1, 2, 3 What Are We Fighting For? The War Crimes Song-and-Dance Routine
By Dave Lindorff
We’re been here before, many times.
The US causes massive civilian deaths through its indiscriminate use of heavy air power, and then tries to claim it’s the enemy’s fault for “hiding” among the civilians and “using them as shields.”
In Vietnam, where the US was fighting against a local revolutionary movement that was seeking to overthrow the puppet regime backed by America, American planes routinely bombed and napalmed villages, claiming that the Viet Cong were hiding amongst the peasants. Women, old men and children would die in droves—several million of them by the time that war was over--and we’d be told it was all the fault of the Communists, who, we were told, had no regard for innocent life.
In Iraq, we took a city of 300,000, Fallujah, and effectively leveled it. Anyone who died there was presumed to be an insurgent, though the truth was, the Marines encircling the city before the onslaught only allowed fleeing women, girls and male children who were under the age 12 to flee, sending older boys and men seeking to get out back into the city to meet their fate.
Just this week, the brave Marines in Iraq blew away a 12-year-old boy after someone tossed a grenade their way. Local people said the grenade had been tossed by an older man standing near the boy, who fled. The unlucky boy, who was just a kid who sold gum for a living, had not done anything, local people said.
Now it’s Afghanistan, where upwards of 120 people, including babies and small children, were slaughtered during a battle in a remote part of the country in the latest example of mass deaths at the hands of American forces. Local people say that several villages in the Bala Baluk district of Farah Province of were intensely bombarded by US planes, causing most if not all of the deaths. The US response to the initial charges of a mass slaughter of civilians was to blame the deaths on the Taliban. When it became clear that the victims had died of burns and shrapnel, not from bullets, the US came out with a new explanation: The Taliban had tossed grenades at the locals. But reporters at the scene reported seeing huge craters and leveled buildings—not what you get from hand grenades. Then came reports of unusually deep and localized burns—the type caused by white phosphorus—a weapon that the US has used widely in Iraq--including in densely populated Fallujah—and in Afghanistan.
The Pentagon immediately said it did not use white phosphorus bombs in the battle in question, and suggested instead that perhaps the Taliban had used phosphorus grenades. This again was an absurd argument. The purpose of phosphorus weapons, primarily, is to light up a battlefield, but Taliban fighters don’t want lit up battlefields. They prefer operating the dark. It is the US that wants to light up targets.
Besides, there are those craters to explain.
So the next dance step was to say that the Taliban had caused the deaths, because during their retreat they had fled to the town, miles from the scene of the battle that led to the calling in of air support by US advisers to embattled government forces, and in so doing, had brought the attack upon the villagers.
Well, assuming that is true, there is still the problem that under the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to attack an enemy where the risk of harming large numbers of civilians is too great. The extreme example would the bombing of a school full of children on the grounds that a few enemy soldiers were hiding in the school (something that the Israeli military did in Gaza during the recent invasion, causing the deaths of dozens of children). But bombing a town full of people in order to hit a few retreating enemy fighters is equally criminal—a point that the Pentagon, and the compliant US media, are ignoring.
Barack Obama’s war in Afghanistan—for it is indeed his war now—is turning into the same kind of bloody imperial slaughter that Iraq was earlier under President Bush. The stated objective—eliminating Al Qaeda—has been lost. The enemy of all this fighting isn’t Al Qaeda at all; it is the indigenous Taliban—the former governing power in Afghanistan until the US invasion in 2001, and a political organization that never was an enemy of the US.
Whatever one might think of the religious fanatics and misogynists who go under the name Taliban, they are not seeking to overthrow the West. They are simply seeking to return to power in Afghanistan, one of the poorest, remotest, and economically and politically least important countries in the world.
And to defeat that movement, if that can even be done, the US is going to have to kill Afghani civilians by the truckload, as it has been doing.
And then there has to be the inevitable dancing around to hide the criminality of what the US is doing.
The blame-the-victim dance goes on.
_____________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Lindorff: Wonder what your song and dance would...
have been had you ever served. What you will not accept is that one does not commit troops until a war is launched. Once launched, better get you and the other armchair generals out of the way and watch the carnage.
Troops do what they have to do to protect themselves. Most are not heros and most are defensive in their actions in attempts to protect themselves and their buddies.
As with any group of individuals, there are good people and bad people. The bad guys get the headlines and the good guys get blown away.
In the meantime, you armchair generals get to write your crappy pieces that get us all weepy over the fate of the bad guys.
Ever study Attila The Hun and his effective methods of control? We have come a long way from those days, and yes, civilians do manage to die in war zones. Perhaps you armchair generals should not have committed our troops in the first place.
As to land mines: troops are alive today because mines protected their butts from enemy attack. Anti-personnel mines that is. And, yeah, troops don't always have the time to pick them back up when scampering out of harms way.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least David(L), that if our ancestors had had the ability to write(few did), many would have written pieces like this one of yours about the terrible weapon unleashed upon them(the longbow)when all they had to fight with were crossbows.
If you don't like the machinery of war, then see to it that you don't commit troops.
The worst weapon in this latest scrap is not the white phosphorus and mines--it is chicken hawk politicians.
Question for you David is this:
HOW MANY CHICKEN-HAWK POLITICIANS DID YOU PERSONALLY ELIMINATE PRIOR TO THE TROOPS GOING IN?
If your answer is none, then you didn't do what you are writing about.
How about writing on something you know something about--jobs, jobs, jobs.
Modern day journalists/authors/writers are such a wussy breed.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
grinch, I'm not sure Lindorff would defend his own family...
...let alone comrades.
His steadfastness in not relating to stopping acute violence, leads one to believe he'd stand by and watch someone get the shit kicked out of them rather than risking a bystander getting hurt.
If he is promoting turning the other cheek then he is to be applauded. I too believe some evil can be absorbed.
The problem I have with his philosophy is that one shouldn't turn the other cheek just so that you no longer have to look at the man who is being beaten.
He has mentioned that as a child he thought about being a soldier or a scientist. Later he found out that soldiers and scientists have done horrible things. He then gave up on those desires.
I suspect there is more to it than that.
Jim
Lindorff
Mr. Lindorff: Al Qaida obviously didn't read your rule book on making war. How many civilians did they kill on 9/11? Whle I agree that the "hero" label is often overused in describing our soldiers, I am not one to judge them because I have never been on a battlefield. Have you? Until you find yourself in their situation, save your criticism for the people who started this war in the first place.
Ecological niches.
Meeting on an approved battlefield, at an appointed time, is a very civilized way to wage war. Advantage can be gained however by doing neither.
In physics we say: Whatever is not forbidden...HAPPENS.
So down through the ages folks have carved out new niches. When soldiers decide to muddy the waters by using civilians as cover, they attempt to gain advantage. Notice however that they can only carve out a niche. Should they recruit too great a number of civilian shields, the line between soldier and civilian becomes blurred, and all advantage is lost.
Further, when a more standard army is tempted to go in after this sub species of soldiers, internal pressures by the indigenous population can begin to build.
Are we right to "go in"? Is it right to use "civilian shields"? Should we go after the Taliban? Was it right for the Taliban to aid Al Quida in the mass murder of thousand of civilians?
People have been blown to bits. In turn...people have been blown to bits. In the midst of this formal battlefield, whatever that is not forbidden will happen. Within that gray area the response will be gray. Horrid all the way around, but expected.
I paraphrase of course, and the above authors can correct me if I error.
Jim
P.S. It might be helpful if Lindorff published some admonitions to the Taliban. Two edged sword and all...
Jim, you are entirely
Jim, you are entirely correct about the use of "civilians" as shields, and the dilemma that poses for the opposing force. This was a widely used tactic in WWII, and most recently in Bosnia.
What most "civilized" Westerners tend to not understand, however, is that in many Third World cultures there is little distinction between a soldier and a civilian. There is only nationalism which often presents itself under the guise of adherence to a particular ethnic, political, or religious, dogma as the masses are stirred to action by one, or more, charismatic sociopaths.
This has been apparent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the recent African wars of genocide. That is why Western methods of so-called "civilized" war often fail to achieve their objectives: they are not designed to oppose an entire populace, but only an organized army of uniformed combatants.
Case-in-point: The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no "organized" or uniformed Army -- they are ALL civilians, but they DO have a command structure with access to modern weaponry, and employ military tactics. And, these pseudo-religious international criminals have absolutely no qualms about torturing, killing, and maiming their own people, while they are promoting world-wide Jihad.
The same was true for the North Vietnamese Viet Minh and the South Vietnamese Viet Cong (Communists). The Viet Minh and the Viet Cong "civilians" were not used as shields by their organized Armies, they actively supplemented and assisted them. It was the overwhelming number of civilian combatants of all ages and both genders who kicked our asses in Vietnam, and NOT their organized Army. Our "civilized" methods of waging warfare simply could not deal with them, and in hindsight, we should not have been there -- treaty, or no treaty.
In Afghanistan, we are faced with a slightly different dilemma. If the Taliban are allowed to regain control of the Afghani government, they will then pose a serious threat to Pakistan, and its cache of nuclear arms. Do we risk waging an "uncivilized" war against the Taliban (who actively assisted in the 9/11 attack on us) and the entire populace of Afghanistan now, or wait until we are forced to wage nuclear war with Afghanistan AND Pakistan, and by then, maybe Iran?
And regardless of the morality...
... of a civilized army's response, or of Lindorff's sensibilities, blowing people to bits tends to piss people off and get others blown to bits.
The bottom line then is that Lindorff needs to address his piece to the Taliban!
Why? Because if Nations wish to gray things up WHILE killing folks with formal armies, they can expect ever increasing non civility.
This in turn may force the genie partially back into the bottle.
Let's look at the extreme case: a more devastating attack than 911 met by the USA with wild nuclear strikes burning an entire populace to the ground.
It will not matter what Lindorff thinks. It will not matter if it is "right". Wait long enough and the improbable happens.
Lindorff should warn the Taliban. They put more than a few civilians in harms way, even if that harm comes from folks reacting to them.
Jim
A memo to: David 'RUSH' Lindorff...
A couple of people you should research:
Ernie Pyle: One of the last of the real journalists worthy of the name. Ernie died, with the troops,in the South Pacific during WWII.
Bill Mauldin: One of the last of the great cartoonists whose principal characters--Willie and Joe--represented the great unwashed among our armed forces. Also a WWII participant.
Where were you David when the Philadelphia Police Department bombed, burned, and razed a pretty good section of Philly? Before your time maybe?
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
It doesn't matter what you think either Jim
Nor does it matter what I think. What really matters is what the politicans are up too.
Another thing too is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind or dead. This is the type of thinking that will eventually lead to our extinction.
I think one question that has not been touched on is our all volunteer army. we need to bring back the draft so it is just not poor people serving in the army. Maybe try something that they have in europe when a person gets out of high school they have to serve a year in the military. Would also be a great way for poorer folks to get some training for the more competitive job market.
I feel a history lesson is in order for Jim, he appears....
he appears to have selective amnesia or short term memory problems. Allow me to introduce Jim to history.
In 1993, the towers were attempted to be blown up. This is over 15 years. Osama declared Jihad on US when Clinton was in his second term. They started it in the Afghan and Pakistan regions, while their troubled government, just watched as they then gained in masses and did the 911 act. Bush instead of helping the Afghans like Karzai and Pakistan to go after and root out the terrorist, did nothing.
Now the Taliban is taking over an even bigger section of the region, and the new President has the forsight to see, this isn't going away. They must be diplomaticly offered carrots, or a better way of living and mindset of trusting us to just leave after the band is destroyed, or will the US try to strategically and wrongly stay in these regions to antagonize Iran? Another country that had nothing to do with 911. It's like the chips on everybody's shoulder, have been knocked off and the pride of the fight has taken over. In other words false religious fanatic patriotics, brainwashing the ancient culture with not tv's to know the truth. Most don't have access to electricity, less more phones.
But the other day someone representing the Taliban, spoke to a reporter and said they will fight to the death.
If we can get Osama and his cohorts and find middle of the line Taliban, who want evolutionary changes to their county like schools and government, then the populace must count at some point. The government must start separating them and pay attention to who or what groups are following for cover. IF there are no "blend in" in the populace to notice this insurgency among the populace to report it and get them, then the group continues to terrorize, and put them at risk.
I think President Obama, Afghanistan and Pakistan have that understanding and they must be cornered like when Bill Clinton and Bush had them, but this time, their end must come. The world must move on from this anti-peace group.
The rest of the world wants to live, even if Bin Rotten and Al Queida don't.
The peace and diplomacy people working with family heads, and the women widows, will be working on the mindset.
People know the bad guys in their neighborhoods and will think of the children first before, following some terrorist attacking all the countries that donate food and medical to survive in peace.
It's like this plain and simple:
72 spiritual virgins to commit fornication with, or live in peace and under God's word and follow the first laws, "the Ten Commandments."
mommapanther
Kim
In my post I asked Lindorff to spend some time admonishing the Taliban because "our" reaction to them was going to be violent. I also noted that it was going to be violent even if some folks felt the morality of that reaction needed to be called into question.
Perhaps you misread?
Jim
My bad Jim, I did misread.
It's just the whole thing is one funky problem after another and nobody seemed in the whole 8years to say a world about diplomacy and peace. WE want it, but not at the expense of leaving this monster, to continue to bomb or attack all developing countries. Like I said, I believe all three Presidents, are merged on this. We all want to get beyond this, and continue the peace making ways the blue has always advocated. Support for education, farming, business, and jobs to teach them to export goods and services and create an economy. My God, the reason we keep having floods of immigrants is not just for the American Dream, these people have no life in their own countries and face starvation, and dehydration from lack of food and clean water. Egads, some of the people still live in shanty like homes.
Dialogue is crucial and it must be done without more pictures of abu graib and gitmo. The president is scheduled to go to Egypt. Do you think it would be safe in a Muslim world, if the pictures are publicized. We know the Dick the deviant Cheney, is guilty of torturing for false ocnfession to make a lead to Sadaam and Been Rotten. We don't need to see the sodomy. Yes, sodomy, they do it at police stations to minorities, and I've NO doubt, these same sadistic tactics, were applied. Remember the prisoner saying: "I woke up from unconciousness and there was a "penis" in my face. He was humiliated and sodomized by private contractors.
It think that is why WE elected Obama, to make the critical judgements and protect and support our troops. I'm so glad it isn't me in office, I discussed this on my show with an AirForce vet and a recording religious businessman, it was all over the place with different scenarios of what would you do?
I said I would hold a steam ireon at someone's ears and let them hear the steam and tell them there is gonna be some "steamed terrorist" for every person burned in US. I really couldn't say whether in a nuke burn situation, whether I wouldn't want to rip their murderous nuts off, for having the balls to attack in the first place. I was really pissed at 911, but since finding out that Cheney and Bush may have engineered that also, to get the OIL in Iraq, I must say again, I'm glad I'm not President Obama right now in this time of history. ]
They couldn't have made it any worse.
PS, I'm a bonafied midevel b, when I need to be, so that's just rough neck in me.
When all the evidence is in, I can do it.
mommapanther
It does not matter what I think about the MORALITY.
What matters is:
Am I correct about how humans, en mass, react to others shoving a knife in a loved one's vagina?
The reason I am both specific, and visceral, is that THAT is what drives the response we are speaking about.
One needs to address both the response AND the driving of the knife in the groin.
One also needs to address civilians being killed AND folks reacting as they are being shot at.
Our extinction -should it come- will be driven by both our reactions AND our understanding/ignorance of how others react.
Jim
Ole.
In another post you did not get what I said.
Re-read the post above. It spells it out.
Put another way however:
1) Today. TODAY. TODAY. Violent thugs are raping, murdering, and dismembering folks around the world.
2) Part of being a loving person is interposing one's body between those thugs and their victims OR at least showing respect for the genetic variation which allows other good folks to do so.
The above remains true TODAY regardless if your theory is that humans will outgrow behaviors which have been with us forever. Assuming you are correct, you must still address the needs of THIS day.
You claim folks should not act like this or that. I agree they should not, but they do.
How can you turn from those in acute need simply because you have a theory that someday they will have no need?
That is how the Far Left got it's moniker: elitist.
Jim
Ole: Rapes and bayonets in the vagina galore.
It is pure evil to simply pontificate about how folks should behave when folks are being called to react TODAY.
It is pure evil to react as the Lindorffs do and snear at those who make the attempt. To mock those who need to build a culture of toughness which does not fit perfectly into mushy sentimentality. A culture which allows the human body to react under fight or flight stress.
It is pure evil to react as the Right Wingers do, and look away as there is no money to be made here, or eschew peaceful methods of bringing peace.
Jim
Do no harm?
I have a problem with the Far Left message:
How about folks take responsibility for defending against monsters while also actively advancing peace?
That is what Grinch, Mike, and Bill seem to be advising, and I'd second that.
Jim
no correction necessary
Jim, you're absoulutely right. A little criticism of the people who orchestrated 9/11 would've been nice. Lindorff instead wants to criticize the United States for trying to adapt to a different style of warfare on someone else's turf. Lindorff obviously hasn't brushed up on his history, because Britain's failure to adapt to "newer" styles of making war were the primary reason that America won the Revolution. The British insisted on their "civilized" style of European warfare while the American colonists engaged in "new" guerilla warfare. The result? The United States of America. While civilian deaths are always an unintended consequence of war, Lindorff needs to remember that these same civilians that he's crying for are the same ones that are burning American flags and expressing their hatred for us "infedels". Innocent?
what are we fighting for
We are fighting because we have been told that we have an enemy by our leaders. These are the people that we trust to handle our business, protect us, and protect our rights and freedoms. Well it started with big Al "quada) but amazingly we are now being told that they are no longer a threat. Now the boogie man is Tal aban. And we need more weaqpons and more money and more troops and the game goes on.
While Americans who want to serve their country step up and enlist and train and take their orders. And our servicement do the best they can with what they have and what info they are given. And they do a very good job of it and we are proud that they have stepped up for us.
The fact that many of our enemies are created by us to generate military contracts and training and various other things is secondary. Granted there are real threats in the world today to be sure, as there are many people living from fear or greed or religeous conviction (however misplaced).
You know if all people actually followed the basic premises of their chosen religions,(whatever that religion might be) there would be no wars and no enemies or threats. So we all know that it is not about religion though it is made out to be.
This is the way of the society we live in no matter where in the world you are. We would be much better off if we could live in honesty and peace with each other but until we can overcome our fears and truly understand that we are all connected and wither thou goest we all go.
That choice if not taken up by the masses will be left to the decisions of the fearful and the greedy. It has always been that way and will always be that way until we change it. But it will have to be everyone everywhere or it will just return to the status quo as one group will rise up and want what the other has and either take it directly or create a drama to take it.
Look around the world and you will see leaders that come in and take over and use the wealth and resources for personal gain (it is less transparent here than other places but still goes on). And these leaders use fear in one manner or another to either directly take what they want or divert the masses attention to do so in secret. All the while the main body of people work very hard for very little.
So what are we fighting for? We are fighting because we were told to and we were told that we had to and we were told that it is the only option. And fear is used and greed and/or fear usually helps initiate it.
So today it is the tal aban and tommorrow it will be a new and more fearful creation and we can ramp it up again. And we can listen to the lies and we can be fearful. and many more lives can be lost.
Yes there are threats in the world to be sure and we should indeed be cautious and prepaired but the games and the lies and the inocent lives lost over the fear and greed is more than anyone wants.
Just a couple of facts
Just a couple of facts for the fact-deprived Far-Left:
1. We have never been told that al Qaeda "is no longer a threat." While their numbers may be down in Iraq (where they had no presence in the first place) and their command structure may be "weakened," the fact is that al Qaeda remains a "clear and present danger" to the world at large:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/10/us.alqaeda.terrorism/index.html
2. The Taliban actively aided and abetted al Qaeda in their preparations for the 9/11 attack on the USA. The Taliban and al Qaeda share the same fanatical hatred of Western "infidels," and are intent on spreading their brand of religious hatred and bigotry not only to the rest of the Middle East (and especially nuclear-armed Pakistan), but internationally as well:
http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2591
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/23/world/main4963969.shtml
The US-led invasion of Iraq was illegal by both our domestic Constitutional standards, and International law, and was indeed a "creation." In stark contrast, the USA response to the Taliban and al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 was too little, and was allowed to take a back seat to the illegal war in Iraq.
al Qaeda and their Taliban co-criminals are NOT "creations" (as was Iraq) but pose a very real, and imminent, security threat to the USA and its Allies which must be addressed.
Bill...
...ya know what might help?
If folks stopped thinking about war and started thinking about criminals.
Folks seem to wildly philosophize about War and Peace.
It's a little tougher to do when one thinks about:
You will not make inroads into that crowd with the flowery language "we are all one".
Greed, lust, and wrath all exist.
Jim
Jim, here is a repeat
Jim, here is a repeat reference from another post on the same subject concerning the civilized “ethics” of the Taliban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Facts are facts, and the reality is that regardless of the whiny pleas of the "can't-we-all-just-get-along" Far-Left, there are bullies, criminals, despots, and religious zealots out there, who can and will commit domestic AND international murder, rape, and torture, of the innocent.
The United States of America is NOT a world-wide police organization, but when our borders are violated, and our people are the victims, we have every moral right ever laid down to defensively protect ourselves, and prevent a reoccurrence. If that takes the removal of the Taliban and al Qaeda (and those who support them) from Afghanistan and Pakistan by whatever force is necessary, then that is the honorable thing to do.
If we have alliances and mutual-protection agreements with other countries, those also give us the moral authority to act against criminals who wage offensive war on, and murder, our friends.
And one last observation: it has been said about the Taliban and al Qaeda that "one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter.'" The Taliban and al Qaeda deserve neither label, as they are nothing more than common criminals who are taking advantage of their region's instability for profit -- emeralds and opium. Freedom Fighters (like our own Revolutionary Army) act on behalf of the People, and do NOT attempt to take control of their government in order to impose yet another theocratic and dictatorial set of horrendous rules on the citizenry.
Couldn't be more straightforward.
And thanks for the link.
Those who love deeply must both advance peace, AND provide protection.
Jim, I would put that a
Jim, I would put that a slightly different way: the advancement of peace is attained through the provision of protection against belligerence.
I believe that it was in May of 2001...
that the Bush administration gave the Taliban approximately $40,000,000 ostensibly to destroy the opium crop. Instead of destroying the crop, that year produced a record harvest.
It goes without saying much, that roughly 4 months later, the twin towers were brought down. Where did that 40 million go and what was it really used for? [you may want to dust off your tin hat]
The same Taliban a few months ago, threw or sprayed acid into the faces of schoolgirls who were in their school.
In the last couple of weeks, there have now been 3 girls schools attacked with some sort of a poisonous gas attack. Again, the culprits are the same Taliban that 'Rush' Lindorff is now trying to protect by saying that our guys are the bad guys.
Our troop strength in Allahstan is now down...and the Taliban is now stronger than it ever was in the past.
Can anyone say Quisling? We appear to have one right here in our midst.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Grinch, and yet another
Grinch, and yet another source of income for the Taliban in Pakistan -- blood emeralds:
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Pakistan/10303139.html
I led...
...with a platitude which the Far Left wishes to make solely their own: LOVE.
My hope was that it would make it clear they have no corner on it so long as they leave out "protecting from harm".
Your phrasing nicely emphasizes a feedback loop between a civilized strength and long lasting peace.
The rotten thing about the Bush era was that he wielded uncivilized power. The Taliban needed to fear for their lives (and/or their movement) when they aided Al Qaeda. Iraq did not cross that line.
Bill; I agree with all you've said here...
as does almost anyone else that I know of. My personal feelings are that Taliban members need to be arrested where possible and those who are guilty of the most horreneous crimes should enjoy the same punishment Saddam Hussien did. And those who don't want to surrender should have thier wish and die fighting. Pakistani tolerance has always been somewhat of a sticky problem, but from what I see and hear on the news, the Pakistani people are beginning to realize what the Taliban are.
Do you remember years ago when Chairman Mao published his "thoughts"? While the vast majority were simply babble, in thinking about the Taliban and al Quada, one in particular comes to mind;"When injustice comes from the hands of men, justice comes from the barrel of a gun."
Terry
Terry, contrary to what the
Terry, contrary to what the Far-Left posters seem to believe, there is nothing to be gained from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The failure of the Far-Left to pointedly distinguish the difference between the men and women who make up our rank-and-file military, and the politicians who sometimes misuse them is an all-too-familiar, and disingenuous, tactic which is routinely used by both extremes of the political spectrum and for opposite purposes: indirectly bashing the troops vs. insincerely "supporting" them. Both political extremes damage their own causes when they use these tactics.
Just like our police and fire departments all over this nation, the members of the US Military have voluntarily signed up to protect our civilian citizens. While that may sound too altruistic to be true to the Far-Left, it is nevertheless a private decision made by each individual who joins, and takes the following oath:
Please note that the oath is sworn to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States, and not to any other entity, or political ideology. The oath also assumes that the POTUS, having been elected by a majority of American voters, and therefore representing the wishes of the majority of Americans, is above misusing the US Military. This assumption, above all else, is more than enough reason to hold the decisions of the POTUS and his administration to use military force, fully accountable to the electorate at all costs.
When politicians misuse the US Military (as in the case of Iraq), the citizens of the USA have only themselves to blame, and should rightfully address their grievances to their elected representatives. Once placed in harm's way, the US Military sets out to accomplish what they have been trained, and sworn an oath, to do. But mostly, they fight to survive, and to protect each other, after being placed in circumstances they neither initiated, nor invited.
When the Far-Left calls those of us who stand up for our citizen-soldiers (and NOT those politicians who misuse them) "war mongers," and accuse us of abetting "war crimes," they are being not only seditious, but are seriously out-of-touch with reality.
Bill; I agree entirely
The speakers of the right, and in paricular Rush Limbaugh, and very good at what they do. Limbaugh has repeatedly ranted about how the left "despises the military".
I know several members of the service (mostly friends of my younger relatives)who are Democrats, and they are proud to be a part of and very dedicated to the armed forces.
But certain people on the right, particularly a couple of talk radio "hosts", scour newspapers from all over the county, scan tv and radio interviews, and visit left and left leaning message boards. They look for interviews, statements, or press releases they can skewer, twist, or otherwise take out of context, to support thier lies. And they are very, very good at what they do.
I agree with you that when members of the left make careless or untrue statements, or speak without thinking about what they're saying, they provide the right with endless ammunition.
We can't let people forget who it was that dropped the ball in Afghanastan (pardon my spelling), and involved our people in Iraq. As the Taliban regroups and spreads terror, death, and misery, we can't let people forget which party pulled most of our troops out before the job was completely finished.
Terrh
Your GENERAL arguments may be valid but...
...once one adds SPECIFICS (as Bill did) one needs to re-access.
Leaders can mislead about who is a bad guy AND the Taliban drives tanks over gay guys so they ARE bad.
Jim
Laura M: Lindorff continues to mock our Soldiers.
In this thread, for example, Lindorff editorializes without regard to the difficulties of interposing one's own body between thug and victim. He writes:
His use of the word "brave" is obviously done to mock them. I certainly can't find another explanation. Can you?
Of course, if he went into detail about particular "bad apples" such mocking would be fine, but he does not.
(It is also okay with me that he is printing about the horrors of War. It is necessary to spell it out so that we do not go to War lightly. Diminishing returns, while enduring tragedy after tragedy, can also convince the majority it is time to end a War. All good points to be made. It is the lack of balance and his lack of concern for what soldiers do right that reveals a possible emptiness. I am ever hopeful however.)
Jim
Oh kick their Arse and check the names later, anybody....
American s and the developed countrieknow what civility is. Maybe Dick and Bushy didn't they never served and when George did he was AWO(L for 18 months.****MN: AWOL is up to 30 days absence. After 30 days, it is considered desertion**** They had t osend out a search party to discharge him.
Were Taliban people civilized, before or after AlQueida? No.. They are vicious and midevil in their thinking towards their people, especially the women. Who else would have them mutilated like this, but evil. Inhumane activity will not be tolerated in the world. Evil of this magnitude and the bullying of women and children marrying before they have a period, is sick.
Domestic violence forced on the people, by religious means. Hey, isn't that what the right is doing, making women have children, who can't afford them, but still have the same sexual urges as married people. What the "H" is wrong with a birth control pill, if the women chooses education before poverty or a brutal selected marriage?
NO CHOICE. NO LIFE. For life is not your life, if others force you into living for them, instead of living for self and caring for others who can afford the children. That's another USA story, but these monsters need some serious readjustment and eduf'ing cation, on just what the world will except. Stoning went out with the stone age. Throwing acid on girls for wanting to educate themselves to do better in life, is evil.
They deserve all that's coming and more. The women and children will rise when the Taliban is gone from their future. For with the Talib an, all dreams, hopes, and future are nada. They won't pull or push the cart, but they damn well better get out of the way of the future of their people.
Everybody doesn't want to be a caveman in 2009. Some want to have clean water and a education to move forward in time.
Remember slumdog?
mommapanther
Dave, if only it was that simple.
"misogynists who go under the name Taliban, they are not seeking to
overthrow the West. They are simply seeking to return to power in Afghanistan, "
And WHAT do you think the Taliban will do when and if they
return to power?
These are the people who throw acid on the faces
of young schoolgirls.