djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 9:10:00 GMT -5
You're saying that my entire stint as an interrogator would last only a few weeks? Because that's all the time it would take to study. not for the first interrogation. and that is, ultimately, the only one that matters.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on May 8, 2014 9:28:25 GMT -5
This by itself is a fundamental break. . that is why i said "conditionally". but i don't thing it takes much imagination to imagine that you are a soldier. if i was wrong in your case, then i apologize for stretching your mind to the breaking point- but i don't think most other people here have trouble imagining it. The issue is the putting of "I" into the situation. I did join the military but did not join the Army. In the Navy, I went into a job that kept me in an office. These were very conscious choices that I made because I know who "I" am. Further, if the weirdest of circumstance had taken place while I was in the service, none of the supervisors over me would have considered placing me in the role of interrogator if torture was even a remote possibility. They were not that stupid.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 9:49:14 GMT -5
that is why i said "conditionally". but i don't thing it takes much imagination to imagine that you are a soldier. if i was wrong in your case, then i apologize for stretching your mind to the breaking point- but i don't think most other people here have trouble imagining it. The issue is the putting of "I" into the situation. I did join the military but did not join the Army. In the Navy, I went into a job that kept me in an office. These were very conscious choices that I made because I know who "I" am. Further, if the weirdest of circumstance had taken place while I was in the service, none of the supervisors over me would have considered placing me in the role of interrogator if torture was even a remote possibility. They were not that stupid. bills, i would never join the army, ok? but i can IMAGINE what it would be like to be put in the situation that these interrogators were put in. i can IMAGINE being the kind of person who takes orders. and i can IMAGINE being the person who carries them out under what i presumed were "exigent circumstances". i always find it puzzling when others can't, but i suppose that is imbedded as much in my personality as your inability to imagine it is imbedded in yours. i hope that didn't sound insulting, as no insult was intended. i am just trying to understand why this is so difficult for some people. ps- thanks for explaining yourself. i was wondering, when you "liked" Virgil's post, but i was not going to ask you about it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on May 8, 2014 10:25:08 GMT -5
The issue is the putting of "I" into the situation. I did join the military but did not join the Army. In the Navy, I went into a job that kept me in an office. These were very conscious choices that I made because I know who "I" am. Further, if the weirdest of circumstance had taken place while I was in the service, none of the supervisors over me would have considered placing me in the role of interrogator if torture was even a remote possibility. They were not that stupid. bills, i would never join the army, ok? but i can IMAGINE what it would be like to be put in the situation that these interrogators were put in. i can IMAGINE being the kind of person who takes orders. and i can IMAGINE being the person who carries them out under what i presumed were "exigent circumstances". i always find it puzzling when others can't, but i suppose that is imbedded as much in my personality as your inability to imagine it is imbedded in yours. i hope that didn't sound insulting, as no insult was intended. i am just trying to understand why this is so difficult for some people. ps- thanks for explaining yourself. i was wondering, when you "liked" Virgil's post, but i was not going to ask you about it. I can imagine being in that position. I would face court-martial. I standup for what i believe in. Did it while in the service. Hell, I refused to let my station mates throw me in the water to "celebrate" my promotion. My supervisor told me to make sure that I brought a change of uniform the next day because I was going in. I requested a meeting with the Captain. The Captain, after discussion, informed my supervisor to back off. I even campaigned aggressively for Anderson in the 80 presidential election (out of uniform of course).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 10:29:10 GMT -5
bills, i would never join the army, ok? but i can IMAGINE what it would be like to be put in the situation that these interrogators were put in. i can IMAGINE being the kind of person who takes orders. and i can IMAGINE being the person who carries them out under what i presumed were "exigent circumstances". i always find it puzzling when others can't, but i suppose that is imbedded as much in my personality as your inability to imagine it is imbedded in yours. i hope that didn't sound insulting, as no insult was intended. i am just trying to understand why this is so difficult for some people. ps- thanks for explaining yourself. i was wondering, when you "liked" Virgil's post, but i was not going to ask you about it. I can imagine being in that position. I would face court-martial. I standup for what i believe in. Did it while in the service. Hell, I refused to let my station mates throw me in the water to "celebrate" my promotion. My supervisor told me to make sure that I brought a change of uniform the next day because I was going in. I requested a meeting with the Captain. The Captain, after discussion, informed my supervisor to back off. I even campaigned aggressively for Anderson in the 80 presidential election (out of uniform of course). thank you, bills. this is precisely the kind of response i was looking for. i have another question for you. you are free to ignore it, if you wish: do you think your response is typical of military personnel, or atypical, based on your PERSONAL experience?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
|
Post by billisonboard on May 8, 2014 10:37:04 GMT -5
I can imagine being in that position. I would face court-martial. I standup for what i believe in. Did it while in the service. Hell, I refused to let my station mates throw me in the water to "celebrate" my promotion. My supervisor told me to make sure that I brought a change of uniform the next day because I was going in. I requested a meeting with the Captain. The Captain, after discussion, informed my supervisor to back off. I even campaigned aggressively for Anderson in the 80 presidential election (out of uniform of course). thank you, bills. this is precisely the kind of response i was looking for. i have another question for you. you are free to ignore it, if you wish: do you think your response is typical of military personnel, or atypical, based on your PERSONAL experience? I have found that my responses to most situations is atypical - before, during, and since my military service.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 11:13:40 GMT -5
thank you, bills. this is precisely the kind of response i was looking for. i have another question for you. you are free to ignore it, if you wish: do you think your response is typical of military personnel, or atypical, based on your PERSONAL experience? I have found that my responses to most situations is atypical - before, during, and since my military service. ok, thanks, bills. no further questions.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 8, 2014 12:51:33 GMT -5
You're missing the point. You're setting up a hypothetical that institutes a fundamental break from reality, no, i am presenting a situation that closely resembles one that actually happened, Virgil. unless you were talking about the very idea of you being a soldier. Bingo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 15:17:20 GMT -5
no, i am presenting a situation that closely resembles one that actually happened, Virgil. unless you were talking about the very idea of you being a soldier. Bingo. like i say, sorry. simple misunderstanding. it is hard to put yourself in soldier shoes. i got it. thanks for the explanation, and your patience.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 3:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 15:53:00 GMT -5
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ. www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.htmlhow many members of the military know what an unlawful order is? consider the men and women in the armed services.....especially nco's mostly 18-25ish.....very few with college or well read sure...if an officer had ordered me to shoot a civilian, easy....no thanks but thats not what this was..... given an order of getting information from a terrorist suspect, with little or no guidance, hell.....not sure i am sure a lot of the guys given those orders felt and thought the same thing everything about the military is about the team....the unit....your comrades protecting them is job number one....always has been
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 18:56:22 GMT -5
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ. www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.htmlhow many members of the military know what an unlawful order is? consider the men and women in the armed services.....especially nco's mostly 18-25ish.....very few with college or well read sure...if an officer had ordered me to shoot a civilian, easy....no thanks but thats not what this was..... given an order of getting information from a terrorist suspect, with little or no guidance, hell.....not sure i am sure a lot of the guys given those orders felt and thought the same thing everything about the military is about the team....the unit....your comrades protecting them is job number one....always has been this is why i like to refer to what happened in Bagram as an "atrocity generating situation". you have a group of guys with no training in interrogation being told by their commanders that they are to interrogate a high value suspect for information that will save the lives of fellow soldiers, that time of the essence, and that there are "no holds barred", and people are going to die. period. that is why i really think that the axe has to fall higher up than the rank and file. there will always be people who follow orders. but if those who give them know that there will be hell to pay if it ever comes out- and it usually does- they may think twice about it. as it stands now, Rumsfeld and Cheney are busy rehabilitating the policy. far from remorseful, they are basically calling Obama a coward for not following in their footsteps. sickening.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 8, 2014 20:00:43 GMT -5
like i say, sorry. simple misunderstanding. it is hard to put yourself in soldier shoes. i got it. thanks for the explanation, and your patience. It's not so much that I can't put myself into a soldier's shoes, it's that if I put myself into soldier's shoes, I won't act like myself. And just to make it once more perfectly clear, in my view: i) a man's good intentions do not justify his actions nor do they absolve him of moral accountability, and ii) a man acting under orders does not justify his actions nor does it absolve him of moral accountability. Having said this, I do consider both factors (intent and orders) relevant to issues such as leniency, forgiveness, etc. A man deceived by his superiors and who reasonably believes he's acting in the best interests of his countrymen is obviously easier to sympathize with than a sadist. You're hoping your hypothetical will get us to acknowledge that we might well have acted in the same way as the soldiers given their situation. To this I respond: perhaps that's so. Perhaps I'd be part of Milgram's 65%, acting in exactly the same way as the soldiers, torturing men to death. Even so, what I would do does not define what is right. And more to the point: what I would do does not define what I currently believe I ought to do. Knowing I'd be among the men who succumb to pressure might make me more sympathetic towards them, but it shouldn't influence my views on their (our) culpability.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 21:01:14 GMT -5
You're hoping your hypothetical will get us to acknowledge that we might well have acted in the same way as the soldiers given their situation. i already said that. if i were the trusting type, and the type who follows orders, i can see myself doing what these men did. moreover, i can see a moral position for it. it stems from the same ideas that Jack Bauer espouses. those are some seriously dangerous ideas, obviously.To this I respond: perhaps that's so. Perhaps I'd be part of Milgram's 65%, acting in exactly the same way as the soldiers, torturing men to death. Even so, what I would do does not define what is right. And more to the point: what I would do does not define what I currently believe I ought to do. Knowing I'd be among the men who succumb to pressure might make me more sympathetic towards them, but it shouldn't influence my views on their (our) culpability. it doesn't define what you ARE either. i have seen interviews with these guys. most of them are GOOD MEN. they were put in an atrocity generating situation, and they did some evil things. i have room in my heart for them. they will never live it down. they are guilty as hell. but i can't really bring myself to be enraged about it. the higherups that handed the orders down and walked away, on the other hand, i have nothing but contempt for. they ruined the lives of not only those that were wrongly tortured, but those that did the torturing. they will never be made whole.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 8, 2014 21:53:31 GMT -5
You're hoping your hypothetical will get us to acknowledge that we might well have acted in the same way as the soldiers given their situation. i already said that. if i were the trusting type, and the type who follows orders, i can see myself doing what these men did. moreover, i can see a moral position for it. it stems from the same ideas that Jack Bauer espouses. those are some seriously dangerous ideas, obviously.To this I respond: perhaps that's so. Perhaps I'd be part of Milgram's 65%, acting in exactly the same way as the soldiers, torturing men to death. Even so, what I would do does not define what is right. And more to the point: what I would do does not define what I currently believe I ought to do. Knowing I'd be among the men who succumb to pressure might make me more sympathetic towards them, but it shouldn't influence my views on their (our) culpability. it doesn't define what you ARE either. i have seen interviews with these guys. most of them are GOOD MEN. they were put in an atrocity generating situation, and they did some evil things. i have room in my heart for them. they will never live it down. they are guilty as hell. but i can't really bring myself to be enraged about it. the higherups that handed the orders down and walked away, on the other hand, i have nothing but contempt for. they ruined the lives of not only those that were wrongly tortured, but those that did the torturing. they will never be made whole. I don't quite understand why you hold the higher-ups in contempt but not the soldiers actually committing the acts. Like the soldiers, the higher-ups believed they were acting in the best interests of national security. Many of them undoubtedly still believe they took necessary measures and saved lives (and I needn't point out you haven't produced so much as a shred of evidence to say otherwise). All but the very top officials were also acting under orders from their superiors. And although they can't express remorse publicly for political reasons, I have no doubt that some (perhaps many) of them regret authorizing torture. Hence why bowels of compassion for the soldiers but bitter contempt for the commanders? Why make such an extreme distinction between them?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 22:00:39 GMT -5
it doesn't define what you ARE either. i have seen interviews with these guys. most of them are GOOD MEN. they were put in an atrocity generating situation, and they did some evil things. i have room in my heart for them. they will never live it down. they are guilty as hell. but i can't really bring myself to be enraged about it. the higherups that handed the orders down and walked away, on the other hand, i have nothing but contempt for. they ruined the lives of not only those that were wrongly tortured, but those that did the torturing. they will never be made whole. I don't quite understand why you hold the higher-ups in contempt but not the soldiers actually committing the acts. for two reasons: 1) i expect more from leaders than followers. 2) without leaders, followers just sit around and do nothing. i DID say that the guys who carried out the order were guilty as hell. but there is a very good reason that those that hire hitmen are put on trial as well, in our criminal system, and for the same crimes. i see no reason that standard should NOT apply in the military.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 8, 2014 23:15:54 GMT -5
As I've pointed out, everyone in the lengthy chain of command is both a leader and a follower, except for the soldiers at the very bottom, and the President, VP, and Joint Chiefs at the top.
Moreover, with the exception of the politicians, everyone in that hierarchy started out as a lowly soldier and worked their way up through the ranks. If the war had happened a few years earlier, many of the commanders you're condemning would have been the soldiers carrying out the orders. If the war had happened a few years later, many of the soldiers you're sympathizing with would have been promoted to command positions where they'd be the ones giving the orders to torture suspects.
I know you've said that both parties are guilty, and I agree. What I don't see is what justifies a sharp distinction between the higher-ups and the lower-downs. It seems to me that everyone except those at the very tip of the pyramid was in the same "impossible situation" as the soldiers. And although we reasonably expect greater responsibility to accompany higher status, we also expect greater loyalty and obedience.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2014 23:49:17 GMT -5
As I've pointed out, everyone in the lengthy chain of command is both a leader and a follower, except for the soldiers at the very bottom, and the President, VP, and Joint Chiefs at the top. then go all the way to the top, and shorten the rope. Moreover, with the exception of the politicians, everyone in that hierarchy started out as a lowly soldier and worked their way up through the ranks. If the war had happened a few years earlier, many of the commanders you're condemning would have been the soldiers carrying out the orders. If the war had happened a few years later, many of the soldiers you're sympathizing with would have been promoted to command positions where they'd be the ones giving the orders to torture suspects. totally irrelevant to my point. as you rise up, you should wise up.I know you've said that both parties are guilty, and I agree. What I don't see is what justifies a sharp distinction between the higher-ups and the lower-downs. It seems to me that everyone except those at the very tip of the pyramid was in the same "impossible situation" as the soldiers. And although we reasonably expect greater responsibility to accompany higher status, we also expect greater loyalty and obedience. that is not what i expect from leadership. i expect insight and independence, not loyalty. but perhaps you have pointed out the very root of the problems we are seeing. and with that, i wish you a good night.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 3:42:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 8:41:57 GMT -5
dj
i agree with Virgil
other than the very top...the JCS, the pres, secdef, etc....these are all men put into the same position
i hold no more animosity for one over another
i feel sorry for the ones that carried out the tortures.....as i think, there but for the grace of god go i
i also feel sorry for those captains, majors, and colonels that gave those orders
shit happens in war.....some can be, and should be contained
but this was different in so many ways.....
the enemy wasnt attacking soldiers....they were attacking civilians
these men's families....their kids, wives, sisters......
they were given orders and they carried them out
should they have done differently.....maybe
would i have done exactly as they did.....i dont know.....just glad i wasnt put into that position
i think this was a lesson learned.....and i would hope these atrocities would never happen again
i understand the rules of war, and the geneva convention.....
it is a sad state of the world that very few countries still follow those edicts
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 10:36:31 GMT -5
dj i agree with Virgil you usually do.other than the very top...the JCS, the pres, secdef, etc....these are all men put into the same positions i disagree. superiors have FAR MORE CHOICE in their positions than inferiors. they are also expected to question the commands the higher up you go, to the very top, where the decisions are made ("the buck stops here"). and, finally, the guy at the top can order literally THOUSANDS to carry out atrocities on a scale that one man could never accomplish. this is why LEADERS should be held to account far more than footsoldiers. it never works that way. but it should.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 10:37:41 GMT -5
i understand the rules of war, and the geneva convention..... it is a sad state of the world that very few countries still follow those edicts i disagree. i think most countries follow them. but whether they do or not should have no impact on what WE do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 10:41:15 GMT -5
the enemy wasnt attacking soldiers....they were attacking civilians in WW1, 80% of all casualties were military, 20% civilian. in WW2, 50% of all casualties were military, 50% civilian. since WW2, 20% of all casualties have been military, 80% civilian. when we enter a war in the modern era, we are committing ourselves to the wholesale murder of civilians. forgive me of not really getting why we are so much better than "the enemy".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 9, 2014 10:44:06 GMT -5
... superiors have FAR MORE CHOICE in their positions than inferiors. they are also expected to question the commands the higher up you go, to the very top, where the decisions are made ("the buck stops here") ... In the military? ... ... ... I realize you might not want to give away your location, but do you mind if I ask what planet you're living on?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 10:48:01 GMT -5
... superiors have FAR MORE CHOICE in their positions than inferiors. they are also expected to question the commands the higher up you go, to the very top, where the decisions are made ("the buck stops here") ... In the military? ? in this particular case, the people who were most vocal about the idea of taking the gloves off were NON-MILITARY. therefore, i would have to say "no", ultimately. but in general, the higher up the COC you go, the more decision making capability you have. Virgil- in the future, please spare the planet question. i could use that question ten times a day around here, but i don't. as a moderator, i would expect more restraint from you than i have. tyia.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 9, 2014 12:33:10 GMT -5
I think it is always very easy to sit in our comfortable air conditioned rooms without having to worry about someone taking a shot at us and double guess how we would act in a war zone.
There are some things I like to think I would never do. However, if my family, my life, or my freedom were at risk somehow I suspect my answers would change.
One of my uncles fought in a foreign war. Whatever he had to do over there to survive haunted him until the day he died. I know I can be pretty judgemental at times, but I'll pass on this one.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 9, 2014 14:28:48 GMT -5
In the military? ? in this particular case, the people who were most vocal about the idea of taking the gloves off were NON-MILITARY. therefore, i would have to say "no", ultimately. but in general, the higher up the COC you go, the more decision making capability you have. Virgil- in the future, please spare the planet question. i could use that question ten times a day around here, but i don't. as a moderator, i would expect more restraint from you than i have. tyia. Since you're not above taking a few one-line potshots, a few snide one-line retorts, and a few " you've GOT to be joking"s--all in the last 2 weeks--I figured you could handle it. My apologies. In future, would you prefer that I respond with an " Oh please", a " REALLY?", or a " GMAFB" when I think you're out to lunch. I can accommodate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 16:21:39 GMT -5
in this particular case, the people who were most vocal about the idea of taking the gloves off were NON-MILITARY. therefore, i would have to say "no", ultimately. but in general, the higher up the COC you go, the more decision making capability you have. Virgil- in the future, please spare the planet question. i could use that question ten times a day around here, but i don't. as a moderator, i would expect more restraint from you than i have. tyia. Since you're not above taking a few one-line potshots ( that poster has me on ignore. can't see what harm it does in that case), a few snide one-line retorts ( nobody contested that, so i assume that most people agree), and a few " you've GOT to be joking" (that is an invitation to rebuttal, as far as i am concerned) s--all in the last 2 weeks--I figured you could handle it. i can handle it just fine. and i might point out that since i average 250 posts a week, what you just presented represents less than 1% of my posts. that has nothing to do with it. you are supposed to be the adult in the room, not me. but thanks for confirming that you intend to not only not intervene in the personal battles, but actually contribute to them. not what i expected, but good to know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 16:24:53 GMT -5
I think it is always very easy to sit in our comfortable air conditioned rooms without having to worry about someone taking a shot at us and double guess how we would act in a war zone. i wasn't taking a shot at anyone. i am actually sypathetic to the guys who carried out the torture, in case you didn't catch that.There are some things I like to think I would never do. However, if my family, my life, or my freedom were at risk somehow I suspect my answers would change. One of my uncles fought in a foreign war. Whatever he had to do over there to survive haunted him until the day he died. I know I can be pretty judgemental at times, but I'll pass on this one. you're choice. but i think there is some value in trying to place yourself in someone else's shoes.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 9, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -5
DJ - I agree with what you're saying - yes there is value in trying to place yourself in someone else's shoes - however I don't think it's possible in all cases.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2014 16:30:01 GMT -5
DJ - I agree with what you're saying - yes there is value in trying to place yourself in someone else's shoes - however I don't think it's possible in all cases. clearly. that is the case that Virgil is making, and i accept it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 9, 2014 17:18:34 GMT -5
Since you're not above taking a few one-line potshots ( that poster has me on ignore. can't see what harm it does in that case), a few snide one-line retorts ( nobody contested that, so i assume that most people agree), and a few " you've GOT to be joking" (that is an invitation to rebuttal, as far as i am concerned) s--all in the last 2 weeks--I figured you could handle it. i can handle it just fine. and i might point out that since i average 250 posts a week, what you just presented represents less than 1% of my posts. that has nothing to do with it. you are supposed to be the adult in the room, not me. but thanks for confirming that you intend to not only not intervene in the personal battles, but actually contribute to them. not what i expected, but good to know. I didn't intervene in the "personal battles" because I figure posters ought to be able to handle barbs as mild as "you've GOT to be joking", "GMAFB", or "what planet are you living on". This is precisely why I smile and shrug when you tell me to give you an effing break. However, since sarcastic quips evidently bother you, I'll restate my grievance more directly: You suppose that military officers are expected to question, second-guess and/or defy their superior officers more as they rise through the military ranks. Your supposition is ridiculous. Hopefully that clears the matter up.
|
|