BF2S Forums Compassion as a Means of 'Progress'

I really don't agree with this new philosophy that it is somehow ok to shoot medics.

Skexis wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

I really don't agree with this new philosophy that it is somehow ok to shoot medics.

Don't delude yourself that it is in any way new, or distinct to Arab cultures.

...but it does show the kind of people we're dealing with.  Personally, I like the idea of "take no prisoners."

I've always been against the War in Iraq, and while I admire what this medic did, I can't say I would have been so compassionate.  To me, there are very few rules in war -- especially against an enemy that adheres to none.

Bubbalo wrote:

OMG!  They shot an armed soldier who coincidentally was a medic!  What monsters!

If he has a gun, he's fair game.  Further, the shooters were firing at a legitimate military target, so they weren't/aren't terrorists.  You don't want your medics shot, don't give them guns.

Finally, big deal.  Thousands of people without medical training have helped enemy soldiers throughout history.  So either the US has only just cottoned on to the idea, or this is a very obvious propaganda piece (hint; the US isn't that slow).

I know what you're saying, but I'm glad the clip also shows what kind of situation a medic is in.  To heal the one that just tried to kill you is a profound thing.  It's certainly not something exclusive to our medics, but it is worth noting.

Historically speaking, there were a number of cases where Nazies would treat American prisoners better than you would think, but you can be sure an Islamist would never do something like that.  An Islamist would be more likely to behead you or me, whether we're soldiers or not.

I don't deny the fact that we are seen as invaders, but perhaps, their perception of us is skewed.

On the one hand, as CameronPoe has pointed several times, the reactions we face in Iraq probably aren't that different from what an enemy would face that would invade us.

On the other hand, perhaps the Iraqis who help us are the ones who truly understand that what we stand for is ultimately the creation of a more stable government there.

Again, I'm still against this war and I believe it was entered for the wrong reasons, but I also believe that we are currently trying to fix Iraq.  If our aims were truly evil at this point, we'd be a lot more brutal towards these people.

To be quite frank, maybe we should be more brutal if we're going to stay there.  If they're going to assume we're evil, we might as well give them something to fear.

Bubbalo wrote:

I'm not saying that you are the bad guys: I'm saying that from their point of view they are, and in their position you'd probably do the same thing.

Further, many who oppose you or don't help you may do so not because they believe you want to harm them, but because they don't want freedom and the expense of their own culture and history.

Fair enough....  The more I think about it, the more I realize that, if a nation were to invade America and actually defeat our government, maybe it would be better to side with them.  Insurgency doesn't really help things any, and more often than not, it just kills more innocent people -- regardless of the aims it wants to support.

I guess there comes a point where order ultimately means more than freedom or individuality.

So, I'll assert that maybe the problem isn't the fact that we invaded Iraq, but that human nature is too irrational to consistently promote order.  We're too attached to our so-called cultures, religions, and national identities to understand that cooperation is generally better for the survival of our species and civilization in general.

Again, the versions of Islam that exist in the Middle East seem painfully outdated when compared to modern Western culture.

Bubbalo wrote:

But you don't get it.  To them it isn't about what results in the best material benefit.  They refuse to have the US view of what is right imposed on them: in the case of some because they want to impose their own view, and in the case of others simply because they view it as an attack on their culture by the West.

Further, the move towards conservatism in Islam is largely a result of the West.  They move towards because they don't want their culture to be lost to Westernisation, and the see conservatism as the best defense.  And to argue that we're too attached to our culture is an interesting comment coming from someone who's culture isn't threatened.

Well, I would agree that America is too attached to its culture as well, and while I believe materialism is better than Islamism, it certainly has its problems.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ideal "culture" is one based solely on rationalism.  A society defined by logic and practicality would far surpass the achievements of the Islamic World and the West as well.  The reason why I see the West as better is because it is closer to this ideal.

Your assessment is correct though.  They have moved towards conservativism because of irrational fears.  Although, unfortunately, they have a valid fear of what our corporations are doing over there.  That's the part we need to fix about ourselves.

Essentially, the Islamic World needs to eliminate its dogma and outdated customs, while the West needs to eliminate its corporate corruption and military adventurism.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-06 19:47:56)

Bubbalo wrote:

No, you can be sure that an extremist wouldn't, and due to the nature of the conflict all or most of your enemies are extremists.

Further, if the US mainland were invaded and US citizens were dieing I wouldn't be surprised if US doctors let enemies die or killed them.  Fact is, you're an occupying force and from their point of view violent invaders.

If the US mainland were invaded, our unobtrusive little submarines would begin to buzz around like angry bees while our citizens die. As compassionate as some US efforts may seem, we are still a nation of deep-seated paranoia, like many others.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-06 21:26:01)