Letters to the Editor
-
msbau764
I agree, I fully support the complete denationalization of all countries. Anyone with enough guns should be free to carve out whatever chunk of land they like and remake it in their own image.
-
One of the mysteries is why our forces so often find themselve in these fire fights "requiring" air support -- for which, it should be remembered, those careful deliberation standards are not applicable ...
it seems there is a problem when our vastly superior surveillance and on-the-ground equipment is deemed so woefully inadequate ... it appears either the planning for these forays is in poor or the threshold for calling in airstrikes is quite low -- in real life.
In Baghdad, we seem to go into Sadr City fairly regularly, get "stuck" and call in air strikes ... there's a pattern here worthy of scrutiny.
It can be argued that these "careful deliberation" policies -- which apply only in "not emergent" situations -- are there to make US -- YOU, ME AND OUR PERSONNEL -- all "feel better" and provide an "only following protocol" defense, i.e. like the torture "standards" ... such policies keep the pilots flying and the bombs falling ...
-
...and you will find I agree, msbau.
When you stated:
"the best way to minimize civilian casualties is leave Iraq, not drop more bombs. Very simple."
I believe you will find on examining my post that I do not advocate our remaining in Iraq. I merely point out that so long as we are there, we will have to fight. As long as we are fighting, it is an honorable choice to attempt to reduce the overall damage we do.
And for BigDork - it's not an easy job you're going to be facing, and I don't envy you the trip. Whether others recognize it or not, the role is changing as time progresses (msbau is, I think understandably, confusing the original case for war with the role being tasked on the military today). You've pretty much summed up the problem - when you're faced with a firefight, and your life is on the line, you use what tools you have available to you to preserve it.
It would be my wish that you didn't have to go at all. But, barring the extremely unlikely, that will remain my wish, and not become a reality.
T
-
Not Quite My Reasoning
No you are not. You are there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction. There aren't any so it's time to leave. Go at your own risk. Remember killing will haunt you for the rest of your life.
C'mon, we all know the WMD thing is bullcrap. I know why I'm volunteering to go to Iraq and it isn't to go kill people. In fact unless something goes horribly wrong I shouldn't have to fire a single shot.
I am going to Iraq to support the Soldiers and Marines who are put in danger every day. I want to do everything I can to make their job easier and hopefully ensure more of them come home safely.
-
Blatant spin discredits anti-war positions and leaves you open to charges of media bias
I completely oppose the war in Iraq, but the spin applied to the first half of this article and the selection of the "Editor's Choice" letters discredits both the opposition movement and the media reporting on the conflict.
Contrary to what the article implies, the legal calculus is not a creation of the military. The "macabre calculus" applied to civilian casualties is in fact required by the Geneva Conventions. To quote article 51:
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. ...
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: ...
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. [italics mine]
This "macabre calculus" is precisely what the United States is obliged to consider under international law. This is not some sort of retroactive justification invented by the United States.
The first half of this article is written (or edited) to make it seem that the US is inventing these rules to justify its actions. The US armed forces are, in fact, doing their best to follow the rules of international law.
By selectively highlighting only those letters that expand on this point, you are applying precisely the type of spin you rightly denounce in media such as Fox News. You can do much better than this. Engaging in the sleazeball tactics of the extreme right wing is just giving it more ammunition for its propoganda machine.
-
I understand that
"I am going to Iraq to support the Soldiers and Marines who are put in danger every day. I want to do everything I can to make their job easier and hopefully ensure more of them come home safely."
but you have to be selfish and care for yourself and your family above anybody else - even the marines, even your country. All the architects of the war WILL NOT feel any comparable loss which marines, soldiers, and medics face each and every brutal Iraqi day. So if they don't care, why should you? What support are you receiving from the American people you are allegedly protecting? I'm sacrificing nothing, you are sacrificing all - for what? It's not worth it. You ought to help your fellow marines by protesting against the war....but I think you'll go to jail, be killed, or discharged, so that's not a viable option.
I'm scared of battle. Unless I feel my life is threatened or will be threatened I couldn't bear being in another country fighting for a war I don't 100 percent believe in.
go at your own risk. it's not worth it. if war with iran breaks out, things will be much, much worse.
-
wrong
"Engaging in the sleazeball tactics of the extreme right wing is just giving it more ammunition for its propoganda machine."
politics isn't for the faint of heart. we need a democratic Karl Rove that can stir up the american public and reveal the crimes bush and cheney have been committing. propaganda works both ways. everyone uses it to his/her own advantage. i support the willful manipulation of facts in this article.
if the democrats need to lie/cheat/steal to oust the republicans i'm on board.
-
America squandered whatever good faith assumption that it abides by either the letter or the spirit of international law,
specifically the Geneva Conventions early on in Afghanistan ...
I understand why you feel as you do, but that ship has sailed and is no longer in sight ... long before Abu Ghraib, "we" redefined large number of people as falling into categories exempt from the Geneva Conventions and therefore eligible for indefinite secret detentions, torture and worse ... Those arguments have never received some "internationl law" seal of approval as far as I know. (We also made quite a hash of protections guaranteed to American citizens and anyone else on the entire planet.)
Our willingness to be "accountable" for civilian casualties in Afghanistan -- from the very first days of our arrival there --has been foot-dragging and disturbing. It's as if there's a set "protocol" of deny, deny, deny for 14 days while officers distribute blood money, and then to vaguely admit culpability and "move on." It is easy for "us" to forget or conflate these incidents ... for the Afghans, not.so.much