Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The US Gov't is Guilty of Murder
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 256 of 318 (673089)
09-13-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ringo
09-13-2012 4:28 PM


Re: Accidents
RingO writes:
The killer is the guy who kills the innocent babies. I suggested that I would rather have him armed with a knife than an assault rifle. Straggler asked why we don't just stop him from killing and I reminded him that the killer is the U.S. government and military so trying to "stop" them would be like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in.
That may be pragmatic, but I agree with Straggler, that is a defeatist stance. And it will be poor comfort if a next 9/11 happens because of this action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ringo, posted 09-13-2012 4:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 09-13-2012 4:58 PM dronestar has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 257 of 318 (673091)
09-13-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by dronestar
09-13-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Accidents
dronester writes:
That may be pragmatic, but I agree with Straggler, that is a defeatist stance.
Defeated by the tides? Yes. Get used to it. Devote your energy to minimizing the damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dronestar, posted 09-13-2012 4:34 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2012 7:12 PM ringo has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 258 of 318 (673098)
09-13-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by crashfrog
09-13-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Jurisdiction
No, that's exactly backwards. Militaries have the legal right to operate in other countries. Police have no legal right to operate anywhere except their own jurisdictions.
If the military has the right to blow someone up, wherever they might be, then, surely, they also have the right to arrest that person. If not then I would suggest that we give it to them.
I think restrained, surgical strikes against specific targets represent a higher ideal of civilization than the vast destruction and loss of human life that accompanies traditional infantry warfare.
Who doesn't?
And you must mean 'surgical' like the way you would do surgery with a spoon.
Soldiers don't shoot to wound, but to kill. Directly targeting key personnel to disrupt enemy organization is a tactic that goes back to Sun Tsu.
Yeah I was surprised to find out that it is against the law too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2012 12:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 09-13-2012 7:11 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 259 of 318 (673099)
09-13-2012 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Panda
09-13-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Accidents
But the only alternatives you have provided are either:
a) Never go to war
b) Force the army to disband
(both of which have similar results).
Nonsense. You underestimate our incredible ability to adapt to new conditions.
During the cold war when the CIA needed to dispatch someone they didn't use missiles too much did they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 09-13-2012 9:48 AM Panda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 260 of 318 (673100)
09-13-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dogmafood
09-13-2012 7:08 PM


Re: Jurisdiction
If the military has the right to blow someone up, wherever they might be, then, surely, they also have the right to arrest that person. If not then I would suggest that we give it to them.
Sorry but that is way beyond our capability. We cannot give the military the right to arrest anyone not already within US jurisdiction.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2012 7:08 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2012 7:14 PM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 261 of 318 (673101)
09-13-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by ringo
09-13-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Accidents
Unfortunately, Hitler had about ten million Germans to stop us from arresting him and the closest thing we had to a drone was a carpet-bombing Lancaster.
Didn't someone already mention Godwins rule?
But yeah that is why it wasn't an issue then and it isn't an issue now.
For clarity then would you say that a battlefield requires no geographic boundaries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ringo, posted 09-13-2012 1:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 09-14-2012 1:19 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 262 of 318 (673102)
09-13-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by ringo
09-13-2012 4:58 PM


Re: Accidents
Defeated by the tides? Yes. Get used to it.
Only if you are a defeatist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 09-13-2012 4:58 PM ringo has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 263 of 318 (673103)
09-13-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by jar
09-13-2012 7:11 PM


Re: Jurisdiction
We cannot give the military the right to arrest anyone not already within US jurisdiction.
Yet you have no problem giving them the right to blow that person up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by jar, posted 09-13-2012 7:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 09-13-2012 7:24 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 264 of 318 (673104)
09-13-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dogmafood
09-13-2012 7:14 PM


Re: Jurisdiction
That is something that is legal.
But don't try to tell me what I think. Deal with YOUR position, I'll take care of my position.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dogmafood, posted 09-13-2012 7:14 PM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2012 7:05 AM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 318 (673108)
09-13-2012 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Panda
09-13-2012 10:03 AM


Re: Accidents
You have to remember that in NoNukes' mind, all soldiers are murderous bastards that launch missiles at children while laughing maniacally.
This is decidedly not my position. I did serve in the military and I carried around weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using them when necessary.
I haven't said, expressed, or implied, a single thing about how soldiers ought to behave.
I see the smiley face in your post, but I don't see anything the least bit funny thereto attached.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Panda, posted 09-13-2012 10:03 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 266 of 318 (673124)
09-14-2012 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by dronestar
09-13-2012 4:05 PM


Re: Accidents
And you didn’t even show a picture of Tony Blair embracing Gaddaffi.
They should warn us that whether someone is officially labelled as a terrorist or a freedom fighter at any given time is largely a matter of political expedience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by dronestar, posted 09-13-2012 4:05 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by dronestar, posted 09-17-2012 9:23 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 267 of 318 (673125)
09-14-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by jar
09-13-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Jurisdiction
jar writes:
We cannot give the military the right to arrest anyone not already within US jurisdiction.
Dogma writes:
Yet you have no problem giving them the right to blow that person up?
jar writes:
That is something that is legal.
Legality aside - Is it right.....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 09-13-2012 7:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jar, posted 09-14-2012 9:05 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 268 of 318 (673126)
09-14-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2012 10:24 AM


What's Good For The Goose....
CS writes:
But the spirit of the law is against just blowing the shit out of a region willy-nilly without even trying to reach some kind of military goal. These drone strikes are not that.
OK. Let's follow the logic of that. Let’s consider a mirror-image situation.
The Iranian government decides to label a US citizen as a terrorist. The person in question has been responsible for a number of attacks in which Iranian civilians have been killed. Whether you agree that the label of terrorist is accurate or not there can be little doubt in the sincerity of the belief that if this person continues to exist further Iranian civilian casualties will occur as a result.
So the Iranian government sends in a drone. The attack is on US soil and involves the apartment block in which the intended target lives. The attack kills the intended target. It also kills a number of other people in the apartment block including some kids, a pregnant woman and an old couple. Numerous others lose limbs or are otherwise horrifically injured.
When asked about the attack the Iranian government says that whilst the civilian casualties are regrettable they are a price worth paying for ending the life of the intended target whose future actions would undoubtably have resulted in more Iranian deaths. they say the action was militarily justified.
Was the drone attack justified in your view? Is it, in your view, morally different from the sort of attacks being advocated as justified and necessary here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2012 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-14-2012 10:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 269 of 318 (673127)
09-14-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by ringo
09-13-2012 3:12 PM


Re: Accidents
Straggler writes:
Whether it has any practical effect or not I think somebody should at least be pointing out where the moral high ground is here. Even if nobody can rightfully claim it we should at least try and identify where it is.
Ringo writes:
I'm pointing at an attainable high ground.
You are pointing at the status quo. If you think the present situation is as high as the moral ground can pragmatically get I would suggest you have taken pragmatism to a level that is indistiguishable from defeatism....
But aside from this rather overly-accepting approach your heart seems to be in the right place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 09-13-2012 3:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by ringo, posted 09-14-2012 1:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 270 of 318 (673128)
09-14-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Straggler
09-14-2012 7:05 AM


right or wrong?
There is no one right or wrong answer. Each incident is unique and individual and the decision of right or wrong will depend on the threat, costs and reward in that particular incident.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2012 7:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2012 10:57 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024