A question to those who oppose the Iraq War.

[Dark]

Well, not all those who oppose it. I certainly do. It was an unnecessary waste of life, money, and time that will bite us in the ass. It won't solve our oil concerns, security concerns, or even economic concerns.

It is a pointless conflict that is spiraling down. And, yes, I've heard that we're about to enter another one with Iran. Yay.

But before I start ranting about that 'catastrophic success', I want to get to my post's point.

This is a question that I want to know the answer to.

Many on this board, as well as Michael Moore and others, show gruesome scenes of Iraqi children being mauled by bombs, of mothers crying over their daughters' corpses. Horrifying, I agree.

They show pictures of US troops marred physically and mentally by this atrocious war. They display pictures of the Iraqis being killed by bombs, both theirs and ours.

Now, please, explain this to me. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, though I'm sure I will be flamed.

How can you show these heinous pictures of this conflict and say how evil this conflict is simply because of these deaths when every war is just as gruesome or even more so?

I'm not justifying the war, I just want to know why it is Iraq is a bad war because we're killing civilians, but Afghanistan, Iraq #1, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Civil War are okay even though we're killing civilians.

Kerry became proud that he served in Vietnam. Anyone listening to the campaigns had to have noticed that he was very proud of his service in Vietnam, and of the medals he earned. But that war was just as, if not more horrific than this one. And probably waged on lies as well.

N. Korea didn't attack us, but we went on the offensive. We didn't just defend S. Korea, we rushed up into N. Korea. And many died.

World War II was waged by a democrat. A damn good one too. And it was the worst conflict the world had ever seen.

I guess my question is, would those deaths in Iraq have been acceptable if Saddam had actually been some sort of a threat?

[Lone Pawn]

1. I believe those deaths would have been perfectly acceptable

had there been an actual reason to go to war. WW2 deaths were necessary to the world. Iraq wars are not.

But anyway, I believe the point of those photos (which I've never posted) is to remind people what a serious thing war is. We should not engage in war unless we are fully aware of what it means. And very few people are.

[okasha]

2. Who said they were okay?

"I'm not justifying the war, I just want to know why it is Iraq is a bad war because we're killing civilians, but Afghanistan, Iraq #1, Vietnam, Korea, World War II, and the Civil War are okay even though we're killing civilians."

Huge honking assumption there.

Okasha

[Dark]

3. There is a lot of people who, I'd assume, think that WW2 was necessary.

And, as I said, Kerry, the most liberal senator, is proud of his service in Vietnam.

I don't think that it's that big of an assumption to think that some liberals were okay with each of those wars.

Except the Civil War. We should have let the south go. . .

[K-W]

5. Nobody thought WW2 was neccessary except Nazis

People think that the US getting into the war was neccessary to stop the war and the people dying in the war. It is entirely consistant with wanting us out of Iraq because of the people dying there. It just depends on what action you believe is going to stop the death.

[Dark]

26. So you don't believe that WW2 was necessary? n/t

[K-W]

30. Of course not. It was a tragedy, who would suggest otherwise?

I think everyone on this board would prefer that WW2 had never happened.

[Dark]

53. I certainly prefer that it wouldn't have happened,

but, once it got to a certain point, there was no turning back. We, and the rest of the world, were on a crash course for disaster.

[alittlelark]

75. Straw is falling all over my keyboard.

[K-W]

4. Nobody here thinks death is okay, what a rediculous thread.

This is just a straw man argument.

[AuntPatsy]

7. Agree N/T

[Dark]

8. First of all, this isn't a ridiculous thread.

Secondly, it isn't a straw man arguement. Many people oppose the war because we are killing civilians. But in some cases, those civilians are threatening American troops. And in others, they are innocent people who are doing stupid things. And in other situations there are terrible accidents, and in others there are inhumane acts.

My point is, what justifies killing in one war, and not killing in another?

[K-W]

11. Your argument is completely bogus.

Nobody supports death in any war.

Any people at DU who support US entry into a war do so because they believe that the intervention is neccessary to stop a greater atrocity from happening. Only sociopaths dont think all war is an atrocity.

People who support US intervention in WW2 believe that the US, by sacrifing its own lives and taking the lives of others was stopping the end of civilization as we know it and the deaths of many times more people throughout the world at the hands of the Axis powers. They did not support the war, they supported US intervention to end the war.

[Dark]

13. You just contradicted yourself.

First you say "Nobody supports death in any war."

Then you say

People who support US intervention in WW2 believe that the US, by sacrifing its own lives and taking the lives of others was stopping the end of civilization as we know it and the deaths of many times more people throughout the world at the hands of the Axis powers.

So they don't supprot the death, just what's achieved by the death.

:wtf:

Sounds like the ends justifies the means. . .

[K-W]

16. believing that death is inevitable isnt supporting it

you are accusing posters at DU of being sociopaths

[Dark]

24. Where did I say that DUers are sociopaths?

You didn't answer my question though. How can you support a war, but not the deaths involved?

[K-W]

27. In every post on this thread.

I will make this crystal clear.

You can support a war but not the deaths if you believe that deaths were inevitable, but the action of waging the war will result in less deaths.

What you are arguing is the equivelent of arguing that somebody who kills themselves rather than be murdered supports death.

You can argue that they are wrong to think that war is ever the best course of action, but you are not arguing that, you are arguing that they support the deaths, which is rediculous. Nobody except a sociopath supports death.

[Dark]

33. So, it's a mathematical thing?

And, once again, I am not arguing that they do or do not support deaths.

Here is what I am asking:

Are civilian casualties ever acceptable?

I'd also like to know how to determine who's deaths are 'inevitable'.

[K-W]

38. Yes, you did argue tht they do support deaths, read up.

Nobody is saying these are easy questions or clear questions. But whether or not you disagree with someones judgement that war is neccessary has nothing to do with how you view the deaths involved. Both sides oppose the deaths. One side thinks them neccessary, one sides thinks them not, just because you are skeptical that they are neccessary doesnt mean it is supporting death to think them neccessary.

[Dark]

42. No, I argued how can you support a war without supporting deaths.

I don't support Iraq. And I don't support the deaths there. I NEVER like death.

I wouldn't have liked the 'death' of World War 2, but I still would have supported it, and found it necessary.

Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it's likeable.

[K-W]

44. If you support the deaths in WW2, you should seak psychological help.

Sane people who support US intervention in the war do so because they are opposed to the deaths and believe that action lessened the deaths, thus creating less death, a situation preferable to people who DONT SUPPORT DEATH, unlike you apparently.

[Dark]

50. If you reduce the fates of millions of lives to simple mathematics, you

need help.

You cannot support a war without supporting the destruction it causes.

You think that 'support' and 'like' are the same. They are NOT. People support wars because there is no alternative. It's not that they LIKE the war, or that they want a war, it's that it is the best option.


I am asking whether the civilian casualties of other wars can ever be justified by OTHER people who find the Iraq war appalling because there are civilians dying.

I'm just trying to gain some insight.

You can't support an action, but then not support the consequences, unless you find that you were decieved about the action.

Innocent people die in war. Does that in and of itself, for these people, invalidate that war?

[alittlelark]

12. uh, yeah....

straw man argument, and an ugly one at that.

[Dark]

14. Explain to me how it is a straw man arguement. n/t

[H2O Man]

36. You ask if something

were the exact opposite of what it really is, would it be the same.

[alittlelark]

51. If I didn't have 6 kids running around, I would have sooner

But... anyway, here's your strawman argument - cut and pasted from your OP

"I guess my question is, would those deaths in Iraq have been acceptable if Saddam had actually been some sort of a threat?"

uh, yeah...

[Dark]

54. Ok, but I was actually asking

the people who oppose Iraq simply on the basis of people dying. I wanted to know if they opposed all war, or just this one. And why.

[alittlelark]

55. NO, what you asked... bottom line, was

"I guess my question is, would those deaths in Iraq have been acceptable if Saddam had actually been some sort of a threat?"

YOUR OWN WORDS.

[Dark]

60. And I was asking it to those specific people.

If Saddam had been a real threat, and had conspired for 9-11, I think that a lot of people would have been okay with the idea of attacking Iraq.

I wanted to know from the people who post graphic pictures if they feel the Iraq war is wrong because innocents are dying because of greed, or just because innocents are dying.

[Selatius]

67. If Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I probably would support war

It'd probably rip my soul to shreds on the inside making such a decision because I ultimately believe killing in response to killing is pointless. However, I have to balance that idealism with the sober reality of whether intervention in Iraq would end up saving more lives in the long run.

I don't support people dying and suffering. I don't support the misery and hurt that war brings. In any case I'd do support war, I'd be a reluctant one at that. I guess one example would be the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WW2. I would never have supported such an act.

[Darranar]

70. A question...

If the balance of power shifted considerably, and the combined forces of Latin America launched an attack on the United States in retaliation to the intensive state terrorism and brutality inflicted on it by that nation, and in the process one million American civilians were killed, would you support the attack?

[Selatius]

72. If such a hypothetical war was fought on the premise of preventing greater

death at the hands of the US in the long-run, I'd be a tepid supporter at best. If it came down to a decision between sacrificing the life of 1,000,000 Americans to save, for example, 10,000,000 people in Latin America from death, the cold logic is clear.

But logic without any moral compass is a dangerous thing. There are no real easy answers if you take into consideration moral issues. You're basically asking me if it was justified in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it meant saving 1,000,000 soldiers by sacrificing 300,000 Japanese lives, well, the math speaks for itself, but hindsight is 20/20. Japan likely would've surrendered even if those bombs weren't dropped, but it'd be far too late for the victims. It was a mistake looking at the evidence now, at least in my opinion.

Now, if we applied what happened with Japan with your example with the US, I'd be obvious that I made a terrible mistake given 20/20 hindsight. If it turns out attacking the US and inflicting 1,000,000 deaths only saved 300,000 folks in Latin America, well, you get the picture. If it turns out otherwise, I'm going to be blunt in stating that I'd probably live out my days torturing myself over the question.

Ideally, I'd rather not be bothered to invoke such a scenario where I'm basically walking blind and where one decision can affect the lives of untold millions.

[alittlelark]

69. Straw man... focused on a particular group?

It's still a straw man.

What are you trying so desperately to prove?

[Dark]

71. Im not trying to prove anything. I just want to have an answer to my

question.

[alittlelark]

73. uh, yeah....

those w/thoughtful intellectual honesty will ignore you. Others will post in a reactionary way.

My guess is you are sniffin' for the later.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. What you ask is wehther this is a just war?

it is not... if fails at multiple levels, WW II we were attacked, and Germany declared war on us. Moreovr, WW II by accident mostly, because the closest to a Just War, followed by Bosnia, where genocide was occuring

Teh concept of Just War goes back oh to at lesat the 12 century... and it comes down to ... the evil you create will prevent a worst evil

Now the Civil War, if you ask the south (which is still fighitng it) it was not just. If you ask the north, hell yes... that is the nature of civil wars... and Korea... that one is debatable but it was a war of agresion from N Korea... Vietnam was never a just war. Now the warriors who fougth there, just as our current wariors, are serving thir country, they are not asked their opinion, they are given orders.

So that is what you are asking. Just War, and just War doctrine, if this was was justified, then it woudl be justifiable. Oh and by the way, those photos are posted by people who believe that people need to be exposed to the horrors we are perpetrating. I question the effectiveness of that... but I respect it.

Oh and yes, War is HELL... and that is why we should never have gone there without a reason

[Dark]

17. I'm not asking if this is a just war. It isn't.

I'm asking if the deaths of those children matter more to us because we don't like this particular war.

Children are dying in Afghanistan. But nobody posts pictures. Just Iraq.

Why?

[K-W]

18. People do post pictures from Afghanistan

there just arent that many pictures, because there isnt much press, because the place is controlled by the US and warlords and the US doesnt want it on the news.

[Dark]

21. I've seen one thread every night from Iraq. I've yet to see one from

Afghanistan.

[K-W]

25. Then look more carefully instead of posting nonsense.

I dont think enough pictures come out of afghanistan to fill threads everynight, maybe I am mistaken. Maybe people are putting more focus on Iraq than Afghanistan, is this wrong, yah, it is, but does it prove your point.

NO, it doesnt prove your point in the SLIGHTEST. All it means is that people are being selectively passionate about opposing death. To try to argue that it means they support the death of Afghani children is to argue insanity.

[Dark]

29. I'm not arguing that people support the death of Afghani children.

I'm asking why they crusade to stop the death of Iraqi children, but don't crusade to stop the death of Afghani children.

I don't march for a woman's right to choose, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-abortion.

[K-W]

32. They are crusading for Afghani's, you are simply mistaken.

And yes you did argue that they supported the death of afghani children in your first post.

The war in Iraq is the bigger and more prominant conflict. Once again, you would have a point if you argued that it isnt given as much focus, but you are far beyond that realistic claim.

[Dark]

37. No, I didn't, I asked how is it that the war in Iraq is bad because

we're killing civilians, but many other wars we're tolerable or even acceptable even though we are killing civilians.

I never said that I nor anyone else supported killing civilians.

[K-W]

41. Fine, argue with yourself.

If you are going to deny typing that people who support war support death, this conversation is over.

[Dark]

48. Please point out to me where, exactly, in my first post I said

people are supporting the death of Afghani children.

[K-W]

49. You argued that supporting war is supporting death.

Therefore you believe that anyone who supports the Afghani war supports the death of Afghani's.

It really couldnt be clearer.

[Dark]

58. Once again, point it out for me. You said my original message. Where?

I argued that you can't support any action without supporting the consequences unless you happen to find out later that you've been duped.

Bush wasn't, we were.

And I didn't say that supporting war is supporting death, I said that if you support one war, then you have to support the actions taken in that war that a normal person would think would happen.

You can't support war, but not support the violence caused. Any reasonable person knows that if there is a war, there will be death. How can you support a war, and support the troops participating in that war, but not their actions to defend themselves.

And, no, I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib. The average person WOULDN'T have expected that.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

43. Children are dying in Afghanistan. But nobody posts pictures. Just Iraq.

27,000 children die each day from hunger and poor healthcare.... and Amurka spends its billions on making unjustified wars. These are the facts.... sad as they are.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. There is no such thing as a good or just war.

War is always a failure.

[davhill]

10. All war is evil

A stupid war is even more evil.

[New Dealer]

15. War is hell, but that doesn't mean all war is wrong

Anyway, no one (except Halliburton) likes war, but they sometimes find it necessary to go to war in order to stop a greater evil. There is nothing wrong with this philosophy, as sometimes we have no other way to stop people like Hitler from commiting genocide. No one likes the side-effects of chemotherapy treatment either, but most people find it necessary to fight cancer. In short, the side-effects of war, such as the thousands of innocent lives that are ruined, are very unfortunate and remind us of the importance of being correct whenever we go to war, but they do not serve as an argument against all war.

[Dark]

19. For some people on this board they do.

And, I still want to know, why is it that these liberals are focused on the death in Iraq, but not Afghanistan.

I've seen many of these picture threads, and they seem to be more about ending all war.

[sandnsea]

20. Pride in valiant service

is not the same thing as pride in illegal war tactics, illegal policies, or wars based on lies.

I'm surprised people still don't get the difference.

Kerry was proud of saving someone's life and saving his crews' lives. They were there. I suppose he could have deserted, but what good would that have done those who were left in Vietnam?

[Jacobin]

22. War is what should happen if you are attacked.

It is for self-preservation.

Not to steal resources.

That's my opinion, at least

[Sterling]

23. The paradox of being an American.

You can't be the good guy and go around killing people to protect profits. All wars are horrible, Americans would love to think the ones we fight are always just but it is simply not the case.

As an American it makes a difference what the context of those pictures you refer to is. They are all horribly sad but when they are images from a conflict that is clearly immoral and unnecessary it makes it even worse. A whole lot worse. The kind of worse that makes it hard for me to be proud of my country. It certainly makes it hard for me to be proud of the Democratic party which helped make it happen and are helping it continue.

[Solly Mack]

28. Don't know of a noble war...noble deeds performed during war, yes

just never a noble war...(noble deed because somebody remembered their humanity and gave of themselves at grave risk...I also think noble deeds are few and far between in a war)

Just war? maybe war made with good cause...but never "just"...as war creates some truly grave injustices...no matter how "good" the motive might have been.

If that makes any sense

Sure, Hitler needed to be stopped...that could be called "good" cause...but was it noble? No..not to my thinking. Was it "just"...depends on who you ask I guess...but I can't get away from war never being "just"

As for Iraq...not just and never will be....not the right thing to do and never will have been the right thing to do...the ends never justify the means...and no matter what Iraq *might* become...it was built on lies...we invaded a country for lies...people were slaughtered for lies...there's no escaping that.

Not sure there is redemption for it either.


got to come out against war as a good in any way...maybe it is the last resort at times and the only thing left to do...but never to be glorified.

[KG]

31. i will try to show more dead afghanis, will that make you feel better?

:eyes:

[Dark]

35. WTF?!

Okay, I am trying to make a point here, so I'll calmly rephrase it:

Is there a difference between Afghani civilian casualties, and Iraqi?

[KG]

45. i will try to show more dead afghanis, to show there is no difference

between iraqi and and afghani civilian casualties. will that make you feel better?

[BrainRants]

34. There's no such thing as a good war, and no such thing as bad peace.

Now, that's my 10,000 foot opinion.

Here on the ground, WWII was justified, because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Iraq did nothing to attack us. So to compare FDR's entry into WWII to Bush's preemptive entry into Iraq is simply ludicrous.

Yes, if there had been WMD, then a argument could be made for acceptable deaths (or collateral damage as they are affectionately referred to)

However...

There were many in the intelligence agencies warning that Hussein did not pose a threat, indeed SOS Powell himself asserted as much in the spring of '03.

Playing "what if" no longer applies to the analysis of what is now justified and what is not. The "what ifs" should have been resolved before any attack began. The facts on the ground now trump all retroactive analysis of "what if" scenarios.

War is and always will be the result of failed policies. Sadly, what began as W's war officially became America's War when he was re-elected.

[Dark]

39. I agree with you. Iraq is not justified. I'm asking people who say

that Iraq is the wrong war because we are killing civilians, not because we are killing civilians in an unjust, illegal war.

[Sterling]

62. I think people who hold the view you refer to

are generally of the there is no just war camp. In a way they are right but in the case of Iraq we have another group who are opposing it for the reason it was clearly an unjust war to begin with.

[Gyre]

40. Good question.

The difference is in the rationale to extinguish another(s) life/lives. If the rationale is non-existant, or a lie, then it's "murder" on the personal scale and genocide on a mass scale.

This war was, if motivated by oil and Israel, no different, except in scale, to an armed robbery (if there had been no innocent human casualties), or murder with special circumstances (if death resulted from the misadventure) which we know it did. The intent in criminal law is called "mens rea" which is guilty mind, or something like that. http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/mens_rea.htm.

The lies that predicated this war are evidence of a guilty mind, since chimp would presumably have told America the truth if he thought there would be enough popular support with the facts as he really knew them to be. The implication of the lies are that he had the intent to mislead America and that the deaths of innocents occurred, as a direct consequence of those lies. That makes it a criminal matter and as such, somewhat different than all the wars you cite with the omission of Vietnam, that was also predicated on a series of lies.

Gyre

[manic expression]

46. OK...

First of all, it is idiotic to assume that Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc were EVER "okay". I am appalled that you would suggest our actions in Vietnam were okay (and I could not care less how proud someone is of their service, this does nothing to make the larger mission a good one, among other things).

The reason that the deaths of civilians is so disgusting is that they died for no reason other than our arrogance, ignorance, greed and more. They were brutally MURDERED by unjustified and unnecessary war.

WWII was waged against aggressive nations, who tried to justify their vile intentions by saying that they were "pre-emptive strikes", defending their own people against fabricated evils (see any parallels? If not, I suggest you either read a history book or cease to spread your ideas). It was the left who fought against the fascists in Ethiopia and Spain and in the war itself, and it is the left who is fighting against the neo-cons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Venezuela and so on (not a violent fight, but a fight nonetheless).

To answer your final question: IF (IF, by the way...IF!) the war in Iraq WAS justified in the highest way (and it is the opposite of this), it would still not be justified to continue to kill and oppress and starve as many innocents as we have. Just like WWII was justified, slaughtering Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified actions in any sense. However, the war in Iraq is so far from justified it is the opposite.

A cause may be a good one, but it is wrong to assume that anything carried out in the name of this is fine. Only when the greater good of a wider action manifests itself in the tangible sense can it be claimed that the wider action is just. If there is a good intention, but the results are negative, these results directly reflect on the agent's mission and higher objective.

If a fight against "evil" (quite a bad term, I must say) is itself carried out in a bad/wrong/"evil" way, then doesn't this nullify its entire purpose?

Just to bring you and I back to reality (after that confusing thing I just wrote), the War on Iraq is wrong in every way. The intentions were wrong, the results have been deplorable and disgusting, and no amount of empty notions of a false greater good can change the truth which shows the complete vileness of the actions in this.

Now, something you said on another post is that (paraphrased) "we have killed civilians even though they were a threat to us".... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?!?! The very definition of civilian means NON-COMBATANT! I think this alone proves how wrong you are on this subject.

(edit: "justified" to "tried to justify")

[Dark]

52. Ok, first of all,

It was a typo. I know civilians are not a threat. It was a mistake. I'm going to try to find it.

Secondly, while YOU may not find certain wars acceptable, there are many, even on the left, who do. WW2, Korea, Gulf#1, and, yes, even Vietnam. The issue of Vietnam's morality never came up during the campaign, at least in the public square.

Did you vote for Kerry? Well, remember how big a deal he made that he was a veteran? How about all those medals he won?

Next, my personal position is that war should always be a last resort. What I am asking is whether innocent casualties invalidate a war.

Yes, I know that sounds very technical. But I want to know. At what point does civilian casualties become an acceptable part of war for some people?

[manic expression]

74. Here it is...

You made the comment in post #8, just for reference (I understand that it may be a typo, but I was just going with what I saw).

The fact that most people find Vietnam, Korea, War on Iraq 1 and so on acceptable has absolutely no effect on my beliefs whatsoever. If anything, it shows me the dire inability of independent thought in this country. One can find virtually endless examples of how the vast majority of people in a certain country supported the most base actions carried out by their very own nation.

Just because Vietnam's "morality" never came up in public debate has not significant effect on the truth. The war was wrong, and no amount of ignorance will ever change that.

Have you seen "Going Upriver"? Pay close attention to the part where veterans of Vietnam are sharing their stories and guilt over their actions. Between sobs and tears, once-soldiers recount what they did and why they completely regret it. This illustrates how Vietnam was in actuality.

In almost every war (read: 99.9999999999%), innocent lives will be lost (there are exceptions, for example, Cuba defeated the Bay of Pigs invasion without hurting any innocent lives, as far as I know). This is why war must be avoided at all costs. The very fact that we are in a war without any good reason proves how wrong these civilian deaths are.

This is a very slippery slope, and there cannot be a black and white answer. Every innocent death MUST be mourned and acknowledged (at the very least) by the people who caused it. There should be no excuse for creating pain for those who have done nothing to warrant it. However, justified action, done in the right way, can achieve great progress. This progress is not destroyed because of innocent deaths.

In Rwanda, after the RPF stopped the genocide, there was an incident at a camp they were running. Many (4,000 or so, if I remember correctly) innocent people were killed in a chaotic situation that the government has taken responsibility for. The change that the RPF accomplished was undeniably amazing, as they halted one of the worst massacres in history. Although there were crimes committed on this side, and they were wrong and should not be ignored, the RPF did the right thing in so many other cases. This will not heal the pain many have experienced, but the great things achieved by this very group not only did so much for such a mind-bogglingly horrible situation, but laid the seeds for the healing which mends all wounds suffered by all beings.

To make a concise statement about this: In a fight, there is no excuse for the hurting of innocents, but there is also no excuse for lack of action. A group must make sure it embodies the ideals it fights for. It must manifest its ideals in the results of its actions. If there are exceptions to this, it may be acceptable, but ONLY if there is a collective movement to what is right, always.

(sorry if that was confusing)

[thebigidea]

47. yeah, rather than concentrate on a current war...

... lets spend our time arguing about the Spanish-American war!

[Dark]

56. I think that is the second time that war has been mentioned this entire

post. And, this is a relevant issue. One of the biggest, and most harmful to the progressive cause, stereotypes of liberals is that we don't realize that in war there will be death.

[thebigidea]

57. really? What astonishing insight.

I labored under the delusion that war brought with it rousing songs, made-4-tv movies, and the refreshing scent of lime.

"war is hell, and in war bad things happen." is such a hollow, bullshit line of dialogue... it was cliche even in movies decades ago. Such sayings aren't the wisdom of the ages, given by grizzly, macho sages of conflict - they're hollow cliches used to justify the slaughter of thousands.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

61. and nothing is more stereotypical than the "war is hell" line of nonsense

maybe you should be chomping a cigar or something while delivering it, perhaps mowing down Japanese soldiers with a machine gun being operated single-handedly.

That'll show us weak-kneed liberal pansies what war is all about!

[Dark]

63. The problem is that

the 'weak-knee'd liberal panies' is a very common percetpion of us.

Liberals seem weak on defense, and this is one of the reasons.

[thebigidea]

64. well, good thing we have you around to help spread the perception

[Sterling]

65. STEREOTYPES

Oh, so that is what this was about. Why not just start a thread telling us to watch what we say or Sean Hanity will make fun of us? Some people will never learn.

[chlamor]

66. War is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

According to sources cited by Joel Andreas, in his excellent book, Addicted to War, between 1948 and 2002, the U.S. spent more than 15 trillion dollars on its military. The military budget for 2002 was 346.5 billion dollars, and when the budgets for the pentagon, the Energy Department's nuclear costs, NASA's military portion, foreign military aid, veterans' benefits, and the interest paid for our military debt, the total reaches 670 billion dollars. In comparison to the amount spent per American during WWI (400), we each give 4,000 dollars annually to cover a military budget that could not even protect us from nineteen box-cutter wielding airline passengers. For that amount, we could each afford to save up for an electric car, so that we could reduce our dependence on oil, which largely dictates our military presence in the Gulf in the first place.

<snip>

The amount of companies that benefit from this militaristic system makes Butler's analysis pale by comparison. Over 100,000 companies depend on the pentagon for their profits each year, which means that many people depend on "national defense" for their livelihoods. These people, especially the leaders of the corporations, are what the peace movement is largely up against in its fight to end our nation's permanent war footing. Companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Electric, Raytheon, and thousands of others, rake in billions each year, which means that they will not give up the business of war without a fight. Therefore, ending war does not only mean struggling for peace in general, it means challenging the ways in which the currently-powerful corporations make money. Moreover, because corporations who benefit from war also support political candidates, the candidates have every reason to defend those corporate interests who depend on war making, and the politicians have very little reason to defend the nation's interests as a whole.

<snip>

So, how does the government get away with the hypocrisy? As long as people are in the dark about the atrocities our nation commits, one will find the media's complicity to be almost total.

http://www.counterpunch.org/white01092003.html

So...I say,


TO HELL WITH WAR!

[Darranar]

68. A question with a complex answer...

There are two cases - and only two - where I can see a legitimate justification for war in self-defense. The first is in the case of having been attacked. The second is in the case of a truly imminent threat - in a case where one is sure that another country is about to attack, about to sell weapons to terrorists who will attack, etc.

There is a third case where I can see a justification for war, and that is to intervene in a severe human rights crisis. I could go on for a while about the specifics of how it should be done, but that was not your question so I will not.

Civilian deaths are an unavoidable part of war. The deaths of combatants are horrible too though, and frankly in the case of a war of aggression, or a war lacking justification - like Iraq - both should be counted as unnecessary deaths, unacceptable deaths, and for every one of both - on either side - the criminals who led us into this should be condemned. The totality of a war of aggression, because one is deliberately taking lives without justification for purposes of coercion (in this case, to coerce the population and government to comply with US will) is at the least borderline state terrorism.

But the use of pictures of civilian deaths seems to have unrelated purposes. The idea is, firstly, to get people to have an emotional impact beyond that of statistics, and secondly, to put the lie to the ridiculous statement that civilian deaths are minimal with powerful, hard-hitting evidence.