scott_harpell
-
Posts
4384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by scott_harpell
-
-
OK, so you agree with my points above (1) Iraq did not attack us and posed no signficant (military) threat, and (2) Bush and buddies authorized or approved torture.
The ends justify the means. These are not war crimes if the good guys do it.
Did Korea attack the US? Did Germany? How about Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan didn't even attack us. Clearly you see that a direct frontal attack is not a prerequisite for war.
Since when has war been a simple "he hit me ergo I hit him" algorithm? Never. All of you whiny liberals cry out "Darfur!" "Darfur!" like its your atomic bomb of debate strategies. What has Darfur ever done to the US?
-
I ate some indonesian dog once, it was prety gross. I think I will stick with the beer; thanks.
-
Are you guys really that bad at reading comprehension? I have written, at least four times now, that we don't and can't allow him to choose his consequences. The plain fact is that he did, however.
So, what praytell is your position in the matter Matt? Devil's advocate as I had assumed earlier?
-
The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.
The baisic tenants of the US military has been in place for over 200 years. There are reasons that soldiers are required to act the way they do. These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.
-
I disagree that the war in Iraq was wrong. The reasons that we went in there were ridiculous and for all intensive purposes superfluous. The only thing wrong with the initiation of this war (except for the aforementioned things) is that it did not happen in 1991.
Saddam was an evil man and a tyrant who was as vile as Lennin, Stalin, Pol-Pot ect. He was genocidal and has at various times threatened us while implying that he had nuculear weaponry.
You may ask, " why don't we go overthrow every genocidal dictator?" I don't know and it is likely because of greed and apathy. The facts remain that a War against the Saddam regime was justified by any orthodox morality.
Just because there "were no weapons of mass destruction." does not mean that the offensive was ill conceived or illegal. The country was tyrannical and the only reason that the UN didn't jump on the war was the fact that some of its biggest members were illegaly bastardizing the oil for food program and didn't want that fact revealed. Furthermore, they didn't want their newfound cash cow slaughtered.
-
OK, Scott, play along now:
could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"
no.
From a well-known researcher on cults:
Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
--from the Ross Institute
so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.
-
Yeah, I'm so far left I actually believe that a president who breaks the law, lies, and undermines not only prestige, but our power and preparedness as a nation should be held accountable for it.
Impeachment is for chumps who get blow jobs, not for war criminals.
I would like proof that GWB is a war criminal. This yahoo preaching from his pulpit is just trying to get his little piece of fame in hopes that it will reap a political harvest come autumn.
-
Forthright straightforwardness may appear "hardcore" to thickheaded twits.
That's funny, coming from the one who denied that there is significant racial tension in Michigan and argued that the "honesty" demonstrated in a state where the Klu Klux Klan is active is good for race relations.
Are you with Scott in arguing that there can never be any justification for any soldier to refuse to obey orders? How about if their commander is drunk?
I never said that Matt. Obviously there are times when you simply cannot for the pure sake of morality coomply with orders.
You asked me if a soldier could ever go back on his oath. There is nothing in the oath about illegal activities. Since this kid was never asked to do any illegal activities, there is no way that his argument could hold any water.
-
Yes, the Canadians are under no obligation to allow them to stay and it would indeed be "just" consequences if they were shipped home for military justice. Those guys will have to live with their decisions.
Personally, I'd take it pretty serious if I had to leave my home country, potentially never to visit my friends and family again ... but that's just me. You "by the book" people are a hardcore bunch.
I don't know if you are really this slow Matt or whether this is your natural lawyer "devil's advocate" mode. There are reasons that you must be "by the book" in situations such as this. Think about the percentage of people who "don't want to be here" during a firefight.
Tha is the reason you must be by the book.
-
OK, Scott, play along now:
could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"
no.
-
The question I ask is: can there be justification for doing so. You say no. You apparently decline to recognize that there could be any justification based on one's being ordered to kill innocent civilians or to wantonly destroy cities and towns or to torture civilians or similar acts that are not justified by military necessity, or simply say that none of this could be occurring -- I'm not sure which.
He never killed anyone. He never destroyed a city. He tortured anyone. He was an intell geek whose day was spent doing exactly what you are doing right now.
He had no right to go back on his word and he had even less right to go back on his oath; morally or legally matt.
-
One other unrelated thought that occurs to me: could it be that they shipped him home so that he COULD go awol rather than keep him there and have him act as you might more approve of and "take it like a man" if he disobeys orders and is sent to the brig?
no.
-
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.
This argument always gets trotted out during these discussions. Look, this kid could have gone about this in an entirely correct way. He chose not to do that. There are consequences (of which he is fully aware, I am sure) related to how he chose to exit himself from his commitment.
I don't really think that the "Nuremberg principles" apply, here, anyway.
Considering that the occupation was rattified by the UN (at the time of his deployment) and his job was merely in MI, there is no way the nuremburg principles apply. Nice try though
-
I take it Scott is not a fan of the Nuremberg principles.
glad you brought that up matt. He never fought in a war therefore he could not even utilize his belief taht the war was unjust to precipitate his premature departure from the armed services
"UN Security Council had already passed Resolutions 1483 (recognising the United States and Britain as "occupying powers" under international law) and 1546 (endorsing the creation of an Iraqi Interim Government). "
so... according to the law, he couldn't have even stated that he did so because he was morally obligated because he was "fighting" in an illegal war.
Furthermore, he never even fought. He was an MI geek who probably spent the duration of his service in AC; so there goes the whole "non-combatant" "consciencious objector" nonsense.
-
I wonder how it would feel to have promised one's life to defend America's God-given right to $2/gal at the pump?
This would all make a lot more sense if the White House would just admit that we have forcefully annexed Iraq. To them it must seem natural to use the national guard to defend a new piece of the empire.
McCain will have some timely political announcement that he will save us all from high oil prices by tapping into Iraqi oil, and continuing to intimidate the region with our military presence. Nobody seems willing or able to stop the U.S. from doing this, so it must be okay. That is until we push too far.
Wow. You certainly are one for hyperbole. No-one signed up to secure cheap oil, we will never tap into Iraqi oil and the mobilization of the National Guard is not a new philosophy.
2.5 mill bbls a day are being taken out of the ground in Iraq now. How much are we "anexing?"
It is quite obvious the tactics you use. Wanton use of hyperbole to support a point incredibly loosly tied with the subject matter at hand. Maybe if you threw in one actual verifiable fact in there we might not have so much trouble swallowing your other abortions of truth.
-
...his oath and his promise to the people of the USA....are we going to construe every military operation we do from now on as 'guarding' the United States of America?
Well that's a question worth pondering, soldier!
Glad you asked. He assumed to role of soldier. Whether it was to get free college, pussy or healthcare, the outcome is the same. He vowed to fight entities both foreign and domestic that his government deemed a threat to either the sovereignty of the safety of the United States and its citicens.
He gave up his right to question why; to quit his vow. If he had any qualms with this, it should have been addressed prior to swearing before an officer that he indeed upon penalty of perjury and death that he would accept that responsibility.
-
Yeah, too bad he didn't know that he was 'promising' to rot indefinitely in a Middle Eastern shithole in order to 'guard' someone else's nation.
Well that is certainly his responsibility isn't it? If he wanted a good way to get free college or get pussy, there is another way; Its called the airforce. Stupid pussy.
-
He is either an idiot or a pussy. Technically he could swing for what he did. Doubtfull, but that should at least make him think about his actions; especially going back on his oath and his promise to the people of the USA.
-
Oh yeah, and undergone some of the most intense psychological indoctrination techniques devised in order to instill these traits?
Paranoia is funny; isn't it kids?
-
Nice. Now again, why would I ask someone who's "not paid to think above their pay-grade", trained to follow orders without question, willingly accepts their role as a tool of the State, and surrenders their intellect and identity to the chain of command anything about matters of policy?
Uhm... you aren't; He's asking you. Try to keep up.
-
A long term drawn out religious war that would make the Irish situation seem like a childs sandbox squabble won by Hard-core Shia Islamicists years and many many deaths later.
Oil would shoot through the roof, $10 a gallon gas would be here for sure, our republics economy would be in horrible condition as other countrys realized we can't follow through on shit and decided to start pushing us around.
Later, Israel would be on the block as shias from Iraq and Iran united to vigourously support Hezbola and Hamas.
Very probable scenario IMO.
do you think the converse is true if we dont leave now?
-
Newt Gingritch thinks it will take us losing an entire city for us to realize the threat. What do you think?
I wonder how you would feel if I forced myself into your home, and I stayed trying to change your mind, and not letting you decide for yourself in your own home.
If I gassed my sister, that might be an appropriate analogy.
-
you are a dumb prudish bitch?
apparently you are not familiar with 'pluralis majestatis.'
-
The Victorian one
you are a dumb prudish bitch? never would have guessed.
I'm a pinko America hater; you don't speak for me, mmmk?
Yes I do.
Thanks Dennis! -Impeach the Bastard!
in Spray
Posted
For an older guy, especially a well learned one, I would think you were capable of not using such amazingly coarse generalities.