Originally posted by baff Originally posted by xennxavier
In 1933 approximately nine million Jews lived in the countries of Europe that would be occupied by Germany during the war. By 1945 two out of every three European Jews had been killed by the SS Men. The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews.
1.5 million children were murdered during World War 2. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of handicapped children. http://www.deathcamps.info/testimonies/
I'd like to hear your " rational justifications" and easy parallels.
The rational justifications aren't mine. I'm not a memeber of the SS.
What is the rational justification for buggering Islamics with dogs in Abu Gharaib? or shooting children in the head in Haditha.
There aren't any justifications, hence the investigations and convictions (Abu Gharaib, haditha is still being investigated). How many allied soldiers were convicted for killing/torturing german civilians in either World Wars?
Germany isn't the only country ever to have crack stormtroopers dehumanised by war and it isn't the only country ever to target people by their religion and it isn't the only country ever to have run secret concentration camps.
Our guys aren't dehumanized. Sorry, the vast majority conduct themselves as best that can be expected.
Neither is it the only country ever to have systematically wiped out vast segements of it's own society based on ethnic divisions.
I really think this whole you disagree with me, so "you hate America" nonsense is very old.
I think you are looking for people to hate your nation. You want it. You enjoy the confrontation.
Everytime someone refuses to buy into idiotic propaganda of the most obvious stupidity, it's "You hate America". It's tired mate. Give it a rest please. The whole world hates America. The whole world is ignorant and poor and foreign and weak and corrupt. Blah blah blah.
This is the best post in the entire thread.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by lardmouth Our guys aren't dehumanized. Sorry, the vast majority conduct themselves as best that can be expected.
So did the vast majority of German soldiers in WW2. Where I come from we expect better.
Then you expect the unrealistic. Soldiers, no matter how well trained, are still recruited from the human species. Again, the vast majority have carried out their duty honorably. To expect 100% to do so is a wonderful ideal. The reality is that that you're going to have some people that step out of line. Sometimes, way the hell out of line. You can expect what you want, but reality doesn't agree with you. And again, we investigate and have convicted soldiers for their actions during their tours. To even compare that with a Nazi type policy...
Every other member of the coalition expects better and gets better also.
.
War's war and evils the name of the game. I don't judge soldiers for the bad things that go on that's just how it is. I hear you with the human behaviour thing. I feel the same about the SS. They were human too.
Like you say, we're all human, if you're not there in the same position it's stupid to get too judgemental. but we are all human, Nazi's areen't the only ones to do genocides, we all have. It's wrong to think we are somehow superior to the Nazi's and incapable of the same kind of acts. We are all human. Not one of us suoperior to the master race. The same evils are waiting for us in every war. That's the nature of the beast.
The SS weren't trained to brutalise Jews, they were trained to feel superior to their enemy. The side effect of this training was, they felt superior. A foreigners life was worth less than one of their own. They had an amazing ability on the battlefield, excellently conditioned to kill any man shaped object. With the side effect that they kill all the man shaped objects on the battlefield. Dehumanised. Not just by the horrors of war, but deliberately by their training programs.
Originally posted by baff I don't expect unrealistically at all. I expect better. And I get better. Every other member of the coalition expects better and gets better also. You're forgetting one thing. The numbers of soldiers committed between the coalition members. A far larger amount of US soldiers are in iraq than any other nation. Of course you won't see anywhere near the amount of crimes committed by other coalition members. The numbers aren't even close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq#List_of_nations_in_the_Coalition
War's war and evils the name of the game. I don't judge soldiers for the bad things that go on that's just how it is. I hear you with the human behaviour thing. I feel the same about the SS. They were human too. Like you say, we're all human, if you're not there in the same position it's stupid to get too judgemental. but we are all human, Nazi's areen't the only ones to do genocides, we all have. The SS weren't trained to brutalise Jews, they were trained to feel superior to their enemy. The side effect of this training was, they felt superior. A foreigners life was worth less than one of their own. They had an amazing ability on the battlefield, excellently conditioned to kill any man shaped object. With the side effect that they kill all the man shaped objects on the battlefield.
You're forgetting one thing. The numbers of soldiers committed between the coalition members. A far larger amount of US soldiers. Of course you won't see anywhere near the amount of crimes committed by other coalition members. The numbers aren't even close.
Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?
it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.
Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.
No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.
If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?
On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.
It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.
.
To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.
Further to this the U.S. hasn't signed up to the ICC, it's troops recognise no external chain of command capable of prosecuting them. The buck stops within the Pentagon. Their are systematic methods of reducing this kind of behaviour adopted by most armies with a lot of experience in occupations. The U.S. army is not only bigger (individual troops and leadership has less operational experience in less types of theatre) but it is less experienced in "peace keeping" in particular.
They learn fast and have the will and the resources to get the job done. But they have that master race thing going on. Democracy is the big11111, terrorists must be killed, we are in Iraq to fight terrorist here rather than in our own counrty, (WOW OK then, drive that tank right through my garden and shoot my husband in the head while he drives his taxi!), the enemy is evil, muslims beat their wives, Saddam kills 10,000's of his own people lalalalala. It's dehumanising and left unchecked it will cost you the war.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
They basically found a load of defunct weapons which could not be fired, they've certainly got that ole fox spin though "WMD's found"
The world freaks if one US solider kills an innocent, but notbody gives a damn if a african solider mowes down villagers with his AK...
First off.. we knew about the chemical weapons he had going in.. we know why? because he used it at Iran
Second Our soliders dont need pussy foot training - they are trained to be soliders - and unfortunatly as long as the "insurgants" want to persue their so call "holly war" against the "christian crusaders" the by all means bring it on, our troops will whoop them to shape....
personaly we should take over, north korea and iran while were at it... I already predict something big gonna happen with north korea.. we shall see how the cards play out..
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by lardmouth
Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?
I'm saying far more murders happen in a big city compared to a rural town. Yes, the numbers of troops are vastly different. You would expect that if crimes were to occur it would happen within the higher population. Such as the far, far, far higher number of US troops compared to the other nations. The numbers are so much greater than the next country down (the UK) you can't seriously even try to make a comparison. And, I haven't even talked about the next point coming up.
it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.
Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.
Ok, hold on here. No, you can't say same "patrolling," "identical duties," "on the same streets," etc. Take those disproportionate numbers above...now let's add to the fact that the US forces are even more disporportionately involved in the most dangerous areas. Insurgent hotbeds where insurgents fight amongst the civilian population from civilian houses, hospitals, mosques. Look up how the various coalition contries are stationed. Look at what regions they're responsible for. Again, the US takes the brunt of that. Civilian casualities and friendly fire will always be a part of war. Always. Especially when amongst civilian centers being attacked by often non uniformed militias in the midst of those civilians.
No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.
And I didn't even really try. This is just from looking through the BBC and searching under UK. I'll let you investigate the allegations against all other nations involved in the coalition.
If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?
Well, let's factor in how many of the other coalition forces are deployed and patrolling the most dangerous regions. And, as above, you're wrong about other nations not having any allegations and investiongs against their soldiers.
On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.
But, you haven't taken an "overall picture."
It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.
Oh hogwash. The numbers of crimes committed by our service men are absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of men we have over there and the nature of the enemy they're fighting.
.
To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.
They have always been taught ethics and military conduct. The honorable soldiers (the VAST majority) are getting nothing more than a refresher course.
Further to this the U.S. hasn't signed up to the ICC, it's troops recognise no external chain of command capable of prosecuting them. The buck stops within the Pentagon. Their are systematic methods of reducing this kind of behaviour adopted by most armies with a lot of experience in occupations. The U.S. army is not only bigger (individual troops and leadership has less operational experience in less types of theatre) but it is less experienced in "peace keeping" in particular.
The US should NEVER sign up to the ICC. What a disgrace to not allow a soldier to be tried and convicted by his own country. We've convicted in Abu and we'll in Haditha if that pans out to be the case. Name me an occupation with a nature of enemy like that in Iraq (stuffing a mans severed penis in mouth) and I'll find you some war crimes committed by your "idols" of peace keeping.
They learn fast and have the will and the resources to get the job done. But they have that master race thing going on. Democracy is the big11111, terrorists must be killed, we are in Iraq to fight terrorist here rather than in our own counrty, (WOW OK then, drive that tank right through my garden and shoot my husband in the head while he drives his taxi!), the enemy is evil, muslims beat their wives, Saddam kills 10,000's of his own people lalalalala. It's dehumanising and left unchecked it will cost you the war.
Master race thing going on? Our military is rather represenative of many ethnicities, religions, cultures. What are you talking about? Saddam killed far many than 10, 000. We're not going to lose this war. We will live without beating the insurgency. It's not the plan to stick around till they vanish. We'll stay long enough to allow military commanders (coalition and Iraqi) to feel confident that the Iraqi forces are competent and capable to take over. We can't lose, because ultimately we're not planning to win it. The Iraqis will have to do that.
They operated on policy. They did not charge SS officers with killing a jew. We have and will charge our soldiers for targeting civilians on purpose. We have no final solution. The goal isn't racial cleansing/genocide. The goal is to build up their forces so the Iraqis can take over with some confidence.
Originally posted by J0kerr1 OK, here we go to the brainwashed liberial idiots. 1. Saddam himself thought he had WMD. He didn't let the inspectors do their job because of this. This led us, and many other countries, to beleive he had weapons. We do know he broke UN sanctions (good job of the UN holding them to those). We do know he was looking to stockpile materials. 2. Lying, I want you to prove the Bush intentiolaly lied to the public. I know you can't, because he didn't. Now I can point to another time someone lied, but we won't go there. "I will tell you once more time, I did not point to a president who lied to the nation and obstructed justice." 3. You lost the election, now quit crying and look at facts instead of your, "I hate Bush." You are children.
"...meanwhile in metropolis.. north korea has a fueled up missile it claims can easily reach North America. They have also admitted to having nuclear weapons technologies.."
anyway, we all know going into Iraq had nothing to do with Oil or weapons. If any of you know anything about world history and hostile take overs, you'll know this has everything to do with global positioning and strenthening borders around our primary targets
you can track it down to the entrance into the persian gulf, then kuwait, to Iraq. Iraq is just a staging ground. Do you really think the US government is doing this for Oil or WMD when members of the axis admit to already having a much deadlier technology?
the media goes off into conspiracy land making the public who sides against the government to believe anything they spoon feed to them. Theyre just writers looking for a story. The government wont deny such proposterous allegations because as long as those not in favor of them believe it, its easier to keep them from knowing the real truth..
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Well one thing is abundantly clear from the posts here, Republicans definition of a liberal is anyone who disagree's with them. And since they are the one true patriots (sarcasm) anyone who disagree's with them must be traitors.
As for you J0oker, or should that be clown, isnt it kinda funny you throwing around the treason word. Since last time i checked Republicans love that confederate flag, a truer symbol of Treason would be harder to find.
Originally posted by Scorpes Since last time i checked Republicans love that confederate flag, a truer symbol of Treason would be harder to find.
You need to check your history scorpes. Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party) have had little to do with the confederate flag, and on top of that, treason is not a word I have seen associated with the Confederacy much less the flag. But I guess you feel the American flag is a symbol of treason to Great Britain too.
Originally posted by daeandor Originally posted by Scorpes Since last time i checked Republicans love that confederate flag, a truer symbol of Treason would be harder to find.
You need to check your history scorpes. Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party) have had little to do with the confederate flag, and on top of that, treason is not a word I have seen associated with the Confederacy much less the flag. But I guess you feel the American flag is a symbol of treason to Great Britain too.
My history is just fine, the problem lies in that you havent updated yours. Their have lately been alot of battles about the confederate flag being flown in state buildings and still used as a symbol in many southern states.
If its personal that ones thing, but when its on a state building its state sponsored and the biggest supporters and proponents have been Republicans legislators.
Also since you dont know what treason means i will explain it to you.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America, who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.
HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
Originally posted by nakuma HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
We are in the off topic forums, we can talk about whatever we want. If you want to talk about games, just go to the pub...
Originally posted by nakuma HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
Off-Topic. Dumbass.
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.- Frank Zappa
Originally posted by nakuma HEY EVERYONE!!! MY HEAD IS UP MY ASS! GET TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF ME, AND PORTRAYING MY OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT OFF-TOPIC MEANS AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
/fixed
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Scorpes 1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America, who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.
You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded. Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc. The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats. I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG. Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it. Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason. Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable. Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.
I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?
There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus dollars a month... building permanent bases.... Why?
Are we there to promote Democracy? Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?"
Are we fighting terrorists? There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism!
The "war" does serve one purpose however: It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it? Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we? Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?
It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this....
Originally posted by daeandor Originally posted by Scorpes 1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America, who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.
You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded. Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc. The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats. I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG. Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it. Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason. Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable. Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.
I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?
I understand what your saying, but you have simply not updated your history, Im including then and now, not just then. First off, yes there was a schism in the Democratic party and many of the first people to support that war were democrats, but during the early 19th century, Republicans and Democrats literally switched platforms.
Republicans then became the conservative, religious, and often racist voice of the south during that period while the Democrats went into a more secular, divided, labor union body. Look it up, it first started when a group of Democrats broke away from the Democratic party and ran as the Dixiecrats, They were the leading segregationist and racists of the time. Strom Thurman and Wallace were once Democrats, it is not by coincidence that they both switched to the Republican party.
I can understand southerners not wanting to admit their relatives were traitors, but the definition fits it to a tee, they had an armed insurrection against the lawfull government of the United States, Not for some great noble goal, but just to keep slaves. Its just simple denial, nothing else.
And your wrong again, im against Flgag burning, arguing against what you feel is wrong about people who run the country is right, we need to question our leadership because that is the only way to preserve liberty, but burning the flag is just disrespectfull and does not move the argument in any productive way.
Originally posted by hlampert I've got a few things to say about the "war":
There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus dollars a month... building permanent bases.... Why?
Because permanent bases rock. Saudi want's us out. We need somewhere to go.
Our ability to respond militarily to any concern in the middle east depends on our logistical infrastructure. In my opinion, permanent bases is a war aim. It is a solid justification for war.
Are we there to promote Democracy? Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?"
Are we fighting terrorists? There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism!
The "war" does serve one purpose however: It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it? Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we? Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?
It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this....
Scorpes, I understand where you are coming from, I lived in SC with Strom for some time but was born and raised in Chicago. I fully understand both sides of the argument along with having lived some of your "modern" history. My point is that your statement that Republicans are to be associated with the hatred surrounding the confederate flag is wrong. Primarily because the hatred that is now associated with the flag was done while Democrats waved that flag. Currently, Republicans are platforming the confederate flag argument under the First Ammendment, which is completely different. If you want to argue that post Civil Rights Act Republicans are really just the old Democrats and Abe Lincoln's Republican Party is really the Democratic Party of today then things change slightly. If you choose that route, you pretty much have to lean toward neither party being truely associated with the flag because they have fundamentally changed so much that the modern parties resemble nothing of what they once were.
My other point was that you are the only person I have seen who has referred to the confederate flag as being a true symbol of treason. I have seen scholars refer to it as a symbol of heroism, racism, hatred, and rebellion (Jimmy Dean type and Civil War type). I have also heard the argument that the confederates committed treason, particularly when referring to the Confederate Congress and the Army generals.
Comments
In 1933 approximately nine million Jews lived in the countries of Europe that would be occupied by Germany during the war. By 1945 two out of every three European Jews had been killed by the SS Men. The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews.
1.5 million children were murdered during World War 2. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of handicapped children.
http://www.deathcamps.info/testimonies/
I'd like to hear your " rational justifications" and easy parallels.
The rational justifications aren't mine. I'm not a memeber of the SS.
What is the rational justification for buggering Islamics with dogs in Abu Gharaib? or shooting children in the head in Haditha.
There aren't any justifications, hence the investigations and convictions (Abu Gharaib, haditha is still being investigated). How many allied soldiers were convicted for killing/torturing german civilians in either World Wars?
Germany isn't the only country ever to have crack stormtroopers dehumanised by war and it isn't the only country ever to target people by their religion and it isn't the only country ever to have run secret concentration camps.
Our guys aren't dehumanized. Sorry, the vast majority conduct themselves as best that can be expected.
Neither is it the only country ever to have systematically wiped out vast segements of it's own society based on ethnic divisions.
what?
So did the vast majority of German soldiers in WW2. Where I come from we expect better.
I really think this whole you disagree with me, so "you hate America" nonsense is very old.
I think you are looking for people to hate your nation. You want it. You enjoy the confrontation.
Everytime someone refuses to buy into idiotic propaganda of the most obvious stupidity, it's "You hate America". It's tired mate. Give it a rest please. The whole world hates America. The whole world is ignorant and poor and foreign and weak and corrupt. Blah blah blah.
This is the best post in the entire thread.
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Then you expect the unrealistic. Soldiers, no matter how well trained, are still recruited from the human species. Again, the vast majority have carried out their duty honorably. To expect 100% to do so is a wonderful ideal. The reality is that that you're going to have some people that step out of line. Sometimes, way the hell out of line. You can expect what you want, but reality doesn't agree with you. And again, we investigate and have convicted soldiers for their actions during their tours. To even compare that with a Nazi type policy...
I don't expect unrealistically at all.
I expect better. And I get better.
Every other member of the coalition expects better and gets better also.
.
War's war and evils the name of the game. I don't judge soldiers for the bad things that go on that's just how it is. I hear you with the human behaviour thing. I feel the same about the SS. They were human too.
Like you say, we're all human, if you're not there in the same position it's stupid to get too judgemental. but we are all human, Nazi's areen't the only ones to do genocides, we all have. It's wrong to think we are somehow superior to the Nazi's and incapable of the same kind of acts. We are all human. Not one of us suoperior to the master race. The same evils are waiting for us in every war. That's the nature of the beast.
The SS weren't trained to brutalise Jews, they were trained to feel superior to their enemy. The side effect of this training was, they felt superior. A foreigners life was worth less than one of their own. They had an amazing ability on the battlefield, excellently conditioned to kill any man shaped object. With the side effect that they kill all the man shaped objects on the battlefield. Dehumanised. Not just by the horrors of war, but deliberately by their training programs.
Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?
it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.
Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.
No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.
If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?
On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.
It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.
.
To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.
Further to this the U.S. hasn't signed up to the ICC, it's troops recognise no external chain of command capable of prosecuting them. The buck stops within the Pentagon. Their are systematic methods of reducing this kind of behaviour adopted by most armies with a lot of experience in occupations. The U.S. army is not only bigger (individual troops and leadership has less operational experience in less types of theatre) but it is less experienced in "peace keeping" in particular.
They learn fast and have the will and the resources to get the job done. But they have that master race thing going on. Democracy is the big11111, terrorists must be killed, we are in Iraq to fight terrorist here rather than in our own counrty, (WOW OK then, drive that tank right through my garden and shoot my husband in the head while he drives his taxi!), the enemy is evil, muslims beat their wives, Saddam kills 10,000's of his own people lalalalala. It's dehumanising and left unchecked it will cost you the war.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built
up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the
WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not
the WMDs for which this country went to war."
They basically found a load of defunct weapons which could not be fired, they've certainly got that ole fox spin though "WMD's found"
That whole "Ethics" Training is BS
The world freaks if one US solider kills an innocent, but notbody gives a damn if a african solider mowes down villagers with his AK...
First off.. we knew about the chemical weapons he had going in.. we know why? because he used it at Iran
Second Our soliders dont need pussy foot training - they are trained to be soliders - and unfortunatly as long as the "insurgants" want to persue their so call "holly war" against the "christian crusaders" the by all means bring it on, our troops will whoop them to shape....
personaly we should take over, north korea and iran while were at it... I already predict something big gonna happen with north korea.. we shall see how the cards play out..
I smell WWIII, anyone else?
Saidee
____________
Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?
I'm saying far more murders happen in a big city compared to a rural town. Yes, the numbers of troops are vastly different. You would expect that if crimes were to occur it would happen within the higher population. Such as the far, far, far higher number of US troops compared to the other nations. The numbers are so much greater than the next country down (the UK) you can't seriously even try to make a comparison. And, I haven't even talked about the next point coming up.
it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.
Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.
Ok, hold on here. No, you can't say same "patrolling," "identical duties," "on the same streets," etc. Take those disproportionate numbers above...now let's add to the fact that the US forces are even more disporportionately involved in the most dangerous areas. Insurgent hotbeds where insurgents fight amongst the civilian population from civilian houses, hospitals, mosques. Look up how the various coalition contries are stationed. Look at what regions they're responsible for. Again, the US takes the brunt of that. Civilian casualities and friendly fire will always be a part of war. Always. Especially when amongst civilian centers being attacked by often non uniformed militias in the midst of those civilians.
No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.
Take a peak at these links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3034031.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3747709.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3735703.stm
And I didn't even really try. This is just from looking through the BBC and searching under UK. I'll let you investigate the allegations against all other nations involved in the coalition.
If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?
Well, let's factor in how many of the other coalition forces are deployed and patrolling the most dangerous regions. And, as above, you're wrong about other nations not having any allegations and investiongs against their soldiers.
On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.
But, you haven't taken an "overall picture."
It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.
Oh hogwash. The numbers of crimes committed by our service men are absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of men we have over there and the nature of the enemy they're fighting.
.
To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.
They have always been taught ethics and military conduct. The honorable soldiers (the VAST majority) are getting nothing more than a refresher course.
Further to this the U.S. hasn't signed up to the ICC, it's troops recognise no external chain of command capable of prosecuting them. The buck stops within the Pentagon. Their are systematic methods of reducing this kind of behaviour adopted by most armies with a lot of experience in occupations. The U.S. army is not only bigger (individual troops and leadership has less operational experience in less types of theatre) but it is less experienced in "peace keeping" in particular.
The US should NEVER sign up to the ICC. What a disgrace to not allow a soldier to be tried and convicted by his own country. We've convicted in Abu and we'll in Haditha if that pans out to be the case. Name me an occupation with a nature of enemy like that in Iraq (stuffing a mans severed penis in mouth) and I'll find you some war crimes committed by your "idols" of peace keeping.
They learn fast and have the will and the resources to get the job done. But they have that master race thing going on. Democracy is the big11111, terrorists must be killed, we are in Iraq to fight terrorist here rather than in our own counrty, (WOW OK then, drive that tank right through my garden and shoot my husband in the head while he drives his taxi!), the enemy is evil, muslims beat their wives, Saddam kills 10,000's of his own people lalalalala. It's dehumanising and left unchecked it will cost you the war.
Master race thing going on? Our military is rather represenative of many ethnicities, religions, cultures. What are you talking about? Saddam killed far many than 10, 000. We're not going to lose this war. We will live without beating the insurgency. It's not the plan to stick around till they vanish. We'll stay long enough to allow military commanders (coalition and Iraqi) to feel confident that the Iraqi forces are competent and capable to take over. We can't lose, because ultimately we're not planning to win it. The Iraqis will have to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Saddam_Hussein
And because you keep bringing up the SS. Let's remind everyone who they were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
"The SS was an instrument of terror during the Holocaust. Heinrich Himmler, the SS leader, was one of the chief architects of the Final Solution. The SS Einsatzgruppen units massacred over one million civilians, mostly Jews, in the countries occupied by Germany during WWII. The SS was responsible for establishing and operating concentration camps and extermination camps in which millions of inmates died of inhumane treatment, exploitation, malnutrition, medical experiments or fell victims of racial cleansing. After the war, the judges of Nuremberg Trials declared the SS a criminal organization responsible for the implementation of racial policies of genocide and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity."
They operated on policy. They did not charge SS officers with killing a jew. We have and will charge our soldiers for targeting civilians on purpose. We have no final solution. The goal isn't racial cleansing/genocide. The goal is to build up their forces so the Iraqis can take over with some confidence.
WoW, I knew the government would place some soviet WMD's out in the desert just too get the numbers back up in the poll...
FYI: POLITICS = BS
"...meanwhile in metropolis.. north korea has a fueled up missile it claims can easily reach North America. They have also admitted to having nuclear weapons technologies.."
anyway, we all know going into Iraq had nothing to do with Oil or weapons. If any of you know anything about world history and hostile take overs, you'll know this has everything to do with global positioning and strenthening borders around our primary targets
you can track it down to the entrance into the persian gulf, then kuwait, to Iraq. Iraq is just a staging ground. Do you really think the US government is doing this for Oil or WMD when members of the axis admit to already having a much deadlier technology?
the media goes off into conspiracy land making the public who sides against the government to believe anything they spoon feed to them. Theyre just writers looking for a story. The government wont deny such proposterous allegations because as long as those not in favor of them believe it, its easier to keep them from knowing the real truth..
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Well one thing is abundantly clear from the posts here, Republicans definition of a liberal is anyone who disagree's with them. And since they are the one true patriots (sarcasm) anyone who disagree's with them must be traitors.
As for you J0oker, or should that be clown, isnt it kinda funny you throwing around the treason word. Since last time i checked Republicans love that confederate flag, a truer symbol of Treason would be harder to find.
You need to check your history scorpes. Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party) have had little to do with the confederate flag, and on top of that, treason is not a word I have seen associated with the Confederacy much less the flag. But I guess you feel the American flag is a symbol of treason to Great Britain too.
You need to check your history scorpes. Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party) have had little to do with the confederate flag, and on top of that, treason is not a word I have seen associated with the Confederacy much less the flag. But I guess you feel the American flag is a symbol of treason to Great Britain too.
My history is just fine, the problem lies in that you havent updated yours. Their have lately been alot of battles about the confederate flag being flown in state buildings and still used as a symbol in many southern states.
If its personal that ones thing, but when its on a state building its state sponsored and the biggest supporters and proponents have been Republicans legislators.
Also since you dont know what treason means i will explain it to you.
trea·son
( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr
z
n)
n.
1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America,
who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.
HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.
CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.-
Frank Zappa
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded. Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc. The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats. I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG. Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it. Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason. Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable. Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.
I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?
You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded. Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc. The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats. I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG. Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it. Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason. Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable. Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.
I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?
I understand what your saying, but you have simply not updated your history, Im including then and now, not just then. First off, yes there was a schism in the Democratic party and many of the first people to support that war were democrats, but during the early 19th century, Republicans and Democrats literally switched platforms.
Republicans then became the conservative, religious, and often racist voice of the south during that period while the Democrats went into a more secular, divided, labor union body. Look it up, it first started when a group of Democrats broke away from the Democratic party and ran as the Dixiecrats, They were the leading segregationist and racists of the time. Strom Thurman and Wallace were once Democrats, it is not by coincidence that they both switched to the Republican party.
I can understand southerners not wanting to admit their relatives were traitors, but the definition fits it to a tee, they had an armed insurrection against the lawfull government of the United States, Not for some great noble goal, but just to keep slaves. Its just simple denial, nothing else.
And your wrong again, im against Flgag burning, arguing against what you feel is wrong about people who run the country is right, we need to question our leadership because that is the only way to preserve liberty, but burning the flag is just disrespectfull and does not move the argument in any productive way.
Scorpes, I understand where you are coming from, I lived in SC with Strom for some time but was born and raised in Chicago. I fully understand both sides of the argument along with having lived some of your "modern" history. My point is that your statement that Republicans are to be associated with the hatred surrounding the confederate flag is wrong. Primarily because the hatred that is now associated with the flag was done while Democrats waved that flag. Currently, Republicans are platforming the confederate flag argument under the First Ammendment, which is completely different. If you want to argue that post Civil Rights Act Republicans are really just the old Democrats and Abe Lincoln's Republican Party is really the Democratic Party of today then things change slightly. If you choose that route, you pretty much have to lean toward neither party being truely associated with the flag because they have fundamentally changed so much that the modern parties resemble nothing of what they once were.
My other point was that you are the only person I have seen who has referred to the confederate flag as being a true symbol of treason. I have seen scholars refer to it as a symbol of heroism, racism, hatred, and rebellion (Jimmy Dean type and Civil War type). I have also heard the argument that the confederates committed treason, particularly when referring to the Confederate Congress and the Army generals.