[quote]vroom wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization[/quote]
From the disclaimer in vroom’s link:
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Why am I not surprised? More of the same from the vroomalixious one.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Go buy some more kleenex, and perhaps think before you post. [/quote]
I co-opted this line while you were gone for months and months… and I’ve just been using it against Thunderbolt the other day too… c’mon, put some work into it man.
[quote]vroom wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization[/quote]
So, Vroom - what does your link mean?
Are you suggesting that those in favor of “total war” - for example, RJ - is succumbing to the phenomenon of “dehumanization”? Do you think it is selective? Are you suggesting Western military action in the ME is predicated or racist grounds at its base?
Or do you think that the driving force of Islamism is the “dehumanization” of Jews and Israelis, and therefore the West - with its commitment to human rights - is the only entity capable of reversing the Arab/Persian world’s “dehumanization” through developing liberal democracies and a respect for liberal human rights?
You never say.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
From the disclaimer in vroom’s link:
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Why am I not surprised? More of the same from the vroomalixious one. [/quote]
I don’t suppose you will ever bother to actually address something known as an issue?
Anyway, if you are going to criticize me for pointing to Wikipedia you are just making a fool out of yourself. Perhaps you could address the concept of dehumanization or complain about some aspect of the Wikipedia article itself?
Maybe you could reflect on whether or not you’ve seen examples of dehumanization on these boards or by the news media?
[quote]vroom wrote:
I co-opted this line while you were gone for months and months… and I’ve just been using it against Thunderbolt the other day too… c’mon, put some work into it man.[/quote]
Rainjack, saying that someone is “crying” is Vroom’s thing to sound tough - give it back.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, Vroom - what does your link mean?
[/quote]
I’m pointing out that during times of war there is often a dehumanizing process. Referring to people as cockroaches is a prime example of this.
I do not think western or eastern involvement in this conflict is racist at heart. However, I do know that referring to the US and the west as “the great satan” is an equivalent way of dehumanizing the people who will be impacted by terrorism, such that it becomes easier to consider such actions.
Dehumanization is a process… and you can spot it in various media or various statements during most periods of military conflict.
I never said… but obviously I’ll expand on it. As your post points out, it’s certainly an opening for more discussion.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are a liar. Show me where I ever said that, or even implied
that all inhabitants of the ME are terrorists.[/quote]
Liar? Certainly not. There was no malicious intent. Misinterpreted your post? Maybe, but let’s find out…
Here’s what you wrote:
You guys want it both ways. Either the people over there have nothing to lose - which is being proclaimed very loudly by the anti-war crowd - or they do have something to lose. You can’t conveniently argue on both sides.
That can only be true if you consider all “the people over there” to be equal. Given that you probably never been to the region or ever bothered reading their press, you might be tempted to lump in the whole lot in the kill 'em all group. Evidently, HH made that leap and as far as I can tell, you have been trying to back him up.
Unless you can explain your manichean stance by another mean, I’m still gonna go ahead and assume that you equate everyone in the ME with terrorists.
So, why would it be that “they” either do or don’t have something to lose? Why shouldn’t one be able to argue both sides as you claim?
Suit yourself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
From the disclaimer in vroom’s link:
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Why am I not surprised? More of the same from the vroomalixious one.
I don’t suppose you will ever bother to actually address something known as an issue?
Anyway, if you are going to criticize me for pointing to Wikipedia you are just making a fool out of yourself. Perhaps you could address the concept of dehumanization or complain about some aspect of the Wikipedia article itself?
Maybe you could reflect on whether or not you’ve seen examples of dehumanization on these boards or by the news media?[/quote]
You post a link. How is that a contribution to anything? Especially when the link states that it is basically no proof of anything.
I’m just pointing out your habit of not having any proof besides what you make up in your head.
Wiki is a wonderful thing. I get hours of enjoyment reading it.
But it isn’t really much proof in a fight.
As for dehumanization in war? Stating the obvious is no sign of intelligence, nor is it worthy of discussion.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Me, too. perhaps it allows the state to focus more of your tax money on social welfare, and less on an actual defense program.
I don’t think it is needed. I think we should have pulled out back in the 80’s.
[/quote]
agreed
Cool.
You found a way to distinguish between the “bad” and the “good” Arabs.
Any insights on how you do this? Please include specific ideas how to deal with the Saudis.
The most self indulgent? Maybe, spend your money how you want.
The most wasteful? Hardly.
You are however in the process of ruining the foundations of your wealth because your MIC sucks you try.
You do not wage war for oil.
You do not fight terrorism or drugs.
You wage war, to wage war, it is a business with very high profits and more and more people are making money with it.
Not unlike the Roman empire your middle class finances it and your lower classes fight it.
That is why in the final analyses the powers that be have no interest in “winning this war”.
Politicians get to scare you instead of discussing real issues, government gets to turn the screws a little bit tighter each year and “defense” suppliers are making more money each year.
How will you fight this “vermin”?
It is the same schtick as the war on drugs, poverty and lack of education.
It is basically a witchhunt, install an inquisition and you will never run out of witches, inctall a war on terror and you will never run out of terrorists.
The article isn’t a very good description of dehumanization during a war. More about racism and stereotyping.
All combat is by it’s very nature dehumanizing in that it is very difficult to kill another man. You must fight for something in war, whether it be land, revenge or a way of life. You need to dehumanize the enemy to kill. You shoot a soldier not a man. You aim to destroy a tank not it’s occupants. The death of the man is a consequence.
The Unites States isn’t fighting for land, the most common of all disputes, particularly in European history. The US is fighting for an ideal and a way of life. We want the world to live terror free and Democratic. The enemy doesn’t. We are also trying to hobble the terrorists and kill as many of them as possible. They would prefer we didn’t and have enlisted fellow travellers and the ever present useful idiots as allies. The weak resent this. The opinion of the enemy is of no concern.
First world nations don’t fight each other anymore because they are run by reasonable and pragmatic men. Much of the ME is not run by reasonable and prgmatic men and they also subscribe to an idealogy that breeds fanaticism and gives moral authority to kill those who don’t believe in the same God. Bad combination.
The world is slowing waking up to the seriousness of the situation. This spells bad news for the ME. The problems will be dealt with and the West is growing weary of the threat and is beginning to realize that peace with many of these countries is quite hopeless. The US has the might to deal with it. Others don’t. In the end the US will prevail, the level of pain that causes the ME is really up to them.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are however in the process of ruining the foundations of your wealth because your MIC sucks you try.[/quote]
Please explain how. I don’t see what you see. Maybe you have a better vantage point. I don’t think so, but for the sake of debate -
[quote]You wage war, to wage war, it is a business with very high profits and more and more people are making money with it.
Not unlike the Roman empire your middle class finances it and your lower classes fight it.[/quote]
Maybe from the top it is that way. I doubt it, but there is not going to be any head-way made by discussing your position, and my opposition to it further.
BUT - My own perspective is that I think we should fight this war to win it. We have not done that, which plays into your assumption. I think we are being way too nice, and trying to make friends instead of removing the problem.
One thing at a time. It is the same as trying to bulk and cut at the same time: It might work, but it will take way too long to get the job done.
That is why in the final analyses the powers that be have no interest in “winning this war”.
I have been very vocal on how I think this war should be waged. Take away their hiding places, and you expose them. Once exposed, you kill them, or bathe them in bacon grease.
Hedo,
I think you know that I have no qualms about waging war on terrorists.
However, I do have issue with not caring to distinguish between enemies and nearby civilians. Of course there will be collateral damage and I’m not trying to criticize accidental destruction. I know others will not agree, but in my estimation, one of the prices of our own ethics and choices is that it may be more difficult or more costly to fight while retaining our ethics.
I can’t force other people to make the same decision, but I believe living by my principles, so to speak, is worth increased risk. I’ll live and die within my principles… even if it is not the safest or most convenient path. If I don’t do so, then I no longer know who I am.
I don’t want to cede more authority to government. I don’t want to lose respect for innocent lives through dehumanization. I don’t want soldiers representing me to “sell their souls” by loss of such principles.
This is not incompatible with wanting to or being able to win.
With my voice, or my vote, I’ll push in the direction of my principles, and if yours differ, then of course you’ll push in yours. All of that is exactly as it should be.
So, pointing out excess dehumanization, in my own opinion, that is occurring and arguing against the “wipe them all out” type of talk is simply a way that I can stand for my own principles.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
You are however in the process of ruining the foundations of your wealth because your MIC sucks you try.
Please explain how. I don’t see what you see. Maybe you have a better vantage point. I don’t think so, but for the sake of debate -
You wage war, to wage war, it is a business with very high profits and more and more people are making money with it.
Not unlike the Roman empire your middle class finances it and your lower classes fight it.
Maybe from the top it is that way. I doubt it, but there is not going to be any head-way made by discussing your position, and my opposition to it further.
BUT - My own perspective is that I think we should fight this war to win it. We have not done that, which plays into your assumption. I think we are being way too nice, and trying to make friends instead of removing the problem.
One thing at a time. It is the same as trying to bulk and cut at the same time: It might work, but it will take way too long to get the job done.
That is why in the final analyses the powers that be have no interest in “winning this war”.
How will you fight this “vermin”?
I have been very vocal on how I think this war should be waged. Take away their hiding places, and you expose them. Once exposed, you kill them, or bathe them in bacon grease.
[/quote]
If I am indeed correct that some people in the US will keep this war, or any war, going to profit from it, it is those people who I would call vermin.
I asked you how you would fight these people.
The rest is pretty simple.
Modern wars are never financed by taxation but by debt and inflation and if history is any judge the middle class will pay for it.
Since an educated, well off middle class with a strong work ethic is the moral, political and economic backbone of your country it will suffer on all three fronts if your demographics start to resemble Latin American countries.
Contrary to what people like JeffR believe noone is looking forward to this, in fact we`d like to avoid anything that brings us closer to the secong coming of the Dark Ages.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, pointing out excess dehumanization, in my own opinion, that is occurring and arguing against the “wipe them all out” type of talk…[/quote]
Who is espousing this view here?
I don’t know how my strategy is a mystery to you. You find where they are hiding, and you destroy it. Will there be collateral damage?
Yes - but this is a war. It won’t take long for villagers to understand that if they harbor the roaches - they stand a better than average chance of having their home blown up.
Is it inhumane? Probably, but name any war ever waged that was a humanity effort.
My point is simply this: If we truly want to win, we must be willing to do all the ugly, unpopular things it takes.
If you are correct in your assumption that the entirety of the ME theater is a profit center for the MIC - then nothing I say really matters.
Secondly - our demographics will begin to resemble Latin America not because of war, but because Bush and the rest of the politicians see the immigrants as votes - not as a threat to our way of life. As a result - Latin America will migrate north of the Rio Grande.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The article isn’t a very good description of dehumanization during a war. More about racism and stereotyping.
All combat is by it’s very nature dehumanizing in that it is very difficult to kill another man. You must fight for something in war, whether it be land, revenge or a way of life. You need to dehumanize the enemy to kill. You shoot a soldier not a man. You aim to destroy a tank not it’s occupants. The death of the man is a consequence.
The Unites States isn’t fighting for land, the most common of all disputes, particularly in European history. The US is fighting for an ideal and a way of life. We want the world to live terror free and Democratic. The enemy doesn’t. We are also trying to hobble the terrorists and kill as many of them as possible. They would prefer we didn’t and have enlisted fellow travellers and the ever present useful idiots as allies. The weak resent this. The opinion of the enemy is of no concern.
First world nations don’t fight each other anymore because they are run by reasonable and pragmatic men. Much of the ME is not run by reasonable and prgmatic men and they also subscribe to an idealogy that breeds fanaticism and gives moral authority to kill those who don’t believe in the same God. Bad combination.
The world is slowing waking up to the seriousness of the situation. This spells bad news for the ME. The problems will be dealt with and the West is growing weary of the threat and is beginning to realize that peace with many of these countries is quite hopeless. The US has the might to deal with it. Others don’t. In the end the US will prevail, the level of pain that causes the ME is really up to them.[/quote]
Good post, Hedo.
I would add that the “dehumanization” angle is more of a “pop theory” than anything quite reliable as real criticism. After all, war is full of hard, difficult choices, and “total war” advocates believe that the trade-off of a harsher war actually saves lives in the long run.
By any measure, isn’t the desire to fight more ruthlessly now to save more lives later the very opposite of “dehumanization”, whatever that trendy term means?
From the looks of “dehumanization theory” - which flirts with false conciousness conspiracies of radical politics (“the media dehumanizes people so as to get people on board with the war”, etc.) - it is another venture down the road of “feel-good” policy that does little to actually prevent harm from being done. War is awful and hellish - trying to “humanize” it according to this theory will only make wars drag on, for one simple reason: unless “dehumanization theory” is the lowest common denominator, then someone will always use its precepts to take advantage of their opponent.
Such a hope is mere utopian fantasy - an illusory hope that suddenly your enemy will lay down their arms and experience an epiphany of loving behavior. If war has taught us anything it’s that human nature won’t work like that, so fighting wars like that is a recipe for wasted lives.
Wage war to win and to break the back of your opponent. That doesn’t always mean “carpet bomb” - but it does mean teaching your enemy to fear you and to think twice about raising arms against you in the first place. “Dehumanization theory” is a trip down a familiar, dangerous road - and should be resigned to coffee house and never the war room.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Unless you can explain your manichean stance by another mean, I’m still gonna go ahead and assume that you equate everyone in the ME with terrorists.
So, why would it be that “they” either do or don’t have something to lose? Why shouldn’t one be able to argue both sides as you claim?
[/quote]
Citizens are “they”. Inhabitants are “they”. Terrorists are part of “they”, but not all of it.
This is quite elementary logic. I have no idea why it is so confusing to you. I will leave it to you to actually read what I have already written about my stance, instead of wasting my time explaining my position for the umpteenth time.
Additionally - a liar will lie because he likes to lie. There doesn’t have to be a malicious intent. Surely you know this as well.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is it inhumane? Probably, but name any war ever waged that was a humanity effort.
[/quote]
Maybe, but calling random BS war, does not make a war.
Yes, but you aren`t. You also cannot fight for peace, democracy and applepie using the methods of Tamerlan (I believe his favorite were skull pyramides).
Large part of the US won`t stand for it so what is the conclusion?
If the only way to win ( and I doubt that it would work) is denied to you, why wage war?
What does matter is why even someone like you perceives terrorism as such a threat.
Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are practically zero, there are hundreds of thousands lives that could be saved by the money you throw after fighting terrorism.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you are correct in your assumption that the entirety of the ME theater is a profit center for the MIC - then nothing I say really matters. [/quote]
The Fog of War - Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804