OnPoint: Iraq, from the air
252 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Simon, sometimes I just think the real enemy is the moderate liberal who can’t see the forest from the trees. To look at this situation and suggest it might simply be a “mistake” is a kind of “moderate” extremism and hugely immoral. It’s almost as if there is a craving to take black and white issues of morality and try and turn them into something grey.
Such people have a lot to answer for with regard to where we’re at in the world today. In a world where jingoist war-mongerers are running amok the last thing the world needs is liberal moderates propping them up by suggesting that the outcome of their actions might just be a mistake.
My point regarding Saddam is that we’ve supposedly learnt over and over again that regime change is not a legitimate case for war. We’ve supposedly learnt this through the unspeakable numbers of people who have died and suffered as a result of such wars. And here again the moderate liberal can be found propping up the war-mongering jingoist with arguments about interventionism and removing the bad guy.
-
And most times Christiaan
poets/historians/et al
have been saying- this isnt new, this is awful, so - next?
And what are you actually adding to the age-old argument?
Except your ego? -
I wouldn't say the idea that moderate liberals create an imbalance towards jingoism is an old argument.
-
regime change is not a legitimate case for war
Oil, on the other hand..
-
Just sayin'
And, yes, I feel bad now...
-
And, yes, I do feel bad now...
It'll pass. Don't let those running dogs of the imperialists get you down.
-
Ahem. I guess that's my cue, then?
My purpose in writing this post is that a whole new channel of raw news has just come out of beta. This new form of raw news is rich and complex, and allows us to be nuanced in a way that the MSM - a system where pundits are rewarded for being outrageous, extreme, alternatively populist or contrarian (often contrary to good sense and evidence), etc. - couldn't.
It provides details. Vast arrays of facts. Direct access to primary sources. But none of this new information is any use if all we just Foxnews it. If, when we are given access to information, we just cherry-pick things that support the world view built upon our values, then we end up in the same quagmire.
You say that people like me can't see the forest for the trees. I would argue that the problem has been that people only talk about the forests, only engage with political issues in ideological frames, and contort facts to fit that frame. Of course, people who don't see the world in ideological frames (or see them in different ideological frames) just see this really contorted series of facts that don't connect with reality - that's why they turn off.
The only way to persuade is to start from common ground. If you never acknowledge any of the other side's concerns, if you never acknowledge the facts that support their argument, then you're not arguing or persuading, you're just yelling.
This is why I only care about the trees.
-
Good Keith Ng - I care very much about the birds in the trees- :>)
-
And I hope for the one in the hand too. :o)
-
This is why I only care about the trees.
And that's why you've made the mistake of decontextualising something that should be condemned into something that is, oops, just a mere mistake... move along people.
-
Keith, none of that really came across in your original post.
-
And that's why you've made the mistake of decontextualising something that should be condemned into something that is, oops, just a mere mistake... move along people.
I think Keith's post was actually pretty open-ended in that regard. Some of the points he's just made in his comment above probably could have been clearer in the post itself, as Rich says, but I certainly didn't feel as though I was being somehow pushed forcibly towards the conclusion that it was all an error. More of a prompt to thinking, at least the way I saw it.
Finally, not meaning to start a flamewar here but I can't resist closing out with this:
Simon, sometimes I just think the real enemy is the moderate liberal who can’t see the forest from the trees. To look at this situation and suggest it might simply be a “mistake” is a kind of “moderate” extremism and hugely immoral. It’s almost as if there is a craving to take black and white issues of morality and try and turn them into something grey.
Such people have a lot to answer for with regard to where we’re at in the world today.
Now this is obviously just a part of your post, but do you realise just how similar it sounds to the zero-middle-ground arguments that helped get the US and the rest of us into this clusterfuck in the first place?
-
Now this is obviously just a part of your post, but do you realise just how similar it sounds to the zero-middle-ground arguments that helped get the US and the rest of us into this clusterfuck in the first place?
It also sounds to me like not wanting to collude with murderers. And frankly I'm okay with that. The idea that the Left in the last ten years has been too intransigent is just bloody ridicolous, to the point of being offensive. Try 'not nearly intransigent or principled enough'.
-
So no-one's really addressing the casual Hellfire chucked down at the house and the poor pedestrian casually walking by and getting minced in the explosion?
(edit : amongst the whole wrongness of the entire rampage )
-
do you realise just how similar this sounds to the zero-middle-ground arguments that helped get the US and the rest of us into this clusterfuck in the first place?
Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that so many self-described moderates didn't take a stronger view against Blair, Bush and their fanaticism. They were too busy telling themselves how great Blair and the bombing of Yugoslavia was.
-
It also sounds to me like not wanting to collude with murderers. And frankly I'm okay with that.
Well, when you put it that way, certainly it's hard not to be okay with not wanting to collude with murderers. However to me it doesn't seem to be a very useful starting point for serious questions about how and why modern technowar as practised by the US consistently results in these appalling things happening.
The idea that the Left in the last ten years has been too intransigent is just bloody ridicolous, to the point of being offensive. Try 'not nearly intransigent or principled enough'.
On so many other topics I would agree wholeheartedly, but surely here there ought to be room for solid debate about the truth of a situation before a really intransigent, principled stand is made.
Or maybe I'm an irredeemable war-enabling sinner for trying to read shades of grey into black-and-white truth. I guess if this is the case I can at least trust Christiaan not to hesitate in telling me so.
-
However to me it doesn't seem to be a very useful starting point for serious questions about how and why modern technowar as practised by the US consistently results in these appalling things happening.
So, where's a good starting point? Looking at the Wikileak video and saying 'hey, what if it was all a catastrophic mistake?' I think it's quite clearly not the case, but what if it had been? How would it change the much broader picture of what technowar has been allowed to become, and how instrumental it has been in selling military interventions to the moderate Left, on the grounds that these days we have a technology that enables us to only kill the really bad guys?
The far bigger problem is that war is the appalling thing that happens. Even if this particular incident and others like it or Abu Graib had never happened, we still went in and bombed everything in sight and killed thousands of civilians without even getting to the fuck-ups part.
-
The idea that the Left in the last ten years has been too intransigent is just bloody ridicolous, to the point of being offensive. Try 'not nearly intransigent or principled enough'.
I agree with you. But probably in relation to the current two wars in the Middle East, too small in NZ either way. Peace doesn't seem to be a big priority for the left here at present.
-
The occasional ex pat poster from NOLA would like to make a comment or two. Firstly, what a chilling video. I have seen quite a few of these “gun sight“ videos out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but this one is worse because you know there are apparently some non-combatants involved, with the other videos it was very clear that it was insurgents on the receiving end. With the other videos, the steps that had to be taken prior to firing were quite extensive.
I read today that the 17 min video was taken from a 38 min video that made it clearer that the action in question was taken amid clashes in the neighborhood; it wasn’t just Bobby and Billy in a chopper wasting some people. Also the longer version made it clearer that one of the people was carrying RPG. An RPG is a sure sign someone is upto no good.
The video was shot on July 12, 2007, over Eastern Baghdad, a war zone, in the middle of the surge. If you are going to walk around in a war zone, during a much publicized “surge”, in a neighborhood during on going clashes, carrying an AK 47 and an RPG when the US is well known to be extensively using drones and attack helicopters, I am sorry, it probably isn’t going to end well very well for you. Ditto for walking close to someone with an AK47 or an RPG in that situation. The key bit is “with an AK 47 and an RPG during on going clashes”.
After 7 years in Iraq and longer in Afghanistan, there must have been hundreds of thousands of individual combat actions on the ground and in the air. The number of incidents where soldiers or airmen have screwed up have been few in proportion. In order to show any kind of pattern of behavior or systemic issues in the US military, there would need to be thousands of such incidents and nothing like that has come out and that number of incidents could never, ever be kept under wraps. The US military and Govt. can’t keep secrets of any kind, especially not this kind of information in the resent political/media environment, so if wrongful identifications and shootings etc. were happening in significant numbers, we would know about it for sure.
-
Keith, none of that really came across in your original post.
Well as far as I could see, it was there for the interpreting.
-
Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that so many self-described moderates didn't take a stronger view against Blair, Bush and their fanaticism. They were too busy telling themselves how great Blair and the bombing of Yugoslavia was.
Don't take it out on this blog, then.
-
3410,
I have seen quite a few of these “gun sight“ videos out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but this one is worse because you know there are apparently some non-combatants involved, with the other videos it was very clear that it was insurgents on the receiving end.
Yeah, they don't tend to want to release those ones as much.
The US military and Govt. can’t keep secrets of any kind, especially not this kind of information in the resent political/media environment, so if wrongful identifications and shootings etc. were happening in significant numbers, we would know about it for sure.
Forgive me if I don't just take your word for that.
-
James: They received the green light to engage before an RPG was identified. Does that change your view of things?
-
So, where's a good starting point? Looking at the Wikileak video and saying 'hey, what if it was all a catastrophic mistake?' I think it's quite clearly not the case, but what if it had been? How would it change the much broader picture of what technowar has been allowed to become, and how instrumental it has been in selling military interventions to the moderate Left, on the grounds that these days we have a technology that enables us to only kill the really bad guys?
Well, if you disagree strongly (I certainly do) with what technowar has become, and with the way it's been sold as ideal precision warfare to the moderate Left and to everybody else, then surely it's instructive to maybe bring an assumption that goes against your views ("what if it was all a mistake") to your viewing of the video? And thus allowing the various bits of evidence for it *not* being a pure mistake to stick out more clearly against that assumption, and also prompting more useful questions about the way that such decisions are made and authorisations are given, so that the place of "precision" technowar in Western warfare can be challenged more effectively and maybe made less of a useful prop for pro-war arguments in general?
There may be shades of grey in a case such as this or there may not, but I think if you believe that the promotion of technowar as an excuse for war in general is morally reprehensible anyway, then it behoves you to look for those shades of grey and address them, because otherwise you're abandoning that ground to those who will simply note your non-addressing of the complexities and use them to spin up a handwaving "fog of war" excuse-based argument (ahemseepreviouspage).
(Sorry for the long paragraphs) -
However to me it doesn't seem to be a very useful starting point for serious questions about how and why modern technowar as practised by the US consistently results in these appalling things happening.
Everyday somewhere in the world i'm sure a camera would catch unspeakable acts of violence committed by armies of many national descriptions.
The U.S army as i understand is primarily made up of a combination of poor kids and religous army zealots. John Kerry isn't there. They have been given the task of producing civic order with guns. That task was given to them by a crazy man.
...and jesus stop with the "liberal" arguement christaan,it's poor, the causes of this war lay predomiantly in circles who haven't had a liberal thought in their lifetime.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.