You stole the words right out of my mouth.

I've noticed on this board that when someone has difficulty refuting an opinion, they turn snarky.

So, you're saying that if you had the unfortunate choice of seeing an American soldier or an innocent Iraqi die, you would choose the Iraqi?

I would say either is unfortunate, and I'd definitely be concerned either way.

You're making a flawed argument here.

I think what GD is saying (not to speak for him) is that if he heard a report of an American Soldier dying and an Iraqi civilian dying, both would be upsetting.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

*BUZZ* WRONG...

You specifically stated that Iraqi deaths are UNimportant, inconsequential, whatever you want to say...


You are specifically stating that we should not be concerned in anyway shape or form the death of Iraqi's. That is what GD (and I) is questioning. You have now trumped it up and turned it around to be "Picking between an individual soldier and an individual Iraqi...." which is totally different than this statement you made above, which is what the "monster" label is being thrown around for.

You said:



That is what this discussion is about. It is not an either/or, it is that both should be our concern. We are not at war with the Iraqi people, remember? Or was that just rhetoric.

At least i know I was referring to the right quote, although I forgot the 2nd one.

See, rexall starts a lot of useful threads.

Some motherf*ckers are always trying to ice skate uphill...

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

I would rather see 1000 Iraqis die than 1 American soldier. Again, if that makes me a "monster", so be it.

And therefore the statement that someone indeed DOES need to re-evaluate their priorities.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds.

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

My priorities are with the troops, but the Iraqi people are actually ON my list, unlike you.... relatively high on the list at that.

Dola:

Believe it or not, feeling mournful for dead Iraqi civilians, feeling it should be avoided, etc. is not mutually exclusive from wanting for zero deaths to US Soldiers.

I never thought hoping for the safety of the troops precluded you from having any sort of compassion for other human beings who were born in a different country.

Being concerned about our troops does not preclude one from being concerned about the lives of Iraqi civilians in any, way, shape or form. You can be concerned about both.

It's only human nature to be more concerned about people who are your "own" than "other people." That's just the way people are. If I hear my friend got into a car accident with a stranger, I would be more concerned about my friend than the other guy/girl. I would still be concerned for that other person, but not as much, at least initially.

But being wholly, 100% uncocerned about the lives of other people, in this case Iraqi civilians, (see, eg, "the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about" and "American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses") is what makes one a "monster."

So we differ on this subject -- doesn't make me a monster. To me, in a war you don't feel sorry for the enemy. Casulties happen, to which I shrug my shoulders and hope for the safe return of our soldiers. There's much more important things to worry about than Iraqis. Americans come first above all else.

A cold war is a step back from a hot war. India/Pakistan fighting through irregular groups is a step back from all-out war, which happened several times prior to them getting nukes. So in both of the instances you provided, things simmered down.

You say that SA is working against us in those countries, but you also said that Iran is working against us in 6 countries, PLUS there are people that think we have to invade them. Do you see how the second is worse than the first?

Iraqi children are the enemy? Come on now, tell me you don't believe that garbage.

Again, Americans come first, but it doesn't mean you have to completely disregard the lives of Iraqi Civilians. There's a HUGE difference between saying Americans come first and saying that we should feel this way:


Just completely different situations. If you feel no compassion at all for Iraqi Civilians I personally do believe that makes you at least partial monster.

Uh, dude. Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. In fact, last time I checked, the official (or one of the top official) reason our soldiers are in Iraq are to liberate the Iraqi people. We're there for them.

Much better response than mine.

Again I ask, that means you are against the Iraq war right? Being that you are for the troops, and that the only even close to reasonable excuse left to go to war in Iraq is for the Iraqi people, you must be against the war. After all, no soldiers would die if we weren't in Iraq.

Yes, I am against the war.

Indeed. While we may be concerned about our own families, friends, countrymen over others, to not be concerned about others at all is heartless. What is the difference between my brother and an innocent Iraqi man who just wants to grow up in peace? They are both humans. They both have a brain, a heart, feelings, emotions. At some point, American 'values' encompass an idea that all humans are equal. That all humans are special and have rights. The idea started from the Declaration of our independance... and even before then. It's an underpinning of liberal democracy.

Sure I feel compassion for Iraqi civilians, just not anywhere to the level I feel for our troops. In my opinion, in a war, we need to fully support our soldiers -- the beginning of the "baby killer" thing with Vietnam is when people began to be as concerned for Vietnamese people than our soldiers -- they lost perspective. I'm looking at what's going on and can't help but feel the same thing beginning to happen again.

The backpedalling begins.

One is your brother and one isn't. One is an American, and one isn't. That's a huge difference.

Say what you will about equality of all people regardless of where they were born -- Americans come first, first and foremost. We should be taking care of our own before anyone else. If I may tangent, one of the reasons the whole tsunami thing upset me -- all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it. Really pisses me off sometimes.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. I'm reading what I wrote earlier and it did come off as really harsh, so I'm trying to explain a little better. I'm not the greatest at editing myself sometimes. :-)

Plus some of what is written is really hard to argue with. If I'm wrong, I'd like to think I admit it, as much as it hurts my ego.

Utter bullshit. Does the word "Katrina" ring any bells for you...?

Although, more money was donated to the Red Cross for Katrina aid than for Tsunami aid...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05261/573641.stm

Your point? I'm saying the money raised for other countries problems should be better suited for use in this country. 883 million (amount that was raised for the Tsuinami) could have been really used in this country.

I really have seen no evidence of any sort of Vietnam-like backlash against the troops. None.

I actually don't know if that'd ever happen again. I mean, I'd never say never, but I think that was a peculiar time and set of events. I think people have learned from that.

The only "anti-troop" stuff I have even heard about are those nut jobs who are going around trying to ruin soldiers' funerals, but that's because the nut jobs really hate gay people. It has nothing to do with anything resembling reality.

The China/Taiwan thing probably deserves its own thread. But I'd suggest those who blindly support Taiwan should probably look into the situation a bit more. You can start with the 228 massacre and the history of Taiwanese "democracy." The Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek certainly weren't good guys. If you want to argue we should support Taiwan out of self interest to keep China in check, that's a valid argument... but its dishonest, or at best ignorant, to argue we should support them because they're historically "right".

Not talking about that, but rather about the amount of "human rights violations" that have been leveled on our soldiers over there -- we had a discussion about a month ago right here about an accusation that soldiers were mistreating women. This is how it begun before -- unfounded accusations of our soldiers mistreating the Vietnamese.

Do you believe there is a subset of 'bleeding hearts' who do care about US soldiers but who also care about human rights violations and abuse of women by soldiers?

No.

ok.

My point? As you originally said: "...all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it." I'm pointing out that this statement is in fact incorrect - money is raised for those in this country that need it, both domestically and from abroad.

If you want to change your stance to "people in this country should only contribute charity to those within this country", that's a whole different statement (and one I also don't agree with).

We are (for most intents and purposes) the world's wealthiest nation, and not only do we provide a great deal of charity domestically, we also provide quite a bit internationally. That's due to both the ability of our citizens to do so financially and to a compassion we feel for humanity, regardless of borders. And while I'm sure that much more money goes out of this country in aid than comes in from other countries, we do receive aid from around the world in times of crisis (like Katrina).

Well, you're wrong.

Agreed. So very, very wrong...

In fact, I would think that Yossarian's "subset" pretty much describes the feelings of the majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike. I could be wrong making that assumption, but I don't think so.

Can you clarify this statement please? Are you suggesting that no U.S. soldier ever mistreated any Vietnamese citizens during the Vietnam War?

I support the troops in that I wish for them to complete their mission and stay healthy in the process, and I don't blame them for actions I disagree with that are directives from above (like, for example, invading Iraq in the first place).

However, I do hold them accountable for actions within their control and to represent themselves as best they can as ambassadors of the U.S. I recognize that they are in a very difficult situation, and that people don't always make the best decisions when this is the case. But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to try to adhere to basic human-rights standards of behavior (Geneva conventions), and when they screw-up, they should be held accountable for doing so. For better or for worse, our troops are the primary means of human contact most Iraqis (and Afghanis) have had and will have in their lives with Americans.

I agree. I would like to think the administration was in that subset. I sometimes doubt it by their actions.

Also, this probably captures the feelings of many Americans serving in Iraq, too. After all, the abuses in Abu Gharib and other places probably would not have seen the light of day if it were not for those officers and soldiers who were compelled by their professional and personal code of ethics to report improper activity.

Very well said.

This made me laugh out loud for some reason. Just one of those "man, I feel ya" laughs...

Scary article.

hxxp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Some interesting snipets:




What better way to tell a country they cannot have nuclear weapons than to use them on 'em!