So is my father a draft dodger because he joined the Air Force in 1968 knowing that it was unlikely that he, as a physician, would be deployed to VietNam? (Of course, his main reason for joining the Air Force to do his residency was because he could make more money than in a private residency and be eligible for benefits as a former Air Force officer).
Call me crazy for asking, but what exactly does your father joining the Air Force to do his residency as a physician and George Bush joining the Air national guard to avoid being sent to vietnam have in common?
It was said, by youn, that George W. Bush joining the Texas Air National Guard was akin to drarft dodging because he knew there was zero chance of being sent abroad. My father knew that it was very unlikely he would be sent to VietNam if he joined the Air Force. The Air Force didn't send physicians to VietNam in any great number.
Please try to suspend the "They're evil; we're righteous. Nuff said." stance for a moment. If you take the stand that if they do something to fight the war it is evil per se and if we do the same thing it is righteous per se because we are opposing evil, we have no discussion. I guess Heath would describe this as "moral relativism", but I don't think so. I think taking the position "my country right or wrong" is just the absence of ethics. The US special forces supposedly have guys dressed in civilian clothes running around Iraqi cities, trying to assassinate Iraqi leaders, in some cases civilians. They're proud of it and I assume most of you are, too. How is this so much moral than Iraqis in civilian clothing trying to kill our troops? The only answer that I consider serious response to my other question about suicide bombers vesus bomber pilots is the one that argued that since it blurs the distinction between innocent civilians and combatants that makes it wrong. This is a serious reason to question the ethicalness of these suicide bombers imho. From what I understand it is very common in war for the military to use disguises or dress in civilian clothes. If we were attacked and faced overwhelming odds we would do it like the Russians did in WW II at Stalingrad, the Vietnamese did and my understanding is that the US forces in the Revolouionary war did (that could have been due to a shortage of uniforms?) and virtually everyone else has done it. However this doesn't necessarily make it right. Note in the previous example I restricted my example to volunteer suicide bombers trying to kill US troops. Some tried to win the argument by switching it to suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. Another question. If one can avoid a choice that will lead inevitably to a situation where all other choices are unethical should one? We must remember that it is the US that chose against world opinion and a majority of the world's religions that this war was unethical. (I understand that before some of you took the position that Bush was more qualified to decide whether a war is just) We chose to start the path that leads to these moral dilemnas. One can argue that Sadam Hussein did, too, but I assume we are trying to be more ethical than him.
I'd like to return to this later - when I have a few minutes : for right now : It's wrong to send your troops to certain death. Either in a "suicide mission", or sending them into a "meat grinder" as Tommy Franks noted when he demurred a headlong rush into urban warfare, or sending them to blow themselves up with a tnt belt or smashing an aircraft into a building. Ordering your troops to cetain death indicates you think they are disposable - that their mortal lives are of little value, or at least lesser value than the immortal cause you fight for. Both combatants in armed struggle assume risk, and justify the death of the enemy. The enemy is seen as a threat to life or culture or property. Some law or line has been crossed. (We can expand on this later.) It is quite another thing to justify the death of your own troops, who pose no such threat. A firefighter risks his life to save a child trapped in a burning building. It is assumed risk. It is quite another thing to order him to die and make a footpath with his body to get the child out. Totalitarian orders do not value the mortal life of their own citizens. They are disposable, and their " sacrifice" will be subsumed in the "nation-soul" or other quasi-religious immortal collective. I view this as evil. In my view, the essence of evil is the death of the individual, the nullification of freedom.
I agree. I have no problems with Iraqis dressing in civilian clothes, nor do I have a problem with them hiding out in hospitals. They are trying to win and will do whatever it takes in the face of overwhelming U.S. forces. In other words, can you blame them? I don't even necessarily have a "problem" with Iraqi soldiers dressing as U.S. soldiers (if they get caught they'll be shot as spies). Glynch's post is good and on the mark. However, to expand somewhat... What I do have a problem with, however, is: Iraqi soldiers dressing up as U.S. soldiers, taking Iraqi surrenders and then executing said Iraqis. I have a problem with Iraqis using human shields. I have a problem with Iraqis killing their own civilians who are trying to flee a city under seige. I have a problem with Iraqis killing and torturing civilians who wave at U.S. troops. I have a problem with Iraqis forcing children to fight with the threat of death to their families if they don't. I have a problem with Iraqis killing their own civilians in order to blame the U.S. because they are trying to win "world opinion". You know, the more I hear of how evil Saddam and his regime is, the less I care about the reasons we are in there. I almost could care less if this war were actually about making Bush personally richer or even if it was started because of a $1 bet between Bush and Rumsfield (a la Trading Places). There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam has to go and his sons have to go. And the only way he's going to go is by force.
Don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this concept, glynch. When you dress your soldiers to look like your own civilians, and you attack opposing forces when dressed like your own civilians, you increase the likelihood of the deaths of innocent civilians. (Which is what has happened) And let's remember that these are a bunch of thugs trying to keep a repressive tyrant in power.
All they have to do is shut down the borders, and tell the countries that anyone coming into Iraq is a military target. DD
Let's see some documentation on this please. Why would special forces be assassinating pure civilian targets? Makes no sense. Certainly increases the risk of innocent civilian deaths as seen by the women and children apparentlty shot as they sped toward a checkpoint after the suicide bomber day before yesterday. That is pretty hard to refute. Suicide bombers are NOTHING like bomber pilots. What a silly concept. Are bomber pilots JUST LIKE KAMAKAIZES? Uh, no. They are not. The US military does not ORDER their soldiers to commit suicide. They do not ENCOURAGE their soldiers to commit suicide. I always liked the famous Patton quote (attributed not confirmed - but whatever) " Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his." Asking this question is like asking what is the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. After all, they do both kill people, right? It is uncommon for militaries to use civilian clothing and then claim those soldiers. It is the reason even the Geneva Convention specifies a difference between those in uniform and those not in uniform. No question that even that action results in more civilian deaths. An army can only go so far in attempts to protect the civilian population before it must start to err on the side of caution in relation to their own safety. Aside from that I have no problem saying what many here appear to fear saying: primarily that I would much rather see a dead Iraqi than a dead American. Especially considering that said Iraqi would have to be consciously fighting to save a genocidal regime under the control of Saddam Hussein. I doubt anyone, even Glynch or MacBeth will argue that someone FORCED to commit suicide bombings is a good thing. Finally, suicide bombings are of limited military value. They are only for publicity. The military significance of such manuevers is almost zilch. As such you have higher ups forcing the lowly grunts to kill themselves for NOTHING. The only thing needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. (E Burke) We COULD stick our heads in the sand and avoid any potential moral dilemmas. But as most of us know, you cannot avoid them in the real world at all. To stand aside and watch evil prosper is not the option we should take. Cohen, I am a bit suprised by your post. How many suicide bombers pull up in APC's loaded with explosives while in uniform? I think your example is a little silly. (At least we know the Israelis would not let a loaded APC get close their their checkpoint)...
I don't think you understood my post since my 'silly' example is not hypothetical, it's what saddam's fedayen are doing.
