HenryKrinkle posted:
god damn lol
ilmdge posted:Goethestein posted:Chomsky:
Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.er seriously though, follwing the law for the sake of ofllowing The Law is so ridiculous
It depends on your rank and which law we're talking about
Had this one soldier that thought it was hilarious to yell head shot and killtacular and shit when we went to the range. He could barely pass his PT test and I had to counsel him numerous times in regards to conduct around his peers. His maturity level was that of an 8 year old and always shit talked about wanting to deploy and " Kill me some hajis". Usually its the ones like this that get it the worse. Well we ended up deploying and low and behold we get mortared ( none of which actually hit the base, just made a lot of noise) and he drops to his knees and starts crying he wants to go home. He was like this the whole deployment.
More generally, I think you're working from a really bad idea of fairness. The laws of war are fair in that they're symmetric. They're un-fair in that they don't ensure an equally-matched conflict. I get the impression that people think of the second notion of fairness and think something like, "These under-supported insurgents don't have a chance in a 'legal' war. Shouldn't we excuse them if they break some of the rules, like not wearing insignias or attacking non-military targets?"
We shouldn't. The reason we shouldn't is that an equally-matched conflict is really undesirable. A system-of-conflict that gives underdogs a benefit so they can 'get back in the game' is horrific.
In sports or games, we want rules that promote equally-matched opponents. But we do this to extend the length of the conflict. It's better viewing if both sides are really fighting things out until the last second of a soccer match.
In a war, 'fairness' means that the death and destruction goes on longer than it needs to. This is exactly the opposite of what we want.
Nations fight. Power changes hands. This isn't something that laws can really prevent. Instead, the laws are there so that the power-change happens as quickly (and with as few unnecessary deaths) as possible. This lets the rest of society go back to living.
The people you're supporting aren't accomplishing any noble end by breaking the laws of war. They're just dragging out a conflict with a foregone conclusion and keeping a region locked into war.
Goethestein posted:north korean generals:
their backs are also covered in medals.
antonymous posted:damn that owns
Goethestein posted:Chomsky:
Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.
Chomsky and john stewart are basically the same person at this point
He proceeded to tell me about that day. It was in January 2009, just weeks after he retired from the Navy. It was cold that morning, and he was wearing a heavy winter coat. He was driving his truck — his now famous black F350 with the large rims and impressive grill — when he needed to stop for gas. He pulled into a station right off highway 67.
As he got out of the truck, two men approached. Both had guns in their hands. One pointed his weapon at Kyle. They told him to hand over his keys. Kyle was out of the truck, on the passenger’s side.
“I told them I would get them the keys,” he told me. “I told them they were in the truck and to just let me reach in.”
He noticed the man pointing the gun didn’t seem very confident. Kyle knew what confidence with a gun looked like.
As Kyle turned, leaning into the open passenger door of the truck, he reached into his own waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911. He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first guy twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired twice more, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.
Kyle leaned on his truck and waited for the police.
He said he was later told that trucks like his are very popular among car thieves because they’re frequently taken over the Mexican border. He said they’d passed up the car in front of his, even though it was a relatively new Cadillac.
Kyle told me that the entire incident was caught on the gas station’s surveillance cameras. He said he gave the responding officers a phone number to call. Presumably someone high up in the government explained to the officers who Kyle was. He said the officers were very understanding, that they didn’t want to drag a just-home, highly decoratated veteran into a messy legal situation that would surely draw a harsh media spotlight.
Kyle told me that he knew the tape was out there somewhere, because he would randomly get emails from police officers all over the country, thanking him for “cleaning up the streets.”
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/sniper-shooting-in-cleburne-a-hoax-1.208232
Rumors that former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle shot and killed two armed robbers in 2009 at a Cleburne gas station appear to be just that.
“If something like that happened, it didn’t happen in Cleburne,” Cleburne Police Department Det. Kelly Summey said on Friday.
discipline posted:it fills me with disgust and shame that any american has ever stepped foot on the proud soul of iraq
you know what fills me with disgust is that theres still people that support the iraq war in the year of our lord 2013. look at this fuckin tool im yelling at today:
Here are two more facts that certain studies which concluded that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs also concluded:
1. He was actively seeking to undermine the sanctions against his regime and to end those sanctions through nefarious means (read 'Bribes')
2. He was retaining all knowledge of WMDs and the personelle to restart all WMD programs very quickly after the sanctions fell.
Of course, if these facts inconvenience you, you can just ignore them...since Saddam Hussein has already been (rightly) removed from power. The United States removed a terrorist supporting, murderous dictator from power. The US did this while causing relatively few civilian casualties ourselves or through the actions of our allies. The US did this while enforcing, as appropriate, the standards that our country expects from our men and women in uniform and while openly investigating allegations of wrongdoing.
Better blood on America's hands than on its soul. The world's getting enough blood on its soul in places like Darfur.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111 *vomits*
mongosteen posted:i like reading the post history of anyone who's been posting in D&D since late 2003 or earlier and seeing what vicious little reactionary turds they were during the beginning stages of iraq. they've mellowed a bit with time but they haven't changed and all the people who weren't middlebrow center-right warmongers fled, left or got banned
mongosteen posted:i like reading the post history of anyone who's been posting in D&D since late 2003 or earlier and seeing what vicious little reactionary turds they were during the beginning stages of iraq. they've mellowed a bit with time but they haven't changed and all the people who weren't middlebrow center-right warmongers fled, left or got banned
i had weird views on iraq. i was conservative but i opposed the war because i thought it was a massive waste of resources and that like occupation would spin into bad times. but i supported kerry in 2004 because i thought his stabilize-then-leave thing was good. it wasn't until like 2006 or so that i was like hmm... death... to america?
Goethestein posted:north korean generals:
Wow these guys must be strong as hell. Why dont USA have any good generals like this.
