Our Troops Are The Good Guys, Some “Liberals” Hate That

[ProSense]

Our Troops Are The Good Guys, Some “Liberals” Hate That

When it comes to war and the military, there are two attitudes that I despise. The first, and more widespread, comes from the right and their insistence that military action and decisions should never be questioned. Attempts to probe the military are always regarded by this group as traitorious rather than the necessary function of a strong democracy.

The second group without a clue are liberals who buy into the caricature of America’s soldiers as bloodthirsty savages who kill for the heck of it. Glenn Greenwald is in this camp. Greenwald insists that things like killing of Iraqi civilians in the Wikileaks video and Abu Ghraib are just standard operating procedure for American soldiers, and not aberrations from the norm

In the case of the Wikileaks video, Greenwald characterizes it as “the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety”. Except in the mindset of the soldiers shown, this wasn’t just some guy, but part of a group of insurgents. While it’s very clear that the military coverup of the activities was wrong, and possibly a crime, it galls me that it becomes so simple for people “over here” to Monday morning quarterback the decisions soldiers make in the field when they feel their lives and the lives of others are on the line.

This incident should be completely probed by an independent body, but to indict the entire U.S. military over a video like this is stupid. Furthermore, it isn’t as if Wikileaks just released the video. Every element that Wikileaks put out alongside the video was designed to indict the soldiers and the military coverup in the worst light possible. It was nearly as dishonest as the post-incident bullshit spin the Pentagon put out.

more

Anyone have family members in the military? Are they bloodthirsty?

Following the Wikileaks incident, what was the purpose of the release? The event occurred in 2007, it was reported then, though the video adds graphic detail. It's one of the many atrocities of the Iraq war and the Bush years. Yet somehow this inicident is being used by some to indict the entire military. If the video sparks outrage, where are the calls for a full investigation to hold the responsible parties accountable? If an investigation isn't the point, what is it?

Still Work To Be Done

<...>

The comments I got on this thread make it clear that some out of date thinking still permeates a certain faction of the left. No matter how clear one makes it that while the overwhelming majority of America’s armed forces perform their job admirably, and that the leadership of the military needs strong civilian oversight, and that deviations deserve investigation and possible prosecution, for some the military is just simply always wrong.

In their minds, the military – particularly the U.S. military, is just simply a coalition of mindless thugs designed and operating on the mindset of expanding American empire or whatever the euphemism is this week. There’s no room in this mindset for the American military that is often first on the scene to international disasters, that is the backbone of the NATO alliance, fighting against terrorists, or pirates.

<...>

The idea that good young American men and women join the military and perform honorable duty is cast aside for the idea that they’re a bunch of Xbox adrenaline junkies who get a thrill from killing ethnic minorities in the name of American conquest.

Such thoughts repulse me, and it saddens me that they have any currency on the left, let alone a small but vocal group of backers. As is the case with wingnuts, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. I’m just some guy with a blog, but when someone unfairly attacks the military or traffics in b.s. against them, I’ll be as quick to talk about it as when the military requires criticism, condemnation, and demands for change.

[tekisui]

1. What was the purpose of the release? Are you really asking that?

[ProSense]

2. Yes. n/t

[tekisui]

3. It is important to see thruths. Especially those that

are tried to keep hidden. There should be investigations. I wish Obama or Congress would call for investigations.

They should also get ahead of the 'botched' Afghanistan raid and subsequent cover-up while they are at it.

[ProSense]

7. "There should be investigations."

The outrage has focused on generalizations about the bloodthirsty military, which is why I asked what was the point of the release. At the very least, I expected that anyone picking up the story would make this the central point. That hasn't happened.

[tekisui]

12. THat was a reasonable starting point.

Next, the logical question is what to do about it. There should be investigations.

Was this an aberration? Is this type of behavior routine? Does the military think this was acceptable engagement? If not, where in the chain of command go wrong?

If it is found to be systemic, we have very big problems.

[dencol]

77. I don't know about any other troops...

But the ones in the video certainly were bloodthirsty and murderous. I'm not sure it's their fault though - they should have NEVER been put in that situation and would probably be great people if they weren't needlessly placed under such horrible circumstances.

[Gman2]

4. Our troops are, OUR TROOPS. They arent all heroes. They arent all moral.

We need to go back to exceptional heroics earning status. Now, all you have to do is follow orders, and you are rewarded hero status. Like the 25 valedictroians, it is PC crapola. We do damage. We are exceptional at disrupting. That is an ignoble effort, at one level, and on another level, if you are so bad, noone will F with you.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Correct. American troops are to follow the Geneva Convention - they are all taught this information

It's up to the leadership, from Platoon Ldr/SGT up to President of the United States to set the tone of MORAL LEADERSHIP.

When our troops breech the Geneva Convention, it is up to their immediate military superior to report it to the Squad Leader - Platoon Sergeant - Platoon Leader - Company Commander. At the Company level an investigation should be first conducted.

We should have ZERO tolerance for war crimes.

I suspect that NOTHING has changed with regard to military "cover up" since none of the General Officers have been replaced from the last Administration. Therefore, war crimes are covered up and the majority of soldiers who do have a SOUND moral compass dare not speak out.

The whistle blowers have no support at the lower ranks of the military when the brass is corrupt.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Stop NOW! This is UN-SAT. Liberals serve in the Armed Forces too... SHAME!

Shame on anyone who would disrespect and label us "liberals" as unpatriotic.

As an unabashed LIBERAL, I have always respected the troops along most other of my LIBERAL PEERS.

I served in the military and consider the people who HATE the troops most are the LAZY CHICKEN-HAWKS who arm-chair quarterback these two occupations from the safety of the home front.

I have much more respect for young people who get out and protest these occupations than those who enjoys cheerleading for these horrific and UNJUST Occupations because they never have to pay a price NOR do their children.

Liberals are AMERICANS too. We bleed the same as the other troops when in battle.

SHAME ON YOU FOR DISRESPECTING LIBERAL PATRIOTS!

It's the Civilians and the General Officer ranks who are responsible for *endless war* not the average soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.

[ProSense]

11. "I served in the military and consider the people who HATE the troops most are...LAZY CHICKEN-HAWK"

And people who labeled them bloodthirsty savages.

[ShortnFiery]

19. You're using hyperbole. Some troops are socio-pathic and should be discharged.

But guess what, we don't have enough cannon fodder so these anti-social troops continue to serve.

Yes Virginia, there are a number of bloodthirsty troops. If they weren't on their first tour, a SIGNIFICANT number morphed into cold hearted killers by their third or fourth tour ... for survival.

If they don't morph into BLOODTHIRSTY KILLERS, they'll have hell to pay when they return home and have to face their conscious as they reflect on what they HAD TO DO to survive.

War is MENTAL ILLNESS - INSANE - BLOODTHIRSTY - TERRORISM by it's very nature.

That's why when we go to war, we need to either "get it over" or withdraw.

Our troops are suffering more than in "the physical."

BRING THEM HOME NOW! They can then strive to regain their moral compass as well as their emotional wellbeing.

What they have been asked to do for up to four or five tours is beyond the pale.

STOP THESE OCCUPATIONS NOW!

[ProSense]

23. "Some troops are socio-pathic," but you weren't and that goes for many others.

You are supporting a generalization aimed a tarnishing the entire military while trying to claim that you served patriotically. You can't have it both ways.

There are those who will abuse authority, but most people do not.

[ShortnFiery]

26. You don't get it. The General Officers and Civilian leader are the ones being CHALLENGED.

You are diverting the issue.

Nobody with any insight is blaming the troops. They are doing what they have to do to survive.

Bless our troops!

Show that you care by demanding they come home NOW?

[ProSense]

28. It's lame.

When you write an entire piece trying to condemn military policy using soldiers as bait, that's lame.

Greenwald simply goes overboard with his condemnation and targets the entire military by portraying the incident, which he considers horrific, as routine.

The WikiLeaks video is not an indictment of the individual soldiers involved -- at least not primarily. Of course those who aren't accustomed to such sentiments are shocked by the callous and sadistic satisfaction those soldiers seem to take in slaughtering those whom they perceive as The Enemy (even when unarmed and crawling on the ground with mortal wounds), but this is what they're taught and trained and told to do. If you take even well-intentioned, young soldiers and stick them in the middle of a dangerous war zone for years and train them to think and act this way, this will inevitably be the result. The video is an indictment of the U.S. government and the war policies it pursues.

<...>

The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events. The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.

[ShortnFiery]

67. When Countries wage "endless war" the atrocities pile up.

The truth is that it's not just the troops, but AMERICA and AMERICANS who have lost their moral compasses.

The truly caring and patriotic Americans are organizing for an END to these endless OIL WARS.

Sending young men and women to kill and die for Geo-Politics is far worse than lame, it's VILE.

Again, if you care about the welfare of the poor bloody infantry line troops help END THESE OCCUPATIONS.

As a person who has lived within a Military Community all of her life, I consider your generalizations both half baked and bordering on jingoistic.

You have no idea the horrific acts our troops have to do just to survive in combat not to mention repeated tours to HELL. Everyone sees and does things that are INHUMAN.

That's why WAR is HELL and should be fought rarely with a quick end to hostilities.

But no, AMERICA is in perpetual WAR-MONGERING mode.

To continue to condone this madness makes us all IMMORAL SOULS.

[dencol]

79. The bad troops are the ones tarnishing the image of the military.

People pointing out the problems aren't tarnishing the image, just explaining what they see.

[ProSense]

82. Bad cops tarnish the image of the police department

Police brutality is a problem, but condemning the entire police force is stupid.

[dencol]

83. Agreed. But in that case the police should try to clean up the department.

Just like the military should. Otherwise, criticism should be expected, and is well-deserved.

[Ignis]

105. It's only stupid if those departments don't change their policies.

If you let bad cops be bad cops in your department over and over and over again, guess what? It's no longer a "few bad apples," it's a training/policy/enforcement issue.

[dencol]

78. I don't like generalizations.

But many of those troops in the video were bloodthirsty savages. However, I am inspired by the ones who tried to care for the children and get them back to the US base while others blamed their father/guardian for bringing them to a "battle." Ironically, we brought the battle to them.

[ShortnFiery]

100. "... we brought the battle to them." And WE, THE PEOPLE must demand that it END. eom

[dionysus]

92. nowhere at all did he say all liberals hate the soldiers. he said some do. a bunch of them are on

DU. i don't know why this would upset you.

[Enrique]

6. good points, but terrible title

the brother of the Iraqi guy who got killed for no reason doesn't think those U.S. soldiers are "the good guys". Neither do the two new orphans who were lucky to survive themselves. In fact they think those U.S. soldiers are the bad guys. Maybe Oliver Willis can go over there and explain how they are wrong, how U.S. soldiers are really the good guys.

[ProSense]

10. Not everyone is going to

view U.S. soldiers as the good guys, but the point is does that mean they should all be labeled "bloodthirsty"?

[ShortnFiery]

14. Newsflash: NOBODY views the USA Combat troops as "the good guys"

Whatever good we once had has been blown to holy Hell.

Everyone native in Iraq and Afghanistan KNOWS a loved one who was blown to kibbles and bits with OUR smart bombs or helicopter gunships.

WE HAVE LOST THESE OCCUPATIONS ... how many more soldiers and innocent civilians must die so our Administration/Ruling Politicos can play Geo-politics against China's control of the oil market?

[ProSense]

15. Hyperbole. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

24. No the cold, hard truth from a veteran whose Dad and Brother were decorated COMBAT vets. eom

[dionysus]

93. your dad and brother have nothing to do with this.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

155. It's called perspective. I was very close to both of them. eom

[Enrique]

16. to say "our troops are the good guys" is highly offensive

Willis should retract that disgusting title. Many of them might be good guys, but they are not "the good guys". And some of them are really really bad guys.

[ProSense]

18. BS. n/t

[dbmk]

94. How can someone fighting a wrong war be "the good guys"?

I don't subscribe to the idea that the US military can be generalised as wanton killers.
But if the war is not just, does it not leave those ordered to fight it a little short of laying claim to the label "the good guys"?
Even if they on an individual level act decently.

[Ignis]

109. Some people have deliberately forgotten Nuremberg.

We put the "I'm not a bad guy, I was only following bad orders" defense to bed a loooooooooong time ago.

[damonm]

73. Steaming, stinking...CROCK n/t

[ClassWarrior]

135. It was your moron blogger buddy who labeled them "bloodthirsty," not legitimate critics.

NGU.

[damntexdem]

8. It's not so much that they're the good guys -- it's those damned white hats that I can't stand.

;-)

[WhiteTara]

13. sounds like pot stirring to me

and a lot of BS. As a liberal who's father was an army officer and ex husband an AF sgt, I think this is someone's way of trying to stir waves of liberal hatred.

[ProSense]

17. From the Greenwald link in the OP

The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events. The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.

That is shit stirring, and utter BS.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Ask any Vietnam Combat Veteran what they HAD to do to survive? If you're close enough to them

you would be shocked.

We did horrific things in Vietnam.

Killed over 2 Million Vietnamese.

And MOST of the killing was ugly and horrific.

Napalm anyone?

[ProSense]

29. Horrific things were done in Iraq.

Still, the point is that all the soldiers are not responsible for the actions of a few.

War is war, it is never pleasant, but even in war, torture goes against the code of conduct.

[tekisui]

33. Oh yeah,. A few bad apples. Just like Abu Graib.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

35. What does that mean? n/t

[tekisui]

40. I am suggesting it could very well be an endemic and systemic

behavior we witnessed on the wikileaks. It certainly seemed routine and normal to all those participating in the video. The military did two investigations and found nobody did nuthin' wrong.

That indicates this was acceptable behavior from the military's standpoint. Which suggests it was not an aberration, but the norm.

[cali]

46. well said.

and it's beyond lame to label the U.S. troops as "the good guys". Some may be that some of the time, but mostly they're cogs in the war machine.

[ProSense]

47. "The military did two investigations and found nobody did nuthin' wrong."

Is this why those pushing the video aren't calling for an investigation?

It's beginning to appear that the reason for the leak was simply to spark outrage, but against whom: the military?

[tekisui]

52. Yeah, I trust internal military investigations.

:rofl:

Why are you so interested in unraveling why it was released?

[ProSense]

55. "Why are you so interested in unraveling why it was released?"

Curiosity. A lot of outrage, mostly directed at the military. What's the point?

[tekisui]

58. THey may very well deserve it?

In this case, and in the case where special ops dug bullets out of dead women, they deserve it.

[dbmk]

90. Truth? n/t

[Raineyb]

115. Not surprising that you don't get it given the load of crap you posted. n/t

[cowman]

139. I'm a Vietnam combat vet

and I never ever saw any atrocities, did they happen? Yes, but not with the frequency you seem to allude to. I just love these armchair warriors who question life or death decisions that we had to make during a firefight. Most of these chickenhawks, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates and yes most of the civilians serving in the Obama Admin would shit their pants as arty was screaming overhead or if they saw a VC or NVA coming at them. My daughter has served 3 tours in Iraq and is not a bloodthirsty killer, she was called up and she served honorably so the author of this hit piece is full of shit

[SwampG8r]

142. my longest friend in this life

is a disabled vet
is a former door gunner on a helicopter in viet nam
the guy in the movies you see hanging on a sling with a giant machine gun
and provide cover fire for whatever they wanted covered
he says he only saw a half a dozen people get hit by his guns
but he fired thousands of rounds maybe even millions of rounds
and what drove him section 8 and out was where all those rounds ended up
he couldnt take not knowing

sherman said "war is hell"
he would have known

i myself cannot bring myself to not extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone in the field
to me they are the brothers of my uncle TL who strode ashore in northern france to one of the ugliest mornings in history
and my father who had to follow the pacific fleet with a boatload of bulldozers to lay at rest men he considered HIS brothers
and my best friend ever the only person who has never shown me his back Bob who hung out a door and unleashed hell so men he considered HIS brothers could survive
they all get the benefit of the doubt from me who has sat snugly at home

its like i told the pope "if you arent playing the game you dont get to make the rules"

[joe black]

147. Amen brother!

I salute your daughter, I can't imagine three tours.

[ShortnFiery]

148. You weren't serving in the Airborne Infantry - 101st Abn - in 1968 and 69?

My brother did serve two tours ... atrocities were often and widespread.

It was a murky situation and split second decisions were often made in error.

War is TERRORISM (horrific) that's why it should be fought FULL BORE and then ENDED.

[sabrina 1]

84. Well, you can't stir shit if it isn't there to begin with, can you?

[Enrique]

22. looks like he's looking to become a RW media darling

a liberal blogger who is admitting liberals hate the troops! Let's book him asap!

[ProSense]

30. He did no such thing. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

21. Stupid article

The article is nothing more than somebody presenting two extremes and presenting them as if people are so narrow and uncomplicated that they either fit into one camp or the other. Personally I think most people, regardless of which camp they're in, recognize that not every soldier is a bloodthirsty killer and they're not all shining examples of virtue and heroism either.

I treat people as individuals. I have friends who have been in the military and have U.S. Navy bumper stickers on their cars, and I have friends that are Black Bloc anarchists. If somebody comes to me and tells me that they were in the military and they got off killing Iraqis and humiliating them, I'm going to think they're either a sick fuck or they were victims of a war they never should have been asked to fight. Either way, don't expect my support other than I think they should have all the medical care financial help you can in order to get better. If they told me they were in the military and they did what they had to do but didn't like it, well, that's okay with me. If they tell me they were in the military and hated the war they were ordered to fight, well, why would I hate that person?

[ProSense]

27. "recognize that not every soldier is a bloodthirsty killer "

You: "The article is nothing more than somebody presenting two extremes and presenting them as if people are so narrow and uncomplicated that they either fit into one camp or the other."

Again, from the Greenwald link in the OP.

...If you take even well-intentioned, young soldiers and stick them in the middle of a dangerous war zone for years and train them to think and act this way, this will inevitably be the result. The video is an indictment of the U.S. government and the war policies it pursues.

Well, yes people are narrow.

[Downtown Hound]

45. One little disclaimer doesn't take away the point I was trying to make

the author may say that, but then goes on to do exactly what I said he was doing, putting people into one camp or the other. It's just shit stirring, and you're falling for it.

[zeemike]

25. What is disgusting to me is this "support the troops" platitude

Which started after the Viet Nam war to make the first Gulf War under poppy Bush palatable to us all.
It is used as a distraction from the real culprit which is the policies of the ones that want to fight a war of conquest.
The Troops are trained to do what they do, and we train them and approve of that training.
So the shame of this is not on them but on us and the leaders that decide to use unlawful and immoral tactics thinking that they can win by being as brutal and immoral as the worst of the enemies.

So spare me this support the troops crap....We have as a nation fell for this game too often and now much live with the shame it has brought us.

[ProSense]

32. "The Troops are trained to do what they do, and we train them and approve of that training."

You don't think the troops should be supported?

It's really up to you. No one is forcing you to do so, but many people choose to do so. I believe they deserve support.

[zeemike]

48. Yes now just tell me what that means to support the troops

Does it mean cheering when they kill the enemy like a bunch of high school kids at a pep rally?

My fucking tax money supports them and is supposed to give them everything they need....but you want more....you want my approval for everything they do whether it is moral and legal or not...
And that gives the architects of this war cover for doing anything their sociopath hearts want to do...
sorry I will not cheer lead out and out murder....this is not a game.

[ProSense]

49. "but you want more" I don't want a damn thing. That's your call. n/t

[bertman]

31. "Anyone have family members in the military? Are they bloodthirsty?"

You are kidding, right?

Do you understand that what people do during the stress of battle is often completely out of character with their normal personalities? I worked with many very competent grunts and chopper crews in Viet Nam. By competent I mean they did their jobs well. The gunship pilots and crew members were some of what you would call the bloodthirsty types. It was their job to kill the enemy. They were good at it. They relished it. They were stone cold killers who got off on the kills. But if you hung out with them when they weren't doing their job they were some of the most easy-going, hilariously funny, and in some cases quiet/shy types of guys you could imagine. Do you really think they acted like bloodthirsty killers when they were around their moms and dads, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews??

What happens when the killing starts in a war zone is beyond the comprehension of almost anyone who has not been there. That is the reason that so many combat veterans are psychologically messed up after being put into situations where they are doing things that are far outside the norms of society. Things that they know are wrong, but are compelled to do by circumstance. In my experience there were none who acted like bloodthirsty killers when they were not engaged in an action.

Then there is the small minority who need the badass label to make themselves feel worthwhile. It's well documented that there are plenty of incidents where American troops have killed "hajis" just because they hated them. Whether they're Xbox junkies I have no idea, but they are hate-filled people who get off on killing their enemies. To act like that does not happen is to ignore the reality.

In Viet Nam there were many soldiers I knew who were volunteers. Most of them joined up because they were patriotic and after going through their training as soldiers they wanted to go to Viet Nam to kill "gooks". Do you deny that there are many of our military (all volunteer) who are in the service because they want to kill the enemies of America?

Most of our armed forces members serve honorably and try to do the right thing. I have nothing but the highest respect for them. But I don't delude myself into thinking that things have changed so much in 40 years that there aren't still a lot of folks who are going to turn into stone cold, conscienceless killers when the shit hits the fan. That's what they're trained to do and that's what they do. But you can believe the propaganda if you want to.

[ProSense]

34. "You are kidding, right?" No, I'm not

"Do you understand that what people do during the stress of battle is often completely out of character with their normal personalities?"

People do a lot when under tremendous stress, but that isn't the point of the OP.

Most of our armed forces members serve honorably and try to do the right thing. I have nothing but the highest respect for them. But I don't delude myself into thinking that things have changed so much in 40 years that there aren't still a lot of folks who are going to turn into stone cold, conscienceless killers when the shit hits the fan. That's what they're trained to do and that's what they do. But you can believe the propaganda if you want to.

That's the point.

[Jokerman]

36. There are no "good guys" in this mess.

This is just the kind of bullshit I'd expect to read on some right-wing site. I hope like hell it never makes it to the "Greatest" page. I wish I could unrec it ten times.

[ProSense]

37. BS. n/t

[tekisui]

43. Double-BS.n/t

[cultedelaraison]

61. +1

Thanks for posting this.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

42. "but their must be some standard for war. "

The entire comment is confusing. The OP has nothing to do with liberals in the military or liberals and war criminals.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. What was the purpose of the release?

To inform the fucking populace of a fucking ostensible fucking democracy of the fucking actions undertaken in their fucking name.

Was the US war machine always this cool, or only now that Barack Obama is commanding it?

The rash of over-the-top paleo-RW posts up in here is reminding me of when Marge begged Doctor Hibbert to talk Homer out of trying to eat a twenty pound steak.

"Before I purchased an interest in this restaurant I though the same way, but now I consider the occasional eating contest part of a balanced diet."

[tekisui]

41. Obama is infallible.

Anything that happens under him is right, just and noble.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. That's not true

Leaders have to be questioned and that includes Obama.

Anyone with that type of mindset is going to be disappointed.

[ProSense]

44. "To inform the fucking populace of a fucking ostensible fucking democracy of the fucking actions

undertaken in their fucking name."

Really? After all the atrocities witnessed on video, the release of a video of a 2007 incident is to inform?

"Was the US war machine always this cool, or only now that Barack Obama is commanding it?"

Ah, this has to do with Obama? What are the implications for Obama?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. re: What are the implications for Obama?

re: What are the implications for Obama?

Well, there shouldn't be any but it is hard to miss the fact that there is currently a high correlation of fervid administration apologism (not offered as an insulting word) and startling formerly-RW arguments on national security matters.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Had this been released in 2007 regarding an incident in 2004 would you have posted on DU questioning the motives of the release?

In suggesting that your stance here might be influenced the fact that we have changed commanders in chief for the better in the interim I am assuming that you did not take this tack during the Bush administration.

And that is complimentary toward you, relatively.

Excessive partisanship is not as bad as full-on Bircher sociopathy.

[ProSense]

51. "Well, there shouldn't be any but ...

it is hard to miss the fact that there is currently a high correlation of fervid administration apologism (not offered as an insulting word) and startling formerly-RW arguments on national security matters.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Had this been released in 2007 regarding an incident in 2004 would you have posted on DU questioning the motives of the release?"


Why thanks, but what a crock of BS.

[tekisui]

54. BTW, what is the talking point on the Presidential hit of a US citizen?

I've not seen you post on it yet.

[ProSense]

56. Terrorists are terrorists. n/t

[tekisui]

57. How's that?

When does one become a terrorist?

[ProSense]

59. Here:

appropriate thread.

[tekisui]

60. I want to know, exactly, what the standard is.

When can one officially be labeled a terrorist?

Who has the right to make that label, without any trial?

This is a serious question.

[treestar]

71. Of course it's a tough call

And in the Middle East, cannot be made in a decorous and courtly manner.

We had CIA operatives in Yemen who knew some of the hijackers had been in certain safe houses, for example. Are we to stay out of there and let them operate unmolested?

Yet had their reports reached the US in time and had Bushco not been vacationing and not paying attention, something might have been done about it. Had they prevented 911 by killing someone, that would have been wrong? Violating their rights?

[ShortnFiery]

97. It's up to President Obama to investigate and prosecute them NOW!

But he won't because, NOTHING has changed from BushCo. save for this half-assed Health Care Bill that the Insurance Cartel will "work around."

Meet the new boss ...

[dionysus]

108. when you're fresh out of crazy, bring out those tired ass cards...

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

152. When you're fresh out of rudeness, bring out the civility you must have - deep down. eom

[Ignis]

106. It's a straightforward question. Why can't you answer it?

[tekisui]

53. You noticed the correlation, too!

Curious, indeed.

[treestar]

70. You're giving us a choice only of black and white

We don't want the military misused as by Bushco.

But we don't want to do without a military.

[ShortnFiery]

95. Commander-In-Chief is not just an honorary title: President Obama is RESPONSIBLE for the misconduct

of our Military Forces. The TONE and/or MORAL GUIDANCE is transmitted from the top down. If Obama ordered the General Officers to take breeches of the Geneva Convention SERIOUSLY and INVESTIGATE, they would have to follow-through.

It seems that our military can "do no wrong" but damn those cell phone cameras and video have to convey THE TRUTH.

The truth is that war has always been UGLY and often-times IMMORAL. That's why any LEADER with a JUST MORAL CHARACTER sends the troops in "to win" and then withdraws them. Our military is trained to kill and die, not to OCCUPY nations.

Yes, it's all on President Obama. He's the highest leader of our Nation and it's his ultimate responsibility to not MISUSE our troops.

Bring them home NOW!!!

[grahamhgreen]

62. WAR FOR PROFIT IS EVIL. "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government,

"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent."
— Martin Luther King Jr.

All we are doing over there is making money for war profiteers, and oil companies - and screwing up our soldiers minds and bodies.

[whosinpower]

63. What is the purpose of the military?

To protect and defend the nation?

Those attributes are admirable, and there are many in military careers that uphold these to the highest degree.

Here is another question....
when the military is caught doing something that causes more unrest, more destruction, more hatred, such as Abu Ghraib, such as the Fallujah massacre, such as the recently exposed video tape.....
are those actions best exemplified as protecting and defending the nation?

That is not so black and white - there is within that a moral dilemma, because those very actions endanger more US civilians and more US military personnal. Such actions should be thoroughly investigated, and those who made bad decisions should be brought to bear the consequences of their actions - right down to the guy who held the gun.

There will be those who could care less that those actions might put others into harms way, because there will always be a military to take care of business....and where has this gotten us? A bloated budget that threatens to bankrupt the nation, more resentment on the world stage, and of course....more war, the unending gaping maw that sends young kids into situations that they never should have to face.

There is another purpose to the military that is not so admirable, not so grand.....conquest. Conquest for access and control of another nations natural resources...control of a commodity at the behest of a corporation. The spin will not be forthright and honest - it will morph into fighting terrorism, fighting communism or some stupid reason to quell the masses so they will obligingly send their loved ones to fight for something they have no stake in.

I don't blame the military for this. But I do abhore the military industrial complex who profits from death and destruction. If the banksters of the 1930's had any moral conscience, they never would of bankrolled Hitler - and that is a stone cold hard fact that would of saved millions of lives and billions of dollars.

That is the real problem - war=money. That is not the fault of the military. That is the fault of the human attribute of greed.

[donco6]

64. Oh, OK. Good to know.

Killing unarmed civilians = Something Good Guys Do.

May take a while for that to sink in, but I'll work on it.

[ProSense]

65. "Killing unarmed civilians = Something Good Guys Do." Don't be ridiculous. n/t

[Ignis]

110. So, Good Guys don't kill unarmed civilians, right?

Is that an essential component of your moral philosophy or not?

I'd venture that it's an essential component for most Democrats, but feel free to poll it.

[Oregone]

66. Do you really believe they all "good guys"? Each and every one?

And do you really believe that liberals would hate that?

What is wrong with you?

[boppers]

68. Who is dumb enough to still think in "Good Guys/Bad Guys" terms? Are they still children?

This isn't a playground. It's actual war.

[hollowdweller]

69. The military are the only public servants that are worshipped in this country.

Teachers, firefighters even policemen are routinely derided. But any impropriety by the military must be handled with kid gloves.

[Arugula Latte]

72. Bullshit.

Simplistic garbage.

And when was the last time the U.S. military actually "defended" anything? It's been about corporate gain and feeding the military-industrial complex for decades now.

[ProSense]

74. "And when was the last time the U.S. military actually "defended" anything?" Speaking of

"Simplistic garbage" and "bullshit."

What the hell do you think Congress sanctioned in 2001?


Also, where was all the outrage over Bosnia. In fact, people were beside themselves with glee when the statue of Big Dawg when up in Kosovo.

There is so much bullshit hypocrisy when it comes to the military isn't funny: posting the number of dead soldiers to condemn military policy, then lumping all soldiers into the "bloodthirsty" category. What about all the soldiers who speak up? Claiming that there are no good guys is bullshit hyperbole.



Behold the face of pure evil as Navy corpsman Jesse Bedia delivers a baby in Haiti

[Arugula Latte]

75. The invasion of Afghanistan where they've killed massive #s of civilians isn't making us safer

In fact, I'd argue the opposite.

I didn't say there weren't any good guys. But you seem to be implying there aren't any bad guys.

[ProSense]

76. "But you seem to be implying there aren't any bad guys." Nonsense. n/t

[sabrina 1]

80. What a stupid article. One of those faux 'progressives'

pushing the Rovian meme that liberals hate the military. When Rove did it he promptly heard from a thousands of Liberal active duty members of the military and veterans, most of whom invited him to meet them and say that to their faces. Naturally the cowardly little draft-dodger didn't take them up on their invitation.

This is the kind of 'progressive' who worries about what Freepers might think of liberals. Idiot.

[ProSense]

81. "pushing the Rovian meme that liberals hate the military"

Comprehension matters. The piece is doing no such thing.

[tekisui]

85. Sure it is.

And, so are you oh-so-humble questions about the motives of the release.

If you don't buy into the nationalistic-our-troops-are-saints BS, you must be a "liberal" in quotes.

[Raineyb]

117. Yes it is and it's not a surprise that you're pushing this swill. n/t

[mitchtv]

146. BINGO

you said it!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

86. So why isn't Oliver over there fighting for freedom?

And why would I bother to read Oliver, who may claim to be a liberal but who is clearly not liberal, at all?

[jefferson_dem]

87. Your last comment

is messed up and proves you haven't a clue. While you may not agree with Oliver Willis regarding this position, he is a "liberal" insofar as there are such things.

[cornermouse]

136. No.

I looked at his website. Oliver is anything but a liberal.

[CBR]

88. The military does good and bad IMO.

I do not like generalizations about the entire military based on these horrible incidents. My Dad spent 21 years in the Coast Guard. The USCG does a lot of good stuff but we do not really hear about it too much.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

89. I'm about to start serving next month

WEll actually I'm already an E-3 in the Army,my BCT stats in late May :-) Anyway, I certainly don't consider myself a bloodthirsty, trigger happy person . I can't speak for the Apache pilots, but what if they didn't know who was in the van until it was too late? When you get sworn into the military, part of that ceremont includes the words ,"..obey the lawful orders of my superior officers.." No one in their right mind would tell a service member to just shoot up a bunch of civilians.

Let the investigation(s) find the truth. I'm not going to bash a fellow liberal no a fellow service member :-)

[ShortnFiery]

96. Part of the code is to follow the Geneva Conventions = not to fire on unarmed civilians.

Some of the troops speaking in this video need to be investigated and dischared from the military. It's the FAILURE to investigate and prosecute the sociopaths that give the majority of moral troops "a bad reputation." How many have had to STFU and turn the other way because they KNEW that "the brass" would take no action?

[dbmk]

98. Pretty sure the Rules of Engagment does not allow for speculation of that sort

Pretty sure they are not allowed to fire on the van because of some outside chance that it might contain people that have the intention to act hostile. Not being able to act before its to late is one of the occasional drawbacks if you want to be "the good guys".

And from what I could hear on the video, the person that gave the permission to shoot was not given information that warranted giving it - and the information given was at best speculation. Was it given because they wanted to shoot up civilians? No. But they clearly wanted to shoot at something that at that point did not constitute a threat. And that makes the order not "lawful", as far as I can tell. Not deliberately. But through neglect. Both parts of that chain should have been able to see that it was against the RoE to open fire. But wasn't.

I think most of us can see how a soldier in a place like Iraq can be conditioned to enter into that frame of mind. And that was for me the importance of the release of the video. Can't think of anything else in recent years that has so clearly and cold portrayed the human corruption that is one of the costs and causes of the tragedies of war.

And that is why it is worth bringing to light. The more everyone understands the costs - the more hope there is that a serviceman or woman is only put in such situations when the moral imperative is inescapable. And that the processes and tools are improved to avoid such a situation being repeated.

You can question the motives for releasing it - but that does not take anything away from the righteousness of doing so.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Liberal Veterans see it differently, I suppose.

My father and uncles were all liberals and all of them served this nation in the military. So take your predictable anti liberal, anti Veteran bullshit and push it to your Republican pals.
To claim that all service members are good is just vile and dangerous.
If they are all so 'good' why are there systems in the military to adjudicate their crimes?

[Ignis]

112. All of the veterans in my family would agree.

:hi:

[Supersedeas]

101. Shocked to see a VoteVets ad on Fox News what makes the connection bt dependence on Oil

and deployment and casualties suffered by our troops.

Whose side is BigAuto and BigPetrol on?

[niceypoo]

102. "bloodthirsty savages who kill for the heck of it"

The straw man rides again.

[Vattel]

104. exactly

Doesn't it get tiresome? Set up strawman, knock down strawman, set up strawman, knock down strawman, ad nauseum.

[chrisa]

124. Yup. Pretty strawman-ish.

I honestly have not seen one person who was serious have the opinion stated in the blog.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. I wouldn't say "evil," but give a naive, poorly educated 19-year-old a gun

and some dark-skinned people to boss around, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

[Ignis]

107. All of them? 90%? 80%? 70%?

Nonsense.

[Rage Inc.]

113. There ARE no Good Guys in war!

Merely survivors.

[Raineyb]

114. What the hell is the point of this bullshit OP? n/t

[ProSense]

120. To prove that people have comprehension issues.

Those pretending that there aren't "some" people who the OP directly applies to need to read this thread.

Yeah, "some" doesn't mean "all."

[Jakes Progress]

116. One of the dumber OPs in recent months.

[ProSense]

119. One of the dumbest responses ever. n/t

[Jakes Progress]

137. As expected.

[Dr Morbius]

118. There is a marked tendency in this country to blame sides.

Blame the liberals for the stupid idiots on their side.

Blame the conservatives for the stupid idiots on their side.

When will we identify stupidity for what it is? It's just plain stupid to claim the troops are all evil, or all noble. Blame stupidity, in my opinion, and leave the ideology out of it.

[chrisa]

121. The military is rife with corruption.

I have nothing against servicemen and women. However, to claim that the military doesn't have large systematic problems is absurd.

The author of that blog needs to seperate people's complaints against the military from the idea that they're attacking servicemen and women. Most of them aren't.

The military should never be above scrutiny, investigation, and the law. Our Democracy depends on this.

[LittleBlue]

122. LOL... I love the pro military types at DU

Posting articles that derisively refer to "liberals" and attacking Greenwald.

[ProSense]

123. LOL! What?

"pro military types"

What the hell are you talking about?

"and attacking Greenwald"

Is Greenwald supposed to be above criticism by liberals?

[LittleBlue]

125. The article is idiotic

It says that Wikileaks attempts to paint the shooting and coverup in the "worst possible light."

Um... earth to the dummy who wrote that piece, when is a "coverup" (as he calls it) ever a good thing? When should a coverup not be seen in the worst possible light? It's like he's implying a coverup can be cast in a good light, or at least a "not that bad" light. And why should butchering journalists from a gunship ever NOT be seen in "the worst possible light"?

He also says unbelievably stupid shit like the following: "I didn’t and don’t support the Iraq War, but the vast majority of our men and women in the U.S. military are good people who do the right thing." How in the hell can he know the vast majority of men and women in the US armed forces, and that they "do the right thing?" Did he follow all of them and make sure they were doing the right thing, and know them on a personal level? This is a fuzzy, feel-good statement that braindead morons snort up like powdered Kool-Aide, but that is not backed by any evidence statistical or otherwise, nor is it even meaningful in the context of what Greenwald said. Greenwald isn't saying that the majority of soldiers are not "nice people," so we have this Oliver Willis clown using a strawman in addition to being stupid.

[ProSense]

126. Idiotic is not

acknowledging selective editing. In fact, the video brings nothing new to light. It simply shows in graphic detail what was reported.

It may be awkwardly worded, but what the hell is the point of selectively editing the clip in a leak?

"He also says unbelievably stupid shit like the following:'I didn’t and don’t support the Iraq War, but the vast majority of our men and women in the U.S. military are good people who do the right thing.' How in the hell can he know the vast majority of men and women in the US armed forces, and that they 'do the right thing?'"

Given that statement, the OP has a valid point.

[LittleBlue]

129. Jesus Christ, do you know the blogger in the OP is using an axiom

as the basis for his argument, which he comically bolded: "I didn’t and don’t support the Iraq War, but the vast majority of our men and women in the U.S. military are good people who do the right thing."

He's giving mushy, nonsense-laden sentiments like "most soldiers are good people." That doesn't prove anything, other than that blogger is a mental midget.

Furthermore, he doesn't actually refute Greenwald's article, instead relying on axiomatic fluff and an appeal to emotion and patriotism. That's just dead wrong. Posting this moronic blogger's mental flatulence as a refutation to someone with Greenwald's intellect is insulting.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

140. Me thinks he wanted to spar wif us...

I don't really get the point, otherwise.

I guess it boils down (in my little ole mind, anyway) that you despise the action and not the persons caught up carrying it out.

Thus, it is so with humanity. Example: look at what poverty sets people up to do in order to survive

[ClassWarrior]

127. You do realize "bloodthirsty" is the word of this moron blogger, not of the people he's trying...

...to smear, don't you?

NGU.

[ProSense]

128. Here,

from the Greenwald link in the OP:

But there's a serious danger when incidents like this Iraq slaughter are exposed in a piecemeal and unusual fashion: namely, the tendency to talk about it as though it is an aberration. It isn't. It's the opposite: it's par for the course, standard operating procedure, what we do in wars, invasions, and occupation. The only thing that's rare about the Apache helicopter killings is that we know about it and are seeing what happened on video. And we're seeing it on video not because it's rare, but because it just so happened (a) to result in the deaths of two Reuters employees, and thus received more attention than the thousands of other similar incidents where nameless Iraqi civilians are killed, and (b) to end up in the hands of WikiLeaks, which then published it. But what is shown is completely common. That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital.

<...>

The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events. The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.

(bold is in original)

There is nothing ambiguous about his point.

[ShortnFiery]

130. Greenwald is spot on. "EVIL thrives when good people stay silent."

These crimes have consistently been under-played and not fully investigated, much less adjudicated.

When sociopaths are LEADING the military and Obama refuses to hold the Bush Administration accountable for past War Crimes, EVIL WILL THRIVE.

And yes Prosense, the atrocities will pile up because those troops who have a moral compass will STFU rather than being "suicided" and/or demoted by these immoral leaders.

Evil thrives within these two occupations because that is EXACTLY what "endless warmongering" leads to, i.e., moral bankruptcy.

Even the "good troops" are cornered into remaining silent because OUR LEADERS, to include President Obama will NOT fully investigate these incidents that are FAR TOO COMMON when you have troops being sent back four, five and six times into combat. Anyone would LOSE their soul if asked to kill and die that long and that many times ... for our ruling class and their geo-political advantage.

Instead of cheer leading for "the troops" who have NO POWER, how about putting pressure on Our President and General Officers to bring them home NOW?

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

141. Explain to me how anything in that quote is analogous to "bloodthirsty."

NGU.

[last_texas_dem]

132. "Let's hear it for the good guys!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCR7MP0bDo

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Tires]

143. You're seriously asking the "purpose" of releasing the video??

If you don't know, you're better off just going to wikileaks and asking them yourself...


And PLEASE try to make the distinction between "indicting the whole military" and "indicting an illegal invasion and occupation jump-started by false testimony and manufactured evidence"

And your boy can rip Greenwald if he wants, but he's probably closer to the truth than you think -- Because it isn't just Abu Ghraib and the Wikileaks...There has been a nice, long pattern of 'regrettable accidents' since the start, and that's just the stuff the Pentagon wasn't able to suppress...

[jeanpalmer]

144. Many people's attitudes toward the military

would be better if they were doing what they are supposed to be doing -- protecting the Homeland. That is, setting up on our shorelines, patrolling the border, preparing to defeat any invader. Instead, they've become a massive occupying force all across the world, with the goal of securing oil and other natural resources held/produced by others. And in pursuing that course, they're occupying, killing and inflicting injustices on many innocent people. As in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Supposedly they're required to obey lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones. They obeyed the order to invade Iraq, but when they got there and discovered they had been seent there on a ruse to find WMD that didn't exist, their job was to confront the reality that the invasion wasn't justified and needed to be stopped. And therefore their job was to disobey any order that perpetuated the occupation. How many of them did that? Hardly any. Almost all of them continued to soldier on and inflict horrendous injuries on an undeserving local population as if they had no conscienes telling them that wahat they were doing was illegal.

So I can't work up much enthusiasm for the current military which is actually making our country less safe than safer, and doing that disservice at a huge cost to the nation's finances.

[Dr Morbius]

151. You're asking a lot from GI Joe.

"And therefore their job was to disobey any order that perpetuated the occupation."

There was a Congressional sanction given to the action: the infamous AUMF. So, whether based on a lie or not, the average soldier's orders were lawfully given from a certain perspective. The President did not act in contravention of Congress, but with Congressional sanction. Do you expect the average soldier - whose job is to kill the enemy and stay alive - is going to be able to make the legal argument that the AUMF itself was illegal because it was based on a fiction?

You're asking a lot, here. Further, it's helpful - I think - to remember that the average soldier or Marine does not set policy, and probably would prefer to be stationed within these United States as opposed to a freaking 130 degree desert 8000 miles from home. In short: blame Washington, blame Wall Street, blame the Republicans, or blame the Democrats if you like, but I don't think it's fair to blame the soldiers for our reckless use of the military.

[Arugula Latte]

154. If they took two minutes to look at U.S. history before they enlisted,

they would figure out pretty quickly that they are most likely going to be used as pawns to further U.S. corporate interests in countries where there are brown people.

But they don't do that. Most don't care.

[murdoch]

145. Screw the military

The military (DoD) doesn't protect the US, the Department of Homeland Security does.

The DoD is the foreign imperial force, which always takes the side of the rich thieves over the poor working peoiple.

Of course, that is "radical sounding". In other words, saying troops shouldn't be over in Iraq, laughing on video as tanks roll over the journalists they just shot as in that tape mentioned above, is a radical stance in America, and going with the flow and acting like that is all normal is the normal thing. I acknowledge that my thinking that the imperial army should not be all over the world is not a part of the mainstream consensus, and that even my language is not part of the accepted mainstream dialogue.

If you look at the Constitution, the debates in early America, Washington's farewell address etc., you realize that the founding fathers had a deep fear of the republic which they founded becoming the evil empire which the USA is today. American soldiers are the foot-soldiers of that empire. I have cognizance of how enlisted men are mostly from working class backgrounds, and that plays into things in a certain way. However, the actions they are engaged in are evil. It is not for the same republic that the US was before World War II and went on permanent war footing. Even we Americans are hostage to this imperialist mentality.

When I was growing up, the corporate media, politicians etc. said the USA only had a massive force because of the USSR. Pravda said it was do to US imperialism. This idea, if ever mentioned in the media, caused laughter. When the USSR broke up, the only change in the US is it put up new bases all around Russia where it couldn't before. Who was lying, all the US presidents and mainstream pundits, or Pravda?

The US shouldn't even really have a standing army, or at least one about one tenth the current size, in case China wanted to attack us, which they would never want to do anyhow.

So I am anti-military. There shouldn't even be a military, such as it exists now. This talk of being anti-military is like we are a banana republic. Young people don't even realize what it was like before World War II and the Cold War and now the permanent so-called War on Terror.

[yurbud]

149. the military follows orders from civilians. The left seems more aware of this than the right

also, any discussion of how people feel about the troops is a distraction from the real issues: are the specific wars they are deployed to fight in our interests or not? Are they fighting according to the international rules of war, and if not, how far up the chain of command did the orders to commit war crimes originate?

Everything else is distraction and drivel.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

150. The troops are not "bloodthirsty" on the whole, but they ARE pawns of

the corporate industrial complex. They are TOLD that they are "protecting freedom," but they are doing nothing of the sort.

[Lilith Velkor]

153. Ah, this takes me back to 2003, when administration hacks were saying the exact same thing!

That's CHANGE, baby.