Posted 08 February 2005 - 06:54 AM
IN THE LEAST OFFENSIVE TONE POSSIBLE: You guys are all nuts.
Yes, Hannibal is right in saying that any reaction to Jordan's comments derives from "righteous indignation." It's natural to react strongly to statements in defence of killing.
Jordan is right that there is nothing unusual in any way about a soldier getting a rush from killing enemy soldiers. This is natural. If you're doing something, then even if you think it is wrong and would rather not be doing it, at the very least you want to be successful.
Hannibal, however is right that it is wrong ever to admit this, and certainly wrong for a GENERAL to admit it, especially in the incredibly racist way he did. Insurgents could readily say "Once we have control of our country, once we have had consistent rule for 200 years, you will see a glorious civilization, where corporations do not send slaves to die for their profit margin, where the minimum wage is not offensive to think of, where all women are not treated like harlots and where it is not commonplace to think that any method used to gain money is a just and Godly one." And they could boast of enjoying killing these Americans, whose only claim to superiority over them is that their economy is relatively stable and whose military is better-equipped, not that they have a "more just" society. I mean what's the worst this GENERAL was able to say about ALL Iraqis? That their women wear veils and that men sometimes hit their wives? Anyone want to remind me how we treat poor people here? What niggers had to put up with in the south util they foughtand died for change? What niggers all over the US have to put up with now? And what "Free Elections" will do to better Iraq? Wouldn't trade and tourism do more? Worked hell in Japan!
And of course JM is right to apologize for picking on Jordan's typo, given that he is a notorious as I am for misspellings and typos. The very post that criticized Jordan contained typos of its own. I grant that it was a funny typo, but some dumbass crack about it being a Freudian slip would have done better than an abusive rant.
I can't believe how far-flung and personal this whole things has gotten so quickly, but I guess that's what you get when you throw a bunch of top dogs into the same pen and only throw in one bone. Yee haw.
PS: xmradioguy, you said something about fighting to do whatever your commanding officer asked you to do. Would it upset you, at any time, to learn that your commanding officer took orders from Exxon? This is purely hypothetical, of course, but what if your commanding officer ordered you to round up civiliand at random and shoot them on television, as part of a public statement to the insurgents? Would you enjoy that?
"Following orders" is not always a justification for anything, and the very obvious truth that the governments that run the military are themselves controlled by the corporations that helped to put them in power, pretty much questions any statement you may want to make about "freedom" and the military's "defence" of it. Iraq did not attack America. So if American soldiers are "defending freedom," then I need to redefine those terms:
"Defending" = Invading; "Freedom" = Another country.
Ok, now I can accept that statement.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).