5 ms·

I am not American; though I usually side with democratic countries as much as I can. However, if you made a really big mistake and went to war with a country w

by jeswin 17y ago

I am not American; though I usually side with democratic countries as much as I can. However, if you made a really big mistake and went to war with a country which posed no credible threat to you (at least in hindsight when this shooting took place) I'd imagine people would err on the side of caution when shooting somebody's family and loved ones. At least in this part of the world, what is coming across is that your army does not care much about killing people - if they are not American or Western. And to add some rhetoric, what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? -- What happened in Tiananmen is a mere _hundredth_ of what is happening in Iraq. Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it.

coffeemug 17y ago
what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights. Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. Listening to anyone who points out legitimate human rights violations is better than listening to no one who points out legitimate human rights violations. It's just more constructive this way. Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it. This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video, how it was handled by the military, or how it was marketed and leaked by wikileaks. What possible constructive purpose could this statement serve?
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. It wasn't just the Europeans. This is the story of conquerors.
- jeswin 17y ago
  ok, I'll bite. Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights... All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers. This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video... Isn't this exactly what is happening on the ground, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you read any local news (easily available on the internet) from those countries? I don't think many people understand the magnitude of suffering in those countries. Do the math, Iraq is a tenth of the size of the US. Work out the per-capita "suffering".
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp332 17y ago
    >All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers. That's not what you said. You said Americans don't have the right to discuss human rights. >...what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights...
- __bjoernd 17y ago
  > Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves Yep, but it seems at least the Europeans have evolved from that point.
  - arethuza 17y ago
    I'll agree with you on that point if we ship Tony Blair to the ICC.
steve19 17y ago
It is sad such rhetoric gets up voted. How many of the Iraqi causalities were Iraqi or foreign insurgents killing Iraqi civilians? Nobody seems to care less about those numbers. The biggest threat to an Iraqi citizens life (back then) were insurgents and criminals. That is who the gunner thought he was firing on. "Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it." No, but surely any solider in the world would kill 100 enemy combatants to save his friend. This incident and this war do not make any other tragedy, such as Tiananmen, any more or less terrible.
alexgartrell 17y ago
Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it. As messed up as it may sound to you, I'd rather my friends make it home. As far as I'm concerned, the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war; not the ones who have to actually fight it.
- WalkingDead 17y ago
  > the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war > not the ones who have to actually fight it. The nazis probably said the same.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexgartrell 17y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law I think it's laughable to try to draw a comparison between soldiers messing[0] up and causing collateral damage and the Holocaust. [0] edit: unnecessarily foul language
    - WalkingDead 17y ago
      > I think it's laughable to try to draw a comparison between soldiers fucking up and causing collateral damage and the Holocaust. That's not what you said. You said... > the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war > not the ones who have to actually fight it. I disagree with that statement. With the same argument, one can justify all war killings. Even the act of Nazis. We don't bring in Godwins law when discussing and comparing war and killings.
      - alexgartrell 17y ago
        but there's a difference between being a German soldier and manning the death camp. No one takes issue with the German soldiers who invaded France -- they were doing their jobs. The problem is with the people who rounded up the innocent women and children, put them in trains, and then sent them off to die. You can certainly make an argument that they're the same, but I think there's a pretty clear practical distinction between the two.
chrischen 17y ago
> And to add some rhetoric, what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Because you're making a generalization and treating "America" as a single entity. It's not. It's government allows its individual citizens to pick and choose what they support. It's very likely the "human rights" people also oppose the war in Iraq. As far as the government goes, it then amplifies the voices of its individual citizens so that it may seem like "America" is contradicting itself, but it's not. It's ideas you should be targeting, not the concept of "America" or "westerners." So what you should ask is "What gives human rights activist warhawks the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand?" When you find such a person, you should ask him/her.
jcnnghm 17y ago
What was your solution, pull out immediately? Did we really want another Afghanistan. You can't go into a country that unstable, knock out most of the infrastructure and kill the majority of the high command, then just leave. The country would have just descended into civil war. Things aren't that simple, thinking otherwise is short sighted. It'll be much better if the strategy continues to play out as it has been. The country is largely stabilized. More people were murdered in Baltimore last year, than US troops were killed in Iraq. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. Further, Iraq has become richer and more free. Their bonds are on par with California's. If in the end, we come in get rid of the assholes that were running the place, rebuild and modernize their infrastructure, stabilize their country, make them rich, and withdraw, the Great Satan probably won't seem too bad. If this can be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the people in the surrounding scum-hole countries should start to wonder if they wouldn't be better off a little more like the guy next door.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  >What was your solution, pull out immediately? How about "Not going there in the first place" ?
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    That amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation at this point. Not going there isn't an option, we are there. Even Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for it. The decision to go into Iraq was truly bipartisan.

by jeswin 17y ago

coffeemug 17y ago

what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights. Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. Listening to anyone who points out legitimate human rights violations is better than listening to no one who points out legitimate human rights violations. It's just more constructive this way. Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it. This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video, how it was handled by the military, or how it was marketed and leaked by wikileaks. What possible constructive purpose could this statement serve?

Nwallins 17y ago
> Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves. It wasn't just the Europeans. This is the story of conquerors.
jeswin 17y ago
ok, I'll bite. Well, the counter argument is that by this logic nobody can talk about human rights... All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers. This is rhetoric, and isn't an interesting statement about what happened in this video... Isn't this exactly what is happening on the ground, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do you read any local news (easily available on the internet) from those countries? I don't think many people understand the magnitude of suffering in those countries. Do the math, Iraq is a tenth of the size of the US. Work out the per-capita "suffering".
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- sp332 17y ago
  >All I was saying was that when you don't practice what you preach, your credibility suffers. That's not what you said. You said Americans don't have the right to discuss human rights. >...what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights...
__bjoernd 17y ago
> Until very recently in human history the Europeans brutally conquered half the world and effectively turned the "savage people" that were unlucky enough to survive the raping and the pillaging into slaves Yep, but it seems at least the Europeans have evolved from that point.
- arethuza 17y ago
  I'll agree with you on that point if we ship Tony Blair to the ICC.

steve19 17y ago

It is sad such rhetoric gets up voted. How many of the Iraqi causalities were Iraqi or foreign insurgents killing Iraqi civilians? Nobody seems to care less about those numbers. The biggest threat to an Iraqi citizens life (back then) were insurgents and criminals. That is who the gunner thought he was firing on. "Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it." No, but surely any solider in the world would kill 100 enemy combatants to save his friend. This incident and this war do not make any other tragedy, such as Tiananmen, any more or less terrible.

alexgartrell 17y ago

Killing ten Iraqis to save an American soldier is not justifiable, any which way you look at it. As messed up as it may sound to you, I'd rather my friends make it home. As far as I'm concerned, the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war; not the ones who have to actually fight it.

WalkingDead 17y ago
> the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war > not the ones who have to actually fight it. The nazis probably said the same.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- alexgartrell 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law I think it's laughable to try to draw a comparison between soldiers messing[0] up and causing collateral damage and the Holocaust. [0] edit: unnecessarily foul language
  - WalkingDead 17y ago
    > I think it's laughable to try to draw a comparison between soldiers fucking up and causing collateral damage and the Holocaust. That's not what you said. You said... > the blood is on the hands of the people who started and continued the war > not the ones who have to actually fight it. I disagree with that statement. With the same argument, one can justify all war killings. Even the act of Nazis. We don't bring in Godwins law when discussing and comparing war and killings.
    - alexgartrell 17y ago
      but there's a difference between being a German soldier and manning the death camp. No one takes issue with the German soldiers who invaded France -- they were doing their jobs. The problem is with the people who rounded up the innocent women and children, put them in trains, and then sent them off to die. You can certainly make an argument that they're the same, but I think there's a pretty clear practical distinction between the two.

chrischen 17y ago

> And to add some rhetoric, what gives America the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand? Because you're making a generalization and treating "America" as a single entity. It's not. It's government allows its individual citizens to pick and choose what they support. It's very likely the "human rights" people also oppose the war in Iraq. As far as the government goes, it then amplifies the voices of its individual citizens so that it may seem like "America" is contradicting itself, but it's not. It's ideas you should be targeting, not the concept of "America" or "westerners." So what you should ask is "What gives human rights activist warhawks the moral right to talk about human rights when the Iraqi death toll exceeds well over one hundred thousand?" When you find such a person, you should ask him/her.

jcnnghm 17y ago

What was your solution, pull out immediately? Did we really want another Afghanistan. You can't go into a country that unstable, knock out most of the infrastructure and kill the majority of the high command, then just leave. The country would have just descended into civil war. Things aren't that simple, thinking otherwise is short sighted. It'll be much better if the strategy continues to play out as it has been. The country is largely stabilized. More people were murdered in Baltimore last year, than US troops were killed in Iraq. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. Further, Iraq has become richer and more free. Their bonds are on par with California's. If in the end, we come in get rid of the assholes that were running the place, rebuild and modernize their infrastructure, stabilize their country, make them rich, and withdraw, the Great Satan probably won't seem too bad. If this can be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the people in the surrounding scum-hole countries should start to wonder if they wouldn't be better off a little more like the guy next door.

jacquesm 17y ago
>What was your solution, pull out immediately? How about "Not going there in the first place" ?
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  That amounts to little more than intellectual masturbation at this point. Not going there isn't an option, we are there. Even Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for it. The decision to go into Iraq was truly bipartisan.