The reluctance to use children on the battlefield is something of an historical aberration. Clausewitz was, after all, thirteen when he first saw action against the French. Most armies throughout history employed children in some manner or other; the big question is not "why now?" but rather "why again?"
Children are life, and, therefore, the terrorists hate them, since they hate life. No wonder then, that they slaughter them, their own children and everybody else's.
TalkinKamel: Yes, there is a psychological and nihilistic component too, I believe. This is also part of the current Iraqi campaign against university students, in my opinion.
Even the Muslim terrorists wouldn't bother using children as weapons and shields if they weren't guaranteed the collaboration of Western media. If our news media didn't run the terrorist propaganda there would be no value in getting kids killed, and the terrorists wouldn't bother.
This war isn't between Islam and the West. It's between the Western liberal media and Western civilization; Islam is just the latest proxy army recruited by the Left in this long struggle.
Neo, war is hell, to echo a famous quote. The way to end war is to wage it unmercifully—to break the will of the enemy, and to convince him of the futility of continued fighting. The reason that terrorism works as a tactic is that it degrades the will of the terrorized before it depletes the will of the terrorists, precisely—as you've stated—because of the morality of the terrorized populace. I'm afraid that the only way to win a "war on terrorism" is to become like the terrorists in their disregard for the sanctity of life; to punish the populations that harbor them such that the terrorists are unwelcome anywhere.
Who is a "child"? Less than a hundred years ago, in civilized, Victorian England, orphaned children were put to work in factories, for retrieving small objects that fell underneath machines (because their limbs were suitably small) -- and they often lost their hands doing so.
The notion of "childhood" as something sacred is very recent, even in our own (western) societies.
And here in the USA 47 million people right now are without health insurance. Many of them are children. What are we doing about that?
Thanks for trying to tacke this issue, Neo. I think Grim produced some more solution orientated themes, when I read his post about the same subject, which a lot of people simply could not understand what he was talking about.
You are not going to like this.
On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.
Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.
....
"Not so," I answer. "Consider: when the enemy seeks to kill our child to motivate us to surrender to his will, is it not because he believes that the danger to the children will move our hearts?"
"It is," she must agree.
"And when he hides among children," I add, "why? Children do little to deflect artillery. Must it not be because he knows that we -- we ourselves -- fear for the children, even his children?"
She nods, silently.
"Then it is proven," I say. "It is our love of these innocents that endangers them. If we did not care if children died, they would be in little danger."
"That cannot be," she replies in anger.
"But it is so," I contest. "If we did not care if our children died, they would not be targets. There would be no reason to target them, because we would not be moved by their deaths.
"If we did not care if their children died," I add, "there would be no reason to clutter military emplacements with their presence. If it were not that we are horrified by the deaths of children, the enemy's children would be clear of all places of battle -- because they are, except for the fact that we love them, a hindrance."
She bites her lip.
"Of course, we cannot cut out our hearts," I tell her. "Nor should we -- as we wish to remain men, and good men, rather than monsters. Yet it is our love that is the chief danger to the innocent now -- to our own innocents, and theirs also."
Be sure to read the rest for the conclusion.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/
20...e_virtues_.html
While Hitler did not "intentionally" target children, he did introduce "terror bombing" against civillian targets(Rotterdam the first example). The British retaliated in kind. In fact, there are some parallels to the current conflict in Iraq. When the Battle of Britain did not bring about the desired result of U.K.'s surrender, he(Hitler) shifted from bombing military to civillian targets. When Al-Qaeda warned the population of Iraq it would see participation in elections as "collaberation", it's targets shifted from military to civillian as well. The only difference was Hitler wanted to demonstrate that "resistance was futile", while with the terrorists, it is because the populace has "defied the will of Allah", and thus deserve their fate.
What an impotent god. "My" God doesn't need me to bring about "His will" on earth.
And DeShawn, what are YOU doing about all the uninsured?
He's just changing the subject to his home turf. Sun Tzu tactic.
Actually, I always thought that it is only lately we have come to view the under 18 crowd as "children."
Take the civil war for example, while the minimum age for enlistment was 17, thousands younger than that served on both sides. And there was no age limit on drum and bugle boys before 1864.
In the eighteenth century the Royal Navy encouraged boys as young as nine to enlist as 'servants' (the lower age limit was raised to 13 in 1794). They acted as cabin boys to officers and senior seamen, but they were also apprentice seamen, 'learning the ropes' (literally) as they underwent sail training on the rigging. During battles they were made to carry water and gunpowder, earning them the nickname "powder monkeys".http://www.corpun.com/kiss1.htm
Historically, childhood, and the later term "teenager", are relatively new concepts and depend upon a number of socio-economic and class factors to be expressed.
In fact, I can't remember where, but someone said Rock and Roll "created" teenagers.
It should be so obvious that the "old" tell the "young" that the greatest glory is to die in "Allah's cause", while the "old" get "older" and the "young" get "killed".
The solution to this dillemma is simple and direct. We must become more brutal, more ruthless, and more bloodthirsty than the terrorists. we must, in simple terms, out-terrorize the terrorists and the populations and countries that support them. That is the only way to win.
Lee wrote: It should be so obvious that the "old" tell the "young" that the greatest glory is to die in "Allah's cause", while the "old" get "older" and the "young" get "killed".
Yeah, rather like President Bush (who was gambolling in Texas during the Vietnam War) is sending our country's young soldiers to a quagmire of a war.
All for the greater glory etc. of course.
Yeah, rather like President Bush (who was gambolling in Texas during the Vietnam War) is sending our country's young soldiers to a quagmire of a war.
We live under the Rule of Law. Is that too inconvenient for you?
In fact, DeShawn, Bush did exactly what the lefties of the time "expected" him to do: avoid service in an unjust and illegal war.
Go to Canada, go to jail, get into the reserve; otherwise, YOU are the baby-killer(like John Kerry). At least he took his chances. Guard units were routinely rotated in and out of Vietnam(in fact, the Colorado ANG flew more sorties and dropped more tonnage than ANY Air Force unit, regular, reserve, or guard in it's tour). Unlike Bubba, who didn't serve AT ALL. In fact, people like you said that's what "civillian authority" was all about. Right, hypocrite?
I didn't hear you say anything about Clinton's hypocracy for sending troops into harm's way(Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Somalia).
"We live under the Rule of Law.":
If we lived under the Rule of Law then President Bush, among others, would be under indictment for war crimes.
But Wild Reich, the fact that we do live under the rule of law is PRECISELY why Bush is NOT indicted. He HASN'T violated any law.
"He HASN'T violated any law.":
Are you denying that, on March 20 2003, the United States invaded Iraq?
And which law, specifically did that violate, Wild Reich?
Not that it has anything to do with wether Islam uses it's children as human shields and soldiers; but I'll indulge you for a while.
Take your time, Wild Reich, I have to go, but I'll be back.
"And which law...":
A prima facie case exists (i.e. that the invasion of Iraq occurred is indisputable) under Chapter I of the UN Charter. The UN Charter was incorporated into US law on July 28 1945.
Although a case exists under Chapter I of the UN Charter I suspect that a good prosecutor could find many other violations of US law.
Lee wrote: I didn't hear you say anything about Clinton's hypocracy for sending troops into harm's way(Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Somalia).
Of course Clinton is an unprincipled hypocrite. Bush at least has principles (although they are wrong principles), whereas Clinton had no principles at all.
But Clinton is no longer president of the country. He no longer poses a danger to our country's principles. Currently, Bush is president, and he is undermining the principles our country is founded on. So, why should I waste my time criticizing Clinton, who is no longer in a position to do any damage? (I don't waste my time criticizing Richard Nixon or Ulysses Grant either).
My point, Deshawn, is that you didn't criticize Clinton AT THE TIME. And today, the very arguments you use against Bush are the VERY SAME arguments people used in DEFENSE of Clinton. And Wild Reich, if the invasion of Iraq violates Chapter I of the U.N. Charter, why did the U.N. authorize such invasion?
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, in case you need to look it up.
By the way, I needed to look it up, too.
The appropriate solution to this is the one we would have adopted had the A-Bomb not convinced the Japanese to surrender - kill them all until the survivors change their minds. See my old Strategy Page article - When A Democracy Chose Genocide.
http://strategypage.com/htmw/htc...s/
20020514.aspx
Destroying the society which so uses and destroys its children, like mad dogs are destroyed, eliminates the threat, protects the innocent in our own and other countries, and has an almighty deterrent effect on other bad actors.
... I suspect that a good prosecutor could find many other violations of US law.
Found any good prosecutors lately, Ricey? Hmm? What's that you say? Nothing?
Thought so. Riceroni has been trying to play a lawyer here for a while, and thinks that using phrases like "prima facie case" impresses anyone. The obvious proof of the sheer, empty stupidity of this fantasy is that in all of the US not a single such "good prosecutor" can be found.
That's all right. He can always fall back on his news clippings, from the New Pravda, etc.
A fascinating post, neoneocon. You've very neatly described the truly agonizing dilemma terrorism forces on the humane. You also neatly pointed out this dilemma wouldn't be quite so nasty or have as much "teeth" as it does if the mass media did not (willingly?) make themselves available as a transmission vector. The media has, at the very least, been often blind to the way it has allowed itself to be used, and the ends to which it lets itself be put. Does that make them partly culpable? I don't know....
I look forward to your move to the new blog.
The best way to eliminate the need to wage conventional warfare is using covert actions to destabilaze and change enemy governments. To do it smoothly you need train and educate alternative leadership from political refugees, execute targeted assasinations of enemy leaders by special task forces, then occupy the territory and establish military rule for several years, as was done in Germany and Japan. Any resistance should be quelled with utmost cruelty immediately, with public executions of offenders and collective punishment of supporting neiborhoods. (For example, taking hostages from elders and most reverend community leaders, as Brits did in Palestine during first Arab intifada.) Complete disarmamement of population with shooting at spot for having arms. This all is nothing new and was successfully used in colonial warfare. And this will keep kids out of war more surely than any other tactic.
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441...":
Resolution 1441 not authorize any country to invade another. President Bush is free to use this Resolution in his defense but, I suspect, if he does so with no other elements then he will be convicted.
The child combatant problem is especially bad in Africa.
The Western middle classes, in the last hundred years or so have romanticized and extended childhood. Compare and contrast this to some oriental cultures where filial piety allows children to be used as a sort of investment capital for living social security.
BTW, Wild Reich, as has been pointed out so often here, there is no such thing as "international law" outside of agreements regarding contract law. This is evidenced by the fact that there are no international police with extra national powers to detain or use force.
But, hey, no one is stopping you from putting on a cereal box badge and strapping on a cap pistol and doing the job yourself. In fact, get some friends to go along. The Secret Service protection detail will be understanding when you tell them you're a international posse enforcing "international law". Watta putz.
"...there is no such thing as international law...":
I have not mentioned international law. I am not talking about international law. I am talking about US law. I take it that you do agree that US law exists.
Reich,
What's the point of your dumb back linking?
My point still holds. Make a citizen's arrest if you're so sure. Get your friends together, it's called voting and electing, and enforce the law then. But, for cripes sake, stop whining and grow a spine.
I am talking about US law.
No he's not. No doubt he wishes he were, but he's just talking about his own fervent imagination. Trolls are quite shameless about that sort of thing.
"Make a citizen's arrest...":
No need because, "We live under the Rule of Law".
So where is the impeachment for High Crimes? He can't be prosecuted until after the impeachment. Hope he doesn't perjure or suborn perjury.
"He can't be prosecuted until after the impeachment.":
If you cast you mind back to the Watergate grand jury you may remember that it was not clear that the the indictment of the president needed to be preceded by his or her removal by Congress. In the event the proposition was not tested.
Interesting and generally well written article, Neo.
I have to take exception to the part about Israel loving Palestinian children more then they do themselves, which I think is patently ridiculous.
Yes the practice of using children as weapons is immoral and should be rejected regardless of the pretext(resistance to occupation), but the IDF are generally cold and callous towards Palestinians and their children. The occupation is brutal and the IDF cannot and should not be viewed as 'restrained' in their treatment of the Palestinians.
And yes there has been the purposeful targeting of children by the IDF - documented and ongoing.
Yesterday the BBC reported the death of a 12 year old Palestinian by the IDF....
My own impression is that the Western Middle-class, of late, romanticizes teenagers (a very recent development, by the way) and tends to degrade, or denigrate, actual childhood, and children. The drive this point in time seems to be to push children into teenagerhood as quickly as possible, and encourage adults to stay there as long as possible. We're losing both the idea of real maturity, and childhood innocence.
I do agree with you, Neo, that there is something nihilistic and life-hating in the Islamists' use of children, far more so then the West's use of child soldiers in the past. And the Industrial Revolution was certainly hard on many children, but we no longer force 10 year olds to work in factories, or send out small boys to assist soldiers and sailors on the front.
That's very touching, the BBC's report of the Palestinian boy's death, TC.
When Israelis are murdered by a homicide bomber, even if the majority of them are children, the report will be something like "16 Israelis died in an explosion earlier today." No mention of names, ages, and nothing like "Hamas killed 16 Israelis in a playground today, 10 of whom were under the age of 8."
And aren't the palestinians just a wee bit callous and cold towards their own kids, when they encourage them to strap on bombs and blow themselves to bloody shreds in order to become martyrs? And what about the ghoulish Palestinian "entertainment" industry, that urges kids to become shaheeds, and promises them Paradise if they'll just blow themselves up, taking a few Jews along with them? Remember, this is these kids' own parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, teachers urging them to do this, not cold and callous IDF agents.
The evil of this is, to me, beyond mere words.
And yes there has been the purposeful targeting of children by the IDF - documented and ongoing.
Yesterday the BBC reported the death of a 12 year old Palestinian by the IDF....
TC | 03.02.07 - 9:56 am | #
Clueless, neo, quite clueless. I guess some people can't wrap their heads around the notion that the Palestinians want the IDF to kill their children, that is why you have these "reports". Which are not indicative of IDF targeting of children, since why use guns when you can use bombs and artillery to kill them on a mass scale? Except we see one here, one there, a Qana if the Palestinians aren't seeing enough dead children.
Bush was already tried as a war criminal. You just have to get him.
So, all those who want to get Bush should simply go out and make a citizen's arrest, as Senescent Wasp suggests (heh, heh, heh, I'd like to see that.)
And if they don't want to do that, they should just stop complaining.
Ymarsakar, some people can't wrap their heads around the idea that the Palestinians might, just possibly might, be responsible for their own troubles. They've acquired such an iconic status on the Left they can no longer be criticized for anything.
And given the BBC's notorious anti-Jewish bias, a report from them doesn't really convince me of anything.
The Palestinian cult of sacrificing kids as "martyrs"---backed up by education, "pediatricians", and their whole, horrid entertainment industry (Cartoons containing doe-eyed characters, musical videos, popular songs, etc.) all glorify the idea of death, and murder. As I said earlier, for me, words don't begin to describe such evil.
I'd also just like to point out that the Hamas, and Hizbollah, honchos don't sacrifice their own kids---gee, why not, if bloody martyrdom is so wonderful for the little ones?
Arafat's daughter lived like a little princess in Paris with her mummy, in a swanky Parisian hotel, doubtless paid for by the vast amounts of money Arafat stole from Palestinian foreign aid, as he was urging Palestinian kids to go out and kill Jews.
As more than one commentator has mentioned, the use of western human shields in the ME presumes, on the part of the shields and those who employ them, that our morality is superior to the locals'. Shielding wouldn't work if we didn't give a bleep about those morons.
When the poseurs went to Iraq in 2003, they wanted to shield such things as orphanages. Saddaam's planners knew orphanages already had shields--known, technically, as "orphans"--and wanted the shields to stand in front of military targets. Even western human shields could see what that meant and went home.
The same goes for the use of children as home-grown shields. They wouldn't work if we gave a bleep. And, not working, the logistical difficulties of getting them on site would be worthless. Hence, as neo points out, fewer would be killed.
The left loves children, particularly if they're dead at the hands of the west in some fashion. If there aren't enough of them, our enemies fake it. See Mohammed al Dura. But mostly they manage to hide among the children and be sufficiently militarily annoying as to demand an attack, thus succeeding in giving the left what it wants, children dead at the hands of the west. Or, if the western soldiers hesitate, the left gets the next best thing, dead western soldiers.
As regards children dead in war, leftists are like those who bought slaves. They create the market. Nobody would have gone to the trouble of capturing slaves if there was nobody who would buy them. And the enemies of the west wouldn't bestir themselves to get children killed if the left weren't so delighted in the prospect and skilled in making political hay from it.
Without getting into whether is was a good plan or not, I think it's only fair to note that the US DID target children in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 100,000 civilians died immediately. We knew there would be children there and did so purposefully.
I am by no means equating those casualties to your main point just suggesting that it needs to be part of the conversation.
A good post none the less!
No, Terri, what Neo means, and what targeting means, is that when you target children, you are doing so for a percieved military gain.
If it was possible to evacuate Hiroshima of all children without a concurrent negative military loss by the US, we would have done so. Because the bombs weren't designed to kill children, they were designed to kill adults and war material.
Purpose is the act of achieving a goal. The goal was to make Japan surrender and thus spare both sides from more death, the goal wasn't to kill more children. Get that clear, at the least.
People tend to confuse the target with the means.
Thus the purpose of terrorists is to win, and they see children as a military advantage. If you want to save the children and prevent them from being killed, you can either surrender as Japan did. Or you can defeat the Islamic Jihad, which would stop their targeting of children. Or you can remove the military gain of human/child shields, which removes the reason behind the the Islamic Jihad targetting of children.
The US did not target children in Japan. There was no military gain, no purpose, no goal, and no rhyme or reason to do so. In point of fact, as seen on Saipan, it was the Japanese propaganda that caused Japanese mothers to throw their children to their deaths on the rocks below. Not American targeting of Japanese children.
Ymar.
Yeah. The term "target" as a verb means intent.
That somebody is hit by an action is taken as meaning the intent was there.
This obfuscation is deliberate. People like Terri aren't stupid enough to do this in ignorance.
She wanted to imply that we made a decision that killing children for the sake of killing children was a good idea.
Not true, of course, but the current insouciance toward actual words and actual meanings is a big help in misrepresenting facts.
Seriously, Teri, I think Neo is talking about stuff such as the deliberate recruitment of children as homicide bombers, sending them into Pizza parlors and malls in order to kill other children; or putting them (willing or not) into your army, in hopes that they'll act as human shields for the adult soldiers, or encouraging them to, attack soldiers on the other side by throwing rocks, etc.
The US wasn't deliberately attacking the children of Hiroshima; it was trying to end the war, and prevent having to mount an invasion of Japan, in which not only a lot of American soldiers, but a lot of Japanese, including children, would have died.
Again, while we're playing the moral equivalence game, the Japanese themselves killed a lot of Chinese children, in such atrocities as the "Rape of Nanking", and they can't claim that that these kids weren't targets, or the atrocities they committed just part of trying to win the war.
The Nazis did, deliberately target Jewish children from a eugenical standpoint, since they wanted to wipe out the Jews; young children and pregnant women were almost invariably sent to the gas chambers, since they were considered useless for work. And, after the allies won WWII, the Russian army was notoriously cruel to the German populace, raping children and young German girls. And, again, they can't plead the excuse that these innocents weren't really targets, they were just faceless civilians in a battle to win the war.
This should be part of the conversation too.
I think Terri is just unclear on the concepts here.
I think it's only fair to note that
Terri thinks it is fair to note that... in relation to what Neo was talking about with the Islamic Jihad and what not targetting children. But it isn't fair. Why would it be fair?
What about use. What use would it be? Does it prevent more deaths, wars, and what not by saying US killed children? There is no use, there is no fairness. So what is it? It is nothing.
That was me up above. I think that Terri is right ONLY in the sense that the US accepted the collateral and unintended damage of the nuclear bomb because the US believed that there was benefit to ending the war if the bomb was used in the way it was used and in the target (city) that it was used on.
This, of course, is not Neo's main subject for her post, although she perhaps might have mentioned it peripherally.
It should also be noted that leaflets were dropped warning the population. While not very effective for obvious reasons, it does show we at least did as much as possible under the circumstances to avoid ANY civillian deaths.
And Wild Reich, you are ALWAYS insisting Bush has violated U.S. law. Cite the statute. Present your case before a Federal judge. This IS The United States of America, and here we live by the rule of law. If your case is solid, it will proceed.
To paraphrase: "Any number of good prosecutors could make a case." Line them up and march them into court. If it's so "open and shut" as you insist, why hasn't it happened yet? There sure is enough animosity toward the guy(Bush) lately. "Scooter" all you want?
Lee, WR has repeatedly insisted that the UN Charter is part of US law because "treaties" become part of US law based on language in the Constitution. While it's a stretch, I don't believe the UN Charter actually qualifies as a "treaty" (even though the State Dept. has it listed as such on its web site). In any event, that's what WR is referring to when he insists that the US is breaking "laws". Again, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and probably because of that, needs no further elucidation—since there's no way of enforcing said "law", it really has no effect, other than in WR's fevered imagination.
Yeah, stumbley. W. Reich's problem is that U.N. resolutions aren't worded so 2nd graders can understand them. Since resolution 1441 doesn't "specifically" say: "Bush, you and your coalition go to Bagdhad and get Saddam Hussein", he thinks it's not a clear authorization for the coalition to use any necessary means to enforce other U.N. resolutions and the cease-fire agreement. Note he never gives us HIS interpretation of resolution 1441. He just says it "doesn't" say what "we think" it says. Then why did the Security Council go to a whole lot of trouble just to say "Now we're really, really, REALLY mad!"
"...since there's no way of enforcing said law...":
Of course there is. There is a system of federal courts. Have you not noticed?
"There is a system of federal courts. Have you not noticed?"
What I've noticed, WR, is that no one except you is noticing.
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Lee wrote: My point, Deshawn, is that you didn't criticize Clinton AT THE TIME. And today, the very arguments you use against Bush are the VERY SAME arguments people used in DEFENSE of Clinton.
I did criticize Clinton at that time. I hope you're not assuming that I supported Clinton or the Democrats. I did not / do not.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, I volunteered for the Ralph Nader election campaign. Just so you know.
DeShawn wrote: "I did criticize Clinton at that time." Just to clarify, then, "at the time" you were saying Clinton was "unjust" and "immoral" for sending troops into harm's way, having never taken the chance himself?
Not only have I "noticed" the court system in America, I was the one "pointing them out to YOU"(W. Reich). Line up your "any good number" of prosecutors, and use the courts for what they are for. If you don't have a case(and, I'm sure, you KNOW this), quit "insisting" that one exists.
Now that you have been indulged once again, WR, do you have an opinion about children as weapons, or must Bush's "WAR CRIMES" be the only subject everyone MUST discuss ad infinitum?
Iraqi children are innocents, as are the vast majority of Iraqi adults, the four million refugees and the hundreds of thousands of recently dead.
Lee asked me: DeShawn wrote: "I did criticize Clinton at that time." Just to clarify, then, "at the time" you were saying Clinton was "unjust" and "immoral" for sending troops into harm's way, having never taken the chance himself?
I didn't say that in the case of Bosnia and Iraq, since Clinton didn't actually send troops in harm's way (for the most part) -- he was bombing from the air, remember?
I criticized him for unjust and unwise intervention, because it was clear that in the case of Bosnia there was blame on both sides (Serbs as well as Bosnians), whereas Clinton started firing Cruise missiles at Belgrade, killing innocent civilians in the process (remember our bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade "by mistake" of course)?
By the way, you can't compare Clinton's draft dodging with Bush's. Clinton did so to protest the war, while Bush did so to save his own skin -- not because Bush was against the Vietnam War.
Clinton's hypocrisy comes from having opposed (correctly) an unjust, interventionist war (the Vietnam War)
in his youth, and then waging ugly, interventionist war himself when he became President.
Bush's hypocrisy comes from getting out of war duty as a result of family connections in his youth (note: Clinton had no family connections), and then sending soldiers to fight in an ugly quagmire of a non-winnable war.
But, don't you see my point, DeShawn? Back then, practically everybody who was ANYBODY did whatever they had to do to get out of going to Vietnam. "Draft dodging Oxford Boy", or "Put 'my' boy in the rear"? It was called "youth". Supposedly people grow up. Some give up alcohol and drugs and enforce drug laws later(Bush), some enforce drug laws while they do drugs(Clinton). I disagree about your assertion that Vietnam was "unjust"(we agree to disagree). But when it came to national policy or defense in the deployment of troops, BOTH Presidents acted in the best interest of the nation andor it's allies. THAT'S the point. Neither one was "immoral" or "unjust" or "hypocritical" or "wagging the dog" or "avengin' 'is daddie" or all the "crap"! BOTH of them wereare "Commander in Chief" when hard decisions have to be made in the interest of the nation.
And ask a fighter pilot if he's "really" in combat being chased by stingers and SAM's and AAA.
How about children as weapons, DeShawn? Anything else to say about that other than "Bush kills children, too!"?
The whole project of creating UN was highly idealistic and utopian. It never considered possibility of rogue states, especially rogue states with nuclear capabilities. World is different place now than it was in 1948. The menace of clash of civilizations, of direct confrontation with world-wide Jihad also was out of picture 60 years ago. So we need entirely different concept of international security that was embodied in UN Chapter, concept adequate to new realities of a single existing superpower, international government-sponsored terrorism, impossibility to restrain insane leadership even by nuclear retaliation and so on. Evocations of obsolete and unrealistic norms and beliefs is simply off target.
Clinton did so to protest the war, while Bush did so to save his own skin -- not because Bush was against the Vietnam War.
That's a weird sort of morality. Meaning, basing what is wrong or right upon a person's political stance.
This would make Bush's service wrong, because you attribute some kind of political position to his actions. And that would make Clinton's non-service a correct (tax) dodge, because of the same attributations to Clinton's political positions.
The decision to refuse to use principles in ethics will have some further reaching consequences, And not just for the UN either.
Bush's hypocrisy comes from getting out of war duty as a result of family connections in his youth (note: Clinton had no family connections), and then sending soldiers to fight in an ugly quagmire of a non-winnable war.
DeShawn Q. Williams | 03.02.07 - 11:36 pm | #
To use your logic, REMFs are avoiding war duty. Navy admirals cannot command US Marines/Army forces because the Admirals never did the war duty of the infantry (Admiral Fallon Fox)
I think people have to remember that the same State Department that was involved in the creation of the UN, was also riddled with communist agents and communist sympathizers. The Soviets are now out, but their backdoor actions concerning the UN bears fruits for others, like Saddam's Iraq, or Amanie's Iran, or Hugo's Venezuella.
The Soviet threat is over, but their UN system remains.
I think Bush is a war criminal, if only for the fact that terrorists are released from prisons in Germany and also released in trials because they are innocent, while international courts lay down a judgement of guilty for Bush. Given the system in the world now, if you are declared guilty, you are innocent. So bush is a war criminal, and happily so. It would be troubling if he was touted by the UN or the international community, like Arafat and Co were.
> But even that answer --the answer given by pacifists, which is to avoid war--is no solution at all, and allows the strong and immoral to dominate the weak and moral
...Which itself is a collapse of Civilization. The primary functions of Civilization are normalization (taking the extremes and holding back the empowered and lifting up the underpowered) and the consequent reduction of Nature's Primary Rule: "Might Makes Right."
The other thing to be conscious of is that our modern attitude that teens are "children" is very much the abberation. Romeo was thirteen, Juliet was twelve. Their overreactions to the events which happen to them make far more sense in this context (I recall thinking when I read it at all of fourteen that they sorta went over the top with the emotional levels of their responses)... Yet recall that the incident which got Romeo banished was, in fact, a sword battle between him and a Capulet, which itself was the result of a previous battle between his Montague compatriots and similarly aged youths of house Capulet.
In other words, thirteen-YO "children" were fighting and dying, and the families around them were not as troubled by it as were the local keepers of the peace -- and that only because of the disruption to the peace, not as to the ages of those involved.
In short, our ability to expect different things for children are far more related to our abhorrence of children being involved in such things than any "natural order" of it all.
I'm not saying our attitudes are wrong -- only that we do need to realize that we are the one attempting to impose a different order on the universe than our enemy... and should not be overly surprised when such things happen.
> Bush's hypocrisy comes from getting out of war duty as a result of family connections in his youth (note: Clinton had no family connections), and then sending soldiers to fight in an ugly quagmire of a non-winnable war.
Put simply: you're a flinking idiot.
SEEING THE UNSEEN Part 1
Read all of it, but in particular, the part about Bush's military experience that starts with:
"Somewhere in Texas, a Village is missing its Idiot."
In it, he makes blatantly obvious mincemeat of that bumper sticker statement.
Since many won't read it (I tell you this: Bill Whittle is -the- **best** damned writer I've yet encountered in political blogging, and I've read a lot), I'll highlight THIS piece about how much he "avoided" the dangers of Vietnam by flying jets in the TANG (emphasis mine):
There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack – like, say, take-off -- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. It is no picnic, skill-wise, to fly a modern F-16 with advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. The workload on the F-102 was far higher. The F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14 occurrences per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102’s accident rate was more than three times that: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 – almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam.
George W. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102.
In short (the complexity of the job is more clearly outlined in the whole article), he was substantially at risk by the very job he undertook. If the goal was to avoid danger, he could have easily gotten any manner of other jobs besides flying fighter jets.
I won't even bother with the stupidity of calling it an "un-winnable war" (strange, that wasn't the assessment of Al-Zarqawi et al in their letters that came out in late 2005). DeShawn hasn't managed to figure out yet that someone who puts on the image of being stupid might not be stupid after all... Who is stupid, in that case?
Nicely done.
Wonder how many children died in this incident (below)....
Perhaps the troops should have handed out leaflets afterwards, explaining: "Well, nobody's perfect. I'm sure you've made lots of mistakes, too."
www.nytimes.com
March 4, 2007
16 Civilians Die as U.S. Troops Open Fire in Afghanistan
By CARLOTTA GALL
KABUL, Afghanistan, March 4 - American troops opened fire on a highway filled with civilian cars and bystanders today, American and Afghan
officials said, in an incident that the Americans said left 16 civilians
dead and 24 wounded as they fled the scene of a suicide car bombing in
eastern Afghanistan.
Of course, none of them would have died if DeShawn Q. Williams had been there.
Of course we would never send our 18 years into pointless foreign interventions for oil and Israel would we? Just as there are former Dems who have made the leap into imperialist neo-conseravtism be assured that there are anti-war lefties such as myself who take paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan and Justin Ramondo at antiwar.com very seriously. America's first wave of imperialism during the Spanish American war gave birth to the anti-imperialist league which united left and right against the destruction of older limited Republic Jeffersonian form of governance. Mark Twain was a charter member of the anti-imperlist league that saw through the Jacobian perversion of the neo-cons of his day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ame...erialist_League
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/
m...899antiimp.html
With the withering support for the war
you neo-neo-cons are facing your own left right coalition against the utter waste of 1 trillion dollars, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives and 3400 young American lives. We see through the Project for a new American Century's evil plan for world dominance and we will resist you to our dying breaths on behalf of the small limited republic intended by our founding fathers.
p.s. To all those criticizing Clinton I ALSO protested against Clinton's illegal and immoral invasion of Serbia and bombing of a Sudanese aspirin factory. I am consistently against all U.S. interventionism Demodumb and Repigagain, lets build a just, sustainable society at home and leave the rest of the world to live the way they chose. Frankly I don't give a damn if a Caliphate is established, or Israel overruns Palestine, or a king rules over U.S. "allies" Kuwait, Saudi Arabia it is none of my affair as an American
To illustrate your rather dry quasi-philosophical story, here a little sample of reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q...FJDXxaHRU&
eurl=
Schwartzenegger insists the victims of the 2007 Southern California firestorm temporarily residing at Jack Murphy Stadium are happy.
First he calls Tonight Show host Jay Leno an "idiot". Then he drops this bomb.
If it were Gray Davis the gods would have their media attack him mercilessly for these mistakes. Together they may be enough to cost any other politician his career. But not Arnold Schwartzenegger.
They say he makes comments like these all the time, clues which are all buried. And it's because they have BIG plans for him::::He is a tool who will be used to accomplish historical evil for the gods.
They say there is a strange sense of "unease" at the State Capitol, perhaps because he doesn't belong there. He is not American. Sadly this is an issue that is too readily discounted:::::His loyalties lie with a country that was the enemy of the United States a mere 65 years ago. Just as we witnessed with Clinton in 1992 expect blacks to register and vote en masse for Schwartzenegger as well, a clue and a red flag.
Just as we haven't seen any more of that "Everybody is happy." idiocy from the Preditor so do we no longer hear anything of the possibility a firefighter started one if not more of these SoCal fires, buried forever.
Weight training (promoted in every prison system in the country), promotion of pharmeceuticals (steroids), desensitizing "guy flicks" all prove the name "Preditor" is warranted.
Less than 24 hours passed after a traffic accident on I-5 before Schwartzenegger declared a state of emergency, but it took over 2 full days before he did the same for the San Francisco Bay envionmental disaster incident.
The gods love reverse positioning, and this Austrian genocide issue is an OUTSTANDING example:::
There is symbolism between the two:::Hitler was an Austian-born leader of a foreign nation.
It appears as if Hitler is a monster. When Schwartzenegger does his thing he will appear as a hero, an enforcer of decency. Quite the opposite is true, ironically.
Monsters like Al Capone, violent gangsters from the 20s and 30s thought they were going up. Instead they were routed into the Nazi death camps::::This Austrian genocide event disposed of these monsters.
Schwartzenegger's genocide event will dispose of society's VICTIMS, people who are the way they are (abusive, abrasive, violent, criminal) BECAUSE of their disfavor.
People will say the Italians were pushed into it too, but I'd like to remind you black evidence is contradictory (crack, AIDS, etc). Italian evidence REINFORCES corruption (1906, ). Based on these clues it is safe to say the Italians are more disfavored than Africans.
Ironically, Hiter is the enforcer of decency. Schwartzenegger is the monster. But the movies already prove Schwartzenegger is a promoter of indencency, so when his genocide event happens there will be no secrets.
This exposure from me can change their script. Or, more appropriately said, alter the Manifest Destiny's senarios to fall in line with the god's script.
That means Schwartzenegger was never going to be used. But I think the evidence we have suggests he in fact IS the one foreshadowed with the Hitler figure, his genocide event foreshadowed with the Holocaust.
And, ironically, blacks will show up at the polls to vote for their own deaths.
I believe there is symbolism with Ronald Reagan as well.
There is one geographic clue I have not addressed in years:::Uranus, a planet tilted 90 degrees on its axis. I have stated in years past that I think this is a clue offered by the gods suggesting the fate of planet Earth, that tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction.
Undesirables will either perish in the government marijuana erradication program "gone awry" or be the recipients of reparations granted by the US government because of it.
I believe the New Testiment battle of the Anti-Christ and the Second Coming of Christ will ocurr in subsequent years SPECIFICALLY because these people will be distracted with the money during the event.
When the Earth's axis shifts people will be cast into outer space with gold cards in hand.
I think this was foreshadowed on an episode of the Simpsons where Homer and Bart are on the disfavored ship and eject, only to experience a sense of euphoria, expand then explode in the vacuum of space.
When the United States government pays out reparations I believe you have less than a handful of years before the gods end on Planet Earth.
Vienna was the center of the music world for a reason.
Any middle age person today remembers the excitement surrounding classical music in the mid-20th century.
Classical music was "in play". Expect the same "magic" was employed back then as well.
Motzart's ugly for a reason. Similarly, Schwartzenegger's appearance is suspect as well.
--------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Reparations for a government marijuana erradication program gone awry a.wav
Reparations for a government marijuana erradication program gone awry b.wav
Their intent with Horrible::::They'll being me back in the Preditor clone host for the MarijuanaErradicationProgram "gone awry", ironically putting the disfavored's 20th century enemies in black and Latino clone hosts for this genocide event.
Glock is Austrian. The gods already used the Austrians for black genocide once.
Commenting by HaloScan
