To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=58447
66 messages

BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die

03 Apr 03 - 04:41 PM (#925514)
Subject: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Beardy

I have been trying extremely hard but cannot comprehend why "shock and horror" is expressed on news bulletins when soldiers are killed or murdered.

IT'S THEIR JOB

Surely even the stupidest President, oil executive, asset stripper, broadcaster or journalist appreciates that if you are insane enough to join any of the ARMED forces then it is implicit in the job description to be shot at and killed. George W didn't avoid going to Vietnam because he was afraid of flying or didn't like foreign food; no, it was because he knew there was a high percentage chance that he would be returning in a body bag.

Why should I be expected to support people murdering innocent Iraqi's in an illegal and unjust war for which they are being amply rewarded. I never asked them to enlist and therefore I could not care less if they should die; it matters not one iota to me. They made their choice of career and have to accept the consequences. It isn't always a chance to go around the world playing various sports.

I have another couple of thoughts whilst on this subject. Regarding "friendly fire"; why on earth don't the British army fire back. They are only Americans; the rest of the world wouldn't care. Also how would the Pentagon have explained the death of the "rescued" soldier if their soldiers had cocked it up like most operations and shot her. Going from being safely tucked up in a hospital bed to racing across an Iraqi desert wouldn't appear to be the best strategy or the most logical use of resources.


03 Apr 03 - 04:57 PM (#925530)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Mars

My, aren't you a friendly sort.

Sure, it's their job. It's also the job of policemen and firefighters to put themselves willingly in harm's way; yet on 9/11 we wept and prayed when so many of them died. (except for you, maybe)

Somebody cares when somebody dies. They're only Americans and no one would care? That's really crass of you to say. Of course someone will care. A mother. A father. A husband. A wife. A sister. A brother. A best friend, a poker buddy, a coworker.

Of course someone will care.

My brother avoided going to Vietnam on a student exemption. Does that make him a coward too?

Go stick your head back up your ass.


03 Apr 03 - 05:09 PM (#925547)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks

What an ass.


03 Apr 03 - 05:28 PM (#925556)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: duuuude

Yep, another loser just tryin to get a rise.


03 Apr 03 - 05:33 PM (#925561)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: stevetheORC

Treat him with the contempt that he deserves then ignore.


03 Apr 03 - 05:40 PM (#925569)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,pdc

Okay, on this topic, a straight question from a non-American. I'm not being ironic, nor am I trying to get a rise from anyone, nor am I trying to be offensive. Just straight, honest curiosity:

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?


03 Apr 03 - 05:49 PM (#925581)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Frankham

It's important to respect the convictions of the young men and women who are going to war whether you agree with their views or not. They may have ideals and values that are being manipulated by cynical politicians with their lies and deceptions. But the young men and women are our Americans and their lives ARE important. I am saddened by the fact that they are there but I wish them the best and pray that future leaders will bring them home where they belong. I don't approve of those who spit on Vietnam vets when they returned home. Human life in my book is sacred and this goes for young men and women in uniform whether I agree that they should be there or not.

Frank Hamilton


03 Apr 03 - 05:55 PM (#925583)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks

pdc: I don't believe that is true, any more than anyone thinks that their own family/group/nation is more valuable to them than are strangers. There have been a number of reports out of the current conflict of American soldiers exposing themselves to danger to get civilians out of danger, or of not firing when shot at because of the possibility of injuring bystanders.


03 Apr 03 - 05:58 PM (#925587)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Wesley S

Troll alert - just ignore them.


03 Apr 03 - 06:44 PM (#925639)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Beardy

Taking the rise,bollocks. Just a heartfelt belief. And who mentioned cowardice, probably the only intelligent thing George W has done in his life. Common sense does not equate to cowardice.


03 Apr 03 - 06:54 PM (#925645)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: gnu


03 Apr 03 - 07:50 PM (#925680)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Lepus Rex

Get used to it, Beardy. Yours isn't a very politically correct opinion, and the usual response from the majority to such statements is usually personal attacks. I'm with you, though. (you lucky bastard) :)

---Lepus Rex


03 Apr 03 - 08:32 PM (#925705)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Little Hawk

Why the fuss? It's dead simple. Propaganda and homefront loyalties, that's why. Gotta keep the people on the homefront emotionally involved, so they support getting more of their kids shot for the cause. I'm sure the Iraquis are likewise busy disseminating such propaganda to their people about their heroes (as they would see them) who fall fighting the coalition. In fact, I know they are.

We just don't hear too much about that on our media, we hear about the American and British and Kurdish heroes who fall.

The Palestinians celebrate their fallen too. The Israelis celebrate theirs. Everybody does it. It's partly just natural reaction...it's partly calculated propaganda. Recognizing it for what it is can calm you down a little, if you're willing to calm down.

Everybody misses the friends and relatives and countrymen they lose in a war, but there is no nation out there whose people are intrinsically more valuable than their opponents on the battlefield...and there never will be...rumours about "master race" or "chosen people" notwithstanding.

I'm with ya, Lepus.

- LH


03 Apr 03 - 10:17 PM (#925752)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: SeanM

I'm VERY much against the invasion of Iraq, and am vocal about it.

I still feel sorrow when anyone - anyone - dies as a result of this.

HOW someone dies, or who is responsible for it - that is all irrelevant. Every death is an end. An end to potential, an end to promise, an end to everything that person did or could do.

To this end - again, I do NOT support Bush in his attempt at 21st century imperialism. But I very much support our (being a US citizen, however embarrassing that is at the moment) troops. While I do not support the goals of the war, nor the people behind the scenes who make it and are at limited risk from it (Bush and Hussein, natch), I do strongly hope for a quick resolution of the combat and the cessation of the mindless, pointless killing currently happening. In my mind, this is not something a soldier should be asked to "put his life on the line" for. Attacks upon American citizens and holdings? Yes. As a force aiding the United Nations when all options for diplomacy have truly failed? Yes.

The current fiasco, with the world united against us, and where we have not found any evidence of the supposed "weapons of mass destruction", and where a healthy percentage of the evidence we cite to justify aggression is PROVEN forgery?

No. I cannot support that.

But I can feel deep regret at every life lost, and wish deeply and personally for an end to this travesty that the Terrorist In Chief has launched. After all, at this point I've got friends on the front line. I'd like them back, and back in one piece and living, and no amount of Curious George waving shiny things in attempts to distract the nation will stop that.

M


03 Apr 03 - 11:07 PM (#925783)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: mg

Sean...why in the world do you think Hussein is at limited risk? I would say he is in a high risk category right now. mg


03 Apr 03 - 11:18 PM (#925793)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: SeanM

Compared to his military forces?

There's actually reasonable debate that he's even still in country.

But even his life has value. After all, he'd not be in the situation he is now had we not supplied him with the very arms (or at least the means to manufacture them) we're supposedly invading to remove...

M


04 Apr 03 - 03:45 AM (#925887)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Mark Cohen

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


04 Apr 03 - 05:13 AM (#925909)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Dave Bryant

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.


04 Apr 03 - 06:32 AM (#925924)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.


04 Apr 03 - 07:46 AM (#925953)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DonMeixner

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


04 Apr 03 - 08:05 AM (#925965)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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


04 Apr 03 - 08:25 AM (#925976)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Rapparee

"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.


04 Apr 03 - 09:02 AM (#925995)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Ireland

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.


04 Apr 03 - 09:27 AM (#926017)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: PeteBoom

"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


04 Apr 03 - 12:04 PM (#926117)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Bill D

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.


04 Apr 03 - 01:52 PM (#926210)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: leprechaun

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


04 Apr 03 - 08:53 PM (#926456)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll

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


05 Apr 03 - 06:10 PM (#926884)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Gareth

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

Gareth


05 Apr 03 - 06:48 PM (#926899)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: PeteBoom

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

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

Pete


05 Apr 03 - 07:32 PM (#926921)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Peg

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."


06 Apr 03 - 06:33 PM (#927456)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Clinton Hammond

"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..."


07 Apr 03 - 12:42 AM (#927621)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Richard H

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?


07 Apr 03 - 03:19 AM (#927663)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll

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


07 Apr 03 - 09:11 AM (#927771)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Greg F.

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.


07 Apr 03 - 12:15 PM (#927908)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Forum Lurker

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.


07 Apr 03 - 12:21 PM (#927913)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR

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

DougR


07 Apr 03 - 02:52 PM (#928019)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Richard H

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.


08 Apr 03 - 04:40 AM (#928486)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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.


08 Apr 03 - 05:59 AM (#928522)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly

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....


08 Apr 03 - 08:01 AM (#928556)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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 !


08 Apr 03 - 09:29 AM (#928604)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,Bagpuss

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

Bagpuss


08 Apr 03 - 09:54 AM (#928615)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Wolfgang

Interesting site with an interesting method of data gathering.

Does anyone know casualty data for Iraqi soldiers?

Wolfgang


08 Apr 03 - 10:01 AM (#928622)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST

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

Bagpuss


08 Apr 03 - 10:07 AM (#928630)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Wolfgang

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

Wolfgang


08 Apr 03 - 11:23 AM (#928687)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll

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


08 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM (#928821)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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.


08 Apr 03 - 02:27 PM (#928826)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly

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...


09 Apr 03 - 03:00 AM (#929274)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR

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

DougR


09 Apr 03 - 03:27 AM (#929276)
Subject: And why none for the innocents?
From: GUEST,Botticelli

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


09 Apr 03 - 05:08 AM (#929310)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST,trying to think clearly

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.


09 Apr 03 - 07:54 AM (#929392)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MC Fat

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 ?


09 Apr 03 - 08:40 AM (#929427)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks

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.


10 Apr 03 - 02:23 AM (#930236)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR

A pretty callous one at that, Art. IMO.

DougR


11 Apr 03 - 12:46 AM (#930895)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: michaelr

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


11 Apr 03 - 12:50 AM (#930896)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: michaelr

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

Michael


11 Apr 03 - 02:12 AM (#930929)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR

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


11 Apr 03 - 04:35 AM (#930959)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: GUEST

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.


11 Apr 03 - 07:54 AM (#931022)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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


11 Apr 03 - 06:37 PM (#931426)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER

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.


11 Apr 03 - 07:05 PM (#931442)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks

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.


11 Apr 03 - 07:14 PM (#931447)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: DougR

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


11 Apr 03 - 07:25 PM (#931454)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: artbrooks

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?


11 Apr 03 - 07:47 PM (#931477)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER

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?


12 Apr 03 - 03:28 AM (#931626)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: Troll

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


12 Apr 03 - 05:40 AM (#931652)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: MARINER

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.


12 Apr 03 - 06:47 AM (#931665)
Subject: RE: BS: WAR:- Why the fuss when soldiers die
From: fiddler

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