Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:45
VIEWED: 14196
PAGE 3 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 10, 2004 11:24 PM

" it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. "

I felt the person I was responding to made some good points mixed with some I disagreed with, I don't normally break a post down like that but felt each point deserved a bit of debate.

If you have any suggestion on how I could accomplish that in another format, I would take it as a kindness....

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 10, 2004 11:31 PM

Ignore me Gino. Chalk it up to a bad mood. I read your post and pretty much agreed with what you had to say. The quoting frenzy thing bothers me cause its often abused, but your post was hardly a case of that.
SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:44 AM

I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.

COWARD

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:50 AM

Hero:
I found your post understandabel and shocking at the same time. Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?
Sure there may be many things that are really good about the US, there may be many things that are better than in the rest of the world, but there are many things elsewhere that are better than in the US. Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism. Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.
I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world, simply because there is a downside to everything. What you or I may perceive as a great country, an unemployed, homeless, discriminated immigrant may regard as total hell.
I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:27 PM

Its a legal term. It allows you to convey property to a fictional entity for the sole purpose of then conveying that property back to yourself. It had a variety of uses, most dealing with various forms of estates and trusts or transfer of various interests, but now has been eliminated in most jurisdictions. I think California still uses them, but the Californians were always big into legal fictions.

In this context its probably being used in a political context that is confusing and technically incorrect.

H

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.

The straw man argument is a technique, usually considered fallacious, wherein you restate your 'opponent's' argument in a way that will distort its meaning or focus. This might be done by taking a single line out of context, or by focusing your rebuttal on select statements that don't accurately represent the overall point they were trying to make.

You then point out the weaknesses of the distorted argument. Online, this is usually done by isolating specific lines out of context and attacking them with vim and vigor. The overall effect is to seem as though you've disproven the other person's argument thoroughly, even though you've completely ignored, or distorted the actually point they were making.

It works much better online than in a live setting because, in person, its relatively easy for the other person to stop you in midstride and call bullshit. In a forum you can go on and on and on with this, often boring readers into conceeding that you must be right since you've disproven nearly every statement the other poster made.

The term comes from the idea of building a 'straw man' that will be easy to knock down.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIREFLYWILDCARD1

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:15 PM

The abuse and torture of prisoners, foreign or domestic, is unacceptable. I believe that Bush knew what was going on in the Iraq prisons, he might not have known the exact details, but he knew that the interrogators weren't just asking questions. He knew they were softening their prisoners up. Rumsfeld knew as well. I would like to see Bush and Rumsfeld take responsibility for their actions/policies/decisions/lack of actions. And what I mean by responsibility is more than say the words "I'm sorry." Those words don't mean a thing. He can say them all he wants but he doesn't necessarily have the sentiment that is supposed to go with them. They need to make reparations to the prisoners, not just the ones in the pictures but all who were tortured. However, the troops who actually did the torturing also need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions. They don't have the right to question and/or disobey LAWFUL orders. The key word there is "lawful". According to the Geneva conventions and laws within the US, torture and softening up of the prisoners is not lawful.

What did he think was going to happen when he sent troops into Iraq? I seriously hope he didn't think the people were going to jump with joy and welcome the US with open arms. Many people, who have kept up with world news, knew that it was going to turn ugly. That many Iraqis would not accept any government the US set up. Many people also knew that the fighting wasn't going to end with the Iraqi amry's surrender. The big army wasn't the main threat, it was the forces that did guerilla warfare that Bush should have been worried about.

I don't believe Americans have the right to just march into any country they please and take over.

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.

I'm ashamed of what our government has done. I sincerely hope that our troops are allowed to come home soon. I support our troops and am saddened by the losses and sacrifices their families have suffered.

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fireflywildcard1:

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.

Sole reason? Its been awhile but maybe you should review the text of the speech. Here:

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Thanks to CNN for providing the transcript.

Bush also mentions WMD's. However, it is Saddam's failure to follow the 1991 cease fire agreement or comply with Security Council resolutions, his connections to terrorism, and his countless acts of war against the United States from 1991-2003 that justified the eventual conflict.

H

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:06 PM

Putting aside the shell game of 'why we went to Iraq', I'd like to focus on something that bothers me about our foreign policy in general.

Isn't it the case that a population must take at least some responsibility for the nature of its leadership? That's the reason so many of us are upset about the abusive actions of the MP's at Abu Ghraib; They represent the taxpayers and citizens of the United States, and when they botch that up we raise hell.

We seem to completely ignore this concept when we're looking for excuses to invade another country. Saddam was an evil SOB, no doubt about it, but if the Iraqi people weren't willing to rise up and resist his rule why should we send our sons and daughters over there to die for theirs? Even if we're successful, people rarely have much appreciation for something they didn't earn themselves.

So we set them up a nice democratic government. The same cultural pressures and attitudes that paved the way for Saddam Hussein will exist after we're gone and most likely result in another dictator rising to prominence.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:19 PM

Certainly abuse and torture is a terrible thing. I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it. But I’m confidant that will be brought to life and the soldiers punished, in some cases, regardless of their actually fault. So far, I’ve seen pictures of prisoners that seem to being humiliated by American troops. As unsettling as some of these photos are, if such action helps save the lives of American soldiers or innocent Iraqis then I certainly support it, as long as it does not extend into the use of pain.

I am reminded of similar photos and film footage of the kinds of abuse and torture that was conducted by the Iraqi government prior to US intervention. Men with arms and legs hacked; men bound and thrown off two or three story buildings and then their broken bodies dragged through town. And then there is Fallujah, where American were tortured and killed, their hacked-up bodies deemed to horrendous for television by the evening news. Then I’m reminded of the stories of children being tortured in order to keep their parents in line. Their fingernails pulled off, their genitals electrocuted, their eyes gauged out and their lifeless bodies returned to their parents as warning.

Where was the outcry over those actions from certain people who now claim to be harbingers of morality? Perhaps we need to show those photos on the evening news, as well.

I’m not justifying the acts of soldiers in these photographs, but I can’t help but wonder how these Iraqi prisoners really feel, because I’m sure that they know that if this were the tyrannical Saddam Hussein regime they supported, it would far, far worse then just pictures of the genitals. I wonder, if they are not actually relieved that the US is doing the torturing.

Certainly, let’s get to the bottom of this torture debacle. Let’s find out what actually happened, and if punishment is deemed appropriate then we should punish those involved. I think we should also keep our prospective here. Because if a little bit of hazing produces information that saves lives, that’s might very well be considered noble if yours is the life it saves, and in the world of Rogue nations and Tyrant governments, torture certainly has a far different meaning then we are giving it today.

I'd stay and write more, but I have to get to work.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE