Dying for Nothing

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
June 2, 2007
by Charley ReeseI didn't watch any of the Memorial Day events on television. Memorial Day, it seems to me, should be only for the families of the dead. It's really impossible to remember someone we never knew.
Of course, these days Memorial Day gets larded with politics and pseudo-patriotism. It's nauseating to watch a bunch of actors, entertainers and politicians who never heard a gun fired in anger put on a maudlin performance as if they really gave a rat's toenail for the dead.
The fact is, war is started by old men who never go near the war, and wars are always fought by the young. The king of Belgium once noted that it takes 20 years of peace to produce a man and 20 seconds of war to destroy him. Think about that. All that a young human being is – intelligence, health, youth, education, knowledge, potential accomplishments – reduced to a bloody pile of broken bones and guts in an instant. They are strangers killing and being killed by strangers.
War is mass murder, and no doubt part of the degradation of the human species is the fact that starting with the War Between the States, the human toll of war has increased exponentially. It's ironic that wars take the healthiest and bravest, while the unhealthy and the cowardly manage to evade them.
Look at all the draft dodgers of the Vietnam Era who suddenly became war hawks as soon as they were too old to go. I've said it before: If I had children of war age, I would do everything in my power to dissuade them from joining the military.
The present war is a bad war. It is not being fought to protect freedom, let alone the American people. Poor Cindy Sheehan, who bravely protested the war, finally gave up. She felt betrayed by the Democrats, by the antiwar movement, but the saddest thing of all, she said, was that she finally faced the fact her son died for nothing.
And sad as it is to say, it's true. The politicians and some of the media chicken hawks like to fork the fertilizer talking about sacrifices for freedom (sacrifices most of them studiously avoid ever making), but it's just fertilizer.
Why did we go to war in Iraq? Because the president hated Saddam Hussein; because the Israeli lobby wanted us to; because the crazy neoconservatives had the insane idea that the Middle East could be democratized at the point of a gun; because oil companies and other corporations lusted for profit.
Missing is any threat to the safety and freedom of the United States, a threat no Iraqi ever made or ever had the capability of carrying out. So, if you don't want to say the kids are dying for nothing, you can say they are dying for Halliburton, for ExxonMobil, for the president's ego, for a cockamamie theory of a bunch of academics, for Israel, for money or for oil. What you cannot truthfully say is that they are dying for freedom.
The "global war on terror" is just a bad metaphor that doesn't have any connection to reality. How long are the American people going to allow liars to lull them into sacrificing the most precious treasure the country has – its youth – in a futile, lie-ridden, corruption-pocked war?
In my dreams, I see the American people rising like a roaring lion and ripping the guilty politicians out of their offices, but that is only a dream. The kind of people with the courage to do that lie moldering in millions of graves around the world
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
On the other hand, risking your life to serve your country is among the most noble things a person can do. I don't blame the soldiers who do their duty with honor and distinction for war crimes committed by their civilian leadership...
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
On the other hand, risking your life to serve your country is among the most noble things a person can do. I don't blame the soldiers who do their duty with honor and distinction for war crimes committed by their civilian leadership...

Are not those same war crimes ordered by civillian leaders carried out by those same `honorable` soldiers?
`They were just following orders`....now where did I hear that phrase before?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Ordering the invasion country without just cause is an example of a war crime committed by a civilian leader.

Carry out those orders in a way the respects international laws and conventions regarding conduct of war and treatment of civilians and adversaries is legal.

Ultimately civilian authority must trump military authority. With authority comes responsibility.

The most a soldier can do is resign if they disagree. For example Collin Powell probably isn't a war criminal. President George Bush Jr. probably is...

Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan

[SIZE=-2][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]16 September 2004 [/SIZE]– Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter. In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=Iraq&Cr1

Once the US President ordered an invasion, soldiers are obligated to do their duty. The grunts ordered to invade can't know whether the cause is just or not. But they should know the rules of war and they are accountable for their actions.

For example if a soldier rapes and murders civilians, they are guilty of war crimes. But they aren't guilty of any crime when they engage their adversaries defensively or offensively. But if they follow an order to rape and murder civilians, they would be guilty of war crimes.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
"Ordering the invasion country without just cause is an example of a war crime committed by a civilian leader.".....

On March 20/03 Iraq was invaded without just cause. Bush and Co knew it, the American media knew it and most of the American public (including its soldiers) knew it. Yet in a blind rage and sheer desire to exact revenge for a (IMO justified) attack on American soil in 2001, the US senate, media and it`s people chose to attack and destroy an innocent defenseless country. Fact and world opinion went out the door replaced by blind revenge.

Americans today are and will (justifiably) continue to pay dearly for they and their leader`s folly long after the current slaughter of the Iraqi people and destruction of their country ceases.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
JBeee

Who attacked America? Could you give me some links that show that Iraqi extremists attacked the United States? You think it's a retribution for some percieved "wrong"...give us the details... Show me where any Iraqi has attacked the United States as an expression of will of the ruling government in Iraq. If you can't then isn't it more likely that the attacks on the WTC in the nineties and the attack on the Murrah building in Oklahoma were simply the actions of criminals and hardly the actions of a foreign state against America?

Or do you actually believe that those terrorists of 2001 and those weapons of mass destruction are all part of an Iraqi plot to destroy the world?

Just asking....
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
JBeee

Who attacked America? Could you give me some links that show that Iraqi extremists attacked the United States? You think it's a retribution for some percieved "wrong"...give us the details... Show me where any Iraqi has attacked the United States as an expression of will of the ruling government in Iraq. If you can't then isn't it more likely that the attacks on the WTC in the nineties and the attack on the Murrah building in Oklahoma were simply the actions of criminals and hardly the actions of a foreign state against America?

Or do you actually believe that those terrorists of 2001 and those weapons of mass destruction are all part of an Iraqi plot to destroy the world?

Just asking....

Mikey...if you`d read that last piece where in there do you find an inkling of me stating anything about Iraq responsible for attacking the US??
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
On the other hand, risking your life to serve your country is among the most noble things a person can do. I don't blame the soldiers who do their duty with honor and distinction for war crimes committed by their civilian leadership...

Not bad, EAO, I thought you had posted something I could completely agree with..............change the words "war crimes committed" to "foreign policy pursued" and I'd be 100% on board.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Once the US President ordered an invasion, soldiers are obligated to do their duty.

Under Nuremburg Tribunal law, those same soldiers are required to refuse to obey orders that violate international laws of justice and war. That is why Professor Ben Ferencz wrote that Bush should be on trial for violating the Nuremburg Doctrine --- a law he invented and signed by the US goverment.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
"Ordering the invasion country without just cause is an example of a war crime committed by a civilian leader.".....

On March 20/03 Iraq was invaded without just cause. Bush and Co knew it, the American media knew it and most of the American public (including its soldiers) knew it. Yet in a blind rage and sheer desire to exact revenge for a (IMO justified) attack on American soil in 2001, the US senate, media and it`s people chose to attack and destroy an innocent defenseless country. Fact and world opinion went out the door replaced by blind revenge.

Americans today are and will (justifiably) continue to pay dearly for they and their leader`s folly long after the current slaughter of the Iraqi people and destruction of their country ceases.

Opinions are based on what people know. In the case of Iraq, most Americans were misinformed. Most Americans supported invading Iraq because most sincerely believed that Iraq had WMDs, was not cooperating with weapons inspectors, supported terrorism and was behind the events of 9/11. Believing otherwise meant disbelieving the idiot box. The majority of Americans believed what their news and political leaders told them.

Americans are not inherently evil or bloodthirsty. They aren't that different from anyone else, which makes them vulnerable to manipulation and propaganda.

..."Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."


"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists (liberals, leftists...) for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."...

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Not much has changed. Leaders can still herd the sheeple in any direction they want.

Website on how the general public was manipulated into supporting war:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html

Opinion polls from just before the invasion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/opinion/polls/main543034.shtml
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Not bad, EAO, I thought you had posted something I could completely agree with..............change the words "war crimes committed" to "foreign policy pursued" and I'd be 100% on board.

My point is that soldiers have to follow orders. If they question or rationalize every decision made by their leaders before taking action, they would be ineffective. All soldiers who do their duty and serve their country should be honored.

But someone has to be responsible for starting an illegal war and the resulting carnage. Also this war couldn't have happened with the complicity of the news media. Lots of people are guilty, but soldiers who serve their country and respect international treaties and conventions regarding war are not guilty and they should not be punished for being a good soldier.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Once the US President ordered an invasion, soldiers are obligated to do their duty.

Under Nuremburg Tribunal law, those same soldiers are required to refuse to obey orders that violate international laws of justice and war. That is why Professor Ben Ferencz wrote that Bush should be on trial for violating the Nuremburg Doctrine --- a law he invented and signed by the US goverment.

True that soldiers must refuse orders which violate international laws and treaties. But they would have to know that those orders were illegal first. How could they have known that?

That quote by Annan above came months after the invasion. Few reporters questioned the legality of war. Few members of America's senate and congress questioned the legality of war.

Is it reasonable to expect a private to figure out on their own that the justifications for invading Iraq were lies and manipulations?
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
Mikey...if you`d read that last piece where in there do you find an inkling of me stating anything about Iraq responsible for attacking the US??

I love it when there is so much moonbattery in the air that moonbats start whacking each other like Britney Spears with an umbrella. You both have Bush/USA/Foxnews/etc derangment syndrome so bad that you don't even read all of each other's posts before you start screaming for "proof" of this and that.

:lol:
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
I love it when there is so much moonbattery in the air that moonbats start whacking each other like Britney Spears with an umbrella. You both have Bush/USA/Foxnews/etc derangment syndrome so bad that you don't even read all of each other's posts before you start screaming for "proof" of this and that.

:lol:
:?:

Britney Spears: "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens":lol:
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Is it reasonable to expect a private to figure out on their own that the justifications for invading Iraq were lies and manipulations?

According to the Nuremburg Tribunal, the answer is yes.

Numerous officers and non-commissioned personnel were held liable for failing to live up to this standard by that same Tribunal. All officers are fully apprised of this law when they are being trained for their positions. Therefore, they cannot claim ignorance of the law. Each is personally liable for their failure to adhere to the law that was created by the USA after World War II. Previously, I have posted links from Professor Ferencz and others to confirm this.