logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> UK elite soldier refuses to fight in Iraq., More evidence of a diverging US and UK?
kalabus
post Mar 14 2006, 12:09 PM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 279
Member No.: 2,117
Joined: January-3-04

From: Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



Ben Griffin, an SAS soldier recently refused to fight in Iraq alongside US troops and requested seperation from the UK military after serving 3 months in Baghdad.

He cited that that he could no longer fight alongside US troops who in his words were performing "dozens of illegal acts" in regards to fighting insurgents and conducting the war. He also referred to US soldier's as being and possessing a "gung-ho and trigger happy mentality" and stated he felt the war was "illegal".


Link to story

Taken by itself one may not find it suprising that a soldier disagreed with the war and wanted out. The reason this instance deserves special attention is because he was a highly esteemed Special Forces soldier and because of the reaction of the Military, which granted him an honourable (intentional spelling) discharge, citing testimonials that he was a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".

This is for a soldier who openly stated that Parliament and PM Blair had "lied" about the war and he also stated "I did not join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy,"

Questions for debate:

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?


This post has been edited by kalabus: Mar 14 2006, 12:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Vermillion
post Mar 14 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #21


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 14 2006, 11:07 PM)
Again, sir, I never called him a liar. I just don't believe that the credentials of this gentleman allow him to speak for all British Soldiers...


OK, lets make this simple since you keep dancing away from my points.

I say again, as I have in every post and for the record, we agree that this person does not necessarily speak for the British military. Done.

Do you think his statements have any weight? Should they be investigated? Should Americans be concerned about the conduct of their troops?

You keep saying you have not called him a liar, but that is a half truth. You never used those words no, but you have repeatedly tried to call into question what he had to say, you stated he must be 'in error' since the red cross didnt sgree with him, then abandoned that line of argumentation when it turns out the Red Cross actually DOES agree with him. His 'credentials' as you put it seem to me to be beyond reproach, despite your attempts to allude otherise. That

he cannot speak for all brits has nothing to do with his 'credentials', and more to do with the fact that one simply cannot assume unanimity from a single comment, There may ell BE unanimity, but we cannot decide with any authority either way based on one comment, Again, we agree on that.

Here is a man in a position to speak with an enormous degree of authority about what constitutes abuse. He is no peacenick who does not understand that a CERTAIN amount of ruthlessness is required in counter-insurgency, he knows all about that and has lived it in two different previous wars. he is neither a coward nor afraid of spilling blood, and he has worked likely (given his unit) in some pretty heavy operations right alongside the US forces in Iraq.

Why do you dismiss his comments on FACT? Why do you not consider the possibility that he might be right? Is there any tangible reason why you will not consider his essentially expert testemony, apart from the fact that you just don't want to?


Again to be clear, I'm not saying I know for a fact he is right, obviously I do not. I'm not saying he speaks for all Brits or all of the SAS, he may not. None of that is the debate. Why do you seem to instantly ASSUME he is lying, even if you do not call him one outright?

Because lets face it, if he is not lying, then he is telling the truth.

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 14 2006, 11:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Mar 15 2006, 02:18 PM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 14 2006, 03:23 PM)

QUOTE(aevand176)
(*Side Note--> I would gladly challenge any NCO in the US military on tape, camera, or in front of the world if they were to make such statements about US soldiers acting like Nazi's. I guess you've forgotten, and if necessary will gladly present credentials..


This also has been dealt with, yet not only have you ignored the rebuttal, but every time you repeat the accusation it gets worse and worse. He never said the US soldiers were acting like Nazis. He said the US troops see the arabs as untermenshen, less than people. As Daffygirl said, a politically loaded term, but to now pretend you think he was saying the US is gassing arabs by the million, or some such, is just silly.


If we look at how he used the term untermenshen, we can discern his intentions:

QUOTE
Mr Griffin said he believed that the Americans soldiers viewed the Iraqis in the same way as the Nazis viewed Russians, Jews and eastern Europeans in the Second World War, when they labelled them "untermenschen".

"As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."


Source: UK Telegraph

It's pretty obvious that "dislike" is not a strong enough word's for Mr. Griffin's attitude towards Americans.

If we look at his views:
-Britain's involvement in the Iraq war is simply an extension of American foreign policy
-Blair lied
-he claims to have seen many "crimes" while in Iraq, but did not report them to anyone
-he believes American soldiers view Iraqis as sub-human
-he believes the Iraqi war is illegal, immoral, and an "act of aggression"
-he believes the Iraqi authorities are torturing detainees
-he believes American soldiers either wanted to kill Iraqis or wanted college money
-he feels American's have a well-deserved reputation for being "trigger happy"

QUOTE
"The Americans had a well-deserved reputation for being trigger happy. In the three months that I was in Iraq, the soldiers I served with never shot anybody. When you asked the Americans why they killed people, they would say 'we were up against the tough foreign fighters'. I didn't see any foreign fighters in the time I was over there."


So Mr. Griffin never "shot anybody" even though he was in Baghdad the month that the governor of Baghdad's province was assassinated, 15 British serviceman die in a plane crash, 17 people died in car bombs, rockets were fired on the US Embassy, 9 members of the RAF and one British soldier died in a plane crash NW of Baghdad. That was all in January 2005, in the span of a week (Jan. 26 - 31 source). I guess he was lucky not to encounter the enemy. thumbsup.gif

Summarizing, Mr. Griffin was a member of the SAS for slightly over a year (from the story--early 2004 until March 2005). He was a trooper (I'm going to assume this is the lowest rank, although frankly I don't know and don't care much). There was no mention of his being "decorated" although he certainly had service medals. He holds views very common in the anti-war movement. When his anti-war views clashed with his assignment, he chose to resign.

Is a one year enough time to earn the full reputation of the SAS? Is failing to report "crimes" honorable? Is refusing to serve over political reasons justifiable?

The man's words and deeds speak for themselves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 15 2006, 02:50 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 15 2006, 02:18 PM)
It's pretty obvious that "dislike" is not a strong enough word's for Mr. Griffin's attitude towards Americans.


And so the name calling begins. Anybody who does not like the Iraq war must be anti-American. Anybody who criticises the conduct of troops or actions regarding Iraq must hate America.

At least the rhetoric is consistent...


But, dealing with specifics, lets look at his views, I agree.

QUOTE
If we look at his views:
-Britain's involvement in the Iraq war is simply an extension of American foreign policy
-Blair lied


Yes, he states both these things. The fact that he claims them, by the way, does not make them wrong...

QUOTE
-he claims to have seen many "crimes" while in Iraq, but did not report them to anyone


I liked the litte quotation marks, as if anyone thinking the Americans could commit crimes is off their rocker, very cute. In fact he did report these crimes, he waited until he was home to report them to his CO there. He describes it as loyalty.

It's obvious you are truing to insinuate something bac about his character here in the hope that this will instantly remove and credibility from his words, but its not working. I can;t even tell what vile motive you are trying to insinuate he had for lying. Could you be a bit more explicit in your insulting the man?

QUOTE
-he believes American soldiers view Iraqis as sub-human


Well, he believes SOME american soldiers have this vire, but close enough.

QUOTE
-he believes the Iraqi war is illegal, immoral, and an "act of aggression"
-he believes the Iraqi authorities are torturing detainees
-he believes American soldiers either wanted to kill Iraqis or wanted college money
-he feels American's have a well-deserved reputation for being "trigger happy"


Yes, all those are true according to his statements. And? You say it as if the very fact that he could possibly think these things instantly means he is wrong. It doesn't work that way...

QUOTE
So Mr. Griffin never "shot anybody" even though he was in Baghdad the month that the governor of Baghdad's province was assassinated, 15 British serviceman die in a plane crash, 17 people died in car bombs, rockets were fired on the US Embassy, 9 members of the RAF and one British soldier died in a plane crash NW of Baghdad. I guess he was lucky not to encounter the enemy.


Now that does not even make sense. I mean seriously, look at the things you listed there, not ONE of them would involve a soldier discharging his weapon, unles they happened to find the man who fired the rockets (which they did not). I mean, how much gunfire did you expect him to perform during a car crash or a plane crash?

His point is not he did not encounter difficult situations, his point is he and his comrades found ways to deal with them that did not involve gunfire. Yes, to a certain extent maybe that means he was fortunate. It also does nothing to negate his point.

QUOTE
Summarizing, Mr. Griffin was a member of the SAS for slightly over a year (from the story--early 2004 until March 2005). He was a trooper (I'm going to assume this is the lowest rank, although frankly I don't know and don't care much). There was no mention of his being "decorated" although he certainly had service medals. He holds views very common in the anti-war movement. When his anti-war views clashed with his assignment, he chose to resign.


Thats quite the biased summary, substituting your opinion for facts. Lets do it properly, shall we?

"Mr. Griffin was a member of the SAS for slightly over a year (from the story--early 2004 until March 2005). He was a trooper, meaning an NCO, though his rank is unknown. There was no mention of his being "decorated" although he certainly had service medals. He holds some views very common in the anti-Iraq-war movement."

Trying to paint a military man who volunteered for the SAS, was accepted and served in the elite parachute regiment in both Northern Ireland and Bosnia as 'Anti-War' is a bad joke. However yes, some of his views do coincide with the views of some people who are against the Iraq war. So? To me, that lends far more credence to the views of the anti-Iraq-war people.

Interestingly, this article differs completely from the other article (above) when it comes to his motives for leaving. This telegraph says he left because he was against the Iraq war. The previous one said he left because he was not willing to fight alongside US troops. A significant difference.

QUOTE
Is a one year enough time to earn the full reputation of the SAS? Is failing to report "crimes" honorable? Is refusing to serve over political reasons justifiable?


OK, go serve a year in the SAS, or a year as a SEAL as you are American, get operationaly deployed to three areas, and then tell me if you have any 'cred'. Until then, thats a pretty weak attack.

He did not fail to report crimes, he waited to report crimes. I'm not exactly sure what insult you are getting at with all this, as I said.

And as for refusing to serve for political resons, firstly the exact reason he would not continue is as of yet unknown, and secondly in EITHER case the resons were moral, not political. And forgive me, but as far as I know, that is the BEST reason to take a decision, not the worst one.

So you too claim he is lying, but rather than even consider the possibility that there might be some truth to what he is saying, you find it easier to invent slander about the man, create motives for him, label him aa 'anti-war' and dismiss the whole thing. As I said at the top, at least the rhetoric is consistent...

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 15 2006, 02:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 15 2006, 03:06 PM
Post #24


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE
So Mr. Griffin never "shot anybody" even though he was in Baghdad the month that the governor of Baghdad's province was assassinated, 15 British serviceman die in a plane crash, 17 people died in car bombs, rockets were fired on the US Embassy, 9 members of the RAF and one British soldier died in a plane crash NW of Baghdad. I guess he was lucky not to encounter the enemy.


Now that does not even make sense. I mean seriously, look at the things you listed there, not ONE of them would involve a soldier discharging his weapon, unles they happened to find the man who fired the rockets (which they did not). I mean, how much gunfire did you expect him to perform during a car crash or a plane crash?

His point is not he did not encounter difficult situations, his point is he and his comrades found ways to deal with them that did not involve gunfire. Yes, to a certain extent maybe that means he was fortunate. It also does nothing to negate his point.


I think that's a typo by Amlord. In the quote he referenced, Mr Griffin states that he never saw any soldier shoot anyone. Seems a bit contrary to his "US soldiers are trigger-happy" allegation, so yes it's relevant.

Per the questions to be debated, I'll just say this. The nonexistent punishment in his case will likely lead to more of this conduct. Very few soldiers yearn to go into the hell hole that is Iraq. If the worst they have to fear is honorable discharge in the event of desertion, there will likely be more of this to come.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 15 2006, 03:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Mar 15 2006, 03:57 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 15 2006, 02:18 PM)
It's pretty obvious that "dislike" is not a strong enough word's for Mr. Griffin's attitude towards Americans.


And so the name calling begins. Anybody who does not like the Iraq war must be anti-American. Anybody who criticises the conduct of troops or actions regarding Iraq must hate America.

At least the rhetoric is consistent...


Bad show. Griffin himself says American soldiers on in one of two groups: crusaders or GI Bill college students. The fact that he used the word "crusader" should tell you something about his views. Of course, he has used crusader and untermuschen, which together should tell us something additional about his views. It seems to be more likely that his use of these terms is not merely a passing use of a "politically loaded" term.

QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
But, dealing with specifics, lets look at his views, I agree.

QUOTE
If we look at his views:
-Britain's involvement in the Iraq war is simply an extension of American foreign policy
-Blair lied


Yes, he states both these things. The fact that he claims them, by the way, does not make them wrong...

QUOTE
-he claims to have seen many "crimes" while in Iraq, but did not report them to anyone


I liked the litte quotation marks, as if anyone thinking the Americans could commit crimes is off their rocker, very cute. In fact he did report these crimes, he waited until he was home to report them to his CO there. He describes it as loyalty.


The quotes around crimes are there because that is his word for what he saw. He called them crimes and did not report them. Funny thing, coming from an elite soldier who later resigned because he disagreed with his mission.

QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
It's obvious you are truing to insinuate something bac about his character here in the hope that this will instantly remove and credibility from his words, but its not working. I can;t even tell what vile motive you are trying to insinuate he had for lying. Could you be a bit more explicit in your insulting the man?


If summarizing a man's viewpoint (and you agree with my summary points) is insulting him then I don't know where to start. If quoting a man directly is insulting, I guess we can't question anything about him...

By the way, I never called him a liar. Again, as you did with aevans176, you attribute to me things I never said. I have always maintained that this is one man's opinion. Having an opinion does not make one a liar. What I am doing is putting some perspective on his actions by quoting his words. How very presumptuous of me. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE
-he believes American soldiers view Iraqis as sub-human


Well, he believes SOME american soldiers have this vire, but close enough.


Actually, his words were "As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermuschen." Not some Americans, THE Americans. He is the one painting with a broad brush.

QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE
-he believes the Iraqi war is illegal, immoral, and an "act of aggression"
-he believes the Iraqi authorities are torturing detainees
-he believes American soldiers either wanted to kill Iraqis or wanted college money
-he feels American's have a well-deserved reputation for being "trigger happy"


Yes, all those are true according to his statements. And? You say it as if the very fact that he could possibly think these things instantly means he is wrong. It doesn't work that way...


Again, I never called him a liar. I am merely pointing out his opinions to add context.

And excuse me if I feel free to criticize a man's opinion. Being a member of the SAS gives absolutely no additional weight to a man's opinion. None. Zero. Nada. Especially given the fact that he never saw anyone shoot anyone in his three months in Iraq and feels free to call the Americans "trigger happy". An opinion (which he seems to lend credibility to, since one might assume that an elite trooper would have seen combat) which is based on hearsay and not personal experience. This despite being a member of the British SAS's elite "counter-terrorist team".

I highly doubt that Mr. Griffin is the first soldier who came home and wondered why the military did some of the things it did. Watch the old TV show *M*A*S*H* and see how many times idiotic actions were performed by the military. It isn't anything new and it seems to form the basis of his complaint: I disagree with the war (this war) on philosophical grounds, I think stupid things are being done (stupid tactics, stupid strategy, stupid execution), I think my allies have bad attitudes or are incompetent. It reads like Captain Hawkeye Pierce from *M*A*S*H*. The storyline isn't new. Mr. Griffin simply got away with it and was somehow honourably discharged despite de facto desertion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 15 2006, 04:24 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 15 2006, 03:57 PM)
Bad show. Griffin himself says American soldiers on in one of two groups: crusaders or GI Bill college students. The fact that he used the word "crusader" should tell you something about his views. Of course, he has used crusader and untermuschen, which together should tell us something additional about his views.


Well, for 'Crusader', perhaps he just looked to the President of the United States for inspiration. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. " (GWB)

You are reading way too much into descriptive terms he used, and notably not even adressing the substance of the comments he made.


QUOTE
The quotes around crimes are there because that is his word for what he saw. He called them crimes and did not report them. Funny thing, coming from an elite soldier who later resigned because he disagreed with his mission.


Hello, we already went through this, repitition does not make for accuracy. He did report the crimes, to his CO in the UK, and the articles are contradictory about why he resigned. And as I said, even if it was the 'worst case' you are so eager to paint, I still am not sure how a moral reason to make a decision is such a contemptable one in your eyes.

QUOTE(Vermillion)
By the way, I never called him a liar. Again, as you did with aevans176, you attribute to me things I never said. I have always maintained that this is one man's opinion.


You are correct, this is exactly like with Aevans. Both of you are consistently insinuating you do not believe him, that he is untrustworthy, that his character is questionable, and so on. Explain to me the difference between that and calling him a liar please. You say that this is one man's opinion, but both of you go much further than that and then present an assortment of resons why it is legitimate to totally ignore this one man's comments as incorrect or biased or incompetent. Of course you are calling him a liar. Or are you accepting that what he says is true?


QUOTE
And excuse me if I feel free to criticize a man's opinion. Being a member of the SAS gives absolutely no additional weight to a man's opinion. None. Zero. Nada.


But neither you nor Aevans have even ONCE criticised his opinion. Not once have you presented evidence to oppose it, not once have you justified disregarding his statements on their merit. You have between the two of you insulted his character, his honour, his bravery, his reputation, his rank, his motives, you have essentially done everything possible to attack the man so that you do not have to bother listening to the message. That is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.


Look, I never said I assumed his statements represented an absolutely accurate account of all American actions in Iraq. I never pretended here was a great figure preaching gospel from on high. What I have said is here is a man with the training, experience and skills to have a better understanding of what did and did not happen, what is and is not acceptable, than any of us.

My whole point was, this guy has some strong things to say, we should look at them. But you and Aevans have come up with a hundred reasons why this man is immoral, untrustworthy, borderline incompetent and traitorous rather than CONSIDER that what the man has to say MIGHT be in part true.


QUOTE
Especially given the fact that he never saw anyone shoot anyone in his three months in Iraq and feels free to call the Americans "trigger happy".


That is NOT what he said. He said the men he worked with, IE the Brits and the SAS, did not need to fire on people. Thats plainly obvious from the context.


QUOTE
I highly doubt that Mr. Griffin is the first soldier who came home and wondered why the military did some of the things it did.


No indeed you are correct, he is not the first and he will not be the last. What I find so baffling is why those who support the war will go to such extraordinary mental calesthenics rather than listen to anyone criticse the conduct of the war or the actions of US troops in Iraq.

I wanted this debate to be about the validity of his statements, I expected evidence on both sides on how the US has behaved, I reasonably assumed there would be some give and take about what can be expected from US troops on the ground, and what is unacceptable. Instead, all I have received rom you an Aevans is an astonishing and largely invented personal attack on the character of the man making the comments, and not word 1 about what he has to say.

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 15 2006, 04:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Mar 15 2006, 04:48 PM
Post #27


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Vermillion)
Well, for 'Crusader', perhaps he just looked to the President of the United States for inspiration. "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. " (GWB)

You are reading way too much into descriptive terms he used, and notably not even adressing the substance of the comments he made.
And your not by pulling GW Bush's use of that word?

whistling.gif

How many times did Bush call the WOT a 'crusade'?

I've heard him say it once as he groped for a term to describe a military action against terrorism. He got flak when he said it, when it was justified, but its a bit rich that people still hold it against him!

Especially in the light of the words Jihad and Mujahideed which no one seems to bothered about.

rolleyes.gif


edited to add (and because I pressed the wrong button...)

QUOTE(Vermillion)
No indeed you are correct, he is not the first and he will not be the last. What I find so baffling is why those who support the war will go to such extraordinary mental calesthenics rather than listen to anyone criticse the conduct of the war or the actions of US troops in Iraq.
Well, I think I can see things from both directions actually and I have no problem with dissenting, anti war views.

A lot of the time I support them.

But in this thread, right here, the only extraordinary mental calesthenics I see appear to be your own Vermillion.


QUOTE
I wanted this debate to be about the validity of his statements, I expected evidence on both sides on how the US has behaved, I reasonably assumed there would be some give and take about what can be expected from US troops on the ground, and what is unacceptable. Instead, all I have received rom you an Aevans is an astonishing and largely invented personal attack on the character of the man making the comments, and not word 1 about what he has to say.
Well if that is the case then give us examples of how the US has behaved badly and we can debate them.

Simply pointing to the dubious opinions of one former British soldier don't amount to anything worth debating though. Even if he was a member of the SAS.

This post has been edited by moif: Mar 15 2006, 04:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Mar 15 2006, 04:56 PM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Again, if quoting the man is a personal attack I don't see how we can constructively address his views.

This man is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it remains just that -- his opinion.

He contradicts himself and undermines his credibility when he affirms that Americans deserve the moniker "trigger happy" and yet "the soldiers I served with never shot anybody". Perhaps he makes a distinction between British soldiers he served with an American soldiers. Not being a soldier myself I'm not sure how one addresses allies. I think Americans would fall under the category of "the soldiers I served with" but perhaps not.

You apparently believe the terms he used (crusader and untermuschen) are commonplace and innocent of invective. I disagree. However, I will not assume that because you disagree with my opinion that you are insulting me or attacking my character. I'd suggest you give me the same benefit of the doubt when I disagree with Mr. Griffin's opinion.

All I have done is flesh out his views, using his own words. They bring context to the discussion, not insults.

If you want to delve deeper into the legalities of the war, or whether or not the UK's involvement is simply a furtherance of American foreign policy I think those topics are beyond the scope of this debate.

The questions here revolve around whether or not this one man's opinion is an indication of a falling out between the US and the UK. I believe we have both stated that such an anecdote is not indicative of a trend or indeed of UK policy.

On the matter of whether this man's opinion of US soldiers with these terms (crusader, untermuschen, gung ho, trigger happy) is alarming or not, I have simply provided context for my opinion of why these are not alarming nor should they be surprising, considering his other statements.

I am not attacking the man, I simply think he is wrong and have offered evidence that despite his deployment in the SAS, his experiences do not give him the proper credibility to make such statements with any authority.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 15 2006, 05:07 PM
Post #29


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Vermillion @ Mar 15 2006, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE
Especially given the fact that he never saw anyone shoot anyone in his three months in Iraq and feels free to call the Americans "trigger happy".


That is NOT what he said. He said the men he worked with, IE the Brits and the SAS, did not need to fire on people. Thats plainly obvious from the context.
*



Like Amlord, I was under the impression that the "soldiers he worked with" included American soldiers. If not, what on earth is he basing his opinion on? Heresay? He hasn't cited any personal accounts of "triggerhappy" conduct, as would be defined in a combat zone as shooting incidences.

Now, I'm sure he has disagreed with the policies and saw things he didn't like. In which case, I would think staying in would benefit others more than his desertion (can't change a system for the better if all the good people get out), if that is in fact his reason for leaving after three months time. It bares mentioning that, though the Brits are doing a tremendous job, and pulling more than their fair share, and I appreciate the fact that they haven't pulled out since this is a bad deal...there are 18 times more US forces in Iraq than UK troops. It's something like a 160,000 to 9,000 ratio. Who will be more likely to make a wrong move, encounter more questionable and dangerous situations, or make stupid choices? The US forces have 18 times the opportunity.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Mar 15 2006, 05:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Mar 15 2006, 05:56 PM
Post #30


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?
After reading through the various arguments posted so far, this is the only question I feel like addressing because I think it's the bottom line aspect of this debate.
I can't vouch for the British military as a whole, since I'm not a member, though I have worked extensively with Commonwealth Forces. Just because a man joins an elite unit, doesn't mean that he locks onto the current mission at hand like a guided missile. Many Special operators in the US Army have reservations and doubts about our involvement in Iraq. Most, in my experience, take issue with the way we are allowed/directed to conduct operations, rather than the political aspects, but they exist also.
In my experience, those at the lower levels of rank who speak out in a public manner usually have had other events occur which drives their actions. Meaning that we don't entirely know the full story behind Mr. Griffin's service, but on the surface, we don't have any information that would lead us to think otherwise.
I don't really see the importance of this story, except as ammunition against the Bush/Blair policies.
An SAS trooper spoke out against the war and left military service......so what. The only real issue that I take with him, is that if he witnessed illegal acts in Iraq and waited until he returned to Britain to report them, then he is an accessory to the violations he claimed to witness. Some here are calling for evidence to discredit Griffins statements, but the same people are not providing any evidence to support his claims either. And from what I can tell, Griffin's statements are vague and generalized to begin with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Mar 15 2006, 08:57 PM
Post #31


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,943
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



As the only Brit here (so far in this thread, anyway), I think I'll start with a few pints of clarification:
  • Rank The Telegraph article does state Griffin's rank - he is (or was) a "Trooper", which in the British Army denotes a private soldier (it depends on his or her regiment precisely what this lowest grade is titled). It it no kind of officer, and is not even an NCO. However, this doesn't mean much in the context of the SAS.
  • The SAS Along with the SBS (the special boat service), the Special Air Service is the highest elite found anywhere in the British Army. In the type of "Top Ten..." columns so beloved of male interest magazines the world over, they are consistently ranked in the top two elite special forces units in the world, alongside the Israeli special forces (who usually pip the SAS to Number 1), ahead of any US unit, even the US Navy SEALS. Traditionally, serving and ex-SAS servicemen (very few women have ever served) work hard to preserve their anonymity to protect themselves and their families from reprisals, since undercover work among enemies (the IRA in the 70s and 80s, other groups now) is a primary part of their function. While it is now possible to enter directly from civilian life, this is very new, and was not the case for Griffin, because until last year it was not possible to join without an exemplary 2 year plus record, including the parachute training commonest in, but not exclusive to, the Parachute Regiment, which is more like the 'commando' regiments soemone referred to.

Ok, lecture over.

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?
No. Like moif (who lived here for many years), I think this symbolises the (mutual) lack of understanding between most Americans and most Britons, who all tend to assume that a shared language and superficially similar cultures are evidence of some kind of philosphical confluence. We have less in common than either side really understands (though I think the Brits, who proportionately travel to the USA far more than happens in reverse, have begun to get a clue in the past 20 years or so).
On the specific issue of the Iraq War, only a bare majority (54% at its height I think) supported the War immediately prior to the invasion, largely based on the persuasive powers of Tony Blair. More even than President Bush, Blair's appeal to the British people to support the invasion was based on the threat of immediate/imminent use of WMD against British interest. So Blair has been politically damaged domestically far more than Bush, because, in short, he told more lies.
The British government has been careful to stand four square alongside the US oer Iraq and the War on Terror generally. It would be a mistake to think that this relfects any widespread support for these things among the British people. Perhaps 20 or 25% still uncritically support the actions - far more just don't understand or believe why Iraq was ever invaded. A majority stil does believe that British forces should stay as long as it takes to clean up the mess - a legacy, perhaps, of our colonial history.
While I agree that this is just one man, and I think that the average squaddie in the British Army looks on American counterparts as generally slopper soldiers that have rather more money spent on them - a mixture of envy and contempt. This attitude is not remotely new, stretching back as it does to at least WW2.

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?
Not particularly. Much of current British military spending is predicated on being able to work alongside the US military on a more or less equal technical footing, on the assumption that no major deployments are likely for the foreseeable future on a stand-alone basis. Pragmatic this may be, however strategically questionable - it is Americans, after all, who are most likely to parrot back at the British a line made famous by one of our greatest war leaders - 'There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests'.

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?
In all honesty, no. Surprising, perhaps. But not alarming. It would be more alarming if, in a society that prizes free speech almost as much as America does, there were no voices coming from anywhere that criticised the established ways of doing things, including those practised by an ally. Britons do not set much store by the doctrine of "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all". They may be polite when they make their criticisms, but in my (limited) experience they are more likely to make them.

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?
It's an outright rejection of one military deployment policy of the government by one man in the British military.

In summary, I think there are few generalisations to be drawn from anything Trooper Griffin has said, except maybe that he seems to fit into the grand British military traditional of turning into something of a snob when things don't go quite your own way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeepMan
post Mar 17 2006, 04:19 PM
Post #32


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 5,204
Joined: June-28-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None




Questions for debate:

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

*

[/quote]

1) No I believe that this particular soldier merely revealed his cowardice and lack of convictions. He enjoyed the training and pay and benefits, but when it came to doing the real job, the tough job, he melted like hot butter on a Georgia July day.

2) No,professional soldiers in the command structure of both militaries could care less about one or two cowardly ,disgruntled soldiers. The military exists to wage war, defend nations, and whatever else the politicians tell it to do. Personal opinons and political grandstanding have no place in militaries of democratic governments.
3) I seem to find a correlation between this story and that of another disingenous military man, John Kerry. Like this man, Kerry served a curiously short stint in actual combat, then came home to make the same claims as this British soldier. Kerry was called out by John O'Neill and never substantiated his claims of illegal acts by Americans, he was selfaggrandizing and jockeying for position as a liberal politician with his anti-war, treasonous lies.

4) If this man Griffin represents the British military, then I see why Britain is no longer a power. THis self doubt on the part of one man could mirror the malaise and impotence of current day Britain, if so, they need to get the heck out of Iraq before they get Americans killed. A military man has no business letting his politics affect his job, which is to kill the enemy, and protect his fellow soldiers. It is good that Griffin is gone, he was a danger to his unit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fma
post Mar 17 2006, 07:12 PM
Post #33


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 4,449
Joined: February-2-05

From: Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



I don't understand why everybody has been dragged to a debate over this SAS soldiers political beliefs. The heart of the matter is (and will be, despite any digressions):

- Griffin is an elite soldier that has fought in Iraq,

- Seeing Iraq personally, he knows more about Iraq than all of us put together,

- He was disgusted at what he saw so he resigned.

- He served in Bosnia and Ireland bu did not make such comments there.

When all this is taken into consideration, I think this is just one more evidence (pro-war people choose to ingore) that point out the barbarity of the situation in Iraq.

I really don't see how the Griffin's political views come into this. If he had political views against US interventionism, why did he say nothing about Bosnia?

---

Ignorance is the best way to keep ones conscience clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lawnmower Man
post Mar 18 2006, 07:42 AM
Post #34


****
Contributor

Group: BANNED
Posts: 52
Member No.: 5,927
Joined: March-7-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



I don't need to read Trooper Griffin's remarks because I already read Generation Kill and know that there are illegal actions occurring in Iraq on a regular basis, as any thoughtful person would expect in any war. Men bred in peacetime cannot be compelled to shoot his fellow man unless he has been trained to think of the enemy as not a fellow man. This is the pattern of conflict since the dawn of replicators. Every replicator since the first ones that had some type of control over their behavior has had to define the rest of the world as part of the in-group or the out-group. If you are in the in-group, you're cool. If you're in the out-group, you could become history, or you could become dinner. But membership in the out-group necessarily implies that you are not me, in the immediate or the extended sense.

Hitler didn't label Jews and Poles and gays sub-human because of a deep philosophical epiphany he had. He did it for simple political expediency, because he wanted to have a war, and he needed his soldiers to know who was 'us' and who was 'them'. Americans needed a similar de-humanizing in Vietnam, so you weren't shooting at other humans. You were just shooting at "Charlie" or "VC". Anything goes, and if your enemy will not observe any rules in his will to kill you, then he is not fit to survive. We act with righteous indignity that American soldiers committed atrocities against "civilians" in Vietnam, yet few to none of us were in the environment where VC infiltrators made every person in country a suspected enemy. If you were in a foreign country and had no reliable way to know which people are innocent villagers and which ones are trying to bomb you out of existence, I dare say it wouldn't take long for paranoia to set in. Not only that, but the stress of being in a situation that is effectively outside your control will eventually wear down on your better judgment, predisposing you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. The idea that there are "rules" to war that we must respect is just a polite fiction for all the people who have never had to pick up a gun and dodge bullets. There is no 'honor' in war, ever. There is no "righteous" way to kill a man, enemy or not. War may be inevitable, even "necessary", but it is never honorable. Humans are stupidly arrogant to think that such a concept even makes sense.

To say that war is without honor is to say that actions performed during war are without honor. Some of those actions offend our conscience more than others, but in my mind, it's like saying there's "good rape" and "bad rape", and getting indignant over the "bad rapists". If you put a gun in a man's hands and tell him to kill, what do you expect? An academic? A pacifist? An intellectual? When was the last time you met a college professor who volunteered for the infantry? That's what I thought. We get exactly what we pay for, so to cry "foul" is really to express a profound level of naivete regarding the nature of conflict. There are no "rules" to survival except survival itself. You kill or you be killed. There are no "innocents". No "morality". No "ethics". Just life and death. Anyone who thinks you can impose a moral system onto a war zone is living in a fantasy world and should be immediately conscripted.

Is the war "moral" to begin with? Is it "moral" for a lion to eat a lamb? For a parasite to eat a host? For a human to eat a hot dog? A head of lettuce? War is nothing more than one meta-organism "eating" another. Some parts get chewed more than others. The fact that the SAS soldier was in Bosnia and did not object to that conflict tells me he was either there at the end, was completely blind, or has no moral conscience at all. The Yugoslavian conflict of the 90's was the biggest Western whitewash ever concocted. It was held in so much secrecy that even the war crimes trials that followed were mostly obscured from the media. It's funny that people don't mind pointing at Muslims when bombs go off in London, Madrid, Indonesia, and New York; but when bombs go off in Yugoslavia, it must be the Serbs at fault. Are there no Muslim extremists in Bosnia? Kosovo? If you believe that, I've got a shiny new bridge to sell you.

In past, if a soldier wanted out, the whole business would be taken care of quietly. What we see today is that every little action is amplified a million times by the media because communications technology is so much more powerful. Were there no soldiers who wanted out of Korea? WW II? WW I? The Civil War? There have been deserters for as long as there has been conflict. It's just exaggerated now because of technology. We are able to see things that just weren't practical to observe in the past. History whitewashes everything. Our "just wars" are written to appear like everyone supported them. But I'm one of the few that actually remembers Gulf War I and remembering everyone not wanting to go into Kuwait. The rest of us remember us as wanting to do the right thing, but that's a polite fiction we create to justify our actions ex post facto. We cannot today conceive that something like Desert Storm could have been unpopular, but it was.

The fact that an "elite" SAS soldier objects is not at all surprising. Rather, it's quite predictable. Most likely, he is more cultured and more educated than the average grunt, and has more "moral conscience", if a man can be said to have such a thing in a war zone. It would be far more surprising if a Junior High dropout from Louisiana were to level the same charges. Then you should be really concerned. Basically, Trooper Griffin has had enough of war and no longer has the stomach for it. I don't begrudge him his desire to leave. But I also place no stock in his unfounded idealism and belief that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to wage war any more than there is a "right" and "wrong" way to commit rape, or for a lion to eat a lamb.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Mar 18 2006, 11:27 AM
Post #35


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Lawnmower Man @ Mar 18 2006, 02:42 AM)

Most likely, he is more cultured and more educated than the average grunt, and has more "moral conscience", if a man can be said to have such a thing in a war zone.


With that summary statement you managed to destroy any credibility in the preceding paragraphs of what were reasonable expressions.

It demonstrates "More cultured an more educated" obviously means it fits your liberal, oh, excuse me, "moderate" model. I'm reminded of the liberal guru who thinks Pol Pot was a swell guy, what's his name, oh, Chomsky. What a shining example of the best that our elite education institutions can produce.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fma
post Mar 18 2006, 01:35 PM
Post #36


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 4,449
Joined: February-2-05

From: Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 18 2006, 01:27 PM)
QUOTE(Lawnmower Man @ Mar 18 2006, 02:42 AM)

Most likely, he is more cultured and more educated than the average grunt, and has more "moral conscience", if a man can be said to have such a thing in a war zone.


With that summary statement you managed to destroy any credibility in the preceding paragraphs of what were reasonable expressions.

It demonstrates "More cultured an more educated" obviously means it fits your liberal, oh, excuse me, "moderate" model. I'm reminded of the liberal guru who thinks Pol Pot was a swell guy, what's his name, oh, Chomsky. What a shining example of the best that our elite education institutions can produce.
*



On the contrary, you managed to destroy your own credibility with this message.

As far as I know, Chomsky never supported what Pol Pol did. He however has compared him with the US actions in the same area and has stated that US "created" Pol Pot. I see nothing wrong in that.

Here is a Chomsky Quote:

QUOTE
It's true that the KR (not just Pol Pot, I believe) were rabidly racist, and had support for that.


Link: http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm

But, as always, if one wants to discredit the ideas of another; it is easier to attack the man rather than his ideas. It always works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vermillion
post Mar 18 2006, 01:37 PM
Post #37


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,547
Member No.: 2,065
Joined: December-23-03

From: Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 18 2006, 11:27 AM)
I'm reminded of the liberal guru who thinks Pol Pot was a swell guy, what's his name, oh, Chomsky. What a shining example of the best that our elite education institutions can produce.


With that statement you managed to destroy any credibility you may have had remaining.

Yes, Chomsky said Pol Pot was a swell guy, nice, lovable, fun at dinner parties...

I mean come on Yogurt, what exactly did you expect to gain with that insane twisting of the man's views? And in the same breath as challenging somebody else's credibility?

He challenged the 2 million dead figure, saying as direct action the KNOWN numbers are closer to about 700,000 (yeah, you can tell he's a real fan) while admitting it may be a lot higher as the exact total is still unknown. He also pointed out that the rise of Pol Pot has a great deal to do with US foreign policy at the time.

Disagree with him if you like, but thinking Pol Pot was a swell guy? Way to shoot your own limited credibility in the foot at the same time you make fun of somebody elses...


Edit to add: apparently I should have waited and just tagged FMA into the ring... wink.gif

This post has been edited by Vermillion: Mar 18 2006, 01:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogurt
post Mar 19 2006, 12:17 AM
Post #38


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 5,162
Joined: June-20-05

From: PA, USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Fma @ Mar 18 2006, 08:35 AM)
As far as I know, Chomsky never supported what Pol Pol did.  He however has compared him with the US actions in the same area and has stated that US "created" Pol Pot.  I see nothing wrong in that.

Here is a Chomsky Quote:

QUOTE
It's true that the KR (not just Pol Pot, I believe) were rabidly racist, and had support for that.



I assumed, wrongfully, that it was nearly stare decisis that Chomsky was finally wrote off as just another 70s wacko. To paraphrase Lord Byron and Oscar Levant, 'There is a fine line between genius and insanity', and Chomsky crossed it about 1976, never to return. You see, it was all current events to me, I lived the ongoing debates (and actually was quite liberal then!), not just what is read in history books.

QUOTE
He is so deeply repulsed by our nation, and so entirely lacking in perspective, that he believes Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Truman are war criminals but Pol Pot, who murdered 25 percent of all Cambodians, he views as having created "constructive achievements for much of the population.
Chapin

Chomsky also expressed how the extermination of what has been widely disputed anywhere from 10-25% of the populace as a small price to pay for the positive outcomes of the Pol Pot regime. Policy

By 1977 everyone else was running from Pol Pot, but Chomsky was either too full of himself or to blind to see what was unfolding...





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fma
post Mar 19 2006, 10:34 AM
Post #39


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 4,449
Joined: February-2-05

From: Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 19 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE(Fma @ Mar 18 2006, 08:35 AM)
As far as I know, Chomsky never supported what Pol Pol did. He however has compared him with the US actions in the same area and has stated that US "created" Pol Pot. I see nothing wrong in that.

Here is a Chomsky Quote:

QUOTE
It's true that the KR (not just Pol Pot, I believe) were rabidly racist, and had support for that.



I assumed, wrongfully, that it was nearly stare decisis that Chomsky was finally wrote off as just another 70s wacko. To paraphrase Lord Byron and Oscar Levant, 'There is a fine line between genius and insanity', and Chomsky crossed it about 1976, never to return. You see, it was all current events to me, I lived the ongoing debates (and actually was quite liberal then!), not just what is read in history books.


Opinions are not facts. A persons opinion is not enough to condemn someone as "insane". I personally think that Bush the Second is a murderer but is that proof that he is one?

QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 19 2006, 02:17 AM)
QUOTE
He is so deeply repulsed by our nation, and so entirely lacking in perspective, that he believes Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Truman are war criminals but Pol Pot, who murdered 25 percent of all Cambodians, he views as having created "constructive achievements for much of the population.
Chapin


I read Chapin's article. It is very well presented and the language is very clear. That is all the credit I can ever give to it. It is obviously biased against Chomsky. The selection of quotes is very biased. Chomsky's words against KR are not present.

I think this article is nothing more than smears supported by twisted versions of his ideas.

QUOTE(Yogurt @ Mar 19 2006, 02:17 AM)
Chomsky also expressed how the extermination of what has been widely disputed anywhere from 10-25% of the populace as a small price to pay for the positive outcomes of the Pol Pot regime. Policy

By 1977 everyone else was running from Pol Pot, but Chomsky was either too full of himself or to blind to see what was unfolding...
*



When did Chomsky say such a thing? The author says that he did but I can't find any such quote of him. On the contrary, he said (as I have posted) that KR was not a good thing. He did compare them with the US though an I think this is what many people can't stomach.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Mar 19 2006, 11:36 AM
Post #40


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,373
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



This thread is wandering far off topic. Reminder of the questions to be debated:

1) Does this instance and the reaction to it's occurence symbolize a UK that is philosphically drifting apart from the US in regards to the war in Iraq?

2) Do instances like these forshadow future problems between US and UK joint military operations?

3) Do you find it alarming that an elite combat soldier is questioning the morality of a war and openly referring to US soldiers in such a fashion?

4) Does the acceptance by the military of his refusal to fight demonstrate a lack of resolve or care in the current fighting mentality of the UK military and is this an outright rejection of the government by the military?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:37 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.