30 replies to this topic

[zaccariah2005]

Insincere American troops make me so angry. Back in 2004, I am sure you guys remember how those american soldiers harrassad Iraqi prisoners. What reminded me of those abuse was when somebody posted this on another forum:

It was a video of an american soldier teasing little kids over a bottle of water.

And Americans wonder why others hate them. The harrasment from the troops make me so angry. Some soldiers do not seem to have any sympathy about people who are suffering. They are sadist. They should be stripped of their uniforms.
I know that people R going to say that this is not true about the majority of the soldiers. I am not so sure about the majority, but those who do so, I have the utmost respect for them.
However, things like this makes me angry. It seems as though they have no ethics. They see this as fun. What is even worse is that they volunteered to be soldiers. As far as I know, there wasn't a draft since vietnam (I think). These soldiers should know that it is a duty that they willingly accepted as their responsibility.

[katinka]

Many soldiers don't know what they're signing up for when they apply. They think that once their [brief] tour of duty is done, they're free to go. They don't know that their tour of duty can be extended, or they can be called back to serve again.

Also, military recruiters rarely tell the truth. they just have to meet the quota of soldiers they have to sign up in order to keep their jobs.

[esong27]

I don't think it's just American troops, you know. There are reports of soldiers all over the world doing terrible things, i.e. raping women. You can't generalize this whole group specifically without doing so for all soldiers.

[zaccariah2005]

esong27, on Nov 22 2006, 08:47 PM, said:

I don't think it's just American troops, you know. There are reports of soldiers all over the world doing terrible things, i.e. raping women. You can't generalize this whole group specifically without doing so for all soldiers.

I didn't generalize the whole group. I said that some of them may be sincere. And I think it is more appropiate to talk about americans because the americans are claiming to do this to establish liberty and justice for all. We r under a democracy and we should speak out whenever our nation does oppression. If i were to talk about tibet, then, people really can't do anything because Tibet is under a dictatorship. The government isn't exactly saying that they are sending their soldiers for the interest of the people.
We americans went and invaded their land and took the responsibility of establishing a government for the Iraqi people. Yet, you have soldiers doing the stupidest thing. Things that will give them no benefit. How can they have pleasure in teasing kids over water. They feel no apathy. I wish they were on the streets begging for water. What they did was sick. They also had no benefits over the abuses they did to the prisoners in 2004. When it is something like rape or enslavement, there is some benefits of self-interest. But, what these soldiers are doing is cruel. And there should be no pleasure in doing what they are doing. We are only in Iraq for the interest of the Iraqi people. It was clear that there were no weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We have no benefit in being in Iraq. All the benefits should be for the Iraqi people. If you R going to fix their society, at least do it with mercy, justice and sincerity. As Ghandi once said "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

[bestusernameever]

I believe that there has never, ever been a single major armed conflict where things much more deplorable than this were NOT committed by both, or should i say, all sides.

[zaccariah2005]

bestusernameever, on Nov 22 2006, 09:29 PM, said:

I believe that there has never, ever been a single major armed conflict where things much more deplorable than this were committed by both, or should i say, all sides.

If you meant "this" as the video, then you are wrong. And yes there were armed ones, also. The things they did in 2004 was far worse and it would be innappropiate to discuss those actions here. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_to..._prisoner_abuse . I don't even want to discuss it. So, try to refrain from mentioning anything that you find in that link. The point is the soldiers' attitude, not just their actions.

[bestusernameever]

what im tring to say is this is inevitable in such large operations.

[z2z007]

Mod Note: Topic moved to Politik.

[katinka]

bestusernameever, on Nov 22 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

what im tring to say is this is inevitable in such large operations.

Agreed.

Zaccariah, I think that people who have strong personal ties in a conflict are both the best and the worst people to debate it. The war in Iraq is a very complex situation, and can't be judged based on a single soldier's actions, or even those of a small amount of them. What the soldiers in that video are doing is by no means right, but what Iraqi's are doing to our soldiers and journalists, kidnapping, killing and torturing them, is not right either.

As far as prisoner abuse goes-- I was disgusted by what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but at the same time, i know that in countries such as Iraq women who choose to speak up and not settle for a misogynistic society and queer people who try to live openly and people who disagree with what is being said in society are being brutally murdered BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE. And I think that that is the worst kind of abuse of them all. And i hate the fact that our government is more focused on finances than helping the people that are being hurt.

[zaccariah2005]

katinka, on Nov 22 2006, 10:53 PM, said:

Agreed.

Zaccariah, I think that people who have strong personal ties in a conflict are both the best and the worst people to debate it. The war in Iraq is a very complex situation, and can't be judged based on a single soldier's actions, or even those of a small amount of them. What the soldiers in that video are doing is by no means right, but what Iraqi's are doing to our soldiers and journalists, kidnapping, killing and torturing them, is not right either.

As far as prisoner abuse goes-- I was disgusted by what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but at the same time, i know that in countries such as Iraq women who choose to speak up and not settle for a misogynistic society and queer people who try to live openly and people who disagree with what is being said in society are being brutally murdered BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE. And I think that that is the worst kind of abuse of them all. And i hate the fact that our government is more focused on finances than helping the people that are being hurt.

Well, "the people killing their own people" is not only a problem in Iraq. It is a problem in other places as well. The American troops is only a problem in Iraq. Also, I would like to remind you that the morals we have is not the same as theirs. We are in a westernized society and the morals we have is a result of western propoganda. I am sure people have killed ther own people to establish democracies. During the civil war, civilians were killed for not agreeing "with what is being said in society." So, therefore, this killing is based on their perspective. It may be a wrong perspective or it may be the right one, but, we are not the people to judge things like that. Morality is as subjective as life.
This whole war is a waste of time. And I don't think that anybody is killing soldiers for Saddam. If we were invaded by another country, would we be fighting for George Bush, Dick Cheney or even Bill Clinton. No, we would not, we would be fighting to stop the occupation. Here is a video that a friend of mine sent me just today: . And I absolutely hate the fact the fact when people justify what abuses American soldier are doing in Iraq. It reminds me of the character of Boxer from Animal farm by George Orwell. If you forgot what Boxer represents go check sparknotes.

[Josh]

Quote

We are in a westernized society and the morals we have is a result of western propoganda.

That is a ridiculous statement. Our morals aren't the result of "Western propaganda." Even back in the day when the U.S. did run domestic propaganda (we no longer do, because of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 as well as subsequent acts), they were not enough to shape one's moral complex. There are practically infinite factors shaping the development of our morals.

[zaccariah2005]

ZoSo, on Nov 23 2006, 02:19 PM, said:

That is a ridiculous statement. Our morals aren't the result of "Western propaganda." Even back in the day when the you.S. did run domestic propaganda (we no longer do, because of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 as well as subsequent acts), they were not enough to shape one's moral complex. There are practically infinite factors shaping the development of our morals.

Maybe propoganda wasn't the right word, but it is the stimulus of society that shapes the overall morals of an individual.

[Josh]

zaccariah2005, on Nov 23 2006, 02:56 PM, said:

Maybe propoganda wasn't the right word, but it is the stimulus of society that shapes the overall morals of an individual.

That is entirely different.

But in any case, every society instills a similar level of ethnocentrism into individuals -- the U.S. isn't the only one. Your entire argument is invalid.

[zaccariah2005]

ZoSo, on Nov 23 2006, 03:46 PM, said:

That is entirely different.

But in any case, every society instills a similar level of ethnocentrism into individuals -- the U.S. isn't the only one. Your entire argument is invalid.

first off, that does not make my arguement invalid. And I think I did imply that we have different perspectives. Therefore, I implied that the two different socities instill ethnocentrism. It is our ethnocentrism that makes us look down on them. I don't even know what you are talking about. And this isn't even my "entire arguement." Can we stay on topic?

[Josh]

zaccariah2005, on Nov 23 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

first off, that does not make my arguement invalid. And I think I did imply that we have different perspectives. Therefore, I implied that the two different socities instill ethnocentrism. It is our ethnocentrism that makes us look down on them. I don't even know what you are talking about. And this isn't even my "entire arguement." Can we stay on topic?

Excuse me, but a major part of your argument is about "American morals," whether you realize it or not. I'm trying to tell you that the part of the American moral system that you are critiquing exists in all societies. Assuming that the way Americans think about or do something is any worse than the way others may is ethnocentric -- so, ethnocentrism is entirely relevant.

Don't tell an administrator to "stay on topic." An administrator -- better than any other user -- knows when something is off topic.

[zaccariah2005]

ZoSo, on Nov 23 2006, 05:01 PM, said:

Excuse me, but a major part of your argument is about "American morals," whether you realize it or not. I'm trying to tell you that the part of the American moral system that you are critiquing exists in all societies. Assuming that the way Americans think about or do something is any worse than the way others may is ethnocentric -- so, ethnocentrism is entirely relevant.

Don't tell an administrator to "stay on topic." An administrator -- better than any other user -- knows when something is off topic.

I wasn't criticizing american morals. I was just saying that people shudn't be against the ideaologies of the Iraqi people because the people in Iraq have their own perception of morality. So, therefore, I think I implied that both societies have their own implementation of ethnocentrism. Gosh, I didn't even want to argue about a small thing like that. To me, those little things sound insignificant and off topic. And whoa, am I suppose to talk different to somebody because he is an administrator. I thought it was off-topic and that is why I said it was off-topic. I would have said that reguardless if you were an adminastrator or if you were the king of the world. Now, can we stay on topic?

[z2z007]

zaccariah2005, on Nov 23 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

It is our ethnocentrism that makes us look down on them.

I am pretty sure that the "other side" looks down upon us in the same manner.

You also said...

Quote

We are in a westernized society and the morals we have is a result of western propoganda.

Morality cannot be pinned on propaganda because it goes a long way back. The Western world is shaped by both Greek and Judeo-Christian morality while the East (I'm not talking about all of the East) has it from Islamic beliefs. Surely there are clashes between both moralities but I believe a lot of our views are skewed by fundamentalism.

Oh yeah, just a word of advice. Don't tell an admin or mod to stay on topic. We tend not to take that kindly. That doesn't mean our opinions are better than yours though.

EDIT: In response to: "And whoa, am I suppose to talk different to somebody because he is an administrator. I thought it was off-topic and that is why I said it was off-topic. I would have said that reguardless if you were an adminastrator or if you were the king of the world. Now, can we stay on topic?"

You can claim something that we say is irrelevant but to tell us to "stay on topic" is assuming moderating power, which is something you do not have.

I really do not think you can claim morality is an insignificant issue. It is the underlying reason for a lot of the issues at present. Of course, there are the economic reasons too.

[katinka]

z2z007, on Nov 23 2006, 05:36 PM, said:

I really do not think you can claim morality is an insignificant issue. It is the underlying reason for a lot of the issues at present. Of course, there are the economic reasons too.

I agree with Z on this one. I am by no means claiming that Americans have amazing morals, but i do believe our morals are better than those of places where women are killed for simply being independent, where rape victims are considered adulterous, and where two people falling in love is a crime.

[techkid]

AFter watching that video for about a few seconds I felt the outrage that zaccariah2005 feels, but then I realized that I felt wrong and took the view that some people have posted had. I came to this assumption myself so the rest of this statement is based on my own views.

What the soldiers was wrong, yes I agree. But you have to remember that in other parts of the world there is far worse that is going on and we have to make sure those things are stopped before we stop such miniscule things. It is still wrong but there is something called scarcity in society. Scarcity. in economic terms, refers to anything that is used by society that there is not enough of if every person was to get some of this good or service. Military strength and setting things right can be also looked at as being scarce. As a society we have to put our efforts to stopping things from happening that harm society the most. Look at it this way: what the soldiers did was the lesser of two evils.

There are people in this world who get gratitude from seeing other people suffer. Heck that is what Hitler was. Also remember that these soldiers are doing things that they think is right. But that does not mean that all of the society that these soldiers come from is like that. One bad applie ruins the whole bunch.

I hope you all realize that what we call western propaganda is now practically everywhere. "Americanization" is cocuring all over the world so if you make the statement that the reason that someone does something is because of our own propaganda, how do you know these soldiers weren't raised somewhere else and were subjected to the same media and all of that? You do not have to be native born to be in the army.

[z2z007]

I'd like to make one point clear that I failed to do earlier.

What those soldiers did was outrageous and clearly immoral even by American standards. You can't really use that as an example of American morality. I'm not saying that what they did was inexcusable either. However, I want to debate this issue as dispassionately as possible.

Certainly there are differences between the different morals at play here. With technology and how interconnected the world is, morals will continually clash and evolve as a result. Surely there are pros and cons to any belief system when looked upon from a pragmatic point of view but I think it is important that one realizes that one cannot say that their morality is better than someone else's. (This is in response to katinka.)

Lastly, I hope that people will realize that what the government does is not always viewed as moral by its own people. There are countless examples of that.

I tried to make my point but it is a complex issue. It is even tough for me to articulate it.