Quote from David33 :

On the other hand, there is a species of wasp that paralyzes an animal, lays its eggs within it, and the hatchlings eat their way out.

Quite reasonable and direct as a survival mechanism. If seen from a human's perspective it just might seem to be "cruel", "barbaric" or just "ew gross".

However, if you think of it a little more - you'll find out that humans and other living beings do pretty much the same at varying levels of involvement or directness (which gets more and more abstract the more "advanced" [for animals] or "civilized" [for humans] they are).

Quote from David33 :

Also, I've been told that some cats enjoy "playing" with captured mice, in a manner seeming to be cruel (although I've not personally seen such behavior)

Real cats do - yes. Fat, castrated, cute cuddly furballs that have been pampered by humans might get to it eventually. It's not done out of cruelty though, it's mostly play and practicing hunting techniques - and that's why younger cats do it, older cats just get to the point much faster unless they have young ones to train. Cats are perpetually amused animals and they do rule the world after all. Even leaves that fall off trees, fall because they want to get the attention of a passing cat.

Quote from David33 :

and dogs, monkeys and apes are sometimes similarly "cruel" in their behavior toward one another

They assert their domination in such a manner. If you pay attention to stray dog packs (if you have any in your area) you can see all about their hierarchy. Same goes with chickens (easier to find and observe). In fact, humans are more like chickens in their basic social behaviour.

There's no ethics in it and there are no points of satisfaction or grudges between animals - it's as is it, clean, to the point and for the moment. And usually (if not always) it's a direct matter of survival. There's no sense of justice or morals. Quite contrary to humans.

Quote from joen :

You know, some people just are this moralless and moronic by nature. I´m sure these nutcases were trash at home too.
[...]
I would never be capable of doing this...never. No, I´ve never been in a war situation, but I just know that I could never be transformed into something like these retards.

War ****s up your mind, not your heart.

It's comforting to believe there is sharp distinction between the morally good people (which includes oneself) and the bad guys, and that the good folks will never, under any circumstances, cross that line. Then you can safely push cases like these aside. Call the soldiers psychopaths, say they should be put behind bars, and carry on.

But there is much evidence to the contrary. Examples: Milgram's experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, and the complete societies of Germany, Rwanda and Cambodia at some point in history.

Quote from joen :

No other creature gets fun out of torturing.

You mean like cute little cats that playfully fool around with the slowly dying mouse or bird they just ripped open?

Not the same thing, I know. But I don't buy the whole "mother nature knows best, mother nature is beautiful, it's just humans that are evil" argument. Did you know that one of the things that convinced Charles Darwin that other powers than God must be at work in nature was all the messed up and cruel stuff he saw in the wild? Like the Galapagos bird that always kills it's second born for no apparent reason.

Throwing a puppy off a cliff may be messed up but in the big scheme of things I think a civilisation that is still based on building armies to go to war against each other has more serious things to worry about.

Sorry if that came across somewhat heartless, that certainly isn't the case. I'm not saying those guys aren't utter jerks or anything. In fact I didn't even watch the videos because I didn't want to see that kind of cruelty. I'm just saying that being up in arms about the puppy just shows how far removed we are from just how f**** up many places on this earth are.

sick
but this is only going to get worse and worse.
http://iraqforsale.org/
all iraq is is a money making scheme to keep USA afloat seems there economy is failing.

Quote from xaotik :

There's no ethics in it and there are no points of satisfaction or grudges between animals - it's as is it, clean, to the point and for the moment. And usually (if not always) it's a direct matter of survival. There's no sense of justice or morals. Quite contrary to humans.

Dogs have ethics too, if you define ethics as "group norms that tell you how to behave towards fellow beings". A dog is a social animal and must learn the rules of the pack when it grows up. And apes have been observed to be nice to animals of other species, such as a wounded bird.

Quote from Psymonhilly :

all iraq is is a money making scheme to keep USA afloat seems there economy is failing.

The US economy is failing because of Iraq, not despite. Some Yanks make a good profit out of Iraq, but the nation as a whole doesn't.

Quote from wsinda :

Dogs have ethics too, if you define ethics as "group norms that tell you how to behave towards fellow beings"

No. Ethics is a branch of philosophy - an intellectual consideration of the basis and value of morals. Group norms (instinctive or learned), of behavior - basically, the equivalent of morals - is not the same as ethics, which is why I proposed that ethics may be uniquely human.

Quote from wsinda :

The US economy is failing because of Iraq, not despite. Some Yanks make a good profit out of Iraq, but the nation as a whole doesn't.

A market economy is cyclical, where the cycles, of up and down, exemplify the oscillations of a self-correcting system. Attributing a specific cause, to a particular up or down, is risky, since the oscillations are inevitable in any case, and an economy as a whole, is profoundly complex.

Quote from wsinda :

Dogs have ethics too, if you define ethics as "group norms that tell you how to behave towards fellow beings". A dog is a social animal and must learn the rules of the pack when it grows up.

Indeed dogs are social animals - however what you describe is social living, not ethics. Ethics, in a vague attempt to recursion, would address a subject like "do animals have rights?" (of course it would also go on to "what exactly are the rights of a human to start with?"), etc. And thus, as I said earlier, I believe that nature is devoid of ethical considerations.

By the way, I was amused (but not surprised) to find that the part of chicken behaviour which most reminds me of humans has been documented in what is called "pecking order".

Quote from J.B. :

Did you know that one of the things that convinced Charles Darwin that other powers than God must be at work in nature was all the messed up and cruel stuff he saw in the wild?

I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion but you don't exactly have to look beyond God to see cruelty.

Quote :

Like the Galapagos bird that always kills it's second born for no apparent reason.

I saw a nature documentary once about some bird, I can't recall what kind. The bird almost always gave birth to twins. The twins would fight eachother. Once determined which one was the stronger one, the mother would stop feeding the weakest and the stronger one would fight the other one till death followed. The purpose of this would obviously be natural selection. This, ofcourse, is cruel. But it also serves a purpose. So, I'm not trying to say nature can't be cruel, it often is. Nature's ways can also be unclear to us, like in your example. But I believe, a species like humankind knows cruelty to a level other species don't. Not only towards other creatures but amongst themselves too.

Quote :

Throwing a puppy off a cliff may be messed up but in the big scheme of things I think a civilisation that is still based on building armies to go to war against each other has more serious things to worry about.

Ofcourse, no argument there. Although you could even say that that's nature as well. Practically all species fight for territory/commodities against other groups.
But anyway, there's always some bigger problem. Just because a bigger problem exist doesn't mean the smaller ones don't deserve to be adressed/condemned.

Quote :

Sorry if that came across somewhat heartless, that certainly isn't the case. I'm not saying those guys aren't utter jerks or anything. In fact I didn't even watch the videos because I didn't want to see that kind of cruelty. I'm just saying that being up in arms about the puppy just shows how far removed we are from just how f**** up many places on this earth are.

No worries But I see people outraged over wars and cruelty towards other humans as well. Rightfully so and myself included. The biggest problem in this world, as far as I am concerned, is an ever increasing lack of respect towards life in general. So that includes terrorism, genocide, oppression, but also throwing defenseless creatures to a terrible death for the "fun" of it. I find it equally disturbing to see marines humiliate and/or torture prisoners for instance.

Quote from David33 :

Are you describing yourself?

Well, I can't exclude myself and declare myself to be the only righteous exception to the rule for sure. After all I'm part of a system that is slowly but surely destroying itself and everything around it.
But ofcourse I am not trying to say that no human being is worth of a place on this earth. As a collective though we are failing miserably. There's way too many of us, we defy nature's ways and are self destructive.

Please note though, I'm really not as gloomy as you might make me out to be because of my comments. I am able to laugh and see positive things and I don't self-mutilate It's not that I think there's no hope for humanity or something, but as a collective I can't really think very highly of it.

Quote from xaotik :

I believe that nature is devoid of ethical considerations.

at this point id say that is nothing more than conjecture
animals continue to move further and further away from the instinct driver robots they were once thought to be
plus i think one could argue that ethics are no more than a necessity to make social living work in groups beyond the tribal level (which he havent moved far from) that any sufficiently developed mind will arrive at if the group becomes large enough to not work on hierarchy alone anymore
sadly no animal other than us has ever been successful enough at conquering the world for us to be able to test that conjecture of mine there

on the subject of animal intelligence just today i read something about dolphins that surprised me
apparently they have an understanding of what "to create" means are able to work out a language with humans that can convey that meaning and able to choreograph a synchronized jump within 10 seconds when told to be creative

Quote from joen :

I saw a nature documentary once about some bird, I can't recall what kind. The bird almost always gave birth to twins. The twins would fight eachother. Once determined which one was the stronger one, the mother would stop feeding the weakest and the stronger one would fight the other one till death followed. The purpose of this would obviously be natural selection. This, ofcourse, is cruel. But it also serves a purpose. So, I'm not trying to say nature can't be cruel, it often is. Nature's ways can also be unclear to us, like in your example. But I believe, a species like humankind knows cruelty to a level other species don't. Not only towards other creatures but amongst themselves too.

The bird I was talking about is the Nazca Booby and it always kills its older sibling without any decision about which is the stronger.

But of course that's all completely different than human cruelty because it apparently has a "purpose". I never know which kind of purpose is meant when this is stated. A purpose in the religious sense i.e. "mother nature says so" or a purpose in the sense that it's beneficiary to the one behaving cruelly?

If it's the former then I don't believe in it (put more elequently than I could here.). If it's the latter then I'm sure many ways can be found in which the most immoral acts of humans fall into the category of having a "purpose".

Quote from joen :

I'm part of a system that is slowly but surely destroying itself and everything around it.
But ofcourse I am not trying to say that no human being is worth of a place on this earth. As a collective though we are failing miserably. There's way too many of us, we defy nature's ways and are self destructive.

Well, I can suggest that you try to keep some perspective, in regard to your view of human beings. Put a bacterium in a petri dish full of agar, and eventually you may find that the agar is all gone. How self-destructive is that?

Perhaps you can even find some small reason for joyful appreciation of the fact that Man, while horrifically pursuing the destruction of himself and all that he sees, has - as a result of that, and using the same tools (capabilities) - gained some ability to distinguish between what is good and what is evil, what is beneficial and what is harmful (to himself and to others), and has sought to pursue the good and extinguish the evil, to some noteworthy extent, while even so remaining not satisfactorily wise and benevolent, since it's still a pretty complex world, that he lives in.

Anyway, I think that you're just being pessimistic. Man is good and evil, it can be said, and it's probably not a good idea to obsess over the fact of one or the other - even while nevertheless recognizing that one is more likely to be happy, while directing his attention toward the good stuff, and more likely to solve the problems, while thinking that this is something worth doing, rather than thinking such as, simply, that "humankind is the cancer of the earth" (which, btw, is also not a nice way to characterize one's associates, although it is somewhat unlikely that they will take it personally).

Also, whether "there's way too many of us," and "we defy nature's ways," is (for both propositions) disputable. Some might say that the more of us there are, the more helpers, sources of knowledge and invention, and causes of inspiration there are, for us to enjoy; and while it is recognizable, in the abstract, that overpopulation is hazardous, what quantity of persons would constitute "overpopulation," has been widely debated. And some might say that the bacterium is defying nature, by eliminating the agar that it had found in the petri dish; the distinction between human artifact and "nature," is itself a human conception, a way that Man identifies himself and distinguishes himself from his environment, while it is characteristic of all life, that it alters its environment.

Robert Heinlein wrote that he was often amused by hearing people express condemnation of dams built by humans, and then hearing the same people express admiration for dams built by beavers. So, there's something to cheer you up (or maybe give you some more reason for pessimism).

I was gonna post on this earlier, but I got pulled away about three quarters into the post, so I just quit....
Hmm.. Ok see if I can remember, was half asleep and getting ready to go to work... LOL ain't making THAT mistake again...
Oh yeah, I didn't see any of these videos. I think just by going there to be grossed out or shocked or "informed" will give the video a bigger hit count and most likely encourage others to start posting themselves doing this sort of crap.

Can y'all take the US ARMY part out of this for a second? Iraq's still gonna be there tomorrow. See these people were individuals. Hell, they could've just as well be working at mickey Ds for that matter. and that's what I'm getting at.
Have you noticed that acts of animal cruelty are happening more and more? It's not just goofy kids zapping ants with a magnifying glass anymore either. There's people doing this twisted stuff all over the planet. And it's not just males from the 15-24 yr old bracket either. I bet that somewhere right now a middle aged woman is boiling a cat for Lord knows why. Dogfighting. Dogfighting used to be this very vague underground stuff you barely heard of. Now it's a full blown active subculture that's not too hard to find. Wasn't there some sort of athlete from Ireland that got busted for being involved in a dog fighting ring? LOL you think he knew Michael Vick?
We got all sorts of animal groups. Groups that are doing a good job in bringing threatened species from extinction. Makes me wonder if all they're doing that for is so some sick freak could come along and torture it to death later.

Quote from David33 :

On the other hand, there is a species of wasp that paralyzes an animal, lays its eggs within it, and the hatchlings eat their way out. Also, I've been told that some cats enjoy "playing" with captured mice, in a manner seeming to be cruel (although I've not personally seen such behavior), and dogs, monkeys and apes are sometimes similarly "cruel" in their behavior toward one another.

More noteworthy, perhaps, is that ethics may be a consideration that is uniquely human, although all social animals are likely to exemplify empathetic, as well as savage, behavior.




This is a wondrously thought-provoking statement. Thanks.

Well psychology have discovered in recent times that the more "intelligent" a organism is the more "deviant" it tends to be. This is greatly illustrated between, lets say dogs and humans. But keep in mind it's not as simple as the split between human and animals

Cruelty is part of being human, but on the other side of the spectrum we also have profoundity, compassion and empathy which is incapable for a simple being as well.

But David, does the wasp purposely reproduce in such a savage way? Did they have a choice to use another method of reproduction that's more "humane"? No and most animals dont or are not capable of making that kind of moral choice. Humans, due to our intellect, are capable of making a different choice, a choice that we as a society define as "moral" but when we choose to do the opposite with full knowledge of the consequences for themselves and any other being, then it can be labeled as "cruel" and or "immoral". That is the difference between an animal doing something savage and a human doing something savage.

Quote from Racer Y :

I
Have you noticed that acts of animal cruelty are happening more and more? It's not just goofy kids zapping ants with a magnifying glass anymore either. There's people doing this twisted stuff all over the planet. And it's not just males from the 15-24 yr old bracket either. I bet that somewhere right now a middle aged woman is boiling a cat for Lord knows why. Dogfighting. Dogfighting used to be this very vague underground stuff you barely heard of. Now it's a full blown active subculture that's not too hard to find. Wasn't there some sort of athlete from Ireland that got busted for being involved in a dog fighting ring? LOL you think he knew Michael Vick?
We got all sorts of animal groups. Groups that are doing a good job in bringing threatened species from extinction. Makes me wonder if all they're doing that for is so some sick freak could come along and torture it to death later.

Racer...the same could be said of humans as well. The world is more "violent" especially here in the US. Torture killings are much more common "than they use to be" and some correlate this with animal cruelty.

But you are displaying (at least imo) the availability heuristic. I mean I dont agree that cruelty to animals have risen within the recent times but I do believe that you think otherwise due to the fact that animal cruelty receives more exposure.

Sure back then it seemed that animal cruelty was almost "non-existent", but a lot of things that happened back then were either not considered "cruel" (I mean our definition of cruel has changed drastically from then to now) or simply not reported. But just because more events were not recorded or noticed compared to recent times, doesn't necessarily indicate that more of these cases are happening now.

I personally think that cruelty to animals cannot and will not cease because preserving an animals "right's" usually gets in the way of human's self interest. Environmental groups are going a good job in trying to turn society's mentality towards animals and I applaud them for doing so. But how can we be humane to animals if we are not humane to members of our own species?

Quote from lizardfolk :

Well psychology have discovered in recent times that the more "intelligent" a organism is the more "deviant" it tends to be.

This makes sense, since I had a biology teacher who (reasonably) explained "intelligence" as being modifiable behavior - so that, the more intelligent, thus the more variable and diverse the possible behaviors, and the greater the probability that some may be characterizable as "deviant."

Quote from lizardfolk :

But David, does the wasp purposely reproduce in such a savage way? Did they have a choice to use another method of reproduction that's more "humane"? No and most animals dont or are not capable of making that kind of moral choice. Humans, due to our intellect, are capable of making a different choice, a choice that we as a society define as "moral" but when we choose to do the opposite with full knowledge of the consequences for themselves and any other being, then it can be labeled as "cruel" and or "immoral". That is the difference between an animal doing something savage and a human doing something savage.

Sure. And similarly, it is a difference between an animal's doing something beneficial, by instinct or conditioning, and a human's doing something beneficial, by choice - which is why I attempted to point out that (on the positive side, among all the condemnation - even of the entire human species) humans do ethical philosophy; they very often work very hard to discover what is the right thing to do, and even sometimes are willing to suffer (anything from social criticism, to physical damage and even death), in order to do it. The "deviants" aside, humans (including American soldiers) are not too bad.

Of course its getting more exposure, but unlike things like rape and child abuse, it's not just being reported more than what it was years ago. I think it's actually on the increase. and I think is some cases there is a correlation to killing humans. if there was a workable ratio of people that torture pets that graduate to being serial killers, then I imagine there's soon going to be more of those types.

Can't be bothered to read 5 pages of politics, but Puppies get revenge on marine...

Quote from Racer Y :

Of course its getting more exposure, but unlike things like rape and child abuse, it's not just being reported more than what it was years ago. I think it's actually on the increase. and I think is some cases there is a correlation to killing humans. if there was a workable ratio of people that torture pets that graduate to being serial killers, then I imagine there's soon going to be more of those types.

What I'm saying is that just because there's more reports of the incident, doesn't necessarily mean that the incident is occurring more.

I'm saying you are believing that it is occurring more because of the availability heuristics and I'm asking you to remove that cognitive bias.

I would also like to point out that animals in the modern view is an actual living being while in the past they were more viewed as property and objects and thus subjecting them to abuse is not a big deal at all. Considering this change in attitude I would predict that the events aren't occurring more than before. (although this is a psychological speculation)

Quote from David33 :

This makes sense, since I had a biology teacher who (reasonably) explained "intelligence" as being modifiable behavior - so that, the more intelligent, thus the more variable and diverse the possible behaviors, and the greater the probability that some may be characterizable as "deviant."

It's something that my psychology mentor wont let me forget

Quote from David33 :

Sure. And similarly, it is a difference between an animal's doing something beneficial, by instinct or conditioning, and a human's doing something beneficial, by choice - which is why I attempted to point out that (on the positive side, among all the condemnation - even of the entire human species) humans do ethical philosophy; they very often work very hard to discover what is the right thing to do, and even sometimes are willing to suffer (anything from social criticism, to physical damage and even death), in order to do it. The "deviants" aside, humans (including American soldiers) are not too bad.

Humans always occupy the entire spectrum of psychology. Seeing a lot of insane/sick people (i've visited an asylum and tried to study them), I hold the belief that the deviants side is actually much worse than people imagine. Sadomasochism imo being the worse deviation possible for humankind, I fear that this is getting more common. Especially with poor media control and messages of "killing's cool".

It is also my belief (and it is backed by Bandura's study) that a good education and a clean, well monitored (but not heavily controlled, there's a difference) childhood environment will tend to push a person away from deviancy. Thus, with our education rate going down (this is a general statement) I'm fearing that more and more of these "extreme" or "sociopathic" deviants has and will continue to pop up.

Quote from JamesF1 :

Can't be bothered to read 5 pages of politics,

Looks like a very interesting debate actually, but one I will have to drop in on another time...

Only have time at the moment to respond to the immoral/illegal debate. I have to say that the distinctions are largely irrelevant when you consider that the chiseling, narcissistic scumbags who planned the war did so without even the vaguest form of realistic exit strategy.

While a few rednecks might off an animal or two as respite from the tedium of being cannonfodder is understandable, but frankly much uglier is the fact that an obnoxious gathering of oligarchs, stoned stupid on their own self-importance, decided to sacrifice a significant number of the people daft enough to trust them with power and authority, without any recognition that there might be a limit to the number that they would be willing to see fall in front of their malformed juggernaut of an ideology.

That the American & British public have yet to hang these shitbags from the nearest lamp-post is a testament to our own guilt in this matter.

Quote from batteryy :

yes, i wuold be laughing in the first one too when dog goes to smell mine and blows but damn...throwing puppy from a cliffhow can you do that?

Soldiers are also people and will have fun to...
but i don't think this is fun...
poor puppies, a soldier is armed and can defend himself... a puppy can't protect his self against the soldiers... unfair isn't it? how can you kill a little puppy???
life is hard...

Quote from nihil :

the chiseling, narcissistic scumbags who planned the war did so without even the vaguest form of realistic exit strategy.

They did. It's the elections in November. They can let the Democrats clean up the mess, whilst criticizing them for chickening out of Iraq.

Quote from lizardfolk :

What I'm saying is that just because there's more reports of the incident, doesn't necessarily mean that the incident is occurring more.

I'm saying you are believing that it is occurring more because of the availability heuristics and I'm asking you to remove that cognitive bias.

I would also like to point out that animals in the modern view is an actual living being while in the past they were more viewed as property and objects and thus subjecting them to abuse is not a big deal at all. Considering this change in attitude I would predict that the events aren't occurring more than before. (although this is a psychological speculation)



It's something that my psychology mentor wont let me forget




Humans always occupy the entire spectrum of psychology. Seeing a lot of insane/sick people (i've visited an asylum and tried to study them), I hold the belief that the deviants side is actually much worse than people imagine. Sadomasochism imo being the worse deviation possible for humankind, I fear that this is getting more common. Especially with poor media control and messages of "killing's cool".

It is also my belief (and it is backed by Bandura's study) that a good education and a clean, well monitored (but not heavily controlled, there's a difference) childhood environment will tend to push a person away from deviancy. Thus, with our education rate going down (this is a general statement) I'm fearing that more and more of these "extreme" or "sociopathic" deviants has and will continue to pop up.

maybe, but I still think it is happening more. Most definately the dog/cock fighting stuff.
but I'm not so sure that is the same thing as mindless torture.
And to avoid getting things confused with the way people treated animals way back then, I was only comparing from about the last 20-25 years.

Anyways, have you read any of the studies out there that try to show the benefits of psychopathic disorders? Yeah, BENEFITS...
Actually what I read was the benefit of having one in the workplace - can you believe that? LOL-Dexter syndrome?

Quote from Racer Y :

Anyways, have you read any of the studies out there that try to show the benefits of psychopathic disorders? Yeah, BENEFITS...
Actually what I read was the benefit of having one in the workplace - can you believe that? LOL-Dexter syndrome?

There's no benefit to having a severe psychological disorder because it eventually deteriorates your brain and makes you become anti-social. Not necessarily psychotic, actually most of the psychological disorder cases do not develop into something psychotic or murderous.

As far as Dexter's concerned. You may be referring to the TV show where a sociopath is working in a crime lab and he kills off killers who got away. Vigilantism is not a psychological disorder and someone can kill without being psychotic (especially if they believe that the person deserves to be killed). However, this is my opinion cannot exist mainly due to the fact that the "law-abiding" sociopath is an oxymoron that cant (IMO) exist in reality. Law-abiding and sociopath just doesn't work together.

Quote from nihil :

I have to say that the distinctions are largely irrelevant when you consider that the chiseling, narcissistic scumbags who planned the war did so without even the vaguest form of realistic exit strategy.

I am curious to know what, precisely, you mean by the phrase "exit strategy." My understanding of the essential purpose of the Iraq invasion, is that it was to eliminate the condition of Iraq's being ruled by Saddam Hussein. It has been, and continues to be, my understanding that the military occupation would cease, upon completion of Iraq's transformation from that condition, to a condition wherein Iraq is politically stable as no likely source of harm to (e.g.) the USA and its people. The particular methodology of removing the occupying forces, would seem to be better characterizable as a matter of tactics, than of strategy, and the participating military organizations are presumably capable of accomplishing this, by means of transportation vehicles.

Perhaps you mean that (e.g.) the USA did not have a sufficient understanding of how the intended transformation of the political system of Iraq, would be accomplished. That is a fair enough complaint, I suppose, although warfare always brings its surprises, and it is often regarded, in many contexts, as being desirable to pursue a critical purpose, with less than a perfect plan involving perfectly confident knowledge about what the particular challenges might be, and how well one can achieve one's goals.

Trauma surgery, for example, is often initiated with considerable doubts about what will be the precise procedures to be performed, while the "exit strategy," I suppose, is to discontinue the surgery when the patient has been returned to a state of health or, at least, when one has achieved the closest approximation to that goal, that he thinks that he can; and whatever may be the doubts, one attempts such surgery with a general expectation that the result will be preferable to the expected result of not attempting it.

Quote from nihil :

While a few rednecks might off an animal or two as respite from the tedium of being cannonfodder is understandable, but frankly much uglier is the fact that an obnoxious gathering of oligarchs, stoned stupid on their own self-importance, decided to sacrifice a significant number of the people daft enough to trust them with power and authority, without any recognition that there might be a limit to the number that they would be willing to see fall in front of their malformed juggernaut of an ideology.

Well, there is a considerable number of reports by soldiers having participated in the Iraq war - including those who have (eagerly?) re-enlisted, and others who have expressed eagerness to return to active duty after becoming injured - passionately stating their understanding that, rather than being mere "cannon fodder," they are instead doing something necessary and, to them, desirable (especially, expressing their joy at seeing the Iraqis with whom they have associated, develop into an enthusiastically free people, from having been a fearful and subjugated people, under the rule of Saddam Hussein).

Everybody has his own opinion, I suppose (and, presumably, his own sources of information).

Quote from David33 :

Trauma surgery, for example, is often initiated with considerable doubts about what will be the precise procedures to be performed, while the "exit strategy," I suppose, is to discontinue the surgery when the patient has been returned to a state of health or, at least, when one has achieved the closest approximation to that goal, that he thinks that he can; and whatever may be the doubts, one attempts such surgery with a general expectation that the result will be preferable to the expected result of not attempting it.

Problem is there was no trauma, there was no surgery needed and everything was done by incompetent medics who thought they could get away easily with their bad science.

As for the state of health, it should have been achieved years ago, and there have been lots of milestones which have turned out to be completely meaningless: the overhyped fall of Saddam's statue in a square which was almost deserted (watch for the right photos, not closeups!), the capture of Saddam, Saddam's hanging, the battle of Fallujah... All fake milestones.

Wait, wait... Somebody talked about civil war being the outcome years ago... They knew better. So the next question should be: when will the Americans be able to return Iraq to a pre-war state of health, and that means an acceptable puppet regime which kills less than Saddam, or equally? The answer is, quite simply, never, and some people (a very long list of liberals, conservatives, anarchists, communists, socialists, name your flavour, it's there) knew that from the start because they analysed available evidence much better and had no personal interest in evaluating it. Nihil is damn right, and I fully understand his discomfort.

Edit: I failed to mention anyone in the list of people who knew better. I only want to mention two soldiers here, the first one is Ehren Watada, the second one is Pat Tillman, the fake poster child of the neocons, whose story is much more interesting than the one the mainstream media portrayed. Pat Tillman is a clear example of a soldier who paid the betrayal of his government with his life, and - much more hideously - with an unacceptable manipulation of his memory. He was a man of principles and he's been killed and smeared after the killing.

Quote from David33 :

...and the participating military organizations are presumably capable of accomplishing this, by means of transportation vehicles.

LOL... Presumably you're right on that one. I mean, the US has at least had loads of opportunities to practice that manoeuvre... Practice: something that wasn't afforded to the poor bastards dropped in as an invasion force and then told, "OK, the country is now a pile of dog crap, so (ha ha, yeah we forgot about this bit...) now your job is to police it!"

And btw... Even the CIA didn't regard Iraq as a threat to the USA, but a schoolchild could have told Dick Cheney and the scum that hang around with him, that invading it, destroying the infrastructure, and turning the whole territory into one big back door for any number of insurgents, would be an ace way to turn it into a threat.

"Bingo boys! Now we have a war on terror that we can parade to the tax paying couch potatoes on the cathode tit... Another cigar?"