Pentagon forbids officer to testify

[Seamus]

Most of us know the difference between the soldiers and the war, although the Right has striven hard to confuse the separation, since it works in with their contrived usage of patriotism; all politicians and parties have done this, though this Administration has seemed to settle for nothing less than owning patriotism outright.

So here we are, if we are me, against the war, though not against the soldiers.

But if we look at a hypothetical war waged by Canada, the perspective we would have would be from without.   Hence, it becomes harder to separate the Canadian soldiers from their country's rightfully or wrongfully waging it.  We have no emotional connection like they have, so there would be no need to separate them.

Call it the perspective of the local.

I agree that the perspective of the local would be different than the perspective of a third party.  However, in your hypothetical war, speaking for myself (and even you mentioned that "most of us know the difference between the soldiers and the war") I would be angry at the Canadian government.  Not the soldiers.  If the soldiers were doing a good job, I would be happy for them, while I would still, say, boycott purchasing Canadian goods or doing something to show my displeasure with the Canadian government.

[Stray Pooch]

However, in your hypothetical war, speaking for myself (and even you mentioned that "most of us know the difference between the soldiers and the war") I would be angry at the Canadian government.  Not the soldiers.  If the soldiers were doing a good job, I would be happy for them, while I would still, say, boycott purchasing Canadian goods or doing something to show my displeasure with the Canadian government.

Seamus, you seem like a pretty honorable guy.  As a retired Army NCO, I appreciate and share your view of military men and women.  As I never served in combat myself, I hold my own contribution as barely significant in comparison with those who serve today.  I would suggest, however, that you might consider this from a somewhat more extreme perspective.  Suppose a nation were waging a war for control of Europe, and ultimately the world.  Suppose their philosophy included applied eugenics - that is, racial engineering to eliminate "inferior" races  and create a master race that would enslave everybody left.  Suppose that in the implementation of that plan, millions of "inferiors" were systematically murdered.  In other words, what if you had been around (assuming, as I do, that you were not) during the time of Hitler.  MT compares the US in many ways with the Army of Germany in those days, and sees no difference between (to paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan) the leaders who order a war and the "industrious mechanics" who actually do the job.  He is, frankly, rather fanatical about how evil US soldiers are.  But while I am generally offended by both his opinion and his bigotry on the subject, I do accept that there is some merit to the argument that the agents of an evil policy must bear some responsibility for the outcome thereof.  Soldiers, of course, have duties which sometimes may conflict with their consciences and must obey, to an extent, orders with which they may disagree.  But the scriptures tell us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and honest appraisal of the profession, however honorable, must include a consideration of our own moral choices.  This recognition is why we have things like the Geneva and Hague Conventions.  Again, I share your viewpoint and I appreciate the respect you show to our military.

[Michael Tee]

<<This is going to probably be a contentious point, then.  I see our military as a bunch of patriotic men and women fighting for our rights to sit in front of our computers and call our President a weenie if we want.  I see them as patriots who have given of themselves so that we may have more.  They do the will of the Commander in Chief, who in turn is supposed to do what is right for the people while upholding the constitution.  Our military rocks, imo.  Men and Women alike, all trained and ready to serve for the betterment of their country.>>

Uh, no offense, Seamus, but do you actually know any of these paragons of civic virtue, or is your acquaintance with them (like mine) derived solely from the way they are being depicted in television "news" broadcasts?  Also, I guess you've noticed the glaring absence, in this splendid patriotic bunch of men and women fighting for your right to call the President a weenie, of any sons or daughters of the Senate and the House of Representatives, or of any member of the President's cabinet or in general of any members of the more privileged socio-economic classes and at the same time the very large contingent of Hispanics, many of them not even U.S. citizens, working-class or lower (lumpenproletariat)  men and women, without any real prospects of higher education or advancement in life, which (if you did notice them) would indicate that a primary motivation for these poor suckers signing up and putting their life and limb on the line, might be more related to personal financial advancement, green cards, etc. than to any of the more altruistic (and, frankly, ridiculous) motives that you assigned to them.  And judging by the numerous rapes, tortures, atrocities and massacres committed by these baboons in the course of their "duties," I think it's plenty obvious that a good number of them must have joined up for the sheer pleasure of being able to blow people's heads off legally and without having to go to jail for it.

<< I readily admit I need to check Webster to correctly define "fascist" . . . >>

I use it as a kind of shorthand to define a dictatorial society with no real freedom of the press, no right to speak one's mind freely, not civil or human rights going beyond a shell or a pretence (meaning kangaroo courts, use of torture, arbitrary arrests, punishment for acts that were legal when committed,)  no independent judiciary - - in short, many of the features of the classic fascist governments of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and in general the "banana republic" dictatorships of Latin America.

<< . . . but I rather like our three branch and separation of powers setup.>>

My point was that it is in danger of being gradually dismantled and that the current administration is rapidly accelerating the process.


<<If I feel that divulging something would be either against the constitution or against American safety, I would not share it.  Yes, I could go to prison.  Yes, I may be fined.  Yes, the repercussions would be icky to say the least.  But we're talking about what *I* would do. >>

Well, actually, I was talking about what you SHOULD do, not what you would decide to do independently of what the law requires.  You seem to feel yourself free to disobey the law as long as you are willing to pay the penalty for disobedience.  Using that kind of "logic" I could decide to commit multiple murders as long as I felt it was the right thing to do and accepted that I could go to prison or worse for what I did.  As I stated before, the U.S.A. up until fairly recently was a nation governed by laws and not by men.  Meaning that it is NOT up to the individual to pick and choose which laws he or she will obey.  If everybody arrogated unto himself the right to obey or not to obey any law that he didn't agree with, as long as he could pay the penalty required for breaking the law, we would have total anarchy.  Killings, maimings, arson, property damage, everything legal prohibition would be filtered through the prism of 300 million individual consciences, each one asking, "Well does that law seem right or wrong, and what's the penalty if I decide to break it?"  Craziest thing imaginable.

<<Speaking about a soldier in our military, I believe he is doing exactly what he should.  He was given a green light, but then was ordered to hold.  Until his superiors tell him his next step, he follows his rules.  At this point in time, his superiors have told him to not speak.  So he shouldn't>>

That's true.  But if the court tells the superiors that their order is illegal and must be countermanded, then the superiors should immediately countermand the order and if they don't, the soldier should ignore the order as illegal.

[Seamus]

However, in your hypothetical war, speaking for myself (and even you mentioned that "most of us know the difference between the soldiers and the war") I would be angry at the Canadian government.  Not the soldiers.  If the soldiers were doing a good job, I would be happy for them, while I would still, say, boycott purchasing Canadian goods or doing something to show my displeasure with the Canadian government.

Seamus, you seem like a pretty honorable guy.  As a retired Army NCO, I appreciate and share your view of military men and women.  As I never served in combat myself, I hold my own contribution as barely significant in comparison with those who serve today.  I would suggest, however, that you might consider this from a somewhat more extreme perspective.  Suppose a nation were waging a war for control of Europe, and ultimately the world.  Suppose their philosophy included applied eugenics - that is, racial engineering to eliminate "inferior" races  and create a master race that would enslave everybody left.  Suppose that in the implementation of that plan, millions of "inferiors" were systematically murdered.  In other words, what if you had been around (assuming, as I do, that you were not) during the time of Hitler.  MT compares the US in many ways with the Army of Germany in those days, and sees no difference between (to paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan) the leaders who order a war and the "industrious mechanics" who actually do the job.  He is, frankly, rather fanatical about how evil US soldiers are.  But while I am generally offended by both his opinion and his bigotry on the subject, I do accept that there is some merit to the argument that the agents of an evil policy must bear some responsibility for the outcome thereof.  Soldiers, of course, have duties which sometimes may conflict with their consciences and must obey, to an extent, orders with which they may disagree.  But the scriptures tell us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and honest appraisal of the profession, however honorable, must include a consideration of our own moral choices.  This recognition is why we have things like the Geneva and Hague Conventions.  Again, I share your viewpoint and I appreciate the respect you show to our military.

Well, I have to say off the top, thank you for your service.  Combat or no, you gave up a chunk of your life for training to defend us should you be called.  Thank you.

ALSO - Thank you for drawing a very good picture.  I sometimes wonder if I'm a little slow, because I need things spelled out to me.  Yes. We all as humans have a moral obligation to do what we think is right, in the end.  But I can see how outsiders would perceive our men and women as bad.  We blame Hitler, but we also blame the German Army.  That really helps me put things into his perspective. 

Speaking about our Commander in Chief, I DO kind of agree that he has done more than his share of trying to control things that should be under the purview of the other branches of the government.  There are a number of things he has done I don't agree with.  But in regards to this soldier testifying, he has a right to order his subordinate not to testify.  And conversely, the Legislative and Judicial branches have the right to overturn his order.  But I would ask my representatives...  personally, I would ask them to respect the President's claim that there are National Security issues involved, and maybe seal the session... Or have a member of the Executive branch brief the Senate, or do SOMETHING to alleviate our elected officials minds while maintaining the integrity of our security.

[Plane]

 since it works in with their contrived usage of patriotism; all politicians and parties have done this, though this Administration has seemed to settle for nothing less than owning patriotism outright.

Got a reent example of a prominent leftist useing the word "patriotism" referring to themelves with the preface "impuneing my"?

[Seamus]

Uh, no offense, Seamus, but do you actually know any of these paragons of civic virtue, or is your acquaintance with them (like mine) derived solely from the way they are being depicted in television "news" broadcasts?

No offense at all...  this discussion has maintained civility and I'm enjoying the brain work. As far as knowing members of the military, the answer is yes.  My father, uncle, and brother all served.  Two great friends from High School days served our country in the military.  One was a female mechanic on submarines, the other a linguistics person.  I have also had roommates and neighbors that have served.  In fact, this past Independence Day the neighbors were bbq'ing and there were some men in uniform there.  I asked if it would be okay to shake their hand and let them know they were appreciated.  They said they were leaving the following day.  Kinda sad.

Also, I guess you've noticed the glaring absence, in this splendid patriotic bunch of men and women fighting for your right to call the President a weenie, of any sons or daughters of the Senate and the House of Representatives, or of any member of the President's cabinet or in general of any members of the more privileged socio-economic classes and at the same time the very large contingent of Hispanics, many of them not even U.S. citizens, working-class or lower (lumpenproletariat)  men and women, without any real prospects of higher education or advancement in life, which (if you did notice them) would indicate that a primary motivation for these poor suckers signing up and putting their life and limb on the line, might be more related to personal financial advancement, green cards, etc. than to any of the more altruistic (and, frankly, ridiculous) motives that you assigned to them.  And judging by the numerous rapes, tortures, atrocities and massacres committed by these baboons in the course of their "duties," I think it's plenty obvious that a good number of them must have joined up for the sheer pleasure of being able to blow people's heads off legally and without having to go to jail for it.

Oh, come on now...  Let's not let your cynicism let you call my beliefs ridiculous.  Like I said, I DO know many people who have served.  I also live near a Veterans Hospital.  I'm sure I could walk over there and talk to them and I doubt that many would say they were in the military 'cuz it was the easy way, or they wanted to get their rocks off by blowing people up...  I mean...  in your world, altruism is less possible than people wanting to blow people up legally? 

Also, earlier I said we were keeping this civil.  Apparently that was my mistake.  Baboons?  I KNOW there are some bad apples in every barrel.  But please.  As many people that you would call "baboons" I would say there are 10 times that that are examples of modern day heroism.

<< I readily admit I need to check Webster to correctly define "fascist" . . . >>

I use it as a kind of shorthand to define a dictatorial society with no real freedom of the press, no right to speak one's mind freely, not civil or human rights going beyond a shell or a pretence (meaning kangaroo courts, use of torture, arbitrary arrests, punishment for acts that were legal when committed,)  no independent judiciary - - in short, many of the features of the classic fascist governments of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and in general the "banana republic" dictatorships of Latin America.

You know, we're not perfect.  But amongst the rest of the world...  We're, imo, a hell of a lot closer than the rest.  Why do you think there is no freedom of the press?  I'm IN this country and I can tell you I could read or publish whatever I wanted..  I could speak my mind (I'm doing so this very second), etc... As far as kangaroo courts go...  I really DO believe our system could use some work.  However, again, it's better than most of the alternatives!

<< . . . but I rather like our three branch and separation of powers setup.>>

My point was that it is in danger of being gradually dismantled and that the current administration is rapidly accelerating the process.

Now THIS is something I can agree with you on.

<<Speaking about a soldier in our military, I believe he is doing exactly what he should.  He was given a green light, but then was ordered to hold.  Until his superiors tell him his next step, he follows his rules.  At this point in time, his superiors have told him to not speak.  So he shouldn't>>

That's true.  But if the court tells the superiors that their order is illegal and must be countermanded, then the superiors should immediately countermand the order and if they don't, the soldier should ignore the order as illegal.

Yes.  I agree...  I think. Unless there is security of the nation at hand.  Here's the thing.  I think the Executive Branch has... what..  a heavy foot.  If my Congressman or Representative wants to speak to a member of the Executive Branch, I think there shouldn't be this, excuse the phrase, dick comparison going on.  The Executive Branch believes there are security issues.  Fine.  So let them explain the reasoning to the Legislative Branch, or an over site committee.  It's my belief that with a little greese, we can get what we want without risking intel.  But right now it feels like the Executive Branch is simply saying "No!" and "You can't play!  It's OUR game!".  That's not goin' to go over well, and I would even suggest that that would be part of President Bush's approval ratings dropping like they did.  But again, that's my opinion.  I do believe that security needs to be maintained.  But can't we keep the checks and balances in place???

Now, with that being said...  Let's please not start ridiculing each others countries.

[Michael Tee]

Seamus, you're like a breath of fresh air in this place.  You are actually reasonable AND you defend (mostly) the actions of your country. 

I'll get right to the point: 

EVERY army (Canada's included) has its share of bums, sadists, torturers, no-good bastards who oughtta be shot.  That said, the majority of serving soldiers in any army (Nazis included) are probably just normal, decent, run-of-the-mill guys who have a job to do, some doing it out of patriotism (a minority in my respectful opinion,) the rest because they have to or for lack of better opportunities.  On the whole, I don't think the U.S. army is made up of any better or worse men than the Iranian Army, the Canadian Army or any other armed force.  They are probably better policed than some other armies but that's just my opinion - - I don't really know if a soldier who rapes a civilian is more likely to be punished if he's a GI or an Iranian, but we like to believe (with what justification I really don't know) that the American would be the one more likely to be punished.

Be that as it may, there have been terrible atrocities committed by American forces in Iraq.  The punishments meted out have been laughable.  The number of commanders sacked for the atrocities occurring under their commands minimal or non-existent.  The observance of basic rules of humanity towards captured prisoners, minimal to non-compliant.  For this I blame the leadership, from the President on downwards.  Senior officers who should have been able to control the behaviour of their men should either have been courtmartialled for either complicity or incompetence, or if they had any sense of honour should have resigned their commissions.  None of this has happened.  Does it mean your high-school buddies or family members who served are bad people?  No.  But somebody sure as hell is a bad person and their actions inevitably taint the reputation of the army they belong to. 

IMHO, the U.S. Army is engaged in a highly illegal operation.  Illegal in international law.  It invaded another country (Iraq) without any lawful right or pretext.  It had no right to invade and has no right to be there now.   Any "Iraqi" government established under their military occupation has no legitimacy whatsoever, because the constitution under which it functions is the product of an invading army.  If the U.S. gets away with this shit - - invading another country without just cause, illegally - - it will be a catastrophe for international law.  It will mean that the Charter of the United Nations, established to prevent exactly this sort of thing - - wars of aggression - - will have been superseded by the Law of the Jungle, the rule of the most powerful over the weaker.  I hope like hell the U.S. fails completely in its occupation of Iraq just as I would have hoped that the Nazis would fail in their occupation of France.  The U.S. has no more right to install over the Iraqi people the kind of government that IT prefers than the Nazis had to establish over the French people the kind of government that THEY preferred.  It was precisely to STOP that kind of shit going down that the U.N. was established - - an organization in which the U.S.A. had the lead role in founding.  To the extent that the U.S. Army is performing an illegal action, it is a criminal army.

<<As many people that you would call "baboons" I would say there are 10 times that that are examples of modern day heroism.>>

Well, I wouldn't say "ten times" and I wouldn't say that the options are only between being a baboon and being a hero, but I don't want to quibble with you because you are a straight-shooter.  So I'll take back the "baboons."   I shouldn't have said it in the first place, but I am so used to arguing with people here who believe that the U.S. army can do no wrong (or claim that if they DO do wrong, it's extremely rare and they are appropriately punished for it) that "baboons" has become a sort of reflex response, just to counter-balance their extremism.

<<You know, we're not perfect.  But amongst the rest of the world...  We're, imo, a hell of a lot closer than the rest. >>

As a people?  You're morally no better and no worse than most others.  I couldn't see you getting into the Holocaust the way the Germans did, for example, but then again it's hard to see you as the slave traders and slave owners that you once were, or even (more recently) as the lynch mobs and KKK that you once were.  My bottom line is that no one people has a monopoly on evil or virtue and they shouldn't claim to be more virtuous than others.  The others don't like to hear it and generally they know better.

<<Why do you think there is no freedom of the press?  I'm IN this country and I can tell you I could read or publish whatever I wanted..  I could speak my mind (I'm doing so this very second), etc... >>

You're just citing a textbook example of what Herbert Marcuse calls "repressive tolerance."  Repressive tolerance is kind of what underlies H. L. Mencken's remark that "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one."  That's how it works.  You and I can express our respective views freely here, to an audience of maybe twenty people.  The ruling class has figured out that nothing you or I can say can have any effect on political life in America as long as that class controls what's said in the mainstream media ("MSM") of television, the big-city daily press and the national magazines.  Which is why you will see very little of people like me on national TV and lots of "support the troops" and "Can America succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq" and similar nonsense like that - - little to none of "It's all about the oil" or American atrocities, which are generally treated as one-day or two-day stories and then lapse back into obscurity.  Similarly with the victims of American bombing, American torture, American murder - - they're nobody.  We don't even know their names.  However, with American victims of 9-11, fallen or serving American soldiers, etc., we see their pictures, hear stories of how they're "coping" or not coping, every nauseous little detail of their lives, complete with photos of wives, kids, dogs, grandchildren, etc.   Like nobody wants anyone to realize that hundreds of thousands of human beings are being killed over there, because they're NOT human beings, they're "Iraqis" or better yet, "collateral damage."


<<As far as kangaroo courts go...  I really DO believe our system could use some work.  However, again, it's better than most of the alternatives!>>

Yeah?  A military kangaroo court on Guantanamo is better than WHAT alternative?

[The_Professor]

Can the Congress pull rank in this situation?

should they?

[The_Professor]

<<This is going to probably be a contentious point, then.  I see our military as a bunch of patriotic men and women fighting for our rights to sit in front of our computers and call our President a weenie if we want.  I see them as patriots who have given of themselves so that we may have more.  They do the will of the Commander in Chief, who in turn is supposed to do what is right for the people while upholding the constitution.  Our military rocks, imo.  Men and Women alike, all trained and ready to serve for the betterment of their country.>>

Uh, no offense, Seamus, but do you actually know any of these paragons of civic virtue, or is your acquaintance with them (like mine) derived solely from the way they are being depicted in television "news" broadcasts?  Also, I guess you've noticed the glaring absence, in this splendid patriotic bunch of men and women fighting for your right to call the President a weenie, of any sons or daughters of the Senate and the House of Representatives, or of any member of the President's cabinet or in general of any members of the more privileged socio-economic classes and at the same time the very large contingent of Hispanics, many of them not even U.S. citizens, working-class or lower (lumpenproletariat)  men and women, without any real prospects of higher education or advancement in life, which (if you did notice them) would indicate that a primary motivation for these poor suckers signing up and putting their life and limb on the line, might be more related to personal financial advancement, green cards, etc. than to any of the more altruistic (and, frankly, ridiculous) motives that you assigned to them.  And judging by the numerous rapes, tortures, atrocities and massacres committed by these baboons in the course of their "duties," I think it's plenty obvious that a good number of them must have joined up for the sheer pleasure of being able to blow people's heads off legally and without having to go to jail for it.

<< I readily admit I need to check Webster to correctly define "fascist" . . . >>

I use it as a kind of shorthand to define a dictatorial society with no real freedom of the press, no right to speak one's mind freely, not civil or human rights going beyond a shell or a pretence (meaning kangaroo courts, use of torture, arbitrary arrests, punishment for acts that were legal when committed,)  no independent judiciary - - in short, many of the features of the classic fascist governments of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Argentina and in general the "banana republic" dictatorships of Latin America.

<< . . . but I rather like our three branch and separation of powers setup.>>

My point was that it is in danger of being gradually dismantled and that the current administration is rapidly accelerating the process.


<<If I feel that divulging something would be either against the constitution or against American safety, I would not share it.  Yes, I could go to prison.  Yes, I may be fined.  Yes, the repercussions would be icky to say the least.  But we're talking about what *I* would do. >>

Well, actually, I was talking about what you SHOULD do, not what you would decide to do independently of what the law requires.  You seem to feel yourself free to disobey the law as long as you are willing to pay the penalty for disobedience.  Using that kind of "logic" I could decide to commit multiple murders as long as I felt it was the right thing to do and accepted that I could go to prison or worse for what I did.  As I stated before, the U.S.A. up until fairly recently was a nation governed by laws and not by men.  Meaning that it is NOT up to the individual to pick and choose which laws he or she will obey.  If everybody arrogated unto himself the right to obey or not to obey any law that he didn't agree with, as long as he could pay the penalty required for breaking the law, we would have total anarchy.  Killings, maimings, arson, property damage, everything legal prohibition would be filtered through the prism of 300 million individual consciences, each one asking, "Well does that law seem right or wrong, and what's the penalty if I decide to break it?"  Craziest thing imaginable.

<<Speaking about a soldier in our military, I believe he is doing exactly what he should.  He was given a green light, but then was ordered to hold.  Until his superiors tell him his next step, he follows his rules.  At this point in time, his superiors have told him to not speak.  So he shouldn't>>

That's true.  But if the court tells the superiors that their order is illegal and must be countermanded, then the superiors should immediately countermand the order and if they don't, the soldier should ignore the order as illegal.

Actually, MT, I know of such a person, Bob. You know of him as Mr Perceptive. He is one of the most honorable people I have ever met. And, as he noted, is a retired USMC E-9. He is currently advising our military and is aboard a ship near the Middle East now. As he noted, he does not "suffer fools gladly" and got frustrated. Perhaps he will not return; that is his call. Anyway, he had to do some pretty bad things during his 30-year career, but he never gave an order of this type, e.g. against his conscience. So, it can be done.

[Seamus]

Can the Congress pull rank in this situation?

should they?

I believe I want our President to focus on his job of running the government.  I want our Legislative members to be monitoring the Executive branch closely.  I don't nessesarily need to know military issues, and in fact, don't believe the entire Congress needs to know.  But if our elected officials were to form some kind of oversite that will guarantee privacy while being our watchdog, I'd be all for it.  But with that not being done, the next thing would be to allow Congress to know what's going on in general.  I voted the way I voted, when it came to representatives,  because of the issues they claimed to believe in.  I need to trust in them to uphold those issues.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, MT, I know of such a person, Bob. You know of him as Mr Perceptive. He is one of the most honorable people I have ever met. And, as he noted, is a retired USMC E-9. He is currently advising our military and is aboard a ship near the Middle East now. As he noted, he does not "suffer fools gladly" and got frustrated. Perhaps he will not return; that is his call. Anyway, he had to do some pretty bad things during his 30-year career, but he never gave an order of this type, e.g. against his conscience. So, it can be done.>>

You know, Professor, I have a huge problem with the concept of "honourable men" who "do some pretty bad things" and don't "suffer fools gladly."  It sounds to me (not that I'm alleging this applies exactly to Mr. P.'s case) like it would match up with a guy who commits war crimes, still wants to be recognized as "honourable" despite the war crimes, and gets defensively angry when somebody refuses to accept the hooey that one can commit war crimes and nevertheless remain an "honourable man."  "Honourable" and "war crimes" just don't go together.  The reason they can get away with this shit is because very few people would have the balls to call them on it.  Again, this is not any kind of aspersion on Mr. P., as I have absolutely no way of knowing what he did or didn't do.

I also have problems with a man advising the military on board a ship in the Middle East.  Those ships are there for one purpose only, and that is to rain down death and destruction on a massive basis when ordered.  Those ships can and will be the instruments of death and disfigurement for thousands and ultimately hundreds of thousands of innocent and helpless people living thousands of miles away from the United States of America and posing absolutely no threat whatsoever to America and its citizens.  Whatever threat they or some small part of them may pose to American troops in the area is counterbalanced by the fact that those troops have no right whatsoever to be there in the first place.  There is no honour involved in assisting in this mechanized slaughter of people who are not at war with the United States and are not even capable of attacking the United States.

If the above opinions are something that he "does not suffer gladly" I would not be surprised.  That's just too God-damned bad for him, but they are my opinions and as far as I am concerned, he'd be a lot better off for "suffering" them than for running away from them.  If the shoe fits . . .

[Universe Prince]

As he noted, he does not "suffer fools gladly" and got frustrated.

I'm sure he is an honorable man, but in my experience he basically equated fools with just about anyone who disagreed with him. Made carrying on a conversation with him more frustrating for others.

[Seamus]

Seamus, you're like a breath of fresh air in this place.  You are actually reasonable AND you defend (mostly) the actions of your country. 

 

I have patience, and I was initially warned that there would or could be direct attacks instead of discussion and debate.  So I'm trying to be reasonable and approach everything with an open mind.  You just have to realize that unless something is painted in easy to understand terms, it could very well go over my head.  Kind of like impressionist art.  I can see the big pictures clearer than the small ones.

I'll get right to the point: 

EVERY army (Canada's included) has its share of bums, sadists, torturers, no-good bastards who oughtta be shot.  That said, the majority of serving soldiers in any army (Nazis included) are probably just normal, decent, run-of-the-mill guys who have a job to do, some doing it out of patriotism (a minority in my respectful opinion,) the rest because they have to or for lack of better opportunities. 

 

Okay, I agree with every military has it's bad apples.  Clear example is that chick who took those photo's of those prisoners as she stood there smiling...  That was just wrong on many levels.  And I an respect your opinion that the majority of military serve because of lack of better opportunities.  My opinion would be similar to yours, just differ in percentages.  I think more people are altruistic than you give them credit for.  But I do agree SOME go in because they didn't see much else to do with their lives.

 

On the whole, I don't think the U.S. army is made up of any better or worse men than the Iranian Army, the Canadian Army or any other armed force.  They are probably better policed than some other armies but that's just my opinion - - I don't really know if a soldier who rapes a civilian is more likely to be punished if he's a GI or an Iranian, but we like to believe (with what justification I really don't know) that the American would be the one more likely to be punished.

 

Again, I agree.  While I'm patriotic and stand behind our soldiers, I recognize that no one is "better" than someone else.  I also agree that in the grand scheme of things, the American would be punished more often than others.  I will also concede that some bad apples go through their carreers and never get caught.  But over all, I love America.  We have problems.  But we work on them.  We learn from them.  And as far as I'm concerned, we debate them, just like you and I are doing now.

 

Be that as it may, there have been terrible atrocities committed by American forces in Iraq.  The punishments meted out have been laughable.  The number of commanders sacked for the atrocities occurring under their commands minimal or non-existent.  The observance of basic rules of humanity towards captured prisoners, minimal to non-compliant.  For this I blame the leadership, from the President on downwards.  Senior officers who should have been able to control the behaviour of their men should either have been courtmartialled for either complicity or incompetence, or if they had any sense of honour should have resigned their commissions.  None of this has happened.  Does it mean your high-school buddies or family members who served are bad people?  No.  But somebody sure as hell is a bad person and their actions inevitably taint the reputation of the army they belong to. 

 

Okay, here and further down you mention military justice.  That's where I have to claim a significant lack of information.  I don't know what happened to that woman who took those atrocious pictures.  I don't know what happens to the bad apples that are found and pulled from the barrel.  And yes, I do blame leadership.  But while you claim we are doing all these horrible things, what about all the good the US does?  The US military, the US government, the US people?

 

IMHO, the U.S. Army is engaged in a highly illegal operation.  Illegal in international law.  It invaded another country (Iraq) without any lawful right or pretext.  It had no right to invade and has no right to be there now.   Any "Iraqi" government established under their military occupation has no legitimacy whatsoever, because the constitution under which it functions is the product of an invading army.  If the U.S. gets away with this shit - - invading another country without just cause, illegally - - it will be a catastrophe for international law.  It will mean that the Charter of the United Nations, established to prevent exactly this sort of thing - - wars of aggression - - will have been superseded by the Law of the Jungle, the rule of the most powerful over the weaker.  I hope like hell the U.S. fails completely in its occupation of Iraq just as I would have hoped that the Nazis would fail in their occupation of France.  The U.S. has no more right to install over the Iraqi people the kind of government that IT prefers than the Nazis had to establish over the French people the kind of government that THEY preferred.  It was precisely to STOP that kind of shit going down that the U.N. was established - - an organization in which the U.S.A. had the lead role in founding.  To the extent that the U.S. Army is performing an illegal action, it is a criminal army.

 

Here again we're going to agree about some things, but disagree on others.

First, we're part of the U.N.  We signed agreements and we should be held to them.  I am also a rather tree-hugging people-loving kind of guy...  I lean more towards Amnesty International than I do....  well..  other groups. 

But with that being said, it's my opinion we should pull out of the U.N.   It no longer functions well; we are a strong nation who who can decide for itself what's right and wrong without a corrupt U.N. infrastructure.  I DO believe that there was reason enough to go to war, and I don't believe we need to ask the rest of the world if it's okay with them. 

<<As many people that you would call "baboons" I would say there are 10 times that that are examples of modern day heroism.>>

Well, I wouldn't say "ten times" and I wouldn't say that the options are only between being a baboon and being a hero, but I don't want to quibble with you because you are a straight-shooter.  So I'll take back the "baboons."   I shouldn't have said it in the first place, but I am so used to arguing with people here who believe that the U.S. army can do no wrong (or claim that if they DO do wrong, it's extremely rare and they are appropriately punished for it) that "baboons" has become a sort of reflex response, just to counter-balance their extremism.

 

Thanks.  Honestly, I have no clue what the percentages are either.  But it would be my opinion that the percentage of good people is GREATER than that of the evil ones.   That could be my optimistic personality showing.

<<You know, we're not perfect.  But amongst the rest of the world...  We're, imo, a hell of a lot closer than the rest. >>

As a people?  You're morally no better and no worse than most others.  I couldn't see you getting into the Holocaust the way the Germans did, for example, but then again it's hard to see you as the slave traders and slave owners that you once were, or even (more recently) as the lynch mobs and KKK that you once were.  My bottom line is that no one people has a monopoly on evil or virtue and they shouldn't claim to be more virtuous than others.  The others don't like to hear it and generally they know better.

[/quote] 

Very good points.  No, we're not more virtuous than others.  But...  but...  we LEARN.  We evolve better.  Slavery was accepted, but it was the PEOPLE and our leaders that brought and end to it.  The KKK is now, for the most part, a JOKE.  (I *have* to find that clown demonstration video...)  Looking to the future, I see homosexuals being finally able to marry and to serve in the military openly.  I see this as one of our major strengths.  That we can learn and grow as a nation.  Hitler's world couldn't have done that.  Debate, discussion, and open dialogs DO help democracy flourish.

 

<<Why do you think there is no freedom of the press?  I'm IN this country and I can tell you I could read or publish whatever I wanted..  I could speak my mind (I'm doing so this very second), etc... >>

You're just citing a textbook example of what Herbert Marcuse calls "repressive tolerance."  Repressive tolerance is kind of what underlies H. L. Mencken's remark that "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one."  That's how it works.  You and I can express our respective views freely here, to an audience of maybe twenty people.  The ruling class has figured out that nothing you or I can say can have any effect on political life in America as long as that class controls what's said in the mainstream media ("MSM") of television, the big-city daily press and the national magazines.  Which is why you will see very little of people like me on national TV and lots of "support the troops" and "Can America succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq" and similar nonsense like that - - little to none of "It's all about the oil" or American atrocities, which are generally treated as one-day or two-day stories and then lapse back into obscurity.  Similarly with the victims of American bombing, American torture, American murder - - they're nobody.  We don't even know their names.  However, with American victims of 9-11, fallen or serving American soldiers, etc., we see their pictures, hear stories of how they're "coping" or not coping, every nauseous little detail of their lives, complete with photos of wives, kids, dogs, grandchildren, etc.   Like nobody wants anyone to realize that hundreds of thousands of human beings are being killed over there, because they're NOT human beings, they're "Iraqis" or better yet, "collateral damage."

 

See, in 2007 and beyond, this is TOTALLY changing.  Blogs, online editorials, and real life being broadcast instantaneously over the internet is having GREAT impact on the media and the news.  If there is a camera or a reporter, you can bet the story is going to be released!   I believe newspapers (and to a lesser degree, magazines) as such are dying a very slow death.

Now, about their nauseous little details of these mens and womens lives...  I'm one of those people who want to know about them.  And between you and me, I don't find their details nauseating.   And what about these hundreds of thousands of human beings that are being killed over there?  Are you including those people who strap on bombs to themselves, their children, the women, etc, and have them blow themselves up?  Are you talking about the ones that are drawing their weapons against our soldiers?  (Granted....  what are our soldiers DOING there?)  But if you point a gun at one of our men, expect him to defend himself.  That's plain thinking.

 

<<As far as kangaroo courts go...  I really DO believe our system could use some work.  However, again, it's better than most of the alternatives!>>

Yeah?  A military kangaroo court on Guantanamo is better than WHAT alternative?

Yeah, I admit I know nothing about MILITARY courts.  I was thinking more along the lines of our judicial system.  I believe the idea that innocent until proven guilty is a sound start.  I believe that a jury of 12 people is as good a system as any other.  I believe in the rules of evidence.  Is our regular justice system flawed? Yes.  Because there are people involved.  But  that is what I was referring to when I said it would be better than the alternatives.  I know next to nothing about military courts.  I believe the innocent until proven guilty thing may not even exist in a military court. I don't know.

At this point I'm going to recognize that I think you and I will end up on differing sides on this topic.  We can continue to discuss it, because you bring up some interesting thoughts.  But I may not always come back with a reply because I think it may just not be productive.  But on a final note, thank you for the differing viewpoint!  It's an eye opener to me.  I hear some countries don't care for us, but I let it slide because I don't really care.  But you (and others) have helped me see a little of why we Americans are regarded as we are.

[Plane]

"At this point I'm going to recognize that I think you and I will end up on differing sides on this topic.  We can continue to discuss it, because you bring up some interesting thoughts.  But I may not always come back with a reply because I think it may just not be productive.  But on a final note, thank you for the differing viewpoint!  It's an eye opener to me.  I hear some countries don't care for us, but I let it slide because I don't really care.  But you (and others) have helped me see a little of why we Americans are regarded as we are."

In the Navy sometimes the  the signal flags "B" and "Z" are run up the mast.


"BRAVO ZULU"  means" well done "in Navyspeak


You are doing well.

[Stray Pooch]

Seamus, you place me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michael Tee.  You are a breath of fresh air.  I also find myself seconding Plane's BZ - a position which I find far more comfortable.

You're pretty good at this.  Keep it up.