perfidy

Spoons updated with a link to this [url=http://www.jayreding.com/archives/004440.php]post[/url] which has some information on the victims of the attack.

I don't think that your epithet will have validity for just one day. Any mind capable of parsing, and then committing to print, the statement you quoted is likely permanently morally bankrupt.

Fucker.

Before we engage in continuous clucking rounds of "I'm shocked, shocked!", consider that the statement "They are there to wage war for profit" is, in fact, true.

Does the fact that the vast majority of citizens in this country feel "nothing" over the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians mean that they are "permanently morally bankrupt"? Or is permanent bankruptcy reserved for those who are insufficiently indignant and wounded by _American_ deaths?

It's a somewhat callous thing that Kos has said. Eggs and omelettes are what this administration, and the entire GOP, are entirely about. Don't try to pretend otherwise by applying playground reductionism and absolutism to every comment.

Ross, I see things differently. What the four guys were killed doing was not war, but security. A thin semantic line, perhaps, but also a yawning chasm between highly-skilled veterans applying themsleves to nationbuilding (these guys) and crass mercenaries from Bavaria in it for all the plunder they can carry (what Kos describes).

Second, do you think the "vast majority of citizens in this country" would continue to feel insufficient indignance if US television broadcast footage of US soldiers (or, to make it fun, employees of US firms) dragging the burned bodies of Iraqis from a car, treading on them, then stringing them up from a bridge all the while chanting "Speak English Or Die!"? Because that's what happened here. These were no regular wartime casualties. I am no longer shocked (shocked!) by that. But I am shocked (shocked!) that Kos is so smug about "feeling nothing" about this appalling (appalling!) incident.

Fuck [em]him[/em].

If you asked the average American what he thought about the deaths of Iraqi citizens, the response would not be "nothing." Reget, some measure of sorrow, compassion for the relatives etc - that would be your average response. Not wailing and gnashing of teeth, I grant, but definitely a big step up from "nothing." And they certainly wouldn't say it about fellow Americans who were treated as those four were.

It's not somewhat callous, Ross - it *is* callous. The Americans in the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy get salaries from the federal government, they must be there for reasons of personal profit! Screw them.

The four civilians killed in Fallujah were:

"However, early evidence indicated they worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, a company based in Moyock, North Carolina, the company said in a statement. The security firm hires former military members from the United States and other countries to provide security training and guard services.

In Iraq, the company was hired by U.S. defense officials to provide security for convoys that delivered food in the Fallujah area, the company statement said. "

Those people who, according to you and Kos, were "There to wage war for profit" were in fact protecting food convoys. Brutal mercenary fascists, no? They surely don't deserve our sympathy.

Ross,
I think that the comment, "They are there to wage war for profit", is fit for hair-splitting. I'm not at all convinced that it's a factual one. Not that I'm calling on you to explain what Kos (if that's the person who posted it) meant, just that it's not enough as it stands to be true.

Personally, I don't care what Kos says about this. Nothing I say will change his mind, or even calling him to specify his terms is pointless. I couldn't even get to the site, so I expect smarter people than I, who care about it more than I, are beating him up about it.

You and I or B or J can agree to disagree about stuff, and sometimes change opinions or at least get the other to respect different points of view, but that is because we are all largely civil and keep the invective to a bare minimum.

Kos chose his words specifically to inflame, and I'm just not playing. I'm plenty...ummm...flamed...?... without his help. I mean, who's really interested in what another blogslob cares about, especially on a topic this one is so unfamiliar with?

So much defense of profit by the conservatives--I guess Richard Clarke has been rehabilitated.

Excuse me?

I was just now able to read some of the responses to Kos' statement via Tacitus.

I got chills, guys. The fact that so many people are willing to hate American servicepeople or President Bush, yes HATE, yet twist themselves into logical pretzels explaining the moral superiority of Iraqi fedayeen and Arab (including "Palestinian") terrorists leaves me chilled to the bone.

People, if you're so into death, kill yourselves (or ideally each other). If AMerica is so evil, go live in a paradise like Cairo or Riyadh. Not too many takers, eh? Of course not. The far left doesn't even have the nuts to play out it's own convictions.

Kos has extended his statement:

There's been much ado about my indifference to the Mercenary deaths in Falluja a couple days ago. I wrote in some diary comments somewhere that "I felt nothing" and "screw them".

My language was harsh, and, in reality, not true. Fact is, I did feel something. That's why I was so angry.

I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition.

So I struck back.

Unlike the vast majority of people in this country, I actually grew up in a war zone. I witnessed communist guerillas execute students accused of being government collaborators. I was 8 years old, and I remember stepping over a dead body, warm blood flowing from a fresh wound. Dodging bullets while at market. I lived in the midsts of hate the likes of which most of you will never understand (Clinton and Bush hatred is nothing compared to that generated when people kill each other for politics or race or nationality). There's no way I could ever describe the ways this experience colors my worldview.

Back to Iraq, our men and women in uniform are there under orders, trying to make the best of an impossible situation. The war is not their fault, and I will always defend their honor and bravery to the end of my days. But the mercenary is a whole different deal. They willingly enter a war zone, and do so because of the paycheck. They're not there for humanitarian reasons (I doubt they'd donate half their paycheck to the Red Cross or whatever). They're there because the money is DAMN good. They answer to no one except their CEO. They are dangerous, hence international efforts (however fruitless they may be) to ban their use.

So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much. Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.

GL, where does the word HATE come from? The right (and maybe a lot of other people) use it far too fast.

Do you think I hate Bush? Where do I cross the line from dislike to hatred?

Tell you what -- until somebody actually says or writes that they HATE someone, why not avoid making that decision for them? Let people speak for themselves.

This notion of HATE has been used as a bludgeon by the right as of late. Why is this done? The cynical political purpose is to distort and dilute the discourse. It's much easier to rally around "they just HATE Bush" than it is to analyze the policy and engage in real dialogue.

Where's the outrage for the five soldiers who died that day, making far less money, who didn't have a choice about the risk?

Ross,
I didn't accuse you of hating anyone. But it's not hard to find people who have decided to hate soldiers, the President, you, me, etc. Spend some time on moveon.org and you'll get your fill pretty fast.

As for Kos, his childhood has no bearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq. All he's done is substitute the phrase "American mercenary" for "communist guerilla". Now he's backpedalling, using his wretched childhood as a basis to play gruesome MadLibs.

As for soldiers in Iraq who die, well Ross they did have a choice. They didn't have to enlist, but felt strongly enough to assume the risk. The contractors were no different in that regard, but are paid alot more for their willingness both to assume greater risk (divorced as they are from a support structure akin to military structures)and for their greater skill.

Soldiers, to include members of all service branches, are professionals, not grabastic bloodthirsty conscripts. Sorry Kos, Central American guerillas don't apply. Sorry remaining hippies, Vietnam's over.

And one more thing: Black5 wrote that Kos was 3ID the same time he was, which means the same time I was. The idea that I may have had to rely on Kos for anything turns my stomach.

GL - you know, I think you must not understand something about a lot of men and women who enlist in the armed forces. You say they have a choice to enlist, but I'm often struck by the economic circumstances that drive kids into the military. Often they don't have the resources to go to college on their own. Often they come from places where there are no jobs. It's because they are interested in having a job and a life that they make this 'choice' but they are pretty strongly compelled by some negative circumstances.

I'm often not sure how much of a 'free choice' it is. I was shocked to learn that half the kids working for my dad were in the reserves. They're not even US citizens, but prevailing wage for a gas station attendant isn't enough to pay for a college. So they're enlisted. I really get my panties into a twist about soliders making their "choices" because a lot of the time, I think those choices are a lot tougher than the average middle class voting American realizes. Those choices suck immeasurably. They are making a rational economic decision, but I think we as a society owe it to them to give them some better options from which to select.

Kos said a very bad thing. All life is precious, except possibly that of the unborn and of animals I like to eat. Laugh! I'm trying to be funny.

Mapgirl,
First, I'm sorry to hear about your panties being twisted. I can only imagine how irritable that can make a gal. Or fella, I suppose, if he's into that.

But I don't have to imagine motivations for enlisting, since most of your first paragraph applied to me when I was 17 and enlisted in the Army.

I think there are 2 or 3 or 4 questions or issues within your post that deserve separate discussion. But keeping my eye on the ball, we all have (or had) the choice of whether to enlist or not. And considering that a significant portion of those currently on active duty MUST have enlisted post- 9-11, they certainly did believe in what they were getting into. That is, that they were going to have to fight, or support people who were going to be fighting.

As for all life being precious, I don't agree with that at all. Even if you could convince me of it, or make me see why you feel so, it's much too hippified a sentiment for me to accept.

When I was studying history, a rule of thumb in research was "if it sounds too neat, it wasn't real". When considering social policy, I modify that to, "If it sounds like hippies dig it, it can't be good for me."

GL - I'm a really bad Catholic, so on one level, it's the party line to say that all life is precious. Do I truthfully believe it as a statement 100% of my being all the time? No. Not at all. I do think Kos' statement was pretty harsh. Four guys were burned to death and dragged through the streets. That is pretty abhorrent behavior in most societies. Kos appears to be a complete asshole when he shrugs of their deaths. Whether a mercenary or not, no one should be burnt to a cinder, unless of course they're a witch. Then I say 'burn her!'

'Life' is very important. Humans are the only species that willing sacrifices its life in the name of some irrational concept like 'honor', 'faith', etc. Most species probably do it in the ultimate name of survival or something. (Why does the female praying mantis eat the head of her paramour? I assume it must be nutritional.)

It was a trite thing to say, but I felt the need to inject a little humor. Sometimes you guys are too serious and sort of angry too. (not necessarily you now, but well, some of you guys get a little worked up over these topics and could use a sedative or a long walk away from the keyboard.)

Mapgirl,
Well, it seems we all agree then that Kos is fucking asshole. Glad THAT'S settled.

Serious and angry...guilty, at least on this and similar topics. I lose my freewheelin' sense of humor when savages revel in mutilation and do their death dance courtesy of the AP. And when communists talk shit about red blooded American soldiery. It's OK if I do it, though.

Now, a "bad Catholic" means what... you don't feel enough guilt as you continually sin, or...?

I think the female mantis eats her mate's head out of insecurity, in that if she DOESN'T eat it, she fears some other lady-mantis WILL. And there are at least 3 ways to wring a joke about giving or getting head out of that, but they were too obvious to dwell on.

Gl - oh don't you know? My favorite quote about Catholicism is by John Waters [begin chuckling now].

"I love being Catholic because the sex will always be dirty." - 101 Things I Love, an essay in Shockvalue

Then my favorite prayer by St. Augustine is "Oh Lord! Make me chaste! But not just yet."

Wow. Lotsa words. I have no idea where to start except to say my belief is government exists to perform those essential functions of civilization that we cannot realistically do for ourselves (monetary policy, national defense, etc.) I believe this also means there are core functions government that should remain the sole province of government and thus should never be privatized. Prisons, for one. The military, for another. I will always be leery of private militaries and do not believe they should coexist with democracy. There's a reason a civilian heads our armed forces: accountability to the electorate.

Of course I disagree with Kos. Yet saying something really stupid does not render one's argument completely void. Private militaries should only exist where heads of state don't trust their people.