NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041206/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

It has been reported that Pat Tillman, one of the early heroes of the "war on terrorism" was killed by friendly fire, and not quickly, either.

This man gave up 3.6m and a chance to play football for a living to serve this country, and he gets killed by his own comrades. That's tragic.

I can understand a hatred towards War over this...but why G-d?

I can understand a hatred towards War over this...but why G-d?

I didn't mean God sucks, it was an expletive. I could have said "Damn, War Sucks"

But if there were a God, he was seriously sleeping on the job when this happened.

G-d gave us free choice to do we want... i mean there's not much work for G-d to do... just believe in him, live a good life, and that's about it.

Plus he's the one that creates the minor miracles that you see in the news.

Ah, you may be under the misconception, brought on by watching too many movies, that combat is extremely organized, completely accurate, and everyone knows where everyone is at all times (the script says so!).

Combat is confusion. It is more confusing than being in the middle of a football play, where you're wondering where the ball went. Add gunfire to the mix, and it gets really dangerous.

Tillman knew what he was getting himself into. And yes, he gave up a lot, including his life.

Tragic, yes. Pointless, no. Or maybe some people are under the impression that life must be fair, and that all sacrifices must be fairly redeemed.

Doesn't happen that way.

Yes, war does suck, quite right. Even though I'm kind of warlike ingame, I'm a pacifist in real life. No cause justifies the taking of lives. The death of every human being is a great tragedy, especially when that death is premature. Its too bad Bush just doesn't understand that...

That's why i'm in favor of replacing Humans with either Robots or the Zombies from the Resident Evil games. Let''s see them terrorists take down Nemesis :P

G-d gave us free choice to do we want... i mean there's not much work for G-d to do... just believe in him, live a good life, and that's about it.

Plus he's the one that creates the minor miracles that you see in the news.

Did he tell you to hijack this thread or is that your free will?

Free will.

Did G-d tell you to reply to my post, or did you do that through free-will?

Ah, you may be under the misconception, brought on by watching too many movies, that combat is extremely organized, completely accurate, and everyone knows where everyone is at all times (the script says so!).

Combat is confusion. It is more confusing than being in the middle of a football play, where you're wondering where the ball went. Add gunfire to the mix, and it gets really dangerous.

Tillman knew what he was getting himself into. And yes, he gave up a lot, including his life.

Tragic, yes. Pointless, no. Or maybe some people are under the impression that life must be fair, and that all sacrifices must be fairly redeemed.

Doesn't happen that way.

Actually, it is tragic because it was pointless. He wasn't killed in some brave charge or even some combat with the enemy. He was gunned down by members of his own unit due to mistakes that could have been avoided.

Free will.

Did G-d tell you to reply to my post, or did you do that through free-will?

That is for another thread. Let's keep this one on topic.

So if there's no free will, then it doesnt matter what you think or reply, as it is all pre-ordained.

Either way enough Theological Stuff, this is a thread on the guy that died to Friendly Fire.

Actually, it is tragic because it was pointless. He wasn't killed in some brave charge or even some combat with the enemy. He was gunned down by members of his own unit due to mistakes that could have been avoided.
Well, there's always going to be some natural wastage. Some will die in the poetic manner to which all militarists aspire, others, not...

A great example is one that I read in the New Scientist (or maybe it was Time) magazine. Some American soldier in Afghanistan was illuminating targets for bombers providing fire support overhead, using a laser rangefinding apparatus that would continually update the bomb in flight with the target's position in GPS coordinates, via the aircraft's computers. He illuminated a target, the handset calculated its position using its GPS fix, uploaded the coordinates to the aircraft, the pilot dropped the bomb. Then the soldier made a quick battery change, which initiated a power-on reset of the targeter's onboard computer, resetting the coordinates stored in its memory to the default - the handset's own position. The bomb, still in flight, homed in on the updated GPS coordinates.

It is difficult to imagine a combat death more pointless than that resulting from a soldier's lack of familiarity with his computer's start-up procedure. But, it makes a great case study for electronics courses.

EDIT: Incidentally, in the emerging world of "network-centric warfare", IT malfunctions may well become a significant new contributor to accidental death and injury statistics.

okay, yes its sad that Pat Tillman died but here's what I don't understand. Everyone made such a big fuss over Tillman giving up being a football player and making 3.6m to go fight terror and how noble that was. What about everyone else who died? You know, the other 1200 U.S. soldiers.

Nobody really says how noble every other person is that goes off to war. Do we not think that they give things up? They were probable fathers, they had jobs, they gave up money. Why don't we make a big deal about them when they die? Tillman had a week of media coverage as well as front-page news articles and the admiration of everyone. Every other marine that dies gets maybe 2 seconds of radio time. What is wrong with our nation?

It's no more senseless than people that get killed in traffic accidents due to some stupidity.

Oooh, killed by an American! (who didn't know how to drive). A tragic loss for a family!

Yes, of course. I do feel odd that other soldiers are not held up as much to the public adulation (maybe it's because members of my family aren't highly paid ex-athletes).

Being famous won't make you bulletproof. That's today's lesson.

A lot of men gave up a lot, but Pat Tillman gave up millions of dollars and celebrity status. It appears that in western culture, that is seen as the greatest sacrifice. That's the only thing that explains the media's focus on him. For example, I'd be hard-pressed to find that article on the GPS-accident soldier, let alone who he was. I don't remember the article even naming him.

It's no more senseless than people that get killed in traffic accidents due to some stupidity.

Oooh, killed by an American! (who didn't know how to drive). A tragic loss for a family!

Yes, of course. I do feel odd that other soldiers are not held up as much to the public adulation (maybe it's because members of my family aren't highly paid ex-athletes).

Being famous won't make you bulletproof. That's today's lesson.

Completely different. It was not necessary for him to be where he was.

Completely different. It was not necessary for him to be where he was.
Not everything is necessary. Some things are to be desired.

okay, yes its sad that Pat Tillman died but here's what I don't understand. Everyone made such a big fuss over Tillman giving up being a football player and making 3.6m to go fight terror and how noble that was. What about everyone else who died? You know, the other 1200 U.S. soldiers.

Nobody really says how noble every other person is that goes off to war. Do we not think that they give things up? They were probable fathers, they had jobs, they gave up money. Why don't we make a big deal about them when they die? Tillman had a week of media coverage as well as front-page news articles and the admiration of everyone. Every other marine that dies gets maybe 2 seconds of radio time. What is wrong with our nation?

He gave up fame and fortune. While I do respect the men and women who serve this nation and thank them for what the risk and give up, Tillman was different. Most of the men and women that you refer to signed up for the military as a career choice. They serve as a form of employment, and if a better form of employment was readily available to them they would probably take it. Tillman gave up one of the greatest lives imaginable to American men (at least a great deal of them) to serve. It was not a situation where the military met him in the middle.

He gave up fame and fortune. While I do respect the men and women who serve this nation and thank them for what the risk and give up, Tillman was different. Most of the men and women that you refer to signed up for the military as a career choice. They serve as a form of employment, and if a better form of employment was readily available to them they would probably take it. Tillman gave up one of the greatest lives imaginable to American men (at least a great deal of them) to serve. It was not a situation where the military met him in the middle.

Oh god, fame abd fourtune.

He wasn't famouse until after he gave up his career and got killed. He wasn't even that rich compared to dozens of other NFL players. Those two aren't even good reasons. My general feeling about this is stop whining about Tillman and start whining about every other U.S. soldier and Iraqui citizen that is killed. (11 more U.S. soldiers this weekend, 40 Iraquis)

Oh god, fame abd fourtune.

He wasn't famouse until after he gave up his career and got killed. He wasn't even that rich compared to dozens of other NFL players. Those two aren't even good reasons. My general feeling about this is stop whining about Tillman and start whining about every other U.S. soldier and Iraqui citizen that is killed. (11 more U.S. soldiers this weekend, 40 Iraquis)

*Applaudes*

Oh god, fame abd fourtune.

He wasn't famouse until after he gave up his career and got killed. He wasn't even that rich compared to dozens of other NFL players. Those two aren't even good reasons. My general feeling about this is stop whining about Tillman and start whining about every other U.S. soldier and Iraqui citizen that is killed. (11 more U.S. soldiers this weekend, 40 Iraquis)

How many people do you know of that gave up what Tillman gave up to fight in the war?

I am saying that the only reason he would have for joining the military would be to serve his country. He had 3.6 million reasons not to.

I would say that 98% of the others joined the military for the career, and would not have joined the military if it meant that big of a pay cut.

I am also not trying to make a point that his life was more valuable, but that his decision to join the military under the circumstances was one of the most honorable things I have seen in my life time, and it was wasted on this.

Is it me or every time you see US soldiers on the news they are really close together, like about 2-3 metres? Basically they look like soldiers in films whereas in real life you're supposed to be something like 10m apart in case of mines or grenades. Its things like this and the amount of friendly fire that make me wonder about the level of training US soldiers have, and before anyone goes off on one: I do not mean they are cowards or that they are not doing their job to the best of their ability. This is a serious point about whether the training they get is letting them down or not.

actually, I think a blanket statement should be here. "God, the world sucks"

Is it me or every time you see US soldiers on the news they are really close together, like about 2-3 metres? Basically they look like soldiers in films whereas in real life you're supposed to be something like 10m apart in case of mines or grenades. Its things like this and the amount of friendly fire that make me wonder about the level of training US soldiers have, and before anyone goes off on one: I do not mean they are cowards or that they are not doing their job to the best of their ability. This is a serious point about whether the training they get is letting them down or not.
It's the National Guard, I bet. Considering it's weekend training and a one-week pre-deployment course, the youngsters (ie not experienced men in reserves) probably get half their ideas of soldiering from the movies.

Uniforms aside, when watching reports from Chechnya, I find I can always tell regular Russian Army soldiers and Interior Ministry soldiers apart. The former, close together, even close to their RPG-magnet APCs when dismounted, the latter, spread out and actually looking like they know what they're doing.

It's the National Guard, I bet. Considering it's weekend training and a one-week pre-deployment course, the youngsters (ie not experienced men in reserves) probably get half their ideas of soldiering from the movies.

Uniforms aside, when watching reports from Chechnya, I find I can always tell regular Russian Army soldiers and Interior Ministry soldiers apart. The former, close together, even close to their RPG-magnet APCs when dismounted, the latter, spread out and actually looking like they know what they're doing.
Really? Are the National Guard being used to patrol Bagdad (or it could be lazy use of archive footage) as I was under the impression that I had seen some infantry units do this on the news, but I couldn't swear to that.
The point about the APCs is exactly the one I mean. It drives me nuts.

Really? Are the National Guard being used to patrol Bagdad (or it could be lazy use of archive footage) as I was under the impression that I had seen some infantry units do this on the news, but I couldn't swear to that.
Not sure about the city itself now, but then it is in the outlying towns where most of the confrontations seem to take place, but during the recent months I have certainly seen reports in the news of ambushes on National Guard units and fatalities.

A telling article in the Guardian this spring followed a unit of National Guard soldiers being given a one-week intensive training course to prepare them for Iraq. On the first day, there was a simple exercise in which they had to drive in convoy down a length of road. Someone in one of the lead vehicles got spooked about a rise in the road up ahead, which concealed the rest of the road. So they stopped, got out and trained their guns on the rise. Then an "insurgent" gently tossed a smoke grenade behind their backs.

One week is definitely not going to sort out that sort of thing, no matter whose army you're in.

How many people do you know of that gave up what Tillman gave up to fight in the war?

I am saying that the only reason he would have for joining the military would be to serve his country. He had 3.6 million reasons not to.

I would say that 98% of the others joined the military for the career, and would not have joined the military if it meant that big of a pay cut.

I am also not trying to make a point that his life was more valuable, but that his decision to join the military under the circumstances was one of the most honorable things I have seen in my life time, and it was wasted on this.
after 9/11 thousands of people joined up JUST to defend their country, not for a career but for patriotism.

yeah i was listening to the story on the TV yesterday and it was the kind of screwup that must be every soldiers nightmare. split platoon, lost track of each other, started shooting, he got killed after he thought he had gotten the other group to realize it was a friendly fire situation. that DOES suck.

its not that his death is more tragic, its just that with someone like that you know without a doubt why he volunteered and its sad that he had to pay the full price. you would feel the same if it was some "nobody" from your highschool. its just the the rest of the country wouldnt notice.

cbs runs those micro-bios of soldiers KIA. they make me cry no matter how "insignificant" the person was. they all had long lives ahead of them and people at home who loved them and were hoping they would come back.

Oh god, fame abd fourtune.

He wasn't famouse until after he gave up his career and got killed. He wasn't even that rich compared to dozens of other NFL players. Those two aren't even good reasons. My general feeling about this is stop whining about Tillman and start whining about every other U.S. soldier and Iraqui citizen that is killed. (11 more U.S. soldiers this weekend, 40 Iraquis)

He became a figurehead. But the problem with figureheads is how easily they can start to outshine what they were supposed to mean...

Hmm. I enlisted in the Army infantry in the late 1980s. I fought in the first Gulf War. I had given up a career as a programmer to be an infantryman.

Enjoyed every minute of it, including the killing.

Now I'm a programmer again. I would do it again if I were younger.

I'm at Arizona State University. Pat Tillman is like a hero or something over here.

Meh. I never particularly cared for manufactured propoganda *heroes*. Jessica Lynch comes to mind.

War is hell and nothing is gonna change that.

War is a bad thing, there is alternatives but sometimes unfortunatly war is inevitable. I don't support war but i can see that sometimes it is needed. Take countries such as Iraq, someone had to get rid of Saddam Hussain although even taking his life is a sin, he terrorised and killed his own people, america going to war eliminated his evil but it was motivated by the wrong reasons. It's like Moses escape out of Egypt. In one verse of the people Jesus explains that there will be wars and poverty and other things like natural disasters but we have to keep our faith and wait for him. War is a terrible thing, but is freedom a just cause?? Or is opresion better than sin?? I personally have never been in such a position where I have had to think whether death, or murder was better than life or a life of opression and poverty...

Not sure about the city itself now, but then it is in the outlying towns where most of the confrontations seem to take place, but during the recent months I have certainly seen reports in the news of ambushes on National Guard units and fatalities.

A telling article in the Guardian this spring followed a unit of National Guard soldiers being given a one-week intensive training course to prepare them for Iraq. On the first day, there was a simple exercise in which they had to drive in convoy down a length of road. Someone in one of the lead vehicles got spooked about a rise in the road up ahead, which concealed the rest of the road. So they stopped, got out and trained their guns on the rise. Then an "insurgent" gently tossed a smoke grenade behind their backs.

One week is definitely not going to sort out that sort of thing, no matter whose army you're in.
It is suprising to know that such green troops are being used in such dangerous areas. One would think that this was just asking for a high fatality rate. It is also going to be a factor in "friendly fire" incidents.

I find the handwringing about potential casualties amazing.

We do not fight the way we used to. We haven't experienced a fraction of the casualty rate that the Russians had in Grozny. We haven't had 1/3 the casualty rate that we had in Hue City during the Vietnam War.

Not only have other modes of warfare changed, our urban warfare skills have changed profoundly. Reducing Fallujah has taken a fraction of the time, and an order of magnitude less casualties than any media outlet would have predicted.

From a battlefield perspective, if you concentrate insurgents in a city, it used to be a deathtrap for the occupying forces, as it was for the Russians in Grozny. But against the US, you're going to lose 26 men for every American lost - and considering that the US already outnumbers your actual fighters, that's a losing proposition.

We're on the edge of a revolution in urban warfare capability - armed resistance in any large numbers (other than occasional shooters and bombs) is an act of futility. You'll never be able to assemble a force in any location without being annihilated.

I am astounded when educated people make assumptions about modern warfare based on historical combat as long ago as 20 years. That's the same sort of addled thinking that got millions killed in WW I.

Thus acts of terrorism become the only viable method of armed opposition. I really cannot criticise them for their sneak attacks on soft targets and national infrastructure. If it is indeed impossible to engage a force of that sort on any battlefield, then I am not going to condemn them for seeking other opportunities. Seriously. Fair's fair, you know.

Well, that's fair as well. And it's fair to hunt them down and kill them in the night.

I'm not claiming any moral superiority. I would note that we don't put terrorists on TV, scare the heck out of them, and then cut their throats, and broadcast it on FoxNews repeatedly.

Otherwise, killing is killing. In the not so distant future, even terrorism will be nearly impossible. If you put enough of a social identity infrastructure in place, along with advanced monitoring, it won't be possible to organize a terrorist cell in an advanced country. Simply impossible.

Ever wonder why the Saudi government has a new software project to give everyone in the kingdom a DNA identity card with all the profiles in a central database? And make it the law of the land that you can't do a transaction without the card? I'm not being Biblical here, I was offered the chance to lead the project.

And then the tyranny undreamed of will arise.

I am, frankly, amazed that people think that somehow war can be fair, or just, or limited. People get killed. Things get blown up. And someone, eventually, loses. But it won't be long now.

I think that I should sum up:

If they want to try and kill us, it's perfectly OK to try and kill them.
If they want to use weapons of mass destruction, it's perfectly OK to go in and commit genocide - as that is their aim as well. Obviously, the winner in that case would be the society that attacked first.

Simple enough.

Well, if that's what winning takes, then I don't see the point. I'd rather run the risk of becoming a casualty as the price to be paid for a moderate amount of civil liberty, than live in the complete safety of a fascist cocoon. Having lived during the later years of the IRA's operations in the UK and having a one-tonne truck bomb go off in my city's centre, that kind of mentality is not a novelty to me.

I think that I should sum up:

If they want to try and kill us, it's perfectly OK to try and kill them.
If they want to use weapons of mass destruction, it's perfectly OK to go in and commit genocide - as that is their aim as well. Obviously, the winner in that case would be the society that attacked first.

Simple enough.
I understand what you are saying but isn't that a morally bankrupt argument? Doesn't that make us as bad as them? Its OK to commit genocide? Then it is OK to kill the innocent as well? If the society that attacks first will win then who attacked first? I wasn't aware that they have threatened us with genocide, only the defeat of the US. That is not the same as genocide is it?

A lot of questions I know but I was trying for a reasonable reply to your post and not a rant.

Ok, I'll try a more substantial argument.

First, there is no one keeping score from the moral perspective when it comes to the survival of civilization.

Take that as a given. You either all survive, or you all perish.

The earlier terrorist movements were concerned only with localized attacks - a bomb here, a shooting there, a kidnapping there. Even 911 was a localized attack in the traditional sense.

But, OBL has made it clear that he wants WMD - any kind - and is willing to use them as soon as he gets them to kill as many of us as possible. Why?

Because we are a threat to their existence. Before we invaded, before we meddled, our ideas and culture threatened their way of life and system of beliefs. They see that as a dire threat to their continued existence, which they cannot separate from their ideas.

They are coming here to kill us. Wholesale. Commit genocide. Any talk on their part, any action on their part short of that goal is just a delaying tactic. They mean to kill all of us.

Which begs the question, what shall we do? Can we negotiate? Can we surrender? Can we offer bribes? Can we really secure our borders against biologicals?

You only have one chance to get the answer right, and if you're wrong, we all die.

Actually all civilisations decline and fall, the dynamics being covered in enormous detail in Joseph A Tainter's famous work Collapse of Complex Societies. The question is only how soon. The modern, inter-connected Western industrial civilisation is a particularly transient phenomenon due to the unsustainable scale of the energy system required to support it, and it is entering a long-term crisis phase. What survives does depend on what choices we make along the way. The current path we are treading is very much one of mutual annihilation. It is, shall we say, a disquieting thought for a modern European to contemplate, that we may have to destroy the world all over again.

Circumstances and politics will force our hand, sooner rather than later.

If we are to be able to say we are in the right should we not be keeping the moral score? If we don't we become no better than our enemy and as we live in democratic societies that is a very important considerations. A war as you propose requires that everyone agree that the moral aspect is not important. Apart from whether it is moral in any individual's view this is key. I agree that in a battle such fine points are secondary to survival but I think the overall comand, aim and prosecution of a war needs to be above criticism if it it to win the home front over a sustained period of time.

I don't accept the all die or all live argument. The terrorists do not have the means to do this and they to have a home front to think about. As long as moderate muslims are relatively neutral they can operate. Their home front is also one of convincing that they are morally superior. If they could convincingly win that argument they would become even more dangerous - another reason for us striving to remain moral.

OBL (good shorthand!) is not a nation and does not represent millions, he represents a relatively small organisation. Why do we need to commit genocide to stop him? We don't, we need to catch him and address the causes of disatisfaction that gives him recruits.

The Middle East is not the only part of the world that resents US "cultural imperialism". People dislike the US partly because it is the most powerful nation but mostly because it appears to think that every nation should be like them and that anyone who doesn't is obviously wrong, stupid or an enemy. Now whther this is true or not this is how it appears to many, including in Europe. This is why there is a sense of threat to existence. If the US seemed less bent on imposing its culture on the world, seemed fairer in its dealings then this would not be an issue. To be a policeman you need the impartial image of one (even if it is a sham).

You say they are coming to kill us all. If this is the case why has the whole of Islam not risen up against us? Simply because it is not a people who are fighting but an extremist minority who are hard pressed to carry out attacks now the spotlight is on them.

The "clash of civilisations" argument is severly flawed as it assumes that the vast majority of the world want to kill each other. In truth it is only a tiny minority. Most people, regardless of race or creed are reasonable people who would rather just get on with life.

I'm not saying all of Islam is coming, nor are all Arabs coming, or even all Saudis, or all Iranians, etc.

Given the old style of terrorism, a few hundred thousand bad guys could only scare us and make life interesting.

But, they have only to obtain biological weapons - and that is not out of the question - and there will be trouble.

The question that arises is how to find them and kill them? We can't even root him out of South Waziristan.

How do you prevent further attacks? How many people would do a little for the OBL organization? Put up a safe house. Donate money. Send information. All of these things, that would have been considered minor crimes in ordinary terrorist actions are now acts of genocidal conspiracy.

OBL has mentioned in his writings that his intention is to destroy the US and annihilate its people. It's not a secret.

The question that arises is how to find them and kill them? We can't even root him out of South Waziristan.
There was too much of a hurry to get the war in Iraq started while the home front was still in favour and so troops were rotated out before the job was done. In fact although it is no longer news the US and allies only actually have control in the capital, so few soldiers did they leave there. The rest have to operate in territory that is at best lawless and at worst hostile, no wonder they did not succeed.

You say that it is not all Arabs or Muslims so why are you advocating genocide against them?

An admirable view, Xanasia. However, I personally do not believe in moral absolutes, so the Being Right/Wrong thing is not so important to me, there are only sides one can take, enjoying broadly equal merit. Part of me winces at the thought of being one of the enslavers, another part of me accepts the reality that we are where we are because of that.

Thanks! :) I do not think it is a moral absolute though, I agree that it is not possible to follow this as morals are not universal in reality (I make no statement about whether they should be ;) ) But the issue of morals is significant because enough people believe in moral systems to make that a factor in the prosecution of any struggle that is trying to get support amongst it's home audience. In almost all wars this is the case in our media age. Why else does OBL put out videos if he is not fighting his own hearts and minds battle? To me this seems like the battlefront that is key in this most un-war like of wars. If the US is to win it needs to convince people, not just Arabs and Muslims but the whole world, that life will be better under their hegemony.

First time poster,
I read some of the posts that have been up here and seen many intresting and good points. One thing I feel is lacking, which I intend to add, is a general, non-text or goverment defined definiton of terroism, freedom fighter, cilvian, and soldier:

1. Terroist: Any person whom, willingly and intentonally targets weak, and or non military targets and attacks with exsessive force (more than an ordinary criminal) assoicated with a goverment or specific orginization or country for the purpose of attention (so the 44 minutes bank hold up was criminal act, however heaivly armed they were), or action from specific orginization (preferably goverment).

2. Freedom Fighter: Any persons whom, willignly bands up or acts as part of an orginization to fight against an occupying force, which, has come as part of a goverment or forgien country. These persons also, due to their inferior force, will comonly use guierilla tactics, including sabatoge, terror as a means of control over tossup regions or aqusiton of wealth. However these persons often will uphold civilan life, in that they are supported by the majority of the local populace and may even fight in open armed resitance agianst a standing army of the occupation force.

3. Civilian: Any person who has residence in an area of combat, and is an unarmed non-combatant, and not affilated with either group through means of espionage, supply, or aiding of either force.

4. Soldier: Any person whom has willignly enlisted themselves into the service of a goverment or orginization and will follow orders and excuete orders without negoitation or argurement (within reason, the fuel truck drivers had reason to question their orders) regardless of religious or moral belifes, and whom is paid a salary either barter or a monetary system for their services (Mercs (mecrnaries) are paid for their services but can disband, or flee, they work for money not orginizations, and concripts are persons forced into service unwillingly).


Yes I know those are long winded dictonary like defintions, but I assure you, as to my knowledge, that they are entirley my own. That is my opinion on those persons, I think that since I'm not responsible for things as goverments are that they are more inclusive and specific as to which thing a person is, and unbyast towards the US, or Iraqi people.
One last thing before I shut up and let you tear this apart, sometimes you must "...walk a mile in their shoes..." (To Kill a Mocking Bird) before you pass sentence. Think if someone as we (USA) saw, unfairly, occupied us would you rise up in armed resistance? (Heck yes, as history demonstrates in 1777, the American Revolution)

Opps, think I'm in the wrong post section. Sorry, my sincerist apologies.
-Sincerley
Abby Cent Mined

Opps, think I'm in the wrong post section. Sorry, my sincerist apologies.
-Sincerley
Abby Cent Mined
Nevermind, did that myself before I hit 10 posts :)

But the issue of morals is significant because enough people believe in moral systems to make that a factor in the prosecution of any struggle that is trying to get support amongst it's home audience. In almost all wars this is the case in our media age. Why else does OBL put out videos if he is not fighting his own hearts and minds battle? To me this seems like the battlefront that is key in this most un-war like of wars. If the US is to win it needs to convince people, not just Arabs and Muslims but the whole world, that life will be better under their hegemony.
True, the Iraq war is a perfect example. It was a straightforward resource war of course, but wars can no longer be sold to the public that way. Indeed, the fact must be concealed from the public. This makes things tricky, and pisses off people such as myself who end up feeling patronised.

True, the Iraq war is a perfect example. It was a straightforward resource war of course, but wars can no longer be sold to the public that way. Indeed, the fact must be concealed from the public. This makes things tricky, and pisses off people such as myself who end up feeling patronised.
Exactly my point about hearts and minds. By choosing to start a new war on shaky moral ground they have damaged the perception of the original "war" against OBL. This is exactly how the sympathy felt throught Europe after 9/11 disappeared. People felt - hey how is that right, one does not give you the right to do the other. In effect it went against the morals of the majority of that audience being, on a much larger scale of course, the kind of thing they would not put up with in their own life. It has made the perception of the US government shift from "well, we understand your pain and outrage and the need to get the people who did this" to "well if you will tell us such a big lie to start a war, what else are you lying about". The next election in the UK (next year) will be very interesting as this is also the perception many people, who would normally vote Labour, have of our government. They are unlikely to loose but the may loose alot of seats and it may well be to the third party who have been consistently anti-war. Hearts and minds is not just about where you are fighting, more crucially it is about the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, siblings, friends and neighbours of those you send to fight.

The question is though, could people be persuaded to accept resource wars, if they were openly conducted as such?

The question is though, could people be persuaded to accept resource wars, if they were openly conducted as such?
I was wondering the very same thing when I read your post. Maybe some would. In any nation's imperialist phase there is a strong national sense of being the best, the proudest and basically "it's our turn now". I wonder if the US had sold it to their people like that they might have got wider support but the cost would probably have been far greater opposition and even more division at home and very likely no allies at all. I think it would also have made the possibilty of nations banding together to fight against the US likely. Despite the probable claims to the contrary I would seriously doubt that the US military could have won such a war half way accross the globe and at it's current level of commitments. I think the loss would be due to supply line problems, amount of opposition and lack of allies. It would very likely have resulted in a general Middle East war with the US losing any remaining allies in the region to invasion and revolution. In my scenario the results would have been horrific.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041206/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

It has been reported that Pat Tillman, one of the early heroes of the "war on terrorism" was killed by friendly fire, and not quickly, either.

This man gave up 3.6m and a chance to play football for a living to serve this country, and he gets killed by his own comrades. That's tragic.
who didnt see this coming?
NOT ME, some obvious crap here. anyone not killed in a bomb explosion or a result there of was probably killed in ff. wow them americans with all their gun knowledge sure know how to shoot good!

I don't think the war in Iraq was about resources, or about Muslims, or about 911. It was a deliberate attempt to artifically create a cause for militant Islamics to be attracted to.

Invade someplace, and the idiots will come. Make it a big show, defeat the conventional forces quickly, then sit there and wait for the militants to show up.

Then, when they do something foolish like gather in a city, kill them.

It saves time. It prevents the same thing from happenning here. And, those who like killing get something to do. Flag waving, rah rah, etc. Big defense contracts. Everyone is happy, except some people here, who still can't understand why we invaded if the WMD weren't there.

BIG CLUE: Rumsfeld said post-911 - we will engage in deception. So I think the whole UN WMD thing was a crock designed to get us to build the biggest terrorist ballpark in the world. We built it, and sure enough, thousands of them showed up.

Not a bad plan, really. And, given a few years, we'll burn through them like napalm in a paper factory. :mp5:

wow you are condoning religious genocide. brilliant! because thats what it is, you are suggesting killing every single entity of a exponentially increasing force. the only people that should be round up and shot are people that think like that

wow you guys are way late on this one. they said this happened like three months ago.

you guys are way late on this one. they said this happened like three months ago
Yes, but still none the less tragic

Hey, I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying it's a nifty plan. And it makes more sense than the WMD thing. It's like killing fire ants by luring them to the surface.

Eventually, you will run out of ants.

Or like Roach Motel, it's the Militants Hotel.

Militants check in, but they don't check out.

Well, not alive anyways... :mp5:

Heh, your average militant isn't planning on checking out alive anyway. :p

And as a resource war, Iraq is a dismal failure.

As a tactic it is not good. It may attract fighters but it is also creating new ones. It doesn't shorten any war, it lengthens it. It is a resource war pure and simple so that US citizens can go on having ludicrously cheap petrol and continue to consume 25% of the energy used in the world until we all drown, burn or run out of food. Sorry. I am not in a very good mood this morning.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041206/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

It has been reported that Pat Tillman, one of the early heroes of the "war on terrorism" was killed by friendly fire, and not quickly, either.

This man gave up 3.6m and a chance to play football for a living to serve this country, and he gets killed by his own comrades. That's tragic.

Thats old Hat its been around a while
Dosent make his death any less tragicthough rehashing it.
I didnt like the Soldier doing his Eulogy? way to military speak dislocated him from being a human

Xen, sorry to hear you're in a bad mood. While it may increase the number of people who hate us, training terrorists takes time and resources.

It's not as though you get top terrorists by just handing them a rifle and a block of explosives. And even those things have to come from somewhere, and someone has to raise the money to feed and house them until they can see action.

Take a look at your hands. Perhaps your fingernails need to be trimmed. Are you going to say, "Well, I shouldn't cut my nails, because they'll just grow back."

The job of eliminating terrorists through combat is a necessary, and unending task. In the meantime, steps to eliminate the political and economic situation underlying their existence need to be taken. And, you need to control the education system of their children, so that the next generation will have had their minds altered by exposure to our worldview.

While you're here, why not vote for your favourite Neighbours character?

I did, it was Charlene but I can't remember where it went. It's getting way too confusing now, I think i'll have to stop!

I did, it was Charlene but I can't remember where it went. It's getting way too confusing now, I think i'll have to stop!
Hmm, from Neighbours, to War.

Now, that reminds me of a documentary on Carlton TV.

Ok, I'll try a more substantial argument.

First, there is no one keeping score from the moral perspective when it comes to the survival of civilization.

Take that as a given. You either all survive, or you all perish.

The earlier terrorist movements were concerned only with localized attacks - a bomb here, a shooting there, a kidnapping there. Even 911 was a localized attack in the traditional sense.

But, OBL has made it clear that he wants WMD - any kind - and is willing to use them as soon as he gets them to kill as many of us as possible. Why?

Because we are a threat to their existence. Before we invaded, before we meddled, our ideas and culture threatened their way of life and system of beliefs. They see that as a dire threat to their continued existence, which they cannot separate from their ideas.

They are coming here to kill us. Wholesale. Commit genocide. Any talk on their part, any action on their part short of that goal is just a delaying tactic. They mean to kill all of us.

Which begs the question, what shall we do? Can we negotiate? Can we surrender? Can we offer bribes? Can we really secure our borders against biologicals?

You only have one chance to get the answer right, and if you're wrong, we all die.

Wait, I thought we were talking about Iraq. How did Osama Bin Laden get into it?

I'm talking about OBL because I don't believe the war in Iraq was about WMD, or Saddam, or oil, or anything else.

As for oil, we already have the Saudis in our pocket. Notice during the recent oil price surge, we asked them to increase production, and they did. That would never have happened in the 1970s. Now, they act like the 51st state.

WMD, we didn't find any. I bet it was never there in quantity.

Saddam, well he's bottled up - so why did we go in?

Because we're building a Human Roach Motel. A Militant Hotel, so to speak. It attracts militants. They check in, and they don't check out.

I'm talking about OBL because I don't believe the war in Iraq was about WMD, or Saddam, or oil, or anything else.

As for oil, we already have the Saudis in our pocket. Notice during the recent oil price surge, we asked them to increase production, and they did. That would never have happened in the 1970s. Now, they act like the 51st state.

WMD, we didn't find any. I bet it was never there in quantity.

Saddam, well he's bottled up - so why did we go in?

Because we're building a Human Roach Motel. A Militant Hotel, so to speak. It attracts militants. They check in, and they don't check out.

Yeah, sorry, I saw those posts after I replied (didn't realise there were 2 pages, d'oh). I don't buy it, though, unfortunately. Simply put, how many fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq are from Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, The Phillipines, Malaysia or Thailand? Fact is that this approach may result in at best a severe limiting of the affectiveness of Al Qaeda in the Middle East(though I note its opperations in Saudi haven't suffered greatly) but it will not have much affect on terrorists outside the region. This is accomplished at the cost of alienating most of the US's potential allies, dragging a significant chunk of the US military into a quagmire (thus limiting its effectiveness elsewhere) and no doubt increasing recruitment for terrorist organisations. And then, of course, there's the US (and UK) casualties...

The job of eliminating terrorists through combat is a necessary, and unending task. In the meantime, steps to eliminate the political and economic situation underlying their existence need to be taken. And, you need to control the education system of their children, so that the next generation will have had their minds altered by exposure to our worldview.
I just wish to point out once again that this may not necessarily be considered in the national interest by the powers that be. Politics is full of rhetoric, an appearance of benevolence is important, but government is a separate, pragmatic, largely amoral activity. One can accept perpetual war, one can accept that there will be a steady stream of civilian casualties on one's side, but so long as the system works, there is no need to address problems of inequality and worldview - only, if one has it, a humanistic desire. We may wish for a future in which a fairer deal and better communication has alleviated the root causes of the anti-Western backlash in the third world, but I see no reason to assume at this stage that our actions will be of a benevolent or well-intentioned nature. There can be no automatic assumption that we will even try to occupy the moral high ground, nor that we will be "the good guys".

I'm not saying we hold the moral high ground, except in relation to our own worldview. So,

I'm just looking for the best strategy for long-term survival. If it boils down to survival, exterminating your enemies would be moral. Subjugating and re-educating is the next best thing, and probably more palatable.

Occupy other countries.
Kill those who resist.
Assimilate their children through generations of education.

It worked in Germany and Japan.

It's better, survival-wise, than doing nothing or giving OBL what he wants.

And my other thought is, we are past the very brief period during which war was an ideological activity. The 20th century was a nice, comfortable time which we do not wish to abandon, during which one side was Good and another manifestly Evil. This nostalgia, the fact that those alive today with a limited historical perspective believe that this extraordinary period of moral clarity is normal, forces governments to devote much energy to lying to the public, where previously it was unnecessary.

No, we are back to the normal state of international affairs, where war is an economic activity. One has resource and revenue requirements, makes an investment, and anticipates a return. Should it turn out that "re-educating" and "developing" the third world is more expensive than pursuing a policy of repression, then in the absence of an ideological context, one is left with a cruelly straightforward business decision.

Another reason why I do not make the assumption that in our international affairs we in the West will attempt to do "the right thing". We may not have a compelling reason.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20041206/ap_on_re_us/tillman_friendly_fire

It has been reported that Pat Tillman, one of the early heroes of the "war on terrorism" was killed by friendly fire, and not quickly, either.

This man gave up 3.6m and a chance to play football for a living to serve this country, and he gets killed by his own comrades. That's tragic.

He joined the army (in national fervor), he knew what he was up to, he knew what might happen, he VOLUNTEERED for combat.

He knew the risk.

Xen, sorry to hear you're in a bad mood
Thanks, better now :)

Back to the point. You are absolutely right that you do not just ignore terrorists and hope they go away. I am afraid though that you are still ducking the issue of why it is justified to consider this a clash of nations which can only end in genocide.

The assimilation of Japan and West Germany were only possible because there was no armed resistance. The people of these nations were worn out by a long war and had lost all faith in the leaders who took them to war. In fact your point here brings us back (again, sorry :) ) to my point about winning the hearts and minds. As long as the US is seen as interfering, as an invader, this is not going to happen. In fact I think it is safe to say it would take a pretty fundamental act to win this back - such as the US being seen to bring about a Palestinian state. Regardless of the reason for the war, I think we will have to agree to disagree to avoid going round in too many cirlces, it is the perceived reason for the war that matters in terms of moral and hearts and minds. Whether or not it is, the majority of the world believe this to be a resource war. The US has not helped this by actions such as giving large rebuilding contracts to US companies. This is what has made them targets that the terrorists can attack without damaging their hearts and minds war - these companies are seen as part of the US war effort. It seems to me that the US is losing the propaganda war.