistake. Tell us what "A", "B" and "Y" are.
Gorgo, if other people keep getting what you are saying wrong, then you need to try saying it some other way because you are not communicating clearly enough. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 01:49:02 [Permalink]
|
You should follow this advice as well Gorgo.
|
Well, of course, Matt. For without that, we cannot learn. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/21/2007 01:49:30 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 03:06:31 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, if other people keep getting what you are saying wrong, then you need to try saying it some other way because you are not communicating clearly enough.
|
Okay, Marf. My remarks were meant to be constructive as well. Communication is a two-way thing, but let's assume it's just me and go on.
Let's put aside those stories in the Nation about people we know who do intentionally kill civilians, or take actions that they know will increase the risk to civilians. Let's not talk about the guy that intentionally bombs a building to satisfy some racist longing to kill Arabs. We know that happens, and we know the U.S. military allows it, but let's put that aside. Let's put aside the idea of Nazis and gas chambers. Let's work on something else entirely that is more important.
Those that start wars in this day and age know what could happen. When they start a war, they may not want those things to happen, but they know they will happen. I'll try not to use analogies, because that's where I seem to lose people. They may not know exact percentages, but they know once they start hurling explosives and metal, saying they didn't make those things happen is kind of a lie. They know those things will happen, but they think the goal of hurling metal things is worth the price to achieve whatever their goals are.
Let's also put aside international law for a moment, because that's not important. It isn't important that a dictator never breaks one of his own laws, because his own laws are whatever he decides that his laws are. That is what is happening here, and it is called "interpreting the law." Bush can't break any international laws, because might makes right, and he can't be wrong if he has might behind him.
What is important, and I think everyone will agree, is that we do that thing which has the most likelihood of achieving our goals. If our goal is peace and prosperity for all, then it makes little sense to start hurling bombs unless you absolutely need to to defend someone who is being attacked. Who was being immediately attacked by anyone in Iraq, and how have the resultant deaths and political and economic maneuverings helped anyone? Even if Saddam did have WMD's, there were no planes headed for DC with THE BOMB. Something else could have been done short of war and occupation. Time and resources were not the problem, so George Bush wanted something besides peace and prosperity for all.
In conquering Iraq, George Bush has insured, as in most wars (maybe not all), that the majority of the people in Iraq will live worse lives than they ever have for a long time. Much like Yugoslavia, much like Haiti. Haiti's poverty is the goal of U.S. and British and French and Canadian foreign policy. It's purpose, in my opinion, is to gain slaves for the likes of GM and Nike and George Soros.
So, what do we do? Laws serve a purpose. If George Bush and his predecessors can use the military to conquer Iraq or Panama, for instance, then why can't Saddam Hussein take over Kuwait? If they can say the UN Charter does not apply to them, then why can't Saddam Hussein? If there is no equal application of the law, then laws are meaningless. Might makes right is still the only law that exists.
Ostensibly, that is why the UN was created. However, we can see that the UN is useless to most people in the world, because the UNSC ensures that the old law of might makes right applies to the victors of the last war, but not anyone else. That is the problem I am addressing when I talk about international law.
George Bush could have used the reaction of the world to 9/11 to create a better UN. Instead, he said that might makes right. No one can disagree, or we will make sure they suffer.
Someone said that the people of the world agreed with Bush on Afghanistan. The governments of the world agreed because they had no other choice. The people of the world wanted real negotiations. The same is almost true with Iraq. Not all the governments of the world (or even the UNSC) agreed, but by and large the people of the U.S. did not want Iraq to be attacked, and the people of the world did not want it.
But, that doesn't really matter either, because numbers don't really count on some issues. That's why we have a Constitution. To make sure that numbers don't always (easily)win.
So, we don't want a UN Charter that can be easly skirted by those that have might or have the numbers. We don't need a UNSC that is a cold war relic. We need, somehow, to create international institutions that are not overly influenced by transnational corporations and transnational criminals like George Bush and his predecessors. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/21/2007 03:17:25 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 09:17:17 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
Someone said that the people of the world agreed with Bush on Afghanistan. The governments of the world agreed because they had no other choice. |
I said it and please explain to me why you think “the governments of the world agreed because they had no other choice.”
Gorgo:
The people of the world wanted real negotiations. |
As had been brought up already, negotiations are not going to be very productive if one side refuses to enter them with a sincere desire to come to some sort of reasonable compromise. We never had the chance to accept a reasonable offer and relax our list of demands because non was offered.
Gorgo:
The same is almost true with Iraq. Not all the governments of the world (or even the UNSC) agreed, but by and large the people of the U.S. did not want Iraq to be attacked, and the people of the world did not want it. |
That is not correct. Most governments of the world were against our invasion of Iraq, which was opposite of most countries position on Afghanistan. We cobbled together a few countries and called them a coalition when we attacked Iraq. Hardly. That act was precisely when when we lost the support of the worlds governments, by and large.
The people of America, for the most part, were in favor of attacking Iraq, based on the lies they were told by Bush and company, and reported almost unquestionably by the press. I agree that the people of the world were against it because it could not be demonstrated that Iraq was a danger to us and had no ties to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And their countries governments and press were not trying to convince them otherwise.
What I find ironic is that you Gorgo do not, for the most part, differentiate between our reasons to go into Afghanistan and our reasons for attacking Iraq. Like the neocons, you try to tie these two acts together. The only difference is that you and they approach it from opposite sides of the political spectrum.
I admire your wish to find better solutions for our worlds troubles than to go to war. I agree that our country has shown and alarming disregard for the consequences of those actions that are perceived by us as better for our interests. Since WW2 our paranoia and our greed has lead to much unnecessary suffering. The list of mistakes and misdeeds in our foreign policies is almost endless.
That said, I don't think it really serves your argument to make broad rhetorical statements without a good grasp of what we did and why we did it. Lumping together our action in Afghanistan and Iraq does exactly that. Suggesting that the military, as a matter of policy, allows war crimes is at the very least an exaggeration. It just isn't good PR for the military to target civilians. It may serve your argument that there are unacceptable levels of civilian casualties as a result of our actions, and on that you might get some agreement from me. I would like to see no civilian casualties. I do feel for those who are caught in the crossfire through no fault of their own. But to call it a matter of policy, which is what you have implied, will only turn people off to your message of the best way to achieve peace.
No offence, but you come off as a far left nutball who sees nothing but conspiracies fed to you by the Pacifica Foundation. You sound like a member of PETA only with a different agenda.
Please don't take that as an attack on you. I am only pointing out how you come off, and not who you are…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 14:48:01 [Permalink]
|
I haven't seen any evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. Have you? I'll keep looking. I took it for granted that they had it, but I can't find it. Did they ever lay out exactly what the evidence was?
| President Bush says 'I gave them a fair chance'. (Times, 8 Oct., p. 2) The reality is that he has rejected negotiations and nonviolent alternatives to war. Extradition from Afghanistan was possible, and may still be possible if the war is ended. The media have effectively suppressed evidence of the Taliban's offers, and have distorted the Taliban's position - thereby making war seem natural and inevitable. It is neither. |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/21/2007 14:49:18 |
|
|
|
Big Daddy Bob
Sockpuppet/BANNED
6 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 15:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I haven't seen any evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. Have you? I'll keep looking. I took it for granted that they had it, but I can't find it. Did they ever lay out exactly what the evidence was?
|
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
| USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. |
I have always wondered why the media reports his name as Osama.
USAMA= United States of America Military Asset |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 15:52:23 [Permalink]
|
I have always wondered why the media reports his name as Osama.
USAMA= United States of America Military Asset
|
Thanks and welcome, Bob. That doesn't give us evidence, but it's a cool picture. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 16:18:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I haven't seen any evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. Have you? I'll keep looking. I took it for granted that they had it, but I can't find it. Did they ever lay out exactly what the evidence was?
| President Bush says 'I gave them a fair chance'. (Times, 8 Oct., p. 2) The reality is that he has rejected negotiations and nonviolent alternatives to war. Extradition from Afghanistan was possible, and may still be possible if the war is ended. The media have effectively suppressed evidence of the Taliban's offers, and have distorted the Taliban's position - thereby making war seem natural and inevitable. It is neither. |
|
Well, it looks as though he denied it at first. But the intelligence was good because he outright admitted it in 2004.
The first link says he admitted it back when negotiations were going on. I would not swear by this source however.
Telegraph CO.UK
PBS
NPR
CBS
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 16:18:58 [Permalink]
|
This is spun different ways here, but I think the people of the U.S. were largely against going to war without UNSC approval.
| Pew Research Center poll last week found 57 percent wanted Bush to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution before going to war, while 33 percent said a new resolution was unnecessary. |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/21/2007 16:20:38 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 17:24:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
This is spun different ways here, but I think the people of the U.S. were largely against going to war without UNSC approval.
| Pew Research Center poll last week found 57 percent wanted Bush to get a new U.N. Security Council resolution before going to war, while 33 percent said a new resolution was unnecessary. |
|
Could be that I was wrong. But I was arguing against that war with Democrats. So it seemed to me that if Democrats were going along with the bs, that would make a majority... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 18:37:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Edited to add: some of my bolding tags are not working. I have no idea why... |
Coz' you forgot to close one.
It's the one at the bottom of your third quote block, that begins:
| the Taliban made an open offer to try... |
A little [/b] somewhere before your [/quote] will fix it.
As a developer, I whinge and complain about the various tools, but deep down I know, most of the time(*), it was my fault.
Most of the time, the compiler does what you told it to, even if that wasn't what you meant to tell it to do...
* Sometimes, particularly at 3 am, during a 20 hour shift, the machines really do gang up on you. I was there. I saw it. Honest. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 10/21/2007 18:39:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Crime or Military Action
Topic Locked
