tantalum

I don't know that Richard Simmons is gay at all...but, Tom, make of it whatever you want to. Be my guest to empower yourself! (Your rigorous logical reasoning, or fallacy thereof, would perfectly fall in line with those non-existing WMDs, terrorism ties, etc.) Edited to SHOCK AND AWE, as this seems particularly popular with my fellow Americans these days. I don't know Ted, but I'm about to have a PM exchange with him regarding this comment. Consider this your only warning.

This is an absolutely crucial insight: We are becoming what we set out to fight for! Human rights abuse, torture, indiscriminate killings, you name it....the name is US.

What does it matter as to the quality of arguments as to who and where I am? If I am a concerned on-looker posting from Riyadh? What if I am a Muslim, Hindu, non-Christian? Even worse, what if I am a Democrat? What does it matter if I am a skydiver or not? (Truthfully, I have been in the sport long enough not having to define myself any longer by jumping out of airplanes.) And yes, if some times the negative of American politics seems overwhelming: all 1,300+ bodies of it. Sent to their graves needlessly and prematurely...

What if the oppressed don't want to be liberated? See you, hopefully, in Israel next time, to free the Palestinians!!!! If there is a Fire, a fireman will be there If there is a Crime, A policeman will be there If there is an injury, a paramedic will be there If there is a fight, a SOLDIER WILL BE THERE. We know the risks when we enlist, we don't enlist to pick our battles or pick who we fight for. We will fight for everyone in the US, I don;t care who, we will also fight for those being oppresed in other countries, because that is what soldiers do!

Dave, I am not saying that it originated from W. I don't know. My point is, Graner was an enlisted soldier. Not even one of his commanding officers has been touched or is under investigation. Do you really believe he came up with this all by himself. (And after you have had a chance to read the reporting of the New York Times or Washington Post). Let me know.

Another thread has it that "soldiers do what they are told to do". You want to argue that point of view (per your post)? I am all with you if you do!

We know that the DoJ (Gonzalez) issued directives/analysis that the Geneva convention does not apply in "certain" situations. Of course, what's wrong with self-proclaimed purveyor nation of freedom and democracy effectively endorsing torture on an offiial level? You tell me.

As the news media are reporting the verdict. Actually, I believe this guy: that he was ordered to soften prisoners, that he knew it was wrong, and that he is taking the fall while those above him go unpunished. Poor guy. He was in a no-win situation. Bush and Rummy are still President and Secretary of Defense. It's always the little guy that gets killed/put in prison. Whatever happened to our elected officials taking personal responsibility? (Except, of course, the responsibilty to enrich ones own fortune.) I truely believe that Graner is another victim of the Iraq war!

Actually it goes much deeper than that: we do know that language (both syntax and semantics) dramatically affect the perception of reality. After all: "for what there are now words, one cannot speak of." Good beginning for anyone interested is the "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus" by 19-th century Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein. Not light, but essential! PS.: I would argue that French affords a very different (better?!) perception of reality than English.

They didn't die fighting for a Republic that was under attack. They didn't die defending you, me, or our families. They died for Exxon, Haliburton, Cheney, Bush...and a few other people and corporations who stand to make billions from this war. They died for a lie, the lie of WMDs, the lie of Iraq sponsoring terrorism. And thus they died in vain...they did NOT die for our country. Just as in the Matrix: you can take the red pill or the blue pill; one will wake you up, with the other you go on to believe whatever you want to believe! Edited because first post was a bit rough... But, you have no right IMHO to say that those people died in vain, that's pretty messed up actually.. They died fighting for their country, whether you agree with why they were fighting or not.. That is NOT in vain no matter how you feel.

That's a most excellent point! However, what if there was war and nobody showed up (or refused to show up)? Really curious as to your response. Don't we all need to take personal responsibilities (rather than delegating them?). P.S.: As an SD Instructor, I have to face certain responsibilities that I am unable to abdicate at 3k ft. Same as a rigger.

Ted, both you and I know that you are as gay as "Richard Simmons". Nothing wrong with that! After all, Richard giving weight-loss classes to our troups in Baghdad is true to the cause. Now, if our boys just ever could stay off McD...even under fire.

Ted: I am not gay, re: hugs and kisses. But if you are, I will defend you and your rights! And I will always be willing to shake your hand...

I truely appreciate your comment, hence I want to take the time to reply. Yes, serving our country and defending it, is honorable: serving in our forces is honorable. However, it is NOT honorable to invade a country just to take over it's natural riches for profit. Iraq never threatened us or had the means to attack us. All the 1,300+ military personnel who have died, have died in vain: They didn't die to defend your or my freedom, they did not die for the Republic. They died for Exxon, Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, etc. Believe it or not, but some ppl will get very rich off of these killings.

Uhmmm, Bill, is being President of the USA an apprentice job...? Why don't you hear these kind of statements from elected leaders of France, Mexico, Russia, Mongolia, Senegal, South Africa, or some other goddamn' country nooone has ever heart off. What do they know that the President doesn't? Do we need to lower the intellectual bar (aka expectations) further so that this President has any chance to clear it? Can we next vote Forest Gump into office? I am sorry, but sometimes apologies won't cut it! There are mistakes, at certain levels, that are unforgiveable.

I don't! And neither does the rest of the world...even the latest CIA report now declares that Iraq has become the new breeding ground for terrorists thanks to the involvement of our forces. After all, German, Japanese, and Italian soldiers also just PROUDLY served in WWII. Maybe it's time to admire those guys refusing a second tour (deployment) to Iraq based on their first-hand experience. And then being charged with desertion by some desk warriors? Edited for last paragraph.

Tom: not sure about the level of abstraction you are aiming for. Keep in mind that this threat (and, at least, my postings) always had a connection w/ events in Iraq. May I suggest to open another threat on Hegalian politics to which I may contribute, but not authoritatively. Enjoyed our civilized exchange. I am out of this threat: it has run its course. Til next time. Ok, whatever. I missed the part where I was expressing any opinion about Iraq (or current world events). Where was that, again? Remember, I was asking about your "nothing justifies violence" philosophy--not about any particular current events. It seems like you think I'm arguing some side here. I'm really not. edit: By the way, wouldn't "nothing justifies killing" mean that resisting violent occupation was unjustified, since even violent occupation doesn't justify responding with violence?

You just made the point for the Iraqi resistance... I rest my case. To paraphrase Frank Yerby. I believe that every man has a right to a house, if he can afford it. And around that house, he has a right to build a fence. And in that fence, he may decide to put a gate. And in that house, he may keep a gun. And if anyone, be he the President of the United States, or the Secretary General of the United Nations, walks through that gate without permission, he has a right to use that gun.

Tom: please keep in mind that I am just the regular guy, next door. I don't have a fancy education or degree. Can I offer you the Unified Theory of Political Everything? No! But I can offer you my view of the world which includes not wanting to have my bigger and beafier neighbour invade my home, kill my wife and children, and then proclaim that it was all a mistake. While at the same time enjoying the barrel of oil that they found in my backyard. Is that a philosophy? Probably not. Now, let me hear about yours... Keep in mind that I have repeatedly said I am asking about the philosophy, not current events. I have made no attempt to compare any of this to today's situations.

Now that statement assumes that every nation considers themselves as kids, with the US being parents. I'd argue that 6B people on this earth will disagree. Also shows what's wrong with the US attitude (no personal pun intended, of course). I agree. Nobody wants the police at their house unless they've been called. Sure, but when they're abusing their kids, it's probably better if the cops show, even if the parents haven't called.

From an earlier post of mine. Hope that this will elucidate: "Other than that, I do not feel that any single country has the moral authority to judge other societies or to interfere by force. Only the UN has that authority...and you certainly are aware of the position of the world body on the US aggression against Iraq." Applies to interference in Sudan also, where the UN has repeatedly called for action to no avail.

While I can rationally argue and disprove your point, I won't. After all, posting in this forum is not about convincing anyone that my position is right. Instead, it is about exposing everyone to a different line of thought. At least in my books... Post Scriptum: Of course, the US is currently trying to prove in Iraq that their "point" is the ONLY valid one. See the fallacy with this? Probably not. Yea, it sucked having those German troops charging up the shores of Long Island and dropping out of planes into D.C., which by your standard woul'dve been necessary before we got involved. Avoid the question you were asked all you want, but sometimes involving yourself in an external affair is the right thing to do. I hope i'ts not you that walks by next time I'm dying in the street.

The country of Israel has for years ignored every UN resolution on the books. It's treatment of Arabs and Palestinians is at times akin to genocide. Now there you have a worthy cause to right the world of wrong. Similarly the on-going civil war in Sudan. Why don't the US ship 100,000 troops to subdue the fighting factions? If Israel or Sudan had large oil reserves, the White House (w/ Bush and Halliburton Cheney), might be more interested in liberating those countries. Other than that, I do not feel that any single country has the moral authority to judge other societies or to interfere by force. Only the UN has that authority...and you certainly are aware of the position of the world body on the US aggression against Iraq. What if it isn't you, personally, or your country that is under attack? The classic example is the one I stated above (is it morally justified to invade a foreign nation to prevent them perpetrating genocide upon their own people?), but there are others.

1939: March 15/16 - Nazis take Czechoslovakia; Sept 1, Nazis invade Poland; Sept 5, United States proclaims neutrality. 1940: April 9 - Nazis invade Denmark and Norway; May 10 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Oct 7 - German troops enter Romania. 1941: Feb 14 - First units of German Afrika Korps arrive in North Africa; April 6 - Nazis invade Greece and Yugoslavia; June 22: - Germany attacks Soviet Union.; Dec 11 - Germany declares war on the United States. Clearly, Germany was a bona fide agressor by the time the US entered the war. Suffice it to point out that Germany actually declared war on the US, not the other way 'round. Now, was the US justified going after Iraq in 1991 after that country had invaded Kuwait? Absolutely, especially as the Kuwaitis had asked for assistance. Would an invasion of Iraq in 1990 (or Germany in 1939) been justified, if both countries had just minded their own business and limited creating havoc to their own societies and within their own borders? Certainly not! Stating something repeatedly doesn't make it right, but your argument might gain validity if you actually addressed the question you were confronted with: Should we not have invaded Germany in WWII?

Politics never justifies the taking of human life. Period. Now, if you personally or your country is under attack, that's a whole different ballgame. Arguably the US was not under attack or experiencing an imminent threat of being attacked by Iraq. Hence it all boils down to politics...and as stated repeatedly, politics does not justify the taking of human life. So invading continental Europe to try to shut down the death camps was a bad idea? Or a good one? Can you elaborate on your philosophy a little? I'm particularly interested in how you would respond in a situation where some person or group of people would have to be killed to prevent their killing of some other person or group of people.