A few points here, briefly:
First of all, the Abu Ghraib photos did not cause Berg's murder any more than it caused those to kill the Americans several weeks ago only to mutilate their dead bodies and string them up from a bridge.
Berg may have been killed anyway, and what the heck was he doing in such a dangerous place anyway? Berg was an autonomous human, who is responsible for his actions. He should have arranged for a job in Iraq before he went over there. To just show up is irresponsible on his part.
The manner of his death and the filming of it is brutal and nasty, distasteful and despicable. If a foreign nation invaded us, I'm sure some of that nations' captives would likely see the same fate. Brutality, as has been pointed out, is an aspect of war--that is why so many disagreed with this war before it began.
Secondly, comparisons to the Iraq war and the Vietnam conflict are inevitable given the rhetoric, the circumstances for invasion and the guerilla resisters of the occupying force.
While there are thousands of good comparisons, there are also thousands of dis-similarities. Any thinking individual can clearly see this.
What ticks me off, Swagger, are comparing the current war with WW2. There aren't many comparisons there.
First of all, we were not attacked by a nation that led us to a declaration of war on that nation. We were attacked in 2001, but that attack has really nothing to do with why we are now fighting in Iraq.
Second, in WW2 the war was already going on, between nations, and we entered upon attack from the Japanese. We entered in with the allies, who were fighting long before our entry. By the time the U.S. entered WW2, the allies had already lost 100s of thousands of servicemen and civilians. Only the Brits have lost an almost equal number of their servicepeople in the current conflict.
This current war was more a unilateral action on the part of the U.S. gov. The Brits and Aussies, the Spaniards and Romanians have accepted pay-offs for their support, and their support has been token compared to the sacrifices of U.S. fighters and taxpayers.
Third, WW2 had a draft in this nation. This current war is fought more by National Guard, reservists and other military personnel who voluntarily signed up. During WW2, the draft was instituted because the wave of vols leveled off six months after Dec. 7, 1941.
Fourth, WW2 killed nearly 135,000 U.S. servicemen in the first full year of that war. To date, only about 700+ have died in the current war.
Fifth, WW2 had several superpowers involved, the USSR, Britain, the U.S., Germany, Japan, Australia--these were superpowers at the time (noticed who all I left out?).
Sixth, that war, WW2 that is, was led by two Democrat presidents. Republican opposition to the war was minimal.
Seventh, the French actually did greet us with flowers and kisses. The French did not start blowing up U.S. servicemen and beheading folks after the liberation of their nation.
Eighth, the American people sacrificed on the homefront by rationing and tax increases.
Ninth, the military at the time was segregated, for the most part (I don't think the Navy and Marines were, but the Navy's ethnic populations were usually cooks).
I could go on, but I'll stop.
There are comparisons to the current war and WW2, but they have not been conveyed by those usually making the comparisons. Maybe later I'll post the obvious comparisons to WW2, but I'd like to see what you all think these might be.
|