Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mis-guided ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mis-guided ?

    Why was a US Marine writing 'This is for 9/11' on 155mm artillery shells ? I was under the impression that this was about WMD.

    On the deck of USS Mobile Bay USN personnel cheering at the lauch of cruise missiles. Cheering for what exactly ?

    Some people are not doing the US cause any favours. Some are saying the right things however - 'Just doing my job and then I can go home' etc.

  • #2
    These guys are the exact reverse of the people in anti-war demonstrations who show pictures of Bush with a hitlerian mustache and a swastika arm band.

    They push their pro-war or anti-war reasoning to absurd and counterproductive levels.

    Don't forget that as far as the soldiers are concerned, they are doing a job in a much more stressful environment than the anti-war protester walking in the park. These graffitis on the shells or on the planes, these cheerings when planes fly over their heads or when the guns shoot loudly are all part of what maintains a solid cohesion and "esprit de corps" among the troops.

    You have been a soldier yourself, you should not be surprised at all and understand this behavior typical of all armies in war across the world...

    Drawing political conclusions out of this is quite useless.
    Last edited by Tzar; 22 Mar 03, 14:22.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, let's face it: not every private in the artillery knows what's going on. As for the Navy, after weeks of 16 hour days of drudge work you would cheer even if the missiles were headed for your own house.
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        It's alarming how many Americans think Saddam had a major role, or even any role in 9/11. I'm not sure what to make of it either. Disingenuous (racism/politics/etc)? Or ignorance?
        "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

        – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chuck
          Well, let's face it: not every private in the artillery knows what's going on. As for the Navy, after weeks of 16 hour days of drudge work you would cheer even if the missiles were headed for your own house.
          LOL

          It's alarming how many Americans think Saddam had a major role, or even any role in 9/11. I'm not sure what to make of it either. Disingenuous (racism/politics/etc)? Or ignorance?
          Americans don't like Saddam. He's been demonized in our media, political structure, and by his own actions. It's only natural people suspect he was hateful and crazy enough to attack our population. The theory is not properly discussed in the public forum. Bush Administration claims of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection have some truth, but are primarily speculative at best. Yet, people accept it as truth without properly exploring their own opinion.

          This is not uncommon. Most people adopt the opinion that seem more logical, not the one that is more accurate. The Iraqi crisis is an excellent example of that. Most people quickly adopted a position, and refused to back down. There were anti and pro war chants before most governments knew what the heck was occuring. That doesn't suggest a very well-thought opinion. People accepted a particular idealogy most comfortable with their own views on a particular issue, without debating the veraciouness of their position. It doesn't mean people are stupid, just very misinformed, and probably reluctant to explore the truth out of fear of what they might find.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            "It's alarming how many Americans think Saddam had a major role, or even any role in 9/11. I'm not sure what to make of it either. Disingenuous (racism/politics/etc)? Or ignorance?"

            My own personal standpoint is that whether Saddam and Iraq were directly involved in 9/11 or not is something I will never know for sure one way or another. Evidence that he was/wasn't involved can be forged by nations with as much intelligence activity as the US, France, Israel....etc.

            With that said, I certainly think that Saddam was smiling from ear to ear when the news of the 9/11 attack reached Baghdad, so whether he funds the attack directly or not, he certainly is in favor of any attack by terrorists on the US. He certainly would not turn over any terrorists that were hiding in his country, now would he? If any of you think that he would, I would like you to share with the rest of us whatever it is you're smoking.
            Take away Pearl Harbor and Marko would be writing in German Today.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltapooh


              Most people quickly adopted a position, and refused to back down. There were anti and pro war chants before most governments knew what the heck was occuring. That doesn't suggest a very well-thought opinion. People accepted a particular idealogy most comfortable with their own views on a particular issue, without debating the veraciouness of their position. It doesn't mean people are stupid, just very misinformed, and probably reluctant to explore the truth out of fear of what they might find.
              I'm not sure how to take this comment, it seems to me that you are really taking a stab at the average joe. Sure, there are ignorant people on both sides of the issue, we can see that right here in this very forum.

              However, most of the people I know are quite aware of the pro/cons that have been made for/against the war, and very few of them blindly jumped on one bandwagon or the other.

              Basically what you are saying is that most people are ignorant of the truth, and also too lazy and/or fearful to find out what the truth is. Not very flattering.
              Take away Pearl Harbor and Marko would be writing in German Today.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by arkai88
                [With that said, I certainly think that Saddam was smiling from ear to ear when the news of the 9/11 attack reached Baghdad, so whether he funds the attack directly or not, he certainly is in favor of any attack by terrorists on the US. He certainly would not turn over any terrorists that were hiding in his country, now would he? If any of you think that he would, I would like you to share with the rest of us whatever it is you're smoking.
                No, you're right. He'd more likely kill them himself, as he has in the past. Islamic fundamentalists = threat to his power. That's why he's extensively tortured and killed them in the past. Prior to Al Qaeda becoming the big news topic, the only links to terror (credible and speculative) he had were two-fold:

                - providing shelter for dissident Iranian groups that could loosely be classified as "terrorist groups", though to my knowledge weren't on any terror lists anywhere but basically Iran, heh.

                - the fact that he gave families of Palestinians money if their family members were killed as a result of the intifada. Sometimes, that meant families of suicide bombers. It wasn't funding the terror, but certainly a case can be made that it made the choice easier for a potential suicide bomber to know his family wouldn't be totally screwed at losing the main breadwinner. However, it's difficult to make a case about that, precisely because Saddam's financial support went across the board to all Palestinians - those classified as terrorists and not, not to the bomber but to their family and it was provided after the fact.

                But I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I mean, it's only natural. Most of the "resistance" movements of occupied Europe in WW2 would be classified as terrorist organizations today.

                What's troubling about this though, is when I hear about people calling in to give their opinions on radio shows, television shows, internet forums, etc - many Americans cite Iraq as a terrorist threat to the USA as the reason they support going to war with Iraq. The implications of that are downright scary.

                I can understand some people making that mistake. The administration has been trying to propogate this idea that Al Qaeda/Iraq = one and the same and some people will buy it. But 40-50% of Americans (I think, last I heard)?

                I can't believe that many people really believe that in the US, which is why I suspect some people are just being dishonest.
                "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MikeJ


                  - many Americans cite Iraq as a terrorist threat to the USA as the reason they support going to war with Iraq. The implications of that are downright scary.

                  I can understand some people making that mistake. The administration has been trying to propogate this idea that Al Qaeda/Iraq = one and the same and some people will buy it. But 40-50% of Americans (I think, last I heard)?

                  I can't believe that many people really believe that in the US, which is why I suspect some people are just being dishonest.
                  Yes the implications of Iraq as a terrorist threat are downright scary. (or were ) Just because Iraq wasn't linked to Al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism doesn't mean it's not a scary terrorist threat.
                  ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                  -the Firesign Theatre

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok, so in what way is it a scary, terrorist threat?

                    And no, Ms. Cleo is not a legitimate source.
                    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by arkai88


                      I'm not sure how to take this comment, it seems to me that you are really taking a stab at the average joe. Sure, there are ignorant people on both sides of the issue, we can see that right here in this very forum.

                      However, most of the people I know are quite aware of the pro/cons that have been made for/against the war, and very few of them blindly jumped on one bandwagon or the other.

                      Basically what you are saying is that most people are ignorant of the truth, and also too lazy and/or fearful to find out what the truth is. Not very flattering.
                      I did not intend the comment to be defacing. Though I can understand how one could come to that conclusion.

                      I don't think people understand terms like power projection, force, projection, strategic interest, and national interest. When I attended a war rally two weekends ago, I saw people from both sides arguing the opinions of governments and humanity, ignoring the deep political issues embedded within. People protest for and against a government's position. In this case, they look at Bush, and see a very scary dynamic, aggressive foriegn policy that is certain to lead to many deaths and widespread conflict.

                      Now ask that group, why would Bush take that kind of risk?

                      In the same respect, people that support the war believe by-in-large we are combatting terrorism, and the minimizing the risk that Weapons of Mass Destruction will be used against us.

                      Ask people if they understand the technical issues involved in such an event, or the political issues complicating the possible relationship between Islamic fundamentalists and Saddam Hussein.

                      When you listen to anti and pro war protesters, you quickly realize they have grasped the popular and more simple opinion. If this war is simply about oil or Weapons of Mass Destruction, our political leaders are so stupid they need to be deposed immediately.

                      We are pre-disposed to adopt ideals of what it means to be humane, patroitic, and democratic. They have blunt and very strict terms that tragically are not flexible enough to address human behavior in the world of politics. People more often than not are attracted to those opinions which fit their view of the world around them, and not the reality of the situation.

                      By nature, we analyze issues through experience and feeling. Politicians may function similarly but with a more detached status than average people. In Speech classes, you are taught how to rapidly analyze a crowd, using knowledge about culture, educational background, etc to tailor your speech. You use cards to ensure flexibility. You tell the people what is required to sway their opinion toward your own, leaving out confusing issues.

                      People don't go out and spend all day researching newspaper articles. We mostly rely on a handful of resources, and hopefully objective reporting to gather our information, and form opinions. Most importantly, we often ask, what this means to me and my family?

                      I don't view people who do not possess degrees in politics and national security as stupid. I feel we adopt opinions too hastely and try to simply the complicated. If we would analyze the decisions around and think more about the day after tomorrow, we might have a different opinon. I feel we are a selfish society.

                      Again, I don't see people as stupid. The public is amazingly keen. They can catch a politician in lie with ease. Most speech writers spend their time trying to create a simple truth, not the whole truth. People are informed, but I don't believe they are completely objective. We all have ideals. That's how we create decisions.

                      I hope that clarifies.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh


                        I feel we adopt opinions too hastely and try to simply the complicated. If we would analyze the decisions around and think more about the day after tomorrow, we might have a different opinon. I feel we are a selfish society.
                        I completely agree with you. Here in Canada the majority of the population does not support the American action in Iraq (most of my friends are against this war). Instinctively, they are against war because, well, because war is bad, isn't it? I say to them that I totally agree that war is terrible, but when I ask them to propose a couple of other solid and credible alternatives to war that will really solve the issue, I usually get evasive answers.

                        These anti-war people don't think about alternatives, they simply state that war is bad, and stop their reasoning there. There is only a minority that can coherently argue WHY they are against war, WHAT are the alternatives and their consequences. Usually this minority shows a very good knowledge of the different political issues at stake in the Arab world.

                        On the other hand, I know also some people who are for this war, but their reasoning is as simple-minded as the anti-war: these people will say that Saddam Hussein and his gang are a bunch of bastards and that Iraq deserves what's happening. When you question them on the potential consequences of the war, of what they think about Saudi Arabia and the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, you usually get a puzzled look and a long rambling basically stating that these Arabs are all crazy anyway.

                        I know it is not politically-correct to say this, but we all know the average joe is often culturally ignorant, and has a vision of the world build from half-truths and misconceptions due to a lack of interest in getting more informed about these issues. The average joe is already overworked, needs to pay his taxes and keep his own house in order, as well as raising and taking care of his children. Geopolitical strategies and international politics is far in his list of priorities. Consequently, the average joe needs to grossly oversimplify things to make them understandable.

                        It's unfortunate, but that's how it works.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Unfortunately...

                          Originally posted by Tzar


                          I completely agree with you. Here in Canada the majority of the population does not support the American action in Iraq (most of my friends are against this war). Instinctively, they are against war because, well, because war is bad, isn't it? I say to them that I totally agree that war is terrible, but when I ask them to propose a couple of other solid and credible alternatives to war that will really solve the issue, I usually get evasive answers.

                          These anti-war people don't think about alternatives, they simply state that war is bad, and stop their reasoning there. There is only a minority that can coherently argue WHY they are against war, WHAT are the alternatives and their consequences. Usually this minority shows a very good knowledge of the different political issues at stake in the Arab world.

                          On the other hand, I know also some people who are for this war, but their reasoning is as simple-minded as the anti-war: these people will say that Saddam Hussein and his gang are a bunch of bastards and that Iraq deserves what's happening. When you question them on the potential consequences of the war, of what they think about Saudi Arabia and the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, you usually get a puzzled look and a long rambling basically stating that these Arabs are all crazy anyway.

                          I know it is not politically-correct to say this, but we all know the average joe is often culturally ignorant, and has a vision of the world build from half-truths and misconceptions due to a lack of interest in getting more informed about these issues. The average joe is already overworked, needs to pay his taxes and keep his own house in order, as well as raising and taking care of his children. Geopolitical strategies and international politics is far in his list of priorities. Consequently, the average joe needs to grossly oversimplify things to make them understandable.

                          It's unfortunate, but that's how it works.
                          Hello Tzar,

                          That's very true, but unfortunately for us, they do have a lot of political clout right now. By the political clout, I do not mean right now in the middle of this war, but in future elections and issues if we want to win these people's votes.

                          I fear these people as a majority is going to be angry and would gladly ruin the elections and any chance of patching up the rift between the pro-war and anti-war supporters.

                          What they can do is to turn this around, and express the support for the troops and try to get the US government accountable for any civilian death and future nation-building in Iraq. If these anti-war people are willing to work with these in power, then this kind of cooperation will pay a lot of divideneds their way.

                          The anti-war people failed to stop this war, now, I think these people need to start working on how to prevent this war from worsening and ensure the Iraqis get the best care they need in rebuilding their ruined nation.

                          One more thing, I was really surprised at how much influential the UN has become, while, it doesn't have a lot of political capital, it has become a symbol of world-peace for these people. The people are perfectly willing to concede the sovereignity of any nation in order to preserve the peace. This is quite frightening to me, because...

                          I know there is no way to achieve a lasting peace simply because our human nature is faulty and imperfect. There will always be wars and political intrigues to work through. There's no way to avoid this one.

                          Dan
                          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                          "Aim small, miss small."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chuck
                            Well, let's face it: not every private in the artillery knows what's going on. As for the Navy, after weeks of 16 hour days of drudge work you would cheer even if the missiles were headed for your own house.
                            Now that's a good point.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tzar
                              These guys are the exact reverse of the people in anti-war demonstrations who show pictures of Bush with a hitlerian mustache and a swastika arm band.

                              They push their pro-war or anti-war reasoning to absurd and counterproductive levels.

                              Don't forget that as far as the soldiers are concerned, they are doing a job in a much more stressful environment than the anti-war protester walking in the park. These graffitis on the shells or on the planes, these cheerings when planes fly over their heads or when the guns shoot loudly are all part of what maintains a solid cohesion and "esprit de corps" among the troops.

                              You have been a soldier yourself, you should not be surprised at all and understand this behavior typical of all armies in war across the world...

                              Drawing political conclusions out of this is quite useless.
                              You obviously have no idea of the levels of professionalism shown by the British Forces. Ratehr than dick around writing crap on shells they are more interested on concentrating on their job in hand and not looking for scapegoats for a terrorist attack. Perhaps it has something to do with the 25 years of active service training in anti-terrorist warfare, and realising that when you lose troops or civilians to a terrorist attack that life goes on and you deal with it rather than destroy the lives of millions in a fit of vengence.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X