For all the moral equivalence-hampered moonbats

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. Marine Hero: The 5 Things I Saw that Make Me Support the War

    By Marco Martinez
    Monday, October 1, 2007

    Liberals often like to say that "violence is senseless."

    That’s wrong.

    Violence isn't senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there's a profound moral difference between the two.

    People often ask me whether I still support the war. I never hesitate when answering: "Absolutely I support completing the mission," I tell them, "Now more than ever."

    I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience—and five things I saw firsthand—that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.

    1. Mass Graves

    I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.

    2. Tongue-less Man

    You never know how precious freedom of speech is until you meet somehow who has had it taken from them—literally taken from them. During a patrol we came upon two hungry Iraqi men scavenging for food. When our translator began speaking with the men I noticed that one of them had a stub for a tongue. Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue. Saddam had quite literally removed the man’s freedom of speech.

    3. Adrenaline-Fueled Fedayeen Saddam

    I couldn't for the life of me understand why the ninja costume-wearing terrorists we encountered in a series of hellish firefights just wouldn’t go down—even after being shot. Once my fire team and I cleared a terrorist-filled house in a close quarters shootout, I saw dead bodies all around the kitchen. I looked up at the countertops. Scattered everywhere were vials of adrenaline, syringes, and khat (pronounced "cot"), a drug similar to PCP that gives users a surge of energy and strength. That’s when we realized that our zombie-like attackers were zealots who came to fight and die.

    4. Human Experiment Pictures

    I still can’t shake the pictures out of my head. We discovered them inside a strange laboratory we found inside a Special Republican Guard barracks that had been plunked down inside an amusement park. When I cracked open the photo album, my jaw dropped. There in front of me were the most horrifying images of experiments being performed on newborn and infant children. Picture after picture, page after page, the binder was filled with the most extreme deformities and experimental mutations one could imagine. One baby had an eye that was shifted toward the middle of its head. We turned the books over to our lieutenant as valuable pieces of intelligence.

    5. Bomb-Making Materials In a Mosque

    Well after the invasion we were tasked to conduct city patrols and build rapport with local sheiks and mosque members. On one occasion we revisited a mosque where the sheik had previously been warm and friendly. Yet this time something seemed a little off. As we made our way through the mosque compound, we were told there were certain "praying houses" we weren’t allowed to enter. But when a Marine walked through a side hallway and passed by a door that had been left ajar, he spotted a huge bottle of nitroglycerin and assorted bomb-making materials.

    When I think about my gang member past I shudder in shame. But if there was one lesson I learned from my past it is that there is a profound moral difference between using violence to destroy lives and using violence to save lives. Terrorists do the former; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do the latter.

    Antimilitary liberals need to learn the difference between the two.
     
  2. Hmm.

    Saddam was killed some time ago.
    Yet their still turning up executed bodies, a report just the other week of a man and a woman shot in the head, the man with drill holes in his face, a common practise over there it seems.

    Senseless, is fighting a war of attrition against an unlimited enemy-or removing a tyrant and creating the basis of a new one, a theocracy or worse. The definition would also be met, by trying to fix a problem you dont understand, with methods time-proven not to work, although it seems everyone except shrub knew what was up.

    However, he makes some great points, an important juxtaposition of violence and deceit. Its too bad nearly every paragraph ends with such irony.
     
  3. Just one question hapaboy.....You still support the war????:confused: :confused:
     
  4. We can't pull out of Vietnam!! the REDS will take over. We can't cut and run on the War on Communism.
    Anyone who says that is a commie appeaser.

    OH WAIT.... they are a good trading partner of ours. Sigh, another made-up war by zionists.

    Oh well, as long as we kill people whose skin is darker than ours, that's ok! As Rumsfeld said, "We don't do body counts"

    (not even for Blackwater's sensless genocides, I wonder)?

    Avert your eyes, Gitmo and other CIA torture centers don't exist! LA LA LA I can't hear you. We only spread democracy!

    Let me name all the democractic countries 'rescued' by the West in the last 50 years. Ummm. UMMMM. Can't seem to recall...

    People never want war, thy must be goaded into it. Why? Because war costs a LOT of money. Our money. and people are bascially peaceful.
     
  5. Semper Fi Marine.
    ============================

    Yet as it always remains....
    16 of 19 of the killers were from the house of Saud.

    End of Story.


     


  6. What killers? The guy didnt mention international terrorism (foreign affairs, as its known in the middle east).

    Evidence of abhorrent medical experiments......turned over to intelligence.
    Has anyone seen this evidence?Must be too "intelligent" for the public.

    Freedom of speech....with embedded reporters, denial of risk of depleted uranium, i could go on, but i wont.

    Drugged up zombie suicide soldiers-whos supplying this stuff, when hospitals are out of needles, medicines, painkillers? The us wanted to ban khat, btw, caused some friction. Not sure where it stands now.

    Bomb making, in religious off limits areas? Nooo, only half wits would beleive that wouldnt occur as a matter of course, all policy driven.

    Mass graves? Great, only a dozen or so other countries have done and are doing the same, send in the marines, that'll fix everything.


    Marines have never been accused of being smarter than a bag of hammers, but if what this guy has seen is justification enough (and i agree, largely) then......................
     
  7. ahhh the spoils of war!


    Let's try partitioning the US

    By Linda S. Heard
    Special to Gulf News

    10/02/07 "Gulf News" -- -- As if they haven't done enough damage bombing and invading a country on false pretences, destroying its culture and leaving it a charred shell of its former self, they - American lawmakers who gave President George W. Bush authority to go to war - now want to divide Iraq up into easily manageable bite size entities.

    Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation with an elected government? If so, then why is the US Senate attempting to meddle in its affairs by overwhelmingly passing a resolution calling for the country's partition into three, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing? Not to put too fine a point the shape of Iraq to come isn't their business.

    Moreover, even if they had a stake in the country they are responsible for destroying, which they certainly do not, American senators who may or may not have enjoyed a two-day jaunt to Baghdad's Green Zone are not qualified to be the deciders.

    The Iraqi government was quick to put a damper on the proposal. Its spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said "It's the Iraqis who decide these sorts of issues, no-one else".

    According to a recent ABC/BBC poll a mere nine per cent of Iraqis favour the break-up of their country.

    The Arab League was equally condemnatory. Its Iraq representative Ali Al Garush called upon Arab nations to stand by the Iraqi people in their opposition to the proposal.

    Secretary-General of the GCC Abdul Rahman Al Attiyah said partition would make the situation in Iraq more difficult and complicated. Official statements from Syria and Iran were even more scathing.

    With so much Iraqi and regional hostility against the plan what are those 75 senators that voted in favour of it thinking? It was Democratic Senator Joseph Biden a presidential hopeful who initiated the vote.

    Biden explained his rationale during a news conference. He maintains his proposal offers a way to bring home American troops while leaving behind a stable Iraq. It's evident that his thinking is based on a series of false premises.

    First of all the future of Iraq should not be designed around a convenient exit for US troops. Biden and his fellows should understand a simple principle. American troops are the interlopers not the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough already.

    Secondly, the partitioning of Iraq into a loose federation of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish states will not bring stability as he suggests. There would have to be a massive displacement of people, many of whom would end up impoverished or homeless.

    Such a division would also lead to friction over natural resources. For instance, Biden's plan calls for just 20 per cent of oil revenues going to Sunnis, who already feel hard done by after losing the political influence they once enjoyed. There is also the question of which mini-state would control oil-rich Kirkuk, an ethnically-mixed city strongly coveted by the Kurds.

    Moreover, there is no guarantee that such insular states would not be mutually hostile, further exacerbating existing ethnic tensions.

    Thirdly, although many Kurds are amenable to complete autonomy, their neighbours are most definitely not. If a Kurdish state became a reality it's probable that Turkey would invade.

    Turkey fears that such an entity would unduly influence its own Kurdish population, which has its own separatist ambitions. Iran also has strong objections.

    Fourth, such a break-up would stand as a worrying precedent for vulnerable countries in the region with multi-ethnic populations.

    Either Biden is completely clueless and is unaware of the havoc such a breakup of Iraq would wreak, or he harbours a more sinister agenda.

    Rendered toothless

    If Iraq were to be broken into three, the nation would be rendered toothless for all time in the same way the former Yugoslavia is today.

    The US would then have an excuse to stay around in some force "to protect" such tiny fledgling states from each other and from their neighbours. In fact, it would consolidate complete domination of their oil because such small entities would no longer have a voice.

    The biggest winner from the partitioning of Iraq would be Israel, whose officials and journalists have long advocated such division.

    On the Shalom TV website there is an interview with Joe Biden who refers to Israel as the "single greatest strength America has in the Middle East" and proclaims with pride "I am a Zionist". We should believe him.

    Here's a suggestion for the Arab world. How about a vote on the break-up of America?

    How about giving California back to Mexico, returning Hawaii to its indigenous islanders and Alaska to the Eskimos and Indians?

    Let's restrict Caucasians to the East and West coasts, and package-up a few states in between for African Americans and Latinos. And while we're about it, let's invite foreign conglomerates to buy up the country's oil, gas and timber.

    Outrageous ethnic cleansing that might be but that's exactly what Biden and friends think they have the right to do in Iraq. Surely if such uninformed nose-poking is good enough for Washington, it's equally appropriate for the rest of us.

    Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Response to this article may be considered for publication
     
  8. FWIW

    Linda Heard is a British editor, journalist and columnist currently based in Cairo where she is a correspondent for the English-language Saudi daily The Arab News. Besides the writer’s weekly column in the Gulf News and regular articles in Shindagah magazine, her political commentaries have been published in Ahram Weekly, the South China Morning Post, Athens News, Palestine Chronicle, CounterPunch, Alternet, Online Journal and Outlook India.
    http://www.habtoor.com/anenemycalledapathy/l-1.htm

    Oh and btw the partitioning idea is great, we'd have staunch allies, military bases and oil in Kurdistan, the Kurds would finally have their own country and shia and sunni would keep killing each other just like they've been doing for the last thousand years and just like they will be doing in the future anyway regardless of whether Iraq is partitioned.
     
  9. "Oh and btw the partitioning idea is great, we'd have staunch allies, military bases and oil in Kurdistan..."

    No, we would not have oil, they would, it belongs to them not us, they can sell it all to China if they want.

    Neocons getting a woody just at the thought of oil and bases to protect Israel...too much.

     
    #10     Oct 2, 2007