|
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here...
|
On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it  . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon?
Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more.
|
On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean".
How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass. I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category.
I am not a Bush apologist but read my view on the Iraq war with an open mind. I have simplified my explanation, so you guys will understand.
The invasion of Iraq, in my view was not about WMDs or connections to Al Qaeda or even about oil, but was intended to show the Islamic world (and particularly Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) that the United States meant business and that those who didn't get with the program were going to be dealt with very harshly. The fact that the United States has substantial ground and air forces within easy striking distance of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others, has no doubt been noticed by the leaders of those countries, dampening their enthusiasm for tolerating Al Qaeda. After Iraq, The US now had the ability to strike at terrorist camps in almost every nation. Before the invasion, the effort against terror in the horn of Africa was hopeless. After the invasion nations like Yemen allowed drone strikes and spec-ops raids. As I said before, this explanation had been dumbed down considerably, pm me if you want a further explanation.
|
On October 02 2012 11:38 kmillz wrote:And now him and Osama Bin Ladin are dead, I think most people would agree that is a win for peace, even if it came from a war.
I would not agree that Saddam having WMDS in the 80's, which is a well documented fact, or 9/11 really justify invading Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan to take out Al-Queda's state support, we killed Osama in Pakistan.
After Afghanistan, Iraq happened which I will not be willing to call a win for peace until the long term effects of regional stability are understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War So far it hasn't worked out so well.
|
On October 02 2012 11:41 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here...
Agreed, it really blows my mind.
|
On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right?
You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky.
Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years.
What Bosnia doesn't have:
-30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells
-thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country
-terrorism trough the roof top
-lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system
Well... it did work out real well in the end.
The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/
|
On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/
You do realize the 3rd and 4th points you made explain the 1st and 2nd right?
|
On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/
After, you know, the US bombed the living hell out of everything cause after four years of watching everyone massacre each other, the Europeans asked us for help instead of actually trying to do something besides send five guys in with a tank as a "demonstration of force".
I'm not defending the "imperialist" nonsense everyone else on the planet loves to throw at us, I'm defending an entire ethnic group's right not to be cleansed from the earth and the defense of our allies in the Middle East. I don't believe in invading a country every time something goes wrong, but I DO believe in the basic human right to live, something Europe loves to tout and rarely defends. If noone else is going to do something, then we, the United States, should.
|
On October 02 2012 13:36 AKomrade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/ After, you know, the US bombed the living hell out of everything cause after four years of watching everyone massacre each other, the Europeans asked us for help instead of actually trying to do something besides send five guys in with a tank as a "demonstration of force". I'm not defending the "imperialist" nonsense everyone else on the planet loves to throw at us, I'm defending an entire ethnic group's right not to be cleansed from the earth and the defense of our allies in the Middle East. I don't believe in invading a country every time something goes wrong, but I DO believe in the basic human right to live, something Europe loves to tout and rarely defends. If noone else is going to do something, then we, the United States, should.
So what if the US didn't bomb the living hell out of them ? The tides of war would have simply been turned and you would have had a peace treaty that was a lot less favorable for one of the sides.
Maybe Bosnia would be no more even ? SO WHAT !? If the "republic" won it would have turned out the exact same way.
People are people, be them "rebels", or "religious" or w/e if they aren't in a war than they will just build and rebuild, if there's non to fight than they won't war and if 2 factions are fighting sending a 3rd faction in to fight won't help.
The Bosnia case was "oky" since NATO pretty much slaughtered a bunch of military and stopped the fighting earlier.
But what the US is doing in the middle east is stationing soldiers over there so that the rebels/terrorists w.e you call them always have something to fight against.
The only reason for that is the corrupt capitalism in which weapon manufacturer bribe politicians so they don't go bankrup.
And people like you get on a high horse and defend those corrupt people that steal your money. It's beyond me.
|
On October 02 2012 13:36 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/ You do realize the 3rd and 4th points you made explain the 1st and 2nd right?
Yes, very good! Now what explains the 3rd and 4th?
|
On October 02 2012 13:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:36 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/ You do realize the 3rd and 4th points you made explain the 1st and 2nd right? Yes, very good! Now what explains the 3rd and 4th?
Economic disaster following the Persian Gulf War, Saddam's regime, tension between Shiites and Sunnis, sanctions, etc. etc...
|
On October 02 2012 15:00 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 13:56 sam!zdat wrote:On October 02 2012 13:36 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 12:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 02 2012 11:34 AKomrade wrote:Saddam Hussien was not fucking innocent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_MassacreThat's like saying Uncle Joe was a misunderstood and ambivalent president. Chemical weapons are also WMDs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And who was going to step in to help the Iraqis? The US is the only NATO country that commits any significant forces to an operation. Flip through the last fifty years of world history, find NATO\UN conflicts and tell me who else dedicated HALF of what we do. We're the "global police" because we have to be, not because its fun. Ask the delegates at the UN who else would or could step in and you'll get silence. Next time, maybe Europe should stop a genocide instead of us. Worked out REAL well in Bosnia, right? You do realize that at the moment, with the thousands of death an all, Bosnia is doing pretty oky. Not perfect, but oky, it's a free country. Not an EU and NATO member but an EU and NATO partner in many things and likely a member in 2 to 10 years. What Bosnia doesn't have: -30% irradiated soil due to uranium shells -thousands of foreign soldiers camped in the country -terrorism trough the roof top -lack of any decent schooling, medical, democratic and transport system Well... it did work out real well in the end. The number of Americans with a stick up there arse that have been brainwashed to actually believe that what NATO is doing in the middle east is good kinda explains the whole JA thing in the first place :/ You do realize the 3rd and 4th points you made explain the 1st and 2nd right? Yes, very good! Now what explains the 3rd and 4th? Economic disaster following the Persian Gulf War, Saddam's regime, tension between Shiites and Sunnis, sanctions, etc. etc...
nm you win by default I'm the wrong person to be talking about this
|
On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On October 01 2012 09:30 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:58 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 08:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 08:36 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
Good reason to commit war crimes and kill civilians. ^^ Not to say you're wrong but in todays day and age commiting war crimes is pretty easy to avoid, America seems to be the main country aiming to not try and commit them. On the killing civilians? That is obviously a loss that will occur but it doesn't take much to realize the "eagle eye" gross miscalculations causing deaths that just shouldn't happen (watch movie if you don't understand what I mean, it's in the first 10-20 minutes) I'm not saying the war crimes and killing of civilians are right, but it happens, and when we get put on blast by wikileaks it damages the U.S. military as a whole, including every person who doesn't commit war crimes. The soldiers and Marines who follow procedure have to pay the price for the small few who commit atrocities and it disgusts me that people actually think Bradley Manning is a hero. So you think the soldiers and marines would rather have the atrocities hidden? You think it's better to keep the truth concealed? What kind of backwards logic is this, I know people in the armed forces and I have a pretty good gauge of their morale compass and I doubt they'd go "Well if we keep it hidden, our backs are clean". How is anything you just said ok? The US military should be blasted for the abuses, it should be hurt for its actions. Action > consequence. I have no idea what youi're trying to justify, at first you made a valid point, people do bad shit but if your argument against wikileaks is that they try and tell the world the shit that's bad then you're suffering a severe case of fucked morale compass. I was in the Marine Corps, and yes I think we would rather have the atrocities hidden so we don't get killed over them. It is fucking war it is not a game and people do bad shit in wars, people get killed and when someone fucks up we all pay for it. I think those who commit the crimes should be handled accordingly and punished to the max as per UCMJ, but I do not think it justifies putting everyone at risk. Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good. Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
He said the incident that had affected him the most was when 15 detainees had been arrested by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing anti-Iraqi literature. He was asked by the army to find out who the "bad guys" were, and discovered that the detainees had followed what Manning said was a corruption trail within the Iraqi cabinet. He reported this to his commanding officer, but said "he didn't want to hear any of it"; he said the officer told him to help the Iraqi police find more detainees. Manning said it made him realize, "i was actively involved in something that i was completely against ..." He explained that "i cant separate myself from others ... i feel connected to everybody ... like they were distant family," and cited Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Elie Wiesel. He said he hoped the material would lead to "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. if not ... than [sic] we're doomed as a species." He said he had downloaded the material onto music CD-RWs, erased the music and replaced it with a compressed split file. Part of the reason no-one noticed, he said, was that staff were working 14 hours a day, seven days a week, and "people stopped caring after 3 weeks."
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days.
I did not realize that "serving your country" was mutually exclusive to men who join the military in a time of war, I always assumed that public servants, civil services, and government personnel were also included underneath that motto, you completely missed the point of my argument. If you operate under the military or civil services division with in your government with the motto "serving my country" but do things which go against the wills and interests of your own people, what you are doing is no longer "serving your country", but simply following orders from an illegitimate governing organization. It is what you used to distinguish the military men who serve in Syria and the military men who serve in the United States. As soon as you refuse to abide by the very principles that define meritocratic civil service (which in this argument, is wishing for lack of government transparency and lying / concealing atrocities and crimes against humanity) you are no longer operating under that motto.
Whether or not you are forced to commit an action with in military command or government directive or other wise is a decision making process that's separate from the principle of the issue. If you are a soldier who is ordered to kill innocent civilians regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or what side they are on, and the moral compass with in you does not make the distinction that what you are doing is no longer serving the principle interests of your own people, then the system of civil service has failed and any degree of criminal action can be externally justified as "just following orders" or "just serving my country's interests". Similarly if you do not make the distinction that concealing and lying about said acts of criminal nature is also immoral then the same thing follows. This is based on the assumption that any government which orders these actions or attempts to conceal them for selfish interests is an illegitimate governing system.
Aside from this there is also a factor which many consider synonymous with serving your country which is humanitarianism and serving the common interests of humanity. The comparison with Assange and previous whistle blowers such as Carl Bernstein and Daniel Ellsberg in the cases of Watergate and Pentagon Papers is that they not only saw a dis-service to the interests of your own people, but also against the people of another nationality in keeping with attempting to conserve human rights for all of humanity (which should be a given assumption).
The argument that these actions put military personnel in active danger is a tactical argument, i.e. how you choose to release the information so that X doesn't occur, or that Y does occur. There is nothing intrinsic that suggests government transparency and respect for human life have to be in principle opposition of covert military actions, if they do then there is a fundamental problem with said action in its very inception. For example, there wasn't any reason for human rights violations or direct civilian casualty to occur with the planning and execution of the Normandy landing, though the governments concealed its covert action prior to launch it was capable of acknowledging and documenting all actions taken and release it to the public. The argument bears only the moral significance of "why do I not want X" or "why do I want Y", there is no moral significance with arguing that the actions shouldn't occur in the first place. We already operate under the assumption that we do not want to put ANY person in mortal danger against their will do we not? And we also operate under the assumption that governments should be transparent and that governments respect human rights. So the argument is null and void, if the government does a crappy job dealing with how it manages information in keeping with these principles it is an evaluation statement not a moral one.
|
On October 02 2012 11:49 DreamChaser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 11:18 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
[quote]
Public accountability man, if you can't handle what an organization you are part of does then don't be a part of it. Hiding shit is never good.
Second of all, on something else you said. Freedom of press and some other legal precedent means a reporter who leaks classified documents cannot get in trouble for it. Only the person who was privileged can get in trouble for leaking the info, the reporter doesn't get in trouble for publishing or writing any of it. I think that was established sometime around when deepthroat was leaking all the watergate stuff.
[quote]
I'd have to agree with him 100%. Evil prevails when good men do nothing. I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms. Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon? Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more.
Yeah I'll admit I kind of lost it after the guy said that the US was defending itself against Iraq >_>
|
That's ridiculous and stupid. A good example of the ridiculous and stupidly ignorant things that foreigners believe about the US. Civil Rights in the US are about the same level as in East Germany? Put down the pipe and back slowly away from your keyboard, and please pick up a real history book, okay?
|
On October 03 2012 02:08 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:49 DreamChaser wrote:On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 01 2012 16:40 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I joined the USMC in 2008, long before any of these atrocities took place. I never went to Iraq or Afghanistan and I never had anything to do with anything that resulted in the death of anybody, but I do know many fellow Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have been to combat. I have good friends with Combat Action Ribbons (CAR) and Purple Hearts, and I am confident they would agree that these leaks are WRONG. They jeapordize everything we work hard for and protect to keep safe. I worked in the signals intelligence field, same as Bradley Manning. I was an Arabic Cryptologic Linguist and I would NEVER compromise the Top Secret data I have been entrusted with no matter what happened to me so so fuck off if you think I am holding back anything from the press. I withhold information that would be invaluable not only to international press but our exact ENEMY who is trying to destroy us. If I am wrong for being silent, so be it, but I do it with the firm belief that it protects my brothers and sisters in arms.
Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash. I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality. Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon? Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more. Yeah I'll admit I kind of lost it after the guy said that the US was defending itself against Iraq >_>
Nice try, if you actually read what I posted I said September 11th was what led to the invasion of Iraq. Bush started the war on terror in response to that attack and the bad intelligence of WMD's in Iraq. Yes, we didn't go to Iraq until 2003 and yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I didn't write the history books I'm just telling you what happened because you said we were never attacked.
|
On October 03 2012 02:33 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 02:08 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 DreamChaser wrote:On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:On October 01 2012 20:23 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
Your "brothers & sisters" in arms deserve to know first and then the rest of us so they can march back to their homes. Serving a nation that willingly tortures is barbaric to begin with. The fact you think anything like this is "better" secret is crazy to me, and as I said before name a single attack/event since 2010 that was the direct cause of this? All of the sensitive data was redacted that would lead to any backlash.
I think you're missing the point of the quote "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If your behind the Middle Eastern conquest and you're allowing such things, you allow the atrocities to reoccur, it is your (and whoever else is in your shoes) fault for not standing up. That's such a warped mentality.
Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon? Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more. Yeah I'll admit I kind of lost it after the guy said that the US was defending itself against Iraq >_> Nice try, if you actually read what I posted I said September 11th was what led to the invasion of Iraq. Bush started the war on terror in response to that attack and the bad intelligence of WMD's in Iraq. Yes, we didn't go to Iraq until 2003 and yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I didn't write the history books I'm just telling you what happened because you said we were never attacked.
Our motivations for going to Iraq also have a great deal to do with spreading neoliberalism around the world. Bush wanted to go to war, he was looking for an excuse.
edit: the strategic goal of American foreign policy is the promotion of "free trade" (i.e. the opening up of developing countries to exploitation by foreign capital)
|
On October 03 2012 02:39 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 02:33 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 02:08 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 DreamChaser wrote:On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:On October 02 2012 02:53 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Yes, you are right. It was wrong of me to serve my country. Sorry. What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage. The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon? Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more. Yeah I'll admit I kind of lost it after the guy said that the US was defending itself against Iraq >_> Nice try, if you actually read what I posted I said September 11th was what led to the invasion of Iraq. Bush started the war on terror in response to that attack and the bad intelligence of WMD's in Iraq. Yes, we didn't go to Iraq until 2003 and yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I didn't write the history books I'm just telling you what happened because you said we were never attacked. Our motivations for going to Iraq also have a great deal to do with spreading neoliberalism around the world. Bush wanted to go to war, he was looking for an excuse. edit: the strategic goal of American foreign policy is the promotion of "free trade" (i.e. the opening up of developing countries to exploitation by foreign capital)
I think most Americans would agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but to say that we were never attacked is just wrong. Initially most Americans were fooled into believing we were making the right choice by going to Iraq because of the attack on our soil in 2001, terrorism throughout the world, stupid scares like the anthrax one, among many other things.
|
edit: the strategic goal of American foreign policy is the promotion of "free trade" (i.e. the opening up of developing countries to exploitation by foreign capital)
The strategic goal of American foreign policy is to maintain the framework of international relations created after and because of WW2. Free trade is a secondary goal that wasn't even a goal until it started to gain popularity in the 1970s.
I understand that coming up with something that sounds reasonable and plausible and agreeable is great, but it doesn't change what really happened and why...
That's also a funny thing to call free trade, "exploitation by foreign capital." If it really had been "exploitation" (and there's only one non-negative connotation to that word, and no one ever uses it that way), then those markets would not be competing today with American and other Western firms for business that used to be the sole province of domestic enterprises for Western countries.
|
On October 02 2012 11:41 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here...
that's because serving your country and protecting that country's freedom are not the same thing, as much as you'd like to think that. i'm not going to be nice to every service man and woman for the sole reason they were in the military. it's like an unwritten rule or something that as a service man/woman, you can hide from all scrutiny for the sole reason that you were in the military. if i think that what they fought for was wrong, the us gov't gives me the right to state my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
