Military/War discussion - Page 3

Eric5273 · #21 09-20-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Here’s a example of one of your past comments, that I’m sure you didn’t intend to offend with:

“As for some cops being corrupt, most entire police precincts (not individual cops), are corrupt to some extent. Most accept money from organized crime, drug distributors, etc, and that money is divided up among the cops at the precinct.”

You are taking this out of context. I was talking specifically about the NYPD and LAPD, and this is not a loose allegation with no factual basis. As I'm sure you know, both police departments have reputations for being extremely corrupt.

I did not mean to imply that all cops are corrupt. If it was taken this way, then I apologize. What I meant to imply is that corruption in these two police departments is organizational, not individual. And even within those 2 departments, I do not blame individual cops -- they are just doing their jobs. The problem is much higher up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Do you understand that even attempting to relate retired military to terrorists is offensive to people in the military?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

You claim to have been offended by a supposed comparison between you and Hitler. That’s fine, I’m not saying you were lying. My point is, why can’t you see how similar “comparisons” could offend others?

What offended me was not any comparison. What offended me was the suggestion that I was a fan of a book that advocated genocide of my own religion.

If you want to compare me to Hitler, go ahead. Although I'm not sure what comparison you could make. But do not imply that I am a fan of genocide.

When you are debating politics, the best way to make a point is to make a comparison to an extreme. When you make a comparison to something moderate, the point gets lost.

For example, when someone compares Bush to Hitler, 99% of the time they are not implying that Bush is as bad as Hitler in all ways. Usually they are pointing to a specific policy and the best way to prove the point that such a policy is extremist in nature (or simply wrong) is to show that a similar policy was carried out by an extremist such as Hitler. The biggest comparison here I have seen is Bush's "Patriot Act" compared to Hitler's "Enabling Act", and if you read both laws they can indeed be compared and are very simliar. Making that comparison does not imply that Bush is in favor of genocide as Hitler was. If you are making that assumption, then you are reading into it too much.

In another forum, when people were talking about the wall Israel was building around the West Bank, I posted a picture of another famous wall that was built to divide two areas (I think you can guess which one), and of course some people were outraged. But making that comparison caused many in the discussion to realize how extreme of an idea building the wall is.

In the comparison you were referring to, I did not compare an American officer to Hezbollah. Go back and read my post again. We were discussing "conflict of interest" in our government, so the best way for me to make my point was to use an extreme example as an analogy. As I indicated, I am outraged by the conflict of interest that exists in the Defense Policy Board. Others indicated they were not outraged by that conflict of interest. The best way for me to explain how I feel about that is to give an analogy that others WOULD be outraged by. I think the example of Hezbollah running the FBI's anti-terrorism unit was a good analogy.

I'm sorry if that somehow offended you, but I was not comparing Hezbollah directly to the US Military. I was comparing the conflict of interest that exists to another hypothetical conflict of interest -- a rather extreme one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

I never say you’re insulting for suggesting the military is wrong – sometimes the military is.

The difference here is that I have not suggested they are wrong in the same way you have. When you have suggested that they are wrong, it is in an accidental way or in having "bad judgement" or "poor foresight".

My opinion is that they are wrong in the same way Iraq's military was wrong when they invaded Kuwait. I don't think there is anything accidental about it. I think it was 100% intentional -- and to that you do seem to be insulted.

You have to realize I am not criticizing the soldiers, or even the officers. I am criticizing those in charge making the decision at the highest level.

I actually support the soldiers more than you think. In various discussions (I cannot remember if on this board or other boards) I have indicated that in most cases I do not think the soldiers on trial for some of the abuses should be held responsible as I think they are being used as scapegoats for poor policy. I also have been a big opponent of all the cuts in vetran benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

You have made repeated insults toward the military. Remember this one:

“The soldiers are obviously brainwashed to the point that they don't know what is going on. Does that poll not indicate that?

So if they know so little about their mission, then how can you trust their analysis of it?”

Was it insulting that I posted the poll, or insulting that I said they were "brainwashed"??

Perhaps the word "brainwashed" was a bit harsh, and I aplogize for that. Would you have prefered "indoctrinated"??

The poll showed that 85% of US soldiers in Iraq think the main reason for the Iraq war was to avenge Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks.

When 85% of the soldiers in Iraq believe something that is not true, I have to assume this is because they were told that by their superiors. Of course I am open to other theories about this if you care to share any.

What is your conclusion from this poll?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Perhaps this is where we disagree. I do not, and don’t foresee ever, viewing Hezbollah as a military organization. They are terrorists. If you were to compare the American military to the French military (or any other actual military), that wouldn’t be the least bit insulting. Within the military, we do that all the time. It's called training, and it's important to us.

When there is war, you compare both sides. Call them whatever you want, it's just a name. Hezbollah are no different than the Contras in Nicaragua, Irgun in Palestine, the French resistance during WWII, the current Iraqi resistance, the Cubans who invaded during the Bay of Pigs, or even George Washington's army during the Revolutionary war. These are all examples of military organizations without a country. If you want to call them "terrorists", then you can. But just because you agree with the goals of some and not with others does not make them different.

So yes, this is where we disagree. When there is a war, I will compare both sides. I know you do not wish to be compared to the other side as your opinion of them is that they are "terrorists" and they are terrible people. I'm also pretty sure that they think the same of the American military. For me, I try to stay impartial in these discussions and be critical of both sides, and I will compare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

I’m more than happy to discuss any topic in a civil (and hopefully a light/amusing) manner. When the line is crossed however, don’t expect me to turn the other cheek every time. I try to be mature about these things, but as a human being, I have human failings.

I'll do my best to keep it that way too from now on. Perhaps the best thing I can do is simply state my opinion and not try to debate the point. I'll try to do that from now on.

Sponsored Links

Eric5273 · #22 09-20-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

Well you have lumped hundreds of millions of people into one group...dangerous considering so much of that group disagree with the "elected" leadership. (aka 32% approval rating) Instead of saying US and Americans, perhaps Administration or President is more accurate why trying to depict the USA as believing it is "smarter" then the rest of the world. The whole topic is also a very double-edged sword. The majority of the countries that bash US policy would have ZERO problems and be advocates of the US is their policy favored them. IMO.

Eric5273 · #23 09-20-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

What war is legal? and who is the governing body of these Laws? War is a violant act ment to force one sides will on another, there is no law to follow in war.

There are laws. They are called the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter. If your country is a signature to those treaties, then they have agreed to abide by those laws.

If they do not want to abide by those laws, then they should not have signed those treaties, and should withdraw from them immediately.

blondboinsd · #24 09-20-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

There are laws. They are called the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter. If your country is a signature to those treaties, then they have agreed to abide by those laws.

If they do not want to abide by those laws, then they should not have signed those treaties, and should withdraw from them immediately.

I totally agree, of coarse that is one of my many issues with Bush

The Cleaner · #25 09-20-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

There are laws. They are called the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter. If your country is a signature to those treaties, then they have agreed to abide by those laws.

If they do not want to abide by those laws, then they should not have signed those treaties, and should withdraw from them immediately.

The Geneva Convention outlines nothing about when a country can and can not go to war, only how war should be conducted.

The UN Charter does not prohibit any country from engaging in war and has proven over a long period not to have the enforcement capability to do anything about it anyway.

Any law without enforcement is not going to be much of a law, even if there was language in the UN Charter that stated you could not go to war, the UN can’t do anything to stop it.

BMW X5 · #26 09-20-2006, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric5273

Originally Posted by Eric5273
There are laws. They are called the Geneva Convention and the UN Charter. If your country is a signature to those treaties, then they have agreed to abide by those laws.

If they do not want to abide by those laws, then they should not have signed those treaties, and should withdraw from them immediately.

the problem is that we are expected to abide by laws but we are dealing with a group that doesnt know these laws exist. its like playing basketball without rules where one group doesnt foul because those are the rules and the other group fouls and doesnt care. so what you are technically saying is the rule abiding group should withdraw if they want to also stop observing the rules? its all nice in a game however there are lives at stake here

Scottie · #27 09-20-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

The Geneva Convention outlines nothing about when a country can and can not go to war, only how war should be conducted.

The UN Charter does not prohibit any country from engaging in war and has proven over a long period not to have the enforcement capability to do anything about it anyway.

Any law without enforcement is not going to be much of a law, even if there was language in the UN Charter that stated you could not go to war, the UN can’t do anything to stop it.

I believe in this instance that the war on Irag was illegal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...909314,00.html

Blair took the UK there saying they had weapons of mass distruction.??? did he not.

Then what about Iraq arms expert Dr David Kelly he took his own life (or so they say) ???? The Hutton inquiry didn't get to the bottom of that one now did it whitewash comes to mind.

Iraq was a US Lead war to which Blair was simple the US puppet shameful.

rebound · #28 09-20-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

You are taking this out of context. I was talking specifically about the NYPD and LAPD, and this is not a loose allegation with no factual basis. As I'm sure you know, both police departments have reputations for being extremely corrupt.

I did not mean to imply that all cops are corrupt. If it was taken this way, then I apologize. What I meant to imply is that corruption in these two police departments is organizational, not individual. And even within those 2 departments, I do not blame individual cops -- they are just doing their jobs. The problem is much higher up.

If I took it out of context, why did you "clarify" things later by saying this:

"Law enforcement in this country is very corrupt." ?

My point is, you say things without seeming to conceive that they could be offensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

What offended me was not any comparison. What offended me was the suggestion that I was a fan of a book that advocated genocide of my own religion.

If you want to compare me to Hitler, go ahead. Although I'm not sure what comparison you could make. But do not imply that I am a fan of genocide.

I never referred to you as, or compared you to, Hitler. I just find it ironic that you got offended by the comment but can't conceive that yours could incite similar feelings in others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

When you are debating politics, the best way to make a point is to make a comparison to an extreme. When you make a comparison to something moderate, the point gets lost.

For example, when someone compares Bush to Hitler, 99% of the time they are not implying that Bush is as bad as Hitler in all ways. Usually they are pointing to a specific policy and the best way to prove the point that such a policy is extremist in nature (or simply wrong) is to show that a similar policy was carried out by an extremist such as Hitler. The biggest comparison here I have seen is Bush's "Patriot Act" compared to Hitler's "Enabling Act", and if you read both laws they can indeed be compared and are very simliar. Making that comparison does not imply that Bush is in favor of genocide as Hitler was. If you are making that assumption, then you are reading into it too much.

In another forum, when people were talking about the wall Israel was building around the West Bank, I posted a picture of another famous wall that was built to divide two areas (I think you can guess which one), and of course some people were outraged. But making that comparison caused many in the discussion to realize how extreme of an idea building the wall is.

In the comparison you were referring to, I did not compare an American officer to Hezbollah. Go back and read my post again. We were discussing "conflict of interest" in our government, so the best way for me to make my point was to use an extreme example as an analogy. As I indicated, I am outraged by the conflict of interest that exists in the Defense Policy Board. Others indicated they were not outraged by that conflict of interest. The best way for me to explain how I feel about that is to give an analogy that others WOULD be outraged by. I think the example of Hezbollah running the FBI's anti-terrorism unit was a good analogy.

I'm sorry if that somehow offended you, but I was not comparing Hezbollah directly to the US Military. I was comparing the conflict of interest that exists to another hypothetical conflict of interest -- a rather extreme one.

What I said was, "Do you understand that even attempting to relate retired military to terrorists is offensive to people in the military?"
I know what you were trying to do. I also know that in so doing, as I have said, you don't seem to realize that your poor choice in comparisons could possibly anger others - and not just because they don't agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

The difference here is that I have not suggested they are wrong in the same way you have. When you have suggested that they are wrong, it is in an accidental way or in having "bad judgement" or "poor foresight".

My opinion is that they are wrong in the same way Iraq's military was wrong when they invaded Kuwait. I don't think there is anything accidental about it. I think it was 100% intentional -- and to that you do seem to be insulted.

You have to realize I am not criticizing the soldiers, or even the officers. I am criticizing those in charge making the decision at the highest level.

I actually support the soldiers more than you think. In various discussions (I cannot remember if on this board or other boards) I have indicated that in most cases I do not think the soldiers on trial for some of the abuses should be held responsible as I think they are being used as scapegoats for poor policy. I also have been a big opponent of all the cuts in vetran benefits.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to military matters. I'm not saying you have to have been in the military to talk about/criticize the military, I'm saying that you are drawing the wrong conclusions due to your lack of experience. Would you agree that the same facts can lead different people to different conclusions? That's what I'm talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Was it insulting that I posted the poll, or insulting that I said they were "brainwashed"??

Perhaps the word "brainwashed" was a bit harsh, and I aplogize for that. Would you have prefered "indoctrinated"??

The poll showed that 85% of US soldiers in Iraq think the main reason for the Iraq war was to avenge Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks.

When 85% of the soldiers in Iraq believe something that is not true, I have to assume this is because they were told that by their superiors. Of course I am open to other theories about this if you care to share any.

What is your conclusion from this poll?

Perhaps we're getting somewhere. As you identified, "brainwashed" is offensive. Period. I'm not talking about the poll - just your interpretation of it. Since you clearly don't know, "brainwashed" is a very old insult cast at the military. Having a master's degree myself, and knowing scores of PhD's currently on active duty, I find that to be highly offensive. I'm not saying that it's not possible to be brainwashed by having education - I'm just saying that it lessens the possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

When there is war, you compare both sides. Call them whatever you want, it's just a name. Hezbollah are no different than the Contras in Nicaragua, Irgun in Palestine, the French resistance during WWII, the current Iraqi resistance, the Cubans who invaded during the Bay of Pigs, or even George Washington's army during the Revolutionary war. These are all examples of military organizations without a country. If you want to call them "terrorists", then you can. But just because you agree with the goals of some and not with others does not make them different.

So yes, this is where we disagree. When there is a war, I will compare both sides. I know you do not wish to be compared to the other side as your opinion of them is that they are "terrorists" and they are terrible people. I'm also pretty sure that they think the same of the American military. For me, I try to stay impartial in these discussions and be critical of both sides, and I will compare.

Compare away. As I said, it's something we do in the military on a regular basis. Also something I'm quite familiar with seeing as how I have a BA in history. Comparisons are the norm for me. That's not the problem. When you compare the military to a known terrorist organization - that's insulting. Your examples are apples & Buicks. It has nothing to do with whether or not Hezbollah "has a country." The point is, it's a terrorist organization. Period. Saying that I don't wish to be compared to them is a personal attack that is designed to avoid the point. There is no comparison. I don't quite understand why you don't get that. Also, I couldn't care any less about what a terrorist organization thinks of me or of the military. Their opinion simply doesn't matter - until they stop being terrorists, that is. This isn't about me trying to dehumanize a group that I feel is my enemy, it's like you've previously said. I judge them by their actions, not their words. To paraphrase Mr. Gump, "terrorist is as terrorist does."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I'll do my best to keep it that way too from now on. Perhaps the best thing I can do is simply state my opinion and not try to debate the point. I'll try to do that from now on.

As I said, the first and foremost thing I believe in is freedom of speech. I'm not even close to asking you to shut up. I'm asking you to, as rayxi put it, "review your responses before posting." Think outside yourself prior to hitting "submit reply." I do that - and 99% of the time, if I'm offensive, it's because I intended to be. That 1% of the time that I didn't realize it, I'll either apologize, or edit the post to remove the offense.

I guess the best thing for me to do is not post here. I seem to be the troublemaker, so I'll be mature and remove myself from the situation.

Eric5273 · #29 09-20-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Cleaner

The UN Charter does not prohibit any country from engaging in war and has proven over a long period not to have the enforcement capability to do anything about it anyway.

Yes it does prohibit that. It prohibits engaging in war for any reason other than defening yourself from an attack.

The reason the UN has not been able to enforce violations of their Charter is because the 5 permanent members of the Security Counsel all have veto power. Most of the violations of this article of the UN Charter have been by those 5 members or by their allies. Because of the veto power these 5 members have, nothing can happen unless all 5 of the agree -- something that rarely happens.

There should be no veto power for any country. Obviously some countries should have more say than others due to their size and level of influence in the world, and that is why there is a Security Counsel. But no country should have complete veto power over the rest.

So yes, in its current form, the UN is not very capable at solving international disputes. But if we do believe in democracy within each country, then why is democracy among the various countries such a bad thing then?

Juanted · #30 09-20-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx

Why do the American leaders think that they are better or smarter then the rest of the world?

Because they are. And no, I am not joking. It's really that simple. You may not like it, but it's fact. No other military in the world goes to the extent to which we go to educate, train, and prepare our personnel. None! I served in the military for 8 years; I should know. In those eight years, I participated in numerous war games (and one war -- the Gulf War) with the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch, you name it. With the possible exception of the British, no other military in the world is as well trained, educated or better prepared than ours.

Juan

Sponsored Links