Originally posted by:Lament Configuration
I don't agree with your black and white assessment of the situation. Many of these soldiers are doing what they believe to be right. Perhaps they are misguided, but their hearts are in the right place.
Comparing them to hitmen is a poor analogy, as is comparing them to a lynch mob. Hitmen are motivated by selfishness and profit, and lynch mobs are usually motivated by prejudice and irrational hatred. These soldiers, on the other hand, are driven by a desire to protect the American people and their hopes that their actions will pave the way for democracy in Iraq. This could not be said of all soldiers, but it is undoubtedly true of many of them.
If you are opposed to the war, then you shouldn't support the war. But that has nothing to do with supporting the soldiers. In what sense should we NOT support the soldiers? You didn't make it very clear in your tirade how those who oppose the war should treat the soldiers.
As for innocent civilians being killed, there is really no way to completely avoid that in a state of war. I've read accounts of soldier misconduct and operations that would have resulted in fewer lives lost had they been more effectively carried out, but to assert that a soldier in a just war is no better than someone who engages in a drive-by shooting is ludicrous.
i understand that it may not seem so black and white at first glance, and looking at the post now it almost seems a little too strident and even scares me, so i appreciate your questioning of it, but the more i thought about it, the more it seemed to be about right.
this is not some kind of game where if you call "war" it's o.k. to kill people. was iraq an imminent threat? was war a LAST resort?
and as for 'protecting the country' or this holy crusade to bring democracy to the darkest corners of the world, do you really believe that yourself? hiding behind that innocent-little-boy scout image is really just a little too homoerotic for me to entertain. no full grown man has the right to be ignorant, and to act on that ignorance with deadly force.
if the u.s. wants to police the world and get rid of bad people everywhere, that may even be worth considering. maybe we could hop around the globe with our 120,000 troop force, to every country with severe human rights violations, even our allies, and make the situation right. that would be good and i'd support that.
but to selectively choose conflicts based on economic interests is wrong. and the people killed in the process deserve to have this considered. i don't think it's any coincidence that every oil money republican president conducts a foreign policy that results in driving the price of oil up and paying the industry that finances them back tenfold.
[no wonder dubya played footsy and got all smoochy and hand holding with the saudi prince last week. they just won the fucking lottery together. i kept expecting them to just start making out.]
and if sadam really was a hitler and poised to take over the world and show up with an invading flotilla on the beach in atlantic city, then we did the right thing. but if he was just another dictator of just another banana republic that just happened to have a LOT of oil, then we pretty much just decided he was a sleazebag and his country deserved to be mugged without guilt. kicking over a few mothers and daughters on the way to his purse was just "collateral." to us, anyway.
so yeah, just because someone puts on a clean uniform with shiny buttons and says a prayer to jesus before he goes out to kill, that doesn't make the people being killed any less dead. of the over 100,000 iraquis killed during this war, the vast majority were civilian 'collateral' casualties, and given the fi