Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Essential Evil of War
Every evening, at the end of the PBS News Hour, one of the most respected news programs in the U.S., one can see the images of the U.S. soldiers killed the previous day. They usually are young men, generally between 20 and 25 years of age. Even the most hardened person cannot but feel a pang of anguish looking at these young people whose lives were cut short by an irrational war. And one can imagine how many vibrant lives were lost and will be lost until the war in Afghanistan ends.
Awful as these losses are, another reality should be considered –the photos of these same soldiers degrading Afghan prisoners. Through these photos we can see that these soldiers’ lives have been compromised by war but, equally terrifying, that war has changed them, has made them lose that essential humanity that makes us respect other people at their most basic level. And thus we suddenly have a vision of the essential evilness of war.
These thoughts are brought to mind after looking at three photographs recently released by the German newspaper Der Spiegel, part of 4,000 photos and videos taken by the soldiers. The photos are among a number seized by U.S. Army investigators investigating the deaths of three unarmed Afghan civilians during 2010.
Twelve soldiers from the Bravo company unit of the Fifth Stryker Combat Brigade in Kandahar province are accused of serious crimes against Afghan civilians. Those accused include Special Sergeant Jeremy Morlock, 22, and three other men who were allegedly following orders from Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, 25. These soldiers are accused of killing Afghan civilians for sport and collecting their body parts –including a human skull- as trophies.
The first photograph shows Morlock holding the naked corpse of an Afghan civilian named Gul Mudin by his hair and grinning proudly at the camera. The second photograph shows another soldier, Pfc. Andrew Holmes, posing with the same man, whom he is holding by his hair with one hand while holding a cigarette with his other hand. The third photograph shows two Afghan civilians murdered by these soldiers. The victims’ dirty clothing suggests that they were dragged by a vehicle and possibly tortured before being killed.
As reported by Afghans for Peace (AFP) an investigation shows that the military ignored the warnings of a soldier, Spc. Adam Winfield, whose father persistently tried to inform the military commanders of the atrocities only to be turned away. “They planned everything out. I knew about it…I want to do something about it, but I don’t have the courage…” wrote Adam Winfield.
Although many critics have compared these events to those that happened at Abu Ghraib, AFP states that while those incidents occurred with prisoners, the events now described, including murder, occurred publicly in broad daylight.
In another incident described by Der Spiegel, the team apprehended a mullah who was standing by the road, was asked to kneel down in a ditch and a grenade was thrown at him while an order was given for him to be shot.
The army apologized for the distress caused by the photographs which, according to a statement, “depict actions repugnant to us as human beings and are contrary to the standards and values of the United States.”
No amount of apologies, however, can bring back to life these Afghan civilians who were killed. No amount of apologies can give back to these soldiers the humanity they lost in this terrible war. No amount of apologies can eliminate the essential evilness of war.
56 Comments so far
Show AllMany things, few people = peaceful coexistence.
Too many people, too few things = perpetual war.
Since we can't sort ourselves out (for all our claimed brainpower, 'goodness', and exceptionalism) nature does and will. There is a balance to the world even though we refuse to accept it.
This "supply and demand" argument is ridiculous. Least of all because it doesn't explain greed--there's more than enough "things" to go around. But there are a few--really very few--powerful and greedy humans who insist on hoarding these "things" and insist on taking "things" away from the rest of us. Capitalism = greed + bullyism.
Ridiculous? Are you sure? - such a certain assessment from such sparse information bodes ill.
Why should it explain greed? I have no such inclination as it is irrelevant. Can you explain the existence of greed or any other human 'traits'?
If not, then greed could be a 'reasonable' survival response to diminishing resouces. You ever watch animals feed? When food is scarce they will drive off and even kill other animals to control a simple pile of seeds (for example) that won't last them a day or two at best - I've seen a chipmonk kill it's mother to retain primacy in a feeding area. Or do you think they learned this behavior from humans?
"But there are a few--really very few--powerful and greedy humans who insist on hoarding these "things" and insist on taking "things" away from the rest of us."
"...the rest of us?" Sounds somewhat personal and not to the point. Most human behavior is not binary but on a continuum. We arbitrarily draw a line where we think the behavior may be excessive.
It is not entirely ridiculous, but it is entirely irrelevant to the current situation, because in fact, in the real world, historically and now, it's rich places like America (or Britain or France or Japan or Rome or whatever) attacking poorer places, with the attacks usually being initiated by the richest parts of these rich countries.
It's not the countries where there's hunger (caused, btw, not by resource shortage but by speculation by rich people wanting to be richer) that attack rich places. It's rich places wanting to be richer doing that to poorer ones. And this is not really an obscure or debatable fact - it's obvious and known by everyone, and you have to be really, really determined to forget it to even make the "it's human nature" argument.
The "it's GREED which is part of HUMAN NATURE" argument is mostly worthless, or worse, because it's nothing more than people with power trying to justify their own misdeeds. It's not very complicated really.
>>The "it's GREED which is part of HUMAN NATURE" argument is mostly worthless, or worse, because it's nothing more than people with power trying to justify their own misdeeds. It's not very complicated really.
I get quite tried of that argument myself.
I guess the people who claim GREED an integral part if human nature also pee on their curtains and rug because "animals do it too".
Are you suggesting that war is caused only by "rich places" attacking "poorer places"?
And "...misdeeds" are, I submit, in the eye of the beholder.
Overwhelmingly, yes, but not exclusively of course. What you're suggesting, that war is mostly caused by people struggling for resources because there aren't enough of them is clearly a much more ridiculous generalisation, and most importantly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with today's West and the current wars initiated by us. It's 100% true FOR US. We aren't attacking countries because we need more resources, but because we want to be richer and control more of the world. That's all. It's also clear as day. If the "other" type of war exists, it's mostly waged by others, which is what makes your argument (ideology, rather) irrelevant and hypocritical.
This is explicitly admitted regarding the Middle East for example, as often mentioned by Chomsky wrt Kennan's "veto power" and "stupendous source of critical leverage". Nothing whatsoever to do with necessary resources, and everything to do with control and power.
As for "misdeeds" being in the eye of the beholder, fuck this kind of moral relativism. There are things that are clearly fucked up and bad. Bombing and killing people and taking away poor people's wealth that they live on is definitely part of it and no amount of idiotic pseudo philosophy and bullshit moral relativism will alter that. It's not a fucking coincidence that people don't like that shit anywhere.
Now I'm ridiculous. LOL You keep suggesting such things, but offer no evidence, or in lieu of evidence, a logical explanation of why you think so.
"Overwhelmingly, yes, but not exclusively of course."
Of course, but that's not what you wrote.
"What you're suggesting..."
What I am suggesting is that among other things countries often attack countries because some of the leadership perceive and believe that they need more resources. This does not mean they 'actually' need more resources, but perception is - or becomes - as they say, reality.
You certainly fulminate a lot, but offer little in the way of light. ALL moralism is relative. Killing, for example. If you knew a child would become a brutal dictator who kills millions would you kill it in its cradle?
Only the monotheists (jews, christians, muslims) believe one morality applies at all times and all places. That's where the troubles usually start.
The point is that the wars started by the West are overwhelmingly NOT about getting resources necessary for survival, but about control of resources for exerting (imperial) power, or getting richer. And most of the wars are nowadays started and managed by us or even when not, they're very often a result of old Western imperial policies (the Middle East is a great example). Which is why your argument is utterly and clearly ridiculous.
The perception argument is also irrelevant, and it doesn't even apply to basically *any* war today, definitely not a single one of those initiated by us. So yep, your argument is utterly, completely ridiculous.
And finally, this:
"What I am suggesting is that among other things countries often attack countries because some of the leadership perceive and believe that they need more resources."
is a much weaker statement than your original post:
"Many things, few people = peaceful coexistence.
Too many people, too few things = perpetual war.
Since we can't sort ourselves out (for all our claimed brainpower, 'goodness', and exceptionalism) nature does and will. There is a balance to the world even though we refuse to accept it."
This is an overgeneralisation and oversimplification of something that does happen sometimes, but it's absolutely NOT TRUE of the actual wars in question, discussed in the article.
"You certainly fulminate a lot, but offer little in the way of light. ALL moralism is relative. Killing, for example. If you knew a child would become a brutal dictator who kills millions would you kill it in its cradle?
Only the monotheists (jews, christians, muslims) believe one morality applies at all times and all places. That's where the troubles usually start."
Do you know of a single fucking case of wartime civilian "collateral damage" where this thinking applies? I'm talking about reality, where in fact the overwhelming majority of killing is clearly utterly immoral. Western armies are NOT killing potential dictators. What a completely dishonest argument. They're killing children who'd probably grow up peasants. They're not torturing people who may or may not be hiding an atomic bomb in New York. The real issues are much less like bombastic Hollywood movies ffs.
Take a chill pill, atom boy, you'll blow a gasket.
So then is your argument that we're not fighting for oil in the middle east because we want to ensure that we can maintain our profligate 'lifestyle' for a long as possible; that in reality we don't need the oil, it's merely a ploy to get our way? Why then would 'we' want to 'control' the resources if not to reserve them for our own future use - whether as resources reserved exclusively for americans (or american oil companies) or to maintain hegemony over competing powers?
I suggest the perception argument is relevant - witness this 'discussion'. Reality is what it is, more or less unknown to us all, our perception of it puts us in different camps.
You didn't answer the question - would you kill the child in the cradle? If so then you are morally relativistic, a hypocrite, and a murderer, if not then you countenance the death of future millions, and only abet mass murder. I can see why you didn't answer; it doesn't suit your perception of your internal world that you project on the greater world.
"Do you know of a single fucking case of wartime civilian "collateral damage" where this thinking applies?"
Yes. And you must be a true believer, otherwise you wouldn't feel so threatened and get so angry. My sympathies poor child.
Can't edit my previous comment so:
"You certainly fulminate a lot, but offer little in the way of light. ALL moralism is relative. Killing, for example. If you knew a child would become a brutal dictator who kills millions would you kill it in its cradle?
Only the monotheists (jews, christians, muslims) believe one morality applies at all times and all places. That's where the troubles usually start."
Do you know of a single case of wartime civilian "collateral damage" where this thinking applies? I'm talking about reality, where in fact the overwhelming majority of killing is clearly utterly immoral. Western armies are NOT killing potential dictators. What a completely dishonest argument. They're killing children who'd probably grow up peasants. They're not torturing people who may or may not be hiding an atomic bomb in New York. The real issues are much less like bombastic Hollywood movies ffs.
I mean, if I *knew* that someone would grow up and blow up the world, maybe I'd kill them with my own hands. But this has never ever happened to anyone in the real world, because, you know, you simply can't know that. And it has no fucking bearing on whether soldiers killing Afghan civilians for fun is immoral or not. There is no moral case you can make for that.
And it's not just this clearly unrealistic case - all the examples that try to substantiate immoral action are built around impossible cases that don't often (or ever) happen in real life. There are of course borderline decisions that are hard and where it's difficult to choose, but in current imperial wars, the moral stuff is not really debatable, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, there's not much to discuss. These cases are simply not representative of the real world. They're representative of people who don't know shit about the real world arguing about "principles".
"So then is your argument that we're not fighting for oil in the middle east because we want to ensure that we can maintain our profligate 'lifestyle' for a long as possible; that in reality we don't need the oil, it's merely a ploy to get our way? Why then would 'we' want to 'control' the resources if not to reserve them for our own future use - whether as resources reserved exclusively for americans (or american oil companies) or to maintain hegemony over competing powers?"
I explained why the West (previously Europe, now America) wants to control the oil, by quoting George Kennan. To preserve Americans' profligate lifestyles is absolutely not the goal of the Gulf wars. If anyone cared about that, the US wouldn't be becoming more and more like a third world country, people wouldn't have to work more and more for less and less money, would have decent healthcare etc. But of course noone cares about what's good for the majority of people.
""Do you know of a single fucking case of wartime civilian "collateral damage" where this thinking applies?"
Yes. And you must be a true believer, otherwise you wouldn't feel so threatened and get so angry. My sympathies poor child."
I'm angry for personal reasons, irrelevant to this thread :-) But I'm also tired of getting the same type of predictable bullshit answers that have no connection to reality to serious questions.
And actually, I don't believe your "yes" at all. I think you're bulshitting, really.
"To preserve Americans' profligate lifestyles is absolutely not the goal of the Gulf wars. If anyone cared about that, the US wouldn't be becoming more and more like a third world country, people wouldn't have to work more and more for less and less money, would have decent healthcare etc. But of course noone cares about what's good for the majority of people."
No? Then what is? - merely the sadistic torture and killing of strangers?
Yeah, no one but you cares about anything. But caring alone is not enough. Having the power to change things is needed as well. Why don't you run for messiah? LOL
But seriously, as for whether anybody cares, a lot of people care - I care to a point - but I don't have the power to change certain things and no longer beat myself up about it. I know my limitations - you ignore yours. Why is that such a problem for you?
Perhaps you should determine what you can actually do to improve things and focus on that? 'Caring' past the reach of one's powers to alleviate others' misery is destructive - and useless - it dulls the senses and ruins the mind. Your angry outrage is nothing more than an attempt to polish your own self-image and does nothing in the real world. Or as the poet Neruda put it better than I ever could: "Hopeless is he who suffers to kill suffering."
Folks like you get so outraged that there is misery in the world. It's a fact of life. But what do you do about it? Piss and moan and insult those who don't share your views. I'm sure your outrage comforts all those miserable people around the world, and makes their life so much better. The fact is, like so many here, it's all about your feelings about yourself. It does nothing to help the victims you claim to feel sorry for. Maybe you should forward your comments to all those victims to make their lives better knowing that you care. Better yet, why don't you sell everything you have and go there and help them directly? That would be respectable. That would be difficult. That would be a sacrifice I'm sure you're not willing to make - for all your blather about the miserable in the world and how nobody cares about them but you.
Otherwise look in the mirror and see who you really are and what power you really have to change things. My guess is you don't look inside much (you would, for one thing, have more rational, less emotional, responses); and like the rest of us have no power to change anything - and I imagine that galls you.
And I too weary of the bullshit answers I get. Don't like what I post? You can always call me a name or two to make yourself feel better and by doing so help all those miserable people in the world you claim to care about so much. LOL After all, what else have you got?
Really? What you 'believe' is of no interest to me.
Reply in new post, this is getting narrow
Funny, I thought that would be right up your alley!
And again, your original post was this:
""Many things, few people = peaceful coexistence.
Too many people, too few things = perpetual war.
Since we can't sort ourselves out (for all our claimed brainpower, 'goodness', and exceptionalism) nature does and will. There is a balance to the world even though we refuse to accept it.""
Nothing to do with the slightly more refined arguments you bring up later, and certainly completely irrelevant to my argument that you later hijacked with this:
"Why then would 'we' want to 'control' the resources if not to reserve them for our own future use - whether as resources reserved exclusively for americans (or american oil companies) or to maintain hegemony over competing powers?"
"Maintaining hegemony over competing powers" has nothing whatsoever to do with your original "many things, few people" argument ffs. This happens even when there are abundant resources for everyone, which is the point of my post. It's nothing to do with preparing for the future either, as there are so many obviously more productive ways to do that that are avoided. You're not really a principled debater, despite basing all your arguments on principles :-/
First: it isn't a 'debate'. There are rules in a debate - one of the first rules being no ad hominim attacks - read, or have someone read to you, your first post.
Second: Isn't it the task of dialogue to 'refine' one's arguments? Or should we all do what you do: monotonously repeat the same nonsense over and over to convince us it has some meaning beyond your own understanding (or lack thereof)?
Third: I never claimed to be 'principled'; I leave that for the self-deluded and otherwise impotent to play at instead of actually doing something about that which they decry.
Fourth: 'principled' coming from you just confirms what I suggested earlier - that you are a hypocrite and sound like a twat. Anything else?
1) Ad hominem attacks are aimed at the person. I never intended to aim anything at you, only your arguments, and I don't think I did that either, definitely not as much or as quickly as you. I don't mind your ad hominems though, these things happen when one's enthusiastic about stuff. Your falling for simplistic ideology is way more annoying than your angry personal attacks.
2) It's ok to "refine" arguments, but if you change your way of thinking almost completely and integrate your opponents point into your later arguments, you should at least admit that your first post was not right and that what I wrote later actually convinced you. Because that's what seemed to happen. Your first claim was that all wars were resource wars stemming from resource shortages, which is clearly not true; I then used some pretty primitive words to explain that; after that, in this quote:
"Why then would 'we' want to 'control' the resources if not to reserve them for our own future use - whether as resources reserved exclusively for americans (or american oil companies) or to maintain hegemony over competing powers?"
you pretended that your first argument (that the cause of war is the scarcity of resources) included the point that I originally made *because* your original argument didn't include it. By first saying you "refined" your argument, I just wanted to be nice without pointing this out.
3) That was more of a joke: you base all your arguments on theoretical principles, but you're not really good at disciplined debate. You seem to want to win.
Are you really this dense or are you merely playing a role for effect?
Are you going to actually do something to help those you claim to feel sorry for (and what you criticize others for not doing) or are you merely going to debate somebody, anybody, about it? (you haven't said what you do or will or can do to ease their misery) Far easier to just talk about others' misery, isn't it, and pretend you care? Looks better decorating your public persona.
Debate? This isn't a debate, but 'debate' away if you like. I'll give you the last word. Go ahead, take your best shot, rhymes with...Coincidence? I think not. I'm sure we'll do this again sometime. Until then, adios atom boy. Keep your powder dry.
Too many CD commentators seem to think this "evil" is the fault of a few evil and powerful men. I think it is the fault and the responsibility of ALL OF US. We all share the greater responsibility for this war, and the blood is on all our hands. Every child that dies in a US drone attack. Every soldier that is blown up by an IED. Every second we throw money at war instead of rallying to stop it. Every mother that lets her sons and daughters go to war. Every father that parades his old war medals and tells glorious tales of military derring-do. Our hands drip red from the gore and the horror.
We can't sit inside the system and criticise from within how bad the system is, when we ourselves are a product and a contributor to the system's very existence.
Like someone once said, "There is no traffic. You are the traffic."
To the mind-numbingly repetitive regular CD traffic - hoot your horn to show you care.
Assuming of course one has the power to change anything but him/herself. I have no such power. And I would argue that no one posting here has any power beyond that. People with power don't talk about it, they wield it. The rest of us merely bemoan the fact of our powerlessness and throw stones.
Errr...so? What the hell does this mean? That what you can't change *immediately* is not worth fighting for or even discussing? Where the hell do you think most of your richness comes from? To the extent they exist, freedom of speech, gender and race equality and so on, they all came from people who didn't have the kind of power you acknowledge. The kind of nihilism you seem to display is just incredibly dumb and short sighted imo.
So tell me, do you have the power to actually change anything but yourself? Do you have the 'right' to change anything but yourself? If the answer to either of the question is yes, then please explain.
Nihilistic? LOL If so, it's not a crime. It sounds good on paper, but what pray tell does that word (concept) mean to you? And please explain why you would rather label me as 'nihilistic', 'short sighted' and 'dumb' instead of merely addressing the issue.
If you have no explanation then you may fit into the category of the powerless who bemoan their impotence and merely throw stones.
What a stupid question. Of course everyone has both some power and the "right" to change stuff. And people do that all the time too. You have a right to work to get yourself food, a right to bring up children, a right to talk to people, write books, even a right to defend yourself from immediate violence. It's what people do, and how things are changed. Because not all change is immediate and complete.
A nihilist "philosophy" is mainly just whining and shifting the blame imo. That you can't get everything at once, can't change everything to what you think would be perfect, can't achieve perfect justice immediately doesn't mean that they're not worth striving for, just that you might not achieve them alone and in a short time - in reality, things take time and a lot of people to change.
And where did this 'power' and the 'right' to exercise it come from? God? Man? Your imagination?
From your apparent explanation of the word (and the concept of) nihilism you don't actually have a clue about what it actually means; you only use the word because you think it makes you sound better formed (and informed) than you are. The least you could have done it look it up. Too lazy even for that I warrant. Well that explains everything. No wonder you sound like such a twat.
The "power" comes from physical human existence. The "rights", I have no fucking clue where they come from, I'm just pretty sure that people have them, mainly because people (or even the human race itself) couldn't exist without those. It's not a question of philosophy and principles though, but of practical, real life existence.
As for being well-read or lazy, I'm pretty willing to get into a philosophical debate with you (or anyone), but I don't get your nihilism comment, as you're basically arguing that values do not exist in the real world and that morals are relative, which *is* a form of nihilism.
My point is this: when you're confronted with *real* atrocities, *real* death, *real* war crimes, that take people's lives and livelihood, it's dishonest and disingenous for anyone on the stronger side to start talking about high principles and that this is how life is. I could accept this from an afghan villager whose relatives were killed, but not from, you know, the killers, or the people behind them, the people in whose names these things are done. Not really complicated. While there are borderline issues, which may even be real occasionally, in most cases the question is not really that difficult or complex, and talking about killing children growing up to be dictators as if that issue was representative of reality is clearly just avoiding the real question.
ATOM: I just want to thank you for your posts in this thread. They reflect intelligence and Grace while under fire... not to mention patience. Bravo.
Just because you're one of the vehicles in the traffic doesn't mean you caused it or can do anything about it other than not do what you need to go somewhere to do. I think Dick Cheyney's "So" is the most indicative and revealing remark of the 21st Century so far, shows that those who issue the orders and send the troops off to war are so sure they are right that they pay no attention whatsoever to whether the general public approves or disapproves.
Unless of course the approval generates enough public noise to look like it might cause them trouble. Haven't gotten there yet. I was part of the large demonstration here at the start of Gulf War II and went home and looked at pictures of similar demonstrations in dozens of cities all over the world. Did the Powers That Be pay any heed?
Stop this military madness or we'll . . . what?
" I think it is the fault and the responsibility of ALL OF US."
Yeah, well, you're right. Not sure what you want people to do about it at this juncture. There is no opposition. The Professional Left is too busy scurrying around trying to save unions, stop climate change, promoting gays in the military, instead of stopping the killing machine that's rampaging abroad -- while growing the police state at home.
All are important battles (not getting the gay/military thing though), but stopping and getting civilian control of this machine should be priority #1. Congress sure doesn't control it.
You can, of course, focus on other people's sins and problems to forget your own, if you want, but a lot of people are just more interested in things that they feel responsible for.
Is it evil for animals to kill each other?
Assuming you mean animals other than humans: No.
Assuming humans are animals?
Science has led me to assume that humans are animals.
Then are we meant to kill ourselves like animals?
It's a philosophical debate on the nature of human nature. Not a great one, but usually philosophical debates are long winded. This one is terse.
The question is, is it morally wrong for human beings to kill because humans are animals and animals kill? Are we "better" than the rest of nature and, if not, why say bad things about our habit of killing? Are we not just "doin' a-what comes naturally"?
My thoughts: Not all animals kill, only ones whom evolution has built to do that.
Human beings kill things for sport, for fun, to gain abstract kinds of advantage. There seems to be a difference between human murderousness and that of the rest of the natural order, but I don't know for sure.
Who invented morals and do these make us less of an animal?
Morality is a human invention (I don't know who first thought it up) and it does not in the least make us non-animals. We are part of nature even though we'd rather be "better" than the rest of the natural world. Morals are ways to try to deal with each other without lapsing into the savagery that is undoubtedly part but only part of our "nature." Obviously it doesn't always work.
If morals don't keep us from lapsing into savagery, why have any?
They do keep us from doing so enough of the time to make them worth hanging on to. It's like all the grand abstractions: freedom, honesty, honor. They're ideals to try to live up to as best we can being human and thereby fallible. Most of us don't trash our fellow humans even though sometimes we feel like it. Morals keep us from doing so. Usually.
Morals don't keep us from trashing Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Lybians and Palestinians so what makes humans better than animals?
We're not. We just like to think we are -- the old "dominion over nature" that the God of the Old Testament led us to believe we had. That verse has caused more harm than almost any other piece of human thought, even more than "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." We'd probably better end this exchange here. We're pissing off readbetweenthe_lines. And, more important, the answer columns are getting too narrow to be readable.
I shall try to develop that sense of irony you speak so highly of, but to be a whole lot happier in today's world would diss all the people who , through no fault of their own, are on the receiving end of all that killing, among other planetary horrors currently under way.
Cigar store Indian?!? I had thought you were Swedish.
There you go. ezflyer and I are having a nice civilized discussion and you tell us we're "jerking around." Harummmph! The idea. Fortunately free speech still exists (but who knows for how long) so you're free to tell us that.
I personally am not killing any of the people you mentioned. I know some say by living here and paying my taxes and not setting myself on fire or fomenting an insurrection I'm sanctioning the killings. That's a philosophical argument. If they asked me I'd tell them to stop doing it right now everywhere on this sad sick planet where it's happening.
But they don't ask me.
You practice irony very well but seem to be deficient in recognizing it in others. But I could be wrong.
"Every evening, at the end of the PBS News Hour, one of the most respected news programs in the U.S."
Horseshit ! PBS is corporate censored media.
And why glorify American soldiers engaged in war crimes ?
Fuck Obombma and Fuck Gadaffy and FUCK THE TROOPS.
We have to stop supporting the troops. Without them there's no wars.
Come out against these brainwashed pawns. They're not heros.
Nam vet
F--- Obombma, F---- GaDaffy and F--- THE TROOPS.
Without the troops there's no wars.
We have to stop letting them off the hook because "they're only doing their job".
They are criminals and deserve no respect.
Nam vet, Shame on me.
And this is the way it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24