Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwamP_ThinG
There are two points we can take out of this story.
First, the realization that many many americans have been dupped into believing Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, by the Bush propaganda;
|
I don't think most (or even many) Americans believe that Iraq had anything to do specifically with 9/11. Instead, most Americans believe that Iraq supported terrorist groups (not necessarily, but possibly including Al-Quaeda). The war in Iraq is more than just 9/11. It is war on a nation that supported terrorism. There has been some documentation of this (here are a few links).
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0310210934.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SwamP_ThinG
And second, that many americans have a violent streek in them, and these are the ways in wich it reveils itself.
They have no regard whatsoever for any human life than their own.
And to see the military pactuating with this is even more significative.
|
Gee, "many" americans [sic] have a violent streek [sic] in them? How many? You've suggested that fewer than twenty Americans in time of war agree to write a message on a bomb and that leads you to conclude that many Americans have a violent streak. Perhaps, the motivation had less to do with a violent streak and more to do with a misguided attempt at retribution. The question to ask is: if the father hadn't lost his son and if he wasn't grieving, would he have requested the name on the bomb? A second question would be: How many others requested such a thing and how often was it granted? A truly violent streak would be indicated by someone who would have wanted his own name on the bomb after suffering no loss.
As for having no regard for life other than their own, this is an extreme exaggeration. Have you grieved like this man? Have you walked in his shoes? Do you miss your son, knowing that you will never see him again? Remember that regardless of the time that has passed, this man is suffering and sometimes in suffering, we make bad decisions. This doesn't justify his request, but it helps if you can look at him as a human, not just an American. Writing on weapons has been a human trait (not just American) for centuries. People named their weapons or engraved threats on them to scare their enemies or to make themselves feel better (the case in this situation). It doesn't reflect on the regard they have for other people's lives, but on the stresses of a drastic situation. The question to ask here is: Under non-wartime situations, without the loss of his son, would the father desire the destruction of any human life at all? This would indicate a disregard for human life.
Well, at least you didn't say "most Americans".
For the record, I believe it was wrong to place the name on the bomb. I believe that personalizing war in this fashion is inappropriate for the military. War is an unfortunate tool of international relations and statecraft, and it should definitely not be personal. Nonetheless, people are sent to fight wars, and people are sometimes fallable. There is a danger is such a situation, but also in exaggeration.
-- Jeff