| News From Fallujah, A hard day for Marines | |
|
Plo Koon - Student  |
News from Fallujah,there is reality in this to be warned. In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War November 21, 2004 By DEXTER FILKINS FALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 18 - Eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot, a pair of marines wound their way up the darkened innards of a minaret, shot through with holes by an American tank. As the marines inched their way along, a burst of gunfire rang down, fired by an insurgent hiding in the top of the tower. The bullets hit the first marine in the face, his blood spattering the marine behind him. Lance Cpl. William Miller, age 22, lay in silence half way up, mortally wounded. "Miller!" the marines called from below. "Miller!" With that, the marines' near mystical commandment against leaving a comrade behind seized the group. One after another, the young marines dashed into the minaret, into darkness and into gunfire, and wound their way up the stairs. After four attempts, Corporal Miller's lifeless body emerged from the tower, his comrades choking and covered with dust, dodging volleys of machine-gun fire as they carried him back to their base. "I was trying to be careful, but I was trying to get him out, you know what I'm saying?" Lance Cpl. Michael Gogin, 19, said afterward. So went eight days of combat for this Iraqi city, the most sustained period of street-to-street fighting that Americans have encountered since the Vietnam War. The proximity gave the fighting a hellish intensity, with soldiers often close enough to look their enemies in the eyes. For a correspondent who has covered a half dozen armed conflicts, including the war in Iraq since its opening in March 2003, the fighting seen while traveling with a frontline unit in Falluja was a qualitatively different experience, a leap into a different kind of battle. From the first rockets vaulting out of the city as the marines moved in, the noise and feel of the battle seemed altogether extraordinary; at other times, hardly real at all. This intimacy of combat, this plunge into urban warfare, was new to this generation of American soldiers, but it is a kind of fighting they will probably see again: a grinding struggle to root out guerrillas entrenched in a neighborhood, on streets marked in a language few American soldiers could comprehend. At the minaret, as more insurgents closed in to join the battle, the marines ran through volleys of machine gun fire back to their base. Hours later, American jets dropped three 500-pound bombs on the mosque, reducing the minaret to rubble. Marines returned the next day to make sure the guerrillas were dead. The price for the Americans so far: 51 dead and 425 wounded, a number that may yet increase but that already exceeds that from any battle in the Iraq war. Marines in Harm's Way The 150 marines with whom I traveled, Company B of the First Battalion, Eighth Marines, had it as tough as any unit in the fight. They moved through the city almost entirely on foot, into the heart of the resistance, rarely protected by tanks or troop carriers, working their way through Falluja's narrow streets with 75-pound packs on their backs. In eight days of fighting, Company B took 36 casualties, including 6 dead, meaning that one in four of the company was either wounded or killed in little more than a week. The sounds, sights and feel of the battle were as old as war itself, and as new as the Pentagon's latest weapons systems. The eerie pop from the cannon of the AC-130 gunship, prowling above the city, firing at guerrillas who were often only steps away from Americans on the ground. The weird buzz of the Dragon Eye pilotless airplane, hovering over the battlefield as its video cameras beamed real-time images back to the base. The glow of the insurgents' flares, throwing daylight over a landscape to help them spot their targets: us. The nervous shove of a marine scrambling for space along a brick wall as tracer rounds ricocheted above. The silence between the ping of the shell leaving its mortar tube and the explosion when it strikes. The screams of the marines when one of their comrades, Cpl. Jake Knospler, lost part of his jaw to a hand grenade. "No, no, no!" the marines shouted as they dragged Corporal Knospler from the darkened house where the bomb went off. It was 2 a.m., the sky dark without a moon. "No, no, no!" Nothing in the combat I saw even remotely resembled the scenes regularly flashed across movie screens, but often seemed no more real. Mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades began raining down on Company B the moment its men began piling out of their troop carries just outside of Falluja. The shells looked like Fourth of July rockets, sailing over the ridge ahead as if fired by children, exploding in a whoosh of sparks. Whole buildings, minarets and human beings were vaporized in barrages of exploding shells. A man dressed in a white dishdasha crawled across a desolate field, reaching behind a gnarled plant to hide, when he collapsed before a burst of fire from an American tank. Sometimes the casualties came in volleys, like bursts of machine-gun fire. On the first morning of battle, during a ferocious struggle for the Muhammadia Mosque, about 45 marines with Company B's Third Platoon dashed across 40th Street, right into interlocking streams of fire. By the time the platoon made it to the other side, five men lay bleeding in the street. The marines rushed out to get them, as they would days later in the minaret, but it was too late for Sgt. Lonny D. Wells, who bled to death on the side of the road. One of the men who braved gunfire to pull in Sergeant Wells was Cpl. Nathan R. Anderson, who died three days later in an ambush. Sergeant Wells's death dealt the Third Platoon a heavy blow; as a leader of one of its squads, he had written letters to the parents of its younger members, assuring them he would look over them during the tour in Iraq. "He loved playing cards," Cpl. Gentian Marku recalled. "He knew all the probabilities." More than once, death crept up and snatched a member of Company B and quietly slipped away. Cpl. Nick Ziolkowski, nicknamed Ski, was a Company B sniper. For hours at a stretch, Corporal Ziolkowski would sit on a rooftop, looking through the scope on his bolt-action M-40 rifle, waiting for guerrillas to step into his sights. The scope was big and wide, and Corporal Ziolkowski often took off his helmet to get a better look. Tall, good-looking and gregarious, Corporal Ziolkowski was one of Company B's most popular soldiers. Unlike most snipers, who learned to shoot growing up in the countryside, Corporal Ziolkowski grew up near Baltimore, and was never familiar with guns until he joined the Marines. Though Baltimore boasts no beach front, Corporal Ziolkowski's passion was surfing; at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Company B's base, he often would organize his entire day around the tides. "All I need now is a beach with some waves," Corporal Ziolkowski said, during a break from his sniper duties at Falluja's Grand Mosque, where he killed three men in a single day. During that same break, Corporal Ziolkowski foretold his own death. The snipers, he said, were now among the most hunted of American soldiers. During the first battle for Falluja, in April, Corporal Ziolkowski said, American snipers had been especially lethal, and intelligence officers had warned him that this time, the snipers would be targets. "They are trying to take us out," Corporal Ziolkowski said. The bullet knocked Corporal Ziolkowski backward and onto his back. He had been sitting on a rooftop on the outskirts of the Shuhada neighborhood, an area controlled by insurgents, peering through his wide scope. He had taken his helmet off to get a better view. The bullet hit him in the head. Young Men, Heavy Burdens For all the death about the place, one inescapable impression left by the marines was their youth. Everyone knows that soldiers are young; it is another thing to see men barely out of adolescence, many of whom were still in high school when this war began, shoot people dead. The marines of Company B often fought over the packets of M&M's that came with their rations. Sitting in their barracks, they sang along with the Garth Brooks paean to chewing tobacco, "Copenhagen," named for the brand they bought almost to a man: Copenhagen, what a wad of flavor Copenhagen, you can see it in my smile Copenhagen, hey do yourself a favor, dip Copenhagen, it drives the cowgirls wild One of Company B's more youthful members was Cpl. Romulo Jimenez II, age 21 from Bellington, W.Va., who spent much of his time showing off his tattoos - he had flames climbing up one of his arms - and talking about his 1992 Ford Mustang. Corporal Jimenez was a popular member of Company B's Second Platoon, not least because he introduced his sister to a fellow marine, Lance Cpl. Sean Evans, and the couple married. In the days before the battle started, Corporal Jimenez called his sister, Katherine, to ask that she fix up the interior of his Mustang before he got home. "Make it look real nice," he told her. On Wednesday, Nov. 10, at around 2 p.m., Corporal Jimenez was shot in the neck by a sniper as he advanced with his platoon through the northern end of Falluja, just near the green-domed Muhammadia Mosque. He died instantly. Despite their youth, the marines seemed to tower over their peers outside the military in maturity and guts. Many of Company B's best marines, its most proficient killers, were 19 and 20 years old; some directed their comrades in maneuvers and assaults. Company B's three lieutenants, each responsible for the lives of about 50 men, were 23 and 24 years old. They are a strangely anonymous bunch. The men who fight America's wars seem invariably to come from little towns and medium-size cities far away from the nation's arteries along the coast. Line up a group of marines and ask them where they are from, and you will get a list of places you have never heard of: Pearland, Tex.; Lodi, Ohio; Osawatomie, Kan. Typical of the marines who survived Falluja was Chad Ritchie, a 22-year-old corporal from Keezletown, Va. Corporal Ritchie, a soft-spoken, bespectacled intelligence officer, said he was happy to be out of the tiny place where he grew up, though he admitted that he sometimes missed the good times on Friday nights in the fields. "We'd have a bonfire, and back the trucks up on it, and open up the backs, and someone would always have some speakers," Corporal Ritchie said. "We'd drink beer, tell stories." Like many of the young men in Company B, Corporal Ritchie said he joined the Marines because he yearned for an adventure greater than his small town could offer. "The guys who stayed, they're all living with their parents, making $7 an hour," Corporal Ritchie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who gets old and says, 'I wish I had done this. I wish I had done that.' Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check." Holding Up Under Fire Marines like Corporal Ritchie proved themselves time and again in Falluja, not without fear. While camped out one night in the Iraqi National Guard building in the middle of city, Company B came under mortar fire that grew closer with each shot. The insurgents were "bracketing" the building, firing shots to the left and right of the target and adjusting their fire each time. In the hallways, where the men had camped for the night, the murmured sounds of prayers rose between the explosions. After 20 tries, the shelling inexplicably stopped. On one particularly grim night, a group of marines from Company B's First Platoon turned a corner in the darkness and headed up an alley. As they did so, they came across men dressed in uniforms worn by the Iraqi National Guard. The uniforms were so exact that they even carried pieces of red tape and white, the agreed upon signal to assure American soldiers that any Iraqis dressed that way would be friendly; the others could be killed. The marines, spotting the red and white tape, waved, and the men in Iraqi uniforms opened fire. One American, Corporal Anderson, died instantly. One of the wounded men, Pfc. Andrew Russell, lay in the road, screaming from a nearly severed leg. A group of marines ran forward into the gunfire to pull their comrades out. But the ambush, presumably by insurgents, and the enemy flares and gunfire that followed, rattled Company B more than any other event all week. In the darkness, the men began to argue. Others stood around in the road. As the platoon's leader, lieutenant Andy Eckert, struggled to take charge, the Third Platoon seemed on the brink of panic. "Everybody was scared," Lieutenant Eckert said afterward. "If the leader can't hold, then the unit can't hold together." The unit did hold, but only after the intervention of Company B's commanding officer, Capt. Read Omohundro. Time and again through the week, Captain Omohundro kept his men from folding, if not by his resolute manner then by his calmness under fire. In the first 16 hours of battle, when the combat was continuous and the threat of death ever present, Captain Omohundro never flinched, moving his men through the warrens and back alleys of Falluja with an uncanny sense of space and time, sensing the enemy, sensing the location of his men, even in the darkness, entirely self-possessed. "Damn it, get moving," Captain Omohundro said, and his men, looking relieved that they had been given direction amid the anarchy, were only too happy to oblige. A little later, Captain Omohundro, a 34-year-old Texan, allowed that the strain of the battle had weighed on him, but he said that he had long ago trained himself to keep any self-doubt hidden from view. "It's not like I don't feel it," Captain Omohundro said. "But if I were to show it, the whole thing would come apart." When the heavy fighting was finally over, a dog began to follow Company B through Falluja's broken streets. First it lay down in the road outside one of the buildings that Company B had occupied, between troop carriers. Then, as the troops moved on, the mangy dog slinked behind them, first on a series of house searches, then on a foot patrol, always keeping its distance, but never letting the marines out of its sight. Company B, looking a bit ragged itself as it moved up through Falluja, momentarily fell out of its single-file line. "Keep a sharp eye," Captain Omohundro told his men. "We ain't done with this war yet." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/international/middleeast/21battle.html?ex=1101982213&ei=1&en=a2340a5477ac472a May the force be with the Young Marines and Soldiers in the middle east  ._______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This post was edited by Plo Koon on Nov 21 2004 04:07am. |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Gil-Galad - Student 
|
Actually my comment on my ethics essay was to part of an effort to try and engage with you on a personal level. But you are clearly more interested in maintaining your lord on high position. I dont see the point you are trying to make with your second point, unless its that academic study is useless, and that actually we should all be like you, stop debating issues such as this, and accept that what you say is right. Am I right or did I mis-understand? The reason I didnt say that before was because I didnt think of it before. That ok with you? I dont know much about Marxism, not enough to engage in meaningful debate about it, but I will say that your other two points are perfect examples of what I was criticising you for. For example, believing you have shown that 'debate/endless posturing is ultimately futile. Well, erm, no you havent. If we were to accept your opinions dressed up as facts as the truth then maybe, but I for one, dont. Your justification for the futility of debate is that process and intentions have become more important than results, or in laymans terms that in the modern era the ends dont justify means. Well for one; that is an arguable assumption that you present as fact. Clearly to a great many people, sych as those that support war on Iraq, the ends do often justify the means. Also you seem to suggest that it is a wholly modern way of thinking, which is also debatable. Two; even if true, that statement in no way shows how debate is futile. And of course the future is a consequence of the past but fortunately there are these little things I keep seeing about called humans, who do have the ability to change the world in ways even you can't imagine. Predicting the future, even in general terms, is a lot more difficult than you appear to think, even some of the most intelligent and respected thinkers and theorists in history have tried to do it and failed. Feel free to believe what you want, but just please stop parading it all as fact and gospel truth. One question, if debate is so futile and useless, why is it exactly you feel the need to enter this one? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life This comment was edited by Gil-Galad on Dec 02 2004 04:05pm. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
I was no more showing off than you when you said you should be doing your ethics essay. I was simply relaying that I no longer have faith in the "Academic" salvation of the world. Funny, in all the verboise wordage, debate and posturing of "Academics", it becomes profoundly unprofound. I don't see where what I have written is hard to read, nor was it meant to be "obscure" nor to convey an assumption any other of you writing are idiots. It is convenient for Gil to make further character attacks on me. Funny, you didn't assert this until after one claims to find my threads hard to read. What I have shown in all this is merely that endless debate/posturing is ultimately futile, given a modern age where "the process" and intentions have become more important than results. The assertion of equality of mankind is not sufficient to prove the effectiveness of Marxism, which is problematic in economic dynamics. Marxism effectively brings the economics of monarchism back to life, placing it in the hands of some group to control. As goes for the "seeing the future" remark, the future is a consequence of the past and the past blaringly shows the downward spiral of mankind. Just simply logical deduction. Yeah, it is a noble idea that all should have what they need. By the same token, all men are equal in certain qualities, but not equal in others. Should the hamburger flipper make the same as the doctor? Does government really want an end to crime, for such an end would justify the lack of need of government. Does an international organization of peace really want international peace, for such a peace would not justify the existence of an international peace organization. Funny, all these proclaimed wars on this and that in the end only seek to maintain the this and that for which they war against so their power is maintained. And, despite what some of you may think, I do not hate or dislike any of you, nor think you are beneath me or any other thing. I have simply been conveying I am now irreversibly a "cynic" of mankind. This comment was edited by Alexander on Dec 02 2004 03:48pm. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
Well now maybe we can let this thread go, maybe I should rename it to the "debate Thread" and get rid of all the sad news eh?  _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Oh, I know what it means, and I was trying to put it in my post before, but I'm tired... thanks for adding to it, Gil.  |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
"Those who know they are profound strive for clarity. Those who like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity." - Nietzsche. There is a reason they are difficult to read Jacen. And its not because its any more intellectual than anything else in this thread. Presenting opinion as fact is easy when you know enough long words. The danger is when people presume those whom they address dont understand the things they are saying. Alexander, please dont show off about your academic background. I highly doubt there is anyone who has read that and said 'gosh, he must be right then, he DOES possess knowledge of ultimate morality, can tell the future and knows what is best for everyone'. Also, you might be surprised at other peoples academic history. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Communism works in theory. The idea of everyone being equal and having what you need is a noble idea. The problem is that in order for this to occur you need some group needs to be put in charge of it. Right there are the beginnings of inequality. If you didn't need some organization running it there wouldn't be a problem. But you do, and that requires a power over all others. Because the dictators and governments aren't going to be living among the other people, they're going to want more. The elitist decisionmakers wouldn't be needed in "Theoretical Communism" _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
.. but that's not the whole idea with communism. The idea is that all are equal - and all have a say. It does not work in the real world, but again, that's simply because of humans. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Controlled societies are the most inefficient societies, as a small number of elitist decision makers cannot possibly make better decisions than myraids of people making decisions individually or in groups. All to often it is easier to dismiss the subtle flaws of Marxism and any derivatives thereof on the basis of human flaw. No, I do not find injustice and murder acceptable. I am playing the Devil's Advocate for relevatistic wishwashers. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Alexander... your post(s) have been the hardest to read so far, as I'm no Greek philosopher... but to me, it seems like you're pretty confident *you* have the answers to all of this. You say chaos is to be embraced, which could mean you do not mind killing, murder, injustice? Those are all the way of human "chaos". Communism is actually the best form of society possible... in theory. The problem is that humans fail. It's not the idea, it's the person. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Yeah, nothing wrong with communist countries where its citizens clamour for freedom only to be crushed by force. Lovely. And you are concerned about the oppression of the Palestinians? Gotta love the flip flop, to and fro, and fro and to. All the more stability to be gained in faith in mankind. Yeah, the Palestinians are oppressed, not by the Jewish, but rather, Arabic community. If you get past the Historical Perspective Narratives to Historical Fact Narratives on history, you will discover that the "Palestianians" are to the Arabic world what Gypsies are to the Western World. Jordon was in possession of the land now called Palestine. The Arabic people who came to be called Palestinians made their way round robin from one Arabic country to the next, only to find themselves dispised by their brothers and inevitably kicked out of one country after the next whereupon, returning to Jordan, the king decided not to repel them again, but rather, allow them to squat on Palestine since it was not considered Jordanian Prime Real Estate. Better they squat there than muck up Prime Real Estate and be a nuisance to the rest of the Arabic world. Suddenly, after the UN grafted a portion of this Jordanian territory to be allocated to the Jewish to return to the homeland from which Rome dispelled them, the Arabic world was oh so concerned about the Palestinians. When the Jewish government then forming offered full citizenship to the Palestinians, the Arabic world proclaimed their concern for the Palestianians, requesting they flee, run for their lives. The smarter Palestinians took full citizenship in the Jewish State -sadly only a small minority- the rest being content to become pawns in a chess game that anti-Semitic Arabic nations now play with the Jewish Presence in their midst. But then, hey, what could really be wrong with this. The strong shall rule the weak and there really is nothing wrong with cultures abiding by different standards than others, whether the others like it or not. Noone has a right to claim a moral standard, after all, that would make the noone godlike, above humanity. Yeah, the prominent sources of information promulgate the Palestinians' country was taken from them by the Jews. The country wasn't theirs to begin with, but rather, Jordan's. The JEWS didn't take it, the UN granted a small portion of it. And the Arabic nations lost ground in unsuccessful bids to militarially crush the smaller state of Isreal. To the victor the spoils of war. What can be so wrong/right with this. No discussion needed. Philosophic Relevatism and Situational Ethics constitute a large body of thought based on the premise there are no absolutes. Ironically, in defining there are no absolutes, one absolute has been defined, namely that there are no absolutes. And, no matter how much the non-Conformist thinks he/she is not conforming, they conform to the rule by which they don't conform. Alas, I cannot help but view the world through a lens of logic rather than ideal. This is what happened to one who was reading medical books at 6 and then turns his back on a promising career in physics. An intense philosphical foray mentally decomposed my thought to the realization man, left to his own devices, will prove failure indeed. What purpose does an international organization serve in a world of nations guided by whim, where nobody is right/wrong, whereupon, everything is situational and dependant upon what "is" is, where in this situation that is okay but not in this, where a nation is legitimate, crushing its own people as long as the same is not done to other people. History is a story of mankind believing bigger is better, striving to unite all under one banner. Failure upon failure, man still strives for utopia, and strive he will. With greater complexity comes greater disorder. Entropy is more than a law of physical nature, it is the guiding basis of system dynamics by which I have come to reject the social science's basis. Social science is mere idealistic reasoning in circles, the futility of which I need not mention. Not that I no longer adher to the "truths" of a self-originating universe, but, assuming chaos drives complex organization, why dispel chaos. Chaos knows best how to develop reality, not ideal posturing. Human chaos should be welcomed, desired, longed for, not loathed, countered. This comment was edited by Alexander on Dec 01 2004 05:25pm. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
Here ya go Buzz. It was another response to the communist 'threat', which overthrew a legitimately elected official. I know that other countries are just as bad in most of these things, including my own, which I am truly ashamed of. I am ashamed of myself as well, because as a student I can only afford to buy those things which I know were mass produced in a third world country, at the expense of the people there. To be honest, curbing communism isnt really a valid reason, it doesn't seem to me that there is anything wrong with having communist nations in the world. If they are actively harming other countries in the pursuit of spreading communism then fair enough, but apart from that I see nothing wrong with people having a different, legitimate form of society and government to us. Perhaps you are right about Iraq being a good influence in the middle east. So far, I would disagree but I guess only time will tell. Thanks for clearing that up about UN troops  Do you have a link I could read about it by any chance because I can't seem to find any? Yes the mistakes made in Rwanda were terrible, heres an interesting link I found about it - http://www.ambarwanda.org.uk/news/Archive/unreportdec99_2.htm. I'm afraid I dont know much about Kosovo, although from my little knowledge I am not aware of any mistakes the UN made there, in fact they are still there trying to rebuild after the war and establish a working democratic sysytem of government. I've got a funny feeling I'm missing some big pieces of the puzzle here, otherwise you wouldnt have said it :p, so if you could help me out it would be appreciated However, even if huge mistakes were made, that doesnt make the UN itslef irrelevant IMO, it makes the people involved in making the decisions irrelevant. Of course it has made mistakes like the US, but I wouldnt call the US irrelevant, I would say that those in charge of making decisions need to be replaced by those who won't make the same mistakes, and will try and rectify those of the past. IMO however, the majority of the UN's mistakes have been just that, mistakes, not immoral choices which they were well aware of, unlike much of the US's action in the world. A very interesting article, which I doubt anyone will read all the way through but nevertheless - http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511462004?open&of=ENG-USAAlexander: Clearly you have a very strong set of religious beliefs, so I won't bother trying to persuade you of anything, there would be little point, you are clearly always going to believe that you are the possessor of knowledge of ultimate morality. However I will say that there are two ends to every scale, both as 'wacko' as the other. And also, thanks for lowering yourself to the level of us mere mortals for a while. *sigh* _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Dont worry, you will get your idealistic pipe dream soon enough. Peace and Safety will be proclaimed, and then destruction will follow. Such is a world where good is evil and evil is good and since everything is a shade of grey, everyone is too busy having profoundly stimulating metal forays for there to be real stability. Evil loves this process oh so very much. Enough said from me from here on out. I spent my time in the ivory towers of academia and left of my own free will, realizing the ultimate futility of endless debate and posturing. What is even the purpose of discussion of this issue; after all, what right does any persons, cultures, nations, organizations have to set standards of right/wrong and good/evil. What the US and Britain have done is neither good nor bad as tyrants are not really tyrants and stipulating that I must be fascist in my mindset in response to my disgust but then proclaiming such a label isn't really a bad thing is demonstrative of the inevitable futility of mankind. People, cultures, nations and organizations simply should do what they feel/think is right and those who wield power more proficiently will come out on top, by whatever means they deem necessary. This comment was edited by Alexander on Dec 01 2004 02:53pm. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Can you be a bit more specific on Chile. I may have something for you there on that if you give me a name or time period. Indonesia doesn't seem to just have been a U.S. installed dictatorship. Britain, Canada, The Netherlands, and Germany, have been military suppliers to the country. Its support of the military coup and events around it were an attempt to stop the country from becoming another communist nation. Guatemala was also another country where the actions were a result of trying to curb communism in the world. And I won't even attempt ot justify anything else there because that's the only positive in that military coup and dictatorship the US did. Bush is the first president to have support for a separate Palestinian state. I do agree that more time and effort should go into that area. I do think though that another legitimate democratic country (Iraq) can go a long way in helping the situation. And maybe if Palestinians stop using terrorists for their officials and diplomats something more can be done. You know like Marwan Barghouti, someone serving 5 life sentences in Israel that some Palestinians wanted to run for President. The UN sent over some people but pulled them out sometime afterwards. I don't think the UN is irrelevant and worthless because they didn't go to war with Iraq. I also said Annan should be removed to help to repair and fix the UN. I said the UN was irrelevant because of its inaction in places like Rwanda, Kosovo, and Sudan. Also with the Oil for Food scandal in Iraq. I also didn't like that their methods of passing resolutions against Iraq which were never followed. Their response was just to pass more resolutions which wouldn't be followed again. So despite all the good they have done, their failures aren't something that should be swept under the rug. You want mistakes by the U.S to show they aren't always right, you've gotta do the same thing with the UN. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student 
|
First, Buzz: countries where the US has installed dictators, who turned out to be quite naughty fellows - Chile, Indonesia, Guatemala. I know that being pissed off about Israel probably isn't legitimate. But, it isnt just Muslim anti-semites who feel this way, its people from all over the world, who feel that the Palestinians oppression is sponsored by the US. I feel attempting in some real way to redress this probably false notion by real action would help reduce the US's negative image. Although yes, the US has tried and been foiled by Arafat, the US has also gone back on its policies several times. It is an incredibly delicate and complex situation, and I can't pretend to know the answer, but I do think putting more time and effort in here would have been more beneficial in the long term than the war in Iraq. Nuclear weapons: "Most nuclear treaties aren't there to stop our production of them." Well all the major nuclear powers signed treaties to actually vastly reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have. You have heard of START? Unfortunately, the US (who aren't alone in this) has not shown any real evidence of abiding by those treaties. Remind you of anyone? The UN: No, I dont think the UN would crumble without the US, there are many worldwide organisations that the US has pulled out of recently, that are still functioning fine, e.g. the ICC. But of course it would always be hugely desirable to have the US as a member, due to its power and influence. OK, so lets presume Kofi Annan is guilty of all those things. And lets also say for the sake of argument, although I disagree, that the UN should have gone to war with Iraq, and that not doing so was a mistake. That doesnt mean that the organisation is irrelevant or worthless. It does mean that perhaps Mr Annan and whoever else is responsible should leave. I wouldnt say to you that the whole institution of US government is worthless just because of Bush, I would just say that Bush should go. The UN has done so much for the world, and saved so many lives that if it dissolved it would truly be a tragedy. It was the major force behind the ending of Apartheid in South Africa. It (via the WHO) eradicated smallpox. Child mortality rates in developing countries has halved largely thanks to its efforts, and life expectancy in those countries has shot from 37 to 67. It had a hand in introducing democracy to Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua, South Africa, Kosovo and East Timor. It has provided safe drinking water to 1.3 billion people, about a 6th of the world. Let alone all the wars it has neutralised and averted, its efforts for fair trade, fighting for the environment, and campaigning strongly for human rights, particularly the equality of women. This is an organisation that the world needs, and I dont feel should be treated in such dismissive terms or belittled. It sure as hell has been more of a force for good in the last fifty years than anyone or anything else in the world. Arguing about whether we should have gone to war is useless, I'm sure you have had the argument even more times than me. I disagree with you, you disagree with me, you're still stuck with Bush for the next four years, so little good can come of it. I do believe that UN supported troops are already in Iraq, but I cant find the place I read this, so I'm not 100%. But, the US didn't need to do any pushing, I think that most countries clearly see that now what matters is making the best of what has happened. However, the French have always been stubborn, and I think their attitude is that that the US made its bed and now it can lay in it. I don't really blame them after the way the US responded to them when they disagreed. Cheese eating surrender monkeys was what Rumsfeld called them wasn't it. More good PR there: \amthumbsup Actually by the way, polls showed that the majority of Americans were actually against the war if it meant going against the UN, it was only after war had been declared that the country rallied behind its president, which is of course an American trademark; to support their leader in wartime, no matter who it is (not saying this is a bad thing by the way). And about my fear of Bush: Its not of him, or US troops, its of the effects of his actions. Alexander: I never character assassinated anyone. Saying that you are a fascist is not necessarily a bad thing. However when you say that people should be denied a voice in a democratic organisation - "we need an organisation with members of tyrranical states sitting in" (which I presume was sarcastic), and that only certain people (in this case, you) have the right to choose whats good for everyone, that is a fascist claim. And I don't know how you figured that I am a fascist; it really has got me stumped, it doesnt seem to me to be logical in anyway to make that claim. I mean, read my previous posts, I'm clearly a lefty hippy liberal commy loon :p There is a big difference between you and me, you see the world as defined between 'the good guys' and 'evil wackos', and believe you are the right person to tell between them, I dont. I dont believe in evil and I dont consider most of these 'evil wacko' dictators you refer to to be mad either. Oh and yeah, I am a relativist to an extent. Have you have studied philosophy or ethics at some point? I've got an essay on ethics I should be doing right now Making the US to be this great force for good is ridiculous just like any other nation. It is in no special position to decide what is right and wrong. Perhaps when it stops exploiting third world countries for resources and labour, and supporting or installing dictators that go on to kill their people, I will re-consider whether it is a morally good country. By the way, for other arguments for the UN, please read above. The UN's not perfect, but damnit its the best we've managed to do so far. People forget the stuff it does every day to improve the quality of life for literally billions across the globe. More than the US or UK on their own could ever claim. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life This comment was edited by Gil-Galad on Dec 01 2004 05:13am. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Yeah, I know, character assassinate me. Me for tyranny and not for others voicing their opinions? Where is the logic in that assumption about me. I loath tyranny, I loath evil, I recognize as a realist that evil cannot be talked down, it has to be confronted, defeated, and crushed. One cannot bury their head in the sand and hope evil will go away. Evil knows no bounds of reason, will not wither away, will not bend to good will, will not back down. Unchecked, unconfronted, it will grow and spread. To claim I am for fascism because I despise an organization that allows tyrannts of countries where people are murdered for their opinions to sit in its councils, head its human rights commissions, etc, etc, etc would logically indicate your mindset being fascist, not mine. In a few short months in the early 90's, Executive Operations, a private military corporation contracted by several African states to fight the wackos murdering their citizens in a bid to bring their forms of fascism into power, were nearly defeated when the UN forced those countries to dissolve their contracts with EO under "Peace Treaties" with these wacko nuts. After all, why can't we all just get along, nevermind party A is purely intent in heart of evil, why can't party B just get along with party A and vice versa. Gotta love Situational Ethics, Philosophical Relevatism. In six months time of the "Treaties", the wackos were back at it again and, now, a decade later, 10000 UN peacekeepers haven't been able to do in 10 years, what 300 professional mercenaries did in 2 months. And the body count grows day by day. Think of all those Africans beheaded, speared, burned, mutilated, murdered, tortured, executed, desecrated, defiled in those 10 years simply because the "Wise, Enlightened" approach was to negotiate with wacko fascist nutballs, rather than crush them into defeat. Alas, vis a vis Situational Ethics, it is better that those dead African's died at the hands of evil intent than to have made desolate that evil, because some innocents might get hurt in the process. My Friends, if the "ways to peace" of today were exercised 60 years ago, where do you think the world would be right now, today. Nazism would still rule. Evil doesn't just go away. Evil tolerated is one step away from tyranny. Evil confronted buys a "measure" of peace. Evil will never go away, being a condition of man's fallen spirit, but when it rears its ugly head, fight it, for the cost of ignoring it far outweights the price of defeating it. This comment was edited by Alexander on Dec 01 2004 02:18am. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
You like to bring up US sponsored and installed dictators. Can you name a few countries for me that have the ones we put into power there. Being pissed off about Israel is not in my eyes legitimate. I've heard the way a lot of muslims and palestinians see jews. They have children's songs calling them dogs. Thinking the drink the blood of babies. I've seen a report where the muslims on the streets in the UK get to see the beheadings on cell phones with a smile on their faces. Like that British contractor killed. And you know what one of the muslims interviewed said, he thought it was actually the jews doing it. The U.S. was working on a peace process between Israel and Palestinians, and the palestinians were probably going to get 90% of what they wanted. Yassir Arafat said no and the fighting continued so we decided not to deal with Arafat anymore. He obviously doesn't understand compromise, and niether do most of the rest of them because their main term is to see Israel removed completely. We'll get rid of WMD's about 3 days after every other country in the world does. Most nuclear arms treaties aren't there to stop our production of them. They are there as an agreement between the countries that have them to prevent other countries from obtaining them. Isn't the US one of the most generous nations in the world? How much of our money and support really goes into NATO and the UN and the other treaties we're in. Let me ask this, what would the UN be without the U.S. backing it in almost everything it does? If the US were to, God forbid, withdraw from the UN and form a new organization, how fast would the UN fall and crumble and the other one become the major worldwide organization? Kofi Anan is corrupt and has the possibility of a no confidence vote on his head. He stopped a sexual harassment investigation within the UN administration. He needs to be removed before the UN can begin to regain a higher standard. I'll agree that the UN has done alot of good, but when its mistakes and inaction causes the deaths of thousands and millions those aren't little glitches in its system. They were afraid to mention genocide in rwanda because once that occurs they are bound to act. I consider that corruption and proof of irrelevancy. I also don't think that the US and UK were foolish selfish or arrogant. I think the French Russians and Germans were to be more concerned about the money Iraq would be lining their pockets with when saddam had sanctions lifted. Or do you really think sanctions and resolutions for the rest of his time in power would actually have occured. The only problem I see with what the US and UK doing was in handling the war. Not exactly their fault since they weren't expecting the Iraqi army to flee instead of fight, so we're fighting pieces of them now. Oh, and hasn't the US tried to do some pushing to get the UN involved in Iraq. Countries like France are still playing politics though. Chirac was quoted to have said he doesn't see any countries in the coalition benefitting from siding with the US (US and Australia have just passed a free trade agreement by the way). And about my comment about the masses being stupid. Its true and I stick by that. Individuals on there own can be very intelligent and have good points and know facts. But a large group gathered are shouting generalized rhetoric that many of them probably don't have a firm grasp on. They're not thinking. Everyone around them is doing the same thing so it must be right, why should they need to think. I also didn't say to ignore them. I said they aren't always right. So I guess it is smart to ignore a large group of wrong individuals. Your right about democracy, the large group gets to be heard. Of course you're talking from Europe where democracy is having social liberalism thrown in. Where the small groups end up benefitting at the expense of the large group. The UN isn't a government either, and the rest of the world aren't citizens of the US. I do believe a majority of Americans thought we were doing the right thing going into Iraq at the time. I wouldn't fear Bush though like you do. I would say the threat of US forces coming down on you for trying to subvert the UN resolutions and policies sounds like a good deterrant. Afterall that's where the reasons for invading Iraq were: Failure to follow UN resolutions. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
You sound like an advocate for fascism Alexander, am I right? After all, what you are saying is that because you disagree with what someone has to say that they shouldn't have the right to say it, clearly a very un-democratic thing to say. Should only the nations you think are right be allowed to have a voice in the international arena? _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Aayla Secura - Ex-Student 
|
Oh, this is so interesting to see how people, seem to think there opinions seem to be the only correct answer, and here I was thinking debates where about finding out about the other position, views and thoughts, oh well silly me, Mara Jade wrong again… gosh I’m doing that a lot around here aren’t I? _______________ IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE! |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Hay, right on, we need an organization with members of tyrannical states sitting in. |
|
Gil-Galad - Student
|
But Buzz, how many islamic fundamentalists would be moving to Europe if we hadn't been so foolhardy in our actions in going to war in Iraq? Or if the torture at Abu-Ghraib (sp) had never happened? Or if Bush allowed prisoners of the war on terror basic human rights as defined in the geneva convention? Or if we did something worthwhile regarding the Israel Palestine struggle, such as bringing the Israelis to justice for war crimes committed in 2002 during incursions into Jenin and Nablus on the West Bank? I think it would be somewhat less. Although I disagree with a large portion of Michael Moore's propaganda, I'll quote him once- "How to stop terrorism? Stop being terrorists." I honestly believe the majority of serious anti-US feeling that generates terrorism is not caused by religious ideas, those may apply to Bin-Laden and the leaders of the movements, but the average terrorist who wants to hurt the US is doing it for more personal reasons. Because they have to live under American sponsored, or even created, dictatorships. Or because they are really p***ed off about Israel, and the way it often appears America is supporting them. There are lots of ways to reduce terrorism by improving the US's image; actually abiding by the international laws it holds against others, by getting rid of their own WMD's, by not using the children of other countries as a means of cheap labour, by not installing or supporting dictators that go on to massacre their own people and others. All these things would do a hell of a lot more to reduce terrorism than the war in Iraq, liberating one country yes, but for how long? And also killing however many thousands of innocent people in the process. And one last thing. What if the US tried to promote an image of being a country that shares its wealth, even if it means going without one or two luxuries its used to? An image of being a country who doesn't exploit the third world for resources and labour, but in fact helps it (third world debt anyone?)? How would the poor and desperate feel towards the US then? Wouldn't this reduce the risk of terrorism? Isn't it the right thing to do? Damn right now I feel like quoting 'Imagine' by the beatles  About the UN: you are right, it has flaws and it has made mistakes. Perhaps Iraq was one of them (well, more than perhaps). However as an institution it has done so much more good- Major achievements of the UN. And I'll quote Kofi Annan here- "We are dealing with an issue of international law, it's an issue of international legitimacy, it's an issue of ensuring that there is some order in this difficult world we live in. If you do not have these rules, I think the world would be a very difficult place to manage." And I agree, but of course, you dont have to None of this allays my fear about Bush being able to do what he wants. We need a organisation like the UN to provide order, and to stop people like George Bush doing whatever the hell he likes. And not just him, any other country. If Bush can defy the UN, why shouldn't everybody else? The UN has done so much towards a peaceful Europe, and I don't want to see the rule of the most powerful rather than the most legitimate return to Europe again. Millions of people died the last time that happened. Don't forget the UN was created as a response to WWII, to ensure nothin like that happened again. Nothing fundamental has changed about human nature since 1945, and the more irrelevant you make the only real multinational law providing force, the more likely tragedy is to happen all over again. Esecially when the US and UK are generating so much hate through their foolish, selfish and arrogant actions. And about the masses being stupid: I thought the spread of democracy was one of the US's goals? Whats the use of it if the country setting the example says 'well the masses are stupid so its ok to ignore them sometimes'? Thats not the point of democracy. The point is that you have the power all the time, not just while your in a voting booth. And the Ivory Coast war started when the French sent a peackeeping force to prevent civil war. They didnt go to kill anyone or liberate anyone. They went for peace not war. However, several French soldiers were killed by Ivorian jets. That is, again, the major difference. French people were actually killed by Ivorian troops. This was not the case with Iraq. We were the aggressors in the Iraq war. And it was pre-emptive, although there had been minor bombings, that is merely technicality; there is a considerable difference between that and full scale warfare and 'liberation'. Alexander, just so you know, Arafat is dead, anyone would have a tough job of legitimising him now. And unless you can provide any evidence regarding your claims about the death toll, I suggest you at least stop wording it so strongly, as if you are speaking gospel truth. Out of interest did you read through the link I provided? I have a feeling you didn't. _______________ |JAA| since 02/05/06 Green for life |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
A short thing Alexander: there is an "edit" link below your name in each of your post. Clicking it allow you to modify your initial message without posting several times in a row Then you get a line added at the end of your comment saying you edited it. See below _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan - [DJ is my beloved wife!  - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here This comment was edited by Odan-Wei Belouve on Nov 30 2004 03:01pm. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Interesting it is, violence the idealist will abhor, but entertainment seeks he by it. Yoda |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Woops, I meant to say we would not have to worry about the rest of the madmen if we didn't stop Hitler overseas. Socialism has put on a happy, smiley face, will woo the world, sucker it into an idealistic dream where evil is talked into oblivion, and then tyranny will spring forth and the end will come. Yoda told me this in a dream |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Figure you talk to the madman long enough and he will become reasonable. Right, Right, Right. Yeah, sure, IN some IDEALISTIC WORLD. To bad America didn't do this in WWII. Then we would have to be concerned with the rest of the madmen of the world cause Hitler would have destroyed them all to be sole madman. Then all we would have to do is make sure to defend our borders. |
|
Alexander - Ex-Student |
Blah Blah, What if 100000 have died. Doubtful, very doubtful. But over the next 10 years under Sadam, Sons, Cohorts Inc, at 10 times that number will have died. Worried about the threat to the UN because UK and US ignore it. What a joke Man. Wake Up. UN legitimizes Arafat, nothing more than a terrorist kicked out of Egypt decades ago because of his legendary brutality, having people hung from their rectums on meat hooks. Look at who the UN appoints to human rights commissions. Some real human rights activist that kook is. |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |