Dying for Nothing

JBeee
#1
June 2, 2007
by Charley Reese I 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
#2
How long have you known this?
 
JBeee
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

How long have you known this?

Long before March 20th 2003.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#4
Hello JBeee. Looks like you finally moseyed on over.
 
earth_as_one
+1
#5  Top Rated Post
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
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

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?
 
JBeee
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshiv View Post

Hello JBeee. Looks like you finally moseyed on over.

Do I know you?? *wink*
 
earth_as_one
+1
#8
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...

Quote:

Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan

16 September 2004 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....53&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
#9
"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
#10
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
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

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
Conservative
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

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
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeee View Post

"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.

Quote:

..."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/...in543034.shtml
 
earth_as_one
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeee View Post

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.

 
JBeee
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by thomaska View Post

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.



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"
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#19
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.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeee View Post

Do I know you?? *wink*

Yep. I have read many a C&P from you over at the vine.
 
JBeee
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshiv View Post

Yep. I have read many a C&P from you over at the vine.

....which made you a die-hard fan I assume?
In that case, if you`d like to officially join my fan club, send an e-mail to my secretary, Das. He will cheerfully take care of you.
 
shadowshiv
Free Thinker
#22
You have a fan club? I can only imagine what the entrance fees would be!
 
earth_as_one
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

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.

Nuremburg concluded that just following orders doesn't absolve you of a crime. But German soldiers fighting on the front did not commit any war crimes. Neither have most American soldiers in Iraq.

Soldiers should have no fear of serving their country within the rules of war. The generals found guilty at Nuremburg went beyond the rules of war. But then again, so did the Allied generals. By the end of WW II Generals on both sides were guilty of war crimes.

Quote:

...Harris and Churchill teamed up again some 25 years later to execute a relentless terror bombing campaign during WWII for which neither offered any apologies nor demonstrated any qualms. "Now everyone's at it," Churchill said about the deliberate targeting of civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion - similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Bomber's attitude was best displayed when, during the later stages of the war, a motorcycle policeman stopped Harris for speeding. "You might have killed someone, sir," came the reprimand, to which Bomber Harris replied, "Young man, I kill thousands of people every night."

As for the Americans in the European theater, under direct orders from President Roosevelt, US bombers initially stuck to a slightly more humane policy of daylight precision bombing. Unlike their British counterparts, Americans did not have images of the Luftwaffe over London to motivate them towards unabashed mass murder; it took them a little longer to reach the point of targeting civilians as policy.

The risks of daylight bombing runs did not pay off in accuracy-only 50 percent of US bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target. America soon joined its English allies in the execution of nighttime area bombing campaigns of civilian targets in Germany. The saturation bombardment of Bomber Harris and his US counterparts resulted in at least 635,000 dead German civilians...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3003

If Germany had won that war, I'm sure Harris and Churchill would have been charged with war crimes.

Should Bomber Command pilots refused to bomb German civilians?
 
Zzarchov
#24
Side Note 1: You do not need UN approval for a war. The UN is not the one in charge of defining legal and illegal, it has no legal nor moral authority to do so (seriously, its a forum for debate and dialogue not a governing body, look at the members, did you ever approve of letting North Korea have a say in morality?)

Side Note 2.) By perpetrating Genocide all nations were obliged nearly 20 years ago to try Saddam for war crimes, using war if needed. So in terms of a Legal war, as long as that pretext is there (Whether or not thats what the war was "sold" as is irrelevant in this context).

So in no way is this war illegal. A bad idea? one can easily argue that, but illegal and a war crime? No. Would it be illegal if Saddam Hussien had not committed Genocide and other war crimes? Yes.
 
earth_as_one
#25
The former Secretary General of the United Nations who is a recognized authority on international law said this:

Quote:

Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan

16 September 2004 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....53&Cr=Iraq&Cr1

Can't get much clearer than that. The US signed the UN charter. That means they are obligated to follow it or withdraw from the UN.
 
earth_as_one
#26
Analysis: Iraq war legality
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4482029.stm

Also this statement:

Quote:

This Resolution (1441) constitutes the world community’s demand that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

Explanation of Vote by Ambassador John D. Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following the vote on the Iraq Resolution, Security Council, November 8, 2002

...As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And one way or another, Mr. President, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security...

http://www.un.int/usa/02_187.htm

Iraq claimed they were disarmed. UNMOVIC found minor technical violations and were dealing with those issues. When the US attacked Iraq, Hans Blix just finished making this statement:

Quote:

SECURITY COUNCIL 7 MARCH 2003

Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC
Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix

Mr. President,


For nearly three years, I have been coming to the Security Council presenting the quarterly reports of UNMOVIC. They have described our many preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq. The 12th quarterly report is the first that describes three months of inspections. They come after four years without inspections. The report was finalized ten days ago and a number of relevant events have taken place since then. Today’s statement will supplement the circulated report on these points to bring the Council up-to-date....

...The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed...
.... Mr. President,

Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months....

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

10 days later Bush made this speech:

Quote:

March 17, 2003
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours


...Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.


The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030317-7.html





 
earth_as_one
#27
Eventually even Bush had to admit Iraq did not possess WMDs or links to al Qaeda.

Quote:

Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix



No evidence to link Saddam with September 11 attacks, Bush admits

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian



The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.
The claim came on the same day that President George Bush stated more bluntly than ever that there is no evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 - despite 69% of Americans believing Saddam had a personal role, according to a recent Washington Post opinion poll. Mr Blix, who spent three years hunting for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq as head of the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation listeners: "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1044511,00.html

There is no evidence that 69% of the sheeple have wised up yet.
 
JBeee
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

Eventually even Bush had to admit Iraq did not possess WMDs or links to al Qaeda.



There is no evidence that 69% of the sheeple have wised up yet.

Wised up to what....that Paris Hilton has found God while imprisoned for the last week? *smile*
 
DaSleeper
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by JBeee View Post

....which made you a die-hard fan I assume?
In that case, if you`d like to officially join my fan club, send an e-mail to my secretary, Das. He will cheerfully take care of you.

If you had told me the job involved working I would have asked for more money
 
JBeee
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

If you had told me the job involved working I would have asked for more money

A boom in my fan club since arriving here?

Hey Das....one day you`ll get somewhere in life. Stick around young man.
Opportunities abound!....now shuddup an keep taking orders....
 

Similar Threads

10
Dying Young
by jellyfarm | Jun 27th, 2008
3
As I Lay Dying
by CHUCKMAN | Nov 9th, 2006
30
The Dying Art of Femininity
by mrmom2 | Oct 27th, 2005
13
I'm Dying to Know!
by Haggis McBagpipe | Jun 28th, 2004