My money's on both.
I've heard Dershowitz talk. He seems extremely lucid. Then again, I don't follow legal guys much and I might have the wrong guy. Is Dershowitz the forgettable guy who defended O.J.? (By forgetable I mean non-rhyming and not F. Lee.
No, that was Robert Shapiro. Dershowitz is a constitutional lawyer.
Oh, sorry, my buzz.
Dershowitz was also one of the 8 guys on the OJ Simpson dream team. He is also famous for defending rich guy Claus von Bulow for the attempted murder of his wife (which didn't count as a homicide because she's still breathing, if in a coma since the early 80s)
Dersh gave a moving speech on C-Span about terrorism. He claims that Muslims are involved in the majority of ethnic conflicts around the world (around 22 of the 25 major conflicts), I find this hard to believe.
Why is it so hard to believe?
Although completely across the spectrum, I agree with Dershowitz on matters relating to Israel.
Scott, Dershowitz is known mostly as an appellate lawyer. He's the guy you go to after you get convicted to see if there were judicial errors in your case that can warrant appeal. He did this with Claus von Bulow, and that's why he was on OJ's so-called Dream Team (in case OJ was convicted).
He claims that Muslims are involved in the majority of ethnic conflicts around the world (around 22 of the 25 major conflicts), I find this hard to believe.
I, too, find this very suspect. How did he come with this number? What did he count as major conflict: war between two countries, guerilla against one country, terrorist acts?
When two countries are fighting, the religion plays a lesser role than other political and economic factors (which is why two muslimic countries will fight each other just as christian countries have fought each other too often for political reasons).
When talking about guerillas, don't forget that US govt and the CIA assisted many Islamic groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere, following the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend logic.
When talking about terrorists, lets be very careful, since its the fashion today to blame everything on muslim terrorists without waiting for the results of the proper investigation.
The Ireland conflict or the ETA have existed (sadly) long enough without any muslim help, for example. (And in Ireland, religion isn't really the issue - its about power, control and revenge. True christians aren't supposed to kill other people this way, as most of the clerics over there will tell you, but this doesn't stop the hotheads bent on revenge.)
Likewise, the Isreali-Palestinan problem is a complex one, with a lot of injustice and terror acts on both sides, and too much hate and revenge going around, for it to only a religion conflict. Its more like the icing on the cake (bad image here, when talking about a situation like this, I know), a handle people grip when talking about it, but not the only cause.
When talking about terrorists, lets be very careful, since its the fashion today to blame everything on muslim terrorists without waiting for the results of the proper investigation.
Except in Spain, of course, where a terrorist attack was blamed on ETA, but turned out to be Al-Quaeda.
Re: Israel-Palestinians. One side (side A) would be willing to let the other (side B) live in peace if it was not attacked. Side B, on the other hand, wants to drive Side A into the sea. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Scott: It's a bit more complicated then that. peace was on the way until Ariel Sharon adn the Ultra Conservatives in Israel had to go issuing death threats and shooting up mosques. It wasn't a Muslim who murdered Yitzhak Rabin in cold blood if you remember. I agree with constanze; there has ben unforgiveable acts committed by both sides. Remember how furious I got when matt Pesti tried to justify an Isreali solider shooting an unarmed elderly Palestinian in the back beucase said elderly man had on one of those Ben_Gay patches they advertise on TV in those $tupid mock runway show commericals? Similarly, I feel the same kind of anger and sadness whenever I hear of another Israeli bus getting blown up as anybody else of conscience, even though I'm not Jewish myself.
But let's get back to the Dersh shall we? Anyone ever hear the story that back when miramax was going to give Kevin Smith's 3rd (and probably best) moive Chasing Amy an NC-17, Dershowitz was breifly going to represent the studio in fighting the rating? I heard that the MPAA ended up giving the movie an R and such a fight never happened.
Bull. The PLO (and by extension the PA) still has in its charter a call for the total destruction of Israel.
And if peace was on the way, then explain Arafat at Camp David.
My complaint about Dersh is he is demonising a whole group of people: Muslims are responsible for the majority of the world's problems. That's not only ignorant, it's racist. Of the over 109 million people killed in wars, violence, and genocide in the 20th century, how many were because of Islam?... very few, so to try to make it look like Islam is THE problem in the world is disingenuous. Dersh has resorted to this tactic before. While on Geraldo's Fox call-in show in 95, he labeled callers who thought O.J. was guilty as racists and anti-Semites.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not primarily over religion: it has more to do with land and nationalities (does Dersh ever criticise the militantly racist Ultra Conservative settlers). There is a tactic, even by right wing "Christians", to attack any criticism of Sharon's right-wing government as anti-Semitic. A typical example of this occured on Fox. Sean Hannity branded Robert Reich as an anti-Semite for criticising Ariel Sharon! I guess Reich is another one of the "Self-loathing Jews" according to the right-wing
And if peace was on the way, then explain Arafat at Camp David.
Explain Arafat and Rabin winning Nobel peace Prizes together. Explain the American reporter who caught Arafat crying when news of Rabin's assasination reached him. Explain Ariel Sharon using terms to describe Palestinians that are frighteningly similar to terms used by Hitler. Explain the fact that over a million Israelis regulary protest the Ultra Conservative policies of the current adminstration in Israel. The Isrealis are not blameless Scott. Call me anti-Semitic for saying that if you want. Every other knee-jerk reactionary does. Hell I've been called anti-Semitic for not liking Joe Lieberman, so I'm used to lies about my character. But it won't make my point any less valid. If you want to suggest that somehow Isrealis are nothing but victims, and not agressors at all, how about Baruch Goldstein? The Jewish settler who murdered 29 Muslims in cold blood while they were worshipping in the Mosque of Machpelah? Not as bad as the massacre of the jewish community committed by Arabs in 1929, but still. And really, do you think things like a two year old Palestinian girl being killed by Isareali bullets fired from a nearby settlement in 2000? That had to •••• off even the most pro-Peace Arab. If it had been a jewish girl Sharon would've ordered more missiles fired at elementary schools. By more, I mean more than the pointless strikes against civilians he's alreayd authorized. Call it bull if you want, but Sharon is just as much a murderer as a palestinian who blows himself up in front of a night club filled with Jewish teenagers. Period. Hell, even members of Israel's Special Forces, the elite soliders of the military there, are opposing the current method of occupation and excution. What is the plan here? To do to them what they did (want to continue to do) to you? Sorry, but in the minds of most sane people, that makes Sharon and the lakud(sp?) party just as bad as Hamas. End of story.
My point about Arafat is he could have gotten 95% of what he wanted, and he threw it away. There was not a snowball's chance in hell of him getting the so-called "Right of Return", and he knew it. He got EVERYTHING ELSE, and still rejected it.
In September of 2000, Arafat called for intifada against Israel, war of independence. Yet there are people who still consider Arafat a peacemaker, a statesman. The PLO was founded prior to Israel's annexation of the West Bank and Gaza with the intent of driving the Jews into the sea. The Palestinian terrorists target civilicans, the Israelis do their best to avoid them. WHen Israeli civilians are killed, Palestinians rejoice; when Palestinian civilians are killed, Israelis mourn and regret. Yet Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aksa Martyrs are the good guys?
Just because one disagrees with Alan Dershowitz's ways of arguing, and his past opinions, does not make him wrong in this case.
BrianA: the Israelis do their best to avoid them.
What?!? How does lobbing missiles at houses, schools, and cars count as "avoiding civilians?" How does shooting unarmed Palestinians count as "avoiding civilians?" The Israelis don't avoid civilians any more than the Palestinian suicide bombers do. Sorry, but even many Israelis don't like what Sharon is doing. last time I looke dit up, roughly 1/3 of the population of the entire country disagreed with Sharon.
WHen Israeli civilians are killed, Palestinians rejoice; when Palestinian civilians are killed, Israelis mourn and regret.
Not all of them. You may be asking, "not all of who? Not all palestinians rejoice, or not all Israelis mourn?" The answer would be, both.
Yet Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aksa Martyrs are the good guys?
OK, now that's just insulting. Nobody here is saying that. Do you Right Wingers pratice twisting people's words, or is it just a natural talent?
Just because one disagrees with Alan Dershowitz's ways of arguing, and his past opinions, does not make him wrong in this case.
Exceopt he was wrong. Not all the world's conflict is cuased by Muslims. Muslims were victims in Kosovo. Muslims aren't the one opressing Catholics in Norhtern Ireland. Muslims aren't the ones branding anyone who even slightly disagres with the American President as a traitor. Muslims aren't the ones who can't decide wether or not to watch Without A Trace instead of ER (since most Cosnervos I've met have been humour impaired, I'll say right now that that last one was thrown in as a joke).
Oh BTW, you may not have known (cared) this, but on a certian level, I happen to like Allan. I like what he says about fre speech and the ACLU and what not. I just happen to think what he said in this one case borders on racism.
Actually that was Clerks, not Chasing Amy, that The Dersh appealed the NC17 rating of.
Despite there being no violence, sex or nudity in the film, it was originally given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA based solely on its graphic dialogue. The film's distributor Miramax hired attorney Alan M. Dershowitz (of the O.J. Simpson defense team) who successfully petitioned the MPAA to lower its rating to R without any cuts.
Actually that was Clerks, not Chasing Amy, that The Dersh appealed the NC17 rating of.
Despite there being no violence, sex or nudity in the film, it was originally given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA based solely on its graphic dialogue. The film's distributor Miramax hired attorney Alan M. Dershowitz (of the O.J. Simpson defense team) who successfully petitioned the MPAA to lower its rating to R without any cuts.
oops.
Webber - You sound like you have been watching Palestinian propoganda lately. (i.e. mainstream media...?) I have no wish to respond to rants, because I am sure that we both have independent sources of facts and figures.
I will take issue with you claiming that the Kosovars were victims. The conflict there had aggressors and victims on both sides. Some of the Kosovars were involved with terrorism directed against Serbia. The Serbians fought back, and went overboard. NATO came to the aid of Kosovo, and helped them regain their land. Many Kosovars promptly started killing the Serbs. It was one of those conflicts that had been going on for centuries, which made it impossible to see who was the original aggressor.
Maybe you should get out more, if you only meet non-humerous conservatives. I believe a trait of those of us on the right is a willingness to engage in self-deprecation, to laugh at ourselves. It is something I have found lacking in most liberals I've met.
Anyway, I'm sorry to be dragging this off topic. Er, Dershowitz... he's got a cool name.
Webber - You sound like you have been watching Palestinian propoganda lately.
Nope. Just reading the newspapers. Adn the opinions oif Israeli Refuseniks. I gotta admire any Israeli citizen who has the balls to stand up to Sharon. In Isreal right now, doing something as simple as your job can earn you a death threat or too. What do I mean? I can't remember the yougnman's name, but he is an Israeli paramedic. Late last year, this man went to the aid of a woudned Palestinian man. Shortly thereafter, he, his Arab born wife, and his family in New York City began receving death threats from ultra conservative Jews in Israel and the U.S. I have Jewish friends and relatives, and they were appaled by this this behavior. It sickens them that a good Jewish boy would be ostracized for doing nothing more than his job; saving lives. Oh, adn that palesitnian man he saved? Civilian, not a suicide bomber or Hamas member.
Now, what you have to accept, is that I am NOT in any way shape or form condoning the actions of Palestinian terrorists. I'm just saying that the current Administration of Israel are not the Good Guys they claim to be. And judging from the film footage of peace marches I've seen in Tel Aviv, I think there are at the very least about a million practioners of Judaism, including such respected Rabbis as Dr. Micheal Lerner who agree with me. This does not make an anti-Semite, or them self-loathers, depsite what people like America's own equivalent to the Lakud, the NeoCons, try to tell you.
I will take issue with you claiming that the Kosovars were victims.
Well, what else would you call a group of people being executed en masse and chased out of their homes?
The conflict there had aggressors and victims on both sides.
I agree, but why is it when is ay it about Israel and palestine you accuse me of falling for, and I quote, Palestinian propaganda?
Some of the Kosovars were involved with terrorism directed against Serbia. The Serbians fought back, and went overboard.
So has Ariel Sharon. Why the double standard here Other Brian?
NATO came to the aid of Kosovo, and helped them regain their land. Many Kosovars promptly started killing the Serbs.
{roving that violence is cycliacal, thus once agian proving my point that the Israeli military dropping bombs on Arab kids isn't going to stop the suicide bombings. In fact, it'll only increase it. Far as I'm concerned, the blood of every jewish child killed in the past few years is on the hands of BOTH Arafat (for failing to control his people) and Sharon (for being a dick).
It was one of those conflicts that had been going on for centuries, which made it impossible to see who was the original aggressor.
Same thing as the Middle East conflict. If you believe everythign you read in the Bible, this little war began as a feud between two brothers.
Maybe you should get out more, if you only meet non-humerous conservatives. I believe a trait of those of us on the right is a willingness to engage in self-deprecation, to laugh at ourselves. It is something I have found lacking in most liberals I've met.
What?!? Oh come on! Liberals lack self-deprecation? I can name about a dozen or so comemdian,s actors, and politicians that disporve that little theory, myself included. Do ana rchive serach of my posts. You'll find me cracking jokes about my ideologies, my weight, my TV viewing habits, even my taste in women. Also, do the names Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Eric Alterman ring any bells? Lots of self-deprecation there. how about comdian Richard Belzer who refers to hismelf as "a Jew who read too many newspapers?" Except for the Jew part he could be describing me! I'm an Atheist who reds too many newspapers! :D
OK. Time to pick this up and move it to PM.
Speaking of politics, no one mentioned Dershowitz's biggest fault: he's an admitted Democrat!
You liberals should praise Dershowitz. He defends the civil rights of murderers. He should join the French judge who's defending Saddam Hussein. Frenchie's strategy is to put America on trial. All the America haters have found a new hero.
Aron: Well, you would know if Liberals are full of hate. Takes one to know one after all.
Prozac. Make friends with it.
Brian, I know it must be depressing being a Democrat. My sympathies. Be careful with the Prozac; it causes impotence. Too bad JFK wasn't impotent: he never wore a condom and was continuously reinfected with gonorrhea. Those Democratic Presidents sure do care about people's health!
The events of the last week (cheering crowds of Muslims mutilating and hanging the corpses of Americans) reinforce the fact that Dershowitz is 100% right about Muslims. They are the major source of conflict in today's world. Derek mentions that Muslims didn't cause most of the carnage in the 20th century. Some one should tell him it's now the 21st century, and Muslims have caused most of the carnage...9/11, Bali (the photos of the nearly 200 burned bodies were truely sickening),Madrid, riots in India between Muslims and Hindus that have left hundreds of dead,100 killed in Nigeria (Muslims were disgusted by a beauty pagent being held there,apparently killing 100 people doesn't disgust Allah),the continual slaughters on Israeli buses, and on and on, All the attack on settler day care centers sums up the cowardly nature of Muslim men. Then again, I read in the paper last month that closeted homosexual behavoir is rampant in Muslim countries...and they're always carrying on about the "Great Satan" of the West. I also read that in 1978 the Ayatollah in Iran had to issue a statement against having sex with camels. Talk about a degenerate civilization. Come to think of it, what has the Muslim World contributed to civilization in the last 100 years. It must infuriate them to see a stable Democracy in the Middle East with thriving high tech industries and universities. Of course , the Jews in Israel aren't killing each other like the Arabs in Muslim countries do to each other,
One thing I have to criticise about Alan: Democratic politians and lawyers like him have prevented Bush from effectively fighting Islamic terrorists. He's very concerned about the civil rights of Muslim haters. How about the rights of their victims? After Saudi Arabia sent 19 bombers to kill 3000 Americans, America should have dropped an atomic bomb on Mecca...that would have sent a message to the Arab Muslim world. Bush was right about Iraq. An Israeli Think Tank (of diverse views with access to classified information) came to the conclusion (in 1996) that Saddam Hussein must be removed from office for stability in the Middle East.
<i>After Saudi Arabia sent 19 bombers to kill 3000 Americans, America should have dropped an atomic bomb on Mecca...that would have sent a message to the Arab Muslim world.</i>
Interesting Aron, you support the targeting os civillian targets to acheve a political end. Somebody help me out; what's that called agian? Webber, Stott, BrianA, anybody wanna take a guess?
HIGHLIGHT FOR ANSWER:
terrorism
Brian, I know it must be depressing being a Democrat.
It must be hard to be so certain when you have none of the facts at hand you ill-informed bigot. I'm not a Dem, I'm Natural Law. You know, those wakco loons who choose Science over God? What a-holes we are.
Anyway, I'd respond to the rest of your bile filled pice of •••• post, but I think Fitzie hit the nail on the head.
Mr. Webber why are you so mad at Aron and not terrorists? Many have noted that the Muslim world considers itself at war with the United States. More people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. If that wasn't an act of war, what is?
Cindy, while I strongly disagree with Brian W., Aron's discussion style has devolved into ad hominem (i.e. attacking the poster instead of the poster's arguments). Brian has often come close to that as well (attacking Bush the man as opposed to Bush's policies).
I would assume that Brian is ticked off at Aron for both his support of Bush and for his ad hominem.
Oh, and by the way, Cindy... Welcome to NitCentral!
Yeah, always nice to see a new face.
You'll get used to the scrum after awhile (except Aron, who as Scott correctly pointed out went way over the NitC pale and has since been banned for it). Around here, participating in a political/religious discussion requires full-body armour.
Cindy: Mr. Webber why are you so mad at Aron and not terrorists?
OK, here's something you need to understand about the likes of Aron. They don't care about the truth. If they did, they'd undertsand that when I say, "both Israel AND Plaestine have a right to exist," it's NOT code for "kill all the Jews." When I say that I want peace, I actually mean it. I am NOT pro-terrorist. Aron is just a sadistic pathologically dishonest monster.
Many have noted that the Muslim world considers itself at war with the United States.
Plenty of Muslims aren't. But mentioning them would get in the way of a good racist tirade, which is why Aron and BrianA like to pretend that nice Arabs don't exist, even though they not only do, but I believe we hvae a few of 'em right here at NitCentral.
More people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. If that wasn't an act of war, what is?
I never said it wasn't, but if we had just killed a bunch of Germans and Japanese in WWII then left, or worse planned to stay as an occupying force for an indefinite period would things have ben different? We'll never know, because we didn't do it that way. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Marshall Plan? I've always beelived that the money we give to israel annually shouldn't be a blank check for more weapons. It should Marshall Plan style funds for schools and roads and peace (you can't buy off the truly fanatical, but I imagine a few potential suicide bombers could be turned away with a nice fat sack of food and books for their kids. Hell, even one would be good enough for me).
BTW, while we're on that subject, the majority of the hijakcers were Saudi Arabian. So why did we bomb Afghanistan and then Iraq? If 19 North koreans had flown planes into buildings the headlines wouldn't read "Terrorists Attack U.S." as they did on 9/12 and onwards.
Oh, and indeed welcome to NitCentral. Sorry if my post seemed harsh, but something that's easy to forget, is that things like tone of voice and inflection doesn't translate well in this written format. If you were sitting in this room with me right now, you would've heard me say what I said above in a level voice, with my questions posed as questions, not as rhetorical jabs.
Cindy,
9/11 wasn't an act of war, because no nation has owned up to it and declared responsible for it, like Japan did at Pearl Harbor. During WWII, it was clear and well-known that the US wasn't fighting Europe or the fascist world, but Germany and the countries allied with it.
There is no "Muslim world" anymore than there is a "Christian world" or a "Buddhist world", there are nations with a lot of different cultures and government styles, where a certain (bigger or smaller) part of the population calls themself muslim/ Christian/ buddhist etc.
If the pope declared a war (crusade= holy war= jihad) on the "muslim world", would "Catholic countries" follow him? No, the spanish population demonstrated against the Iraq war and have now elected a different governement which will likely listen to their people and pull out of iraq. Likewise, many moslems in many arabic and african countries are normal people who want to work, earn food etc. for their families, live in peace, and go the mosque on friday, and pray five times daily.
I never said it wasn't, but if we had just killed a bunch of Germans and Japanese in WWII then left
So you're advocating *NOT* leaving Iraq?
I don't advocate leaving Iraq even though I think Bush lied to get us there. It's our mess now we have to clean it up.
I'm not sure that Bush lied. I think that
Clarification.
He should have done better in the analysis of the rationale, but remember that Saddam had used WMD, The previous administration believed he still had WMD, and there was nothing besides Saddam's word that he didn't have them.
Yes, the bit about uranium from Nigeria was bad. But I think it was bad intel, grabbed overenthusiastically, not a deliberate lie.
ScottN,
... and there was nothing besides Saddam's word that he didn't have them.
Wrong on many counts. First, there was the word of Hans Blix and many other UN researchers that most dangerous weapons had been destroyed (that the previous administration believed Saddam had WMDs doesn't prove anything because a lot had happened in the meantime.)
And the US administration could have pulled out their bills and looked what they shipped Saddam in the 80s and compare it to what the UN said had been destroyed.
And, more important, in his final speech Bush made clear that he wanted to invade Iraq even if Saddam would agree to all his demands and cooperate fully.
Likewise, the anti-war people had proven long before the start of the war that each "argument" provided by the Bush administration was either wrong (like the connection between laistic Saddam and Al Quaida), bad intel, falsificated (like Nigeria) or wouldn't be solved by a war (bringing stability and democracy to Iraq? Most anti-war experts predicted exactly what has happened: instability, and therefore a haven for real terrorists; more muslims hating the US for being occupators; a laistic dicatorship on the verge of becoming an islamstic (fundamentalistic) republic again.
So either Bush didn't know his administration was lying to him through his teeth, fabricating stuff right and left, and was ignoring on purpose what the anti-war experts said - in which case he is so stu-pid he shouldn't lead the US.
Or Bush knew what his administration was doing, and was (by not stopping it) endorsing it - in which case he is a liar, and worse.
And the question isn't whether the US should stay in Iraq or leave: it should handle the situation skillfully, not bungle everything in sight because they don't understand nothing about the culture and people down there, or believing that democracy drops from heaven when one bad guy is removed, ... Grow up, act adult, stop seeing and acting on black/white beliefs.
{Grow up, act adult, stop seeing and acting on black/white beliefs.}
As should the people opposing the war because "Bush is Evil".
ScottN, that part of the message wasn't directed to you personally, but to the general attitude displayed by the administration. (Just to clarify unless it offends).
And I don't think Bush is evil per se (not as evil as other people), but he's doing bad (evil) things.
And you are certainly right that there were (and are) more than enough reasons to oppose the war without concentrating on how bad Bush is.
"...Aron and BrianA like to pretend that nice Arabs don't exist."
Not only ad hominem, but completely false. Of course nice Arabs exist. This has nothing to do with the fact that there are millions of Arabs who want you dead.
There are shades of grey in this world, but some things are clear cut. There are nations and groups who have declared war on the United States. These nations and groups are hard to track and have nothing to lose, seeing death as a grand thing. Is this in dispute? Am I too polarized, for not looking at this from the terrorist's point of view?
Maybe. If nothing else, the more working knowledge of the enemy's mindset (which as far as I can tell is a touch more complex than simply 'wanting you dead') you have, the better you can defend against them.
Also...because I'm genuinely curious that I might have missed something...which 'nations' have declared war on the US?
The Taliban actively supported Osama bin Laden, who declared a holy war on the United States several yeras before the attacks. Most nations though never declared war officially, that was a misstatement. However, there are several who support groups who actively seek our destruction.
As for understanding the enemy, it is not much of a simplification to say they want us dead. They are taught from birth that the Muslim is the only human worth anything in the eyes of God, and America and Israel are the great Satan. It really is a religous, holy war to these enemies of our. They see themselves carrying out the will of God to destroy evil, and are willing to commit suicide if it furthers that cause. How do you negotiate with people who consider you the devil himself?
Education.
I'm not sure that Bush lied. I think that
He was given skewed intel,
He paid attention to what he wanted to see and dismissed the others.
How can you say he was just given bad intel when the CIA told him one thing and his people put together a task force with the goal of saying that the CIA was wrong?
Education, Sparrow? For whom? Should we invade every Islamic nation and take over their schools? Should we send them unsolicited email telling them how nice we are? Should we accede to every one of their demands, hoping that they see it as compassion rather than weakness?
...They are taught from birth that the Muslim is the only human worth anything in the eyes of God, and America and Israel are the great Satan....
Yeah, I can see this how this wrong and totally different from white middle-class american teaching their kids that white american christians are the only humans worth anything, and that muslims are the great evil.... But its different, as its not written in the offical textbooks, only implict in the whole culture.
Oh, BrianA, just where did you get this detailed information about the education in several different countries with very different cultures and govt. principles? Is there a survey out there that muslim children in every country are taught this? Or do you just know?
Yeah, I can see this how this wrong and totally different from white middle-class american teaching their kids that white american christians are the only humans worth anything, and that muslims are the great evil.... But its different, as its not written in the offical textbooks, only implict in the whole culture.--constanze
I'm American, and I feel like this actually does occur too frequently in this country, but against any non-Christian, not just against Muslims. However, not all Christians behave like that, just like not all Muslims are extremist terrorists.
The problem is that extremists in any culture are the ones that get publicity by making their voices heard, whether by loud rhetoric or by terrorism or anything in between. It's always easier to notice the behavior in cultures different than one's own.
But I think a point is getting lost somewhere: bad behavior is still bad behavior, regardless of the culture. Teaching hatred, especially religion-based/sanctioned hatred, is bad behavior in my opinion. Acting out such hatred to the point of murder is even worse.
The difference between holier than thou Christians and holier than thou Muslims is quite extreme. The worst Christians may come to your door with a Bible, or talk down to you, being generally annoying. The worst Muslims will kill you. Do you have an answer, rather than a baseless comparison?
Actually the worst Christians set off 3 bombs here in in Atlanta during the 1990s. One was a gay night club, one was an abortion clinic and one was Centenial Olimpic Park during the 96 Olimpics. When Eric Robert Rudolph was fingered as the prime suspect he ran to the mountians and some fire and brimstone country preachers told their congregations that if they knew where he was they should help him hide from the law since he was a hero for bombing the abortion clinic and gay club, and that he didn't bomb Centenial Park that was just the government lieing so that more people would want to turn him in.
Education, Sparrow? For whom? BrianA
The chief reason the U.S. is so hated is that people everywhere in the world have misapprehensions about the country and her people. This is true not only of the Arab or Muslim world but of the world in general- Americans are perceived as lazy, weak, godless, etc. The only way to change that would by educating the peoples involved that America is, in the words of Berke Brethed, "Overly hyped, but basically a good broad."
BrianF: Those were isolated cases. The same would be true of Muslims if this suicidal hatred of America was reserved to only a handful.
Sparrow: Again I ask how you plan to educate people. Government propoganda?
America is hardly "godless"; just ask any atheist or agnostic that lives there. The problem in some cultures' eyes is that America doesn't worship the "right" god. But hey, some Americans feel the same way about other cultures' god(s), too.
Should we send them unsolicited email telling them how nice we are?
That's, actually not a bad idea. Convincing even ONE potential suicide bomber that his leaders aren't Prophets at all, but nasty evil men who want to take advantage of his situation (no money, no school, no job; gee, sound familiar *cough*KKK*cough*) would be a step in the right direction. And if he could convince one potential Al Qaeda recruit, and that guy could convicne two, and so on and so on... Grassroots, desert style baby.
Should we accede to every one of their demands, hoping that they see it as compassion rather than weakness?
Certianly not the unreasonable ones, and as for the few complaints they have that are actually kind of legitamate, there would be a principle of reciprocity. You put up soemthing, we put up something. Of course, it's not like a lot of us pro-Peace people (a group branded by some Conservtaives traitors, which implies that not wanting to kill people is treason which is just plain retarded) haven't been saying similar things to what I just said for years. It's just that when we do the reaction from people like, well, I'm sorry but people like YOU is one of two things. An insult to our intelligence, or an accusation of treason (to your credit Other Brian, you don't seem to be using the latter brand of reply and I appreciate that).
The difference between holier than thou Christians and holier than thou Muslims is quite extreme. The worst Christians may come to your door with a Bible, or talk down to you, being generally annoying.
Or try to work homophobia into the constitution, or beat you to death and tie you to a fence post in Northern Colorado, or drag you behind a truck or carry signs with sick phrases at the funerals of anyone who's died of AIDS, or encourage violence against anti-war protestors. But yeah, that talking down thing is REALLY annoying. Fitzie really hit the nail on the head with his reply, but I felt I needed to add to it. OK, that's a lie, I was just feeling very flippant.
The chief reason the U.S. is so hated is that people everywhere in the world have misapprehensions about the country and her people.
They also have, ironically enough, the same problem as many Ultra Right Wingers, in that they can't differentiate between the Government and the People. Seeing as the mjaority of Americans don't vote, is it really fair to blame ALL OF US for the actions of a few Rich, White, Chrisitan-Zealot Morons? That's where education would come in handy over here to. Because, Islamic Terrorists and Hardcore Republicans seem to think the same thing; not liking the President, means not liking ALL OF US. Why else would people who so much as disagree with Bush's choice of ties for a press conference* branded with labels like "traitor" and "Saddam lover?"
*This is small conselation to all the Bushies out there, but, I honestly have no problem with how Dubya dresses. OK, there I said it.
BrianF: Those were isolated cases. The same would be true of Muslims if this suicidal hatred of America was reserved to only a handful.
Define, a handful. I mean, how many BILLIONS of Muslims are there worldwide? Compare that to how many show up at anti-American rallies (a few thousand) and the number of actual sucide bombers (a few hundred, roughly)?
Again I ask how you plan to educate people. Government propoganda?
No, that's already been tried by your side. How about the truth? We show them the good bad and ugly of America? Everything from the Boston Tea Party, (good), to the Civil Rights Act (very good), to Jom Crow laws (bad), all the way up to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (weird). We put it all out there, and tell them to make up their own •••• minds. Don't let Osama Bin laden OR Dick Cheney do their thinking for them. Will some of still hate us? Sure. Will a few still hate us enough to want to kill us? Probably not enough to matter. But, hey you can't win 'em all. Winning most of 'em WITHOUT bombings, propaganda, and Corporate Imperialism would be fine and dandy to me, and to roughly more than half the planet as well.
And as Bill Mahr pointed out how about we do more research into alternate energy sources, and work toward getting our nation off the dope that is oil, because just like a crackhead we have to goto shady characters to get that oil in places like the middle east. And lets be honest Bush and Clinton supported next to no research, before someone points out some little bit that was I said "NEXT TO none."
Right now nations like Saudi Arabia put billions into the teachings of radical Islam. They do it because they oppress their people and the payoffs to the religious leaders garantee (sp - I dispise that word cause I can never spell it right) that they will not call for an Islamic revolution aginst the Saudi royal family (like they did to the US friendly tyrants in Iraq and Iran back in the day) They take that money and put it toward teachings that divert people's attention from their own tyrants and onto blaiming the US for their problems.
We're the same nation that sent a man to the moon (which to most seemed impossible at the time) and are not investing hundreds of billions of dollars into anti balastic missle defense. Just a fraction of what is being spent on that could go towards alternate fuel sources and within a decade who knows where we would be. If we could tell countries like Saudi Arabia to take a hike, start treating their people better or we won't support them since they don't have anything that we want and allow a free media; rather than pay them off for oil like we do now they would loose their only bargening chip.
By BrianA April 14
>The difference between holier than thou Christians and holier than thou Muslims is quite extreme. The worst Christians may come to your door with a Bible, or talk down to you, being generally annoying. The worst Muslims will kill you. Do you have an answer, rather than a baseless comparison? >
What about the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. During that time, Christians were going into Muslim held lands (especially what is now Israel) mainly to kill Muslims for not being Christians.
Yes, and that was 800 years ago. Your point?
In the 12th Century, Muslims spread their religion with the sword, killing a great many people. Christians spread their religion with the sword, killing many people as well.
In the 21st Century, many Muslims are spreading their religion with AK-47s and suicide bombings. Christians are spreading their religion with door to door evangelism.
It is the present and the future that matter.
Mm. Try telling that to the nominally Christian nations of the former Yugoslavia, whose enthusiasm for 'ethnic cleansing' sounds eerily medieval...
I do see what you're saying, BrianA (and Scott), but I do also think it's a bit too pat a generalisation. Human nature doesn't change, it just finds new ways of expression; that's what Santayana meant by our being 'condemned to repeat the past' if we don't understand what happened then.
There have always been large, peaceful, tolerant Muslim communities (as there were in the Middle Ages before the Spanish arrived); there are some still, and they can't be forgotten in our rush to stomp the violent ones...or the consequences might be even more dire than those from the physical explosions.
Who is advocating genocide? Of course there are peaceful Muslims. However, I often see the Left acting as if this terrorism problem is the work of a small handful on the fringe, when in fact it is a much larger force.
As for Yugoslavia, the Balkan problem is barely religious. The problem of Islamic terror is, though. It is not a dispute over land or even power, as the Balkan wars are.
Read a great artical in The Straight Dope about how the Muslim world ended up where it is today.
Here's some highlights.
<i>Today Islam claims some 1.2 billion adherents, most living in a broad swath stretching from the Atlantic coast of north Africa eastward to Indonesia and the Philippines. (For comparison, there are 1.9 billion Christians worldwide, most of them Catholics.) While abject poverty is rare in the Muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the population is just getting by. Take for example the 280 million people, the great majority of them Muslim, who live in the 22 Middle Eastern and African nations that make up the Arab League. According to a 2002 UN report by a group of Arab scholars, <b>65 million adults in these countries are illiterate, two-thirds of them women; the 1999 gross domestic product of the entire Arab League was less than that of Spain; for the past decade average annual growth in per capita income in the Middle East has been the lowest in the world outside sub-Saharan Africa; the 15 percent unemployment rate is one of the highest in the developing world; and Arabs have translated as many books in the last thousand years as the Spanish now do in one.</b>
<SNIP>
By the 18th century it was clear that the Ottomans (and the Muslim world in general) were in decline. The Islamic response was to turn inward. Reformist Muslim sects argued for a return to tradition, and what had once been a tolerant religion grew more and more conservative and xenophobic. European colonization of Muslim lands in the 19th century increased resentment of the West, which in turn contributed to Muslim isolationism in the postcolonial era. By the time oil was discovered it was too late--Muslim (and particularly Arab) countries lacked the ability to exploit their own wealth and had to rely on Europeans to do it for them. <b>Oil money enabled small elites to become Westernized, but despite a sharp increase in literacy in the past few decades, it's fair to say that in many countries the Islamic masses remain comparatively backward and ignorant.</b>
All of which is an object lesson, I guess. What did our Muslim brothers do wrong? Nothing. They just stopped doing a lot of the stuff they'd gotten right, and the world passed them by.</i>
One thing they didn't exactly make clear was that those wealthy westernized Arab rulers do plenty to keep their people backward and ignorant because they don't want a population demanding their share of the wealth of the nation.
The problem of Islamic terror is, though. It is not a dispute over land or even power, as the Balkan wars are.
So the Northern Ireland problem is religious, too?
IF you would spend some time looking at how the Muslim countries were treated by the west the last 50 to 70 years, you will see how much these countries were wronged, mistreated, manipulated and exploited by the west (most notably the US) looking for a quick buck or help in their cold war (help for the Taliban in the 70s because they were against the russians; help for Saddam in the 80s because he was a secular state against the islamistic Iran; establishing or aiding dictators or right-wing military in south america, africa and arab-asia for economic reasons...)
Lets look at some points. During the cold war, it was the US against the Russkies. Then it was the US against the bad vietnamese. ( Not to forget the war against drugs). Now its the US against the Islam. Always the same arguments of saving the world; of the US being the only force which guarantees freedom and democracy (despite the many problems with freedom and democracy in the US itself compared to european nations), which is therefore allowed to use any bad means; and so on. This two-way world view may be practical to the conservatives who want to lead the public away from domestic problems, which is why any dicatorship uses the "us vs. the bad world/evil others" propaganda, but it's not rational or suited to dealing with a complex world. If you try to make the world simpler than it is in order to better understand it - instead of educating yourself about the real complexity - then you will automatically end up making mistakes.
Just replacing one enemy with another in a black-white world view won't solve any problems. Thinking in terms of 4-years strategy and not in long-term won't solve problems. Deciding what's best for other - very different - cultures without asking the people there (and thinking really only of whats best for the US economy), accepting part of their tradition instead of forcing them all to follow the american way (TM) and thus overwhelming other people, won't solve problems, only cause a huge resentment.
Have you not wondered why the "Islamstic world" is attacking solely and mostly the US, and not Europe (which has a lot of freedom, is partly christian, has western values) or asia (which is to a large part non-islamic, has wealthy countries, and some western freedoms)? Its because the US has a bad track record in selfishness and forcing values on other with no respect when dealing with foreign countries. Europe has learned from the mistakes in the 70s and now helps african and arab countries to help themselves, respecting cultures and enforcing human rights, thinking long-term and not only of selfish interests (there are european politicans who think of their economy, too, but most people in this field are both idealistic and knowledgeable and listen to the people concerned.) E.g., europe no longer sends used clothing to Africa (because it learned that that had bad effects), it no longer sends wheat automatically in emergency (because it learned), etc.
For further reading and proof: Jonathon Kwitny's Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World shows, as its cover promises, "how America's worldwide interventions destroy democracy and free enterprise and defeat our own best interests." (Written by someone with a conservative or pragmatist, not liberal-idealist world view)
here is a report of how an Arab sees the western world.
A few quotes:
...The people of our region now associate the term "democracy" with western greed for oil and incessant interventions in our internal affairs. They regard it as self-evident that the west is not after democracy in the Middle East. The history of the region tells them that grassroots movements for democracy have all been suppressed by the west.
...Keeping the people of the Middle East in the dark and prioritising short-term western interests will not produce the desired results. Support for the former shah and the orchestration of two coups d'etat (in 1921 and 1953) by British and US agents did not prevent the victory of the Islamic revolution. This time the west, especially the US, should look at the region with its eyes open.
When Sheikh Yassin was killed leaving a mosque in his wheelchair by an Israeli helicopter, the democracy and accountability of Israel to the UN was demonstrated to the world. Condemnation of Israel's actions rarely goes beyond words. Western governments will not take a stand against the Sharon government's daily atrocities. But it is now taken for granted in the Middle East that if the condemnation concerns Muslims, they will go all the way to sanctions and even war.
And to clarify my above argument: Almost all wars in history and present started for reasons of power, money, influence, or a combination, and not enough importance on the lives of the actual people by the leaders pulling the strings.
The actual grunts who went to war and died, killed, maimed, (sometimes raped, plundered, massacred civilians), often enough honestly believed in defending their nations, the battlefield as "field of honor", in furthering democracy or their own religion against the other side.
But this was never the true reason to go to war. That decision was made at the high levels, and the leaders never cared how many people would die, how much country would be devasted, what the after-effects would be, as long they won. (and loosing was never pictured beforehand).
That's why the current "islamistic terror" is about money and power by the leaders, while the common (often uneducated) people in the street believe in their religion and revenge and defense against the west. (Just as the uneducated american grunts believe in bringing democracy and freedom with violence and without any planning will work).
(Just as the uneducated american grunts believe in bringing democracy and freedom with violence and without any planning will work).--constanze
While I find most of your points in your most recent post valid and interesting, I have to nitpick this last one... There's a difference between being uneducated and being ignorant. (Ignorant in this case can include "uninformed.") Please give American servicemen & servicewomen a little more credit in the intelligence and common sense departments. Many of them are intelligent (even moreso than some of the "average" civilians I know), and they do have concerns about the country they're in and its people.
Also bear in mind that they go where they are ordered to go, and sometimes (as is the current case in Iraq), are ordered to stay longer, even if they are scheduled to return home.
I realize there is a lot of news footage of American grunts looking and acting tough while espousing the merits of bringing "freedom" to the oppressed masses, but there are also a lot of more level-headed statements from soldiers and their families that don't make the nightly news... not ratings-grabbing material, I guess, so it usually gets relegated to newspapers instead of tv.
CR,
I was thinking esp. of one news report early in the war when, after the museum of Baghdad was plundered while the US soldiers looked on, a few soldiers were detached to guard important archaelogical sites from being plundered and the soldiers were quoted as saying that they didn't know why they were guarding an old stone wall (instead of sth. important like an oil refinery, one presumes.)
Please give American servicemen & servicewomen a little more credit in the intelligence and common sense departments. Many of them are intelligent (even moreso than some of the "average" civilians I know), and they do have concerns about the country they're in and its people.
I'll agree that not all grunts are uneducated, but I'll guess the majority is (since this would be right for the majority of the american general public, too - see international tests).
Also bear in mind that they go where they are ordered to go,...
That's true for pretty every soldier, right? But why do they join the army? In most newsreports I've heard two main reasons repeated over and over again:
- they believe in saving the country, defending freedom, think to be zealous patriotic is a good thing, that the US is the greatest country in the world worth dying for, are willing to go everywhere to spread freedom.... and so on. I call this uneducated because they don't know (or haven't learned from it) enough general, world and US history, sociology etc. to know how wrong this attitude is (and many of the moslem terrorists believe they are acting for the betterment of the world, too, that islam is the only true religion to bring happiness to the world, etc. The same thing, just a different color).
- the other half says they joined to get health insurance for their family and a college education, which they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise.
I find this terribly wrong. So a person who wants to earn an honest income and provide the family with basic health care has to risk his own life and be ready to kill other people in order to do so?? (Hint: while germany still has officially the draft, people can opt out of the weapon service and do an ersatz service instead (helping handicapped, nursing old people, working in the fire brigade etc.) and everybody below a certain income level has automatic health insurance.)
Yes, well, there are a lot of things wrong with America; having to join the military to finance education or a career is only one of them. But don't blame the basic soldier for having made that choice. (And at this point, it still is a choice; whether or not the draft gets reinstated has yet to be seen.) I've heard several veterans point out (in print and in person, if not on the nightly news) that one shouldn't join the military if one doesn't want or doesn't expect to see combat. Maybe now more people will realize just what that entails. (In a way, I'm agreeing with your last point, constanze; I just don't think it's always the soldiers' fault for choosing military careers.)
As for the news footage you've seen, do you think the US (or any country, for that matter) would show a lot of its own soldiers hating their jobs and criticising their country? Whether socially right or wrong, such negative publicity would be bad for troop morale (as well as morale back home), which is not what military commanders want to deal with. Hence the seeming preponderance of "gung-ho" pro-military footage. (I realize European news agencies aren't as bound as US news agencies to show such pro-war footage, and I also realize that there are indeed US soldiers who do have these "gung-ho" attitudes. But that doesn't mean all soldiers are a bunch of murderous ignoramuses.)
I'm trying to keep my own views out of this as much as possible, and am trying to make some general points I feel are inherent in most military organizations, btw. As I said before, you do raise some interesting points, and I agree with some of them (here and on other boards).
Is this thread getting off-topic? It's very interesting, but it seems to have become more of a PM thing.
One last thing, constanze: I find interesting your point about Germany allowing people to opt out of military service to serve the public in other ways... it sounds like it gives people a chance to give something back to their country (and hopefully gain some respect for their country) without having to potentially kill or be killed to do so.
The "Zivildienst" (civil service) was instituted when the military was started again 10 years after WWII (with a lot of opposition at that time, pointing to WWII) and so from the start it was tried to incorporate the lessons learned from the Nazi time. That's why the opt-out option was incorporated. (Aside: another good idea is a special "counselor" where recruits can complain to if they are abused by their sergeant, and this isn't lip service, but seems to work.) At the start, there were problems with it, as the applicant had to prove that because of his conscience he wouldn't use a gun (the council which heard each case consisted of hardened old military guys and featured infamous what-if scenarios like "what if the russians overrun germany and you see one raping your girl-friend, and you happen to have a gun in your hand, would you shoot?", although people can be pacifists and still reserve the right to real self-defense). After the 70s, matters were improved. Now its a very simple matter of writing in your application that you are a pacifist and want to opt-out. Since the german army never had a lot of real duties (except for UN missions in the last decades, which only uses professional soldiers, not draftees), the number of young man actually pulled up has gone down in the last 10 years.
Some real pacifists, and Jehovahs witnesses, don't take the opt-out option, because they argue that the people in hospitals and nursing homes are only there to relieve the others for the battlefield and its still propping up "the system"
But most young men (I know) volunteer for the opt-out (although its several months longer than normal army duty - I think its still meant partly to punish the pacifists for being wimpy), arguing that it makes much more sense and will bring them valuable experience to nurse old folks or work with handicapped than to crawl through mud on your belly and sleep with your gun.
(There is a similar possiblity for young girls in that age group, called "Social year", with similar work, but its voluntarily for girls, and used mostly to try out whether social jobs are right for them).
The problem at the moment is (I don't know how big its in the US) that social jobs, like nursing, are very low-paid, and neither the government nor the health insurance have enough money to pay for what would be needed, since more and more old people have to be looked after (the demographic problem). So most nursing homes depend heavily on these "civil draftees" after a crash course, instead of trained nurses, with the draftees tagging along to help out. This leads to psychological problems among the draftees as well as to political ones: every time the question of whether a draft army is still necessary is discussed, the social sector points out that without civilian draftees, the system would collapse. And every time the service time for draftees is reduced, the time for civilian draftees has to be lowered, too, and nursing takes another downward step.
If I could (and several people are suggesting it) I would make a mandatory year for everybody, girl and boy (Aside: at the moment, many boys complain that they are discrimanted against, since they loose about 18 months study time or work time, when the girls finish earlier), at the age of 18, and people can choose where they want to help: nursing, enviroment, the army... coupled with classes about civvic sense in a democratic society, so people could learn hands on why its necessary to volunteer help, how other people live (learn compassion), where tax money really goes, etc.
Of course, the govt. would have to pay an allowance during this "social year", and probably house some of the kids, too (first time away from the parents - a valuable learning experience, too), and it doesn't have that money. (or so it says).
When I was talking about professional soldiers, I was referring to people who sign up for some years - 8 or 10 - to become officers. So its not only draftees (wouldn't work with only 2 years, since a lot of that time is basic training, of course).
...(I realize European news agencies aren't as bound as US news agencies to show such pro-war footage...
Definitely yes. And most european news agencies (except british ones) were opposed to the war before it started. There are still many people around - my parents generation - who can remember what WWII was like for civilians, and who won't ever confuse war with a nice video game or a hollywood western.
In Germany at least (Italy, e.g. has a bad media situtation, of course, with the thug berlosconi controlling all media), we have good world news reports several times a week, from german reporters as well as from the public french TV which often shows reports from independet american movie makers. I'm not surprised when german or french journalists can get into places and get interviews with people who never grant an interview to other reporters - they have a reputation for doing good research, for presenting fair, showing background etc. For example, one of our two public TV companies (ARD) has a weekly "World mirror" lasting 45 min.s (on sunday, 19:10 till main news), with specials from "forgotten" parts of the earth. (The other one, ZDF, has a weekly "world report" for 30 mins.)
That's because the producers don't assume that the public won't understand news longer than 30 secs., or that news should be broken up with ads (there is only one ad between the main news and the weather), or all the other things I've heard about how news shows are done on american TV. (the sites are only in german, but if you are interested despite, I'll provide the links.)
There was a lot of criticsm about the heavy censorship put on the american press (and how readily CNN went along with it).
And I agree that's its always interesting to see how other countries do certain things (or don't) and if or how that could be applied to improve the own country.
Question. And it's not meant to be snide.
I realize European news agencies aren't as bound as US news agencies to show such pro-war footage...
Definitely yes. And most european news agencies (except british ones) were opposed to the war before it started.
Do European news agencies show any pro-war footage at all?
In theory, a "news agency" should not be pro or anti war, but objectively neutral in providing the news. Op/Ed pieces will show a bias, of course, but should be clearly labelled as such.
who won't ever confuse war with a nice video game or a hollywood western
I take some umbrage at this. Professional soldiers do not treat war like a "video game or hollywood western". They're the ones who have to fight it, and they know what *THEY* can do, and know what can be done unto them.
But, if the order to go to war is a lawful one (under the laws of their nation), then under the UCMJ they are bound to do their d@mndest to fight it and win.
I'm going to border on ad hominem here for a moment. Constanze, you've made clear in many posts your disdain for the military. But, you let this disdain color your arguments. In the US at least, the military are not mindless robots, are not stupid, and don't treat war as a game. Yes, some of the grunts are poorly educated, but even that is fading (I believe the Army now requires a HS diploma). Nevertheless, the military personnel that I have dealt with (and I've dealt with a lot of them) are intelligent, thoughtful, and generally hope that they never have to go to war. If they have to go, though, they will fight to win.
In the US at least, the military are not mindless robots, are not ••••••, and don't treat war as a game.
I've got two Air Force and one Navy relative who say differently. My grandfather served in what later became the Air Force in WWII and he has more than a few not-nice things to say about subsequent generations of troops "Ever since Korea they've gotten stupider and stupider," are his exact words. And my step-grandfather who served in the Navy in the 1980s, and my Uncle who flew during Panama agree with that assessment, espeically my Uncle who, throguhout the whole Panama mess constantly used the phrase, "My boss is an a$$hole," his boss being Bush the Elected at the time.
I believe the Army now requires a HS diploma.
They used to, but I've heard that they're talking about dropping that requirement.
Hmm... Knowing several military & ex-military people, I generally agree with ScottN's assessment about the US military not being mindless robots, and that any military body is trained to fight to win. (It's politicians that screw up the winning part, i.e. by not having clearly defined goals.)
But Brian brings up a valid point I've heard before as well: some members of the US military are "dumber than a box of rocks", as a former army friend of mine once put it. However, the same could be said about any job, military or civilian; there are some people who are just not intelligent. And there are bosses who are indeed, um, bad (to put it very nicely). I don't get the impression that the entire US military is saturated with dumb and mean people, though.
I'm alarmed at Brian's statement that the HS diploma requirement may be dropped. Is that actually in the works, or speculation?
Back to the alternate service thing in Germany: thanks for the info, constanze. Sounds like an interesting system, if it can continue in productive ways.
Brian, I'd say that that's the usual, "Back in my day..."
All I can go by is my personal experience.
A note on statistics is in order here:
The "military people that 'you' know" are not a random sample and therefore not representative of the group as a whole. Hence, using these as templates to determine the state of the entire group is totally invalid.
In theory, a "news agency" should not be pro or anti war, but objectively neutral in providing the news. Op/Ed pieces will show a bias, of course, but should be clearly labelled as such.
That's an american POV that the press can and should be objective. I've heard that in Europe they don't believe that's even possible so you have a choice in what kind of bias you get. You've have the chose of a conservative news organization, a liberal one and even a centerist one. In the US the only one that we have that's so politicized is Fox News, their is no such liberal equilivent with the resources of Fox News behind it, contarary to what conservatives say.
The "military people that 'you' know" are not a random sample and therefore not representative of the group as a whole. Hence, using these as templates to determine the state of the entire group is totally invalid. --NSetzer
Good point.
I'll clarify my position: In my opinion (not based upon a rigid scientific survey), I don't think that most of the American military is comprised of a bunch of uneducated & mean people. As I said earlier, I feel any career (or any society, for that matter) has its share of people that are uneducated and/or mean; the military has no monopoly on them. If it did, how could it function properly over the course of years or decades?
As for news objectivity, I've always felt that the news (not Op/Ed pieces, mind you) should report the facts about a given event, and let the viewer/reader determine what truth those facts contain. In an ideal situation, of course. Realistically, there's always been media bias, and always will be. But I feel the media (again, outside of Op/Ed pieces) should at least strive to be as objective as possible, and be more willing to admit when it makes a mistake. (You know something like "In light of recently found evidence, our earlier report about the status of <whatever> has been proven erronious; here's an update.")
Anyway, I can (and do) form my own opinions, as does everyone else. We don't need to be told from the outset what our opinions should be. (Again, I'm speaking about ideal situations here... human nature of course prevents strict adherence to that ideal.)
ScottN,
Do European news agencies show any pro-war footage at all?
At least the german and french ones, no. But let me clarify: instead of showing (like CNN) only the video graphics (in shades of green) and the US troops being victorious with clean strikes, the footage shown was also of the damage done to the civilians (to show that the war wasn't as clean and the weapons as intelligent as told to the US public). The arguments pro-war as made by Bush and his administration were shown, to be disproven after that. The anti-war demonstrations were shown, or a reporter in NY/ Washington, DC asked some people on the street their opinion and then cited the polls.
The damage done to the Iraqi civilians and most of the other stuff not shown to the US population (because of the patriotic feeling and the military censorship) was shown esp. after the campaign was over, in longer special reports, rather than in the daily news.
who won't ever confuse war with a nice video game or a hollywood western
I take some umbrage at this. Professional soldiers do not treat war like a "video game or hollywood western". They're the ones who have to fight it, and they know what *THEY* can do, and know what can be done unto them.
Okay, once they have gotten into a war, they will know what it's like. But how many of the population, when they are pro-War, and how many of the people who enter the military, do think of war as a cool adventure? How many of the public think war is a clean video game, esp. if all they ever see on the news is the green-shades view, without the casualites or damage, without the misses? Certainly not a 100%, but a portion that's too big for me.
But, if the order to go to war is a lawful one (under the laws of their nation), then under the UCMJ they are bound to do their d@mndest to fight it and win.
I don't know what the UCMJ is, but I know what the Geneva convention and the Hague Convention on warfare say in general terms, and both stress that winning with every means is not acceptable. War is hell anyway, and few wars are ever just, but that doesn't mean that it has to be fought with every dirty means possible.
(And its one of the things so many nations outside take offense at: the - perceived - attitude of the USA that it's okay to kill a 100 or 1000 - often muslim or asian - civilians rather than let one - white - american soldier be killed. )
I'm going to border on ad hominem here for a moment. Constanze, you've made clear in many posts your disdain for the military. But, you let this disdain color your arguments. In the US at least, the military are not mindless robots, are not ••••••, and don't treat war as a game. Yes, some of the grunts are poorly educated, but even that is fading (I believe the Army now requires a HS diploma). Nevertheless, the military personnel that I have dealt with (and I've dealt with a lot of them) are intelligent, thoughtful, and generally hope that they never have to go to war. If they have to go, though, they will fight to win.
Any soldier is supposed to be a mindless robot who accepts orders without questioning the morality or justice or tactical sense. He should be creative and intelligent when executing these orders, but he should not stop when ordered on a suicide attack, or standing fast against overwhelming odds, or killing people he has no personal hate against with utmost efficiency. That is the definition or idea of a soldier.
And US soldiers have a bad reputation, after Vietnam, and because of the boot camps, to use every means possible - fighting to win by committing atrocities against civilians - , and to break people's spirits. As long as this line of thinking isn't changed, people outside will view US military like that.
(I believe the Army now requires a HS diploma).
That's not what I meant. How many hours during training are spent teaching the recruits about the geneva convention, and how many times are they told that some borders shouldn't be crossed to win the war? How much time during briefing before the invasion was spent on teaching the soldiers about the culture and behaviour of the civilians in Iraq, learning the language at least to say "good day, please and thank you" (instead of using robots, which would of course not be readily accepted by the populace)?
Idealistic, patriotic views together with narrow-mindedness isn't extinguished by a high-school diploma (which I don't value that much anyway compared to other countries education). It doesn't say anything about character (which isn't desired in a soldier, since personality is broken down in the boot camps). It doesn't say anything about ignorance towards other countries. You understand what I mean?
Professional soldiers do not treat war like a "video game or hollywood western"....
see this article about how the Army influences young people by presenting war as a video game with clear sides and baddies you can kill without harm.
How many of the 18-year-olds, even if they have a Highschool-diploma, know what war is like? Have they ever seen the casualities, learned about the history of US intervention (not only the dates, but that most of them were wrong), learned about alternatives to war, learned about ....?
see this article about how the Army influences young people by presenting war as a video game with clear sides and baddies you can kill without harm. --constanze
Sounds to me more like the Army is finally catching up to what private video game producers have been doing on their own for many years. I'm not saying I approve, but I haradly think the blame lies solely with the military. Interesting, too, is that the video game company cited in the article is French.
How many of the 18-year-olds, even if they have a Highschool-diploma, know what war is like? Have they ever seen the casualities, learned about the history of US intervention (not only the dates, but that most of them were wrong), learned about alternatives to war, learned about ....? --constanze, again
Here I have a problem... I agree with your sentiment in this sentence, but (here's the problem I have)...
Not everyone in America is ignorant of the horrors of war. I've always found your posts at NitCentral to be both informative and informed, and even when I disagree with some of your opinions, constanze, I feel you've generally been civil and open-mided enough to listen to what others have to say. (I also think I've gotten along with you rather well on various boards, and I hope the feeling is mutual. Put bluntly, I like you, even though I only know you through your posts.)
All that having been said, I find your sweeping generalizations disturbing. I hope my inference is wrong, but you make it sound as if no American, especially no American soldier, cares about the value of life. I assure you, it isn't that way.
I read and hear reports of American soldiers who try to help the civilians in Iraq, requesting relatives back home to send things like candy to give to the children there. I read of one US soldier who used his free time while in Iraq to visit famous sites he'd only read about in history books, to see them firsthand and learn about their history from the people who actually live there.
Each day in the news, I also see and hear reports of yet another family that has lost a military husband, wife, sibling, son or daughter in Iraq. In a nearby town, the family and friends of a young soldier (who survived wounds sustained in combat, only to be killed a few weeks later) got to bury her on her twentieth birthday. I've visited another town where every business and school had flags flying at half-mast because a young man (who's family has been well-known in that community for generations) was killed in an ambush. I also learned that that man has a five year old boy who'll never see his daddy come home anymore. In current news, I wonder if two sisters whose third sister was killed in combat are going to go back into Iraq or remain in a non-combat zone for the rest of the war, as the Army is giving them the option to do.
Each military person was an individual, each one's death affected whole communities. And this is just a minute sample. These people were not mindless killer robots. (Just as the Iraqis aren't all a bunch of religious zealouts or terrorists.)
And I hardly think the US military has a monopoly on killing in combat. Any military kills in combat. It doesn't make one military better than another, it doesn't make war right, it's just a fact of war.
But I did say I agree with your sentiment in the sentence I copied earlier...
Unfortunately, there are many American people who are too far removed from the reality of war (whether by accident or by choice)... those are people even I get angry with, when they make sweeping genralizations about enemies like "kill them all, let God sort them out" and the like. These are often the same kind of people who don't view soldiers as individuals with lives and families, but as as an expendable means to an end, mindless robots who should kill every enemy. Kind of the like the opposite side of the same coin, so to speak, of your view (your view as I infer from your recent posts, that is), where you see US soldiers as midless robots who will kill every enemy.
It's not blind American pride that's making me say all of this. (I've said it before: there's a lot wrong with this country!) I do know about the horrors of war, and have studied military history and try to educate others, especially those who think war is fun, about what sacrifices get made on all sides during wartime. But I don't blame the soldiers for it all.
For the record, I'm a civilian. I'm not anti-military, but I'm not pro-war. I respect the sacrifices past and present soldiers have made so that I can live my life, but I am saddened by the needless waste of so many lives cut short on all sides.
Do I have all the answers? I certainly don't think so. But I hope my opinions at least get you to see beyond generalizations, as yours have often gotten me to consider things in a new light.
1. "America's Army". The US military is all volunteer. I can't say I like it, but have you ever heard of "marketing"?
2. I can't say for certain, but I would guess that Basic includes at least minimal coverage of UMCJ and the relevant treaties (such as the Geneva Convention).
CR: I do know about the horrors of war, and have studied military history and try to educate others, especially those who think war is fun, about what sacrifices get made on all sides during wartime. But I don't blame the soldiers for it all.
For the record, I'm a civilian. I'm not anti-military, but I'm not pro-war. I respect the sacrifices past and present soldiers have made so that I can live my life, but I am saddened by the needless waste of so many lives cut short on all sides.
CR, thank you. You said it very well.\
CR,
...how the Army influences young people by presenting war as a video game with clear sides and baddies you can kill without harm. --constanze
Sounds to me more like the Army is finally catching up to what private video game producers have been doing on their own for many years. I'm not saying I approve, but I haradly think the blame lies solely with the military. Interesting, too, is that the video game company cited in the article is French.
This game is actually a sequel to the game released some time ago by the army with the specific aim in mind (befor the Iraq war) to recruit more soldiers, since the traditional means of recruitment didn't gather as many as needed.
I think, too, that the videogames around a long time before that (the infamous ego-shooters) are quite a bad thing. Looking back only a few generations, to WWI, people had to be trained to overcome the natural human aversion of killing cold-blooded a fellow human being. Today, with gruesome videos and videogames, the aversion has been eroded away, with many (not all) young kids and teens having no longer any aversion to beating, harming and even killing other humans (together with a feeling of "unreality", that death isn't real because they have seen it so often on TV, but without the consequences).
However, I think that the official Army not only sponsoring, but endorsing and praising a video game as a means of recruitment, is a step much farther. The game companies are out to make a buck, however represehenble the consequences of the games are. But the Army is out to recruit young people into becoming real soldiers by presenting them on purpose with faked stories (faked in the sense that they don't portray the real effects of war.)
Here I have a problem... I agree with your sentiment in this sentence, but (here's the problem I have)...
Not everyone in America is ignorant of the horrors of war. I've always found your posts at NitCentral to be both informative and informed, and even when I disagree with some of your opinions, constanze, I feel you've generally been civil and open-mided enough to listen to what others have to say. (I also think I've gotten along with you rather well on various boards, and I hope the feeling is mutual. Put bluntly, I like you, even though I only know you through your posts.)
All that having been said, I find your sweeping generalizations disturbing. I hope my inference is wrong, but you make it sound as if no American, especially no American soldier, cares about the value of life. I assure you, it isn't that way. ...
First of all, thank you very much. I like most of your posts, too, because you respond in a calm manner and have interesting points.
I'm sorry that sometimes I switch too quickly into "rant mode" without meaning too - I don't want to offend, and I don't intend to make generalizations - I try to include the necessary qualifiers as "most people, a part of the population" etc. , but sometimes I forget them. I was talking, first, about the general idea of soldiers as mindless robots because that's what the ideal soldier (at least from the High Command POV) would be. Then I talked about how many young recruits knew what they were getting into. Since these were real people, it surely doesn't apply to 100%, but only to a portion.
And in many reports, when citing families of soldiers and young soldiers themselves, whether reports done by journalists or written internet reports, a point which comes up again and again is how young people join eager and patriotic and full of ideals about protecting their country, the home of freedom etc., but once they see reality, they are deeply disappointed about the lies from the administration, what's going on behind the scenes in Iraq etc. etc. That's why I wished that immensly strong, so often misguided patriotism in many of the young americans should be replaced with a good education about the realities of war and a better news coverage about Iraq.
I'm sorry to hear about people killed, esp. in an unnecessary war. But without being callous, I tend to feel more sympathy for civilians in Iraq being killed when they had no choice and no alternative compared to US soldiers who should have known what they were getting into. (that doesn't mean I wish them death, or anything. I just think that the other deaths shouldn't be forgotten just because they didn't happen to white Americans. Or look at the Jessic Lynch debate - she was rescued because as a blonde white she made a good story for the newspapers, but her black comrade wouldn't have made quite a good story, so she wasn't rescued).
I was talking, first, about the general idea of soldiers as mindless robots because that's what the ideal soldier (at least from the High Command POV) would be
Again, American military doctrine is highly decentralized. The so-called "High Command" aka the Joint Chiefs doesn't want mindless robots. They don't want to make all the tactical decisions. They would prefer to have those closest to the tactical situation (the guys in the field) make tactical decisions. That is why you can't have "mindless robots". The so-called "High Command" deals with strategic objectives. The US military tends to reward field commanders with initiative.
Side note, the "mindless robot so High Command can do what it wants" doctrine is why the Iraqi military was defeated so rapidly in both Gulf Wars. Cut the communications lines, and the High Command can't give the orders to the mindless robots.
You're welcome, constanze, and thanks back to you for your compliment. Also thanks to ScottN for your compliment. As for both of you (and anyone else reading this), I'm glad I was able to make my points clearly, if not succinctly! (I'm going on no sleep right now, so I wasn't sure if my novel-length post was as clear and non-aggressive as I was hoping!)
As for civilians in Iraq, they weren't fairing all that well under Saddam Hussein. I'm not saying that justifies civilian deaths ("collateral damage") in the war, but I'm equally as appalled that the world community did virtually nothing to prevent Hussein from committing terrible acts of inhumanity against civilians for so long. And he's not the only one who has done so. Other governments still do so. I've said elsewhere that I don't mean to imply that the US or any other country should go in with guns blazing to topple such regimes, but I think the UN/world community... humanity needs to stop turning a blind eye to it so often!
As for the Lynch rescue, I think (though I may be mistaken) that the ease of her rescue was also a factor in it taking place at all; raiding a lightly guarded (if guarded at all) hospital to get one person is easier than raiding someplace more heavily guarded to get multiple people. I'm not denying the controversy over the whole thing, I'm just trying to point out that there may have been some legitimate tactical concerns.
Finally (this point's to constanze again), I notice you point out "white Americans" in a lot of your posts. It's true that America has a history of being "white-centric," and shamefully, racism is alive and well in this country even to this day. (It's alive and well in other countries, too.) Just as I've said not all American soldiers are mindless killers, not all Americans are white nor racist. I know you realize that, and I understand the point you seem to be trying to make about demographics (catering the news to a perceived "white majority"), but I don't know if everyone else sees your posts' constant harping about "white Americans" that way. It could be construed as more generalizing. (Please accept my apologies for seeming so critical of you today... I really don't mean to seem harsh to anyone, and you in particular seem to bearing the brunt of it today. Chalk it up to my being tired while having strong opinions about the discussion; my form of ranting, I guess. I'm going to bed now!)
One last note before I pass into unconsciousness... does anyone wonder how the topic got so far off course? Not that I'm complaining, but I do hope the Moderator doesn't mind! It's certainly been a stimulating discussion! (And a fairly calm one, too.)
ScottN,
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make in the 2:46 am post: With "mindless robots", I wasn't referring to soldiers who need instructions on how to tie their shoes (or which one is left and right), but to follow orders generally without hesitation. That the orders should be given by by local commanders during actual battle and that soldiers (commandos, marines) should display "creativity" carrying out these orders, I didn't dispute.
With "mindless robots" I mean that soldiers in general shouldn't ask questions "Are you sure the frontal attack of hamburger hill is a sound tactic, instead of a sweeping side attack?", "Doesn't it violate the geneva convention to kill civilians because we suspect they helped the enemy?", "Why can't we retreat, too, instead of trying to stop the advancing enemy?", "Why do we have to go into enemy territory and capture one guy and bring him back/kill him? Is this legal?" etc. This attitude is unwanted in any soldier, in any army of the world.
When given the order to extract some guy in enemy territory, the commando should devise a clever plan instead of a frontal attack is obvious.
CR,
And I hardly think the US military has a monopoly on killing in combat. Any military kills in combat. It doesn't make one military better than another, it doesn't make war right, it's just a fact of war.
Yes, that's true, but the way the American military portrays itself, together with the attitude of "the americans" generally (the general part of the population, as seen in surveys, on-the-street-talk, and subtle hints in the culture) and the history, shows that:
America puts stress on winning first, playing to the rules second
America still doesn't understand whats evil about "the end justifies the means"
US military stresses most "mindless obeyance" because of the endorsment of boot camps.
The population, politicans and the Army in European countries - to show the difference I mean - talks a lot about the geneva convention and how certain borders/ Ethical lines mustn't be crossed under any circumstances.
In Germany, when the army was renewed after WWII, the phrase of "citizens in uniform" was used to show that the soldiers shouldn't be mindless robots simply following orders - because that was the excuse for the atrocities during the Nazi time - but to have democratic citizens who were informed about ethics and morals and who would therefore not follow any order blindly.
As for history, people outside the US see the history of the US army like this:
-killing the indians last century with terrible means
- dropping the atomic bomb on Japan when the war was already over, both to test the weapon and to save a few "american soldiers lives" at the expense of hundreds of thousands of "japanese ones"
- committing atrocities during the Vietnam war
- doing experiments on blacks, homeless, retarded in the 70s
=> not learning anything from this experience in regard to other countries, or apologizing about it, trying to help with the aftereffects (with regard to vietnam), apologizing and helping the veterans, or implemting any changes in the structure to ensure that these things won't happen again.
(this is why the german army is different today from the Nazi Wehrmacht: changes were made in the structure, and the population and the army is educated about morals and the geneva convention is heavily stressed).
...And he's not the only one who has done so. Other governments still do so. I've said elsewhere that I don't mean to imply that the US or any other country should go in with guns blazing to topple such regimes, but I think the UN/world community... humanity needs to stop turning a blind eye to it so often!
I agree with you: I wish desperately for the international community - because the UN is the only one who has the right to do so - to deal with all these other dicatorships. However, as history sadly shows us, going in with guns blazing will often worsen the situation; a lot of tactical thinking, long-term strategy together with diplomacy, threats and punishments together with rewards for terms met (e.g lifting of sanctions, more money for specialized funding etc.) have to be finely tuned to deal with each problem seperately.
I hope for one time in the 22nd/23rd century when humanity will have overcome hunger, greed, war, poverty (and cleaned up the enviroment, too) as Star Trek envisions it in its better moments.
About Lynch, the reports I heard were about how Lynch was well treated in an Iraqui hospital and was actually endangered by her clumsy rescue, when she would have been in no danger had she simply stayed in the hospital - well, in no danger from the iraquis, but from"friendly fire", i.e. american bombs on the hospital (which shouldn't have been targeted under the geneva convention, but the weapons weren't as smart as told). And a camera-nice rescue was important after the video of the captured women.
...Just as I've said not all American soldiers are mindless killers, not all Americans are white nor racist. I know you realize that, and I understand the point you seem to be trying to make about demographics (catering the news to a perceived "white majority"), but I don't know if everyone else sees your posts' constant harping about "white Americans" that way. It could be construed as more generalizing. ...
I talk about "white americans" because the focusing in the US media on the mostly white american casts a stark contrast to the non-white "enemies" the US military is fighting: first, "slant-eyes" (vietnam), now middle-easterns. (And in both cases, the US soldiers have a hard time telling friend from foe, or civilian from soldier). Or, as I said above, the killing of japanese civilians to protect american soldiers. Or the internment of the Nisei in "death camps" (not intentionally, but due to the conditions, many of the innocent civilians died, often while their husbands and fathers were trustworthy enough to fight asians in the pacific and die) during WWII, when german -americans (who were white) had little trouble. This is noted by the outside world and people draw their conclusions from it. That doesn't mean that they think every american is racist, but that decisions seem to be influenced towards saving americans, and the rest of the world can go to h-ell/ no matter how many "foreigners" have to be killed, etc. (As the arab quoted in the above newspaper article said:
)
Quote:Today's Middle Easterner is convinced the west only attaches a high value to westerners' lives.
A little reflection gives an indication of the dominance of this mentality. A few hours after the terrorist train blasts in Madrid, western media hurried to the scene and mainstream British television networks broadcast the incident live. On the other hand, no one has suggested holding even a minute's silence for the, at least, 10,000 civilians killed in Iraq by those who claim to have gone there to promote democratic values. For the bereaved families, it did not make any difference whether their sons and daughters were killed by Saddam Hussein or their "liberators".
With "mindless robots" I mean that soldiers in general shouldn't ask questions "Are you sure the frontal attack of hamburger hill is a sound tactic, instead of a sweeping side attack?"
That is what US doctrine encourages. The orders from the local commanders are "Take hamburger hill", and the guy who actually has to do the job figures out how.
"Doesn't it violate the geneva convention to kill civilians because we suspect they helped the enemy?"
Under the UCMJ, all soldiers are supposed to question illegal orders (and an order to kill civilians is illegal).
"Why can't we retreat, too, instead of trying to stop the advancing enemy?"
This would tend to be a strategic issue, rather than a tactical, and therefore should be decided by higher ups. However, if the situation is hopelessly lost, a retreat would always be in order.
"Why do we have to go into enemy territory and capture one guy and bring him back/kill him? Is this legal?"
Again this is strategic, decided by higher ups. "Capture and bring him back" is a legal order, and we assume that the "High Command" has determined the legality of capture. "Capture and kill" is an illegal order, and should be questioned by any soldier, as per above.
Follow up on the above. Re: retreat. If the tactical situation (in furtherance of the strategic goals) calls for a retreat, then he will retreat.
US military stresses most "mindless obeyance" because of the endorsment of boot camps.
You misunderstand the concept. Boot camp is to instill discipline and pride, NOT mindless obedience. US Military doctrine WILL NOT WORK with mindless obedience.
dropping the atomic bomb on Japan when the war was already over, both to test the weapon and to save a few "american soldiers lives" at the expense of hundreds of thousands of "japanese ones" constanze
Well, here I go opening Pandora's box.
First, the war with Japan was decidedly not over. While Japan's Pacific holdings had been significantly reduced, she still had control of much of China and Southeast Asia. That's not exactly a bad base. Japan was facing serious problems with resources, but she was not yet defeated, and she wasn't about to negotiate a surrender, either, as they had previously pledged to keep fighting until the very last Japanese was dead. Thus they weren't just going to sit back and let the Allies waltz all over the home islands. With a large amount of military resources lying in wait for such an invasion, the planned Allied landing and subsequent invasion would have been unimaginably brutal and costly for both sides. Thus it cannot be reasonably argued that the dropping of the atomic bombs did not save lives, both of Japanese citizens, and American soldiers.
Secondly I should clarify that only one of the bombs had any sort of experimental reasoning behind its deployment, that being the Nagasaki bomb. The design of the Hiroshima bomb had already been tested at the Trinity Site.
Now, a question: what was so horrible about the dropping of the atomic bomb? Certainly the fact that the targets of both weapons were mainly civilian is not a proud one, but that does not make the atomic bombs unique. The United States and her allies were engaged in total warfare. So were her enemies. I don't mean to excuse this behavior, merely to point out that claiming the atomic bombings were horrific merely because of their targets does little to enhance one's case. Again, then, what makes the atomic bombings especially horrible? Certainly they were more efficient at causing damage- 6500% more efficient, according to one figure I have- but they were not initially more deadly; more were killed during earlier conventional firebombings than were initially killed at Hiroshima.
The key word there is intitially, because now we arrive at the horrible legacy of the bombs: radiation. Countless thousands of those who did not die in the initial blast found themselves succuming to cancer in the decades afterwards, and this is what has raised the death toll to truly unthinkable levels. But here's the problem: no one knew that was going to be the case. Remember, prior to Hiroshima, the only test had been in the New Mexican desert; there had hardly been time to assess long-term effects. Thus it seems like the only thing the U.S. military should be found guilty of in this case is utilizing weapons without knowing the full range of effects those weapons would create.
Now, maybe I should clarify a few things- I don't 100% agree that the U.S. should have dropped the bombs, but I just wanted to point out that the arguments on both sides are a lot more complex than I think people realize, instead people go for a knee-jerk reaction on one lever or another. Constanze, you've got a lot of prescient items on your list that show some of the U.S. military's least-noble moments, but I'm not convinced that this belongs there.
Secondly I should clarify that only one of the bombs had any sort of experimental reasoning behind its deployment, that being the Nagasaki bomb. The design of the Hiroshima bomb had already been tested at the Trinity Site.
I think you have that backwards, Sparrow. I believe that the Trinity test was a Fat Man, which was what was used at Nagasaki. Hiroshima was a Little Boy.
Sparrow raises some points I'd like to expand on.
The atomic bombings were not just to save a 'few "american soldiers lives"'. The alternative at that point was the invasion of Japan proper. Projected Casualties were on the order of 500,000 to 2,000,000 US. And historically, in WWII, the number of Japanese casualties were at least twice that of US casualties (same source). Add to the fact that this would be an invasion of the home islands, and that the Japanese defense would be even fiercer, and you get incredibly large numbers of casualties. It can seriously be argued that, given what they know about atom bombs at the time, dropping the Bomb on Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent Nagasaki, given the failure to surrender) was justified.
In addition, Sparrow also touches on the fact that AT THAT TIME, nobody really knew what the aftereffects of an A-bomb were. As far as anyone knew, it was just a Really Big Bomb™.
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I think you have that backwards, Sparrow. I believe that the Trinity test was a Fat Man, which was what was used at Nagasaki. Hiroshima was a Little Boy. ScottN
You know, seeing as we've gone over that information in two of my classes this semester, you'd think I'd get it right, but noooooooooooo...
No biggie, Sparrow. Just look at how many times I've said "Oops! You're right!", or the equivalent thereof.
As for civilians in Iraq, they weren't fairing all that well under Saddam Hussein. I'm not saying that justifies civilian deaths ("collateral damage") in the war, but I'm equally as appalled that the world community did virtually nothing to prevent Hussein from committing terrible acts of inhumanity against civilians for so long. And he's not the only one who has done so. Other governments still do so. I've said elsewhere that I don't mean to imply that the US or any other country should go in with guns blazing to topple such regimes, but I think the UN/world community... humanity needs to stop turning a blind eye to it so often!
I agree on Hussein's past but i just want to hear someone in the Bush administration admit that they (and if you look at how many of Bush's people were Regan's people it was them not just their party) were the ones who gave him the weapons he used to kill many of those people and they were the ones who turned a blind eye to it.
constanze - about the A bomb debate. More people were killed in the conventional bombing of Japaneese cities than were killed by the A bomb. The way they bombed those cities was firebombing that would easly spread to the entire mostly wood construction city. If the allies had to invade a lot more Japaneese civillians than died in those 2 cities would have died under conventional bombings.
ScottN,
Under the UCMJ, all soldiers are supposed to question illegal orders (and an order to kill civilians is illegal).
Then it has changed considerably since the Vietnam War, hasn't it?
That is what US doctrine encourages. The orders from the local commanders are "Take hamburger hill", and the guy who actually has to do the job figures out how.
Then it has changed in the last decades - from what I heard about the (in) famous frontal attack on Hamburger Hill etc.
About the A-Bomb issue: (Sparrow etc.)
First, the war with Japan was decidedly not over. While Japan's Pacific holdings had been significantly reduced, she still had control of much of China and Southeast Asia. That's not exactly a bad base. Japan was facing serious problems with resources, but she was not yet defeated, and she wasn't about to negotiate a surrender, either, as they had previously pledged to keep fighting until the very last Japanese was dead. Thus they weren't just going to sit back and let the Allies waltz all over the home islands. With a large amount of military resources lying in wait for such an invasion, the planned Allied landing and subsequent invasion would have been unimaginably brutal and costly for both sides. Thus it cannot be reasonably argued that the dropping of the atomic bombs did not save lives, both of Japanese citizens, and American soldiers.
I've heard this argument not only in my US history class, but also on other boards about this issue. Its still wrong. The tenno was willing to surrender before the A-bomb was dropped, and the US military High Command (or whatever its called) knew it. That he hadn't already signed the paper itself was a technicalty, the evidence shows he was ready to. And the tenno's word was law; if he surrendered, all Japanese soldiers would have laid down their arms immediately. Whatever the japanese may have said before about defending their homeland ferociously didn't count once the tenno had announced his intention to surrender.
Secondly I should clarify that only one of the bombs had any sort of experimental reasoning behind its deployment, that being the Nagasaki bomb. The design of the Hiroshima bomb had already been tested at the Trinity Site.
But killing hundreds of thousands of civilians not only with the blast, but horribly with aftereffects for the whole world to see certainly impressed the ("Bad") russkies more than blowing up sand in an american desert would, right?
...Certainly they were more efficient at causing damage- 6500% more efficient, according to one figure I have- but they were not initially more deadly; more were killed during earlier conventional firebombings than were initially killed at Hiroshima.
The previous firebombings in a country with solely paper-and-wood houses was already a crime against humanity. In both cases - the fire-bombs and the A-bomb - the targets were purely civilian, of no military value, so don't argue about the military value or how many japanese lives have been saved. (And the huge number of fatalities due to the fire-bombs was one of the reason the tenno was ready to surrender).
...Countless thousands of those who did not die in the initial blast found themselves succuming to cancer in the decades afterwards, and this is what has raised the death toll to truly unthinkable levels. But here's the problem: no one knew that was going to be the case. Remember, prior to Hiroshima, the only test had been in the New Mexican desert; there had hardly been time to assess long-term effects. Thus it seems like the only thing the U.S. military should be found guilty of in this case is utilizing weapons without knowing the full range of effects those weapons would create.
Sorry, but I don't buy this one bit. Yes, the military presented the A-bomb as bomb with a bigger bang and the only protection needed where dark goggles or avoidance at looking at the blast; but the scientists behind it and surely a few of the top military at least should easily have known better. Radioactivity had been studied for almost 50 years at this point (starting with Marie Curies and Rutherfords work), so the cancer-effects were already around to study and see, and scientists knew that there was sth. dangerous about radiation. They may not have known enough or as much as we do now, but they certainly knew enough to know it was a very different bomb with dangerous after-effects.
They certainly learned about those after effects soon enough, and willingly, even though their test subjects were clueless about the after effects at the time:
Back in the 1980's when I was in high school, I had to do a research paper pertaining to nuclear weapons... it was either for a US history class or a modern problems class. Anyway, one of the research books I read was called Atomic Soldiers, and chronicled how US soldiers were used as test subjects for the effects of a-bombs & their fallout... soldiers were ordered to forward areas around the test grounds with little more than trenches to protect them during the blasts, and were then ordered even closer to the blast site before the fallout had settled. Needless to say, many of these men got radiation-induced cancer in the following years. My point? These tests took place after World War II.
constanze, yes US military doctrine has changed radically since Vietnam.
I've heard this argument not only in my US history class, but also on other boards about this issue. Its still wrong. constanze
Hirohito (I assume this is who you're talking about; I'm not familiar with the term you use), was at no point prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs ready to surrender, and the Allies certainly did not know about it. I don't know what you've been told, but look for a brief moment at the figures ScottN quotes above. If the Allies knew Hirohito was ready to surrender, then why were they about to launch such a horrendous invasion?
And the tenno's word was law; if he surrendered, all Japanese soldiers would have laid down their arms immediately. Whatever the japanese may have said before about defending their homeland ferociously didn't count once the tenno had announced his intention to surrender. constanze
Did it? Hirohito announced Japan's surrender in a radio address that was recorded prior to its being released. In between the recording and the transmission, however, a group of Japanese army officers conspired to destroy the tapes and depose Hirohito, thus to continue the war. They failed in both respects, obviously, but the fact that they tried at all shows that Hirohito's word was not as highly regarded as he would have liked. This is why he traveled out to the Missouri in secret a few days later, it's also why other members of the royal family were dispatched the the far reaches of the empire, to ensure the surrender was actually carried out.
But killing hundreds of thousands of civilians not only with the blast, but horribly with aftereffects for the whole world to see certainly impressed the ("Bad") russkies more than blowing up sand in an american desert would, right? constanze
Ah, okay, I take your point. Yes, Truman did want to "impress" the Soviets, but it wasn't a "test" in that regard, but a demonstration. And once again, they did not know the results of the aftereffects.
The previous firebombings in a country with solely paper-and-wood houses was already a crime against humanity. constanze
Okay, hold up. Paper-and-wood houses? That sounds like something out of a U.S. propoganda film- before they reveal the true nature of Japan's housing. Seriously, I saw a film last semester that did exactly that. "Oh, you think we Japanese have paper houses, do you? Well..." The point is, any paper houses that Japanese citizens were living in by 1945 was the exception, rather than the rule.
Yes, the military presented the A-bomb as bomb with a bigger bang and the only protection needed where dark goggles or avoidance at looking at the blast; but the scientists behind it and surely a few of the top military at least should easily have known better. constanze
Well, it would seem so, wouldn't it? But the truth is, they simply didn't know. There wasn't enough data, especially on the link between radiation and genetic mutation (as they didn't know about DNA at this point, it would have been doubly-hard to know this).
The previous firebombings in a country with solely paper-and-wood houses was already a crime against humanity. constanze
Okay, hold up. Paper-and-wood houses? That sounds like something out of a U.S. propoganda film- before they reveal the true nature of Japan's housing. Seriously, I saw a film last semester that did exactly that. "Oh, you think we Japanese have paper houses, do you? Well..." The point is, any paper houses that Japanese citizens were living in by 1945 was the exception, rather than the rule. Sparrow47
Regardless of construction methods, I think the point being brought up is that conventional firebombings took a massive toll of human life. Tokyo wasn't the only city; a famous European example is Dresden.
As a follow-up to my point about Atomic Soldiers, I mentioned that those tests took place after WWII... this is a double-edged sword, in a way. On one "edge," some military and scientific higher-ups did know about dangerous effects of radiation, but to what degree or what those specific effects were--especially long-term effects--may not have been known initially. The other "edge" is that the world at large (including the soldiers involved in the tests) did not know about the effects of radiation. That's not to say they were completely ignorant; they were fitted with equipment that detected radiation and turned away from the testing grounds once a certain threshold had been reached (it didn't take long at such close range). There was a general sense that it was dangerous, though, and eventually the world caught up to those "in the know" once such information started getting released over the years.
Another point I remember reading in that book is that the US government for years (even decades) did not acknowledge that the cancer deaths of the survivors was related to the a-bomb tests. I don't recall the book saying that the gov't outright denied that there was a correlation, but there was controversy in that it didn't admit it (and make compensation to the victims & their families). I saw a video documentary on the subject around the same time I read the book, which made similar claims and had interviews with the surviving soldiers.
I've heard this argument not only in my US history class, but also on other boards about this issue. Its still wrong. The tenno was willing to surrender before the A-bomb was dropped, and the US military High Command (or whatever its called) knew it. That he hadn't already signed the paper itself was a technicalty, the evidence shows he was ready to. And the tenno's word was law; if he surrendered, all Japanese soldiers would have laid down their arms immediately. Whatever the japanese may have said before about defending their homeland ferociously didn't count once the tenno had announced his intention to surrender.
Secondly I should clarify that only one of the bombs had any sort of experimental reasoning behind its deployment, that being the Nagasaki bomb. The design of the Hiroshima bomb had already been tested at the Trinity Site.
But killing hundreds of thousands of civilians not only with the blast, but horribly with aftereffects for the whole world to see certainly impressed the ("Bad") russkies more than blowing up sand in an american desert would, right?
...Certainly they were more efficient at causing damage- 6500% more efficient, according to one figure I have- but they were not initially more deadly; more were killed during earlier conventional firebombings than were initially killed at Hiroshima.
The previous firebombings in a country with solely paper-and-wood houses was already a crime against humanity. In both cases - the fire-bombs and the A-bomb - the targets were purely civilian, of no military value
here's some of the hisory of Hiroshima
History
The Hiroshima garrison was established in 1873 to govern Western Japan as one of five Army districts and manned with the 11th Infantry Regiment. In 1886 the Hiroshima garrison was expanded to the Fifth Division.
When the Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1894, the Fifth Division was the first to go and the harbor used to send many military units to the front. On September 15, the Meiji Emperor moved the Imperial Headquarters to Hiroshima Castle along with the Imperial Cabinet, and the temporary capital expanded the military installations.
In 1904, the Russo-Japanese War found Hiroshima again a large-scale army base of operations and the city prospered as wars and incidents occurred: Manchurinan Incident, the Shanghai Incident, and the China Incident.
In 1941 the army and navy of Japan launched an attack on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and on the British on the Malay Peninsula. Hiroshima military installations and heavy industries were rapidly developed to support the army and to support the nearby massive Kure naval shipyard, home of the Imperial Japanese Fleet.
When Japan recognized that a decisive battle on the mainland was likely, the First General Headquarters was placed in Tokyo and the Second General Headquarters at Hiroshima.
"In 1944, the U.S. forces occupied Saipan, the last strategic point of the Japanese army on the south Pacific front, and established an air base from which to attack the mainland of Japan. In November, full-scale air raids were begun, devastating the cities of Japan one after the other.
"Under such conditions, Hiroshima City began the evacuation of students above the third grade of elementary school and of other citizens whose presence was not essential. With the threat of incendiary bombings, demolition of buildings to make fire lanes was carried out on a wide scale." 13,300 households had been dismantled by time of the bombing.
"The air defense system of Hiroshima was supposed to be impregnable, suitable for a military base, and without parallel in other cities. The citizens were assiduous in intense anti-air raid drills. However, it was all useless in the face of the atomic bomb."
Not exactly a compleatly non millitary target. Also if they were really so ready to surrender why didn't they do it after Hiroshima. Why did they wait untill after
here are some interesting quotes from US generals about the bombing
here is a timeline of the misunderstandings and communications
further quotes from people in power and/or with information at that time. Sicne the quotes give the sources, the articles and books related might provide further insight and facts.