Are War, war crimes and atrocity inseperable

[mburbank]

"They're going to have to start rounding them up in bigger groups then that if they're goal is to kill every Iraqi. That is why they're there right? To kill people?"
-Abcdxx

How do I make this clear? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY HERE. Until recently, I pretty much always understood what you were saying. Didn't always agree, often thought it was pompous, but I understood you. Lately I DO NOT UNDERSTAND about half your posts. I find you erratic and unclear. I can't respond to their content because I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM and this is a NEW PHENOMONENON.

No psycho drama. No joke. I can't make a plitical response because I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU.

Now, a political response to Kevin, who I disagree with here, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND and so I CAN RESPOND TO by talking politics.



Kevin;

You are gay.

I'm kidding. You may well be gay, but here's what I think about what you said.

"I think the question is whether or not you believe American soldiers target innocent people. I think you certainly do have cases of it, but do I think it is intended policy? No."
-Kevin, wjo is obviously insane

I agree that in some cases Amercians target civillians they know are innocent and in many more cases they target the nearest local without regard to guilt or innocence. And yes, I think inurgents count on that, and it's tactical on their part. Do I think it's policy? Good lord, I certainly hope not. I don't think so, and it would be truly horrific if it turned out to be true. I DO think it's policy to set up an immediatte stone wall of denial around any american atrocity or tragic blunder. Look at the Pat Tillman case. I doubt it is official policy written down anywhere. I don't thin there's a manual that says "If something reallty ugly happens, lie about it right away." Nonetheless, I think it's standard operating procedure and it comes from the top down.

"Could it be at all possible that the lines between civilian and soldier are often blurred in guerilla warfare? "
-Kevin, who not ony do I disagree with, but I can't understand a damn word he's saying because he's probably drunk again or screwing a hobo.

Sure. I think that's often the case. I also think war dehumanizes and terrifies perfectly decent people until they don't care who's the enemy and who might just be standing nearby. Everyone not a fellow soldier becomes the enemy. That's why it's damn near impossible to beat an insurgency. BUT I think when you find whole families killed, right down to the children and you say they were killed by a roadside bomb but they're found dead in their pajamas in their homes with bullets in them... something different is going on there. Something evil. And denial and cover ups ad to the evil and strongly reduce any possability of soldiers who are doing their damndest achieving any good.

"Civilian life only becomes important when they are unfortunately dying at our hands."
-Kevin, who rather than respond to seriously, I will pretend is unintelligable and accuse of mental illness.

That isnt true or fair. I am a lefty. I am also anti-war. I strongly doubt I am this straw man you have created called the anti-war lefty. Of course civillian life was important then. Just as it's important in Darfur, where as I've often said, I think our troops have a moral obligation to be, as opposed to Iraq. BUT. when MY country goes to war, useing in part tax mony I pay for a war I believe is immoral, I am far more intimately involved. My representative government has made a decision and commited my money to these civillian deaths, not to mention the deaths of our soldiers. You may not agree that the degree of difference is as sharp as I ppersonlly think it is. But you're in Abcdxx territory when you claim that 'anti-war' lefties don't care about human life until we can have big hate america protests about it, which I think was your implication.

"I have absolutely NO way to know the veracity of this statement. And ya know what? Neither does the douche bag who wrote this article."
-Kevin who I have to make a joke about because I'm to ignorant to confront his ideas

We have no way of knowing the veracity of any of the things this article talked about. That was my main question. Do you believe these sorts of things are happening (including cover ups, which you are entitled to disbelieve, and I certainly agree that article doesn't even attempt to prove) and if so, can you have a war without this sort of thing and if you can't is THIS war worth THOSE things? And yeah, the author is a little bit of a douche bag. But he's a douche bag who wrote an oppinionated article on some very troubling questions. He's not a douchebag who was a brutal facist dictator, or a douchebag who engaged America in a war of choice it looks more and more as if he was determined to undertake maybe even before 9/11 that has taken tens of thousands of lives. On the douchebag scale, he's a very, very, very small douchebag. AND he's writing about something I think people need to think about a whole lot more.

"I'm sorry, I could only skim the remainder of the article. The gist I got was that American soldiers are mentally ill"
-That gay stupid guy Kevin who I am smarter and funnier than which I will prove by pretending I don't understand him and gtting all my zombie fans to do the same

Well, that would be your problem, and I think you got it wrong. I thin the arfticle is saying a situation like the Iraq war, where your life is in danger, the mission is unclear, the amount of time you're staying is unclear, who the enemy even is is unclear and where their is the distinct feeling any action is permissible would make MOST people mentally ill. I have incredible sympathy for anyone over there right now who is not as crazy as a shithouse rat, and I have sympathy for those that are, even the ones who's craziness makes them do terrible, terrible things. I have known enough Vietnam vets to know the things you do in combat can eat at your soul for decades. God's mercy on every one of them, Kev. And partof the reason I want them home some desperately is not because I'm an 'anti-war lefty', but becaue of stuff I've seen volunteering at the VA. I want them home alive, and I want them home before they are irreprably mentally damaged, something war does to a lot of perfectly decent people.

"Americans are stupid and in denial. I think I've read this article 20+ times before."
Kevin who is too dumb to know he's wrong even though I don't understand what he's saying

I don't think (and I don't think the article said) Americans are stupid. I do think it said we are in denial, which we generally are in war. THAT's my central question here. How much atrocity, unintentional and intentional is goimng on, can we tell or hear the truth about it and if we do is this war worth the cost? The story that bothers me most in this article is the one with the house with the dead family in it that included two little girls. Could it be possible Amercian soldiers did that on purpose in a moment of madness after almost being killed themselves? I think most people (and I could be wrong) either think there is no way American soldiers under any circumstances would execute little girls, or simply push the story away. It's hard to think about. I don't know if it happened or not, but I think it's important to know and to care. It's not okay (for me) to say 'This is war, people die in a million horrible ways and soldiers driven crazy storming a house and killing veryone in it right down to the toddlers ON PURPOSE is just one more thing.' If it didn't happen (and God I pray it didn't and if Abcdxx think I don't care and this is just posture, that's on ccount of his mad cow disease and shriveled, black heart) I want to know. If it did happen, I want to know. I hope that dooesn't mean I'm a douchebag anti war lefty.

"Max, I do belive that some of this may be true. I'm guessing all of it might have a degree of truthiness to it. I think tired, frustrated, heat scorched, and often hated soldiers, perhaps questioning their role over there, are capable ofdoing horrible and regretable things. This doesn't however mean that this is a quiet U.S. policy in Iraq, or that we are intentionally commiting mass genocide in Iraq."
-Kevin, What? Did ANYBODY get that? Is it just me?

See? we pretty much agree. our main disagreement, I think, is that I believe it's policy to sweep this stuff under the rug when it happens, and I think that's very, very bad. I also think we may disagree on how important these events are. War should be something Nations do, not something we turn away from or treat like a televised sport. I think the kind of crazy war makes our young men and women, the toll it takes not just on the dead and maimed, but those who seem like they come home okay, and the things we do during war are things we are morally 0bligated to look in the face. More than the things other people do because we are doing them. I don't hate America, I am American. When a terrorist of a mahdi army militiaman or a foreign jihadist or baathist dead ender cuts someones head off, that's a barbaric, horrendous atrocity. But when an American soldier does anything even remotely in that ball park, to some small degree I did it too. We are a nation, and no matter who I vote for or how grudgingly I pay my taxes the blood is on all our hands. Maybe it has to be and there's no avoiding it. But it's there and as citizens each nd every one of us ought to weigh the cost.

Oh, and Kevin? You are a gay hobo fucker and I can't understand you at all.