It's sad.

[Faunze]

I wish the people of today were like they were in the early 19 hundreds.

Today we pick like vultures at a bit of news about a war. We all go anti government just because everone else is. And you know why? It's because we are all so god damn snug in our little homes that other people died trying to protect. But suddenly now when we are fighting for OTHER people you ask yourselves why? Why do they deserve our help?

Well, if you have thought this it means you are a complete and utter cock and don't deserve the freedom you have. You don't know how they live, hell, I don't know how they live. But a persons a person no matter what race or culture and I for one am willing to fight for them. And I'm going to be, you say the war is wrong because we are really going for Oil. Well, maybe the big boys at the top are! But that doesn't mean taking out the people that kill civilians should be scrapped. And it won't be, maybe we are trying to turn it into a democracy. At least it will save lives, you fucking vultures who sit at your computer thinking you are doing something with your life should get off your arse and get the fuck over to these places and see what we are fighting for.

And I know what's coming next, "Oh but UN troops have killed and raped civilians!" Well honestly as much as a tragety it is I honestly can't blame them unless they are a bunch of trigger happy rednecks.

How would you feel after seeing a truck load of your mates being blown up by a roadside bomb and see them jumping off the back in flames? Hmm? Well?

These soldiers have seen horrible things and some of them break down, they get angry at the civilians they are fighting for and they do horrible things they would not have done otherwise. You can't expect these people to be level headed constantly in a war that they eventually lose faith in, but you know what could restore that faith? YOU! If you gave those boys and girls who are fighting for the freedom of another people ONE FUCKING SHRED of support then they might not have to feel fucking bad about what they are doing!!!

[CBowling]

I know plenty of soldiers who went to Iraq, they all suffered the same thing as many other soldiers over there, yet they didn't rape and kill civilians.

Right now, your trying to justify the actions of a small group of those soldiers, and those actions cannot be justified. Yes it's hard, and its tough, but that doesn't mean its impossible to keep a level-head. Those men are TRAINED to go out there and fight, and do their job. Those that do the raping and killing are not doing their job.


My dad was a doc over in Iraq, who helped Iraqi civilians and troops. He didn't poison or kill any of them because he was stressed. No, he continued to help them, and even befriended them. (Though he never had anything against them)


Now, you come on this forum and you call those out that are against this war, and say they don't support our troops.

That is untrue.

Most of the people on this forum are educated to know that the troops don't decide where to go and where to fight. Its the higher brass. We criticize their reasoning behind it, and we criticize why we are over there. And you know what? That is our right to criticize them, all we want. (Them being the Brass)

But because I support our troops doesn't mean I should support ALL they do. Such as the ones who rape and kill civilians. Again, that is not their job. If you believe it is, then I hope that you never have the honor of being a trooper.

[-X-Sublime]

But why do you gotta criticize in the first place?

[CBowling]

Are you directed at him or me?


If you mean me


I criticize the war because I believe that it wasn't necessary to go over there. We went to Afghanistan to find Osama, and we should have put our resources into that. Then we turn our attention to Iraq.

Now I do believe Saddam was bad, but I don't believe we should have went in there like we did.

And why only for Iraq? If we were just trying to oust a dictator, lets go to all the other dictatorial countries in the world and set those people free.

See my meaning?

[Faunze]

I know plenty of soldiers who went to Iraq, they all suffered the same thing as many other soldiers over there, yet they didn't rape and kill civilians.

Right now, your trying to justify the actions of a small group of those soldiers, and those actions cannot be justified. Yes it's hard, and its tough, but that doesn't mean its impossible to keep a level-head. Those men are TRAINED to go out there and fight, and do their job. Those that do the raping and killing are not doing their job.


My dad was a doc over in Iraq, who helped Iraqi civilians and troops. He didn't poison or kill any of them because he was stressed. No, he continued to help them, and even befriended them. (Though he never had anything against them)


Now, you come on this forum and you call those out that are against this war, and say they don't support our troops.

That is untrue.

Most of the people on this forum are educated to know that the troops don't decide where to go and where to fight. Its the higher brass. We criticize their reasoning behind it, and we criticize why we are over there. And you know what? That is our right to criticize them, all we want. (Them being the Brass)

But because I support our troops doesn't mean I should support ALL they do. Such as the ones who rape and kill civilians. Again, that is not their job. If you believe it is, then I hope that you never have the honor of being a trooper.

You are criticising the very thing they are fighting for, which is just as bad.
And those that don't lose their head are total rednecks and people who love to torture animals. Sadly, you only really find these people in the US Marine Core.

[CBowling]

You are criticising the very thing they are fighting for, which is just as bad.
And those that don't lose their head are total rednecks and people who love to torture animals. Sadly, you only really find these people in the US Marine Core.

Those soldiers are not over there necessarily fighting to free those people. Those soldiers are doing their JOB

I can't stress that enough. Just because they are fighting over there doesn't mean they agree with the reasons they fight.

And please don't say I don't support those troops. My dad happens to be a Navy Officer, and he is probably the man I respect the most that I know. I meet all his friends from the Navy and Marines, and a lot of them don't agree with this war.

So YOU say I am against what those soldiers are fighting for. Not every one of those soldiers necessarily wants to be fighting there. So I am in league with some of their soldiers thank you.

[Corporate Ignorance]

The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about. (N.Chomsky)


Heh, I think that this topic was, more or less, caused by my attempts to express my point of view- that U.S invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with compassion...There are lots and lots of contradictions in the whole matter regarding U.S official actions/point of view on Iraq.


Well, I think that you mix things up, though I can't blame you(moreover, I'm not inclining that you are stupid or whatever. I say this just to be sure that you won't think in that way), because we are all confused and are all subjected to the same media control. Iraq was not a threat to you. 9/11 was not sponsored by Saddam, Iraqi people didn't attack american homes, and U.S marines are not protecting your homes now. U.S is not helping Africans while they are suffering terribly at the very moment. They don't help Chinese or Russian people who belive me are also "opressed"...
Please don't be naive- when we speak about big politics- we always speak about double standards, hidden intentions and numerous geopolitical and economic goals. Just try to analyze this situation independently, just imagine that there are several point of view on war.
If you want, read "Do you support Iraqi war thread?" There you will find some thought-provoking info.(Actually, I'm tired of repeating myslef in diffrent threads)




I will repeat for the third/fourth/fifth time-please distinguish ordinary soldiers from High Command, distinguish nations from their goverments, distinguish states from ordinary people, distinguish official ponit of view on this or that matter from real truth, wich is often happen to be very unpleasant.

As I said many times before, I feel sorry for both sides in Iraq- actually , they are all victims of the same evil.
U.S/U.K. soldiers are dying, civillians are dying, children and women are dying, "isurgents" are dying- it's like a killing, remorseless, totally blind machine, when started it looses the last remnants of sanity and reason and it just revolves in endless circles of mutual hatred,anguish and sorrow..

War cannot avenge those who have died. War is only a brutal desecration of their memory.

[Faunze]

This is my point though, it's not about OUR government. It's all about theirs, I wish people would get out of this "it's all a conspiracy" bullshit that only makes things worse.

[CBowling]

It is good that we are trying to help their government, yes.

But again, Why only Iraq? Why not try and help other people like Korea?

Why just go and help Iraq?

I know at the moment its too late to pull out of the war. If we did so the country would collapse and more people would probably die. I just don't see any good reasoning to getting into it in the first place.

[Sgt So and So]

Topic creator... you say you want people to be like they were in the 1900's, huh? The same people that romaticized war? The same people that, when war finally came around and smacked them right in the face during World War One, had no idea what to do? The same people who would fight against the civilians of a town they had to capture; rape, pillage, loot, infuriated that the people they loved, their family and their government, had lied to them? This amazing generation: poets, writers, actors, athletes, all ripped apart not only physically by the frightening new ways of war, but emotionally by the propaganda of the people they trust most, they became the lost generation... a generation that died at the hands of a war the likes of which was never seen before. And not only those young men out there were hurt. Oh, no. They left behind families- sometimes children- shocked and disgusted by the way that he died, totally unaware- some might even say ignorant to- the war that they allowed happen.

Maybe the people of the 1900's aren't so different from us.

[Faunze]

Topic creator... you say you want people to be like they were in the 1900's, huh? The same people that romaticized war? The same people that, when war finally came around and smacked them right in the face during World War One, had no idea what to do? The same people who would fight against the civilians of a town they had to capture; rape, pillage, loot, infuriated that the people they loved, their family and their government, had lied to them? This amazing generation: poets, writers, actors, athletes, all ripped apart not only physically by the frightening new ways of war, but emotionally by the propaganda of the people they trust most, they became the lost generation... a generation that died at the hands of a war the likes of which was never seen before. And not only those young men out there were hurt. Oh, no. They left behind families- sometimes children- shocked and disgusted by the way that he died, totally unaware- some might even say ignorant to- the war that they allowed happen.

Maybe the people of the 1900's aren't so different from us.

We romanticize war in a different way, Movies and Videogames.

And to the part about families getting hurt. Well, whole family's get brutally murdered over there. You think about them? Na of coarse you don't! Generations of these people are turning to terrorist cells to be part of something and to not be on the receiving end of it. You don't and never will understand what it's like to be those people.

[Lord Justin]

Thank you, Corporate Ignorance and Sgt. So and So (and CBowling as well), for giving me some brain candy :p. There's a lot to think about in what you guys said. Generally wise words.

Faunze, you sound like you need to stray away from the media and do some further learning about what's going on. Then form your own opinion about the war and the politics behind it. You shouldn't from an opinion based off assumptions and misleading propoganda.

I, for one, have never really spoken out for or against the war, because I don't know enough to make a justified opinion, and I just never bothered with researching. I don't care enough about politics to think about it that much, because political opinions cause tensions between otherwise friendly people. I'd rather just go with what I already know rather than digging into the subject.

And with what I know, I am against the war for a few reasons. First of all, I think my country (US) should stop trying to play the part of global police. Some things are better left to work themselves out on their own. But especially when going to "help" will only cause more damage than not helping.

Another reason is that I feel no patriotism for the way my country it right now. I feel that our leadership is incompetent and our public is ignorant and complacent due to lack of knowledge.

In truth, I don't have very much of a problem with the ideal aspects of something like World War II. I do not support genocide nor atrocities (that isn't to say I support war either, I just...accept it). Had there been no genocide and unnecessary suffering in WWII, I would look back on it with a national pride at what my countrymen and others accomplished and admire its dramatic scale.

Human beings need to have wars, it's in the basics of our way of life to fight, and what set us apart from other animals is our talent at organizing ourselves. Put aggressiveness together with organization and you get wars. This doesn't excuse genocide nor atrocities, which I think are where the real evil and suffering is in war.

It also doesn't excuse the war in Iraq. In World War II, we (allies) were fighting fascism and racism and genocide, and the Japanese were fighting with outstanding nationalism for their principles, and the Germans (excluding Nazis) were doing what they thought was 'liberating' and 'unifying', Europe, and ended up trying to defend their homeland from threat. But nowadays, we're fighting for what? Economic gain and political popularity contests? The nationalism is no excuse for the atrocities.

Besides, WWII soldiers were fighting a war. Iraq is...a bunch of soldiers killing civilians with guns (some without guns), and vice versa. This I am against.


You don't and never will understand what it's like to be those people.

How can you say that when you don't understand them any better?

[Corporate Ignorance]

Thank you, Corporate Ignorance and Sgt. So and So (and CBowling as well), for giving me some brain candy :p. There's a lot to think about in what you guys said. Generally wise words.

Human beings need to have wars, it's in the basics of our way of life to fight, and what set us apart from other animals is our talent at organizing ourselves. Put aggressiveness together with organization and you get wars. This doesn't excuse genocide nor atrocities, which I think are where the real evil and suffering is in war.

Besides, WWII soldiers were fighting a war. Iraq is...a bunch of soldiers killing civilians with guns (some without guns), and vice versa. This I am against.

How can you say that when you don't understand them any better?

2Lord Justin
So, Lord Justin, I'm glad that you've got some thoughts out of what I'm despereatly trying to write here...
But on the other hand, I think that I have to disagree with you regarding your point that "humans need war, because Human beings need to have wars, it's in the basics of our way of life to fight, and what set us apart from other animals is our talent at organizing ourselves. "
Well, I think that it's social-darwinism speaking through you now.:) You see, wars are inevitable, that's indeed true. But the thing is what we think and feel regarding wars. What we judge. And whom we judge.
In case of humans, that matters a lot. I'll try to explain.

Yeah, indeed , if you look at the history of the human kind it's the history filled with almost endless wars...But you see, situation with us, humans, is a litte bit more complicated- humans diffrer from animals in several VITAL aspects...
1. No animal commit "atrocities" i.e when it hungry it attacks, when it is attacked it defends, no more, no less. Animals don't kill out of mere pleaseure or random sadistic desire(as humans do), animals don't make huge camps for slaughtering(as humans do), animals don't rape, they don't steal, they don't torture(as huamns do) etc.etc.etc. and all countless other things wich are born in the depth of evil human mind.

And the explanation of more sophisticated organizing dosen't hold here.

Animals are not CRUEL. The term "cruelty" in itself cannot be applied to them, because animals don't have morality and "rational personality".

Animals don't have the eternal "law of good and evil" as Plato and Kant reffered to it.

If we turn to humans- that is a totally diffrent matter- in all ages, all nations made judgements what is good and what is evil... (The other questions is WHAT they thought about good and evil, but its' a totally diffrent topic that we won't discuss here)
What we need to realize from this-humans have something that animals don't have- the presistent feeling, presisten law with their hearts that made the sheer possibilitiy to call atrocity an"atrocity" or crime a "crime", if you take my meaning.
And war is totally alien to human and evil thing, though of course, there are diffrent kind of wars- as we have seen, wars are inevitable- but there are JUST wars(such as defending countires in WWII, though it makes it no less awful) and UNJUST wars(such as Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, Napoleon invasion of Russia, Axis attack before WWI and WWII etc.)
See the diffrence?


So, in modern wars, indeed, it's really hard to depict the truth and the real reasons behind them. All that we have it our mind and our ability to think and analyze independent sources.

[Borus]

And those that don't lose their head are total rednecks and people who love to torture animals. Sadly, you only really find these people in the US Marine Core.

Now that wasn't very nice and pleasant to hear. I know alot of rednecks down here in Texas and most of them don't approve of rape or killing innocents, infact (or I would hope) all of them disapprove of it. Now I understand that you probably only know rednecks (or maybe you do know some) from where most people portray them, as ignorant fools, but before you go off saying that, get your facts straight.

[Lord Justin]

1. No animal commit "atrocities" i.e when it hungry it attacks, when it is attacked it defends, no more, no less. Animals don't kill out of mere pleaseure or random sadistic desire(as humans do), animals don't make huge camps for slaughtering(as humans do), animals don't rape, they don't steal, they don't torture(as huamns do) etc.etc.etc. and all countless other things wich are born in the depth of evil human mind.

And the explanation of more sophisticated organizing dosen't hold here.

Animals are not CRUEL. The term "cruelty" in itself cannot be applied to them, because animals don't have morality and "rational personality".

I definitely see what you're saying, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I have to politely contradict you again :p

Do you own a cat? I have two cats, and when we've had mice scurrying around the basement, the cats get really hyped up sometimes. What they used to do (before they got old and lazy :p) was corner a mouse and take it up in their mouth and carry it away. When the mouse was dazed and shocked, they would let it out somewhere where they could hit it around and toy with it. I remember hearing the little squeaks and seeing my cats having the time of their lives mocking this mouse's terror. I also remember quite a few times where we would wake up and discover the cats left us prizes: terribly mutilated mice, sometimes gutted and torn, sometimes beheaded.

My point is, if you translate the actions of things like cats to higher mammals, such as humans, you often see things that are very similar in principle, only changing in magnitude and complexity as you go up the intelligence ladder. Dogs are tender and loving, but I doubt most would face certain death to save their human/dog counterparts. Likewise, you go up the ladder and see that many humans, with their increase in emotion that comes as a side-effect of increased intelligence, would give up safety and, in many cases, life itself, with no reward for the progression of the species or the individual.

Therefore can we not look at what a cat does to a terrified mouse, and increase its complexity to see what humans might naturally do to other mammals...say, other humans? A single cat playing with a dying mouse, or mutilating its corpse, cannot be seen as a highly simplified version of war atrocities caused by innate hatred, such as unjust execution of prisoners of a rival nationality or the self-righteous slaughtering of a religious group viewed (and educated) against?

You say animals don't rape or steal? The human sex drive is another side-effect of our intelligence. I believe so because no other animal would have sex for pleasure (other than dolphins, I hear...and they are possibly the second smartest animal in the world). Therefore an animal sees no need to rape. It's common sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the most worthy male will get the female. If you're a male who's not worthy, you don't deserve the female because you won't help the species. So only humans, with our libidos, have any reason to rape anyway.

Animals don't steal? Hyenas don't survive by dragging away carcasses from lions? Vultures (and every other scavenger in the planet's history) don't steal from the prizes of other creatures? Animals steal all the same, they always have. It's completely natural...if your rival (same species or different) has something that can help you or your species better, you'll take it. Human morals and laws are just another side-effect of intelligence ;) and of organization.

Like you said, "cruelty" and "morality" cannot be applied to animals, only because they have nothing better, no logic by which to aid decision-making, rather than going on pure survivalist, Darwinian instinct. The only reason animals cannot be properly said to steal, rape, kill for desire, and torture, is because it is a given that that is how they will conduct themselves. We only see it as a negative in fellow humans because we know humans are capable of doing better.

So yes, atrocities, genocide, rape and torture are primal yet serve no justified reason for existing--they don't aid evolution--except that they are unfortunate products of intelligence. However, fighting does serve a purpose; if you can kill someone else, you get his land and his food and his females. It makes perfect Darwinian sense to fight, and nobody can say that they've never wanted to fight before. It's natural.

So take that natural and purposeful desire to fight, and add on some human inegnuity and unnatural organization (other byproducts of our intelligence) and you get a formula that produces large-scale fighting that gets to a point where each man involved has no quarrel, but the whole of the organization of men wants to fight other organizations.

But each organization becomes a person, and people want to fight. Thus nations will, purposefully and naturally, fight each other. If you, a nation, can kill a rival nation (or better yet, add it to your own nation), then you get the land and food and females that belonged to it.

A nation is just a huge collective mind, and a mind will always act the same as another mind in a similar situation.

But wait...didn't we say that as you go up in intelligence and mental complexity, the magnitude and complexity of emotions will increase with it? Remember that a cat's favorite parts of catching mice are the chase and the mutilation, often without eating any of the catch. And remember that man will kill another man for his advantages, but man (well...16th-21st century man ;)) with his superior mind will avoid unfair atrocities. But when you add all the men's minds together into one cohesive organization, these organizations, in massively more complex and dramatic ways than man (and, in turn, cats) does so, will perform atrocities, rapes, looting, and torture.

I'm really sorry for the post length :p And I'm tired. But can you see what I'm desparately trying to say, in roundabout ways?


Now that wasn't very nice and pleasant to hear. I know alot of rednecks down here in Texas and most of them don't approve of rape or killing innocents, infact (or I would hope) all of them disapprove of it. Now I understand that you probably only know rednecks (or maybe you do know some) from where most people portray them, as ignorant fools, but before you go off saying that, get your facts straight.

Agreed. Faunze's stereotype of rednecks is arrogant. And his U.S. Marine Corps generalization is offensive. Perhaps he should come to the U.S. and get to know some rednecks...

[-X-Sublime]

I know If i join the marines i want to go and do my job and my job would be to listen to my ranking officer and as long as i get a steady pay check I would not mind killing

[CBowling]

Your job is to listen to your orders, correct. But if you are given an immoral order, you can disregard them.


I really hope that if your superior officer tells you to rape a child you would'nt.


(Thats just the way the tone of your post seemed to hit me. If this is too forward, I apologize)

[Faunze]

I never said all Rednecks kill innocent people. I'm saying it's usually the rednecks that do. I wasn't stereotyping at all but if you look at the videos on youtube (they ARE good sources) you will see they all have heavy accents.

And about me having a poisoned mind with the media. I'm not sure about America, but in Britian our media says very little about the war in Iraq, they report on big firefights and on British deaths. Tony Blair is doing this for the people of Iraq, and I'm sure the Canadians are too.

And even if they aren't, we would still be establashing a stable socioty wouldn't we? Isn't that enough? Or is us trading oil with Iraq a complete absurdaty that we should abandom them to their fate?

[enigma]

While i understand your message....


early 19 hundreds.

When there was a war brewing for what seems like no good reason at all .... and everyone basically held hands to get invloved .... following which 4 years of bloodshed and the old way of life gone.

Following which, revolitions, civil wars, the friekorps, more civil wars

then a period of apeasement which lead to an even bigger war which was then followed by more civil wars....


Id rather live now with people whining about the war and that its all for oil :p :D

[Corporate Ignorance]

Id rather live now with people whining about the war and that its all for oil :p :D-That was a stone towards my humble person, I guess?:D


Anyway, Lord Justin, I see your point, but again, I have to politley disagree with you....:)Stealing in case of animals is again diffrent from human stealing...I said that they don't steal and rape in a human way- in a totally terrible crazy way, without any rational reasoning that humans often did and still do. You've said that animals don't have logic (no logic by which to aid decision-making)
On the contrary, animals are very logical. They don't slaughter each other for no reason, they don't torture because of hatred and sadism.

Cat playing with a mouse before killing it is not cruel in a human way. Cat is a predator. Highly-organized predator, it's moved by compex blend of instincts. But cats are not evil from other cats perspertive, if you take my meaning. Bears, lions, sharks etc. don't kill for pleasure. They kill because they are predators.

Cat simply plays because of her instinct, and then she eats the mouse.
Animal are not irrational, as you've rightly said, they follow their instincts- if they want to play- they play, but then they eat their victim, because they are hungry. They are not judged by other memmbers of their species.
Huamns are indeed far more complicated then that.

You see, you mentioned that INTELLIGENCE differs us from animals. Indeed, it's right. Well, we can call it so. But on the other hand, if social-darwinism is right, why we don't kill our old parents and grandparents who are not "useful" anymore to the soceity and to you? Because we all feel that remorseless killing of an innocent human, even who is useless in a practical sense, is WRONG.

In case of humans EVERYTIME the catrgories of right and wrong appear. If you carefully analyze even the most ancient civilizations(Egypt, Babylon, China etc.) you never find a nation or a country where deserters, thieves, mindless murderers were praised. Just compare moral system of all nations in all times. The results will surprise you. Of course, there were exeptions to the rule(Aztecs, for example) but they were considered evil by surrounding nations.

Some claim that what we call "compassion" is developed out of our "species instinct", but here is an intersting observation-
When ,for example, we see a drowning person there are two instincts wich influence us- then, at the first place- the insticnt of self-protection, the strongest instinct in general that makes us stay out of trouble. And then second instinct "species insticnt","instinct of a loyal dog", wich is much weaker that makes us want to save that poor drowning guy.
But the most interesting thing comes next- some third power, some law make us to do this or that choice- go and save the human, though the strongest instinct is against it.
But when you save the human you've done no doubts a "good" thing , and if you let him drown...Well...So in case of humans, everything is a far more complicated then it is with animals...


Let us turn to the History.
The case with Nazi Germany- if we follow ONLY rational justification logic, then Hitler and his gang was right from Social-Darwinist point of view- he destroyed weak, poor and alien to his breed. He conquered "life space" for a German nation, strongest on the continent.
And if German nation won WWII I don't think that life on this planet would stop. And moreover, Hitler helped this over-populated planet, creating fast system of slaughter in his camps. So, actually, Hitler was doing nothing wrong in the scale( o from the point of view of Social Darwinism) of evolution. He was not going to stop evolution,nor he was going to destroy this planet. He even didn't want to destroy humans, as such. No...
On the contrary, Hitler would destroy Slavic, Anglo-Saxon and French culture, Jews, Poles etc and simply establish egocentric German Aryian empire built on unspeakable suffering.
But have you ever thought why every normal human on this Earth blame Hitler?
Because he was egoistic, one of the most egoistic persons in the history of the humankind. Facism is the ideology of huge unimanginable egoism and hatred. But hatred and egoism in itself are MORAL categories....See my point?
Moral are not sides of human insticts...Morality is a litte bit difrent thing, totally unique to human intellengene and being.

Where is the line, the border, when we think that this or that war is not acceptable, and when it suddenly becomes acceptable because it's "natural" to human beings? Why do we call atrocity an "atrocity"- American(Or Soviet) soldiers who raped women of the conquered nation didn't do nothing wrong- they were the winners , they were the strongest males, they sized "life space" and all females now belong to them. Yeah, if we stand on social-darwinism position. But there were some Soviets (there were fewer, of course) even in Eastern Prussia during 1945 who protected women and even shoot their comrades, though you won't deny that male libido is far more powerful instinct then "compassion"...But they've made their choice- even if their instincts yelled for sexual domination, some strange third power made them follow the weakest instinct-to protect the innocent, to do what they've felt RIGHT...Why? Because they knew that they are doing good thing. It's simple as that.See my point?

And by the way, people who passed several wars and with whom I spoke about wars, found nothing "natural" in wars. They found it totally alien to humns, the wrongest state of relationships ever.

Sorry for such a HUGE post...:)

[enigma]

lol no :) In referance to his post :p

[Faunze]

-That was a stone towards my humble person, I guess?:D


Anyway, Lord Justin, I see your point, but again, I have to politley disagree with you....:)Stealing in case of animals is again diffrent from human stealing...I said that they don't steal and rape in a human way- in a totally terrible crazy way, without any rational reasoning that humans often did and still do. You've said that animals don't have logic (no logic by which to aid decision-making)
On the contrary, animals are very logical. They don't build machines to kill each other, they don't slaughter each other, they don't torture because of hatred and sadism.

Cat playing with a mouse before killing it is not cruel in a human way.

It simply does that because of her instinct, and then she eats the mouse.
Animal are not irrational, as you've rightly said, they follow their instincts- if they want to play- they play, but then they eat their victim, because they are hungry. They are not judged by other memmbers of their species.
Huamns are indeed far more complicated then that.

You see, you mentioned that INTELLIGENCE differs us from animals. Indeed, it's right. Well, we can call it so. But on the other hand, if social-darwinism is right, why we don't kill our old parents and grandparents who are not "useful" anymore to the soceity and to you? Because we all feel that remorseless killing of an innocent human, even who is useless in a practical sense, is WRONG.

In case of humans EVERYTIME the catrgories of right and wrong appear. If you carefully analyze even the most ancient civilizations(Egypt, Babylon, China etc.) you never find a nation or a country where deserters, thieves, mindless murderers were praised. Just compare moral system of all nations in all times. The results will surprise you. Of course, there were exeptions to the rule(Aztecs, for example) but they were considered evil by surrounding nations.

Some claim that what we call "compassion" is developed out of our "species instinct", but here is an intersting observation-
When ,for example, we see a drowning person there are two instincts wich influence us- then, at the first place- the insticnt of self-protection, the strongest instinct in general that makes us stay out of trouble. And then second instinct "species insticnt","instinct of a loyal dog", wich is much weaker that makes us want to save that poor drowning guy.
But the most interesting thing comes next- some third power, some law make us to do this or that choice- go and save the human, though the strongest instinct is against it.
But when you save the human you've done no doubts a "good" thing , and if you let him drown...Well...So in case of humans, everything is a far more complicated then it is with animals...


Let us turn to the History. The case with Nazi Germany- if we follow ONLY rational justification logic, then Hitler and his gang was right from Social-Darwinist point of view- he destroyed weak, poor and alien to his breed. He conquered "life space" for a German nation, strongest on the continent.
And if German nation won WWII I don't think that life on this planet would stop. And moreover, Hitler helped this over-populated planet, creating fast system of slaughter in his camps. So, actually, Hitler was doing nothing wrong in the scale( o rfrom the point of view of Social Darwinism) of evolution. He was not going to stop evolution,nor he was going to destroy this planet. He even didn't want to destroy humans, as such. No...
On the contrary, Hitler would destroy Slavic culture(and people), Anglo-Saxon culture, French culture etc and simply established egocentric German empire build on unspeakable suffering. But have you ever thought why every normal human on this Earth blame Hitler?
Because he was egoistic, one of the most egoistic persons in the history of the humankind. Facism is the ideology of huge unimanginable egoism and hatred. But hatred and egoism in itself are MORAL categories....See my point?
Moral are not sides of human insticts...Morality is a litte bit difrent thing, totally unique to human intellengene and being.

Where is the line, the border, when we think that this or that war is not acceptable, and when it suddenly becomes acceptable because it's "natural" to human beings? Why do we call atrocity an "atrocity"- American(Or Soviet) soldiers who raped women of the conquered nation didn't do nothing wrong- they were the winners , they were the strongest males, they sized "life space" and all females now belong to them. Yeah, if we stand on social-darwinism position. But there were some Soviets (there were fewer, of course) even in Eastern Prussia during 1945 who protected women and even shoot their comrades, though you won't deny that male libido is far more powerful instinct then "compassion"...But they've made their choice- even if their instincts yelled for sexual domination, some strange third power made them follow the weakest instinct-to protect the innocent, to do what they've felt RIGHT...Why? Because they knew that they are doing good thing. It's simple as that.See my point?

And by the way, people who passed several wars and with whom I spoke about wars, found nothing "natural" in wars. They found it totally alien to humns, the wrongest state of relationships ever.

Sorry for such a HUGE post...:)

My mind just imploded...

[Katulobotomia]

I wish the people of today were like they were in the early 19 hundreds.



I would kill my self if I would be in those ages. Black people, or anyone with a shade of brown were animals that needed to be locked up. Women were just housewifes, their place was in home nowhere else. Gays were evil witches and basicly the people and the world in western countries were so primitive and hostile I would kill my self. Thanks to the revolution in 1970..ish people became more open to people and HAD THE GUTS to oppose wars etc..etc.

Sure the crime-rates etc..etc were nothing like they are today. But imagine talking to a guy at 1900. I think the freedom of speech and the right to have oppinions, sexual likings, atheists and stuff makes today world a bit better place imo. Sure the wars and killings suck, but thanks god I live in a country where almost all the worst things in todays world are just news on the TV.

[Faunze]

You know what I mean! God damn! People supporting wars to get them over and done with as fast as possible, nowadays we just dig into dark pits and fill our own countries and nations with doubt!

[Katulobotomia]

You know what I mean! God damn! People supporting wars to get them over and done with as fast as possible, nowadays we just dig into dark pits and fill our own countries and nations with doubt!

yup. Those days everyone did everything to contribute. These days people get really mad about killing people and waging war on anything. How sad, I wish people would be so supportive about subjects that only lead to killings and massacres or civilians, todays wars have more civilian casualties than dead soldiers. How sad we dont support those wars more. Infact I wouldnt support ANY WAR. Only those armies that DEFEND if they are being attacked and even then I wouldnt support the war but the people trying to DEFEND. That is what I love about Finnish army, that it is defense-force. Only exists to defend not act a s a world police and go to other countries and try to deal with their problems when they have enough at home. -_-
just my two cents

EDIT: I feel sry for Soviet troops that attacked Finland and died or got injured. Because they didnt have a choice not to fight. If they didnt obey they would have gotten executed.

[|Crimson|]

Tony Blair is doing this for the people of Iraq

Tony Blair is taking part in the war to stay friends with a world super power (America) and to secure his name in history books as a man who "saved a nation" (Iraq). He failed in saving Iraq and has only made matters worse.

I'm going to make an educated guess and say that the welfare of Iraqi people had nothing to do with Tony Blair committing to this war.

Remember! All humans are inherently selfish. Tony Blair is a rich man and he lives in a nice house. I doubt before the war he lost sleep about Iraqi people or he's losing sleep about people in Africa who are dying right now.

It is naive to say that he actually cared strongly enough about these people to jeapordize the next general election by going to war.

[biggles]

media in these days are not as controlled by the goverments as they were in the old days. Now you can mostly SEE how a war really is thanks to newsreports etc, but we can never FEEL it. NOONE (including me or any other lad on this forum) can understand the terrors of a war unless that noone has actually been there?

So why support something that we don't understand?

Because we are right! But that is what ALL sides of war says,right? So did the nazis, the japanese and the italians. They said they were right. But is there right or wrong in war these days?

No?
Yes?
Maybe?
uuuuuh.....what's the question again?

And before someone say it: UN does not stop all wars. At least 140 wars has been fought on the planet Earth since the creation of UN. But then again, what is this conflict in Iraq? Is it a war? What does the word "war" means anyway?

I just think that if a person has NOT been in a war, then he should not tell others that they are "a complete and utter cock and don't deserve the freedom you have."
Ever thought of that the reason we DO live in freedom is that we don't make enemies by taking OUR troops and land them in some OTHER country and claiming that we are there to protect them? (talking for the people who lives in countries that doesn't support the events in Iraq all to joyfully...)
Sweden hasn't had a real full-scale war for a LONG time. And we solve some problems without fighting.We gave Norway their freedom in 1905 without starting a war, granted we did hesitate for quite some time, but everything worked out and now we're all friends up here! (not sure what we did with Finland but we don't rule over those lads anymore...)

And HOW can you blame people for NOT supporting a "war" when the goverment says that it's all under control when a couple of bombs kills people in some of the great capitols of the world like Madrid, and even closer to this date, London?

This "war against terrorism" is far from over, and that's why people is about it:they want to stop it before it's too late.

Tried to write something that makes sense....

NOTE! I have little knowledge about politics and Iraq these days.

[Katulobotomia]

This "war against terrorism" is far from over, and that's why people is about it:they want to stop it before it's too late.



Yea I kinda agree. I think you cant "win" terrorism, because it lives among people not as an establishment or anything concrete. It is like saying someone would try to win anarchy, or Christianity etc..etc. No matter how much you kill them, destroy their monuments, kill leaders and try to make theyr life harder, there are ALWAYS people alive somewhere that believes their believes. And it only takes one man to start it all over again.

I am afraid the world is a lot more dangerous place to be now that they have started a war against Terrorism. And I am afraid the terrorists are ONLY going to get rougher and more bold in the future. Hell, there are people from across the world volunteering to be as a terrorist when not long ago terrorists had to teach and "train"/brainwash people to be ones. And the fact that most of the world hates USA today isnt going to help any either :(

Why men need to fight and wage war? This is one of the reasons I am not a religious person, because all I see them done in the past and todays world is kill other people who do not believe their believes. You hear atheists making raids at moscues, churches or against believers? Well, ok that doesnt really help but you get my point :)

[NicholasJohnson]

The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda.

That may not mean anything to Mr Chomsky (I believe that quote is from him, as his name is under the paragraph), but it means something to a wife whose husband is in Iraq, a retired sailor whose son-in-law is overseas. Military familes use those bumper magnets, etc. While slogans may not mean anything to those unrelated to the military, they mean something to military familes (including myself) and veteran's organizations.

Does this make them "propogandized?" to support their own loved ones? What they are asking for is for the soldiers to be treated with respect, because they don't want a Vietnam-repeat with soldiersgetting spat upon at airports by so-called "anti-war activists."



you hear atheists making raids at moscues, churches or against believers?

Well um, yes, in the USSR, China (Falun Gong?), Nazi Germany (attacking synagogues). But the difference is those guys were part of government, while there are no roving bands of atheists blowing people up for believing in God in Western today.

*Although if you consider Communism a religion, the USSR and China may not actually count as atheists.

[Corporate Ignorance]

You know what I mean! God damn! People supporting wars to get them over and done with as fast as possible, nowadays we just dig into dark pits and fill our own countries and nations with doubt!

The problem is that doubting goverment intentions is not anti-patrotic. It's totally ok and normal for a people to do, because there are plenty of historical examples when goverment lied and manipulated public opinion for their own goals. What we should clearly udnerstand is how sly goverments often act- they label "anti-national" or "anti-patriotic" all who dare to criticize this or that particular decision in foriegn policy of the STATE. So, for example, if some man in Cambodia during Pol Pot regime doubted official reasons and public statements does it mean that this man is miserable "anti-patriot" of Cambodia?

Patriotism is a great thing, but to the limit. Everything should have a reasonable border, and overly patriotic people are hellish, to my mind. They will support mass executions, public lies, cheating, fabricated trials, system of corruption and crime in the name of "Support our country!" The most funny thing is that country and its people have nothing to do with this. So, Iraq was a weak, disarmed country in the Middle-East(with evil Saddam of course, but is he only evil one abroad?), U.S. illegally invaded it(operating with false reasons, often contradicting itself), broke international law system and made terrrible damage to the already weakend Iraqi economy, engulfing the country in the flames of ruthless civil war. So are you against U.S soldiers, do you disrespect them, do you not value their courage when you protest against Iraq invasion and the false atmosphere of lies, surrounding it? That is the main question....And the answer is NO, we are not agianst soldiers.

-quote
That may not mean anything to Mr Chomsky (I believe that quote is from him, as his name is under the paragraph), but it means something to a wife whose husband is in Iraq, a retired sailor whose son-in-law is overseas. Military familes use those bumper magnets, etc. While slogans may not mean anything to those unrelated to the military, they mean something to military familes (including myself) and veteran's organizations.

Does this make them "propogandized?" to support their own loved ones? What they are asking for is for the soldiers to be treated with respect, because they don't want a Vietnam-repeat with soldiersgetting spat upon at airports by so-called "anti-war activists."-quote

Heh, no need to get offended, Jackson, I ment no offense, and Mr. Chomsky spoke of a diffrent thing here and you know about it- he dosen't blame the troops.

Fighting soldiers and the reasons why they are fighting in a particualr hot spot are totally diffrent things.
There is no need to mix them up.
"Political patriotism" has this goal- to confuse people as much as possible...IF you are "anti-war" in the case of Iraq does it mean that you are not patriot of U.S or U.K? Hell, no.
If this war is illegal and hidden goals of it are not "noble" at all, if there are lots of lies surrounding actual reasons, does it mean that to protest against it and to express your opinion is a crime against national pride and patriotism, against those unhappy soldier souls who died ? No, no and no.


Once someone is branded anti-patriotic, a perosn who "dosen't support the troops" the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride and bitterness of dead soldier's families.
Goverment cynically is manipulating people's grief, To do this is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning. What we are seeing now is a vulgar display of the business of grief, the commerce of grief, the pillaging of even the most private human feelings for political purpose. It is a terrible, violent thing for a State to do to its people.

So what can you say to the family of Nazi conentration camp commander- was he sreving his country? Were Nazi serving their country while establishing the realm of terror in the name of Thid Reich? If invasion of Iraq is internatioally illegal, if U.S policy concerning Iraq is filled with apparent contradictions, does it mean that if a man tries to show some affection not only to U.S/U.K soldiers( who, without doubts, deserve it) but to innocent crippled Iraqi children, Iraqi soldiers, or any other civillains who were threat to noone? And please don't tell me tha Saddam was evil. He was. But please dont' be too naive...Again, I'm repeating myself from diffrent thread...

I'm not comparing crimes of U.S to the crimes of Nazi Germany- far from it- but I hope you catch the parallel...
Reasnos for policy are to blame, not "suffering tools"(soldiers) of this policy...U.S marines are doing their job- they fullfill orders...But who gave them that order? But for what reason and was this reason "fair" , "morally justifed", or "legal" is totally diffrent matter.
So no need to get offended.
And those people who spat on U.S soldiers returning from Vietnam are wrong. It's a stupid and bad thing to do. Soldiers are totally unrelated to the matter.

[NicholasJohnson]

I did not accuse anyone of being "unpatriotic" in my post, I was pointing out that "Support Our Troops" is not "just a slogan" to people who are involved with them (the troops). Did I say or imply that people cannot protest? No.

[Moseman872{White Tiger}]

But again, Why only Iraq? Why not try and help other people like Korea?

Why just go and help Iraq?

I know at the moment its too late to pull out of the war. If we did so the country would collapse and more people would probably die. I just don't see any good reasoning to getting into it in the first place.

If by "helping out" other countries you mean invade and remove the current government, you can't just do that. If I live in Texas and I'm sick of illegal immigrants coming in, I can't just walk into Mexico City, blow away the Mexican President, and say I'm helping out the people. You need a plausible (or semi-plausible) reason for invading and occuping a territory.

On another note, people have to get it through their heads that people do die in wars. Whether they are civilians or soldiers, people die. The U.S. Military death rate isn't even that high compared to WWI where 50,000 people would die in a day.

And by the way, I don't think that US soldiers are walking around and killing civilians all day. Like I said, people die in wars.

I'd like to write more but I have to go.

[Sgt So and So]

We romanticize war in a different way, Movies and Videogames.

And to the part about families getting hurt. Well, whole family's get brutally murdered over there. You think about them? Na of coarse you don't! Generations of these people are turning to terrorist cells to be part of something and to not be on the receiving end of it. You don't and never will understand what it's like to be those people.

I'm not ignoring them. I even mentioned them. And every time my backward and biased society mentions a bombing or murders, I think of the hundreds more that were killed silently in the dark, of the thousands- hell, maybe the millions- of innocent civilians who will be left forever in the deep annals of history, never to be forgiven as they deserved to be. And I know I will never understand what it's like to be there, and it's safe to say that neither will you unless you've served in the military, then you may have a tiny peephole into the life of civilians caught between two murderous forces.

[Katulobotomia]

If by "helping out" other countries you mean invade and remove the current government, you can't just do that. If I live in Texas and I'm sick of illegal immigrants coming in, I can't just walk into Mexico City, blow away the Mexican President, and say I'm helping out the people. You need a plausible (or semi-plausible) reason for invading and occuping a territory.

On another note, people have to get it through their heads that people do die in wars. Whether they are civilians or soldiers, people die. The U.S. Military death rate isn't even that high compared to WWI where 50,000 people would die in a day.

And by the way, I don't think that US soldiers are walking around and killing civilians all day. Like I said, people die in wars.



I wouldnt really compare WW2 with Iraq even in the same week. Two totally different scale events with totally different reasons and goals. When WW1 and WW2 can be though to be the same war, but with a slight gap in the middle, I think where world-wars were mainly against communism and/or the bigger "evil" the "war" on Iraq (actually should be against TERRORISM) arent so pure and genuine in making the world a better, safer place.

People die and kill. We seem to better in that than in many other areas, but what worries me is that todays wars are fought in ways where some attacks are targeted directly to civilian population, even when they say they arent. Many soldiers have said that they were given straight orders to shoot anyone in sight no matter the age or sex in Iraq. Now I do not see any reason on doing that. Some may call it the last resort or an necessary act, I call it a massacre.

And one funny thing I might point out about the USA, when they are so concerned about Iran (what a surprise) having nuclear-power, when USA is the only nation known to use nuclear-weapons (A-bomb) against pure civilian targets.

[-X-Sublime]

I think we need to send over about 2 million men and just swamp the country with our presence

[Sgt So and So]

I think we need to send over about 2 million men and just swamp the country with our presence

And provoke the Islamic population of all the surrounding countries, escalating this into an full-on regional war(which some are arguing it already is)? I wouldn't do that.

Let's please stay on topic here. There is an Iraq War thread already in here.

[CBowling]

If by "helping out" other countries you mean invade and remove the current government, you can't just do that. If I live in Texas and I'm sick of illegal immigrants coming in, I can't just walk into Mexico City, blow away the Mexican President, and say I'm helping out the people. You need a plausible (or semi-plausible) reason for invading and occuping a territory.

On another note, people have to get it through their heads that people do die in wars. Whether they are civilians or soldiers, people die. The U.S. Military death rate isn't even that high compared to WWI where 50,000 people would die in a day.

And by the way, I don't think that US soldiers are walking around and killing civilians all day. Like I said, people die in wars.

I'd like to write more but I have to go.

I was pointing out how ridiculuous it was to just invade and occupy a country merely to help its people. It sounds like a good reason, but in the end, it causes more harm then good.

Those questions were merely rhetorical ;-)

[NicholasJohnson]

Many soldiers have said that they were given straight orders to shoot anyone in sight no matter the age or sex in Iraq.

Sources/context please.



And one funny thing I might point out about the USA, when they are so concerned about Iran (what a surprise) having nuclear-power, when USA is the only nation known to use nuclear-weapons (A-bomb) against pure civilian targets.

Iran has stated since 1979 that it is an enemy of the USA. Why would anyone in their right mind want an enemy nation to have nuclear weapons? Or is the fact that they consider the USA an enemy just an inconvenient truth?

I find it funny that the August 1945 atomic bombings are always portrayed as something Americans should be flagellating themselves over to this day. Almost everyone involved with it (the bomb) is dead, and to whine and scream only about the evils of the A-bomb makes no logical sense when civilian casualties from "conventional" bombings during that war were much greater than both of the A-bombs combined. Please go to the A-bomb thread to make Americans feel guilty about turning Hiroshima into glass (as you probably know, I won't). I am going to take a lot of flak for this statement, but I have noticed that most Europeans who know something of history have minimal knowledge of the Pacific War and what went on in it. I am guessing this is because Europe (minus the Dutch and UK) wasn't involved in it, so it doesn't matter to them (sounds alot like the "Ugly American" stereotype, what with America at the center of the world). Let me try to explain the Pacific in terms I hope you can understand: Picture a conflict with brutality comparable to that of the Eastern Front, but with most campaigns that had a 90% or higher fatality rate among the Japanese.

Also, when the USA used the A-bomb it was to end a war, while Iran would use one to start a war (presuming they use it on Israel?)

But, I digress from the topic at hand, continue.