Newest: Report that cruise missiles were used to take out missile launchers only 300 feet from a residential district this morning. I imagine if a cruise missile hits a stockpile of other missiles, it could be quite dangerous for those in the neighborhood.
The response to this thread has been sickening. MacBeth posts a BBC report. People attack MacBeth, accusing him of horrible things, and calling him Saddam. Then people say, 'no MacBeth it's not because you posted this account, because all you post is bad things about the war. That's not right.' First of all we are debating here. If MacBeth is opposed to this war it would only make sense that he would post things to back up his position. MacBeth is not a journalist, who's supposed to report on all news events regardless of their slant on the war. How many of those arguing bias against MacBeth have ever posted anything Anti-war? How many of you who are pro-war have lambasted and called names for not posting anything anti-war? As far as people starting a lot of threads about the war, I don't think anyone has started as many Sino, has. His positions are all pro-war, but nobody says he has to call out the U.S. mistakes because of his other posts. We are at war and we know that Civilians will die, that doesn't mean we can't talk about it when it happens or the angry mobs that come as a result.
This has nothing to do with ripping MacBeth because he is a good poster, but playing devil's advocate is it any more sickening then MacBeth taking the U.S. to task for accidently killing 15 people when Saddam Hussein has purposely killed upwards of 2 million people? That's what I'm saying when I say you can't take one stance and not look at the other side of it. I'm not attacking him just giving another view point.
OK, now you hurt my feelings. I had nothing to do with this, other than stating that I had seen a similar BBC report on American television and now you smear my bad name (and for the record, I don't think everybody else is stupid...I just think that I am smarter - big difference, see?). You only brought me into this because I am on the left...I am so oppressed. I actually heard something last night talking about the smart move by the US military in putting reporters with their troops to get live, "compelling" images of battle, etc...the reasoning by this reporter was that the protests in the US and throughout the world are not getting as much coverage as they might otherwise receive if the war was not as interesting to show. I don't know how true that is, I just think that death and violence sells more...our "peacetime" news is mostly about murder and violence, etc, so why would it change during war. There was also talk about people fearing the media going too far - that some of this battle coverage could show an actual person (or people) dying live on TV. Personally, I think the networks wouldn't mind that. Too cynical? Probably, I just think the media sucks in general. To this day I think the only reason for the prolonged OJ Blazer chase was the hope that he would kill himself in the end. It is the distribution of the spectacle...it is less real. "The Gulf War did not take Place" (which is a funny book, by the way), etc.. Oh, and since my opinion really matters (sarcasm, giddy), I don't see any reason why Clutch criticizing someone based on posts on any subject is a conflict. He has an opinion and will need to express it from time to time.
MacBeth was criticized not attacked. If we wanted to attack him, we'd send in Princess in a bhurka with an AK-47. We didn't do that. I have high regard for MacBeth. He is obviously a really bright guy... which is why most of his positions on things mystify me! That's a wry observation. If treeman (BTW, where is treeman-- haven't seen him here in awhile) had posted this, surely it would have drawn a differing set of responses... almost none critical. As others have pointed out, no one's opinion or motive is beyond scrutiny. My apologies to MacBeth if he feels hounded. It seems to me that we all should have a balanced perspective on our country. MacBeth weighs in heavily on a lot of these political threads and my impression is that they are mostly critical of the goold old USA. I read the news of this tragedy and my mind wanders to matters about how such a mistake could happen, what checks and cross-checks failed et cetera. MacBeth wants to use the tragedy to demonize the mission: (paraphrasing) we are killing their people under the guise of liberating them?
<b>rimbaud</b>: Do you have feelings? I mention you because of our many exchanges in the past not just because of a lone comment in the thread. I brought you into this because we are diametrically opposed not because you are on the left. Switch positions! Always a pleasure to hear from you...
From a moral standpoint, this holds no water...The wrong we see in Saddam Hussein isn't in the body count, or at least I hope not, it's in the fact that he thinks that his position of power allows him to kill other people to suit his won ends. It's the problem of absolute power; the rest is just a reflection of how long/much he's been able to do as he sees fit...morally. To reduce everything to numbers places too high a moral priority on efficiency and technology...ie if you took a man twice as immoral as Saddam, but restrined him to leading a primitive tribe, you'd still have a man twice as evil, but he'd have nowhere near the same number of victims. So when we decide that to put ourselves in a position where we are deciding the fates of another nation, contrary to the will of the world or that nation, we are responsible for making the decision that ended those lives...Can you say for sure that the 14 people who died today would have died eventually if Saddam had still been in power? Possibly another 14...or another 140...but like Saddam, we made that decision for them; they had no say in their fate, it was decided by someone else doing what they wanted to...It can't be morally reduced to numbers...those who end lives because they have seen fit to do so are raccountable for those actions...If we had asked the people of Iraq if they wanted us to invade, then we would have shared responsibility...if we had had the support of the world we could have said that we were representative of the greater global good...As it is, we made a decision to do what we wanted, irrespective of world opinion or the (known) will of the people we were making life and death choices for... Do I think we are as immoral as Hussein? Of course not...but we are certainly giving up the moral highground we claim when we put other people in a position where our accidents decide their fates, and in which they have absolutely no say...Power is a great responsibility, and the greatest part of that responsibility is realizing the effects of it's use...We claim Saddam should be ousted..I agree...But I do not agree that it is our decision to make alnoe, or in spite of world opinion; In doing that we are saying that we, the United States, are the moral standards by which the rest of the world will be judged...Who says so? We do...Why? Because we can... Nothing in our track record, not our economic prosperity or our technological advances come with some sort of moral superiority over the rest of the world, only our military power enables us to do that, and the most powerful military nation on earth dictating morality to the rest of the planet is very old news, and the kind of power politics Saddam would understand; He with the most guns rules...That's what we are saying by doing what we want because we think it's right...Arguing whether or not it is right doesn't matter, because no other nation has that luxery; to decide what's right for others is an excercise in Might is Right power...and isn't that the exact reasoning we are trying to eliminate in Iraq? Rationalizers will always come back to the " But we ARE right." argument...and that doesn't hold water because A) We always think we're right. Unless we're perfect, equating thinking we're right to making others abide by that, as we are currently, in spite of the rest of the world disagreeing, means that there will eventually come a time when we are acting like the very dictators we say we abhore...and B) It;s not a privlege we would allow others, nor would we want others to have that right if and when they gan military superirity over us. Was Britain more morally right than us or India or China or the Zulu nation when it ruled over them? Would the fact that the British people agreed that they were in the right have necessarily made them right when they had the power to dictate morality to others? We were among the first nations to stand against that kind of jingoisitc might is right thinking...This war more than any other is a sign that we are assuming the same thing that they did...We are right because we think we are right, and we will make you right like us because we can...and if you disagree, you are, therefore, wrong. If that kind of thinking is what is wrong, or evil in Saddam, the fact that he believes he can do whatever he wants to people just because he has the power to do so, it is surely just as wrong for us...The fact that he has excercised that wrong more doesn't make us right when we adopt the same thinking, morally speaking...When you decide for others, you are accountable. Whether you think that your decision will be better for them doesn't change the fact that it was YOUR decision, and their fate.
And FWIW, it wasn't just the reporting of a story, MacBeth. There was cynicism present (e.g. the comments about our media essentially ognoring it). Not that the cynicism is a big deal, but don't act like it wasn't there. Regardless, some of the responses to it were over the top, IMO. People are obviously responding with a growing frustration at your posts in general. That's not really a surprise under the circumstances. Not necessarily right, but not a shocker either.
2 different things...Murderer, ie Saddam, was earlier in this thread...giddyup, I think? I honestly can't remember who wished I'd get hit by a bomb, but what they said was something to the effect " I hope you'll go to Iraq, and get hit with one of the missiles we're sending at Saddam...we'll have them put "Hello from the US" on it for you...or something like that...I responded to that death wish by calling him a nitwit...and was criticized for my rudeness...seriously.... Who was it? Man, I wish I could remember...it was only 2 or 3 weeks ago...will the search funtion be enabled soon?
1) My intial report was absolutely accurate, including my reporting of the coverage..which at the time wasn't a source of criticism for me so much as confusion... 2) My posts in general are coming from the same place these were, and are met with the same open minds. Do you, Cohen, honestly not see a connection between the kind of thinking which leads to these reactions and the kind of thinking which has taken in my other posts? Does the fact that the only ones who reacted this way...and the only ones who saw why there was said reaction...were also the ones with whom I disagree? So the fact that I keep disagreeing is a source of frustration!?!?
I really do not have the patience to wade through the argument, bravado and name calling...so I will simply respond to the original point. In the battle of Normandy in WW2, there were thousands of innocent civillians killed. Did this make it not worth doing? I agree that every innocent lost is a tragedy. Sometimes tragedies are unavoidable when trying to bring about the greater good for the future. The goal is to minimize the tragedy along the way.
I agree that these things happen in war, which is why I'm so surprised that when it actually gets posted, people accuse MacBeth of being Saddam, and telling him that he's happy it happened.
