Flowings of Your Everlasting Taffyman

this might not make sense without the argument im responding to, but uh part of a fun on going... anyone have any thoughts? on life,war etc?

Its an interesting set of points you bring up.
First off primary sources, well that works for some things, the foot soldiers account of the battle front for instance... is surely more accurate from the soldier himself, but we were talking about policy decisions not battlefield tactics. When I bring up soldiers tactics or lack there of on the ground I blame the higher ups, I do think soldiers should be held to the same moral standards as normal people, but I certainly blame their higher ups both dems and republicans for putting them in that position. Primary sources on accounts of Iraq, well luckily some of the public does speak English but most of our soldiers don’t speak Arabic. I have seen numerous clips of American soldiers breaking Muslim etiquette rules without even realizing, in fact very proud about the job they were doing and of course these are the routine. I have heard from my friends in the military that they are stepping up cultural training, but it seems a little too late. That being said primary sources, in this case soldiers on the ground, are not educated to the degree they need to be to "win the peace" they insight hatred without even realizing it, they oppress without understanding their own role. This is not something that is native to soldiers, it is a common problem in all travel and cross cultural experiences (believe me I know).. however soldiers, particularly outside soldiers have a tendency to be seen as occupiers when they aren’t backed by local leaders, when they don’t follow local customs. If you read the declaration of war signed by members of al qaida including Bin Laden this is one of the number one concerns of Muslims everywhere, it is one of the violations they see the US committing against Muslims... So it doesn’t make for good counter to their claims... one could say "well what do I car what the terrorists think" but if you don’t listen to why they fight, you can never win a "war" against their cause... because you cant eliminate or even do damage control over what is giving them fuel for their insurgent fire...
but to stick on that issue, soldiers may have a better understanding of what is going on in their personal realm... but they are lied to by their bosses as much as you claim our press lies to us. We both know that, and if you look at the websites and propaganda the military puts out it clearly shows that what they are saying and what the facts are, are two different things.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/ - 12 of the 14 or so prominent stories are relatively positive. 2 out of 14 deal with the issue of casualties US or Iraqi, when at least 112 people were killed yesterday..
I’m glad you brought up the point about the difference between those who died in hostile action vs. non, but the 500 or so person gap there cant be explained by normal peace time training missions, if we had 150 people die per year in military training don’t you think some people would get brought up on charges? Negligence by someone...

Media, bias, news, whats the alternative? I watch both sides, I read both sides, I look for the crazy independent people, i look for the stuff from the people there, i look for the stuff from al jazeera BBC and other foreign press. well I put together a picture from that, that might still be biased.. but a news story or a quote or a letter written by an official in charge seems like fair game to me. Rumsfeld wrote a letter to the president on 9/11 saying we should use this opportunity to attack Iraq even if we find it has nothing to do with it... so they did. That seems like fair game to criticize, question etc. Why? 20 years before Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand as allies and now they are enemies. The gassing of the Kurds happened while we were still allies. the Iran-Iraq war was part of our alliance even though we were selling weapons to both sides and the Kurds at the same time. Why the change?
We didn’t even send troops in to Kuwait (the first gulf) till after we had secured Saudi territory. (The reason Bin Laden hates us)

so yeah that might seem biased to read or watch the news, but some of it is the people making the policy, the people I’m keeping in check by my vote not so long ago... By the way I don’t give a flying fuck about Michele Bachmann’s record on criminals she has openly come out and said she doesn’t believe in gay people, other religions, global warming, stem cells, evolution, feminism (though she wouldn’t have the rights without it)she called terri schiavo "healthy" and these are all direct from her mouth no need for the spin....
of course the attack ads are biased and even though wetterling didn’t put them up she certainly got flack for it, but bachmanns ad's did the same thing to wetterling... so the people voted and bachmann was elected because that’s what they want in that region of MN... they must be "hot for Jesus"
)__________
ok the next big section

Human rights violations are not crimes committed by individuals the term is used when governments approve of or allow the abuse of people by forces in power. -basically when it is formally or informally sanctioned.
Now its true that some are looked out for more so than others, blatant human rights violations being things like murder, genocide, torture, slavery, institutionalized rape, or keeping basic human necessities from the people.
and once again I’m not saying Saddam didn’t commit these crimes I’m saying we
A) allowed and supported them
B)and should we decide to change that policy, should do so holding ourselves to a higher standard, which I don’t think we are... with massive amounts of instituted violations, and the instances where they have been brought up, dealt with only when they became scandal (IMPORTANCE OF MEDIA) and including obvious cover ups and scapegoat... why do I expect my government or officials to self incriminate? Because we ask Saddam and the "terrorists" to do so. If we aren’t even living up to the standard we are trying to instill in others, then it is certainly doomed to fail.

So taking that in to consideration, certainly there is crime and always will be but in this case when our soldiers are acting as criminals they do so in other countries, hurting foreign people, and acting as occupiers. (this strengthen the support of those we are fighting against, because whether we like it or not, some of them are actually just fighting for their freedom.)
Finally on that point I find it unbelievable that you would show the “mundane-ness” of these crimes and of these deaths, certainly people die every day on the road, smoking, drinking etc. And we do in fact have public laws and safety regulations to keep this from happening.. this is the exact opposite of your general theory on this war, which seems to be coming from a standpoint of “if they want to fuck with us, we will fuck them up more.” Namely for two reasons, one it doesn’t end the cycle of violence, the way we are operating would be like if some guy is acting reckless and gets in car accident we send out a squad of cars to run him off the road (“hoping to avoid casualties” but of course he knows we are after him, so he is gonna hide amongst noncombatants)
War to solve violence doesn’t work. You point to WWII but WWII ushered in the cold war, which brought up all of our conflicts until the 90s and some could point at Afghanistan and Iraq being directly linked to WW I and WWII the “terrorists” certainly do. Second. You use this argument to say that we don’t overreact when it comes to other crimes, the normality of crime, of people being hurt, but that is in direct conflict with the stated agenda of fighting back. If crime and killing is an everyday thing, if starvation and violence are an everyday occurrence with no one to blame, (because you argue our troops shouldn’t be blamed nor our leadership for HR violations in Iraq) them the reason for going to war is null and void in the first place… 9/11 people dying is an everyday occurrence.. and therefore shouldn’t be revenged… this is clearly counter to many of your other arguments.
What I’m pointing out is that your “realism” approach here (and that’s the theory, “our nation over there’s, your people over theirs, you over them”) is ethnocentric and causes the problems that you supposedly wish to solve… it means fighting and killing until every “other” is eliminated or pacified and you will never run out of “others”.. which means perpetual war, perpetual fear/anxiety, perpetual build up… ->which certainly doesn’t sound the same as the “crime happens, don’t worry about it” approach you were saying before.
- it also goes counter to the “their freedom, our security” argument, because you cannot have freedom nor security in a state of constant war… and what are we in? not a war against a nation, but an idea a belief system… how do you eliminate it? the largest religion in the world was built off the backs of martyrs(Christianity), and the fastest growing is certainly thriving in the same way (islam)…

Your last 2 points cuz I agree this is getting old…

1) retreating/pulling out will cause more death

2) wars are won in the will


-1. A)Viet Nam cost 58,000+ American casualties… for an ill-justified, ill-conceived, ill planned, and certainly ill executed strategy. It was not until we left that American stopped dying. It was not until after we left that Viet Nam found peace, so much so that our current president was just welcomed there… to a communist unified “prosperous” country. If some soldiers were killed on the way out, it was still less than having them all there.
B) Iraq is a similar situation, according to our leaders and those executing the orders.
This does not mean I’m “for” pulling out immediately but it certainly doesn’t help to continue the way we have been. Things have gotten worse, according to our own generals and intelligence agencies, within 6 months the entire country will be in full scale civil war. What would I propose, well Iran and Syria are meeting with the leaders of Iraq soon, that and other local help is the only way things will stabilize and we should have been fighting for that, not war against random people, in the first place.
If we get killed on the way out, it will be because we were stupid walking in, and when we got there we fucked shit up even more, the “insurgents” capitalizing on a “divided” country, well that’s not the fault of the people who wish them to be safe at home, that’s the fault of the leaders who sent them unjustifiably into a shit hole because it served his own interest or his misguided and ignorant beliefs.

2) “war is won in the will”. I disagree, conflict is won in the will, and then only sometimes. It is peace that is won with will. The will of peaceful people is what brings together nations, states, cities, communities and people. It is only by believing in, and pursuing peace that you will find it. It is only through seeking similarities that we find the means to bridge cultural divides. It is not through the stick, the sword, gun or bomb. If you ask the terrorists why they fight us, they will say for freedom. If you ask us why we fight we say for freedom. Something is off here if our definitions of freedom impose upon each other. You could say competition for resources, but that is the fear mongering that leads to oppression. The fear of scarcity enables us to enslave, kill and commit genocide. And though one could make the argument that hoarding resources protects, ensures survival for the future… what is the point if we lose our humanity in the process? The traditions and values we cherish… you talk about standing in the window holding a gun to the invaders, well just like the Chinese who build the biggest wall and had the largest and best equipped army in the world it doesn’t stop invasion, it only keeps you in.


-wow that was overly dramatic eh? I know that’s taking the argument to the extremes but I think history shows that’s the end all to “realism.” If you want to be a part of something bigger, why not be for a shared humanity…
You can say, yeah that’s why I fight for the Iraqi people, well if you do so by supporting those who enslaved them I can guarantee you the chains will not be lifted. If you say, yeah I protect those rights you talk about, I’m the big stick to ensure peace, then I say “thank you” to some extent, but also don’t be so gung ho, if you end up only protecting your self interests then you are no better than those you fear.. including the fascists of whatever religion… attach any of our government’s statements on terrorism and the war to the following. (of course one could counter thats what the terrorists are spreading too, my point is does that make us better? no)
Nazi Party
• “The broad mass of the nation … will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, in his 1925 book Mein Kampf.
• “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” — Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.[5]
• “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 for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials.

im just saying why are we following in these foot steps? if its inevitable human bullshit then i welcome nuclear war, because we dont deserve this planet. If there is something better then lets go for it.
the counters are easy, be honest, be upfront about things, take in to consideration all points of view, do not deceive yourself by thinking you are more important, better or above this pettiness. sorry to be confrontational... but we can keep this up or not....

peace and love to you and your peoples
-taff