Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
A US drone firing missiles into a village in northern Pakistan killed at least 19 people over the weekend. The targets were militants, said the US military. The victims included six dead children, said a local tribal elder.
"Suspected US drone kills Suspected Taliban Commander." That's becoming the stuff of very suspect news stories. The reporting is so weak there's almost nothing confirmed except that the killer operator is far away in front of a computer screen.
Suspected killing of suspected people covered by unsuspicious media? It would be sci-fi if it weren't so here-now, and it's only going to get more so.
The Democratic administration just made a big deal of cutting the cumbersome F-22 fighter jet. "We don't need it any more," said the President. What he didn't say is that the defense department is seeking $3.5 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles a.k.a. "drones." Funding is expected to increase to $55 billion by 2020. The air force is currently training more drone operators than fighter and bomber pilots.
Drones have been around since the US-led NATO war on the former Yugoslavia. Since '06, drones have launched hundred of missiles along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border killing as many as 700 civilians according to Pakistani officials.
Forbes magazine's "king of the armed drone makers" is a little known company called General Atomics whose founder James Neal Blue came up with the drone as a way of defeating Soviet-backed Sandinistas by blowing up oil pipelines in Nicaragua. He's a fervent anti-communist and quite possibly the next Erik Prince -- only his mercenaries aren't Blackwater's flesh and blood killers, but conveniently bloodless machines.
General Atomics is small by defense industry standards, but it has a lot of friends in Washington. Between 2000 and 2005, GA was the top corporate sponsor of privately funded congressional travel. So perhaps it's no surprise, there's little resistance to more drones in the US arsenal.
Drones are not cheap -- between $10 million and $12 million apiece per GA "Reaper." Their success rate is widely disputed. They kill civilians and even General David Petraeus admits, they make people hate us. But cynical political calculus is on General Atomics' side.
President Obama has a problem. Every American military commander wants more troops, but resistance among foot soldiers is growing and maybe, someday - someday - the president's anti-war base will make itself heard.
How to heed the commanders and quiet the critics simultaneously? Welcome to the super drone bonanza. The pilotless drone is the military's version of cash for very clunky policy.
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GritLaura on Twitter.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"...and even General David Petraeaus says they make people hate us."
Now, Ms Flanders...are you going to listen to pacifist surrender monkeys like him?!???!??
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 11:33am
REAPER!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 11:41am
Hmmm...$10M-$12M apiece...I wonder how many soldiers would have to be critically wounded to require $12M worth of care, in theater and back at home...a couple dozen?
While I can certainly agree that the drones should be used more judiciously, I think that any weapon that keeps American troops out of harm's way is a good thing.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 11:44am
well, nothing wrong with staying ahead of the curve. this is nothing more than the logical development of what the military has been trying to do for decades - since they captured v-1 and v-2 rockets from the germans at the end ow ww2.
drones kill civilians; piloted planes kill civilians. when guerreilla and terrorist leaders choose to use civilian populations as human shields (which is a very smart tactic on their part), is it our fault civilians get killed?
yes and no i guess, but i'm not losing sleep over it. too much to lose sleep over as it is.
the only real propblem i have other than an unsettled stomach at what looks like the beginning of the rise of the machines (lol) is that we may become too dependant on the high tech gadgets. would it not be possible for a low tech power to infiltrate and shut down the remote control aspect of these weapons, or get their hands on some kind of jamming eqiupment? too much reliance on such could be problematic as well.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 11:45am
plus, regardless of the politics of mr. blue, its a bit of a logical stretch to equate him with prince, GA with blackwater. perhaps they are chums, but GA is a manufacturar - they do not operate the weapons they produce and sell.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 11:47am
There are many issues with the drones. One of the less-discussed issues is the general research & development movement towards fully-automating them. There is already a degree of success here - the latest generation of these craft can apparently identify human beings for targets and fire upon these targets without operator involvement. Personally, I think that the issues with drones will all become much more serious when in general these craft are operating in an autonomous "free fire" mode. I think that deploying robots against people will open a Pandora's Box.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 11:48am
Posted by syfriendly at 08/26/2009 @ 11:48am | ignore this person | warn this person
there's all sorts of CRAZY scary projects we are working on...let me see if i can find an especially scary one...
"The Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR) is a project by Robotic Technology Inc. and Cyclone Power Technologies Inc. to develop a robotic vehicle that could forage for plant biomass to fuel itself, theoretically operating indefinitely. It is being developed as a concept as part of the DARPA military projects for the United States military.[1]
The project elicited some internet and media rumors after news circulated that the robot would (or at least could) ingest human remains.[2] The company has stated that animal or human biomass was not intended to be used in the 'waste heat' combustion engine of the robot, and that sensors would be able to distinguish foraged materials.[1]"
but hey...why not use corpses as fuel, eh? someone needs to deal with them?
now that is a scary robot we are developping...
rise of the machines!!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 11:56am
REAPER!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
EATR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(see above)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 12:00pm
first send in the REAPERS, piloted by video game freaks in secure bases. then send in the ETRs to clean the place up, also controlled by video gamers...
but even the need for the gamers will become increasingly tenuous as ai routines improve.
yeah - it is KINDA scary, is it not? oh - and don't forget the cyborg spy bugs we have been playing around with for years now, sending into demonstrations and protests to get see who is participating...that shit is for real too...
it all means this ---
1. we can no longer be the world cop - not economically sustainable and will inexorably lead to increased automation in our military in order to project power inexpensively economically AND politically.
2. we desperately need more transparancy in our government - still WAY too many spurious secrets and THAT is more dangerous than ANY machine...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 12:16pm
We need to stoop the war machine end our contract with blackwater. And spend more money and time fixing our own country. Before we try to dictate to the rest of the world...
Posted by Cherokee.Fred.Jesus at 08/26/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by Cherokee.Fred.Jesus at 08/26/2009 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
amen brother Cherokee.Fred.Jesus. i say we start by targetting a one quarter reduction in military spending, and allocating one half of that to pay down the debt and rebuilding our infrastructure...
peaceful investment is more important to maintaining our power right now than military spending - without restoring our economy, our high tech military will become ever more difficult to maintain.
the primary goal of our domestic policy should be to assure as much economic autarky as possible, not only to assure security, but also to lessen the need to maintain a gigantic military capable of projecting en masse to any part of the world where instability threatens strategic resources.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 12:42pm
or perhaps incremental yearly budget cuts with savings allocated as suggested above.
the scary part is the military industrial complex - how will they respond?
not meaning to go conspiratorial here, but those guys are scary - hard to let loose of power, especially if the actions to maintain such power have been sketchy to say the least - criminal in some aspects.
to this day the only conspiracy theory i kinda credit is the JFK assasination. never seen a single bullet do what that one supposedly did and never believed a deep undercover CIA spook opereated alone and then got offed by a crazed, mobster with shady ties to the gubbament himself.
so perhaps such a reduction in military will require a massive grassroots movement.
i would never countenance the "spit on the veterans" anti miloitary crap - stupid and wrong. on the other hand this pseudo-fascist worship of the military that has grown in the country in recent years is a danger in and of itself.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 12:54pm
REAPEATR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
save flint.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 1:06pm
Nearly 3 hours and no Drone Defenders from the Right?
Was it the line about General Petraeus opposing them that put the kibosh on refutation???
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 2:00pm
While I can certainly agree that the drones should be used more judiciously, I think that any weapon that keeps American troops out of harm's way is a good thing.
Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 11:44am
Amen to that. I cannot understand the thinking of the left that seems to relish the idea of troop casualties as the means of supporting it's anti-war views.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:29pm
Nearly 3 hours and no Drone Defenders from the Right?
Was it the line about General Petraeus opposing them that put the kibosh on refutation???
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 2:00pm
I've been busy. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Drones. They are an effective means of not only gathering intel, but taking out the enemy without suffering US casualties.
And the bottom line is exactly that, not suffering US casualties.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:30pm
Bet we would be better off if our drones would drop 5 dollar foot longs instead of million dollar bombs...include a joint or some ambien and they will all be happy and sleepy...
Posted by MplsStyme at 08/26/2009 @ 2:40pm
REAPEATR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
save flint.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 1:06pm
doesn't Flint have a mayor and Michigan a governor?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:46pm
These drones actually terrify me for precisely the same reason antisocialist likes them: they effectively create bloodless war, and the more they replace flesh-and-blood troops, the more dangerous I think this becomes.
One of the most fundamental attributes of war is the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, and in a lot of cases that sacrifice gets made. On both sides of a war, people die. But what happens when real flesh-and-blood American lives are no longer at stake? War becomes easier.
Let me put it this way: which do you think is easier for a politician to sell?
a) We need to take down this regime, and we'll send our troops to do it, or
b) We need to take down this regime, and we'll dispatch a bunch of drones to take care of it
This makes war easier, and that's dangerous because war should be an incredibly difficult decision made only in cases of necessity.
Moreover, as LF alludes to, it's not just about American casualties; it's that killing people almost becomes a video game. The more detached you as an individual are from the act of killing, and thus the more depersonalized killing becomes, the easier it is to do it. The enemy you're killing no longer looks like a human being, but instead just looks like a graphic in a machine.
If we as a nation want to go to war, then we should be willing to take full responsibility for it. If we're not willing to put our own lives on the line, and we're not willing to fight anything more than video game images, then we shouldn't be doing it.
I realize that drones might not be the sole forces in any upcoming wars, but the effect still exists to a lesser degree; the less we have to commit troops, the easier war is to get into. That's incredibly dangerous.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
One of the most fundamental attributes of war is the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, and in a lot of cases that sacrifice gets made. On both sides of a war, people die. But what happens when real flesh-and-blood American lives are no longer at stake? War becomes easier
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
Your post makes it apparent that you have never served in the military.
While it is certainly true that nearly all who serve in the military do so with a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, that is not the fundamental attribute of war.
The fundamental attributes of war are:
1. Defeat your enemy
2. Minimize your own losses if possible.
Do you honestly believe that we would not consider a strategy that resulted in no loss of American lives as being good?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:59pm
doesn't Flint have a mayor and Michigan a governor?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:46pm
yes.
and it has residents and neighbourhood associations and is part of genesee county and is part of michigan and is part of great lakes basin (which is super cool, hint tourists) and is part of north america and is part of the western hemisphere and is part of this planet from which you are made and is part of this solar blah blah blah
government must arise at all levels of human organization
flint has been milked by rubber money and greed
and has i'm sure you're well aware
many of these problems have arisen at a national level.
and flint is a metaphor.
save flint.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 3:06pm
Amen to that. I cannot understand the thinking of the left that seems to relish the idea of troop casualties as the means of supporting it's anti-war views.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:29pm
but what will you do when enemy drones hover over riverside?
save flint.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 3:07pm
These drones actually terrify me for precisely the same reason antisocialist likes them: they effectively create bloodless war, and the more they replace flesh-and-blood troops, the more dangerous I think this becomes.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 2:54pm
well put, sir thrawn.
••
bloodless for some.
why must we insist on speeding up our entropy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 3:14pm
Do you honestly believe that we would not consider a strategy that resulted in no loss of American lives as being good?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:59pm
Injured soldiers: Other toll in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan affects residents in Genesee County and surrounding areas
by Beata Mostafavi | The Flint Journal
Sunday June 29, 2008, 1:00 AM
COURTESY PHOTO
<B>[http://blog.mlive.com/newsnow_impact/2008 /06/large_WILLIAMKLEINEDLERwebone.jpg]</B>
Staff Sgt. William Kleinedler, a Swartz Creek native, was injured in Irag when a roadside bomb hit the humvee he was riding in. His family is just one of hundreds in the Flint area rocked by physical and psychological wounds from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan -- Ann Kleinedler barely recognized her son as he lay in a military hospital bed, his deep brown eyes glinting through bandages that cocooned the scorched skin on his face.
save flint from within.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 3:18pm
Drones are becoming very popular with many countries. Israel, as the number two arms trader with China, has supplied them with drones for some time. The Pentagon was not happy about that deal. The Border Patrol uses drones from Israel too. Pakistan want us to supply them with drones. As far as I know, this company produces them, but does not use them. The Military services uses them, and not the company. Blackwater is the user of the weapons that killed civilians, but did not manufacture them. Legally, you would have to go after the U.S. government over the use of drones. The Navy wants them for reconnaissance purposes. They prefer manned aircraft for combat.
Posted by pjcasey at 08/26/2009 @ 3:19pm
A remote controlled death machine. One minute you and your closest friends are barbecuing a lamb kabob....the next you are searching for those virigns they kept promising. A wet dream for the right....a horror for the left. Bottom line....maybe it's time to rethink a couple of strategies. Like...dependence on middle eastern oil....fighting proxy wars for Israel.....
...and possibly dealing with our so called enemies honestly...owning up to our own culpability in helping to create the repressive regimes they are under...and the horrifying number of civilian casualties in the so called "war on terror"....
....and instead of building air bases and army barracks in their countries...we build refrigerator factories and air conditioning repair schools.
Then we could retires the drones from war and use them for what they are best suited. Following the lives of celebrities like Brittany and Lindsay.
Posted by truthhurtsaz at 08/26/2009 @ 3:50pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 2:59pm </i>
You are correct; I have not served in the military, and perhaps that affects my judgment. However, the calculus you have just described is morally abhorrent because it ignores one of the most important considerations: minimizing civilian casualties. I have no problem arguing that such a concern should trump our own losses; we have no right to prioritize our troops' lives over those of innocent people in the countries where our troops operate. Period.
Moreover, I think you're missing the bigger picture. It's not just a question of tactics on the ground, it's a question of going to war in the first place. Can you honestly tell me you'd be comfortable with an all-robotic army? Put to the side for a moment the obvious concerns about reprogramming or shutting down that army. Can you, as a minister, honestly say that giving the government the ability to kill in the most distanced and objectified way imaginable is a good thing??
My personal view is that we should never be willing to kill if we never have to confront that reality on the ground. When war becomes nothing more than a glorified video game, it transforms an already ugly practice into one that I think is, quite frankly, outright demonic.
In the words of Robert E. Lee:
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 4:32pm
Moreover, I think you're missing the bigger picture. It's not just a question of tactics on the ground, it's a question of going to war in the first place. Can you honestly tell me you'd be comfortable with an all-robotic army? Put to the side for a moment the obvious concerns about reprogramming or shutting down that army. Can you, as a minister, honestly say that giving the government the ability to kill in the most distanced and objectified way imaginable is a good thing??
My personal view is that we should never be willing to kill if we never have to confront that reality on the ground. When war becomes nothing more than a glorified video game, it transforms an already ugly practice into one that I think is, quite frankly, outright demonic.
In the words of Robert E. Lee:
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 4:32pm
You present a scenario and question that is neither being considered nor in all likelihood ever will be. Stop thinking out of a scifi movie. I'm not advocating an all robot army. No one is.
What I'm stating is what every military commander states. They look for every strategy that will minimize their own troop casualties. Shouldn't that be the primary focus for every military commander?
As to your question as a pastor, yes, I would prefer that those who represent my country suffer fewer losses. I'm reminded of the story of David and Goliath in this regard. Rather than the slaughter of many jewish soldiers, it was David's use of the sling from a distance that killed Goliath and spared the jewish army.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 4:48pm
It seems like every time drones appear in the news it's not about a victory, it's about a war crime. In Israel's recent attack on Palestine they used unmanned drones to kill families on their rooftops and at least one wedding. Who knows what these things have been used for in our name. Even Patraeus doesn't like them. If a U.S. General commanding a theater doesn't like something there is a good reason.
Posted by Milhaus at 08/26/2009 @ 5:47pm
You present a scenario and question that is neither being considered nor in all likelihood ever will be. Stop thinking out of a scifi movie. I'm not advocating an all robot army. No one is.
What I'm stating is what every military commander states. They look for every strategy that will minimize their own troop casualties. Shouldn't that be the primary focus for every military commander?
As to your question as a pastor, yes, I would prefer that those who represent my country suffer fewer losses. I'm reminded of the story of David and Goliath in this regard. Rather than the slaughter of many jewish soldiers, it was David's use of the sling from a distance that killed Goliath and spared the jewish army.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 4:48pm
You think it's a scifi movie but do a little research on technology being created for the military and you will see that an all robotic military IS being though about. On top of that I have to agree with Thrawn. The more you distance soldiers from the battlefield the less respect you give them for the lives they are taking, civilian or enemy. Which is why these drones kill civilians so often rather than when soldiers on on foot or even in planes.
While I agree we should make minimizing the loss of life sustained by American soldiers A priority the loss of innocent life should be the bigger priority. Otherwise if civilians are just an obstacle to our enemies how are we any better than they are?
The story you use about David and Goliath could not be farther from what is being argued. What would be more appropriate is if Goliath was surrounded by hundreds of innocent people and David was lobbing explosive rocks that would kill them in order to kill Goliath.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:49pm
The story of David and Goliath is the story of one soldier fighting another soldier in order to keep and army of soldiers alive. What we are debating is whether the loss of innocent civilian lives is better than the loss of American soldiers. I would argue that the people who did not get to choose whether they are put in the situation are the ones who should be spared. I have to agree it is morally abhorrent especially from a priest to claim that American's lives are worth more than other peoples. God tells us to value life equally.
The problem is you are on a very slippery slope now. If American lives are more important than other peoples then you could use that as a stepping stone to justify genocide.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:54pm
Oh and the civilians that Goliath has surrounded himself with are people he captured who aren't allowed to leave.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:49pm
this is just taking research projects and projecting them into leftist fear tactics.
There is no project to replace humans with robots. All robot projects are specialized.
And simply from a logic standpoint, it is not cost effective. Humans are cheaper to replace and/or repair than robots.
Our military does place a priority on not taking innocent life if at all possible. It just is not always possible.
Do you think that all of our military personnel who are engaged in these conflicts are unfeeling animals instead of friends, classmates, family, and neighbors?
This is one of my constant gripes against the left. I saw it 40 years ago, and it's still the same. This denigration of US military people as somehow being inhuman animals that simply kill everyone they can. We did not have these attitudes prior to the Vietnam war. This was a tactic of the left that began then, and continues currently. It is insidious and offensive.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:49pm -- "Otherwise if civilians are just an obstacle to our enemies how are we any better than they are? "
There's a word for this, I believe it begins w T and ends with Errorism (see 9/11).
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:03pm
Ah yes, the left never liked a weapon system that worked and was effective.
Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 6:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm
How do you equate Goliath with innocent children?
"drones kill civilians; piloted planes kill civilians. when guerreilla and terrorist leaders choose to use civilian populations as human shields (which is a very smart tactic on their part), is it our fault civilians get killed?"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 11:45am |
If it's not our fault, it's the childrens' fault for living amongst suspected terrorists?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:07pm
Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 6:06pm
I suppose that depends upon the definition of "works" and "effective".
As Antisocialist points out, the drones succeed in eliminating US soldier casualties.
But in eliminating civilian casualties, they fail miserably. I'm curious as to what the civilian-to-suspectedterrorist ratio is.
But I suppose the latter should not be of concern? After all, OUR cause is inherently noble, serving the middle east an expensive lesson in righteousness.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:11pm
The logic of minimizing soldier casualties could just as readily be considered by members of Al Qaeda, believing themselves to be sparing the lives of fellow jihadi while enflicting massive civilian casualties in laying a blow to their enemy.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:27pm
Ah yes, the left never liked a weapon system that worked and was effective.
Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 6:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah, that pinko Roosevelt didn't think much of Willow Run's capabilities, huh?
Please forgive the sarcasm.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/26/2009 @ 7:05pm
We need a visit from Phil McCrevice about now. Phil, where are you when I need ya?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/26/2009 @ 7:07pm
REAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 7:26pm
The logic of minimizing soldier casualties could just as readily be considered by members of Al Qaeda, believing themselves to be sparing the lives of fellow jihadi while enflicting massive civilian casualties in laying a blow to their enemy.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:27pm
But they are blowing up their fellow muslims, not the enemy.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:35pm
and the drones are blowing up little kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 8:19pm
If it's not our fault, it's the childrens' fault for living amongst suspected terrorists?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
false dichotomy. how about "its the terrorists' fault for living amongst children"?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 9:48pm
i bet a lot of the video jockeys flying these aberrations have kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 9:56pm
The logic of minimizing soldier casualties could just as readily be considered by members of Al Qaeda, believing themselves to be sparing the lives of fellow jihadi while enflicting massive civilian casualties in laying a blow to their enemy.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:27pm
Yo, Matt, how many jihadis, or even your run-of-the-mill innocent/guilty/whatever Muslims has the average civilian--say those that work in the WTC, in our embassies abroad or partying in Bali--killed?
Wouldn't you think any "jihadi" worth 72 virgins would be insulted to think he should fear "civilians"?
Think before you squirt your wee-wee pistol!
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:11pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/26/2009 @ 9:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so do lots of terrorists.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 10:12pm
<i>As to your question as a pastor, yes, I would prefer that those who represent my country suffer fewer losses. I'm reminded of the story of David and Goliath in this regard. Rather than the slaughter of many jewish soldiers, it was David's use of the sling from a distance that killed Goliath and spared the jewish army.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 4:48pm</i>
I think the David and Goliath example has already been dealt with, so I'll just engage the first sentence. If it means what I think it means (and I could be wrong), I don't know how you can defend it. If I understand you correctly, you're saying "the lives of people from my country are more important than the lives of those from other countries." I'm unclear how a follower of Jesus can take that position because our loyalty to God and to all of his creation must supercede our loyalty to any individual country or state. We can't be Americans before we're Christians; that's a version of idolatry.
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm </i>
This is a strawman. I don't believe all troops are "inhuman animals," and I don't think Cccomf01 does either. What we WOULD say, though, is that dehumanization becomes a very strong impulse for anyone placed in that position. I wonder, for example, whether you're familiar with the Zimbardo experiment; after 3 days, ordinary people placed in the role of prison guards become brutal and abusive.
Moreover, you have to admit that killing is a lot easier when all you have to do is look at a screen. If you don't have to even do that (i.e. if all you have to do is send a drone in and it'll do all the work for you), that's even more dangerous. When you rely on drones to do the dirty work, war becomes easier to rationalize, and that's terrifying to me.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 10:16pm
The story of David and Goliath is the story of one soldier fighting another soldier in order to keep and army of soldiers alive.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/26/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Better read 1st Samuel 17 verses 1-58, after David slew Goliath the israelis slew the retreating philistines all the way to their city and killed many. Israeli lives were certainly saved , but not philistine lives! God has and will slay those who through evil intent attack his chosen people and has appropriate punishment reserved for such.
Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 10:41pm
This must be Laura Flanders attempt to enter "Comedy". Welcome to silly land! The reusable Drones cost 1/10 to 1/20th of the moderm fighter bomber and technologically her whole flawed analysis is at least 5 years behind theri capabilities that we presently actually know about via the internet and other sourses.
Posted by BigPasture at 08/26/2009 @ 11:32pm
Whoever says they are in favor of the drones has yet to meet the drone police.
Posted by koroviev at 08/27/2009 @ 01:27am
"this is just taking research projects and projecting them into leftist fear tactics.
There is no project to replace humans with robots. All robot projects are specialized."
If you know anything about the progression of technology then you know that if the technology can be used as a weapon then it will one day be used as a weapon. Robotics is the ultimate weapon. They do not feel fear. They feel no pity. They follow orders absolutely. One day their minds will work faster than humans. Doesn't matter the cost. We throw all kinds of expensive things in front of the enemy to destroy. If we were worried about cost we would have scrapped a lot of military projects.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/military-robot.htm
That's a simple small taste of the robots being employed by the military now or in the future. You can write it off as "leftist fear tactics" which you seem to always do when you have no actual evidence to back up your assertion, you instead disrespect the person making the assertion but if you know anything about technology and the roads it takes then you will know the inevitable future of robotics and AI is military application considering the military is already employing methods of robotics in a lot of different applications.
Continued*
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 01:52am
Do you think that all of our military personnel who are engaged in these conflicts are unfeeling animals instead of friends, classmates, family, and neighbors?
This is one of my constant gripes against the left. I saw it 40 years ago, and it's still the same. This denigration of US military people as somehow being inhuman animals that simply kill everyone they can. We did not have these attitudes prior to the Vietnam war. This was a tactic of the left that began then, and continues currently. It is insidious and offensive.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm
This once again is an example of you putting words in my mouth and disrespecting me and trying to make suppositions about what I am thinking without any actual evidence to make your false assertions. I have relatives and friends in them military. Which means I do not denigrate them to inhuman animals. I think soldiers are mostly kids in an incredibly stressful and dangerous situation that is inherently taxing on the human mind. I think that is evidenced by the people who commit crimes on the battlefield. Those are people who the battle has broken, has turned into killers instead of soldiers.
I have known snipers who come back completely changed by their experiences on the battle field. I think these people are very human and I think that battle inherently changes a human. The taking of a life is something that should weigh on you forever if you have any respect for life.
However despite all this, I would rather see soldiers who volunteered to be where they are die rather than innocent civilians, people who can't escape their countries aside from suicide. Children who haven't truly known what it is to live yet. It has nothing to do with denigrating soldiers it has everything to do with choice.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 01:58am
But they are blowing up their fellow muslims, not the enemy.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:35pm
To them those Muslims are the enemy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 01:59am
Moreover, you have to admit that killing is a lot easier when all you have to do is look at a screen. If you don't have to even do that (i.e. if all you have to do is send a drone in and it'll do all the work for you), that's even more dangerous. When you rely on drones to do the dirty work, war becomes easier to rationalize, and that's terrifying to me.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 10:16pm
This all brings up an interesting point. I am reading a book called Omnivores Dilemma which deals mostly with food and how it is obtained. The author of the book works for a farm which raises multiple types of pastured grassfed animals including chickens. He spends some time slaughtering them. He makes the point that doing this every once in a while would not bother a normal person. However if you did it everyday it would make killing too routine too normalized. He posits that the reason religions including Christianity in the early ages had ritual methods of sacrificing animals was to prevent this dehumanization caused by killing innocent creatures every day.
They would cycle who was responsible for the kill specifically for this reason. So if something as comparably benign as slaughtering a cow was such a concern for dehumanizing the slaughterers in the early days why do we presume that soldiers can take lives, innocent or enemy, without feeling anything. Without themselves suffering some dehumanization.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 02:04am
Ah yes, the left never liked a weapon system that worked and was effective.
Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 6:06pm
What is your definition of worked? This isn't a matter of it working. This is a matter of it anesthicizing people to the lives they are taking and making the killing of innocents too easy. It would seem most of the stories you hear about innocent people being killed are by these drones. Now do you think that is just coincidence? Or could it be that because there is no risk to the pilot and because they are seperated from these lives by thousands of miles they are more likely to fire at potentially innocent people? I doubt most of the Reaper pilots ever even have to visit the battlegrounds or see the children of the people they are fighting.
By the way. For those of you who constantly proclaim everyone in the military to be the bravest of the brave. Is this bravery, going to a 9-5 job in an office where you essentially just play a video game all day?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 02:11am
Laura Flanders is not opposed to General Atomic per se, or to drones or F-16, or even to Blackwater. She is opposed to whatever allows the US to fight its wars successfully and with few casualties.
Someone who prefers for US forces to fail on the battlefield is not to be taken seriously as a critic of US weapons or US tactics.
Incidentally, UAVs are not the inventions of General Atomic or of James Neal Blue. The Israelis were first to develop them as military reconnaissance vehicles and also as weapon systems. Their Mastiff dates to the 1970s and in 1982 IDF drones defeated the Syrian SAM air-defenses in the Bekaa Valley. Even General Atomic's Predator is based on Amber, a drone developed by Abraham Karem once a lead drone designer for the Israeli Air Force.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/27/2009 @ 05:55am
I wonder what Christ would have said about the arguments in his name? Would he have approved of any of it? No.
The war in the Middle East was a diversion from the mind control takeover at home, making robots out of people. Neither right nor left nor any Americans are winners in that war.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 12:16pm
"and don't forget the cyborg spy bugs we have been playing around with for years now, sending into demonstrations and protests to get see who is participating...that shit is for real too... "
This is the real issue. These "cyborg spy bugs" are people embedded with devices without their permission or knowledge, who are being used as slaves. The enslavement of the population while robots kill innocent oppressed civilians overseas has to be what the Bible refers to as Hell.
This has become a war we will not win. It is a war for our own time, choices and our freedom as well. We must assure that we do not leave a legacy of non existence and slavery for future generations. We must pay attention to the real issues. All of it is communications systems oriented.
Robotics which eat people will soon have a Chinese Conficker Botnet. Does no-one else see the irony in a DOD agenda which bypasses the State Department in alliances with Israel who supply drones to China?
Meanwhile, the Moonies who are passing around the basket for Israel and burying the crosses of Christianity have no place as Priests. The beam in their eye is a laser beam and their thoughts are clearly not their own. Leftists are not communists, they are soldiers and many are Christians too.
The murdered children will be in Heaven no matter what their ethnicity or gender and there are no virgins in Heaven for heathens to devoir. Heaven is a place for spirit.
Posted by femtobeam at 08/27/2009 @ 06:49am
I think that any weapon that keeps American troops out of harm's way is a good thing. Posted by snowball777 at 08/26/2009 @ 11:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
an end to those goddamn wars will keep American troops out of harm's way.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/27/2009 @ 08:26am
Posted by pyeatte at 08/26/2009 @ 6:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
grrr, kill, kill
Posted by emile duBois at 08/27/2009 @ 08:31am
the drones are merely a part of the huge air war the US has engaged in during both wars, especially in Iraq.
both wars must end NOW.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/27/2009 @ 08:36am
Posted by emile duBois at 08/27/2009 @ 08:26am |
And that would be my first choice, but, failing that...
Posted by snowball777 at 08/27/2009 @ 09:22am
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."---via Robert E. Lee----Posted by Thrawn at 08/26/2009 @ 4:32pm
"All REAL Americans LOVE the sting of battle!"---via Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North ----Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 4:48pm
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 10:04am
But they are blowing up their fellow muslims, not the enemy.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 7:35pm
To them those Muslims are the enemy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 01:59am
No they just use them as pawns or tools in their jihad.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:54am
By the way. For those of you who constantly proclaim everyone in the military to be the bravest of the brave. Is this bravery, going to a 9-5 job in an office where you essentially just play a video game all day?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 02:11am
compared to civilians, yes. Compared to those opposed to the military, emphatically yes.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:56am
compared to civilians, yes. Compared to those opposed to the military, emphatically yes.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:56am
How is what they do brave? Fat kids play video games at home? What is bravery if what they do is bravery?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:54pm
compared to civilians, yes. Compared to those opposed to the military, emphatically yes.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:56am
You must have a very low definition of bravery.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:54pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:54pm
As with much, technology is out-stripping Larry's old ideas.
Hard to make the case that a guy flying a drone from a satellite-linked command center at Edwards Air Force Base is in anyway equivalent to a soldier in the field or even a F-18 pilot flying a mission over the same area.....
but he will. Same way he defends the Vietnam War while never fighting in it. (He was in "other places" doing secret double-nought spy work for Navy Intell!)
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 12:57pm
compared to civilians, yes. Compared to those opposed to the military, emphatically yes.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 11:56am
You must have a very low definition of bravery.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 12:54pm
As with much, technology is out-stripping Larry's old ideas.
Hard to make the case that a guy flying a drone from a satellite-linked command center at Edwards Air Force Base is in anyway equivalent to a soldier in the field or even a F-18 pilot flying a mission over the same area.....
but he will. Same way he defends the Vietnam War while never fighting in it. (He was in "other places" doing secret double-nought spy work for Navy Intell!)
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 12:57pm
Both of you display an ignorance of the military. Every active duty individual is subject to being called to bear arms in conflict, regardless of their current duties as necessary.
That is my reasoning. Every one of them including the joy stick folks is still a member of the armed forces and called to bear arms against the enemy if needed.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:09pm
but he will. Same way he defends the Vietnam War while never fighting in it. (He was in "other places" doing secret double-nought spy work for Navy Intell!)
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 12:57pm
You really do hate the people who serve in the military don't you Mask?
I've stated that I was wounded on multiple occasions fighting for my country and that military action took place in more than just Vietnam during my time in the service.
You are despicable in your attitude towards those who serve.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:11pm
If it's not our fault, it's the childrens' fault for living amongst suspected terrorists?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/26/2009 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
false dichotomy. how about "its the terrorists' fault for living amongst children"?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/26/2009 @ 9:48pm
Missing the point-- Why punish the children by BLOWING THEM UP?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/27/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by Happy at 08/26/2009 @ 10:11pm |
Yo soy no pistolero!
Actulally, crappy, via economic policy, it can be argued at least that the WTO is part of a systemic complex that has been responsible for death, suffering, and virtual imprisonment in the Muslim world for decades. My point isn't to rationalize terrorism, but to condemn it in any guise- whether done by "jihadi's" or state-sponsored by the US military and it's allies.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/27/2009 @ 1:47pm
Both of you display an ignorance of the military. Every active duty individual is subject to being called to bear arms in conflict, regardless of their current duties as necessary.
That is my reasoning. Every one of them including the joy stick folks is still a member of the armed forces and called to bear arms against the enemy if needed.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:09pm
I am not at all ignorant of the military. You really need to stop making assertions about me you tend to be very wrong. Those who have specialized in flying these things are not likely to ever be called into combat. Just like pilots are not likely to be put on the front line unless they get shot down. If you think that the military is actually going to call up on of the few pilots who are rated to fly one of these things then you display some ignorance or naiveness. I have a friend who flies these things for the military. He will never see front line duty.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:57pm
Both of you display an ignorance of the military. Every active duty individual is subject to being called to bear arms in conflict, regardless of their current duties as necessary.
That is my reasoning. Every one of them including the joy stick folks is still a member of the armed forces and called to bear arms against the enemy if needed.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:09p
These people are as likely to be called to fight as a marine grunt is to be told to fly a helicopter without training.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:05pm
I am not at all ignorant of the military. You really need to stop making assertions about me you tend to be very wrong. Those who have specialized in flying these things are not likely to ever be called into combat. Just like pilots are not likely to be put on the front line unless they get shot down. If you think that the military is actually going to call up on of the few pilots who are rated to fly one of these things then you display some ignorance or naiveness. I have a friend who flies these things for the military. He will never see front line duty.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 1:57pm
You are so wrong. Study military history and then try another response.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:12pm
You are so wrong. Study military history and then try another response.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 2:12pm
This isn't history this is now. We are not talking about what they would have done 60 years ago, we are talking about the military as it stands now. As technologies becomes more advanced the users become more specialized and in turn less likely to be deployed. You think the hackers that are in charge of protecting military communications are going to be deployed? You think these joystick jockeys who have had tons of specialized training to pilot these things are going to deployed? I think I have a better chance of being forcably deployed onto the battlefield then one of these guys ever seeing combat.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:17pm
I also know about people being redeployed. My cousin who was an engineer on a battleship was redeployed on the front line. Which had to do with the poor management of the Iraq war. But mechanics are easy to replace, the pilots for Reapers are not. Gotta get more in touch with technology and it's advancement in the military. You think the military is still the place you served 50 years ago, but its not. Different abilities are prized now. A lot of people in the military will never serve in active combat and they know it which is often why people seek to serve on battleships or behind computers instead of joining the marines.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
You think the military is still the place you served 50 years ago, but its not. Different abilities are prized now. A lot of people in the military will never serve in active combat and they know it which is often why people seek to serve on battleships or behind computers instead of joining the marines.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 2:22pm
I am thoroughly aware of current military practices. I go to Camp Pendleton nearly every month. I speak with active duty Marines every month. I have sons that have served in the past 10 years.
And you remain wrong. If needed, every able bodied individual in the military is expected to serve in battle. That is unchanged despite technological innovation.
The Soldiers Creed
http://www.army.mil/thewayahead/creed.html
In boot camp at Parris Island or San Diego, and in the Basic School at Quantico, no one escapes from the Rifleman's Creed. Every Marine is trained, first and foremost, as a rifleman, for it is the rifleman who must close with and destroy the enemy. The rifleman remains the most basic tenet of Marine Corps doctrine.
http://tinyurl.com/lqrq52
the Sailors Creed
I am a United States Sailor. I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
I proudly serve my country's Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.
Air Force next
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
For CCC
The Air Force Creed
I am an American Airman. I am a warrior. I have answered my nation's call.
I am an American Airman. My mission is to fly, fight, and win. I am faithful to a proud heritage, A tradition of honor, And a legacy of valor.
I am an American Airman, Guardian of freedom and justice, My nation's sword and shield, Its sentry and avenger. I defend my country with my life.
I am an American Airman; Wingman, leader, warrior. I will never leave an airman behind, I will never falter,
And I will not fail.
Every member of the US military is first and foremost committed to defending the constitution and the citizens of the US.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:15pm
"And you remain wrong. If needed, every able bodied individual in the military is expected to serve in battle. That is unchanged despite technological innovation"
Reality does not always hold with the creed. You are basing your analysis off of pretty words recited before joining. Not off of the reality of the situation. I am not wrong I am right. Show me examples of people today who fly reapers that have been reassigned to the battlefield then you will have proven me wrong. Until then my analysis holds true because it has never happened.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 1:11pm
1. I'm not the one who cavalierly wants them to DIE for pointless wars....you are.
2. Your service is "still classified after 45 years", so don't think it was actually the same thing as slugging it out with Charlie in a rice paddy, was it?
3. What is the "Drone Operator's Creed", Larry?
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 3:21pm
"I am thoroughly aware of current military practices. I go to Camp Pendleton nearly every month. I speak with active duty Marines every month. I have sons that have served in the past 10 years."
Next time you go ask them if they know any Reaper pilots who have been reassigned to front line duties.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:21pm
1. I'm not the one who cavalierly wants them to DIE for pointless wars....you are.
2. Your service is "still classified after 45 years", so don't think it was actually the same thing as slugging it out with Charlie in a rice paddy, was it?
3. What is the "Drone Operator's Creed", Larry?
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2009 @ 3:21pm
Thanks again Mask for confirming that like Clinton, you loathe the military.
How does it make you to be such a low life that you despise the people who stand ready to defend your life?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:23pm
How does it make you to be such a low life that you despise the people who stand ready to defend your life?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:23pm
Correction,typed too fast.
How does it make you feel to be such a low life that you despise the people who stand ready to defend your life?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:24pm
Thanks again Mask for confirming that like Clinton, you loathe the military.
How does it make you to be such a low life that you despise the people who stand ready to defend your life?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:23pm |
Nothing about his post displayed any loathing for the military. You are just playing the victim and trying to make him out to be some great evil rather than actually defending against what he is saying. It's a typical tactic of those on the defensive. You like to paint people with false brushes don't you anti?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:31pm
Nothing about his post displayed any loathing for the military. You are just playing the victim and trying to make him out to be some great evil rather than actually defending against what he is saying. It's a typical tactic of those on the defensive. You like to paint people with false brushes don't you anti?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:31pm
Nonsense. I've challenged him over the years here to make ANY positive statements about our military personnel and he cannot bring himself to do it.
I'm not defending me, I'm defending our military personnel.
Mask has had every opportunity to correct this point and he refuses. The burden is on him, not me.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:46pm
Nonsense. I've challenged him over the years here to make ANY positive statements about our military personnel and he cannot bring himself to do it.
I'm not defending me, I'm defending our military personnel.
Mask has had every opportunity to correct this point and he refuses. The burden is on him, not me.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:46pm
Considering your accused me and Thrawn both of the same thing my comment is not non sense. Anyone who is more critical of the military than constantly praising them you claim believes the military are animals and hate the soldiers who serve. You have said it about me multiple times and I have constantly corrected you and told you I have family that served. Maybe if you didn't make false comments and insult people without reason then we would be able to take this kind of comment more seriously but you throw it out so often that it's just a joke now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
Considering your accused me and Thrawn both of the same thing my comment is not non sense. Anyone who is more critical of the military than constantly praising them you claim believes the military are animals and hate the soldiers who serve. You have said it about me multiple times and I have constantly corrected you and told you I have family that served. Maybe if you didn't make false comments and insult people without reason then we would be able to take this kind of comment more seriously but you throw it out so often that it's just a joke now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 3:53pm
Sorry CCC, but it isn't the same with Mask as with you and Thrawn. Mask refuses to honor our military.
As to Thrawn, I only said he doesn't understand the military. that is nowhere near to despising the military the way Mask does.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 5:13pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 5:13pm </i>
Those things you say I don't understand are precisely the things I highlight as producing potential, if not actual, tension with Christianity.
Now, before I start my argument, let me be very clear. I in no way impugn those who choose to go into the military, and I am extremely grateful for their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice.
That said, I think a bit of Christian history is very interesting. The very first Christians categorically refused to serve in the army. There was not even a real concept of just war theory until Constantine wedded the church to the state. This is not to say definitively that Christianity and military service are mutually exclusive, but rather to suggest that there are points at which they can lead to conflicting obligations.
The point you make about every American soldier is one of those conflicts, and perhaps the most central one. You say that every American soldier must have as his or her first priority the protection of American citizens and the American Constitution. This priority, if taken to its full extent, is BY DEFINITION mutually-exclusive with Christianity. Why? Because to always prioritize one's own citizens is by definition contrary to the idea that we are ALL equally children of God. God's love knows no borders, and there are no countries whose citizens God loves more than others. Period. Any lived-out form of Christianity must be consistent with that basic premise.
Not to mention the more obvious problem: if the Constitution and American citizens are your first priority...God by definition is not. Worshipping God means putting him first, and when there's a conflict, "we must obey God rather than any human authority."
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 5:23pm
By the way...I completely forgot which thread the discussion of prophetic stuff was one; would you happen to remember, anti?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
* was on
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 5:25pm
Sorry CCC, but it isn't the same with Mask as with you and Thrawn. Mask refuses to honor our military.
As to Thrawn, I only said he doesn't understand the military. that is nowhere near to despising the military the way Mask does.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 5:13pm
Did you not just say earlier that Thrawn and myself both denigrate military people to the status of animals?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:03pm
Did you not just say earlier that Thrawn and myself both denigrate military people to the status of animals?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 6:03pm
No I did not.
<Do you think that all of our military personnel who are engaged in these conflicts are unfeeling animals instead of friends, classmates, family, and neighbors?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm>
I asked you a question. I did not state that as a judgment or conclusion.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 6:24pm
By the way...I completely forgot which thread the discussion of prophetic stuff was one; would you happen to remember, anti?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
I don't know. I just spent 1/2 hour looking and I can't seem to find it.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 6:49pm
By the way...I completely forgot which thread the discussion of prophetic stuff was one; would you happen to remember, anti?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 5:24pm
I don't know. I just spent 1/2 hour looking and I can't seem to find it.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 6:49pm
Thrawn,
I found it. It's on the Beat section
Holder -- and Obama -- Must Focus on Torture Accountability posted by John Nichols on 08/25/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:06pm
"This is one of my constant gripes against the left. I saw it 40 years ago, and it's still the same. This denigration of US military people as somehow being inhuman animals that simply kill everyone they can."
So were you not then implying both Thrawn and I as being apart of this quote which came right after that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:11pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 7:06pm </i>
Thanks; I appreciate it.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/27/2009 @ 8:31pm
Mask has had every opportunity to correct this point and he refuses. The burden is on him, not me.---Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:46pm
I DID "correct the point", Larry...you just don't want to hear it.
Again, I support our military and want them to do what is needed with the minimal amount of casualties, with honor and HONESTY.
YOU want them to keep dying in ENDLESS and POINTLESS wars....from Vietnam to today. And please deny this...and we'll discusss WHEN the "War on Terror" would actually end....and how great it was to depose Saddam and replace him with a PRO-IRANIAN Government that has Ahmadinejad over for tea because it "helps defeat Iran and the terrorists."
Also I don't INSULT soldiers, sailors, and airmen by saying that a guy playing a video game in a command center in California "is the same as" a guy in the field with a rifle...onboard a ship at sea...or ACTUALLY FLYING over the battlefield in a fragile aircraft....
you do.
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 09:04am
"This is one of my constant gripes against the left. I saw it 40 years ago, and it's still the same. This denigration of US military people as somehow being inhuman animals that simply kill everyone they can."
So were you not then implying both Thrawn and I as being apart of this quote which came right after that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/27/2009 @ 7:11pm
That is not an all inclusive statement. It says I saw it on the left, not that all leftists display that attitude.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:30am
I DID "correct the point", Larry...you just don't want to hear it.
Again, I support our military and want them to do what is needed with the minimal amount of casualties, with honor and HONESTY.
YOU want them to keep dying in ENDLESS and POINTLESS wars....from Vietnam to today. And please deny this...and we'll discusss WHEN the "War on Terror" would actually end....and how great it was to depose Saddam and replace him with a PRO-IRANIAN Government that has Ahmadinejad over for tea because it "helps defeat Iran and the terrorists."
Also I don't INSULT soldiers, sailors, and airmen by saying that a guy playing a video game in a command center in California "is the same as" a guy in the field with a rifle...onboard a ship at sea...or ACTUALLY FLYING over the battlefield in a fragile aircraft....
you do.
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 09:04am
Typical Mask wordplay instead of simple direct statements.
Maskian thought
<I want them to be HONEST> suggesting that they aren't
<ENDLESS and POINTLESS wars> more radical leftist hatred of our troops. They don't believe they are fighting pointless wars. So you are insulting them.
Nor have we had endless wars. We may with the war on terror, but that is not because of our choosing. It is because of the enemy, the jihadists who do not desire peace with anyone who is outside their circle of belief. That is no better proven than by their willingness to murder other Muslims to advance their "cause".
And you top it off by once again distorting what I say about all of our military personnel. I never said that their duties are the same. I stated the truth that every member of the military is committed to taking up arms against the enemy if needed. You want to diminish that commitment.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:37am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:37am </i>
I'm sorry, calling a war pointless is not hatred of the troops. That's just ridiculous. A war either has a reasonable and legitimate purpose or it doesn't, and asking that question does not in any way insult the troops who are fighting. After all, the troops don't get to choose what wars they fight in; the leaders do.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 09:48am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:37am </i>
I'm sorry, calling a war pointless is not hatred of the troops. That's just ridiculous. A war either has a reasonable and legitimate purpose or it doesn't, and asking that question does not in any way insult the troops who are fighting. After all, the troops don't get to choose what wars they fight in; the leaders do.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 09:48am
I suggest you pose that question to active duty personnel or even most veterans and see how they answer you.
I have never met anyone on active duty and especially the Marines I talk to every month who do not believe with all of their being that they are engaged in a right cause in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
All that I have spoken to are insulted by the idea that they are in a pointless war.
Does that mean that every member of the military feels that way? Of course not. But then Marines tend to be of a different attitude than certainly some members of other branches.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:15am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:15am </i>
I suppose they might be insulted, anti, but that doesn't get to the initial question. You have to either believe that every war is justified and has a good purpose, or accept that some wars really are either pointless or unjustified or both.
The former position is manifestly untenable unless you believe that this country never makes the wrong decision in going to war. Frankly, I don't see how any rational person could defend that position.
That means that some wars may be good, but some wars may not. As long as that's the case, we have to ask on a case-by-case basis whether a war has a good purpose or not.
At that point, your position has only one alternative: we should say a war isn't pointless even if it is. That alternative, however, is even worse because it says we should outright lie and close our eyes to any injustice.
Plus...a trooper feeling insulted by something doesn't mean that you hate them. Your conclusion doesn't even follow. Wars can be unjust and they can be pointless; our government and country is not immune to that, nor has any country in history ever been immune to it. As a result, your position that we should never call wars pointless just seems absurd.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 10:54am
That is not an all inclusive statement. It says I saw it on the left, not that all leftists display that attitude.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:30am
Hmmm, Ok.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 10:15am
Insulting someone is not the same as feeling insulted. Someone could make a joke that has nothing to do with me but I may feel insulted. That person was not insulting me they were simply making a joke, the fact that I feel insulted is my own problem. Just like insulting someone does not imply that you hate them. Hate is very strong word. A simple insult does not encapsulate everything that hate implies.
Then on top of that I have to agree with Thrawn, what Mask said was not an insult. He disagrees with the war, not the troops fighting it. The path you are taking is a dangerous one. You are claiming that this country when it comes to war is infallible. That's how dictatorships work. If a war is unjust then it is the right and duty of the people to call it so and attempt to end it which has nothing to do with dislike of the troops fighting it, it has to do with love of your country and not wanting to see it destroy itself through pointless altercations.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:06am
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 10:54am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 11:06am
1.The fact that anti-war types like yourselves and Mask think there are bad or pointless wars, doesn't then translate into all wars are bad.
2.Unlike the Roman, Greek, or other dynasties of history, the US doesn't go to war for imperialist expansion. I reject the anti-US position that you folks take. It is a view that historically very few have endorsed in this country until the Vietnam war. My first hand experience and the ability to read history show me that this viewpoint parallels the rise in the influence of marxist/socialist thought in the schools and unions.
3.Thrawn, you may think that defending all US wars as good wars is not tenable, but I do.
And you may not understand this, but most veterans including myself DO find it both insulting and offensive that you believe we fight in pointless wars.
I don't think any of you because of your leftist views really have any concept of just how insulting and offensive this viewpoint is to so many veterans and active duty personnel (including me). My #4 son gets really agitated when he hears people say that he was engaged in either a pointless war or a criminal war for his combat in Iraq.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 11:53am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 09:37am
You made my point, Larry...as you often do.
First, the HONESTY I was talking about was YOURS.
We're not discussing "the troops'" view...we're discussing YOUR view of "the troops" and how if anybody disagrees with it, YOU claim "you hate the military".
You also ADMIT that the "War on Terror" will be endless...right after trying to attack my use of the adjective-
"Nor have we had endless wars. We may with the war on terror, but that is not because of our choosing."
and third, yes YOU DID try to make equivalencies between the "drone operators" and the "collateral damage" that the drones cause... and other troops by immediately linking criticism of the use of drones....as "attacks on the military"
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 5:59pm
YOUR constant gripe is that you don't give a rat's ass about civilian casualties ("Think Dresden") and will brook NO criticism of the military, at all, without your standard "You obviously hate the military" comments.
Naturally, of course, you claim YOU don't hate anybody...when you make not just critiques, but steretoypical insults.
Matthew 7:5
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 12:05pm
1.The fact that anti-war types like yourselves and Mask think there are bad or pointless wars, doesn't then translate into all wars are bad. "---Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 11:53am
So the reverse is true of you then?
1.The fact that pro-war types like yourselves think there are NO bad or pointless wars, doesn't then translate into all wars are good....right???
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 12:07pm
the US doesn't go to war for imperialist expansion.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 11:53am
nope,
that's what the fed, the imf, and the world bank are for.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2009 @ 12:47pm
You made my point, Larry...as you often do.
First, the HONESTY I was talking about was YOURS.
We're not discussing "the troops'" view...we're discussing YOUR view of "the troops" and how if anybody disagrees with it, YOU claim "you hate the military".
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 12:05pm
Absolute BS!
Here is what you said and no reasonable person could interpret it as alluding to my honesty instead of the military.
<Again, I support our military and want them to do what is needed with the minimal amount of casualties, with honor and HONESTY.>
It says I want THEM, not larry, not antisocialist, THEM.
And to further rebut your nonsense and BS.
You said.
<YOU want them to keep dying in ENDLESS and POINTLESS wars....from Vietnam to today. And please deny this...and we'll discusss WHEN the "War on Terror" would actually end....and how great it was to depose Saddam and replace him with a PRO-IRANIAN Government that has Ahmadinejad over for tea because it "helps defeat Iran and the terrorists.">
Nobody who supports the war effort wants any soldiers to die. That is just leftist BS.
Secondly, nobody who supports the wars WANTS
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 12:55pm
To Mask continued
Nobody who supports the war effort wants any soldiers to die. That is just leftist BS.
Secondly, nobody who supports the wars WANTS ENDLESS war. Again, just more leftist BS anti-military propaganda. We simply recognize that you don't fight wars to lose. Whereas you PREFER losing so America can be disgraced.
And it's only the opinion of anti-American, anti-military types like yourself who believe the war to be POINTLESS. Some who share your values from the Dems in Congress and in the media work propaganda in the media to manipulate public opinion with your lies and distortions.
As I said to Thrawn and CCC, most military members are extremely proud that they are engaged in a worthwhile and necessary war in the ME. You seem incapable of understanding how offensive to them your remarks are and to Veterans like myself. We served so that scum like you can continue to denigrate and insult the brave men and women of the armed forces.
I believe that this is the last round I will exchange with you. I've had just about a stomach full of your contempt for our men and women of the armed forces. Find some else to respond to your disgusting views.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 1:02pm
"1.The fact that anti-war types like yourselves and Mask think there are bad or pointless wars, doesn't then translate into all wars are bad."
Once again you put word in our mouths. Neither of us said that all wars are bad we said that some wars are bad. I don't think any of us are "anti-war" types. We are people who recognize that not all wars are fought for reasonable purposes. That doesn't make us anti-war types nor does it make us Anti-US types. That's like saying that if you think the killing of criminals is ok that means you think the killing of anyone is ok.
"2.Unlike the Roman, Greek, or other dynasties of history, the US doesn't go to war for imperialist expansion. I reject the anti-US position that you folks take. It is a view that historically very few have endorsed in this country until the Vietnam war. My first hand experience and the ability to read history show me that this viewpoint parallels the rise in the influence of marxist/socialist thought in the schools and unions."
Our position is not anti-US. And considering your position does that mean you hate and insult anyone who disagrees with your position? It didn't start during Vietnam. People who disagreed with the wars we are fighting have been around for ages. People disagreed with the Civil War. People disagreed with both World Wars. They thought it was not our place to be involved. Does that mean during the Civil War and the World Wars that Marxism and Socialism were on the rise. You are ignoring history for the convenience of your position. This is didn't start during Vietnam it has been a staple throughout history.
3.Thrawn, you may think that defending all US wars as good wars is not tenable, but I do.
It's not possible. Do you think that US commanders are morally infallible?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:05pm
"Nobody who supports the war effort wants any soldiers to die. That is just leftist BS."
Just like it rightist BS to say that anyone who doesn't support a war is Anti-US or Anti-Troop.
"Secondly, nobody who supports the wars WANTS ENDLESS war. Again, just more leftist BS anti-military propaganda."
Just like it's more Rightist BS to say that anyone who does not support one war is anti-War. Does that make you pro-War?
"We simply recognize that you don't fight wars to lose. Whereas you PREFER losing so America can be disgraced. "
This is rightst BS propaganda. This is some of the most inane drivel possible. I HATE people who take this stance. You are inferring meaning from my beliefs that you can't possibly know. Does that mean I should assume that you enjoy killing innocent people. You are asking us not to make assumptions about you while you are making assumptions about us. Does that make sense to you?
"And it's only the opinion of anti-American, anti-military types like yourself who believe the war to be POINTLESS. Some who share your values from the Dems in Congress and in the media work propaganda in the media to manipulate public opinion with your lies and distortions. "
There are quite a few Libertarians who don't agree with the war either. Including Ron Paul. It has nothing to do with distortions or lies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:10pm
"As I said to Thrawn and CCC, most military members are extremely proud that they are engaged in a worthwhile and necessary war in the ME. You seem incapable of understanding how offensive to them your remarks are and to Veterans like myself. We served so that scum like you can continue to denigrate and insult the brave men and women of the armed forces.
I believe that this is the last round I will exchange with you. I've had just about a stomach full of your contempt for our men and women of the armed forces. Find some else to respond to your disgusting views."
What ever Larry. Run away from anyone who doesn't share your views and plug your ears like a child. You live in a very narrow world view that is not even close to correct. You need to open your eyes to the world and see that not everyone falls into the neat little categories you have supplied. You are as naive as a child. I personally feel a lot of pit for someone like you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:11pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 11:53am </i>
I'm not at all saying that all wars are bad, nor am I saying that the US continually goes to war for imperialist expansion. Quite frankly, I don't believe Iraq fits in the latter category, and if you'll recall, I defended it early on.
Maybe this is the better way to convey the point I'm trying to make. I think you're right that people get offended when you suggest that they were part of an unjust action. I don't doubt that, and if someone told me that, I would be upset too. I don't doubt that. We feel that way because we want to believe not only that we have made sacrifices out of a noble heart, but also that our sacrifices served a good cause. In other words, we want to believe that what we do has contributed to making the world a little better in some way. When someone suggests otherwise, we're offended.
But there's a problem. Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes we get into things for the best and purest of motives, but our actions still contribute to an immoral enterprise. Historically, war has been one of the most seductive ways that happens. I don't simply mean imperialism here; I mean the quest to make ourselves feel as safe as we possibly can, and our willingness to sometimes do whatever we feel necessary to secure that. Sometimes we get it right...but sometimes we don't. And when we don't, we have an obligation to speak up about it. If we're fighting, dying and killing other people in a war that is unjust...we should say so. If a war is truly immoral, why would we make people fight in it who signed up to serve their country?
I hate to say it, Larry, but your position boggles my mind. I say that wars can be unjust, and that if they are we should say so. Both of those seem almost self-evident.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 1:13pm
I personally think you are scared because you are starting to realize that your narrow view of the world isn't reality. That not everyone who disagrees with a war want's all the troops dead and the US to lose. That the world isn't black and white. So anything that doesn't jive with your world view terrifies you so instead of accepting it a remolding your world view you plug your ears and run away.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:14pm
It's hard to take someone seriously like you anti. I feel like this has to all be a joke because someone with such a childish view of the world can't possibly be an adult.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:15pm
I hate to say it, Larry, but your position boggles my mind. I say that wars can be unjust, and that if they are we should say so. Both of those seem almost self-evident.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 1:13pm
Not to Larry. I hate to bring up this example but Larry is the type of person that made the Nazi's successful in Germany. He believes that all wars fought by his country are for the betterment of the country. That's exactly how the Nazi's accrued their army. German soldiers fought because they believed they were fighting for the good of their country. Which is proof of why one should always question the wars a country fights and make sure that the moral reasoning is consistent.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:20pm
We served so that scum like you ...
Gosh, I love that kind of talk.
I remember all the priests in my Jesuit school used to say that all the time,
and Jesus too.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/28/2009 @ 1:23pm
And Larry, one other thought. I myself am not opposed to all wars, as I've made clear, but I do wonder about your sturdy support for all U.S. wars. As I mentioned during another discussion, most early Christians refused to join the Roman army, and it wasn't simply because the Roman army's specific wars were immoral, but rather because they thought Christ's teachings were flat-out inconsistent with going to war at all. If my memory serves me correctly, that didn't change all that drastically until Constantine (who I think was one of the single most destructive influences on the Christian faith).
Though I think there's a strong basis for believing that war is sometimes necessary, it seems like following the Prince of Peace at least means that we should be strongly skeptical whenever war is proposed and that if it is wrong, we should speak out against it. Though I'm not sure you actually defend this, there is no way on earth you can defend a war simply by saying that the alternative means disgracing your country; you can't kill other people solely for the purpose of avoiding disgrace. That borders on idolatry because it means putting one's country first, even above God's command to love one's neighbor. I believe that America has a lot of good in it and is worth fighting for, but for heaven's sake, you cannot (by definition) put America first without committing idolatry.
Jesus says that the truth shall set us free, and I believe that, even if the truth is unpleasant or flat-out offensive. Pharisees who worked their whole lives trying to serve God were offended when they were told point-blank that their legalism interfered with true religion.
Have you rejected skepticism of war, or do you reject speaking truth to power?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 1:23pm
I've had just about a stomach full of your contempt for our men and women of the armed forces. Find some else to respond to your disgusting views.-----------Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 1:02pm
You are a militarist who brooks NO criticism of ANYTHING military related. You will deny this (if you don't stick to your "This is the end" claim)....but offer NO evidence to the contrary.
At this point, like others here might think as well, I'm fairly certain you would see NO outrage done by our military as wrong, even in the "a few bad apples" sense....from My Lai to Abu Ghraib. Because to acknowledge that, would undercut your sanctimonious attitude with some "grey area".
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 1:36pm
Oh and also he doesn't seem to realize that if you carry his world view out to it's unavoidable end then it mean 70% of this country is anti-war and Anti-American because I think the polling against the Iraq war was at about 70%.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:37pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:20pm
Godwin's Law violation...and not completely fair.
More like the old Prussian generals who were happy to support Hitler when they were rolling into France, Poland, and banging up against the Kremlin walls....but turned on him (von Stauffenburg, etc.) when the war started to go badly and the atrocities piled up.
Pro-German imperialism, pro-military, pro-war, pro-"victory not armistice"...but not necessarily insane racists.
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 1:41pm
Have you rejected skepticism of war, or do you reject speaking truth to power?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 1:23pm
His view is that all actions of his country must be consistent with the views of his faith I guess. That God justifies every American action overseas. Which is absolutely ridiculous to a thinking person, but it would seem that Larry doesn't think. Instead his mind is addled by propaganda.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:42pm
Pro-German imperialism, pro-military, pro-war, pro-"victory not armistice"...but not necessarily insane racists.
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 1:41pm
I don't think it's unfair at all. Most Germans were not racist. Look at Larry's view of Muslims. He believes that the majority if not all of them are ok with the destruction of Western society, which is consistent with the majority of German's views of Jews. He is as militaristic in his view of the defense of the father land.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:44pm
"Godwin's Law violation..."
That's why I hated to bring it up. However I think it isn't a violation because I think it is consistent with our discussion and not outside of it because we are talking about examples of militarism throughout history.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:45pm
It's not possible. Do you think that US commanders are morally infallible?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:05pm
Irrelevant. They don't take us to war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 2:58pm
"We simply recognize that you don't fight wars to lose. Whereas you PREFER losing so America can be disgraced. "
This is rightst BS propaganda. This is some of the most inane drivel possible. I HATE people who take this stance. You are inferring meaning from my beliefs that you can't possibly know. Does that mean I should assume that you enjoy killing innocent people. You are asking us not to make assumptions about you while you are making assumptions about us. Does that make sense to you?
"And it's only the opinion of anti-American, anti-military types like yourself who believe the war to be POINTLESS. Some who share your values from the Dems in Congress and in the media work propaganda in the media to manipulate public opinion with your lies and distortions. "
There are quite a few Libertarians who don't agree with the war either. Including Ron Paul. It has nothing to do with distortions or lies.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:10pm
CCC, that was not addressed to you, it was directed to Mask.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:00pm
If a war is truly immoral, why would we make people fight in it who signed up to serve their country?
I hate to say it, Larry, but your position boggles my mind. I say that wars can be unjust, and that if they are we should say so. Both of those seem almost self-evident.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 1:13pm
Why don't you list for me that US wars that you feel were immoral or unjust?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:02pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:02pm </i>
Ooh, you really shouldn't throw me fastballs down the plate like that. Here's a few:
All wars to extinguish (yes, extinguish) Native American tribes
Spanish-American War
Grenada
Philippine-American War
If even ONE of these was unjust, your position fails.
But here's the bigger problem. Even if you believe that the US has not to this day fought an immoral war, your position still seems incredibly difficult to defend. Sure, military commanders don't have to be morally infallible, but for your position to hold, the people who send them into battle do. SOMEONE has to be, and let's face it, nobody is.
Do you seriously believe that the United States is immune from injustice? Or that even if we can be unjust in other areas, our judgment is always perfect when it comes to sending our people to war? I don't know how anyone who adopts any formulation of original sin (even if framed in the sense of universal fallibility) can possibly take that position. All governments make mistakes, and all governments have done wrong. It really is as simple as that.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 3:12pm
Irrelevant. They don't take us to war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 2:58pm
So then do you believe US Presidents are infallible when it comes to war?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 1:44pm
Larry's view of Muslims is more SILLY than that, CCC.
He thinks only "15-20% of them" actually know what their "evil religion" is all about and thus are relatively harmless...as long as they do everything that Israel and the United States wants.
Iraq's Elections: ISCI's View posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 01/29/2009 @ 09:59am
It's a cheap and bizarre way to be BOTH anti-Islam and sound "open-minded and fair" towards Muslims...a weird dichotomy that Dubya had to reach to keep both his virulently anti-Muslim base and the "pro-democracy in the ME" neo-conservatives.
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:29pm
But here's the bigger problem. Even if you believe that the US has not to this day fought an immoral war, your position still seems incredibly difficult to defend. Sure, military commanders don't have to be morally infallible, but for your position to hold, the people who send them into battle do. SOMEONE has to be, and let's face it, nobody is.
Do you seriously believe that the United States is immune from injustice? Or that even if we can be unjust in other areas, our judgment is always perfect when it comes to sending our people to war? I don't know how anyone who adopts any formulation of original sin (even if framed in the sense of universal fallibility) can possibly take that position. All governments make mistakes, and all governments have done wrong. It really is as simple as that.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 3:12pm
So then do you believe US Presidents are infallible when it comes to war?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 3:15pm
First of all, the wars Thrawn listed are all defensible are morally right.
Second, I do not believe that govts never do wrong, nor do I believe that presidents are infallible when it comes to war.
However, I do not see any evidence that our presidents have acted immorally in the decisions to go to war. None have been infallible when it comes to prosecuting the wars, but all went to war based upon moral decisions that are defensible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
BTW, THRAWN and CCC....stick to these points and don't let Larry deflect or dodge...and he'll contradict himself or come off as exactly what he is....a militarist/jingoist and chauvinist (original sense)-
"Irrelevant. They don't take us to war. --Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 2:58pm
So then do you believe US Presidents are infallible when it comes to war?"---Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 3:15pm
"Do you seriously believe that the United States is immune from injustice? Or that even if we can be unjust in other areas, our judgment is always perfect when it comes to sending our people to war? I don't know how anyone who adopts any formulation of original sin (even if framed in the sense of universal fallibility) can possibly take that position. All governments make mistakes, and all governments have done wrong. It really is as simple as that."----sPoted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
"... or come off as exactly what he is....a militarist/jingoist and chauvinist (original sense)- Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
See?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2009 @ 3:34pm
First of all, the wars Thrawn listed are all defensible are morally right.
Second, I do not believe that govts never do wrong, nor do I believe that presidents are infallible when it comes to war.
However, I do not see any evidence that our presidents have acted immorally in the decisions to go to war. None have been infallible when it comes to prosecuting the wars, but all went to war based upon moral decisions that are defensible.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm
So if the people sending them to war are not infallible then not every war can be justified because if the President makes a mistake then the war is a mistake. Which means now we are only talking about who's moral system you are basing the wars on. Mine or yours. In my moral system the Iraq was wrong. So were the wars Thrawn listed. In yours they were not. Disagreeing about a war does not make you Anti-American it is a matter of acknowledging the fallibility of the people who lead and the imperfect decisions they can make. Just becaus YOU have found nothing morally wrong with the decisions some Presidents have made doesn't mean that someone else won't, after all your morals are different from everyone elses.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 4:10pm
Just becaus YOU have found nothing morally wrong with the decisions some Presidents have made doesn't mean that someone else won't, after all your morals are different from everyone elses.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 4:10pm
No, my morals are different from the leftists. they are not different than EVERYONE ELSES.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 4:13pm
No, my morals are different from the leftists. they are not different than EVERYONE ELSES.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 4:13pm
No they are different from EVERYONES. No to people share the exact same moral system. I am talking about down to the T and I. Everyone will find one thing that they find wrong and someone else doesn't So your moral system is, maybe not drastically, different from everyones.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 4:59pm
<i>Second, I do not believe that govts never do wrong, nor do I believe that presidents are infallible when it comes to war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm</i>
I have to run very soon, so I will have to make this first response brief, but what I want to say for now is that this concedes my position. So long as Presidents are not infallible when it comes to war, a war can be a mistake. If a war is a mistake, we are obliged to say so. The relevant discussion is then WHETHER the war is a mistake.
Your entire position says we should never say a war is a mistake. If it can be, then we should say so whenever that's the case.
In my next post (in just a few minutes), I'll go down the list of wars and why I don't think they were justified (especially genociding Native American populations...I mean...seriously??). But here's the thing to remember when I do that: for your position to prevail, it's not enough that these wars be arguably moral. They have to be INarguably moral. Why? Because otherwise, there's a debate to be had about whether they were mistaken. As long as we might have gone wrong in the past OR can still go wrong in the future, your absolute condemnation of wars being called mistakes falls.
Finally...I find it interesting that you're consistently ignoring the long tradition of Christian anti-war positions. I'm not anti-war...but is it possible that Constantine has influenced you just a bit?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 4:59pm
No, my morals are different from the leftists. they are not different than EVERYONE ELSES.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 4:13pm
For instances many people on the right think drugs should be punished harshly. As I understand it you don't. So there is somewhere where you differ from the right but are similar to the "leftists" you so dislike.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 5:00pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 3:33pm</i>
All right...so here's part II, where I go down the list of wars.
The Native American Wars are the easiest case by far. Granted, some of our responses to Native American tribes were defensive in nature (though genocide is never a legitimate defensive tactic). Many of them, however, could be boiled down to the fact that many people wanted to settle in lands that already belonged to Native American tribes.
Next, the Spanish-American War. Even if the portion involving the liberation of Cuba was justified (which I think there's a fair argument for), going beyond that and annexing Spanish colonies is clearly unjustified. In fact, going to war for the purpose of annexing territory is the definition of imperialism.
Next, Grenada. First of all, invading a country is not a proportional response to protect students. Second, if you think there's a military purpose to an airstrip, you verify it a bit more concretely.
Finally, the Philippine-American War. This one is also relatively easy. If you believe in independence, you also have to believe that denying Filipinos their right to sovereignty and independence was immoral. And if you look at how it started...yeah, not the most carefully thought-out move.
So...if any one of these or ANY other war in US history was immoral, your position fails. If any war COULD be immoral, your position also fails. So long as the President, his/her advisors and the Congress are not morally infallible, we can make a mistake, and if that's true, a war can be a mistake. You've already conceded that the above list COULD be a list of mistakes, so your position fails from the outset.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 5:35pm
"for it is the rifleman who must close with and destroy the enemy."
Posted by antisocialist at 08/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
Oh, the times, they are a changin'
http://tinyurl.com/kjtg3k
Hmm, I may buy the $8,000 Atchisson Assault-12 shotgun. Just think how many ducks you can bring down with 300 rounds per minute.
Posted by FLaim at 08/28/2009 @ 5:42pm
Your entire position says we should never say a war is a mistake. If it can be, then we should say so whenever that's the case.
In my next post (in just a few minutes), I'll go down the list of wars and why I don't think they were justified (especially genociding Native American populations...I mean...seriously??). But here's the thing to remember when I do that: for your position to prevail, it's not enough that these wars be arguably moral. They have to be INarguably moral. Why? Because otherwise, there's a debate to be had about whether they were mistaken. As long as we might have gone wrong in the past OR can still go wrong in the future, your absolute condemnation of wars being called mistakes falls.
Finally...I find it interesting that you're consistently ignoring the long tradition of Christian anti-war positions. I'm not anti-war...but is it possible that Constantine has influenced you just a bit?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 4:59pm
1. I did not say that we can never say a war is a mistake. I said that I don't believe any of the US wars to be either a mistake or immoral.
2. I can't accept your premise on debate of war. It is illogical
3. I've never read Constantine so I could hardly be influenced by him.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:36pm
"3. I've never read Constantine so I could hardly be influenced by him."
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:36pm
Anti,
didn't you refer to yourself as a theologian in another post? You've never heard of the First Council of Nicaea? Where do you think the "lake of fire" came from?
Posted by FLaim at 08/28/2009 @ 6:40pm
"3. I've never read Constantine so I could hardly be influenced by him."
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:36pm
Anti,
didn't you refer to yourself as a theologian in another post? You've never heard of the First Council of Nicaea? Where do you think the "lake of fire" came from?
Posted by FLaim at 08/28/2009 @ 6:40pm
Where did I say that I've never heard of the Council of Nicea?
Constantine never wrote anything with the Council of Nicea other than the invitation and a proclamation of unity. He sat there as an observer.
The lake of fire teaching predates the Council by a minimum of 700 years.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:47pm
"Constantine never wrote anything with the Council of Nicea other than the invitation and a proclamation of unity. He sat there as an observer.
The lake of fire teaching predates the Council by a minimum of 700 years."
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:47pm
Anti, you are so humorous.
To say that you weren't influenced by the guy that held the party is just...well...humorous.
Tell me what pagan religion the "lake of fire" was taken from? (long before 700 years earlier by the way) And I won't even get into how a group of bishops could decide who was God's literal son and who was not.
Time to go. I wish all a pleasant, peaceful and enjoyable weekend.
Posted by FLaim at 08/28/2009 @ 7:06pm
1. I did not say that we can never say a war is a mistake. I said that I don't believe any of the US wars to be either a mistake or immoral.
2. I can't accept your premise on debate of war. It is illogical
3. I've never read Constantine so I could hardly be influenced by him.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/28/2009 @ 6:36pm
It's actually perfectly logical. I don't mean this as an insult but the reason you can't see the logic is because you are in no way thinkng logically. You are hinging your entire proposal on an illogical thought. Here is what you are basically saying. We should not debate whether a war is moral or immoral, a mistake or not, even though the leaders who send us to war are capable of making mistakes and doing immoral things because they have never, and apparently if we are not supposed to debate the question, will never make a mistake or doing anything immoral when it comes to war. I don't know how that does not strike you as illogical. I can barely even reconcile that thought with the use of English.
The question of whether a war is moral or immoral, just or unjust, right or wrong should ALWAYS be debated. If you are going to put your citizens in harms way and rack up massive amounts of collateral damage you should ALWAYS debate it and if your particular moral system finds that the war is wrong then you should do what you can to see that it is ended. Otherwise you are being complicit in the unjust killing of hundreds, thousands or potentially one day millions of innocent people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 7:18pm
That doesn't make you un-American or Anti-troop, that simply makes you a person who has morals and chooses to stand up for them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 7:18pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 7:18pm </i>
Exactly. I mean, the position seems really intuitive. If there's any reasonable chance whatsoever that our leaders could be wrong, of course you debate whether a war is justified or worthwhile. We have made mistakes in the past (and I think it's telling that antisocialist, quite properly, is unwilling to defend the genocide of Native American tribes; genocide is always wrong which, btw, is why God definitionally cannot command it).
He also can't fall back to "but you have to go along with what your government does," not after the Acts verse that says to obey God rather than man if there is a conflict (implying pretty clearly that there can be). If God is first, he trumps both individual people AND governments. When governments unjustifiably harm God's children (i.e. any people), he has no grounds whatsoever for saying that we shouldn't speak truth to power. If a war is unjust, then we should say so.
Especially since there's a point that antisocialist STILL hasn't responded to, which is why I wonder whether his evasion of Constantine is deliberate. Prior to Constantine, there was an extremely powerful Christian antiwar tradition; very few, if any, Christians signed up for the Roman army because they believed that Christ opposed war in all its forms. Certainly, there's nothing in his teachings that encourages it.
Finally...here's why my debate theory argument is right. You're saying that any criticism of a war as pointless is necessarily an attack on the troops. The ONLY way that's true is if criticism of the war cannot be anything else. So long as leaders can make mistakes, and therefore criticism can be a necessary speaking of truth to power, Larry's position cannot hold.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 9:47pm
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2009 @ 9:47pm
Did you take debate whe you were a kid?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/29/2009 @ 01:44am
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/29/2009 @ 01:44am </i>
I did indeed :D
You?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/29/2009 @ 09:56am
It's actually perfectly logical. I don't mean this as an insult but the reason you can't see the logic is because you are in no way thinkng logically. You are hinging your entire proposal on an illogical thought. Here is what you are basically saying. We should not debate whether a war is moral or immoral, a mistake or not, even though the leaders who send us to war are capable of making mistakes and doing immoral things because they have never, and apparently if we are not supposed to debate the question, will never make a mistake or doing anything immoral when it comes to war. I don't know how that does not strike you as illogical. I can barely even reconcile that thought with the use of English.
The question of whether a war is moral or immoral, just or unjust, right or wrong should ALWAYS be debated. If you are going to put your citizens in harms way and rack up massive amounts of collateral damage you should ALWAYS debate it and if your particular moral system finds that the war is wrong then you should do what you can to see that it is ended. Otherwise you are being complicit in the unjust killing of hundreds, thousands or potentially one day millions of innocent people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/28/2009 @ 7:18pm
I did not say that debate of war is illogical. I was stating that Thrawn's position in the debate was not logical. He stated that merely having the possibility of a war being immoral meant that you could conclude that about any war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 4:52pm
<i>He stated that merely having the possibility of a war being immoral meant that you could conclude that about any war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 4:52pm </i>
That's not quite what I said. What I said was that so long as we can be or have been fallible and made mistakes in the past, it's clearly possible for us to make mistakes in the present. It was part of the foundation for a claim that seems almost self-evidently true: a war can be mistaken. If you think it's mistaken, you should say so. That's really what my position boils down to: speaking truth to power is good.
While we're on the subject...you have yet to explain to any of us why acts of genocide against Native American tribes are remotely justified. If not...that's at least one unjustified war right there.
You've also never answered the basic question: how does calling a war a mistake constitute hatred of the troops? I have yet to understand your gigantic analytical leap here.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/29/2009 @ 6:53pm
You?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/29/2009 @ 09:56am
Nah I was i theatre. I debated a lot but not officially.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/29/2009 @ 8:25pm
While we're on the subject...you have yet to explain to any of us why acts of genocide against Native American tribes are remotely justified. If not...that's at least one unjustified war right there.
You've also never answered the basic question: how does calling a war a mistake constitute hatred of the troops? I have yet to understand your gigantic analytical leap here.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/29/2009 @ 6:53pm
You are trying to conflate the conduct of the war with the justification for war. They are separate issues.
Excesses in war (and even there I contend that there is seldom such a thing in the reality of war itself), have nothing to do with the reasons for going to war.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 10:45pm
I for one like the drones.... I loved them in Rise of the Machines !! Wow they are cool !!!
BUT.... Its all to sterile to sit in the Nevada desert and play Terminator from above... And to whoever posted that robot wars are just sci-fi leftist dreams... Think again ... Its a ways away, but it is coming. Period. Call me Miss Cleo, Its coming...
And as a deployed service member... Many of my friends from ALL branches of the military KNOW the GWOT is horseshit....
If you have the slightest bit of imagination, consider this... We were groomed as a nation for years to fear the big bad USSR (duck and cover!!).... Increase the DOD budget year after year.... The USSR fails .... Who is our new Boogieman..???? We need a boogieman !! Cue "Terrorist" !
How do you keep the American taxpayer sufficiently frightened enough to accept the size of the DOD's annual budget..??
Scare the bejebus out of em'... Show pictures of hooded dudes jumping out of holes with AK's in their hands... Firing a pistol at a giant picture of the president... The monkey bars video kills me !!
Tell me Liv... How do we win the GWOT..?? With more bullets ..?? Clear and hold strategies..?? What a joke... The Neocons and their chicken-hawk pundits/apologists had/have no clue... No perspective...
Its a giant Mobius strip...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 08/30/2009 @ 12:46am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 08/29/2009 @ 10:45pm </i>
They are separate issues for the most part, I agree with that (though I think they have some points of intersection, as I'll get to momentarily). However, I don't see how I'm conflating them. Some of the Native American wars were indeed wars of extermination, where annihilation was sought not as a means to fight the war but as the object of the war itself. And frankly, some of the tribes we fought, we should never have even fought to begin with. Wanting more land doesn't justify war.
Here, though, is where I think the intersection can come. If you have a war that, by its very nature, is very likely to give way to certain unacceptable tactics, that's a strike against starting it at all. That doesn't mean that all potential injustices in war are defeaters, but it does mean that the potential for unjust conduct should be weighed in the decision of whether to go to war.
I also await your answer to the question: how does calling a war a mistake constitute hatred of the troops? You have still never justified this gigantic analytical leap.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/30/2009 @ 12:59am
If there's a more disgusting, vile way of becoming sub-human than using drones to strike in secret from a source that takes no risks and escapes retaliation, I don't know what it could be. How low can we get?
Jean Gerard
Posted by gezelda at 08/30/2009 @ 5:40pm
Posted by gezelda at 08/30/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how is this different from dropping bombs from 30,000 feet against a country which has no air defenses and no air force?
same thing.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/30/2009 @ 6:39pm