Who should define what a war is “about”? By any ethical standard, that right should fall to the besieged—those who were waged upon, the people with the most corpses and the least to gain from combat. Of course, in reality, an armed conflict’s character is limned by the powerful, in whose mitts the media will, as we all know, contort, grind… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (4)Page 1 of 1 pagesIf only our soldiers would stop murdering the innocent Iraqis, then the Sunnis and Shiites (and Kurds too) could live in peace. Praise be unto Allah.
Posted by wolf on Jun 6, 2006 at 6:38 PM Jesus, Woof. Ain’t it a drag when you can’t get the respect you know you deserve? Go play in the traffic on some freeper site. Someone there is bound to wrap an American flag around your sad, silly, sorry ass, and salute.
Posted by Major Major on Jun 11, 2006 at 11:55 AM This article stars with a good example of what I like about liberals,
“Who should define what a war is “about”?”
They naively think life should be “fair.” (Well, OK, except when pushing their own agenda.)
“...the U.S.-led force’s efforts to simply deal with a native resistance that will not quit: “
“...voicing contempt for the Bush Administration is a safe haven compared to prioritizing Iraqi citizens over the invading American hordes.”
Is nothing unfair in these statements?
— simply deal with a native resistance (simple? native?)
— prioritizing Iraqi citizens over the invading American hordes (Iraqis only?) and you wish to prioritize them over American “hordes”? (Tell that to a grieving parent of one of our troops.)
By the standard in the opening paragraph the right of decision-maker transfers with the body count. Of course then we would need to define a starting date, and who is on which side of the conflict (assuming no one switches mid-conflict).
Hmmmm, can it be life (and Michael Atkinson) is fair to no one?
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 13, 2006 at 7:16 PM Well, Wolfie
it was a peaceful enough place BEFORE your troops went in to make home-movies about their heroism.
WTH
grieving parents are not only American. VERY few of THEM compared to the many many thousands of Iraqis.SORRY. Forgot those ones are not HUMAN. They are just collateral damage, WE don’t do body-counts.
IF you like WAR, at a safe distance like Wolfie, do not whinge about your casualties.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. Definitely hypocritical, there. They signed up for patriotism, a college education, or Adventure, whatever, and they PAID .
It was a gamble, with yellow ribbons galore, and WTH and Wolfie cheering them on, from the sidelines, of course.
Posted by frog on Jun 22, 2006 at 12:06 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Michael Atkinson
- Always Look on the Bright Side of Genocide
When did the Holocaust become morally ambiguous? - A Massacre in 3/4 Time
Waltz with Bashir is hallucinatory, relentless, and amazing. - Moore Than You or Me
Slacker Uprising offers nothing new, but it will be worth something if it affects November's election - Errol Morris’ Myopia
- Iraq: Mismanagement or Mass Murder?
No End in Sight explores how we got into Iraq and what screw-ups have made the situation spiral out of control - Iraq on the Big Screen
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
