Interview with a Soldier

[Nick]

The Real News is in the process of releasing a series of interviews with a former soldier who was stationed in Iraq. He was part of the company that was involved in the now infamous collateral murder video on wikileaks. I found it incredibly fascinating in how it reveals the mentality of the United States military, and what actually happens on the ground. It's also very disturbing as well, and makes it obvious just how much hatred the presence of military forces in the middle east has inspired toward western-industrialized society. It practically guarantees that we will continue to experience major terrorist attacks indefinitely into the future.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Julian Assange, wikileak founder.
Wikileaks
Hitchens debates Reagan Jr (on TV)

The 'inceredibly fascinating' comment seems disingenuous. Looked at directly, all war, any war, is completely horrible. Your implication is that the 'mentality' of the US army is somehow different than that of any other power that engages in war, which is false. Any war, all war, is terrible. The effects are horrible.

"It practically guarantees that we will continue to experience major terrorist attacks indefinitely into the future."

I don't agree with Hitchens in all areas, but what I do find valuable is how he manages to keep thinking independently of 'positionalism'. As Hitchens pointed out: to take a position against a quite terrible regime (in Iraq) and to engage in a battle to destroy it, is not to have created it in the first place.

[Tomas]

I don't agree with Hitchens in all areas, but what I do find valuable is how he manages to keep thinking independently of 'positionalism'. As Hitchens pointed out: to take a position against a quite terrible regime (in Iraq) and to engage in a battle to destroy it, is not to have created it in the first place.

Besides Hitchens being an ongoing alcoholic, he's an establishment porch monkey..

[Nick]

The 'inceredibly fascinating' comment seems disingenuous. Looked at directly, all war, any war, is completely horrible. Your implication is that the 'mentality' of the US army is somehow different than that of any other power that engages in war, which is false.

Alex, you are completely myopic. The video was about how the US military operates, enough said.

[Alex T. Jacob]

What gives him relevancy is just that he seemed to realize that dissident politics is not just a 'game of righteousness' but takes place in a real world where motives are ALWAYS mixed and even dubious. You will find no human situation, even at a kindergarten level, where human motivations are not complex and confused. To devise a political philosophy that doesn't take that into consideration is childish naivete.

If we have any presence in society---if we own a home or a business, if we have kids and have any investment in the world, we are complicit in the world, and in 'the establishment'.

And you Tomas, are you a monkey with no establishment?

Nick,

I don't think I am myopic (as you seem to mean it). My point would be that there are many different 'opics' that one can use, in a given moment, to flesh out an understanding of things that happen in the world. The video shows aspects of a war that are no doubt terrible, but this incident was taking place in a context. Obviously it was a mistake that they tried to cover over (among so many mistakes that take place in war). What is your point?

[Nick]

What gives him relevancy is just that he seemed to realize that dissident politics is not just a 'game of righteousness' but takes place in a real world where motives are ALWAYS mixed and even dubious. You will find no human situation, even at a kindergarten level, where human motivations are not complex and confused. To devise a political philosophy that doesn't take that into consideration is childish naivete.

It's not that the things you mentioned here shouldn't be taken into consideration, it's the realization that in the real world you have to accept that no matter the circumstance, there are always going to be people who lash out violently for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean you start a global war and strip people of their civil rights and due process. You find out who they are, and you prosecute them, simple as that. Instead what we have done is create a hotbed for future terrorist activity because when the children (whose mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers along with the millions of other innocent civilians we murdered) grow up they will remember who did it.

[Nick]

I don't think I am myopic (as you seem to mean it). My point would be that there are many different 'opics' that one can use, in a given moment, to flesh out an understanding of things that happen in the world. The video shows aspects of a war that are no doubt terrible, but this incident was taking place in a context. Obviously it was a mistake that they tried to cover over (among so many mistakes that take place in war). What is your point?

To be clear, none of my comments were specifically referencing the wikileaks video. I was commenting mainly on the interview, and the nature of the US military as a whole. Does this clear things up for you?

[Alex T. Jacob]

A bit. What did you conclude from the interview with the soldier? What are we to take away from that? What is the 'nature of the US military as a whole'?

[Nick]

A bit. What did you conclude from the interview with the soldier?

I already summed that up in the OP.

What are we to take away from that?

I don't know what we are to take away from it, and I already took what I wanted to take from it.

What is the 'nature of the US military as a whole'?

It's primitive, inhumane, misguided, clunky, and obsolete. And when you have a primitive, inhumane, misguided, clunky, and obsolete military that is as powerful as the United State's military, you have a very dangerous entity on your hands. An entity that has the potential to eliminate all human life on the planet with just the push of a button.

[Alex T. Jacob]

This opinion of yours is unstudied, emotional, reactionary, and girlish. It is not balanced, considered, 'rational' and manly.

But the main part is that you seem driven by an a priori emotionalism.

Can you name a 'humane' army that is presently conducting war?

Are you completely sure that it is 'clunky' in comparison to all other war-waging armies? What is the proof of that? Please demonstrate.

Can you be absolutley sure that it is 'misguided'? Or, is this just your conviction? What if it turned out (historically speaking) to have been 'inspired'? What is the ultimate criterion for making this determination?

Can you give an example of a 'guided' military force now operating?

Define 'obsolete'.

[Nick]

This opinion of yours is unstudied, emotional, reactionary, and girlish. It is not balanced, considered, 'rational' and manly.

I disagree.

But the main part is that you seem driven by an a priori emotionalism.

Wrong.

Can you name a 'humane' army that is presently conducting war?

Why are you asking me this question as if it's some how relevant to whether the US military is humane? Because after all, I am in fact talking about the US military and nothing else.

Are you completely sure that it is 'clunky' in comparison to all other war-waging armies?

I'm not, I repeat NOT, comparing the US military to any other "war-waging armies". You should ask yourself why you want me to make such a comparison.

Can you be absolutley sure that it is 'misguided'? Or, is this just your conviction? What if it turned out (historically speaking) to have been 'inspired'?

What if flying saucers landed on the lawn of the white house tomorrow?

What is the ultimate criterion for making this determination?

My criterion of course.

Can you give an example of a 'guided' military force now operating?

With all these irrelevant questions it's obvious you are having an emotionally based, knee-jerk reaction to the things I've said in this thread because you keep asking me questions that are completely off the wall. You would recognize this if you weren't so myopic.

Define 'obsolete'.

Look it up in the dictionary.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Okay, I looked it up:

1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.
3. (of a linguistic form) no longer in use, esp., out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic.
4. effaced by wearing down or away.

It would seem it is anything BUT obsolete. It is up-to-date, terribly effective in killing. Obsolete is not a word I would chose to describe it. Why did you?

The purpose of asking this question:

"Can you be absolutley sure that it is 'misguided'? Or, is this just your conviction? What if it turned out (historically speaking) to have been 'inspired'?"

Is to provoke conversation about your assertion. I assume you say 'misguided' in that it is engaging in wars and in regions it would e better advised not to engage, is that right? So it is 'misguided'. It is revelant to ask (albeit hypothetically) if it is possible that what looks misguided now may later appear well-guided. The purpose it to challenge your view that it is misguided in the present.

"What if flying saucers landed on the lawn of the white house tomorrow?"

This is completely unrelated and is commonly known as a non sequitur. Whereas my hypothetical question is clearly related to the issue, yours is not.

"Why are you asking me this question as if it's some how relevant to whether the US military is humane? Because after all, I am in fact talking about the US military and nothing else."

It is because we usually assess a value on the basis of a comparison. That I am aware, all war-making produces pretty much the same result: death, wounding and destruction. I assume that if a country acquires war-making machinery, and uses it, its goal is to inflict death, wounding and destruction. It would be an ineffective army if, say, it fired feather bullets. So, we need some sort of point of comparison: a humane army. Is there one and has there ever been one, and which one?

How could the US army become 'humane'? What would it have to do?

"With all these irrelevant questions it's obvious you are having an emotionally based, knee-jerk reaction to the things I've said in this thread because you keep asking me questions that are completely off the wall. You would recognize this if you weren't so myopic."

In what way are my questions off the wall? Can you clearly demonstrate how? Is it possible that the myope is actually you? Could it be that your view is myopic and my view is broader, and more realistic?

[Tomas]

What gives him relevancy is just that he seemed to realize that dissident politics is not just a 'game of righteousness' but takes place in a real world where motives are ALWAYS mixed and even dubious. You will find no human situation, even at a kindergarten level, where human motivations are not complex and confused. To devise a political philosophy that doesn't take that into consideration is childish naivete.

If we have any presence in society---if we own a home or a business, if we have kids and have any investment in the world, we are complicit in the world, and in 'the establishment'.

And you Tomas, are you a monkey with no establishment?

Just that in my past political life, I've had a couple few go-arounds with Hitchens and not once did he not have the odor of booze on his breath much less a gin and tonic lying about. On many fronts we were in complete agreement, he went over the edge in two areas: the first being about Bill Clinton's loose morals and the second being George Bush's 9/11 false-flag fiasco. He changed completely over the second incident becoming a hard-core fanatic about Bush and buying into Arabs/Muslims taking over the world. He isn't too far removed from your gal-pals, Geert Wilders & Sarah Palin. He's become another mainstream conservative like the aforementioned dynamic duo (Wilders/Palin).

That said, many political junkies "saw the light" after 9/11 (pearl harbor, remember the alamo, the shot heard around the world or whatever) and the rally cry went out because it resurrected a dying career on cable-tv and sell a book or two etc. Hitchens fits snugly in there somewhere and will always attract the book smart folks.

You're no dummy Alex but you sure went head over heels for Barack Obama a couple years back. Then, to say that you never really voted for him because your absentee ballot was never properly mailed or was sent back. However, your take on "complicity" is right on, but intellectually misguided on three fronts.

Sarah Palin owns a home, owned a business, has kids and investments "in" the worldly affairs. Former PTA, school board, city alderman, mayor, governor. All on a legitimate level and even prosecuting fellow Republicans. It's a real hassle when you bash fellow members of the same party. That's something even old Ronald Reagan never did.

Barack Obama? Just some former CIA spook. By the way Alex, what was Obama's GPA at Harvard, Columbia or Occidental? Oh, that's right, he's sealed those records. Yup. How many Social Security numbers has he used, Michelle has a few herself. You sure can pick'em.

I vetted potential candidates for our firm i.e. background checks the old-fashioned way pre-internet days. We didn't give a shit whether they were Democrat-leaning or Republican-leaning. Federal Election Commission was different back then, apparently in todays world a presidential candidate isn't required to be born in one of the 50 states (that goes for McCain and Obama).

Military? I did my time and was greatly rewarded. I learned the hard way.

Much love,

Tomas

[Alex T. Jacob]

The booze thing is not enough to disqualify his opinions. There are many brilliant men (and women) who also drink. Are you saying he should be completely disqualified because he drinks?

I don't know if I would completely dismiss any concern about an Islamic threat. You seem to. You don't buy it. But there are many who do. And their opinions on the issue are studied and 'make sense'. How is one to decide, Tomas? Though I respect your opinion, I don't see how you can qualify his as just another conservative. In many ways he is still very far to the left. Still, I do see and understand your point. Perhaps he is just one more neo-con shape-shifter? But what is the correct perspective to have, Tomas? What is the best and most realistic? Who can really say?

Despite drink or political flip-flops, the dude has a very sharp mind and makes a great deal of sense in many areas. (Including his critique of religion).

For all intents and purposes I voted for Obama though the ballot never arrived. I would have voted for him. But I did it for somewhat different reasons: I voted for him because I think he represents a new current in American politics, because electing a Black or a bi-racial would communicate to minorities that, here, anyone can 'make it'. And finally because McCain/Palin was just not considerable. I still think she is a sort of joke but at the same time I have seen more friendly interviews of her where she describes her religious views (for example) and I can 'respect' her to a degree. I don't think she is at all qualified to operate in the political world but she can certainly operate as an entertainer or celebrity or social activist. Through her, though, I do understand a whole class of people who feel confused and disenfranchized from this Brave New World of American modernity. I do understand what they mean when they talk of 'values'. They should not be swept off the board of consideration and the so-called 'religiously minded right' is regrouping and will have an impact on the US. Some of their values I share, and some I don't.

I think I understood only two of the 'fronts' you mention. But when I speak of 'complicity' and 'ownership interest' I mean that more in relation to those who have neither and who have lofty, idealistic left-leaning grandiose ideas. I believe we have to understand the world (and motivations) from a far more basic perspective. When we 'see things' that way, we can therefor understand the world better, make more realistic choices.

But I could never say that my views---any of my views---is 'correct'. I am fascinated by the fact that completely sincere and genuine (and intelligent) people can differ so strongly in their interpretation of things, of 'reality'.

You state that Obama is an ex-CIA agent? Or a paid informer/operative? And also that you think he was not born in the US?

BTW, I don't have experience in the military---none. I never would or could have condoned military activity. My opinions changed as I saw the world 'more realistically'. I now see things differently but I honestly don't know what to make of it.

Maybe the best strategy is to retreat into a 'My Kingdom is not of this world' attitude and see the Earth as a dangerous and conflicted place? Heading toward a universal authoritarianism?

[Animus]

Where is the rest of the interview?

[Nick]

Animus,

They're still in the process of releasing each segment of the interview. They release one segment per day, and I'm not sure how many segments there will ultimately be in this interview.

[Nick]

Okay, I looked it up:

1. no longer in general use; fallen into disuse: an obsolete expression.
2. of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date: an obsolete battleship.
3. (of a linguistic form) no longer in use, esp., out of use for at least the past century. Compare archaic.
4. effaced by wearing down or away.

It would seem it is anything BUT obsolete. It is up-to-date, terribly effective in killing. Obsolete is not a word I would chose to describe it. Why did you?

If the purpose of the military is ultimately is to provide safety and security in the world, it's doing a terrible job of it. Part of the reason is because things like their "up-to-date" fighter jets, drones, and nuclear ICBMs are obsolete when it comes to "modern warfare" and don't make the world more safe and secure.

[Alex T. Jacob]

If the purpose of a thinker is to think well and in a 'manly' way, you wear pink panties with little flowers on them. The UFO isn't going to land on the Whitehouse lawn, it's going to hover over your house, suck you up with a tractor beam, and take you to some god-forsaken far end of the universe for disposal.

"If the purpose of the military is ultimately is to provide safety and security in the world, it's doing a terrible job of it. Part of the reason is because things like their "up-to-date" fighter jets, drones, and nuclear ICBMs are obsolete when it comes to "modern warfare" and don't make the world more safe and secure."

Let's just examine this little jewel of 'reasoning'. (Oh God, give me patience and understanding...)

Only a fool would ever suppose that any military organization has as its raison d'etre to provide 'safety and security in the world'. Is that what daddy told you when he dressed you in the morning? It would be a far more accurate point of departure to see and describe a military force employed strictly as an extension of politics. I.e. when you can't get something through political negotiation, you employ your military. So, your girlish and unreasoned opinion is simply a stupid, idealistic one. In some fairytale you read someone told you that the White Night's army did thus-and-such with thus-and-such motive, but it is time, Nicky-poo, to wake up and smell the coffee. The world we live in is a terrible place and people ALWAYS do things with mixed motives. And they ALWAYS describe what they do with fibs or with straight-up lies. To know that is to have the first clue to understanding the political world. (You could also understand your own self much better too, but you are years and years away from that sort of understanding).

So, almost any fool (or in this case, huaaar huaaar, any third-rate Genius) will gather from this little exposition that there are probably 10 or even 50 different objectives on the board when it comes to use of the US military in the region. 'Peace and security' is a phrase that is employed that has to be translated. It's like when you come in with a bull-dozer and dig up an overgrown and rocky lot, level it, reshape it, and then build some sort of structure on top of it. The end result may be 'peace and security' but the process is likely to be anything but. IF one could even consider the objectives of the US planners in the region as having any rational basis, that activity would logically have to be seen as a continuation of almost all other military operations ever conducted, and especially those of the post-war (2) era: to break apart rebellious pockets of resistance, to break apart those regions who want to have 'independant economies', and to join all polities and economies into the global structure that was envisioned after WW2.

Why would anyone ever have any illusions about such basic stuff? This is straight geo-political realpolitik, man.

To make a long story short: The US in direct cooperation with various other political powers decided that the organization of the Middle East needed to be changed. Iraq had become too powerful and with S. Hussein had become too unpredictable. It was decided (consider for example the books of Zbigniew Brzezinski that the whole region posed a threat to the world-project envisioned by the reining economic and designing (and implimenting) political potency (US and its various allies). You can look at his work and you can read it right on the page. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this shit out, man. (To have a semi-accurate grasp of power and how power works).

The real interesting question is to find the correct (accurate) language to describe this geo-political process. And the other part of the question is to figure what is our ('your') individual relationship to it. That is why I like the word 'complicity' and also 'ownership interest'. That 'language' runs the gamut between Christian idealism and on-the-ground 'Roman' realism. All the way over to techno-facsism I suppose...(Hi Diebee!*blows kiss*)

So: in the course of the 'remodeling project' (the bulldozer phase) there is no---what did you call it you pink-cheeked little cutie-pie? Oh yes, 'safety and security'---in the course of the remodeling project pretty much throw the idea of safety and security out the fucking window because if anybody promises it to you they just want to help you maintain regular bowel movements. When you dig something up, when you literally uproot things, security and peace you will not find. But afterward---and we have to start thinking in 'political days' which are maybe 5 years long each one, and historical days which are 25 years long---you may arrive at a period where there is security and peace.

This ain't Charlotte's fuckin' Web Ryan.

Consider this...

[Nick]

Alex,

I've told you before I have no interest in reading your diatribe, and don't try to use me as a catalyst for it either. If you have something to get off your chest, say it, or don't, either way I really don't care. Just because we both happen to post on the same message board doesn't mean I'm going to debate you when you get the itch. Find some one else who actually wants to interact with you.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Just trying to help, Ryan.

Diatribe

Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribē pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub — more at throw.
Date: 1581

1 : archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism

Very nice use of that noun, Ryan. What I do is a 'prolonged effort' (oh God, how true! how true!) and a kind of pastime, as well as discourse. And it is true (though I don't want to admit it, even to myself, I'm in denial) that I am deliberately (gratingly you might say) trying to wear away on the patience of the girl-boys here. And you could also include the notion of rubbing, like 'rubbing the wrong way'.

That was a very precise and intuitive use of the word. *Clap clap*.

But more important---and something that goes over your head---is the deep irony and the satirical thrust. Sadly, you don't get it and so you go back in your little house with a pout on your face, you slam the door, you snuggle up with momma, and play alone for the rest of the day. I could get you out if I want but it's best if you stay there and think some of this stuff through.

[Nick]

So finally you admit that you're just a troll. About damn time.

[Animus]

Animus,

They're still in the process of releasing each segment of the interview. They release one segment per day, and I'm not sure how many segments there will ultimately be in this interview.

Thanks Nick, I found it interesting and would like to see the remainder.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Okay, let's examine it: Troll (Wiki)

Through this child-friendly, elemental process you, Ryan, might actually develop your ability to reason.

"...a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun “troll” can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in that was an excellent troll you posted. While the term troll and its associated action, trolling, are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe many intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context."

First, in this thread, I did not post off-topic. Nor did I post something 'extraneous' to the topic. Ah, but it was inflammatory you may say. Yes, to a degree. Did I desire to produce an 'emotional' response? No. I want a truly rational response but what I get is emotion.

In just a few strokes on my keyboard I have utterly decimated your assertion.

"The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have first appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s,[4] but the earliest known example is from 1992.[5] It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase trolling for suckers. That phrase is itself derived from the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat, waiting for fish to strike, a technique known as trolling.[6] The word also evokes the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, as they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The verb "troll" originates from Old French "troller", a hunting term. The noun "troll", however, comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.[7]"

In a certain sense, any post here (by me) could be construed as 'trolling for a sucker' since, in fact, there are so many suckers here.

If I have a tactic, it is to always remain on-topic while I abuse the girls. It is sooooo much fun, Ryan, you should try it sometime.

But anyway, what I do has much more in common with Bitch Slapping.

"To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch-slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining"

and

"As distinguished from the more common "pimp slap", a bitch slap is preceeded by ample forewarning and delivered with a flourish or exaggerated post-blow hip movements. Nonetheless, the blow is firm and may involve an open forhand or backhand."

Not worthy of a man-sized punch. (Ouch!) "...the slap was met with little resistance and much whining." (Need I say more?)

Diebert is the most fun to bitch slap. I've actually considered going over to Holland and doing it in person. I may do the same in your case if you only keep it up. I am really getting sick of the stupidity of you people. I am directly calling you a bunch of girls and commanding that you get some sense.

Now, go back inside and pout...

Consider this...

[Tomas]

BTW, I don't have experience in the military---none. I never would or could have condoned military activity. My opinions changed as I saw the world 'more realistically'. I now see things differently but I honestly don't know what to make of it.

I'll get to the rest a bit later, pressed for time today...

I didn't volunteer to go to VietNam. Protested the war beforehand, and then, after getting out.

Lost sight in left eye, hearing in left ear, a couple ribs, left lung, and left kidney. A couple other assorted ailments but what the heck...

Nick doesn't know what the heck he's going on about. He lives in the past. He doesn't care about the "atrocities" the NATO forces are going on about in Afghanistan and Pakistan, must less the shit still going down in Iraq, Jordan and Syria.

Families being torn asunder every day under the Obama war machine. And he's concerned about a once-every-ten year attack on American soil.

He's too blind to see what is happening -- he's busy smoking pot every other day and playing armchair warrior against Fox News and his buddies Hannity and Palin..

The city of Detroit is bulldozing at least 10,000 properties (homesteads) in his decaying city. I'd speculate that Federal "stimulus money" is doing the dirty deed. Back to nature is the rally cry!

If he had any balls (of healthy semen) remaining, he'd sign up (what is he, 27-28 years old?) and do a tour over there instead of blithly going on posting crap from "liberal"(ha-ha) websites like Alternet and posting Miley Cyrus videos. Though, he'd have to give up the pot smoking and go directly to Ultimate Reality. That's a lot to expect from someone spoon-fed cable-tv and the internet from his diaper days. But then, he's looking to score his next sack of weed and tripping the light fantasic.

There were thousands of events (My Lai's) that occured in VietNam, WW2, Gulf One & Two.

The Democratic Party is running the show and the Left is cuddled up in Obama's lap - purring like a litter of kittens fed Obama's sugar-tit milk....

Nick's had a lot of interesting stuff on other topics but when it comes to politics (the real world we all live in but do not necessarily understand), he's blind.

Like you said, Alex, 'but I honestly don't know what to make of it.'

War - what is it good for? - Absolutely nothin'..........................

Your pen' pal',

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite FreeMason

VietNam veteran - 1971

[Alex T. Jacob]

I was under the impression that Nick is concerend for all those atrocities carried out by NATO forces, or do you mean something different?

Tomas wrote: "Families being torn asunder every day under the Obama war machine. And he's concerned about a once-every-ten year attack on American soil."

You mean in the sense of some sort of domestic 'war'? If so, wasn't all that set in motion by 2 terms of GW Bush?

"He's too blind to see what is happening".

What is happening? (It is so odd that no one seems to have a clear view of 'reality' or is a clear view simply impossible?)

If was is 'good for nothing', shouldn't one come out absolutely against it?