ATTENTION US service men and women

[Titanic]

Certainly, it is about whether war against civilians is justifiable.

ttlefield.

I am thinking, in part of the history behind the Red Cross. I cannot remember the specifics, but there was a battle (in France?) where casualties were very high. More than that, though, many of the soldiers lived beyond the battle, but wound up dying because no one was there to help them. No one previously had thought it important, etc. The idea was that no matter the side, the wounded should have been tended, that it benefits no one to have these men die simply because others are too busy to help.

I think it was in Northern Italy. He was walking home from work and watched the battle take place from his viewpoint and was shocked by the huge number of casualties from the war and how little treatment they were given. A couple years later he set up the group with some friends and businessmen and it was immediately endorsed by a large number of the then great powers and rapidly grew worldwide. Thats what I remember from it anyway.

[Snorri1234]

Ah yes, but my point is that that "brainwashing" is confined to military-related stuff. So if we never talked about your job as a soldier I fail to see how I could've seen you as brainwashed.

We've never discussed anything military-related? Really? I find that pretty unlikely, given the amount of such discussions I've been involved with on this site.

Aside from a few comments about how some stuff is organised I can't recall any real discussion about it.

I absolutely don't believe a terrorist should be killed if he's already been detained. While I do believe in the death penalty in some very narrow circumstances, I don't believe we have the right to do that with either a Prisoner of War (obvious) or an enemy combatant (or whatever the term is that covers the terrorists we've captured). I'm perfectly happy with keeping them in prison for, quite frankly, forever, however. I do NOT believe they should ever be released IF they have been proven guilty within a reasonable doubt of active terroristic activities or planning.

You said you thought it was a good thing to kill a terrorist. I took that to mean "in any circumstance".

As to your first point, regarding "better than them", I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If our response to their terroristic actions is that we "take the fight to them" (such as in Afghanistan), this in no way puts us at their level. We are not killing innocents intentionally just to make a point or to cause fear. A far, far different thing.

"Taking the fight to them" is really an absurd solution to terrorism. At least in the way the administration has done it.

And I was talking about killing terrorists being a good thing. If you don't explain your sentences more exactly I can only read them in a broad sense and therefore assume you are talking about that every terrorist needs to be killed.

Uh...I've NEVER seen a single US military advertisement that said anything remotely like what you've said here. I'm afraid I've gotta call bullshit on that one. Can you give me an example, perhaps?

Of course not. Recruitment adds don't talk in all-caps.
Seriously though, every single US military ad I've seen is an indoctrination-vid talking about how the US Military is the best thing since fucking ever. It's not even subtle.

That's what brainwashing is...losing the ability to think for themselves. So are you admitting now that your statement was false?

What? That's not brainwashing.

Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or re-education) is a general term describing any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person

I find it fascinating that you believe that members of the U.S. military at large "are taught how to kill without problem". If that is the case, why do we have such a tremendous problem with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with our military veteran population? If you believe most members of the U.S. military kill without any problem, then I'm afraid your understanding of things is skewed quite badly.

Taught to kill without any problem is not the same as "actually being able to kill without problem". You can't seriously say though that a soldier has the same problem with killing as an average citizen without training does. Every single army in history has as basic purpose in training to get their troops to kill others.

Incorrect. I've been there, Snorri. What you're stating simply is not true. I don't know what else to say about it other than you're quite frankly wrong. As to the Administration, that speaks volumes ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION, not about the military.

Bullshit. People don't start torturing other people if they aren't helped along the way. It may not even be active help, passive letting them go on is also very very very bad, but it isn't something that just happens.

Clearly, you've convinced yourself and unwilling or unable to look at the situation from a rational perspective. That's really unfortunate but trust me...this is YOUR problem, not a problem with the U.S. military. Unfortunately, you appear to be ok with that.

Brilliant response! Instead of trying to find fault with accepted psychological research you just try to insult me.

Again, you're wrong. We are trained to object. In fact, HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE WORLD HAS FOUND OUT ABOUT MOST OF THESE OFFENSES? Do you really think the military is stupid enough to just let reporters wander around while torture is happening? In almost every case, it has been MILITARY WHISTLE-BLOWERS who have blown these cases out. You really need to educate yourself on the subject, because you look like someone who only has an axe to grind instead of someone who actually is interested in learning the truth.

Yo whislte-blowers happen all the fucking time. To point them out and say "see, the military is ok!" is ridiculous.

This is the first time I've ever considered you to be unwilling to learn the truth. It's unfortunate for you, really.

What truth? That the military doesn't train people to kill other people?

However, saving people and killing people are different things. It's far easier to get someone to run into a burning building than to have him shoot a guy. It requires more conditioning. A fresh new recruit has more qualms about killing than someone who has seen a buch of action. It is not something people do without some form of indoctrination.

If that were true, PTSD would not be the massive problem that it is.

Yes it would. Pointing to people getting fucked up after the fact in no way means they had problems (at least, problems that prevented them from doing anything) during the act. PTSD is what happens after one realizes what was fucked up. Are you always so thick?

Actually, the untrained draftees are far more likely to take undisciplined actions like mass killings and torture. The professional military DOES weed out that sort of thing, despite what you want to believe.

I did not say anything about mass killings and torture. I said that a proffesional military is better at fighting. While of course a group of soldiers is less likely to go on a murder-rampage, an individual soldier is far better at shooting an enemy when alone than an untrained dude.




I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I do not think the military loves killing, but they are far better at actually doing it. That is; when faced with someone they don't know carrying a gun they are quicker to shoot them. That is not bad, in fact it is good and the reason why having a military is important. But it also means they have less of a problem with it. Not no problem, but less of a problem because if they had the same problems most other people would have they wouldn't shoot as fast.
Now, given that (and it would be foolish to deny it), you can see several problems arise. Especially given the circumstances soldiers are put in. They are out there fighting the enemy, but they are also out there given authority over prisoners (the enemy), guns and prisons and their fellow soldiers who being men are prone to brag. They're out there facing an enemy which has absolutely no recognisable features and who could be anyone from a little girl to a kind old grandfather. The enemy can be anyone and is willing to do almost everything. They're not colour-coded for your convenience like in the old days, so the only thing you can be sure of is that they're not your fellow soldiers.

I am sure I don't have to tell you that circumstances like this can bring about some pretty horrible stuff like torture and killing innocents. What my objection in essence is is that the US military hasn't done enough to prevent this. In fact, it has bred a mindset in it's soldiers that makes them more ready to think that stuff is okay. Of course it isn't merily the military which has brought it about. The administration and other americans such as tv-commentators have fed it. The objection is actually two-fold, first the military has created a base of soldiers that are willing to go trough a lot and do stuff others wouldn't even dream of for the love of their country. This wouldn't be so bad, but secondly the military has also neglected (and in some cases due to the administration of the time encouraged) to do anything about the abuses. Basically both these problems feed eachother. The first wouldn't be bad if not for the second, and the second wouldn't be nearly as bad if not for the first.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah wow tell me more fascinating stories. It doesn't matter whether everyone loses their ability to think for themselves. In fact, to dismiss what I say with that is ridiculous because that's not how this stuff works. When you get into the army you are taught how to kill without problem, that is already brainwashing since normal people have problems with just killing people they don't know.

This is not really true, on 2 levels. Most people won't just randomly kill others, true. However, most people will kill those who are a threat. The difference between us and the military is that they are in a situation where so many more people truly are a threat, it is easy to make mistakes. But that has to do with their situation, not "brainwashing" per se. You see this same type of reaction often in war zones, by all involved.

No, that isn't true. Even killing someone who poses a threat is very hard. That's why a professional army is so much better at fighting than a bunch of untrained draftees. It's not about them being better shots, it's about them being in a far better mindset that allows them to kill people without hesistating.

That's why you don't send new recruits to the war earlier. You have to train them to obey orders without doubt and to get rid of emotional objections to shooting someone. Killing is not easy.

I never said killing was easy. I consider myself pretty peaceful. Yet, I assure you I would not hesitate to kill someone if I needed to protect my kids (or any other kids, for that matter). If I had I the means, I would not hesitate.

But that's an emotional kill. Emotional killings are far easier to do. Hell, the majority of murders happen within close circles because for some reason it's easier to kill someone you know than someone you don't (or when someone you love isn't within range).

[thegreekdog]

Snorri, if I catch your main "beefs" with the US military, they are:

(1) The US military tortures prisoners and does not do enough to prevent torturing prisoners.

My response to this is, yeah, you're right. However, other countries aren't involved enough with capturing these terrorists, so there is no "opportunity" (probably not the right word) for other countries to torture prisoners.

(2) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing they are awesome.

So?

(3) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing everything they do is okay.

I don't agree with this, for the same reasons as Woodruff. There simply isn't evidence of this and there is evidence that they don't do this (for example, the whistleblowing that Woodruff mentions).

Frankly, I think you've seen the error of your ways and are coming around. It just takes you a while because you think you're always right about everything.

[Snorri1234]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

Your ignorance is overmatched only by your willingness to display it. TeamCC must be completely embarrassed to have you represent them. You should be embarrassed at your own statements, but I fear you're entirely too stupid for that sort of introspection.

Sorry Woodruff, but I was educated by a generation of Vietnahm vets and even went to college with the often homeless, often borderline psychotic remnants who were finally after 20 years able to piece their lives together. The truth is that the US is very far from pure. The truth is that the lines between who is a civilian and who is not is extremely blurred.

I think this is a very important point. It highlights a very specific problem with going to war on something like terror. Like the Vietnam-war, the enemy essentially blends into the populace. Since they're not wearing fancy coloured uniforms the only way you can know for certain someone is an enemy is when he runs towards you carrying a gun.

That's a very bad way to fight a war, so the solution would be to engage people who are being less suspicious. Every single civilian is a potential enemy. That's another way of saying "more collateral damage".

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, if I catch your main "beefs" with the US military, they are:

(1) The US military tortures prisoners and does not do enough to prevent torturing prisoners.

My response to this is, yeah, you're right. However, other countries aren't involved enough with capturing these terrorists, so there is no "opportunity" (probably not the right word) for other countries to torture prisoners.

(2) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing they are awesome.

So?

(3) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing everything they do is okay.

I don't agree with this, for the same reasons as Woodruff. There simply isn't evidence of this and there is evidence that they don't do this (for example, the whistleblowing that Woodruff mentions).

Frankly, I think you've seen the error of your ways and are coming around. It just takes you a while because you think you're always right about everything.

Your answer to number one is ridiculous. The fact is that other countries have enough opportunities to torture prisoners. They just do more about it. While this could be attributed to them having less soldiers to monitor, it's also a case of the US military not doing more about it.

Number second response is holy shit I just explained that there is where shit can go wrong. They aren't simply being taught they're awesome, they're being told that they're the best of everything. There is nothing as strong as an US soldier. They're not simply an army that tries to do good, they're the Force of Justice.
That shit can go wrong, especially when you don't try to keep them very much in line.


As for the third thing. Pointing out whistle-blowers is absurd. Not only does it miss the point (that being that telling people they're the most awesome thing ever and that they're fighting for the most holiest of things tends to make them go into a logical loop) but it also looks like you're saying that whatever shit happened wasn't bad because one dude went out and told everyone about it. The whole point of whistle-blowers is that they are the ones who alert others about shit that shouldn't be going on in a well-regulated area. They are essentially a canary in a mine that dies too late. When they speak up shit has already gone tremendously wrong.

[mpjh]

If you want first hand testimony on what happens to soldiers in an unjust war, just do a search for "Winter Soldier."

[HapSmo19]

So what makes a war just in your opinion?

[thegreekdog]

If you want first hand testimony on what happens to soldiers in an unjust war, just do a search for "Winter Soldier."

Bucky and Captain America?

[Woodruff]

The terrorists do not use the civilians as shields. We use the civilians as targets because we don't know who the enemy is anymore. We are just scared little turd buckets killing whatever moves.

Your ignorance is overmatched only by your willingness to display it. TeamCC must be completely embarrassed to have you represent them. You should be embarrassed at your own statements, but I fear you're entirely too stupid for that sort of introspection.

Sorry Woodruff, but I was educated by a generation of Vietnahm vets and even went to college with the often homeless, often borderline psychotic remnants who were finally after 20 years able to piece their lives together. The truth is that the US is very far from pure. The truth is that the lines between who is a civilian and who is not is extremely blurred.

I don't disagree with anything you've said there. That's a FAR CRY from stating that we're using civilians as targets or the statement that the terrorists do not use civilians as shields. Are you seriously justifying those statements?

I would also point out that the U.S. military's training of it's soldiers in how to wage war during the Vietnam Era was MASSIVELY different than it is now. In fact, the two simply cannot be compared.

And if you believe I think the U.S. is "pure", then I can only presume you've never read a single post of mine.

Furthermore, as I wrote above, the US has taken the first step to blurr the lines even further. When the US allowed soldiers in Arizona to run remote control planes in Afghanistan, Arizona became the "front" of the war. The only difference, then, between us and the Terrorists is the technology we have (and, hopefully, our ethics/values).

Not even close to the truth, unless you believe we are using that technology from Arizona for the sole purpose of causing terror on the population of Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that?

[notyou2]

Woody's back

[notyou2]

im a united states marine and i happen to hate hear everyone bad mouth not only our country but specifically accusing marines and soldiers of atrocities that for one go against everything ive ever learned in the corps

anyone care to vent?

Well I've been a space marine for many more years than I haven't and I am fed up with all you straight laced people telling me that the affects of LSD, and pot, and coke, and hash, and psylocibin, and opium, and mescaline, and, well you get the drift, are bad for you and have a harmful effect on your mentality.

I'll have you know I have been on the front lines defending this planet from the invading space mutants from Nebulon 5 for all these years and if I wasn't we would all be mindless zombies working for the nefarious Nebulon 5 government.

Where's the thanks? All I hear are you lefty commies spewing diatribe about "leave the poor Nebulon 5 civies alone". Don't you get it, they are the ones pulling the strings of the Nebulon 5 military arm.

Anyone else care to vent?

[Woodruff]

You said you thought it was a good thing to kill a terrorist. I took that to mean "in any circumstance".

No, definitely not. If they're already captured, then that's just senseless. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As to your first point, regarding "better than them", I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. If our response to their terroristic actions is that we "take the fight to them" (such as in Afghanistan), this in no way puts us at their level. We are not killing innocents intentionally just to make a point or to cause fear. A far, far different thing.

"Taking the fight to them" is really an absurd solution to terrorism. At least in the way the administration has done it.

Almost everything the Bush administration did was absurd, so...

And I was talking about killing terrorists being a good thing. If you don't explain your sentences more exactly I can only read them in a broad sense and therefore assume you are talking about that every terrorist needs to be killed.

The ones who are captured don't need to be killed. The others do, unless we can capture them without excessively endangering our troops or civilians in the area by doing so (as opposed to the same risks in trying to kill them).

Uh...I've NEVER seen a single US military advertisement that said anything remotely like what you've said here. I'm afraid I've gotta call bullshit on that one. Can you give me an example, perhaps?

Of course not. Recruitment adds don't talk in all-caps.
Seriously though, every single US military ad I've seen is an indoctrination-vid talking about how the US Military is the best thing since fucking ever. It's not even subtle.

Your unwillingness to stand by your statements isn't very subtle either - no examples for us?

I find it fascinating that you believe that members of the U.S. military at large "are taught how to kill without problem". If that is the case, why do we have such a tremendous problem with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with our military veteran population? If you believe most members of the U.S. military kill without any problem, then I'm afraid your understanding of things is skewed quite badly.

Taught to kill without any problem is not the same as "actually being able to kill without problem". You can't seriously say though that a soldier has the same problem with killing as an average citizen without training does. Every single army in history has as basic purpose in training to get their troops to kill others.

Of course...that's what training is. Just like an emergency room doctor is able to deal with the sorts of things seen in an emergency room far better than an average citizen without training is. It's simply training.

Incorrect. I've been there, Snorri. What you're stating simply is not true. I don't know what else to say about it other than you're quite frankly wrong. As to the Administration, that speaks volumes ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION, not about the military.

Bullshit. People don't start torturing other people if they aren't helped along the way. It may not even be active help, passive letting them go on is also very very very bad, but it isn't something that just happens.

So then explain to me why some kids (and adults) torture animals. Explain to me why some kids bully (which is a form of torture). Why is it...are these kids getting some sort of secret training in this? Is someone helping them along the way toward this? Or is it, as I've stated, simply the nature of some individuals to be that way?

Clearly, you've convinced yourself and unwilling or unable to look at the situation from a rational perspective. That's really unfortunate but trust me...this is YOUR problem, not a problem with the U.S. military. Unfortunately, you appear to be ok with that.

Brilliant response! Instead of trying to find fault with accepted psychological research you just try to insult me.

Perhaps if you could actually provide some of this "accepted psychological research" it might make a difference. I would suggest that the research is probably accurate while your attempt at applying it is missing the mark badly.

Again, you're wrong. We are trained to object. In fact, HOW THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE WORLD HAS FOUND OUT ABOUT MOST OF THESE OFFENSES? Do you really think the military is stupid enough to just let reporters wander around while torture is happening? In almost every case, it has been MILITARY WHISTLE-BLOWERS who have blown these cases out. You really need to educate yourself on the subject, because you look like someone who only has an axe to grind instead of someone who actually is interested in learning the truth.

Yo whislte-blowers happen all the fucking time. To point them out and say "see, the military is ok!" is ridiculous.

You stated that the military is trained to carry out these abhorrent actions. Yet the whistle-blowers happen within the military. It's far more reasonable than your taking the torture instances and saying "see, the military is a bunch of brainwashed torturers".

This is the first time I've ever considered you to be unwilling to learn the truth. It's unfortunate for you, really.

What truth? That the military doesn't train people to kill other people?

That's a far cry from what you're attempting to claim.

However, saving people and killing people are different things. It's far easier to get someone to run into a burning building than to have him shoot a guy. It requires more conditioning. A fresh new recruit has more qualms about killing than someone who has seen a buch of action. It is not something people do without some form of indoctrination.

If that were true, PTSD would not be the massive problem that it is.

Yes it would. Pointing to people getting fucked up after the fact in no way means they had problems (at least, problems that prevented them from doing anything) during the act. PTSD is what happens after one realizes what was fucked up. Are you always so thick?

What was that you mentioned about insults? If the military members were so "brainwashed", then they wouldn't be so bothered by seeing the things they do on the battlefield. Clearly, it isn't a case of brainwashing.

Actually, the untrained draftees are far more likely to take undisciplined actions like mass killings and torture. The professional military DOES weed out that sort of thing, despite what you want to believe.

I did not say anything about mass killings and torture.

You haven't said anything about torture? Really?

I said that a proffesional military is better at fighting. While of course a group of soldiers is less likely to go on a murder-rampage, an individual soldier is far better at shooting an enemy when alone than an untrained dude.

If this is ALL you're claiming, then why the overblown statements about "the U.S. military's brainwashing scaring the fucking shit out of you"?

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I do not think the military loves killing, but they are far better at actually doing it.

Of course they are. They should be. I WANT them to be. None of that has anything to do with brainwashing, it has to do with training.

That is; when faced with someone they don't know carrying a gun they are quicker to shoot them. That is not bad, in fact it is good and the reason why having a military is important. But it also means they have less of a problem with it. Not no problem, but less of a problem because if they had the same problems most other people would have they wouldn't shoot as fast.
Now, given that (and it would be foolish to deny it), you can see several problems arise. Especially given the circumstances soldiers are put in. They are out there fighting the enemy, but they are also out there given authority over prisoners (the enemy), guns and prisons and their fellow soldiers who being men are prone to brag. They're out there facing an enemy which has absolutely no recognisable features and who could be anyone from a little girl to a kind old grandfather. The enemy can be anyone and is willing to do almost everything. They're not colour-coded for your convenience like in the old days, so the only thing you can be sure of is that they're not your fellow soldiers.
I am sure I don't have to tell you that circumstances like this can bring about some pretty horrible stuff like torture and killing innocents. What my objection in essence is is that the US military hasn't done enough to prevent this. In fact, it has bred a mindset in it's soldiers that makes them more ready to think that stuff is okay.

NOBODY in the military thinks that torture is "ok". That isn't to say it doesn't happen and it's certainly not to say that there aren't some psychopaths who don't enjoy carrying it out. Some will claim that it's JUSTIFIED, but our training drums into us that it is NOT acceptable. Unfortunately, there has not been enough done in the cases when torture has occurred to keep those psychopaths and those in charge of them in check...this is a bit of a failure by the higher-up military, but mostly this is a failure by the civilian oversight (the Secretary of Defense and above).

But none of this has anything to do with "brainwashing" because I'll state it again...we are trained that these are NOT appropriate actions. We are trained to follow the Geneva Convention Articles. We are not trained that there is ANY gray area therein. Period, end of story. That some do go outside of that training is exactly that...them going outside of their training.

[jonesthecurl]

im a united states marine and i happen to hate hear everyone bad mouth not only our country but specifically accusing marines and soldiers of atrocities that for one go against everything ive ever learned in the corps

anyone care to vent?

Well I've been a space marine for many more years than I haven't and I am fed up with all you straight laced people telling me that the affects of LSD, and pot, and coke, and hash, and psylocibin, and opium, and mescaline, and, well you get the drift, are bad for you and have a harmful effect on your mentality.

I'll have you know I have been on the front lines defending this planet from the invading space mutants from Nebulon 5 for all these years and if I wasn't we would all be mindless zombies working for the nefarious Nebulon 5 government.

Where's the thanks? All I hear are you lefty commies spewing diatribe about "leave the poor Nebulon 5 civies alone". Don't you get it, they are the ones pulling the strings of the Nebulon 5 military arm.

Anyone else care to vent?

Ah: a puritan who's never taken speed.

[mpjh]

knowingly

[joecoolfrog]

So what makes a war just in your opinion?

For a start one that isn't motivated by corporate or individual profit.

[thegreekdog]

So what makes a war just in your opinion?

For a start one that isn't motivated by corporate or individual profit.

Hey man, if I profit from such a way, it's a just war.

I guess from your point of view, the Iraq War must be a just war, since really no one has profited.

[mpjh]

Except for Haliburton, Blackwater, war plane manufacturers, ammunition makers, federal contractors, oil companies, etc, etc.

[thegreekdog]

Except for Haliburton, Blackwater, war plane manufacturers, ammunition makers, federal contractors, oil companies, etc, etc.

Military contractors yes.

Oil companies no.

[mpjh]

Oil companies, very much yes. The uncertainty in the market got them the nighest oil prices ever, and still up there. They made the most profit by any set of companies in history.

[thegreekdog]

Oil companies, very much yes. The uncertainty in the market got them the nighest oil prices ever, and still up there. They made the most profit by any set of companies in history.

Interesting... go to war to create uncertainty in the marketplace to make oil prices higher.

[PLAYER57832]

Snorri, if I catch your main "beefs" with the US military, they are:

(1) The US military tortures prisoners and does not do enough to prevent torturing prisoners.

My response to this is, yeah, you're right. However, other countries aren't involved enough with capturing these terrorists, so there is no "opportunity" (probably not the right word) for other countries to torture prisoners.

(2) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing they are awesome.

So?

(3) The US military brainwashes its soldiers into believing everything they do is okay.

I don't agree with this, for the same reasons as Woodruff. There simply isn't evidence of this and there is evidence that they don't do this (for example, the whistleblowing that Woodruff mentions).

Frankly, I think you've seen the error of your ways and are coming around. It just takes you a while because you think you're always right about everything.

Your answer to number one is ridiculous. The fact is that other countries have enough opportunities to torture prisoners. They just do more about it. While this could be attributed to them having less soldiers to monitor, it's also a case of the US military not doing more about it.

Number second response is holy shit I just explained that there is where shit can go wrong. They aren't simply being taught they're awesome, they're being told that they're the best of everything. There is nothing as strong as an US soldier. They're not simply an army that tries to do good, they're the Force of Justice.
That shit can go wrong, especially when you don't try to keep them very much in line.


As for the third thing. Pointing out whistle-blowers is absurd. Not only does it miss the point (that being that telling people they're the most awesome thing ever and that they're fighting for the most holiest of things tends to make them go into a logical loop) but it also looks like you're saying that whatever shit happened wasn't bad because one dude went out and told everyone about it. The whole point of whistle-blowers is that they are the ones who alert others about shit that shouldn't be going on in a well-regulated area. They are essentially a canary in a mine that dies too late. When they speak up shit has already gone tremendously wrong.

I am afraid I gotta agree with greek on this one.

You eluded to the real issue in your answer to my post, though. The real problem is that soldiers are basically still trained to fight an "enemy" in the "battlefield". But really, modern warfare, these recent wars anyway, is much more like a high-intensity police action, amongst civilians.

One one point I really disagree with you. Germany, for example, is still heavily involved in the war. Yet, if you were to listen to their politicians talk, even during recent campaigns, they talk not about the war, but about "rebuilding" and such. The population is almost given the impression that these are just a bunch of Red Cross workers who happen to carry guns. Instead, their military IS involved. However, no one has as many troops in the US. No other country allows their troops to be in the extremely hazardous combat areas like the US troops. So, it is absolutely fair to say that our guys do more damage because they are more often where damage is being done.

[PLAYER57832]

Oil companies, very much yes. The uncertainty in the market got them the nighest oil prices ever, and still up there. They made the most profit by any set of companies in history.

Interesting... go to war to create uncertainty in the marketplace to make oil prices higher.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with mpjh's assertion at the moment, but it is a fact that the oil companies have gotten more profit in the past 2 years than ever before in history... even while most other companies are losing money.

And, as to the potential.. just look at world history, particularly from about 1880-1920, some even beyond.

[thegreekdog]

Oil companies, very much yes. The uncertainty in the market got them the nighest oil prices ever, and still up there. They made the most profit by any set of companies in history.

Interesting... go to war to create uncertainty in the marketplace to make oil prices higher.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with mpjh's assertion at the moment, but it is a fact that the oil companies have gotten more profit in the past 2 years than ever before in history... even while most other companies are losing money.

And, as to the potential.. just look at world history, particularly from about 1880-1920, some even beyond.

My skepticism comes from the idea that instead of the government taking the oil, selling it at a small profit to the oil companies, which then would sell it to consumers at a large profit, the government decided, instead, to cause uncertainty in the market by invading Iraq.

[PLAYER57832]

Oil companies, very much yes. The uncertainty in the market got them the nighest oil prices ever, and still up there. They made the most profit by any set of companies in history.

Interesting... go to war to create uncertainty in the marketplace to make oil prices higher.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with mpjh's assertion at the moment, but it is a fact that the oil companies have gotten more profit in the past 2 years than ever before in history... even while most other companies are losing money.

And, as to the potential.. just look at world history, particularly from about 1880-1920, some even beyond.

My skepticism comes from the idea that instead of the government taking the oil, selling it at a small profit to the oil companies, which then would sell it to consumers at a large profit, the government decided, instead, to cause uncertainty in the market by invading Iraq.

The government was not the beneficiary. The government responds to pressure. And, out right theivery by governments is rather frowned upon lately. Now they have to be more circumspect.

besides, if the government did cease anything, they would have to resell it at cost, the government is generally forbidden from taking any profit. The government gains in other ways.