One thing that does piss me off is people walking directly behind my truck or van when I'm reversing somewhere. Seriously.... I know there's a person there, but I've got zero idea where the fuck they are.
This is why cars have rear view mirrors, and why the rear-view cameras are being proposed.
You can't eliminate blind spots... there will always be places you can't see. Basically, my advise is double check everything. Look at your mirror, then look over your shoulder. Look twice at everything.
Looking twice is excellent advice, but if you read your parent again you'll find out how to avoid blind spots in cars.
I'm a truck driver, so I'm very used to just relying upon my side mirrors only (I may be biased here). In my opinion, the rear view mirror in the car is a little bit of a crutch to help out people who don't know what the hell is behind them. The side mirrors are _the_ things you look at when reversing - the centre mirror is essentially useless.
Your bias is noted. All mirrors and rear-view cameras are crutches, use them to the best of your ability.
Let's start with this: government is the shadow cast by business over society (Dewey or Adam Smith, I think). So when WikiLeaks publishes military and political documents (the middlemen between people and corporations), the embarrassed use minor tactics. Distractions, like attacking the messenger (e.g. Assange) and statements about how publishing might put a few people in sensitive positions at risk (ignoring the fact that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars put millions of people at actual risk).
Publishing documents (i.e. cables containing the business motives for international relations and the forthcoming bank documents) from those with real power? That's unacceptable. Time to make reading off limits to the rule followers, remove finances and publishing (hosting) structures for those remaining who might read banned material, then declare the messenger a terrorist and execute.
This is better, and worse, than any dystopian book.
While we don't do many atrocities to people here at home, the "third world" is open game.
Guess that depends on the definition of many. The US has the highest number of children in prison for life without parole. Puts some people whom appear to be Mexican in prison for that reason alone, for years, without access to attorneys or judges, before deportation. Puts a substantial percentage of people with varying shades of skin in prison for minor reasons, and keeps them there for life thanks to a baseball mentality of 3 strikes and bigoted sentencing. Just a sampling of the atrocities that occur in the US thanks to having biased people working in government and positions of authority. As you note, the atrocities the US government and its big business boss commit in other countries are worse and the scale larger, but there's enough to have some at home too.
The study mentioned at the end of the NPR article with this quote: "In fact, there was one study where people who are narcissistic would say they are really spectacularly good at this and they were actually worse than everyone else" is referring to Unskilled and Unaware of It (scanned pdf). The Unskilled study covers regular people too, not just us narcissists.
It's incredibly hypocritical to claim that YOU have any more heritage or culture than African Americans
This has nothing to do with heritage or culture. Everyone should feel free to keep their cultural identity. In my opinion that's one of the things that makes America great. But when you move to another country to live you should make some attempt to learn to speak the language.
Indeed. Like for example the 15th century and later Europeans whom invaded the Americas and... Wait, they mostly didn't learn the local language but instead demanded the locals learn a foreign language. And look at what all that lead to. So maybe America is not such a great example, unless you ignore history and people. So maybe Americans could get used to more than one language, like, say, pretty much the whole rest of the world does.
What you're looking for is in your head. If the articles you found can be trusted to provide accurate information, then you can reason that reducing emphasis in one area and increasing emphasis in another means both are changing in priority. You're correct in that the articles do not provide proof of the hierarchy of the priorities, which I'm fairly certain the bureau doesn't publish, and that makes the summary exaggerated. Still, when you look at the larger context (e.g. huge fines for copyright violations; the proposed-in-secret counterfeit treaty; even the grouping of copyrights, trademarks, and patents under the pro-business but nonsense term "intellectual property*"), there is sufficient cause to be concerned about priorities.
*He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. -- Thomas Jefferson, excerpt from No Patents on Ideas letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
That's a curious point you raise. Before the release the publishers requested help from the administration to vet the info. The White House refused, which indicates the data wasn't that secret or vital. After the release the White House spokesperson and military general said there was nothing important or new here. Now they're all full of threats and talk of prosecution. This change makes them appear to be motivated by something other than danger to military personnel. All of which is a distraction from the contents, and the benefits of the public knowing facts.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
If you read the reports you'll find that some data has been redacted, particularly names. According to Wikileaks additional reports are awaiting further vetting before release. As for danger: the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reports that 2118 civilians were killed in 2008 (1523 in 2007). According to various opinions the released reports might put some people in danger, but the UNAMA says the US occupation of Afghanistan is putting people in danger.
Who benefits? Learning about the My Lai Massacre helped inform the American public, and contributed to ending the Vietnam war. Learning about the many events in Afghanistan helps the public form an informed opinion.
As for "brain fingerprinting," this sounds like a catchy phrase to imply accuracy. What about someone who thinks "hey this is just like that John Grisham novel!" and boom her brain shows a positive hit? Conclusion: don't ready crime books. What about someone quick witted, who when presented with crime scene facts thinks "oh yeah that sure fits the rest of the scenario I read in the paper, I'd kind of wondered about that?" Yup, positive hit. Conclusion: don't be intelligent. And these are just examples some goof thought up on the Internet in 2 minutes. And you nailed one particularly dangerous aspect, the polygraph interpreter often knows what answer the buyer wants. And every single/. reader thought "false" when reading the "100% accuracy" claim. Bad science? Yes. Science? No. Guilt by accusation? Likely.
The P300 technique may be an interesting project for scientific research but it is definitely not a tool. A hired technician might call it one but no scientist would. And it is particularly not a tool ready for criminal justice. Unless, of course, there's money in it, or one wants a "100% accurate tool" to convict some person of interest where real evidence is lacking.
Your definition of "ruthless" describes to a substantial degree the massacre at the city of Fallujah. Though there is room to argue as to what "degree." Since there is no historical event which matches your definition of "ruthless," and nearly everyone would say 50-95% civilian casualties is not "bending over backwards to avoid," we would do well to confine definitions to more realistic events. Unless we're just talking over beers here.
The Taliban made a preliminary offer to discuss handing over bin Laden. This is how any negotiation begins. From your own link, the Taliban requested evidence, also a typical requirement for extradition. The US refused these standard requests.
If Australia requested a suspect be extradited, the US would offer to discuss this and also require evidence of a crime. If Australia rejected these proposals, then the US would reject Australia's request. (If Australia threatened to destroy the US, the US would not stop laughing; Afghanis aren't laughing.)
To use your awful director/actress analogy: this is (somewhat) equivalent to a director offering an actor to become a life-long sex slave without hope for any part. If the actor refuses, the director will kill the actor's family, village, nearby wedding parties, schools, and a large portion of the actor's country.
The consequences are out of proportion to the offense, and unreasonable.
I consider the justification for the invasion of Iraq a separate topic from the question of whether the gunship crew acted correctly given the circumstances they were in and the information at their disposal.
Taking an event out of context is omission, a way to deceive. Typically this is done where one outcome is desired, see also kangaroo courts.
From the gunship's point of view, you see some armed individuals, others who are carrying items which are hard to distinguish (turns out later to be camera w/telephoto lens), and some who may be unarmed, or possibly concealing arms (a suicide belt, for example). Given that Palestinians are known to attack fully armed Israeli troops with nothing more than rocks they can throw, the idea of unarmed or lightly armed fighters approaching US troops with hostile intent is not out of the question.
Curious that you use as an example Palestinians throwing rocks against invaders with guns and bombs, since there are more than a few parallels with Iraqis; but I suppose pursuing that discussion is larger than what we want to get into here. In summary: never bring a rock to a machine gun fight, unless you're making a symbolic gesture to show a basic unfairness and injustice which the world can perceive but the gunners use as justification.
According to your description, "harmful intent" or "possibly concealing arms" is justification, so any human wearing clothing is fair game to be killed at the discretion of the shooter. If we're going to be golden-rule fair, this rule must apply equally to Iraqis, Americans, or any other nationality. Is that the guideline you want to use? Any person or vehicle possibly carrying a weapon is a fair target? It's handy, since this way the shooter can never be wrong, by definition. If you're wondering why the world finds this event and the American occupation to be morally wrong, this is one of the big reasons.
It bears mentioning that the number of civilian casualties depends on at least three primary causes in this war. 1) The accuracy with which a target can be discerned, classified, and hit. 2) The degree to which the insurgents have camouflaged and shielded themselves among civilians. 3) The frequency and lethality of insurgent strikes against civilians. The US has spent billions upon billions of dollars developing weapons systems that are ultra-precise and reliable. This is primarily done to increase the potency of America's fighting forces, but is also specifically intended to lower civilian casualties. The insurgents have made it a habit to hide among civilians as civilians. Culpability for resulting civilian casualties must also rest on them as well. The US does not, as a matter of policy, deliberately attack civilians. The insurgents do.
The primary cause of the above normal violent civilian casualties is the war. The stated reasons for the US invasion are, in chronological order: 2003) rid Iraq of WMDs, since proven false; 2004) rid Iraq of Saddam, since accomplished yet the occupation continues; 2005) get rid of terrorists and insurgents, which are instead increasing. When you start with an objective using some approach, and the opposite of that objective is happening, most people question the approach. If the approach continues to be used, then the stated objective is not the real objective. Most Iraqis, and the rest of the world, see the objective being corporate control of Iraq's natural resource (oil), imperialism, and neoliberalism (which the US calls "national security").
Are US weapons ultra-precise and reliable? Let's take an example: the bombing of Saddam that initiated the war hit not Saddam's palace but did hit nearby; blowing a hole in, literally, a neighbor's front yard. For more examples, see this long sad list of "collateral damage" from "ultra-precise" weapons. If that is considered cherry-picki
Also don't forget the American streetcar scandal, in which several corporations--including GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil (now Chevron/Exxon?)--were convicted in court of conspiracy. Ever wonder why you jump in your 2000+ pound car to travel in the US while pumping out greenhouse emissions, when Europe has trains and trolleys? It's because of a conspiracy.
Also, it could be that the UVB-76 buzzer was designed to make people wonder what it did, to make big goofs write comments on slashdot/*looks at self*/, instead of pursuing more useful inquiries. Kind of like the slow release of JFK shooting materials to occupy those particular, uhhh, conspiracy theorists.
You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house.
If I am armed and you are travelling through a war zone with me, then we implicitly understand that our lives are at stake. At this point, getting shot at should NOT be a surprise.
This jumps right past the most important step. It is the step which most of the world can see but indoctrinated Americans are trained to ignore. To be a morally acceptable act, the invading military must justify its violent invasion, otherwise it is aggression. And unjustified aggression is universally immoral and commonly illegal. Once unjustified aggression has begun, horror follows, and all of the immoral acts that follow, by all individuals, are the responsibility of the original initiators. We should keep this in mind while discussing the American occupation of Iraq.
Since we're indulging in a little make-believe, let's explore this a little further. If you are a journalist and I am an insurgent fighter, why are you following me into a war zone? Probably to film the imminent firefight between my group of fighters and the occupying Italians. Any Italian gunship crew in that position is going to light us up with gunfire, just like the American crew did. Whether I'm a foreign mercenary or an American patriot doesn't factor into their equation. They would be defending their brothers on the ground.
Why else were one or more journalists moving with armed men towards American troops? The group he was travelling with seemed a little too large for purely personal protection.
The journalist could be accompanying locals into an "imminent firefight," or the locals could be accompanying the journalist, or there could be another combination of purposes for that loose group of people walking together. Are a cameraman and an inquisitive journalist going to gather a group? Yes, groups of varying sizes frequently gather around video journalists. In the video several locals appear to be carrying rifles, and some are walking empty-handed, at worst carrying a handgun or small grenade. So several apparently empty-handed locals are walking toward an "imminent firefight" against US tanks and rockets and machine guns, with a noisy attack helicopter overhead circling their position and obviously radioing the target of their approach? The least likely scenario is the "imminent firefight."
I don't condone the killing of civilians or war correspondents. However, in this case I think I can understand how it happened, and I don't attribute it to any malice on the part of the gunship crew. They were doing what they were there to do - protect their fellow GIs on the ground.
During war civilians are killed (something like 50-90%, though I can't find a source right now so feel free to question or research it). If you condone this war then you condone the killing of those civilians (perhaps with the justification that it is "worth it," as Condoleeza Rica said). With a little more research (i.e. the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's Authority Experiment), you'll find that the soldiers actions are exactly what you'd expect in their situation. Or watch the 1970s documentary Winter Soldier (seriously, it's worth the time) where a veteran describes the situation clearly: "It was us against them, if I made a mistake in judging who was dangerous then I could die, and I wasn't going to make that mistake, so everyone was a target" (paraphrased).
From the outside, the helicopter's gunning down the locals is obviously immoral; to quote "we have a van that's approaching and picking up bodies, permission to engage" and then getting permission from the authority. From inside an insane situation, the killing is understandable; and responsibility for these acts goes back to the instigators, the US government, and you and me for allowing them to have con
Let's presume that we agree on two things: the golden rule is a moral fundamental and facts are important.
Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons
That's what insurgents look like. They kill Americans all the time. They were approaching an American position. That's who the helo pilots and gunners were there to stop.
Let's try a golden rule counter-example. You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house. Italy invaded our country 7 years ago under some pretense and continues to occupy our country. Currently there is an armed Italian helicopter flying over us about to open fire. Whom is the insurgent? How would an Italian describe the situation?
That's what insurgents [you and I] look like. They [we] kill Italians all the time. They [we] were approaching an Italian position. That's who [us] the helo pilots and [Italian] gunners were there to stop.
No one in the world (95+%) views the situation like you describe it except media-educated US citizens. This is Iraq. The majority of Iraqis do not want American military and American-funded mercenaries in their country. Therefore it is the Americans who are the insurgents. The rest of your argument falls apart once this fact is recognized.
Films like this deserve to be seen. Anonymous distribution is, so far, one avenue to make that possible. If intercepted at an exit node by more than one party, that just gives more opportunity for an honest publisher and any propagandist a video to deliver to the public. Obviously it would always be best to have the whole unedited film available for reference. Though even then you have to use your critical skills to interpret what you're viewing.
For example: the New Yorker's "compelling points" of the video are, in my opinion, tangential and minor in the context of the shooting. You can ignore the audio and items circled, and still come away with the big picture. Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons, and journalists with cameras are walking around. Some foreign guys with weapons, part of an invading and occupying foreign military, are flying around in helicopters. The foreign guys initiate the killing of locals and journalists on the ground. Another group of weaponless locals drives in and tries to rescue the wounded, but are also shot, along with their kids, by the foreign guys. Make of that what you will. Looks like murder of innocents to me.
I think you might be conflating several things into one and then scratching your head when you can't see the connections.
It's remarkably easy to make connections when you start with opinions instead of facts.
Umm, Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 nor was there any credible evidence that Saddam was able to attack us in the US. Perhaps you might explain to the rest of us how that makes us safer. And while you're at it, you might consider explaining how the mission in Afghanistan is protecting us more than the alternative of cruise missiles to training camps would.
9/11 was orchestrated by a group that was gaining safe harbor in Afghanistan. When we demanded the safe harbor to stop, we were told to go take a hike.
The US was told to take a hike for a reason. The US was asked for evidence that Osama bin Laden committed the crime. The US refused to present the evidence. Only then was the US request refused. For comparison, the US refuses to turn over Orlando Bosch (living now in Florida) even at the request of many countries which have evidence. See anything hypocritical here?
This is pretty much an official support doctrine of the acts surrounding 9/11 which is why it was more then just training grounds. It meant that the government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Al Qeada and therefore supporting it's actions.
If refusing to turn over known terrorists qualifies as "official support of the acts" then the US is also guilty. Except no one is suggesting the US be treated like Afghanistan. Civilized people, rational people, sane people, don't go around blowing up hundreds of thousands of people in other countries because of the actions of a few suspects.
In diplomacy, that is almost the same things as sending your military to destroy the twin towers except it carries an element of separation which can be attempted to be used as Plausible deniability to the ignorant.
Diplomacy is where you work things out through negotiations. You're talking about mercenaries or private military contractors, typically supported by rich individuals, groups, or states; e.g. Al Qaeda, French Foreign Legion, School of the Americas, Blackwater, Dyncorp, and School of the Americas (WHISC). It's not even close to the "same thing."
So any actions towards AQ would need to involve changing the leadership of Afghanistan to one that wouldn't sponsor terrorism or terrorist even if they remained unfriendly with the US.
This is called regime change. When one government doesn't like another government and attempts to force a turnover via economic sanctions (e.g. US's embargo against Cuba), coup d'etat (see US sponsored coup d'etat against Chile's Allende), or bombing innocent people (over 1 million innocent people in Iraq, 100 000+ in Afghanistan). From the perspective of the UN World Court, and pretty much every civilized standard, this is considered illegal and immoral. And violent aggression, or war, requires the highest degree of justification. When the US stops sponsoring terrorism and terrorists (see Bosch, above; or Osama in the 1980s, or Sadam in the 1980s and 1990s, or Noriega, or the Shah of Iran), maybe then it can view others more fairly, and then ask the UN what's best to do.
On the other hand, Iraq was in response to 9/11 in a more indirect way. At the time, all of the world believed Iraq had WMDs in defiance of the UN sanctions and armistice agreements that ended the first gulf war. This is pretty much undisputed until after the invasion when it turned out that Saddam was (he admitted it) making it appear that he still had WMDs because he was afraid his neighbors would invade if they saw him as being too week. So the indirect connection is that with a stock pile of WMDs, groups of people wanting to gain access to them to use against the US and it's allies, then his simple defiance had them became a major threat.
If insuring the uninsured is the goal, why not simply buy all ~24 million uninsured a moderate private health insurance plan? We could do that at a fraction of the cost of the proposed healthcare plans.
The goal is to provide reasonable healthcare to all. Have you priced private health insurance plans in the US? They do not compare favorably with other industrial nation's health plans, and more important, the level of health in the US is worse.
Perhaps, though, that is where we have a misunderstanding. If your position is that the current proposals under consideration by the US government, and lobbied for by private insurance corporations, is a giant money-grab and not in the best interests of the public, then we concur. What follows is discussion in favor of single-payer public healthcare, like exists in every other industrial nation.
Why not allow healthcare to be purchased across state lines as they do with pretty much any other insurance, including vehicle insurance?
Extrapolate that. Go from allowing insurance across state lines which necessitates national insurance corporations, to a single national system. If this single system is for profit, then poor and high risk people will suffer because profits are corporations single guideline. If run as non-profit then decisions get made based on more humane principles. Sure there are still tough decisions to be made, but those decisions should be based on science, ethics, morals, expenses, and serious discussion amongst patient, medical experts, and family; not just next quarter's financial report.
If you say; "well there's more stuff" fine, let's do what's sensible and practical and can have some measure of general support first, then we can move on to the next issue and see what can be done. The reason why the Progressives refuse to go a step at a time is that smaller bills can be more easily parsed and faults, carve-outs, and payoffs can more-easily be detected which could threaten passage.
You lost me here--once discussions turn to straw men, and Progressives vs. Conservatives, then we're in the vague realm of propaganda. I'm enjoying our discussion too much, what say we not go there?
That's just the problem, the nation cannot afford the economic drain through the money the government would have to collect in order to pay for healthcare for everyone.
Is this a fact, or an opinion? We should be careful to form conclusions based on data, and not selectively pick data to fit preformed conclusions. Currently healthcare for all is paid partially by corporate insurance (practically no one has 100% coverage), partially by government insurance (again, limited coverage, and often supplemented by corporate insurance), and the rest by individuals (the rich write a check, the middle class make payments until they're poor and are dropped by their insurance company, the poor file for bankruptcy). This is the pool of funds. The argument is that this pool spent on a single-payer system would cover every US individual, with less waste (administrative costs and shareholder profits) and a fairer outcome for everyone, than the current system. Thus no economic drain, only a redistribution of funds.
Never mind the fact that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any such powers, regardless of what 9 oligarchs in black robes may pronounce. They also pronounced from on-high that it was fine to use the force of government to back the taking of private property from one citizen to give it to another citizen if the government "believed" the new owner may pay the government more in taxes.
Whether or not the government pays the original owner does not even enter into it at all, the act of government-backed forced property confiscation only to give said property to another private citizen or entit
The problem here is that you assume that a public health plan would actually get most poorer patients better/earlier diagnosis and/or care.
Correct, that's exactly what a public health plan does; it gives everyone access to a doctor before an ER visit, the most expensive medical treatment known, is required.
A "publicly-insured" patient will have the same stigmas as far as being the preferred patient class as Medicare/Medicaid patients currently, if not much worse as all the plans I've read have even lower doctor/hospital reimbursement rates than current Medicare/Medicaid plans making them a much-less desirable patient in financial terms than they are currently.
For stigmas, the uninsured are worse off than any Medicare/Medicaid patient. Almost any reasonable public health plan would be better than none. The US health plans being considered by the government and discussed in the corporate media, however, are not public health plans. For better examples of public health plans, see Canada, England, Australia, France, and even Switzerland which has an interesting take on one-price-for-all plans with a competition and profit-driven twist.
What I see this creating is a low-quality minimal-care system for the "plebes" and another high-quality care system for those in government & unions, and those wealthy people that can afford to pay high rates and government-mandated penalties for private insurance and care.
What you "see this creating" is exactly what the current system is. A multi-tier class system which gives the richest the best care and the poorest the worst. Using this as an argument against a better system makes no sense.
All this doesn't even touch on the fact that no matter how politicians try to massage the numbers, this will be a huge increase in costs to the country and *will* mean huge increases in everyone's taxes across the board at a time when the country is on the verge of a national debt crisis with massive inflation imminent.
You are aware that a single payer healthcare, run by the government, would operate with about 97% of funds going to healthcare and the rest to administration? Whereas the current system requires for-profit corporations to reduce their costs (reject procedures, drop expensive clients, deny coverage to risky patients) while increasing profits (raising premiums, as happened just recently, sometimes as much as 50%) and giving those profits to shareholders and executives. In other words, paying taxes for single payer healthcare would be cheaper for everyone compared to insurance premiums. If the national debt crisis is a concern, then the choice is obvious.
The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people). ER is the most expensive place to receive care (e.g. $75 aspirin). The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:
Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent. Some write off bills far more willingly than others. Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.
Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers. Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions. Client 2 can afford a $60 repair. Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational. Which one gets most of your attention, has priority? Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy). Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?
Say, for example, the British military came to your town so their government and businesses to take control of your city and natural resource, coal. They shoot and bomb a large number of buildings, roads, homes, and people; all while saying they are only targeting resisters. On the South side of your town the military men rape the women; on the North side of town they don't. If people from a neighboring state came to help you fight the invading military, would you accept their help? Which do you want to attack more, the killer-rapers or the killers?
For bonus points: find 5 issues in the above that are way more important than which soldiers you hate more. Two cent opinion: soldiers in war are not in a "normal" situation, they are in insane circumstances and react accordingly. Their leaders are responsible for the soldier's actions.
Let's start with Iran facts: Iran has been building nuclear power facilities for years and has a long history of allowing independent inspections of any requested facility. None of the inspections have shown weapons development. Iran supports a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
And just to show that no one is pure: Iranian and Israeli military jets bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980 and 1981. When it comes UN inspections of nuclear energy and weapons production facilities, is the US as open as Iran? The US demands some other countries account for all fissionable material but can it account for its own? Does the US support nuclear free zones on its own continent, or is that just for others? In your opinion is the US government being fair or hypocritical?
Let's move on to FUD: The Israeli government and military have fears that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. If, and this is a civilization threatening "if," bombing nuclear facilities that produce energy but could be used to develop weapons is allowed, then every nuclear facility in every country is a risk and could (should?) be bombed by any country. This is a policy so stupid it could only be inspired by private greed for power and supported through public fear; with no apparent concern for consequences.
Iran currently has oil and gas energy available, and could cheaply use those instead of nuclear power. Perhaps, though, the people of Iran are aware of the limited availability and the climate warming effects from burning oil and gas as established by climate scientists. So Iran has chosen a climatically safer energy source (which has its own serious issues). Like every government Iran's is not perfect, but on this issue its respect for inspections, nuclear weapons-free zone, and rational energy plans makes it a better example than a target.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that does piss me off is people walking directly behind my truck or van when I'm reversing somewhere. Seriously.... I know there's a person there, but I've got zero idea where the fuck they are.
This is why cars have rear view mirrors, and why the rear-view cameras are being proposed.
You can't eliminate blind spots... there will always be places you can't see. Basically, my advise is double check everything. Look at your mirror, then look over your shoulder. Look twice at everything.
Looking twice is excellent advice, but if you read your parent again you'll find out how to avoid blind spots in cars.
I'm a truck driver, so I'm very used to just relying upon my side mirrors only (I may be biased here). In my opinion, the rear view mirror in the car is a little bit of a crutch to help out people who don't know what the hell is behind them. The side mirrors are _the_ things you look at when reversing - the centre mirror is essentially useless.
Your bias is noted. All mirrors and rear-view cameras are crutches, use them to the best of your ability.
Let's start with this: government is the shadow cast by business over society (Dewey or Adam Smith, I think). So when WikiLeaks publishes military and political documents (the middlemen between people and corporations), the embarrassed use minor tactics. Distractions, like attacking the messenger (e.g. Assange) and statements about how publishing might put a few people in sensitive positions at risk (ignoring the fact that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars put millions of people at actual risk).
Publishing documents (i.e. cables containing the business motives for international relations and the forthcoming bank documents) from those with real power? That's unacceptable. Time to make reading off limits to the rule followers, remove finances and publishing (hosting) structures for those remaining who might read banned material, then declare the messenger a terrorist and execute.
This is better, and worse, than any dystopian book.
The future is here. One of the better examples of what you suggest is this vid: Stealing Home. Except it's not propaganda.
And, sometimes, justice. (Unless your only measure is money.)
While we don't do many atrocities to people here at home, the "third world" is open game.
Guess that depends on the definition of many. The US has the highest number of children in prison for life without parole. Puts some people whom appear to be Mexican in prison for that reason alone, for years, without access to attorneys or judges, before deportation. Puts a substantial percentage of people with varying shades of skin in prison for minor reasons, and keeps them there for life thanks to a baseball mentality of 3 strikes and bigoted sentencing. Just a sampling of the atrocities that occur in the US thanks to having biased people working in government and positions of authority. As you note, the atrocities the US government and its big business boss commit in other countries are worse and the scale larger, but there's enough to have some at home too.
The study mentioned at the end of the NPR article with this quote: "In fact, there was one study where people who are narcissistic would say they are really spectacularly good at this and they were actually worse than everyone else" is referring to Unskilled and Unaware of It (scanned pdf). The Unskilled study covers regular people too, not just us narcissists.
It's incredibly hypocritical to claim that YOU have any more heritage or culture than African Americans
This has nothing to do with heritage or culture. Everyone should feel free to keep their cultural identity. In my opinion that's one of the things that makes America great. But when you move to another country to live you should make some attempt to learn to speak the language.
Indeed. Like for example the 15th century and later Europeans whom invaded the Americas and... Wait, they mostly didn't learn the local language but instead demanded the locals learn a foreign language. And look at what all that lead to. So maybe America is not such a great example, unless you ignore history and people. So maybe Americans could get used to more than one language, like, say, pretty much the whole rest of the world does.
What you're looking for is in your head. If the articles you found can be trusted to provide accurate information, then you can reason that reducing emphasis in one area and increasing emphasis in another means both are changing in priority. You're correct in that the articles do not provide proof of the hierarchy of the priorities, which I'm fairly certain the bureau doesn't publish, and that makes the summary exaggerated. Still, when you look at the larger context (e.g. huge fines for copyright violations; the proposed-in-secret counterfeit treaty; even the grouping of copyrights, trademarks, and patents under the pro-business but nonsense term "intellectual property*"), there is sufficient cause to be concerned about priorities.
*He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper [candle] at mine, receives light without darkening me... Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. -- Thomas Jefferson, excerpt from No Patents on Ideas letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
That's a curious point you raise. Before the release the publishers requested help from the administration to vet the info. The White House refused, which indicates the data wasn't that secret or vital. After the release the White House spokesperson and military general said there was nothing important or new here. Now they're all full of threats and talk of prosecution. This change makes them appear to be motivated by something other than danger to military personnel. All of which is a distraction from the contents, and the benefits of the public knowing facts.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
If you read the reports you'll find that some data has been redacted, particularly names. According to Wikileaks additional reports are awaiting further vetting before release. As for danger: the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reports that 2118 civilians were killed in 2008 (1523 in 2007). According to various opinions the released reports might put some people in danger, but the UNAMA says the US occupation of Afghanistan is putting people in danger.
Who benefits? Learning about the My Lai Massacre helped inform the American public, and contributed to ending the Vietnam war. Learning about the many events in Afghanistan helps the public form an informed opinion.
As I said, it does seem much more scientific a process than the polygraph, however, it is still susceptible to faulty experimental setup.
Since a polygraph has no scientific basis for detecting lies, this is a useless comparison.
As for "brain fingerprinting," this sounds like a catchy phrase to imply accuracy. What about someone who thinks "hey this is just like that John Grisham novel!" and boom her brain shows a positive hit? Conclusion: don't ready crime books. What about someone quick witted, who when presented with crime scene facts thinks "oh yeah that sure fits the rest of the scenario I read in the paper, I'd kind of wondered about that?" Yup, positive hit. Conclusion: don't be intelligent. And these are just examples some goof thought up on the Internet in 2 minutes. And you nailed one particularly dangerous aspect, the polygraph interpreter often knows what answer the buyer wants. And every single /. reader thought "false" when reading the "100% accuracy" claim. Bad science? Yes. Science? No. Guilt by accusation? Likely.
The P300 technique may be an interesting project for scientific research but it is definitely not a tool. A hired technician might call it one but no scientist would. And it is particularly not a tool ready for criminal justice. Unless, of course, there's money in it, or one wants a "100% accurate tool" to convict some person of interest where real evidence is lacking.
Your definition of "ruthless" describes to a substantial degree the massacre at the city of Fallujah. Though there is room to argue as to what "degree." Since there is no historical event which matches your definition of "ruthless," and nearly everyone would say 50-95% civilian casualties is not "bending over backwards to avoid," we would do well to confine definitions to more realistic events. Unless we're just talking over beers here.
The Taliban made a preliminary offer to discuss handing over bin Laden. This is how any negotiation begins. From your own link, the Taliban requested evidence, also a typical requirement for extradition. The US refused these standard requests.
If Australia requested a suspect be extradited, the US would offer to discuss this and also require evidence of a crime. If Australia rejected these proposals, then the US would reject Australia's request. (If Australia threatened to destroy the US, the US would not stop laughing; Afghanis aren't laughing.)
To use your awful director/actress analogy: this is (somewhat) equivalent to a director offering an actor to become a life-long sex slave without hope for any part. If the actor refuses, the director will kill the actor's family, village, nearby wedding parties, schools, and a large portion of the actor's country.
The consequences are out of proportion to the offense, and unreasonable.
I consider the justification for the invasion of Iraq a separate topic from the question of whether the gunship crew acted correctly given the circumstances they were in and the information at their disposal.
Taking an event out of context is omission, a way to deceive. Typically this is done where one outcome is desired, see also kangaroo courts.
From the gunship's point of view, you see some armed individuals, others who are carrying items which are hard to distinguish (turns out later to be camera w/telephoto lens), and some who may be unarmed, or possibly concealing arms (a suicide belt, for example). Given that Palestinians are known to attack fully armed Israeli troops with nothing more than rocks they can throw, the idea of unarmed or lightly armed fighters approaching US troops with hostile intent is not out of the question.
Curious that you use as an example Palestinians throwing rocks against invaders with guns and bombs, since there are more than a few parallels with Iraqis; but I suppose pursuing that discussion is larger than what we want to get into here. In summary: never bring a rock to a machine gun fight, unless you're making a symbolic gesture to show a basic unfairness and injustice which the world can perceive but the gunners use as justification.
According to your description, "harmful intent" or "possibly concealing arms" is justification, so any human wearing clothing is fair game to be killed at the discretion of the shooter. If we're going to be golden-rule fair, this rule must apply equally to Iraqis, Americans, or any other nationality. Is that the guideline you want to use? Any person or vehicle possibly carrying a weapon is a fair target? It's handy, since this way the shooter can never be wrong, by definition. If you're wondering why the world finds this event and the American occupation to be morally wrong, this is one of the big reasons.
It bears mentioning that the number of civilian casualties depends on at least three primary causes in this war. 1) The accuracy with which a target can be discerned, classified, and hit. 2) The degree to which the insurgents have camouflaged and shielded themselves among civilians. 3) The frequency and lethality of insurgent strikes against civilians. The US has spent billions upon billions of dollars developing weapons systems that are ultra-precise and reliable. This is primarily done to increase the potency of America's fighting forces, but is also specifically intended to lower civilian casualties. The insurgents have made it a habit to hide among civilians as civilians. Culpability for resulting civilian casualties must also rest on them as well. The US does not, as a matter of policy, deliberately attack civilians. The insurgents do.
The primary cause of the above normal violent civilian casualties is the war. The stated reasons for the US invasion are, in chronological order: 2003) rid Iraq of WMDs, since proven false; 2004) rid Iraq of Saddam, since accomplished yet the occupation continues; 2005) get rid of terrorists and insurgents, which are instead increasing. When you start with an objective using some approach, and the opposite of that objective is happening, most people question the approach. If the approach continues to be used, then the stated objective is not the real objective. Most Iraqis, and the rest of the world, see the objective being corporate control of Iraq's natural resource (oil), imperialism, and neoliberalism (which the US calls "national security").
Are US weapons ultra-precise and reliable? Let's take an example: the bombing of Saddam that initiated the war hit not Saddam's palace but did hit nearby; blowing a hole in, literally, a neighbor's front yard. For more examples, see this long sad list of "collateral damage" from "ultra-precise" weapons. If that is considered cherry-picki
There have been, what, 6 terrorist plane incidents in the last 10 years, 2 of which had no fatalities, in the US? And 6 crashes with fatalities due to other reasons in the same period. Looks like we'd be better of putting time, effort, and money should be put into plane maintenance; mechanic, air controller, and pilot training, salaries, and working conditions; instead of security theater. See also: PBS Frontline's Flying Cheap.
Also don't forget the American streetcar scandal, in which several corporations--including GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil (now Chevron/Exxon?)--were convicted in court of conspiracy. Ever wonder why you jump in your 2000+ pound car to travel in the US while pumping out greenhouse emissions, when Europe has trains and trolleys? It's because of a conspiracy.
Also, it could be that the UVB-76 buzzer was designed to make people wonder what it did, to make big goofs write comments on slashdot /*looks at self*/, instead of pursuing more useful inquiries. Kind of like the slow release of JFK shooting materials to occupy those particular, uhhh, conspiracy theorists.
You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house.
If I am armed and you are travelling through a war zone with me, then we implicitly understand that our lives are at stake. At this point, getting shot at should NOT be a surprise.
This jumps right past the most important step. It is the step which most of the world can see but indoctrinated Americans are trained to ignore. To be a morally acceptable act, the invading military must justify its violent invasion, otherwise it is aggression. And unjustified aggression is universally immoral and commonly illegal. Once unjustified aggression has begun, horror follows, and all of the immoral acts that follow, by all individuals, are the responsibility of the original initiators. We should keep this in mind while discussing the American occupation of Iraq.
Since we're indulging in a little make-believe, let's explore this a little further. If you are a journalist and I am an insurgent fighter, why are you following me into a war zone? Probably to film the imminent firefight between my group of fighters and the occupying Italians. Any Italian gunship crew in that position is going to light us up with gunfire, just like the American crew did. Whether I'm a foreign mercenary or an American patriot doesn't factor into their equation. They would be defending their brothers on the ground.
Why else were one or more journalists moving with armed men towards American troops? The group he was travelling with seemed a little too large for purely personal protection.
The journalist could be accompanying locals into an "imminent firefight," or the locals could be accompanying the journalist, or there could be another combination of purposes for that loose group of people walking together. Are a cameraman and an inquisitive journalist going to gather a group? Yes, groups of varying sizes frequently gather around video journalists. In the video several locals appear to be carrying rifles, and some are walking empty-handed, at worst carrying a handgun or small grenade. So several apparently empty-handed locals are walking toward an "imminent firefight" against US tanks and rockets and machine guns, with a noisy attack helicopter overhead circling their position and obviously radioing the target of their approach? The least likely scenario is the "imminent firefight."
I don't condone the killing of civilians or war correspondents. However, in this case I think I can understand how it happened, and I don't attribute it to any malice on the part of the gunship crew. They were doing what they were there to do - protect their fellow GIs on the ground.
During war civilians are killed (something like 50-90%, though I can't find a source right now so feel free to question or research it). If you condone this war then you condone the killing of those civilians (perhaps with the justification that it is "worth it," as Condoleeza Rica said). With a little more research (i.e. the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's Authority Experiment), you'll find that the soldiers actions are exactly what you'd expect in their situation. Or watch the 1970s documentary Winter Soldier (seriously, it's worth the time) where a veteran describes the situation clearly: "It was us against them, if I made a mistake in judging who was dangerous then I could die, and I wasn't going to make that mistake, so everyone was a target" (paraphrased).
From the outside, the helicopter's gunning down the locals is obviously immoral; to quote "we have a van that's approaching and picking up bodies, permission to engage" and then getting permission from the authority. From inside an insane situation, the killing is understandable; and responsibility for these acts goes back to the instigators, the US government, and you and me for allowing them to have con
Let's presume that we agree on two things: the golden rule is a moral fundamental and facts are important.
Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons
That's what insurgents look like. They kill Americans all the time. They were approaching an American position. That's who the helo pilots and gunners were there to stop.
Let's try a golden rule counter-example. You have a gun and I have a camera and we are walking around our neighborhood, say a block from your house. Italy invaded our country 7 years ago under some pretense and continues to occupy our country. Currently there is an armed Italian helicopter flying over us about to open fire. Whom is the insurgent? How would an Italian describe the situation?
That's what insurgents [you and I] look like. They [we] kill Italians all the time. They [we] were approaching an Italian position. That's who [us] the helo pilots and [Italian] gunners were there to stop.
No one in the world (95+%) views the situation like you describe it except media-educated US citizens. This is Iraq. The majority of Iraqis do not want American military and American-funded mercenaries in their country. Therefore it is the Americans who are the insurgents. The rest of your argument falls apart once this fact is recognized.
Films like this deserve to be seen. Anonymous distribution is, so far, one avenue to make that possible. If intercepted at an exit node by more than one party, that just gives more opportunity for an honest publisher and any propagandist a video to deliver to the public. Obviously it would always be best to have the whole unedited film available for reference. Though even then you have to use your critical skills to interpret what you're viewing.
For example: the New Yorker's "compelling points" of the video are, in my opinion, tangential and minor in the context of the shooting. You can ignore the audio and items circled, and still come away with the big picture. Some empty-handed locals, some locals with weapons, and journalists with cameras are walking around. Some foreign guys with weapons, part of an invading and occupying foreign military, are flying around in helicopters. The foreign guys initiate the killing of locals and journalists on the ground. Another group of weaponless locals drives in and tries to rescue the wounded, but are also shot, along with their kids, by the foreign guys. Make of that what you will. Looks like murder of innocents to me.
I think you might be conflating several things into one and then scratching your head when you can't see the connections.
It's remarkably easy to make connections when you start with opinions instead of facts.
9/11 was orchestrated by a group that was gaining safe harbor in Afghanistan. When we demanded the safe harbor to stop, we were told to go take a hike.
The US was told to take a hike for a reason. The US was asked for evidence that Osama bin Laden committed the crime. The US refused to present the evidence. Only then was the US request refused. For comparison, the US refuses to turn over Orlando Bosch (living now in Florida) even at the request of many countries which have evidence. See anything hypocritical here?
This is pretty much an official support doctrine of the acts surrounding 9/11 which is why it was more then just training grounds. It meant that the government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Al Qeada and therefore supporting it's actions.
If refusing to turn over known terrorists qualifies as "official support of the acts" then the US is also guilty. Except no one is suggesting the US be treated like Afghanistan. Civilized people, rational people, sane people, don't go around blowing up hundreds of thousands of people in other countries because of the actions of a few suspects.
In diplomacy, that is almost the same things as sending your military to destroy the twin towers except it carries an element of separation which can be attempted to be used as Plausible deniability to the ignorant.
Diplomacy is where you work things out through negotiations. You're talking about mercenaries or private military contractors, typically supported by rich individuals, groups, or states; e.g. Al Qaeda, French Foreign Legion, School of the Americas, Blackwater, Dyncorp, and School of the Americas (WHISC). It's not even close to the "same thing."
So any actions towards AQ would need to involve changing the leadership of Afghanistan to one that wouldn't sponsor terrorism or terrorist even if they remained unfriendly with the US.
This is called regime change. When one government doesn't like another government and attempts to force a turnover via economic sanctions (e.g. US's embargo against Cuba), coup d'etat (see US sponsored coup d'etat against Chile's Allende), or bombing innocent people (over 1 million innocent people in Iraq, 100 000+ in Afghanistan). From the perspective of the UN World Court, and pretty much every civilized standard, this is considered illegal and immoral. And violent aggression, or war, requires the highest degree of justification. When the US stops sponsoring terrorism and terrorists (see Bosch, above; or Osama in the 1980s, or Sadam in the 1980s and 1990s, or Noriega, or the Shah of Iran), maybe then it can view others more fairly, and then ask the UN what's best to do.
On the other hand, Iraq was in response to 9/11 in a more indirect way. At the time, all of the world believed Iraq had WMDs in defiance of the UN sanctions and armistice agreements that ended the first gulf war. This is pretty much undisputed until after the invasion when it turned out that Saddam was (he admitted it) making it appear that he still had WMDs because he was afraid his neighbors would invade if they saw him as being too week. So the indirect connection is that with a stock pile of WMDs, groups of people wanting to gain access to them to use against the US and it's allies, then his simple defiance had them became a major threat.
If insuring the uninsured is the goal, why not simply buy all ~24 million uninsured a moderate private health insurance plan? We could do that at a fraction of the cost of the proposed healthcare plans.
The goal is to provide reasonable healthcare to all. Have you priced private health insurance plans in the US? They do not compare favorably with other industrial nation's health plans, and more important, the level of health in the US is worse.
Perhaps, though, that is where we have a misunderstanding. If your position is that the current proposals under consideration by the US government, and lobbied for by private insurance corporations, is a giant money-grab and not in the best interests of the public, then we concur. What follows is discussion in favor of single-payer public healthcare, like exists in every other industrial nation.
Why not allow healthcare to be purchased across state lines as they do with pretty much any other insurance, including vehicle insurance?
Extrapolate that. Go from allowing insurance across state lines which necessitates national insurance corporations, to a single national system. If this single system is for profit, then poor and high risk people will suffer because profits are corporations single guideline. If run as non-profit then decisions get made based on more humane principles. Sure there are still tough decisions to be made, but those decisions should be based on science, ethics, morals, expenses, and serious discussion amongst patient, medical experts, and family; not just next quarter's financial report.
If you say; "well there's more stuff" fine, let's do what's sensible and practical and can have some measure of general support first, then we can move on to the next issue and see what can be done. The reason why the Progressives refuse to go a step at a time is that smaller bills can be more easily parsed and faults, carve-outs, and payoffs can more-easily be detected which could threaten passage.
You lost me here--once discussions turn to straw men, and Progressives vs. Conservatives, then we're in the vague realm of propaganda. I'm enjoying our discussion too much, what say we not go there?
That's just the problem, the nation cannot afford the economic drain through the money the government would have to collect in order to pay for healthcare for everyone.
Is this a fact, or an opinion? We should be careful to form conclusions based on data, and not selectively pick data to fit preformed conclusions. Currently healthcare for all is paid partially by corporate insurance (practically no one has 100% coverage), partially by government insurance (again, limited coverage, and often supplemented by corporate insurance), and the rest by individuals (the rich write a check, the middle class make payments until they're poor and are dropped by their insurance company, the poor file for bankruptcy). This is the pool of funds. The argument is that this pool spent on a single-payer system would cover every US individual, with less waste (administrative costs and shareholder profits) and a fairer outcome for everyone, than the current system. Thus no economic drain, only a redistribution of funds.
Never mind the fact that the Constitution does *not* grant the federal government any such powers, regardless of what 9 oligarchs in black robes may pronounce. They also pronounced from on-high that it was fine to use the force of government to back the taking of private property from one citizen to give it to another citizen if the government "believed" the new owner may pay the government more in taxes.
Whether or not the government pays the original owner does not even enter into it at all, the act of government-backed forced property confiscation only to give said property to another private citizen or entit
The problem here is that you assume that a public health plan would actually get most poorer patients better/earlier diagnosis and/or care.
Correct, that's exactly what a public health plan does; it gives everyone access to a doctor before an ER visit, the most expensive medical treatment known, is required.
A "publicly-insured" patient will have the same stigmas as far as being the preferred patient class as Medicare/Medicaid patients currently, if not much worse as all the plans I've read have even lower doctor/hospital reimbursement rates than current Medicare/Medicaid plans making them a much-less desirable patient in financial terms than they are currently.
For stigmas, the uninsured are worse off than any Medicare/Medicaid patient. Almost any reasonable public health plan would be better than none. The US health plans being considered by the government and discussed in the corporate media, however, are not public health plans. For better examples of public health plans, see Canada, England, Australia, France, and even Switzerland which has an interesting take on one-price-for-all plans with a competition and profit-driven twist.
What I see this creating is a low-quality minimal-care system for the "plebes" and another high-quality care system for those in government & unions, and those wealthy people that can afford to pay high rates and government-mandated penalties for private insurance and care.
What you "see this creating" is exactly what the current system is. A multi-tier class system which gives the richest the best care and the poorest the worst. Using this as an argument against a better system makes no sense.
All this doesn't even touch on the fact that no matter how politicians try to massage the numbers, this will be a huge increase in costs to the country and *will* mean huge increases in everyone's taxes across the board at a time when the country is on the verge of a national debt crisis with massive inflation imminent.
You are aware that a single payer healthcare, run by the government, would operate with about 97% of funds going to healthcare and the rest to administration? Whereas the current system requires for-profit corporations to reduce their costs (reject procedures, drop expensive clients, deny coverage to risky patients) while increasing profits (raising premiums, as happened just recently, sometimes as much as 50%) and giving those profits to shareholders and executives. In other words, paying taxes for single payer healthcare would be cheaper for everyone compared to insurance premiums. If the national debt crisis is a concern, then the choice is obvious.
You get care on a par with most everyone else.
The Emergency Room is the only access to the medical system for those without insurance (some 45 million people). ER is the most expensive place to receive care (e.g. $75 aspirin). The uninsured statistics get marginal attention in the corporate press, for obvious reasons, but you can find them:
Billing is up to each doctor, to each hospital, to each billing service (collection department), sometimes even to each collection agent. Some write off bills far more willingly than others. Some never let go, and your credit report reflects these choices.
Try a thought experiment: you have 3 new clients with broken computers. Client 1 is well off and will pay you $120 per hour, plus parts, no questions. Client 2 can afford a $60 repair. Client 3 has no money, but needs their computer operational. Which one gets most of your attention, has priority? Sure every analogy is flawed, and a broken computer does not equal a sick person and the difference in consequences are huge (and give me credit for not using a car analogy). Still, how much difference is there between your ethics and a doctor's?
Say, for example, the British military came to your town so their government and businesses to take control of your city and natural resource, coal. They shoot and bomb a large number of buildings, roads, homes, and people; all while saying they are only targeting resisters. On the South side of your town the military men rape the women; on the North side of town they don't. If people from a neighboring state came to help you fight the invading military, would you accept their help? Which do you want to attack more, the killer-rapers or the killers?
For bonus points: find 5 issues in the above that are way more important than which soldiers you hate more. Two cent opinion: soldiers in war are not in a "normal" situation, they are in insane circumstances and react accordingly. Their leaders are responsible for the soldier's actions.
Let's start with Iran facts: Iran has been building nuclear power facilities for years and has a long history of allowing independent inspections of any requested facility. None of the inspections have shown weapons development. Iran supports a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
Israeli government and military facts: Israeli military has nuclear weapons (there's enough evidence to convince, among others, the US assistant secretary of defense). The Israeli government refuses to agree to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses inspections. The Israeli military bombed a Syrian nuclear energy plant in 2007. The Israeli government and military have plans to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
And just to show that no one is pure: Iranian and Israeli military jets bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980 and 1981. When it comes UN inspections of nuclear energy and weapons production facilities, is the US as open as Iran? The US demands some other countries account for all fissionable material but can it account for its own? Does the US support nuclear free zones on its own continent, or is that just for others? In your opinion is the US government being fair or hypocritical?
Let's move on to FUD: The Israeli government and military have fears that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. If, and this is a civilization threatening "if," bombing nuclear facilities that produce energy but could be used to develop weapons is allowed, then every nuclear facility in every country is a risk and could (should?) be bombed by any country. This is a policy so stupid it could only be inspired by private greed for power and supported through public fear; with no apparent concern for consequences.
Iran currently has oil and gas energy available, and could cheaply use those instead of nuclear power. Perhaps, though, the people of Iran are aware of the limited availability and the climate warming effects from burning oil and gas as established by climate scientists. So Iran has chosen a climatically safer energy source (which has its own serious issues). Like every government Iran's is not perfect, but on this issue its respect for inspections, nuclear weapons-free zone, and rational energy plans makes it a better example than a target.