5 ms·

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 mak

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.
      - Empact 17y ago
        Is it really much comfort to say: well, at least we're not rounding them up into death camps? I don't find people do much discriminating between different groups of Nazis. The infantry perpetuated violence and death just as much as the death-camp members. After all, what do you think they did to the newly-conquered populations those polite infantrymen rounded up? There's also a difference between the world 100 years ago and today. We live in a more civilized, more peaceful time. The violence in Iraq is some of the broadest and most destructive of our day.
      - WalkingDead 17y ago
        > 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. > The whole point of this video is about killing of innocent man, women and children by shooters who wanted to kill. Not soldiers killing soldiers. Whether they were rounded up or not, or put on a train or not shifts the focus. The discussion is not about does this resembles the Nazis or not. It's about: are we looking for a justification for this killing by falling so low on the morality ground, that the same logic can even be used by the Nazis for justifying their killings.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
analyst74 17y ago
If my friend went to Iraq, I'd rather him coming back in one piece too. Good thing that none of my friends went, your friends do not have to go either.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  your friends do not have to go either wow...if you delete your post, i promise i'll delete my quoting you to remove the evidence of your ignorance.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    The American army no longer uses conscription to fill its ranks.
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      thank you for correcting my facts the way a robot or autistic child would, but allow me to spell this out for you. ignorance is not the same as factually incorrect. if i said to an obese woman "you are looking fat today," though correct, i would either be behaving purposely mean or ignorant to social norms. similarly, someone telling another person [the people you love who have chosen to defend your country in war have done so needlessly] is ignorant to social norms. since you are not american is it safe to assume you personally know zero american soldiers at war right now?
  - kelnos 17y ago
    Why is that ignorant? If you don't want to risk being ordered to fight in a war you don't believe in, then you don't join the military.
rms 17y ago
Incidentally, the people who started the war have a think tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce... Bill Kristol periodically goes on the Daily Show and has smug exchanges with Jon Stewart instead of facing charges before the Hague.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Incidentally, the people who started the war ..." These are the people who authorized, and continue to authorize, having troops there? Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this? Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine.
  - rms 17y ago
    >These are the people who authorized, and continue to authorize, having troops there? I didn't say that. >Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this? Of course the government is ultimately culpable. > Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine. Bill Kristol et al created the meme for invading Iraq.
jacquesm 17y ago
The reason that 'D-Day' (Normandy invasion) was called a liberation was that the invading forces were willing to take on an entrenched enemy and were willing to suffer fairly massive losses in doing so, and the immediate improvement in conditions following it. The reason why the rest of the world refuses to accept the situation in Iraq as a liberation and in stead perceives it as a cynical battle for control over resources is that: 1) the invaders are not prepared to suffer losses on par with their 'enemies' 2) more people have died under the 'liberators' than would have died in many years of previous occupation 3) the situation in Iraq is still viewed through the terms of lives lost by the invaders instead of lives lost by those 'liberated' 4) there would not be as much or more accent on protecting Iraqs oil resources as there has been on saving Iraqi lives Whether or not people get killed by 'insurgents' (one mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter), 'enemy combatants', 'friendlies' or whether they're collateral damage, it doesn't change anything in the fact that those deaths could have for the most part be avoided if the invaders were willing to take the losses themselves. If you liberate someone you place yourself in a position of sacrifice, you're willing to go the distance in order to protect those you liberate. A hostage rescue team goes in knowing full well they're going to try to protect the lives of the hostages at all cost. A hostage team that would go in to protect their own lives at significant extra risk to the lives of the hostages would not get much recognition, even if they would save the occasional hostage.

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.
    - Empact 17y ago
      Is it really much comfort to say: well, at least we're not rounding them up into death camps? I don't find people do much discriminating between different groups of Nazis. The infantry perpetuated violence and death just as much as the death-camp members. After all, what do you think they did to the newly-conquered populations those polite infantrymen rounded up? There's also a difference between the world 100 years ago and today. We live in a more civilized, more peaceful time. The violence in Iraq is some of the broadest and most destructive of our day.
    - WalkingDead 17y ago
      > 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. > The whole point of this video is about killing of innocent man, women and children by shooters who wanted to kill. Not soldiers killing soldiers. Whether they were rounded up or not, or put on a train or not shifts the focus. The discussion is not about does this resembles the Nazis or not. It's about: are we looking for a justification for this killing by falling so low on the morality ground, that the same logic can even be used by the Nazis for justifying their killings.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

analyst74 17y ago

If my friend went to Iraq, I'd rather him coming back in one piece too. Good thing that none of my friends went, your friends do not have to go either.

jpwagner 17y ago
your friends do not have to go either wow...if you delete your post, i promise i'll delete my quoting you to remove the evidence of your ignorance.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The American army no longer uses conscription to fill its ranks.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    thank you for correcting my facts the way a robot or autistic child would, but allow me to spell this out for you. ignorance is not the same as factually incorrect. if i said to an obese woman "you are looking fat today," though correct, i would either be behaving purposely mean or ignorant to social norms. similarly, someone telling another person [the people you love who have chosen to defend your country in war have done so needlessly] is ignorant to social norms. since you are not american is it safe to assume you personally know zero american soldiers at war right now?
- kelnos 17y ago
  Why is that ignorant? If you don't want to risk being ordered to fight in a war you don't believe in, then you don't join the military.

rms 17y ago

Incidentally, the people who started the war have a think tank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce... Bill Kristol periodically goes on the Daily Show and has smug exchanges with Jon Stewart instead of facing charges before the Hague.

jamesbritt 17y ago
"Incidentally, the people who started the war ..." These are the people who authorized, and continue to authorize, having troops there? Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this? Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine.
- rms 17y ago
  >These are the people who authorized, and continue to authorize, having troops there? I didn't say that. >Do you not hold the government ultimately culpable for this? Of course the government is ultimately culpable. > Claiming Bill Kristol et al started the war is just asinine. Bill Kristol et al created the meme for invading Iraq.

jacquesm 17y ago

The reason that 'D-Day' (Normandy invasion) was called a liberation was that the invading forces were willing to take on an entrenched enemy and were willing to suffer fairly massive losses in doing so, and the immediate improvement in conditions following it. The reason why the rest of the world refuses to accept the situation in Iraq as a liberation and in stead perceives it as a cynical battle for control over resources is that: 1) the invaders are not prepared to suffer losses on par with their 'enemies' 2) more people have died under the 'liberators' than would have died in many years of previous occupation 3) the situation in Iraq is still viewed through the terms of lives lost by the invaders instead of lives lost by those 'liberated' 4) there would not be as much or more accent on protecting Iraqs oil resources as there has been on saving Iraqi lives Whether or not people get killed by 'insurgents' (one mans insurgent is another mans freedom fighter), 'enemy combatants', 'friendlies' or whether they're collateral damage, it doesn't change anything in the fact that those deaths could have for the most part be avoided if the invaders were willing to take the losses themselves. If you liberate someone you place yourself in a position of sacrifice, you're willing to go the distance in order to protect those you liberate. A hostage rescue team goes in knowing full well they're going to try to protect the lives of the hostages at all cost. A hostage team that would go in to protect their own lives at significant extra risk to the lives of the hostages would not get much recognition, even if they would save the occasional hostage.