Twirling said: Well, technically they'd most likely be killing people on the basis of race/religion because they'd be associating "ragheads" with those responsible for 9/11 (unless they're in Afghanistan). In that sense, people who had no even remote connection to 9/11 are being killed because they belong to a religion/look like the people who are responsible for 9/11.
I don't think that the soldiers in Iraq truely believe that Saddam personally had an causal relation with 9/11. If they believe that Saddam supported terrorist actions then I'd say that it's true. Again back to my example. If you said that all serial killers and rapists should be put to death in America, would you be anti-American? [quote[ But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make, and it's not the point I'm trying to make in this thread. Like I said before, I understand that there are going to be people in the military who sincerely like shooting people, and while I disagree with it on a personal level, it doesn't mean that I expect the military to try & eliminate this mentality. The whole point, which has been completely avoided, is that what this General said is going to affect international relations as well as any support for the US troops, especially those in Iraq where this type of thing would only fuel more insurgency.
This will bring "more" insurgency than Al-Jizzera showing 10 hours of a day of alleged Iraqi civilian casualties from the American occupation in Iraq? I'm not going to say that I agree with that at all.
Quote: I highly doubt that there couldn't be anyone in the military who didn't enjoy combat. People join the military for many more reasons then because they enjoy combat and it's ridiculous to assert that all people who join enjoy combat. Many people join in the belief that they'll never have to be in combat.
when you enter the military you take a profiency examination. If you score high on this exam you are able to pick your MOS. If you don't, the service you are joining picks for you. Therefore, if a person with reasonable intelligence joined the military and choose to be a nuclear engineer, thats what they'd be doing. Why would the military put some geek in combat when ten times his number of jocks are joining to kill people?
Quote: A lot of people join the military for financial reasons, whether to pay for college or for a long term career in something related to the field. I?ve known 2 people who served in combat because they either were interested in a career in music within the military or to finance their college education. Neither one ?enjoyed? combat, and I?d imagine a lot of people who think they would enjoy combat would change their mind once it starts.
If you could show me where musical corps troops were deployed in any recent combat action, i'd be happy to hear them. It sounds to me like your friend had a talent and scored high on a test. That combination earned him a position where he didn't have to go to combat. Right or wrong?
Quote: Now if you're asking me whether it's wrong for any single person in the military to enjoy combat, I'd say of course not. The problem here isn't that I expect every person in the military to deny that they enjoy combat in some way or another. Again, this is not what I'm debating, it's that this was a public statement made by a general which, especially after Abu Ghraib, is going to have a very negative effect on what's going on in Iraq.
They hate us and want to kill us. This thing doesn't matter to them. The more insurgents they send the more we kill. [quote[ I can't believe I have to actually point this out again. He said "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil". There is no possible way to argue rationally that he did not refer to Muslim men when he said that. It is a different comparison to say that you'd want to gas every serial killer & rapist, versus singling out a religious cultural reference which indicates a precise religion, especially when religion is currently a major cause of the tension .
If you wanted to kill all serial killers in America, it would be clear you were singling out Americans. Statistically it would also come down to white males by a pretty large percentage Why is it that you look at race more as an issue than those that you allege to be racist? The combat personnel are probably very upset with the way of life that these people are forced to live in and they remove and excise that cancer as frequently as they can. If the guy is white, Arab, Hindu or black, they are still a despicable human being.
It's idiotic to postulate that their would be any other persons in this region to target. Do you think it has the same racial makeup of people that America does? it's a vast majority of Arab/Persians that are of the same racial stock. how could you go in there, against any 'group', and NOT be targetting mainly people of those traits?
Quote: Oh, sorry, I meant "non-combatant casualties". Gee, that sounds so much nicer... 
If you can show me instances of inteintional, unprosecuted events of US military personel intentionally targeting civilians or civilian institutions in Iraq, I'd be very appreciative.
Quote: Enjoying "shooting people", "murdering people", "marginalizing the disparity between non-combatant casualties & combatant casualties", whatever you want to call it, is very sadistic. Now I'm not going to get into a debate over the morality, ethics, or what have you, of the justification of whether it's okay for a person to carry out & enjoy that mentality (and I can't believe I'm even discussing that). What ever conclusion a person comes up on that issue is going to be subjective.
And once again, it comes down to making a public statement about enjoying shooting people & naturally having that mentality on a person's "job".
I think that if most Americans could face down a wall full of the worst sort of criminals in existance they would be happy to tear into them with a SAW. [/quote[
So if the government decided that all Jewish people needed to be killed & farmed that out to the military everything would be okay simply because "it's their job"?
Of course not. Read my postion, then read about libertarianism and THEN tell me what oyu think about this.
Quote: This whole argument is coming down to diffusion of responsibility. The idea that something is okay simply because an authority figure deems it appropriate is ridiculous. While I?m not going to bother debating the morality of whether it?s ?okay? for some people in the military to enjoy shooting people, the idea that governments have a job of deciding who ?needs? to be killed is absurd. Yes, many times it comes down to a decision to go to war in order to protect people, but in many more cases it has nothing to do with that.
If the guy has a gun and is in the "bad guys" army, you shoot him. Thats just how wars work. It's pretty dumb really when you think about it, but thats the basic formula.
--------------------
Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|