Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Y'know what I have to say to what you just wrote?
AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!
How stupid can this world get? (I think we are observing the answer to that)
How close are we to imploding and causing world-wide human (or life) extinction? Probably closer than we would like to think.
People look at death-tolls and think "oh, what a pity"...but they don't want to look at it in the face. They don't want to be a part of it until it is all over.
I wonder if we will kill ourselves in this generation, or the next?
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
The people are probably just acting concerned for PR stuff.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
I care. I always cared. but it's people who say shit happens, and other patriotic ( read: economic bullshit disguised as patriotism), let's go back to busines as usual ( which is wholesale slaughter, and it's a booming business) that disables me to do anything about it, other than what I do do day to day which is stop funding this shit. the united states spend billions of tax dollars to kill these people, and I can say that i didn't help, cuz I didn't give those fuckers any of mine.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
I also cared, right from the start. I vented my anger elsewhere when the US government publicly said they weren't going to give figures for deaths outside the military because it simply wasn't important; rather the same as them not giving figures for suicides within the military, because it simply isn't important.
For not important read: it would show our true face.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
I care. I always cared. but it's people who say shit happens, and other patriotic ( read: economic bullshit disguised as patriotism), let's go back to busines as usual ( which is wholesale slaughter, and it's a booming business) that disables me to do anything about it, other than what I do do day to day which is stop funding this shit. the united states spend billions of tax dollars to kill these people, and I can say that i didn't help, cuz I didn't give those fuckers any of mine.
I don't buy the disableing you from doing anything part...that's simply an excuse and a well used one. If a person really cares about anything or wants to change it...they do it. It may not turn out the way they imagine...but action is the only way to cause any sort of change...even if it's only a small lil ripple.
As far as not funding it...how so? Cause it's hard not to live in the western world and not fund the actions of our collective governments.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
I also cared, right from the start. I vented my anger elsewhere when the US government publicly said they weren't going to give figures for deaths outside the military because it simply wasn't important; rather the same as them not giving figures for suicides within the military, because it simply isn't important.
For not important read: it would show our true face.
And that start was when exactly? I ask that cause I always here it but it's usually attributed to when they first heard about it on the news as opposed to finding out about it BEFORE it hit the mass media. That's not a jab so don't take it as an shady insult...what I'm getting at is more often than not we don't look past our own lives and while it's to be expected...it really does make one late to the party most of the time.
It's good to react to what you hear and all but that's kinda the problem...people react after the events take place. It's easy to be pissed that way ...it's easy to blame that way...it's eay to simply feel like you're doing something by caring when in reality...it does nothing.
like it was touched above...feeling disarmed may make one unable to actually change things completely...but that's all it is...a feeling. If history teaches us anything...one person can change the world around if and ONLY if they actually go do something in spite of that disarmed feeling.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
I don't buy the disableing you from doing anything part...that's simply an excuse and a well used one. If a person really cares about anything or wants to change it...they do it. It may not turn out the way they imagine...but action is the only way to cause any sort of change...even if it's only a small lil ripple.
As far as not funding it...how so? Cause it's hard not to live in the western world and not fund the actions of our collective governments.
Tax write-offs? :cool: :confused:
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
And that start was when exactly? I ask that cause I always here it but it's usually attributed to when they first heard about it on the news as opposed to finding out about it BEFORE it hit the mass media. That's not a jab so don't take it as an shady insult...what I'm getting at is more often than not we don't look past our own lives and while it's to be expected...it really does make one late to the party most of the time.
It's good to react to what you hear and all but that's kinda the problem...people react after the events take place. It's easy to be pissed that way ...it's easy to blame that way...it's eay to simply feel like you're doing something by caring when in reality...it does nothing.
like it was touched above...feeling disarmed may make one unable to actually change things completely...but that's all it is...a feeling. If history teaches us anything...one person can change the world around if and ONLY if they actually go do something in spite of that disarmed feeling.
I served in the first Gulf War and I've been in various others around the world. I knew when the announcements were first made that there would be high civilian casualties, just as much as I doubted vehemently the reasons for this war. My caring for the civilian side and for the reasons for going to war, and for the toll it would bring on the various military personnel sent under (what are for me now clearly) false pretenses began at this point.
My caring for the number of civilians began directly with the invasion of Afghanistan, when wedding parties were destroyed from great distances by anonymous orders from above, or by pilots who didn't seek the orders but merely assumed.
My open venting began before the US government announced that the figures of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed were unimportant, but was fueled by this announcement. On the suicides within the military, at the time of the announcement.
I know of others who only react once they hear it in the media, or react only the slightest thing (judging before all the facts are in) which seems as if it might be right, in some way. I have always tried (sometimes successfully) to base my own reactions both on information and on experience, specifically my own experiences. In this case I have been right (the war against Iraq), although I am the first to admit, that is not always the case.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
That's not a jab so don't take it as an shady insult....
I debate many things with many people, and always try to hear their side of an argument (devil's advocate or honest belief). I have long since stopped assuming that anything contrary to my opinion is an attack against me. Feel free to jab and stab and query as much as you wish, it's what makes a debate / discussion enjoyable.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
I don't buy the disableing you from doing anything part...that's simply an excuse and a well used one. If a person really cares about anything or wants to change it...they do it. It may not turn out the way they imagine...but action is the only way to cause any sort of change...even if it's only a small lil ripple.
As far as not funding it...how so? Cause it's hard not to live in the western world and not fund the actions of our collective governments.
that's true, they aren't disabling me.. just making it really hard, it's pretty difficult for one man, no matter who he is, to stand up or have any kind of influence over a great multitude who doesn't shy away from using the means at hand (which includes huge armies, and arsenals of weapons) to get what they want, and to get rid of what they don't want.
as far as going through the western world sans funds being hard.. yeah tell me about it. I just try to do the best I can. see my thread about Payments for some more thoughts on this position.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
I served in the first Gulf War and I've been in various others around the world. I knew when the announcements were first made that there would be high civilian casualties, just as much as I doubted vehemently the reasons for this war. My caring for the civilian side and for the reasons for going to war, and for the toll it would bring on the various military personnel sent under (what are for me now clearly) false pretenses began at this point.
That's the thing though. The civilian population was already suffering casualties under the regime they were under. In nations that have such vicious governments one pretty much has to go in knowing before any invading force drops the first bombs that the death toll is already insanely high. Governments who actively kill off their populations can't be measured by the same rules used to gauge other nations. Civilians killed after an invasion were already in Death's queue...a bit morbid to see it in those terms...but if you have a government aready goign to kill people...and you take them out of the equation through war...the numbers sorta balance out. Kinda like the circle of Life on the Circle of Death in this case. It's a no-win situation until a stable government is put into place...and even then the civilians will be abused by criminals from their own ranks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
My caring for the number of civilians began directly with the invasion of Afghanistan, when wedding parties were destroyed from great distances by anonymous orders from above, or by pilots who didn't seek the orders but merely assumed.
As much of a tear jerker as that may be...one has to expect some pretty fucked up things to happen in these situations. From gang ***** to lil girls drenched in napalm. Engines of War tend not to mix well with civilian populations...though a large gathering of people in a warzone...guessing that wedding party should of rescheduled the wedding till after death from above was a daily reality. Just one of the harsh realities of being a civilian in a war zone...YOU know you're a non-combatent...everyone else...not so sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
My open venting began before the US government announced that the figures of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed were unimportant, but was fueled by this announcement. On the suicides within the military, at the time of the announcement.
I know of others who only react once they hear it in the media, or react only the slightest thing (judging before all the facts are in) which seems as if it might be right, in some way. I have always tried (sometimes successfully) to base my own reactions both on information and on experience, specifically my own experiences. In this case I have been right (the war against Iraq), although I am the first to admit, that is not always the case.
Well this a bit mixed of opinion and a simple gamble. The war in Iraq Part 2 has both it's sides so at this point History will decide who's right and the graveyards will be filled with new souls to haunt those who survive it all. Thing is though you can't always wait for all the info to come in to act...so I agree it's a challenge to say the least of knowing when the correct time is to react. 1000 dead today? of 10,000 dead in 10 years? or 1 Million dead over the next 50? Glad I'm not the guy who has to make THOSE kinda choices...but I can at least sympathize with the fact both sides will critique you well past death. Iraq as an example...reacting late on the issue...didn't seem to matter cause acting early was not even an option (gotta love the Cold War). Everyone says Now Was Not The Time...fair enough...but...the civilians we weep over now were still filling the graves...so to use them as an excuse now is not only disengenuous but kinda fucking hilarious.
In all honesty...the sides for and against this conflict are looking at it through their political idealogies and those who do care...are too late. You can't be against a conflict cause innocent people are being killed when they were already getting killed and you can't be for a conflcit because innocent people are getting killed and then kill more of them in the process....you can be for or agaisnt them for OTHER reasons...but those two...no...that's just crossing the line of reason and ethics. It's vile...really really vile.
But something has to grease the wheels...may as well be the dead since they can't complain and no longer care.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
that's true, they aren't disabling me.. just making it really hard, it's pretty difficult for one man, no matter who he is, to stand up or have any kind of influence over a great multitude who doesn't shy away from using the means at hand (which includes huge armies, and arsenals of weapons) to get what they want, and to get rid of what they don't want.
Some of the most effictive men in recent history simply used a mic, their voice, and words...I'd like to be optimistic in thinking that's the best way to go for the average joe.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightingale
I debate many things with many people, and always try to hear their side of an argument (devil's advocate or honest belief). I have long since stopped assuming that anything contrary to my opinion is an attack against me. Feel free to jab and stab and query as much as you wish, it's what makes a debate / discussion enjoyable.
Flame wars start that way though...so I try to keep it heated at most. A few old debates here sorta spiraled into nastiness that killed great discussions..
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
Flame wars start that way though...so I try to keep it heated at most. A few old debates here sorta spiraled into nastiness that killed great discussions..
Of curse they do, but good debates also start that way. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, but it can always be left behind.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
That's the thing though. The civilian population was already suffering casualties under the regime they were under. In nations that have such vicious governments one pretty much has to go in knowing before any invading force drops the first bombs that the death toll is already insanely high. Governments who actively kill off their populations can't be measured by the same rules used to gauge other nations. Civilians killed after an invasion were already in Death's queue...a bit morbid to see it in those terms...but if you have a government aready goign to kill people...and you take them out of the equation through war...the numbers sorta balance out. Kinda like the circle of Life on the Circle of Death in this case. It's a no-win situation until a stable government is put into place...and even then the civilians will be abused by criminals from their own ranks.
Civilians suffer abuses, often leading to death, in countries where there is no despotic leader. There are countries in the world where the death toll is considerably higher (Ruanda springs to mind, as does Somalia) but the reactions are either non-existant or, at best, halfhearted. What made Iraq any different? Life is a cycle of death anyway, it is merely a question of how that death comes about.
Quote:
As much of a tear jerker as that may be...one has to expect some pretty fucked up things to happen in these situations. From gang ***** to lil girls drenched in napalm. Engines of War tend not to mix well with civilian populations...though a large gathering of people in a warzone...guessing that wedding party should of rescheduled the wedding till after death from above was a daily reality. Just one of the harsh realities of being a civilian in a war zone...YOU know you're a non-combatent...everyone else...not so sure.
Naturally, however it is not the fact of the civilian casualties that annoys many, although various government ministers have constantly said that the civilian deaths were an error and their weaponry is so exact that no one need die but the real target. What annoys me more than anything was this comment from the US government that civilian and foreign casualties would not be recorded because they are unimportant; this statement says more about the thinking behind the theoretical liberation of a country than any promises for the future may.
Quote:
Well this a bit mixed of opinion and a simple gamble. The war in Iraq Part 2 has both it's sides so at this point History will decide who's right and the graveyards will be filled with new souls to haunt those who survive it all. Thing is though you can't always wait for all the info to come in to act...so I agree it's a challenge to say the least of knowing when the correct time is to react. 1000 dead today? of 10,000 dead in 10 years? or 1 Million dead over the next 50? Glad I'm not the guy who has to make THOSE kinda choices...but I can at least sympathize with the fact both sides will critique you well past death. Iraq as an example...reacting late on the issue...didn't seem to matter cause acting early was not even an option (gotta love the Cold War). Everyone says Now Was Not The Time...fair enough...but...the civilians we weep over now were still filling the graves...so to use them as an excuse now is not only disengenuous but kinda fucking hilarious.
I've heard the History Will Tell gambit many times from Blair. It was used to excess when the first doubts over the 45 minutes were raised; it was used when WMD held by Iraq were listed; it was used when the UK intelligence report was first aired. In all these cases History has caught up with Blair much faster than he would have wished, and all three points have proven false or falsified. History may well exonerate, but it does nothing for those who have already paid with their lives. The Roman Catholic Church, last week, exonerated 411 women murdered as witches. I'm sure that they are all very pleased to hear it and are packing their bags to move upstairs to heaven as I write; history comes too late.
Quote:
In all honesty...the sides for and against this conflict are looking at it through their political idealogies and those who do care...are too late. You can't be against a conflict cause innocent people are being killed when they were already getting killed and you can't be for a conflcit because innocent people are getting killed and then kill more of them in the process....you can be for or agaisnt them for OTHER reasons...but those two...no...that's just crossing the line of reason and ethics. It's vile...really really vile.
But something has to grease the wheels...may as well be the dead since they can't complain and no longer care.
Everyone looks at it from their own point of view, or from their own political point of view. There are very few people who can stand back and make objective comments - certainly not within the US or the UK. Within the US it is even harder to be objective, partially because of the lack of independent news and partially because of the forthcoming election. Were the British about to have an election, I do not doubt that tempers and ideology would be flying all over the place there too.
It is difficult in Germany to see objectively too; the government here took a distinct stand against the war and, although they have now been proven correct in many if not most of their reasons, it is still an upward struggle to gain back the confidence that was there before between trading partners and allies. The side that is being proven wrong has the ability to overwhelm through sheer size and financial power, and objectivity plays no role in such matters.
Re: Whoops! 100,000 Dead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tequila Zaire
Some of the most effictive men in recent history simply used a mic, their voice, and words...I'd like to be optimistic in thinking that's the best way to go for the average joe.
That is true, but sadly they have not been so effective in the short term. The short term belongs to those who physically act and those who use(d) words have to adapt to something that should have been avoided and would have been had those with the immediate power taken time from their prejudices and business interests to listen.
