BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 06:47 AM

Mariner you've got it in one - Embeded reporters, spin and propaganda... Do we know what is going on - NO - do we understand what is going on - NO - we'd all like to but we won't see the documents until they are released in years to come when, sadly, as an octagenarian I shall probably be worried about the state of my teeth if I am still here! Modern in history Students will then be able to work out somewhere near the truth whcih I am sure none of us know.

BUT

The friedly fire incidents in both this and the last conflict do seem to be a bit unbalanced! shall I crack a really bad joke and state perhaps not enough marching and singing which all the movies seem to show as the best way to train American soldiers - sorry sick - but this is all heavy stuff. Letws get Dr B back in there and lets find that which in theory justifies the war - if it exists!


A

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 05:40 AM

Troll, Funny, but that was not the way it was reported over here in Europe.But then, I don't think that the reporter was "embedded" and maybe was not given that "spin"? and had to rely on what he saw and heard.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 03:28 AM

It is my understanding that the Non-combatants who have been killed at checkpoints ahve been killed while attempting to run the checkpoint. In the case of the van where seven women and children were killed, it was learned from a survivor that the drivers family was being held by Saddam Husseins goons and threatened with death if he didn't try to run the checkpoint. The same thing applied to the passengers.
The young Marine who killed the Iraqi woman and said "the Chick got in the way" was not being callous. Later reports from embedded reporters say that he was so cut up by it that there was some question as to his mental state. Instead of a flat "The chick..." it was more an unspoken "Oh my G-d!" The chick..."
I know it's much more soul-satisfying to think of him as a remorseless killer with no conscience or regrets.
That plays right into the whole "soldier as murderer" scenario which, in turn, helps to justify opposition to a war to liberate a people. Not this time, however.
Sorry 'bout that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:47 PM

DougR, I'm not implying anything at all, just wondering why the "friendly fire" all comes from the one direction, and why? Are the U.S. troops trigger happy? lacking in discipline? relying too much on technology and too little on common sense? or is it a lack of experience? (You will note that the Brits man checkpoints too, but they have yet to kill any civilians at them, that can be put down ,in part to their experience in Northern Ireland and the fact that their checkpoints are ,apparently, constructed differently, ie, the approaching vehicles HAVE to stop before they get to the actual barrier, whereas the Americans just seem to blow the shit out of them as they approach. Maybe the poor old Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, are confused as to who's checkpoints they are coming up to?

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:25 PM

A US Patriot missle shot down a British jet, killing 2. An A-10 pilot screwed up and attacked several British armored vehicles, killing 1. A British tank took out another British tank, killing 2.   That's all I can find on Googol, Yahoo and the BBC. What did I miss?

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:14 PM

I think it would be wise to wait a spell before adding up the number of those civilian and military that were killed. I doubt any reliable figures are available yet. Some of you were predicting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be killed, and I think it's probably safe to say that is not correct though.

Mariner: Are you implying that the Americans were targeting the Brits?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:05 PM

While I'm not excusing in any way the "friendly fire" incidents, its rather hard to make a meaningful comparison when many of them have involved close air support aircraft, and the British military do not have any in the theater.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:37 PM

Does no one find it strange that ALL the "friendly fire" incidents are American troops killing Brits and none the other way around?. Likewise all the killing of civilians at checkpoints appear to be carried out by American troops and not the Brits (Will anyone ever forget the casual "The chic was in the way" comment from an American soldier who had just killed an Iraqi woman?) . By the last count the U.S. has killed more British soldiers than the Iraqis. This is something that the British were very apprehensive about in the beginning and it seems their apprehensions were justified.Mind you, if fairness they 've killed quiet a few of their own as well, despite trying to pin it on Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 07:54 AM

I'm not sure about Michaelr sems to me a bit callous and frivolous (unlike his predecessor MichaelX who was blessed with insight). We all pray in different ways to different Gods whether they be physical spirit, mentally spiritual or even mother earth our our own judgement!

Seems intent on just scoffing.

B*LL*X

It looks like Iraq is now on the up and we can draw all this to a close!

!!!!BRILLIANT!!!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 04:35 AM

Innocent civilians is not a term used in todays world. The military refer to people as noncombatants, or hostiles. A civilian can kill you with a gun or a bomb easier than a uniformed soldier, because the soldier respects them as noncombatants until they prove otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:12 AM

Michaelr: friendly fire happens during war. Regretable, but that's the way it is. Do you think that those who mistakenly take the lives of others by mistake do not regret it? If you do, then we have nothing else to talk about.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 12:50 AM

DougR -- does it indeed escape you how perverse a term like "friendly fire" really is?

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Apr 03 - 12:46 AM

fiddler -- sorry if I'm seeing your post a bit late but you just made my day.

If we are rational lets pray

That's the best laugh I've had in weeks!

Thanks,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR
Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:23 AM

A pretty callous one at that, Art. IMO.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM

Is Beardy not an American? How is one to know that? If he thinks, as he said, that its the job of soldiers to be killed or murdered, than he's still an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MC Fat
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 07:54 AM

Knowing Beardy as I do any views he makes are straight and usually well thought out. Soldiers are as some folks pointed not paid to die but they are paid and trained to fight. They join up knowing that and as a consequence know there is a possibilty they could die ergo 'It's their job'. The most crass comment is about any American's life being worth more than Beardy's. How insular and parochial can you get. The old adage about you can always tell an American ...you can't tell him much but you can always tell him. Oh by the way Beardy hates Steve Earle how does that figure in your narrow minded viewpoint ?

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 05:08 AM

My view is I dont know emough to judge if going into Iraq is right or wrong...We only get fed what the White house wants us to believe...My instinct tells me that tackling at least one swaggering bully like Saddam and his regime is probably no bad thing...and must make the other regimes think a little before raising their heads above the parapet..I dare say a lot is being learned about the best way to tackle other terrorist states should the need arise...If the Iraqi authorities has one iota of human kindness in their collective souls they would have faced upto the inevitable and allowed the coalition in and saved the lives of thousands of men women and children.any armchair observer can work out that the Iraqi's resistance
is futile,so why subject their people to all the slaughter...

The one thing I do know is that I support the poor bastards ie our military forces who have been sent over to try and redress the balance between good and evil in a country and region seemingly bereft of normal decent human behaviour.

Subject: And why none for the innocents?
From: GUEST,Botticelli
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:27 AM

It's funny (peculiar) that when it comes to 'innocent civilians', we are, by and large, prepared to accept that 'collareral damage happens in war situations, and 9/11 notwithstanding (because neither you nor I perished in it), it seems OK when it happens to someone else; something to do with de-sensitization, I expect

Would you mind being an 'innocent civilian', and if not, why do you sit back and accept that it is somehow OK (even patriotic) to have the label attached to other peoples' dead bodies?

Any word of Sadamm Hussein, incidentally?
Or Bin Laden, for that matter?

Are we using a sledgehammer to drive a nail... coz all I hear about is 'innocent civilians', and how 'regrettable' it all is (3 000, apparently, since they entered Baghdad, alone).

And dont give me any of that regime change nonesense, and the breaking of eggs to make omlettes.

Innocent civilians are quite OK, as long as they weren't in the Trade Center, it would seem.

How many 9/11's have we, visited on other countries, lately, and why do we think it is justified?

Botticelli

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR
Date: 09 Apr 03 - 03:00 AM

fiddler: it would be nice if no one got killed in a war. Not very realistic to expect that though I suppose.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:27 PM

No I dont think joining the military is mad...usualy they are youngsters looking to escape the problems of homelife whether it be unemployment,or dull career prospects...they join up looking for the excitement of traveling,perhaps the camradery of military life,here in the UK the military has long been promoted as a means of learning a trade in engineering...No sorry mate,but dieing in wars hardly enters their young minds,after all you can be sent out to have your head blown off in the name of militarism before you are even old enough to buy a pint of beer or vote in an election..yes death does occur to soldiers in war,but to call death in such an instance duty is nothing more than a load of old jingoistic baloney...

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM

The dead toll is far too high.

BTW I think 1 is too high but with one voice every 5 years not sure how much influence we can seriously exert.

The Stats are frightening and I take no comfort in the argument that at this stage in the first and second WWars ...... as has been pointed out to me at times.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:23 AM

The cost of freedom is high. If peace is all you want, roll over and play dead when the despots take over and they will let you live in peace. It will, of course, be the peace of the slave but, hey, if thats what you want, go for it.
If, on the other hand, you want the freedom to live as you please, you will probably have to fight for it every day of your life in one way or another.
So take your choice; freedom or peace. The chances are not very good that you can have both.
The two are NOT the same thing.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 10:07 AM

Thanks, Bagpuss, I had searched for such an information without success.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 10:01 AM

Wolfgang, here are some estimates of iraqi casualties . I dont know how reliable they are.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 09:54 AM

Interesting site with an interesting method of data gathering.

Does anyone know casualty data for Iraqi soldiers?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 09:29 AM

Fiddler, according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ reported civilian deaths are running between 900 and 1073.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 08:01 AM

Can't agree guest - war is an implicit part of the contract to be a member of any armed force therefore the joining the ranks accepts that potential.

I suspect as we all do tha tthey hope it will never happen - but it has - and sadly continues to do so.

Where they come from is irrelevant and the argument falls down based on the Officer Classes who could also be expended in a conflict (less likely i agree) these are often from privilaged backgrounds - ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY ARE ALL MAD !

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 05:59 AM

Beardy certainly has succeeded in stirring up some emotions with his ugly quasi- rationale.....

In a nutshell dear boy...No one in command of their sanity joins the armed forces with the explicit intention of killing or being killed....analysis will probably show that the bulk of the armed forces of any country you wish to mention is made up of the underpriveledged.of those who come from places and areas where military service with its regular income seems preferable to unemployment or subsistence living conditions...most join in Britain or the US with the view of seeing a bit of the world whilst carrying out valuable peacekeeping tasks in countries too unstable to police themselves.....So it is nothing short of sick and arrant nonsense to suggest a soldiers job is to die in the line of duty...a soldier is a human being and his only duty is to remain alive whilst discharging his duties as a soldier with decency and integrity....

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 04:40 AM

Sorry I'm a cynic - we are all in the grip of news media - do we know how many are really killed!

And back to where this thread started we had a news bulletin yesterday as we (the Brits) lost and 18 year old, the youngest Brit casualty of the war. I'm Sad he had to die, I'm sad we are at war. I think public opinion is pretty much the same! BUT I could be wrong

Embeded journalists showing sights I don't want to see and sights that confirm my lack of support for the war but my backing to establish a 'job done' scenario but no one has given us that parameter just they need to topple the regime - is this double speak for 'kill Saddam Hussain' Why? what about Pol Pot, Mugabe, Idi Amin. Look at Koreas recent statements on Nuclear testing - Are they next for big brother to invade and protect under the cloak of protecting the world. What about the countless other despots and terror regimes around the world!!!!

No casualties is the ultimate aim but seemingly not achievable. Sadly the Americans seem to be better at shooting up their own at present (or the Brits) and a few kurds.

The whole thing seems ill conceived and ill justified. Sadly I will be in my wooden overcoat or cast from my urn in to the wind when the truth of GWB Junior avenging his father, having a paddy and getting away with it or whatever comes to light - when we find out the real reasons for the war instead of all these suppositions.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:52 PM

Troll,
I'm not at this point questioning whether you should have gone in or who is killing whom. I'm assuming that in these sort of exercises, say, a plane hijacking where a gunman is holding 200 people hostage, the persons who are going in calculate the likely casualties from all causes. And then decide if to go in by force or try some other method. In the plane scenario, for instance, it wouldn't make sense to risk letting the hijacker kill 180 to save the other 20.

All I'm asking is how many casualties the USA would consider acceptable (for want of a better word) in return for toppling Saddam. If 5000 is the figure, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:21 PM

No, Greg F., according to reports I have heard they were killed by accidental friendly fire. Unfortunately, not too uncommon during a war.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:15 PM

Richard H-Well, according to a TIME poll, 5,000 casualties is the point at which the public stops supporting the war, whether they're Iraqi civilians or coalition troops. On the other hand, 42% of those polled also supported the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical weapons attack. I'd rather the administration didn't take those numbers TOO much to heart.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:11 AM

The bomb that expolded in the Baghdad market is still under investigation but it could just as easily have been an Iraqi anti-aircraft missle

Could have been an alien particle-beam death ray too, I suppose; that's probably the explanation for those dead Kurds & special forces, too.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:19 AM

So you think that the Iraqi people would be better off if we just got out and left Saddam Hussein alone to continue his reign of murder and torture, GUEST,Richard H.?
There was an article about one of the returning "human shields" in which he quotes an Iraqi taxi driver who said that if we did NOT attack, many of them would commit suicide.
The impression that I have gotten from the news coverage that I have seen is that the vast majority of civilians who have been killed have been killed by Saddam Husseins goons as they tried to flee the fighting. The bomb that expolded in the Baghdad market is still under investigation but it could just as easily have been an Iraqi anti-aircraft missle that missed and fell back unexploded.
But think what you want. I'm sure that nothing I could say will change your mind, especially since you seem to have made it up already. Facts would only confuse the issue.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Richard H
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:42 AM

Re: casualties, no doubt the USA estimated beforehand the likely numbers of innocent Iraqi civilian deaths in this enterprise. Especially since this whole exercise is said nowadays to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

So how many Iraqi civilian deaths you think they considered acceptable in order to get rid of Saddam: a. 2,000? b. 5,000? c. 10,000? d. How many ever it takes?

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 06:33 PM

"Rejoicing in the killing of another person is a kind of blasphemy"

But isn't that what a victory parade is?

"Horay for our side... we killed enough of their guys that now it's over..."

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Peg
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 07:32 PM

The actual quotation from John Donne is:

"Each man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: PeteBoom
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:48 PM

"much of his efforts were devoted to taking the Cross"

Perhaps - but he failed. Miserably. Only the First Crusade "freed" Jerusalem.

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:10 PM

Fair Play to Richard 1 - The Lionheart - much of his efforts were devoted to taking the Cross.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 08:53 PM

Rapaire, it happens all the time. It happened in our Revolution and Civil War with brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor. Political and/or religious beliefs can be stronger than blood ties in the heat of battle.
Sad, but true. Some of the bloodiest wars in Europe were fought between menbers of the same family in a quest for power. Witness Henry II of England etc. whose wife, Eleanor of Aquitane,and their three sons, Richard, Geofrey, and John, fought to overthrow him.
And the beat goes on....

troll

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: leprechaun
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 01:52 PM

I'm think any American's life is worth a lot more than Beardy's life.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:04 PM

there is "fuss" right now because so few of 'our' soldiers are dying that we can focus on each one...If thousands were dying, CNN could not write all those moving pieces about the details...with battlefield pictures by satellite. Somehow, it seems more upsetting when you feel the technology is so good that we ought to be able to win with NO casulties.

Dead Iraqis are mostly 'divisions' and 'resistance eliminated'...dead Americans are "John Doe" and "Sgt. Johnson from Keokuk"....makes it all very personal and immediate......and like was said above, we twist our heads to justify being there so "they will not have died in vain".

It is a strange feeling to be in a conflict that we can't stop until we 'win', but which it will be hard to feel good about winning, since there was so little justification for being there in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: PeteBoom
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:27 AM

"IT'S THEIR JOB"

Not true. Ergo, your entire argument is based on a false premise.

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making some other poor bastard die for his country."
George Patton (I dislike his politics, but he knew how to handle armor.)

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Ireland
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:02 AM

Why do people join the military, the majority would say it was out of a sense of patriotism. Wanting to defend their country in turn preserving the lifestyle that people enjoy.

Complaining and belittling the people who protect the lifestyle that many people enjoy leaves me to ask a simple question. What do you do to ensure that your fellow country people keep these freedoms and their lifestyle?

I know what the soldier does,put his/her life on the line,"no greater love" and all that. Stands between the people,who want to kill you or take your freedom,and you.

You may not agree with this method of defending your freedom,but you cannot deny it has worked in the past, you cannot deny that those who have died done so thinking they were doing good for their country,being a patriot and proving it the hard way.

So why all the fuss when soldiers die, think about the message people give to their children,how they must be patriotic.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 08:25 AM

"Every Man's life diminishes me." -- John Donne

I honor the warriors, not the war. All of them.

As for one life being more valuable than another -- when YOUR son/daughter/nephew/neice/neighbor/whatever dies, they are "more valuable" to you than others because you know them and it's personal.

Perhaps if war was personalized, REALLY personalized, like you had to kill the guy you had just enjoyed some beer with, face to face and mano a mano, it wouldn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 08:05 AM

I keep reading these type of threads and was determined not to join in bu here I am.

1)I don't believe any side of this conflict, it is all propaganda we do not know the truth!
2)I'd much rather it wasn't happening at all.
3)Sadly in the long term interests of peace even the most ardent pacifits must realise 'a job' must be done now - the only goalposts which can be moved are what is 'the job'.
4)Following from 3 we cannot bring the armies back.
5)Those out there have trained for years and they are getting a chance to do - like it or not at our end - it is what some of those guys and gals want to do.
6) although too strongly expressed above - they volunteer to risk their lives and its sad if it costs that but in all cases it was their choice and they did know (if not truly recognise) the risks.

If we are rational lets pray for a swift end - minimal loss of life - as there will sadly be some - and containment of any aftermath.

Also

That the UN starts to take amore autoritative role in World affairs rather than degenerate into teh league of nations!!! Thats how it all started too much prevaracation and throwing toys out of the pram!

hugs to all and lets hope for peace for all - including Zimbawe, Korea, China South Africa and all over the world soon, this is just one sqaure on the chess board and is it really and important one - WE Don't know as THEY don't tell us everything.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:46 AM

My greatest hope is that the US will, when this war is over, recall its troops from around the world. Close it's bases everywhere and come home. Stop all aid and financial support everywhere and to everybody and concentrate on taking care of local business for awhile.

And then, when we have the problems with health, education, and hunger eradicated here open up shop again and invite other nations in for breakfast a give them the chance to show a compelling need and ask for help and aid on a limited payback basis.

If it were mine to choose I think I'd start with, Oh, I dunno, Tristan Da Cuhna.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 06:32 AM

The death of anyone in a war is a terrible thing to happen. Rejoicing in the killing of another person is a kind of blasphemy. Humanly speaking, if you've got someone close to you, like a family member or a friend in a dangerous situation, that's the one you are most concerned for.

But the death of non-combatants, especially when they are children, is the most terrible thing of all. And in modern wars, typically, most of the people killed are non-combatants. It's unclear whether that is the case in this present war - but what is clear is that the deaths of non-combatants already far exceeds those of combatants on the USUK side, by more than ten to one.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 05:13 AM

I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch in which a soldier is asking to be released from the army because he has just found out that there is a chance of getting shot if if he is sent to any hostilities. "Why did you join the Army" asks the colonel. "For the water-skiing and other sports", answered the soldier - recruiting adverts of the time always showed the recreational side.

Doesn't the bible tells us that "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". If you join the armed forces, you are accepting that any current government may require you to risk or even forfeit your life in any venture which they deem neccessary (even if you don't). From just looking at the casualty figures so far, it becomes apparent that British and American forces have a vastly higher chance of survival than either Iraqi soldiers or civilians. So far, in fact our forces seem to be in much greater danger from "friendly fire", mistakes, and equipment failure. In the two world wars (esp WW1) casualties were expected and while mourned, there was none of the "Shock, Horror" reaction that we seem to get today.

I feel grief for every person who dies, is injured, or loses a loved one in this conflict, which ever side they were on. If many Americans and British had been brought up in Iraq, they would be just as brainwashed by Saddam's propaganda as they have been by that of Bush and Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:45 AM

Is it true that some American people -- probably the pro-war ones -- believe that American lives are worth more than the lives of other nations?

Of course. So do some Iraqis. So do some English. So do some Chinese. (About their own country, that is.) The concept of "enemy" is hard-wired into our brains (it's an archetype, to use the Jungian phrase), and is most strongly expressed in adolescent males, which is why we use them as soldiers. It made sense, millions of years ago, to try to fight off and kill an invading male who was trying to mate with the females of your group and thus perpetuate his genes at the expense of your own. The remnant of that neural circuit is triggered by jingoistic slogans about patriotism and glory, but especially by those posters that are trotted out year after year, war after war, that show mean nasty ugly guys doing mean nasty ugly things, often to women; and by NCO's who know how to whip up that hate reflex in their troops. But it's actually more than "believing X lives are worth more than Y lives"...it's a process of dehumanizing the enemy, so you think of them as menacing and subhuman. (Kind of like the way we in Hawaii think of those 6-inch-long centipedes that sometimes skitter across the floor of our houses. When I saw one of those suckers, I would smash it, over and over, 5, 10, 25 times, until it was nothing but goo, my face red and my heart pounding the whole time.)

On the old album "Tom Paxton Live", Tom tells a story about his experience in basic training, when a sergeant got up and gave his platoon a lecture on the history and use of the bayonet. He got the troops whipped into a frenzy, talking about battles and stabbing the enemy in hand-to-hand combat and blood spurting everywhere. Pretty soon lots of the guys were bobbing up and down, salivating, pawing at the ground, pounding their fists into their hands or their buddy's shoulder, as the sergeant grew more and more animated and strident. Finally, Tom says, at the very peak of emotion and blood lust,

'He held his weapon above his head and shouted:

"What is the purpose of the bayonet?"

And we all shouted back, "To KILL! To KILL!" And we KILLED HIM!'

Aloha,
Mark