self censorship

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]

i cant support that position. from squashing slave rebellions to native american genocide to institutionalized torture at abu grahib there a many instances where the perp of these crimes deserves no better than a box. they endager myself and my freedom and have already surendered all that make them human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I suppose I'm glad you have the net where you don't have to "self-censor" out of fear that some jackass will assault you and you can get these things off your chest. I'm impressed by your passion (on the net, anyway), if not your reason.

[limon]

" Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties."

will it ..really? there are many that would disagree. is it possible that ignoring things like the geneva accords actually kill more soldiers. most would agree the pictures that came out of abu grahib fueled insurgency and the death of many more us soldiers than we might have expected. is it possible that making moral decisions at the point of conflict actually wins the heart and minds of people who might otherwise kill you. this is another topic sun tzu discusses. i hear they study the text at west point.

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penises, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i believe they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
"Troops", as the term is typically used, don't get orders from the President-- that's not how the chain of command works."

you're getting too smart again.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the reasons why I don't express opinions on certain things is that emotions run too hot for reasoned debate-- interestingly, when the emotions aren't running hot there's often no reason for debate because people quickly and dispassionately identify precisely where they disagree and agree that it is simply an impasse.

I gather your view is something like: the war is wrong, it comes from a bad tribe, with a bad chief, and that the warriors ought to be held responsible for their own bad choices of being where they are.

And you are willing to simply disagree with those who think that the war is right and so are the soldiers (more or less).

But (and this is the part that baffles me) you are unwilling to accept that some see important distinctions between the cause for war and the conduct of the soldier-- out of anything other than intellectual dishonesty.

[JaredL]

BTW to get back on topic but keep with the off-topic slide, I personally don't think that soldiers are "fighting for our freedom" and haven't done so in a single war since WWII, in which it was questionable at best. One could make an argument for Afghanistan as well. I think there are valid reasons for using the US military, but the military extremely rarely has fought for our freedom.

Most of the time I hold my tongue it's around certain people. My brother-in-law is in the navy and my sister is overly sensitive about anything that could even faintly be construed as military bashing, especially by me. For example, when we were in Hawai'i for my wedding she made a comment about how the roads were quite nice. I said that they were nice because the military used them, which is true. Apparently, this comment bothered her. Admittedly my tone was probably pretty negative because I'm pretty antimilitary (especially in Hawai'i), but that was in no way out of line. So basically around my sister and her husband, who is an out and out racist bigot, I have to constantly censor myself or risk constantly getting into huge arguments that go nowhere.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penisis, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i beleive they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon,

Please don't be naive in thinking that only such examples of troops committed atrocities. Just because things aren't as well documented as say Vietnam or Iraq doesn't make such soldiers as the revolutionaries saints.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
" Part of my objection is practical, which is to say that permitting moral choice among combat soldiers will vastly increase our own casualties."

will it ..really? there are many that would disagree. is it possible that ignoring things like the geneva accords actually kill more soldiers. most would agree the pictures that came out of abu grahib fueled insurgency and the death of many more us soldiers than we might have expected. is it possible that making moral decisions at the point of conflict actually wins the heart and minds of people who might otherwise kill you. this is another topic sun tzu discusses. i hear they study the text at west point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are hopelessly naive on this point. I do not believe that the mainstream populace of Iraq is overly hostile to our presence. Pantano's book contends that one reason we do not get good intel about jihadis is because the mainstream population does not believe we will remain and thus are afraid to take our side. I believe Abu Ghraib is trivial in comparison to the horrors that Shi'a work on Sunni and vice versa, and that should be obvious to anyone who thinks deeply about it.

I don't know if we can continue to debate this without hostility; perhaps we can. But in any event, let's not burden EDF with more of that. PM me if you'd like to argue more.

I'll read any book you choose on the subject and send you a copy of Pantano's book, just to try to get to similar premises.

[Stuey]

I don't think I self censor myself. But I do present my ideas differently depending on the reaction I expect.

Limon you sound like you think your opinion (You don't support the troops) causes the problems. Or the intelligence of the people that don't agree with you causes the problem. I don't think that is what is happening. I think you are expressing your opinion in a way that leads to conflict.

It is hard to explain but small changes in the way you present your view would result in a different reaction from your audience. Don't attack their view and don't try to sell the idea of absolutes. Leave room for them to keep their opinion. And believe it or not you could leave the door open to you yourself being wrong. You don't have to believe it but just saying something like "I hope I am wrong about this but currently for reasons x,y, and z I feel I can't support the troops".

This will get more people to listen to you and less people will get emotional. Some people will always get emotional tho. It is the only way they know to get their point across and you don't want to be like them do you?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I'm sure you know, you have your life as it is now and that freedom because of the same troops you are chastising.

[/ QUOTE ]

really?the troops who were squashing slave rebellions, killing indians and pointing at iraqi penisis, all under orders, gave me my life and freedom? i beleive they delayed it and we have it inspite of them not because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

limon,

Please don't be naive in thinking that only such examples of troops committed atrocities. Just because things aren't as well documented as say Vietnam or Iraq doesn't make such soldiers as the revolutionaries saints.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres a big difference between "not being a saint" while killing redcoats 2 miles from your house in a moral defensive war and burning down the village of people youll never know or meet 2000 miles away from home in a war of choice.

[Leaky Eye]

limon,

way to train wreck your own perfectly good thread.