Go Back   Fratching! > General > Clash of Cultures

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 12-11-2016, 12:24 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
If the 19 year old private who's been trained to disobey an illegal order and report the person to the next highest ranking person obeys the illegal order the are as culpable as everyone else who issued the order.
it's more complicated than that- as is actually recognised in the Geneva Convention.(to cut a long story short, the Geneva Convention bans following orders you know are illegal- the only order that is specified as being inherently illegal is an order to commit genocide- and the Geneva Convention itself says for other orders, you should give the benefit of the doubt to the person following disputed orders.

To summarise, even the Geneva Conventions recognise that an individual soldier may not be able to argue the toss- look at the shitstorm that occurred when soldiers were being prosecuted for legitimate uses of military force during the occupation of Iraq ( like one example where it looked like soldiers who captured a member of Saddam's Iraqi Government that had functionally murdered some of their comrades (I can't remember the exact circumstances), were held, then later released when insufficient evidence was found to try them. the complaint was two-fold: illegal detention for holding them, and that they shouldn't have been under threat of transfer to the Iraqi government for trial.(the two complaints are contradictory: if they were POWs, the detention wasn't illegal. If they were not POWs, then killing the soldiers was murder, and transfer to the civilian authorities for trial is the legitimate response. The military can hold people while they determine if they are POWs or not.))- basically, there was a lawyer who redefined scum who send people to Iraq to actively encourage people to make allegations against soldiers. Frankly, I'm of the opinion those lawyers should be up on charges of treason( assisting the enemy in time of war- it's a bit f a stretch, but encouraging soldiers to be tried for doing their duty is arguably treasonous)

What is definitely unacceptable is calling soldiers murderers just because they wear the uniform.(to explain for the dumber people who may be reading: it can't be inherently murder since there is no particular desire for the other guy to be killed- for the vast majority of soldiers, they would be perfectly happy if the other guy immediately surrendered. A murderer doesn't care.)
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 12-11-2016, 03:41 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
What is definitely unacceptable is calling soldiers murderers just because they wear the uniform.
I got called a baby killer and a murderer when I got home. I went overseas as a civilian. I didn't even carry a weapon, nor did I fire one the whole time I was there.

And this happens to soldiers who never fire their weapons. Mechanics, supply management folks, etc. People who never even leave the base and the only time you saw the local nationals was at the DFAC or when they were cleaning the bathrooms. This is the problem we are talking about.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:21 AM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 531
Default

@mjr -

I've read through your entire post and I'm not going to go line by line, but you do realize you're spending an awful lot of energy on specific perceived slights right? Like I get the "flyover country" thing, although to be accurate the term was invented by the right wing to describe how they perceived attitudes on the left.

That's basically the death of Nationalism right there - the second either side overly fixates on the worst excess of the other. Because I'm sane, I know there is some Republican out there screaming about welfare queens and actively antogonizing a gay man. There is some Liberal that spits out military-industrial complex to explain everything and fires off the word "racist" like he's giving out candy. It's the reduction of a side to a talking point or an event if you actually fixate on it though. It's a logical fallacy masquerading as reason.

I'd like to see us hold the media to higher standards, but how? We sort of know (by experiment) that if the media just honestly reports and one candidate is more incendiary and inaccurate than another, the supporters of that candidate will simply gravitate to whatever source paints their candidate in the most positive light. So in order to even get a "higher standard" you're talking about, you're talking about a law that deals with lies of fact or lies of omission - we're barking up the tree of editorial discretion.

That's going to get tossed under first amendment grounds. Me personally - I wouldn't mind a law that actually tightened up editorial discretion so that CNN doesn't run the non-stop "The problem with Trump is..." and Fox News publishes 5 anti-Clinton hit pieces a day during election season. I think those are disingenuous uses of discretion. And you could make a partial case that the reason th US in 1960 was more united then even with all their problems, is that both sides never really have the option of retreating to their own preferred facts.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 12-12-2016, 02:08 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Yeti_Esquire View Post
@mjr -

I've read through your entire post and I'm not going to go line by line, but you do realize you're spending an awful lot of energy on specific perceived slights right? Like I get the "flyover country" thing, although to be accurate the term was invented by the right wing to describe how they perceived attitudes on the left.
Well, you have a valid argument here. That said, I will say that I enjoy your sane, rational response and the fact that we can converse about it. Perceived slights, though, come from both sides. I think the problem is we (i.e. both sides) have to analyze those "perceived slights" and see how they may/may not stack up to the truth.

As far as the perception from the right with regard to "flyover country", do you think they are off base in that perception, and if so, how? I'd really like to have an honest conversation about it with you, I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic.

Believe me, I know that being a Native Texan, most Texans don't give a crap what the rest of the country thinks, so I kind of understand the sentiment of dismissing parts of the country, too.

Quote:
That's basically the death of Nationalism right there - the second either side overly fixates on the worst excess of the other. Because I'm sane, I know there is some Republican out there screaming about welfare queens and actively antogonizing a gay man. There is some Liberal that spits out military-industrial complex to explain everything and fires off the word "racist" like he's giving out candy.
A lot more agreement from me, here. The problem is, I think, the second half of your first sentence. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a Republican or a Democrat question the intelligence level, sanity, or whatever of the other. I don't know the answer to getting past that, though.

Quote:
It's the reduction of a side to a talking point or an event if you actually fixate on it though. It's a logical fallacy masquerading as reason.
Yes, again this happens on both sides. The problem is, I think, when terms that are unwarranted are used. As I've said previously, being against something doesn't mean you (in a general sense) hate or are a bigot. That's too often the "go to" when that happens.

Quote:
I'd like to see us hold the media to higher standards, but how?
I'm not sure how effective it would be, but with Social Media like it is, there could be "watchdogs", I suppose. Though I realize that could be exploited, too. Some things would be more difficult to watchdog, obviously, but I think with some things, if there's someone there with a camera phone and/or recorder, it could be a possibility.

Also, political donation disclosures would certainly help. If X journalist/reporter gives to Y candidate, who belongs to Z party, I think that would be helpful to know.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.