"The entire war [in Iraq] is an atrocity"

[Cranky]

skilly said:

...insurgents killing civilians with explosives in a suicide .....

Didn't you get the memo? It's the West and their ugly American masters that causes these poor, innocent Mother Teresa like tenderloins to do that.

A few weeks ago, I went to a manufacturer to buy some goods and low and behold, it was owned by an Iraqi. The yapper that I am, I had the pleasure of a LONG conversation with several Iraqi's who have been in in Iraq as recently as March. We even had Time Horton's coffee in what turn out to be a three hour conversation between a friendly "Greek" and Iraqis. Amongst the many topics we discussed, one of them was that they use to get at least an hour a day of political classes which basically boiled down to how great Saddam was and how the West is trying to suck their blood. I can imagine the anti West hate filled education they get in most of the Arab world and let's even bother to talk about the madrases.

As for the Americans "killing civilians". The Iraqi's said that the insurgent OUTSIDERS wet dream is to draw fire from Americans in crowded markets. Their entire philosphy is to create as many deaths as possible so as to create as much havoc as possible and then offer THEIR brand of blindness as the "solution". We are not talking about occasional actions that could be seen as an atrocity, we are talking about using the most vile atrocities as a means to instill fear and hatred in the population.

I wanted to use pictures an exclamation mark to my post but most of them are so disgusting that I can not post them. If one wants to see what "freedom fighters" stand for and what deliberate atrocities look like, just google images for "Iraq car bomb". For every single picture of Abu Ghraib "atrocity", I can show a thousand pictures of rivers of blood from car bombs deliberatly set to kill civilians.

But why see the obvious when there is a good Ugly-American "atrocity" spin just waiting for ink.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

As for the Americans "killing civilians". The Iraqi's said that the insurgent OUTSIDERS wet dream is to draw fire from Americans in crowded markets. Their entire philosphy is to create as many deaths as possible so as to create as much havoc as possible and then offer THEIR brand of blindness as the "solution". We are not talking about occasional actions that could be seen as an atrocity, we are talking about using the most vile atrocities as a means to instill fear and hatred in the population.

There are some who believe this was the motivation behind 9/11, HA. The USA was in a catch-22 after those planes went into the WTC. If they didn't react they would've seemed weak. However, they did and, according to some, this is what al-Qeada wanted so as to recreate the Christian/Islam rift.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

This is in reference to Afghanistan, and I don't really buy the argument. NATO troops kill women and children too. Accidents are one thing, but when you deliberately fire on civilians because there are insurgents among them, or when you drop bombs on civilian areas, you can be damn pretty sure you're going to kill civilians. To me, that's murder. If I shoot someone in Canada, I won't get a lighter sentence because I was "hoping" they wouldn't die. IMO, some of the things NATO has done in Afghanistan are in the same "moral category" as the Taliban. But, more important than what I think is what the average Afghani thinks. If NATO wanted to win hearts and minds, they haven't gone about it very intelligently.

Would you rather they not shoot and risk being wrong .... they don't have the luxury of second thought like us. They have one chance to get it right or come home in a body bag. It is a war. People are going to die. Maybe we should send over a few of our boy strapped with explosives and go kamikaze?

There's a difference between firing out of self defence and making it a policy to fire on civilians. And anyway, the self defence argument could just as easily be used by the insurgents to justify hiding among civilians. If, as you said, "when in a war one can use reasonable methods to stay alive," that surely applies equally to both sides.

You don't seem to have a problem with insurgents killing civilians with explosives in a suicide

What an absurd thing to say.

I haven't been in a war, but when in a war one can use reasonable methods to stay alive. And before you say firing at civilians is not reasonable, put yourself in their shoes .... they have no idea who the insurgents are.

In some cases, they know that what they are about to do will kill innocent people.

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

* The Milgram Experiment: Ordinary people, from all walks of life, shocked a fellow human to death (or so they thought), just because somebody told them to do so. Just because somebody told them to do it. No implied threat to their own safety, no reason for them to not say no, I won’t do it. They just did it because somebody told them to do it, even though they knew it was wrong. Conclusion? When faced with an authority figure, even in low-stress, non-threatening situations, people will do what they are told, no matter how much it goes against their own personal moral codes.

You've posted about this before and I don't remember if I ever replied, but I have a few thoughts about it. First of all, I think it's wrong to say that there was "no implied threat to their own safety" - they saw that the experimenter was willing to let the shockee die for no reason, so it would have been reasonable for them to fear for their own safety.

Second, I think your reasoning is dangerous. According to Wikipedia, "the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%." So one third of people wouldn't go that far. According to wavaw, "A survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught." Should we therefore not punish college-aged males for sexual assault?

I don't think you're suggesting that whatever a soldier does, no matter how horrible, is excusable because it can be written off as human nature. Or are you? Couldn't you then excuse any crime for the same reason?

From your link:

The final prank call in this scheme was made to a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky on April 9, 2004. According to assistant manager Donna Summers, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', he described an employee whom he said was suspected of stealing a customer's purse. Summers called 18-year-old employee Louise Ogborn to her office and told her of the suspicion. Following the instructions of the caller, Summers ordered Ogborn first to empty her pockets, and finally to remove all her clothing except for an apron, in an effort to find the stolen items. Again following the caller's instructions, Summers had another employee watch Ogborn when she had to leave the office to check the restaurant. The first employee she asked to do so refused, so she phoned her fiance Walter Nix, asking him to come in to 'help' with the situation.

According to Ogborn, after Summers passed off the phone to Nix, he continued to do as the caller told, even as the caller's requests became progressively more bizarre. A security camera recorded Nix forcing Ogborn to remove her apron, the only article of clothing she was still wearing, and to assume revealing positions. As time went on, Nix, per his instructions, began to slap her and had her perform oral sex on him. The tape showed that Summers re-entered the office several times and dismissed her pleas for help, a statement which Summers denies.

When another employee was asked to take part and objected, Summers decided to call the store manager, whom the caller claimed to have on another phone line. She then discovered that the store manager had not spoken to any police officers, and that the call had been a hoax. A quick-thinking employee dialed *69 to determine that the caller had called from a supermarket pay phone in Panama City, Florida. Summers then called police, who arrested Nix and began an investigation to find the caller.

Do you think Nix should have been punished?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

What an absurd thing to say.

Absurd ... possibly. Well, ok, definitely. I debated for 15mins whether to even post it, since it was very borderline on the COC and I was trying to word it in a non-personal way.

However, the point is .... most posts on the Iraq war are all anti-American. Most agree that the reason the war started was a bad call. But they are in war. Now whether one agrees with the reason for the war, that should not affect an objective view of how to survive a war. People can have a hey-day lambasting US foreign policy, but the troops on the ground are ordinary Joes fighting for their lives. As Forrest Gump said "It Happens"

When we have threads upon threads crying about the bad bad Americans and not one voice (ok well maybe 2 or 3) to tell it from the American side .... well it deserves a voice. I cringe everytime I see a suicide bomber on TV, because they always take someone with them. 9 times out of 10 it is only innocent civilians but to them that is OK because Allah has a place for those who die (whether by accident or choice) in Allah's war. That's hogwash to me. Brainwashing is akin to it.

The Iraqi war and Afghan war is too close to home for me. I two cousins who have duel US-Canadian citizenship (brothers). One is in the US air force, the other in the Canadian Navy. Both have served in those wars. And I don't care what they have to do to get home .... just as long as it is in one piece. I am not going to sit and criticize the troops - foreign policy is one thing - but to me the troops are in a war. War. You can't armchair quarterback a war ... they are the ones we pay so we dont have to go.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

I am not going to sit and criticize the troops - foreign policy is one thing - but to me the troops are in a war. You can't armchair quarterback a war ... they are the ones we pay so we dont have to go.

And like you suggest, it's in our best interests to give them what they want; good pay, pensions and benefits. They take the risks so we don't have to.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

badcompany said:

* The Milgram Experiment: Ordinary people, from all walks of life, shocked a fellow human to death (or so they thought), just because somebody told them to do so. Just because somebody told them to do it. No implied threat to their own safety, no reason for them to not say no, I won’t do it. They just did it because somebody told them to do it, even though they knew it was wrong. Conclusion? When faced with an authority figure, even in low-stress, non-threatening situations, people will do what they are told, no matter how much it goes against their own personal moral codes.

You've posted about this before and I don't remember if I ever replied, but I have a few thoughts about it. First of all, I think it's wrong to say that there was "no implied threat to their own safety" - they saw that the experimenter was willing to let the shockee die for no reason, so it would have been reasonable for them to fear for their own safety.

Second, I think your reasoning is dangerous. According to Wikipedia, "the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%." So one third of people wouldn't go that far. According to wavaw, "A survey on date rape showed that 60% of Canadian college-aged males indicated that they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught." Should we therefore not punish college-aged males for sexual assault?

I don't think you're suggesting that whatever a soldier does, no matter how horrible, is excusable because it can be written off as human nature. Or are you? Couldn't you then excuse any crime for the same reason?

Those are the questions, aren't they? Two-thirds of people would kill, or sexually assualt another human being if given the chance, or if told to. Studies on just about every other crime suggest the same thing; most people would be criminals if they thought they could get away with it, or if somebody in authority told them to. Whether it's robbing a bank, or punching out the loud-mouth neighbor next door, or listening to the chief financial officer when he says "make those accounting numbers look different." As I said;

badcompany said:

It’s an unfortunate fact that humans are cruel, viscious and nasty. Psychological study after study has shown that the majority of human beings, no matter what their race, creed or religion, will do things that no “civilized” person should ever do. You, me, the fundamentalist with the explosive weight belt, we’re all the same, unfortunately.

The point isn't to absolve individuals of personal responsibility - though many argue that the reason these experiments are banned is because it does absolve people of personal responsibility (in particular the Nazis) and that's not a road we want to go down. The point is that base human nature is not, generally what we think it is, or what we hope it is. While it's true that 30-35% of the people in the Milgram experiment did not go all the way, 100% of the people (in the initial study anyways) went to 300 volts, an extremely powerful shock (450 was the lethal number). Did they fear for their own safety, as you suggest? Perhaps, though their exit interviews suggested that they did not (critics however, say Milgram's exit interviews were poorly done). And even if they did, again doesn't that "absolve" soldiers at war who most certainly have reasons to fear for their safety, or citizens in a brutal dictatorship like the Third Reich, who know that refusal to obey authority is a death sentence?

The studies are fascinating - and disturbing - because they do raise very confusing questions. No one would argue that it's "okay" to line villagers up and massacre them as was done in Mai Lai, but if scientific research shows that there is an above average chance you would have done the exact same thing, what does that mean? Extrapolating, does that mean no crime should be punished, as you ask? Hard-core geneticists would say that everything is predetermined at birth, and by implication a criminal can never be reformed. Hard-core environmentists would say that humans are blank slates, that it is the situation and situations that determine behavior. Most others fall back on a "combination of both" logic, which explains nothing.

Mark my words; there will be a few, perhaps only a very few, that will use this logic to absolve Michael Vick of his alleged dog-fighting ways. They will say that "it's part of his culture, his environment, and that if you were in that same situation you would do the exact same thing." It's a debate that permeates all areas of life, and unfortunately there are no easy answers.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

to me the troops are in a war. War. You can't armchair quarterback a war ... they are the ones we pay so we dont have to go.

Aren't the insurgents in a war too? Why is it ok to criticize their tactics and not those of American or Canadian or British forces? And if I were American, I wouldn't be happy about paying anyone to go fight in Iraq, because they wouldn't be fighting for me.

I don't feel the need to criticize terrorists because it seems obvious, and usually, it's all I hear/read in the mainstream media anyway.

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

The studies are fascinating - and disturbing - because they do raise very confusing questions. No one would argue that it's "okay" to line villagers up and massacre them as was done in Mai Lai, but if scientific research shows that there is an above average chance you would have done the exact same thing, what does that mean? Extrapolating, does that mean no crime should be punished, as you ask? Hard-core geneticists would say that everything is predetermined at birth, and by implication a criminal can never be reformed. Hard-core environmentists would say that humans are blank slates, that it is the situation and situations that determine behavior. Most others fall back on a "combination of both" logic, which explains nothing.

But punishment is not only about reform, it's also about deterrence. That's part of the reason we deport aged Nazi war criminals. Particpants in the Milgram experiment were told they would not be held responsible for their actions. Would the results have been different if they thought they might go to jail? Would soldiers behave differently if they thought they would be punished for extreme, unnecessary violence towards civilians?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

to me the troops are in a war. War. You can't armchair quarterback a war ... they are the ones we pay so we dont have to go.

Aren't the insurgents in a war too? Why is it ok to criticize their tactics and not those of American or Canadian or British forces? And if I were American, I wouldn't be happy about paying anyone to go fight in Iraq, because they wouldn't be fighting for me.

I don't feel the need to criticize terrorists because it seems obvious, and usually, it's all I hear/read in the mainstream media anyway.

Its pretty obvious the insurgents know they are in a war .... they are doing everything and anything to take as many bodies as they can. If they can use any tactic, then why not the soldiers?

And I dont feel the need to criticize the troops, because I read enough of that on here.

Now I realize you are more anti-America (foreign policy) than anti-troops, but it comes across as being both sometimes.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

Aren't the insurgents in a war too? Why is it ok to criticize their tactics and not those of American or Canadian or British forces? And if I were American, I wouldn't be happy about paying anyone to go fight in Iraq, because they wouldn't be fighting for me.

I don't feel the need to criticize terrorists because it seems obvious, and usually, it's all I hear/read in the mainstream media anyway.

Its pretty obvious the insurgents know they are in a war .... they are doing everything and anything to take as many bodies as they can. If they can use any tactic, then why not the soldiers?

I don't think it's ok for either side to use "any tactic." One side doing it doesn't make it ok for the other side to do it. I'm not sure to what extent self defence is a justification. If someone broke in to your house and used it to launch missiles at the police station, would it be justifiable for the police to destroy your house, with you in it? I don't know.

And I dont feel the need to criticize the troops, because I read enough of that on here.

Now I realize you are more anti-America (foreign policy) than anti-troops, but it comes across as being both sometimes.

That's probably because the political rhetoric that opposing a war is in conflict with supporting the troops has been so successful. But it makes little sense. What better way to support the troops than to bring them home?

In terms of the strength of our own democracy, it's not good that when someone criticizes the tactics employed by the troops, they are often accused of supporting terrorism. We criticize doctors, police, politicians, and fire fighters. The troops are not above criticism. People should be able to (and should) debate the actions carried out by people that they are paying to represent them around the world.

Even if I were such a pacifist that I thought anyone who joined the military was a bad person (which I don't), it would be highly illogical for me to want them to be killed, or to support terrorism.

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

But punishment is not only about reform, it's also about deterrence. That's part of the reason we deport aged Nazi war criminals. Particpants in the Milgram experiment were told they would not be held responsible for their actions. Would the results have been different if they thought they might go to jail? Would soldiers behave differently if they thought they would be punished for extreme, unnecessary violence towards civilians?

Again though, you are confirming my original point; the intrinsic "goodness" we attribute to people is not there. Their first tendency is to protect their own hide, and if that is sufficiently covered, then by all means, kill someone else. It's not a "soldier" issue, it's a human issue. As these studies show, you don't even have to be in a war to do it, you merely have to be in a university experiment.

As I also said in my original post, it CAN be overcome. But can it be overcome in a war zone? Haven't seen a war yet where it has...

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

But punishment is not only about reform, it's also about deterrence. That's part of the reason we deport aged Nazi war criminals. Particpants in the Milgram experiment were told they would not be held responsible for their actions. Would the results have been different if they thought they might go to jail? Would soldiers behave differently if they thought they would be punished for extreme, unnecessary violence towards civilians?

Again though, you are confirming my original point; the intrinsic "goodness" we attribute to people is not there. Their first tendency is to protect their own hide, and if that is sufficiently covered, then by all means, kill someone else. It's not a "soldier" issue, it's a human issue. As these studies show, you don't even have to be in a war to do it, you merely have to be in a university experiment.

I don't think I ever said anything that attributed an intrinsic goodness to people. I also didn't say it was a "soldier" isue. OTOH, most people are both good and bad, e.g. most people leave tips at highway diners even when they know they'll never see the waitress again.

[BadCompany]

machabby said:

I don't think I ever said anything that attributed an intrinsic goodness to people. I also didn't say it was a "soldier" isue. OTOH, most people are both good and bad, e.g. most people leave tips at highway diners even when they know they'll never see the waitress again.

This is what you said that made me bring up the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments:

machabby said:

I see the argument, but what about Abu Ghraib? I think there's a line somewhere between an understandable response to the situation and psychopathy, and I think it has been crossed, in some cases.

It's estimated that about 1% of the population can be classified as true psychopaths (think about that the next time in you're in a large conference room), and before he conducted his experiment Milgram and the fellow psychologists and medical experts he consulted concurred, and guessed that only about 1% of the subject in his experiment would go all the way to the end of the electric shock control board. Similarily, the assumption is that Abu Ghraib was run by a bunch of psychopaths, and that the atrocities committed during a war are conducted by people with more than a few screws loose.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. You, me, most certainly HA ( ), if we get put into similar situations there is a better than average chance we will act in the same way, regardless of whether or not we are psychopaths, or somehow damaged in some way. We will act that way because we are humans, that's all.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

I don't think it's ok for either side to use "any tactic." One side doing it doesn't make it ok for the other side to do it. I'm not sure to what extent self defence is a justification. If someone broke in to your house and used it to launch missiles at the police station, would it be justifiable for the police to destroy your house, with you in it? I don't know.

Well, if I am alive .... maybe, and thats as far as I will go, maybe they won't. But without any proof of whether I am alive or dead they most certainly DO destroy my house ... especially if the missiles were launched as you said. If those missiles are not launched then they try to negotiate.

That's probably because the political rhetoric that opposing a war is in conflict with supporting the troops has been so successful. But it makes little sense. What better way to support the troops than to bring them home?

In terms of the strength of our own democracy, it's not good that when someone criticizes the tactics employed by the troops, they are often accused of supporting terrorism. We criticize doctors, police, politicians, and fire fighters. The troops are not above criticism. People should be able to (and should) debate the actions carried out by people that they are paying to represent them around the world.

Even if I were such a pacifist that I thought anyone who joined the military was a bad person (which I don't), it would be highly illogical for me to want them to be killed, or to support terrorism.

I don't think for one second that you support terrorism. I also think that you do support the troops ..... my contention is that the soldiers must be given some lee-way to do their job to ensure they don't get killed. You have cited examples to me that are borderline comparables and everyone can come up with an extreme example to support their debate .... for instance, an person walks up to a vehicle speaking a foreign language, the soldiers are telling him to stop, dont go further, he keeps walking, shouting, and reaches under his garment and a soldier catches a glimpse of metal and wires. What does he do? Given the circumstances, is it reasonable to assume he has explosive hardware strapped to him and he ignored all shouts (in both languages) at him to halt because his was on a suicide mission? Does the soldier not shoot and take his and his friends lives in possible mortal peril? Does he shoot "to err on the side of caution" (ie staying alive)? Let's say for instance, in my example, the soldier shoots and kills him and they discover the civilian was wearing a walkman and he was shouting about a news item. Did the soldier do wrong? I say no .... you do what you have to do (obviously within reason - but that standard is alot lower in war) to ensure your battalion suffers no loss.

[ropoflu]

The puppeteers wants us to debate whether or not we are enough supportive of our soldiers. That way we don't discuss what's really important, i.e., the puppeteers' real intentions and motivations.

Each time we try to question the puppeteers' decisions or intentions, we are tagged (seldomly in a subtle manner) as unpatriotic and egocentric citizens that don't support their fellow soldiers who fights and dies for our freedom. If we oppose before the war we are reminded that we must help and save the poor and the oppressed.

Bullcrap and demagogy in its purest form, and most medias are part of it.

And as for the soldiers, they are being used twice, one: to fight wrong wars (most especially since the 50's) and two as guilt trip inducing symbols.

Before you start flaming me, know that friend of mine will go in Afghanistan (as an armurier - translation?) and another one is a Captain in Halifax. I've spoke recently to the latter, and despite all the information ne read (or has been fed), he's still skeptical about the mission, especially since he's well aware of Afghani history and geopolitics.

[franko]

ropoflu said:

Before you start flaming me, know that friend of mine will go in Afghanistan (as an armurier - translation?) and another one is a Captain in Halifax. I've spoke recently to the latter, and despite all the information ne read (or has been fed), he's still skeptical about the mission, especially since he's well aware of Afghani history and geopolitics.

Iraq and Afghanistan: two different wars, two different battlefields, two different purposes.

Having said that, a friend of mine just got back from Afghanistan [how can I put this: he is not in the military, he was in a "non-combat" role but is more than an observer] and while he couldn't say much, did shake his head. Thinks that a pull-out is inevitable, thinks that the other NATO forces should be ashamed of themselves, says that the CDN troops are doing a great job and that many Afghanis are appreciative . . . but that it is going to be long-term reconstructive work that the public does not have the will for. Afghanis are going to have to take control of their own destinies, though he feels that eventually it'll be back to tribal warfare.

As to Iraq, a friend's son got back from his tour of duty last year and is now in captain's school -- and will be sent back, probably in the spring. The troop(?)/battalion(?) under is command and many other soldiers are "believers" in the liberation of the people, and wish there was more support for them from "home".

[ropoflu]

franko said:

Iraq and Afghanistan: two different wars, two different battlefields, two different purposes.

Is that so? Oh, well, you're right it's two different sandboxes, but the various outsiders that have had their hands in it for decades now, are playing a very similar game.

I'll give you a hint:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

And as for the Afghani situation, it's only one part of the gigantic mess that has be going on there (see the greatest illicit opium producer in the world).

franko said:

Having said that, a friend of mine just got back from Afghanistan [how can I put this: he is not in the military, he was in a "non-combat" role but is more than an observer] and while he couldn't say much, did shake his head. Thinks that a pull-out is inevitable, thinks that the other NATO forces should be ashamed of themselves, says that the CDN troops are doing a great job and that many Afghanis are appreciative.

They're good boys. If I was living in another country where a military intervention was deemed necessary, I would prefer it to be done by Canadians soldiers (but I'm biased, of course).

franko said:

. . . but that it is going to be long-term reconstructive work that the public does not have the will for. Afghanis are going to have to take control of their own destinies, though he feels that eventually it'll be back to tribal warfare.

Once again. Back to square one. Even with the best intentions, Canadians can't do it alone.

franko said:

As to Iraq, a friend's son got back from his tour of duty last year and is now in captain's school -- and will be sent back, probably in the spring. The troop(?)/battalion(?) under is command and many other soldiers are "believers" in the liberation of the people, and wish there was more support for them from "home".

I must admit, I haven't spoken personally to any soldier who has been in Irak. But given the nightmare that is going on there, I guess I would too stick to the liberator scenario as there wouldn't be any other explanation that would keep me mentally sane.

[MC Habber]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

I don't think I ever said anything that attributed an intrinsic goodness to people. I also didn't say it was a "soldier" isue. OTOH, most people are both good and bad, e.g. most people leave tips at highway diners even when they know they'll never see the waitress again.

This is what you said that made me bring up the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments:

machabby said:

I see the argument, but what about Abu Ghraib? I think there's a line somewhere between an understandable response to the situation and psychopathy, and I think it has been crossed, in some cases.

It's estimated that about 1% of the population can be classified as true psychopaths (think about that the next time in you're in a large conference room), and before he conducted his experiment Milgram and the fellow psychologists and medical experts he consulted concurred, and guessed that only about 1% of the subject in his experiment would go all the way to the end of the electric shock control board. Similarily, the assumption is that Abu Ghraib was run by a bunch of psychopaths, and that the atrocities committed during a war are conducted by people with more than a few screws loose.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. You, me, most certainly HA ( ), if we get put into similar situations there is a better than average chance we will act in the same way, regardless of whether or not we are psychopaths, or somehow damaged in some way. We will act that way because we are humans, that's all.

Ok, I used "psychopathy" loosely (incorrectly I guess) to mean behaviour that we associate with psychopaths. I don't think the people who commit atrocities all have a few screws loose, but I'm not convinced that everything they do should go unpunished just because they're human. Going back to the strip search prank calls, I could maybe see excusing people for forcing someone to strip, as there is at least some logic to it, but forcing them to perform sex acts? To me they should be punished for that.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

my contention is that the soldiers must be given some lee-way to do their job to ensure they don't get killed.

I agree with this; the question is how much lee-way.

There are 20 to 30 thousand privately contracted, armed US "security" people in Iraq. These people are not subject to US law, Iraqi law, international law, or even US military law - if they get into any trouble the US military will get them out of it. There is no oversight, so they can act with impunity. They could commit rape, torture, murder or anything else and the worst that will happen to them is they'll lose their jobs, and even that is unlikely. That's way too much lee-way.

[MC Habber]

A Violent, 'Normal' Day in Baghdad (4 minute video on the right)

"Because we have people up there in Congress with the brain of a 2-year-old who don't know what they are doing -- they don't experience it. I challenge the president or anyone who has us for 15 months to ride alongside me," Vassell said. "I [would] do another 15 months if he comes out here and rides along with me every day for 15 months. I'll do 15 more months. They don't even have to pay me extra."

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

The puppeteers wants us to debate whether or not we are enough supportive of our soldiers. That way we don't discuss what's really important, i.e., the puppeteers' real intentions and motivations.

And who are these puppeteers who control our minds?

[ropoflu]

habsaddict said:

ropoflu said:

The puppeteers wants us to debate whether or not we are enough supportive of our soldiers. That way we don't discuss what's really important, i.e., the puppeteers' real intentions and motivations.

And who are these puppeteers who control our minds?

Unfortunately, it seems that no one is controlling our minds. It would have made things much simpler (à la Matrix). But that doesn't mean some interest groups can't try to alter or deviate the debate in a way that is more advantageous or less menacing for their business (and who would I be to blame them, that is the mature of the thing -minimizing risk, increasing wealth, etc.).

In fact, they are no evils here. The puppeteers exert more power and mobilize more resources in a specific situation but that doesn't mean I would do differently in their place.

There no "them" really, but just us, once again, and our human nature.

If you're really interested I suggest you rent the documentary "Why we fight" (the 2005 one, not the WWII Frank Capra's ones). Cinematic documentaries are certainly not the purest and most reliable source of information, but this one has received praises, and indeed raises pretty good questions. It's a good start anyway.

[Cranky]

ropoflu said:

But that doesn't mean some interest groups can't try to alter or deviate the debate in a way that is more advantageous or less menacing for their business (and who would I be to blame them, that is the mature of the thing -minimizing risk, increasing wealth, etc.).

In fact, they are no evils here. The puppeteers exert more power and mobilize more resources in a specific situation but that doesn't mean I would do differently in their place.

And would this theory also apply to the so-called "human cause of global warming"? After all, we all know how pure and innocent the motives of politicians, finianncial institutions (carbon trading), speciific scientific community (ENORMOUS increase in enviro related FUNDING), United Nations (FUNDING) and hundreds of other interest groups who gain from pulling the right strings.......



P.S. Yes, the first question was loaded and yes, I am cranky AND devious! LOL!