Good Rumsfeld speech on (among other things) the media

[leejo]

This is a thoughtful speech, not a media bashing one. Good read.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...ecdef2121.html

[Steeler]

That speech had so much spin it made me dizzy.

[leejo]

How so? Tossing out an unsubstantiated statement like that, you might as well just say "that speech was stupid" for all the good it does anyone.

Certainly Sec. Rumsfeld had a point to make. That's different from spin.

[SmokingTarpan]

He's got some interesting points, though I'm thoroughly annoyed with the part talking about bombing children. Accident or not, we've killed children as well, and I don't think it's fair to point the "bad people" finger at someone if you've done the same thing.

I think the media is slanted to present a majority of negative things about Iraq, or any fight, really. However, even if they pulled a complete 180, I still wouldn't support this conflict, for many reasons.

[leejo]

You don't see the difference between accidentally hitting children and targeting them?

[SmokingTarpan]

Dead kid is a dead kid. You don't get to point a finger while hiding behind an "oops, accident" shield.

It's war; innocents and children die, it's a fact that I understand. Just don't pretend to be righteous because the ones you killed were accidental. That's all I ask.

[leejo]

You ask a lot, and I categorically disagree. If we weren't extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, we could level cities from afar without exposing soldiers to the dangers of urban conflict. Our enemies have chosen to hide out with as many civilians around them as possible, and in fact target those civilians because they know that the press will cover it and people like you will either blame the US military for these deaths or begin to blur the moral line between the people who are killing civilians and the people who are trying to protect those same civilians.

Dead kid is indeed dead kid, and a tragedy. But we don't let murderers off the hook legally or morally by saying that. A dead kid, raped and strangled and tossed in the woods is the same as dead kid felled by lukemia is the same as dead kid blown up by terrorist is the same as dead kid inside or next to a safe house hit by a US bomb? Do you lump all these causes into the same vague and broad collection?

[SmokingTarpan]

You're straying away from the theatre of combat with the disease and psychopath murder examples. I'm only focussed on deaths of innocents in a battle.

Do I think terrorists are wrong for deliberately targetting children? Absolutely. Do I think that the children the US kills in combat are accidents? Absolutely. Do I think that the US goes out of its way to prevent these accidents as best it can? Absolutely. Do I think that gives us the right to point the finger and scream "Childkillers!"? Hell no.

In the end, the kids are dead, regardless of intent. Try explaining the difference of intent to the parents of the dead kid, I doubt they'll care.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

You're straying away from the theatre of combat with the disease and psychopath murder examples. I'm only focussed on deaths of innocents in a battle.

Do I think terrorists are wrong for deliberately targetting children? Absolutely. Do I think that the children the US kills in combat are accidents? Absolutely. Do I think that the US goes out of its way to prevent these accidents as best it can? Absolutely. Do I think that gives us the right to point the finger and scream "Childkillers!"? Hell no.

In the end, the kids are dead, regardless of intent. Try explaining the difference of intent to the parents of the dead kid, I doubt they'll care.

What is a scenario, then, that would justify one in pointing a finger and screaming "childkiller!"? It seems to me that the necessary and sufficient condition for calling someone a childkiller is that they've intentionally killed a child.

Am I missing something or is your main concern that the US not have the moral high ground in the public debate with these childkillers?

With regard to my straying from the battlefield, I don't think I have. There is rarely a battle at all: these are not children caught in a crossfire, they are sitting around eating candy when a bomb goes off, often far away from military targets. You are ascribing battle conditions to simple murder.

How many children killed in Jordan a few weeks ago had a US soldier nearby? How many children at the wedding reception that was targeted would you call victims of a battle?

[James315]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

In the end, the kids are dead, regardless of intent. Try explaining the difference of intent to the parents of the dead kid, I doubt they'll care.

U.S. soldiers are occasionally killed in friendly-fire incidents. Do you think their parents view the U.S. military the same way they view the enemy?

In World War II, the U.S. and Britain conducted extensive bombing campaigns across Germany and the occupied territories. During the raids, innocent Jews were killed unintentionally by the bombs. Based on your logic, the U.S. had no right to condemn the Holocaust, because they also killed Jews. Though by accident, a dead Jew is a dead Jew, and their friends and family didn't care whether it was a death caused by mistake or calculated genocide?

[Mateo]

Is it too late to say, in all this sniping, that as a liberal, I still liked the speech?

[leejo]

Not at all, hippie. If you must open your pie-hole at all, by all means make a sensible, balanced observation that supports a conservative or a conservative position.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Is it too late to say, in all this sniping, that as a liberal, I still liked the speech?

No, I think that's what's important. Too many people make up their mind before they really listen to something, simply because it's a "liberal" or "conservative" talking. Screw that... The trend towards close-minded idealism is hurting this country.

[leejo]

Angry people don't listen.

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by leejo

How many children killed in Jordan a few weeks ago had a US soldier nearby? How many children at the wedding reception that was targeted would you call victims of a battle?

Those are victims of a terrorist attack, they weren't trying to do anything but kill civilians. What would you label (aside from an accident) the misdrop of bombs from a US warplane onto an orphanage? I lump that into into battle casualties; we were seeking a type of fight against the enemy, but made a mistake. Your definition of battle seems to be very slim, requiring active participation from both opposing forces- a good old fashioned firefight, if you will. I think that in this type of guerilla conflict, any action taken with the intent of harming the opposing military (not civlian) force qualifies as battle.

I generally look at things from a simplified level. If you're going to cast someone down and claim moral high ground on something, you better not have violated that in any way.

Really, all it takes is a change in language with that speech for me to be fine with it. That's the only part of his talk that I have a problem with. I thought he had some good points otherwise.