News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash

[Bystander]

That's not what he's talking about. If a soldier just kicked down a door of a house and killed everyone inside because he thought maybe there was a terrorist hiding there, will you accept the excuse



It's just nitpicking who he's killing!

Obviously that's an extreme, but you chose the other extreme, so it's fair play

The thread is about two journalists picking up Darwin Awards, not Vietnam era liberal draftees turned Manson family members --- it's exactly what he's talking about.

 

[Gokul43201]

The thread is about two journalists picking up Darwin Awards, not Vietnam era liberal draftees turned Manson family members --- it's exactly what he's talking about.

The thread may be about a specific situation ... and it's a situation I'm not sufficiently familiar with, therefore choose not to comment on anything related to those specifics.

But the poster I responded to made a much more general statement: "We send very young men into combat, tell them to kill people, and then nitpick about where and when they shoot the weapons we give them."

It was this statement that my response was directed at, not any specific situation.

 

[ThomasT]

But this video does give an excellent reason why citizens must be so, so careful before they decide for their country to go to war: innocents* will die. The cause for war had dang well better be worth it.

Since when is it the citizens of a country who decide for their country to go to war? I simultaneously envy and abhor your apparent naiveness. If it was up to us, the people, would we have invaded Vietnam? Would we have invaded Iraq? I don't know. I'm just asking. All I know is that nobody asked me -- and I thought that both of those actions were based on bad ideas/decisions.

 

[Cyrus]

Since when is it the citizens of a country who decide for their country to go to war? I simultaneously envy and abhor your apparent naiveness. If it was up to us, the people, would we have invaded Vietnam? Would we have invaded Iraq? I don't know. I'm just asking. All I know is that nobody asked me -- and I thought that both of those actions were based on bad ideas/decisions.

Your say in the war comes through your vote of your senator in the house and senate.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, you're missing the simple fact that virtually everything depends on this "where and when they shoot the weapons that we give them". Sending someone to a war zone does not give them the license to go about shooting off their weapons wherever and whenever they want!

I agree. And my previous post was not sufficiently qualified.

Establishing and following rules of engagement, and using human and other intelligence to verify the nature of your targets is not nitpicking.

And, of course, I can't really disagree with this either. But here's the thing. We place young people, very young people, into situations where they have to make split-second decisions regarding whether to shoot or not to shoot -- at other people. I don't know your personal history, but unless you've been in a situation like that I think that it's very very difficult to even imagine what it's like. I'm assuming of course that you, and the people who currently populate our armed forces, are generally the sorts of people that most of us would consider to be conscientious and caring people.

I'm just making two points:
(1) Journalists who choose (in fact anybody who chooses) to go into combat should expect to be injured or killed.
(2) If a kid makes a mistake or a wrong decision in an unimaginably (to most people) difficult momentary situation (a subset of an encompassing decision, by him, which might eventually put his life on the line for what he, at the time he made the encompassing decision, thought to be a greater good), then do we nail him to the wall for it? Do we ruin his life as well? Ok, it depends on the circumstances. But in this particular case, from what I've read so far, it was an honest mistake.

If you want to hold somebody accountable, then look to, and at, the very few people who are actually responsible for these 'wars' in the first place -- and that's where I'm going to leave this discussion.

 

[ThomasT]

Your say in the war comes through your vote of your senator in the house and senate.

Right. So I have no say in the war. The people do not make the decision. The house and senate are populated by politicians -- a notoriously, and necessarily, corrupt group of individuals. This is a country of more than 300 million (that's million) individuals -- most of whom didn't vote for either the members of the house or the senate, or for the president. We're taken to war by a handful of individuals. A very few people in the house, senate, cabinet, and adminstration actually decide and determine the courses of action that the US will take. These are not necessarily the most honorable people among us (or the best courses of action for the country, or the world). In fact, most probably not. But they are the ones making the decisions that will affect the lives of not just US citizens, but millions of people throughout the world.

So, what can we do about it. Well, to start with, stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. And, if that's all that's on the ballot, then write someone in.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't speak for the specific situation here, but regarding this statement (emphasis mine):

I'm assuming of course that you, and the people who currently populate our armed forces, are generally the sorts of people that most of us would consider to be conscientious and caring people.

All it takes is a small minority of bad apples[1] to create the situations that do require investigation and prosecution. Odds are the people you pass everyday on the streets are also generally the kind that most would consider conscientious and caring. But crimes still happen. And when they do, it is in our interest to investigate and prosecute them. An assumption of carte blanche innocence is not helpful. If an investigation shows that the act was a result of an honest mistake that most anyone else in the situation would have made, then so be it, but if it reveals more than that, then the necessary punishment is in order. The important thing though is that you do investigate and prosecute actions that are potentially damaging. "You're just a young kid that we give guns to and send you out to kill people" ought not to be any part of the argument in determining whether an event in the field requires investigation and/or trial.

1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118

 

[Cyrus]

Right. So I have no say in the war. The people do not make the decision. The house and senate are populated by politicians -- a notoriously, and necessarily, corrupt group of individuals. This is a country of more than 300 million (that's million) individuals -- most of whom didn't vote for either the members of the house or the senate, or for the president. We're taken to war by a handful of individuals. A very few people in the house, senate, cabinet, and adminstration actually decide and determine the courses of action that the US will take. These are not necessarily the most honorable people among us (or the best courses of action for the country, or the world). In fact, most probably not. But they are the ones making the decisions that will affect the lives of not just US citizens, but millions of people throughout the world.

So, what can we do about it. Well, to start with, stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. And, if that's all that's on the ballot, then write someone in.

How you can you sit there and complain about 'not having any say' in the war, when you can directly vote these people out of office - gimme a break. If the majority of people don't vote but only complain, they really ought to just keep their opinions to themselves... The US is not a direct democracy.

 

[ThomasT]

I can't speak for the specific situation here, but regarding this statement (emphasis mine):All it takes is a small minority of bad apples[1] to create the situations that do require investigation and prosecution. Odds are the people you pass everyday on the streets are also generally the kind that most would consider conscientious and caring. But crimes still happen. And when they do, it is in our interest to investigate and prosecute them. An assumption of carte blanche innocence is not helpful. If an investigation shows that the act was a result of an honest mistake that most anyone else in the situation would have made, then so be it, but if it reveals more than that, then the necessary punishment is in order. The important thing though is that you do investigate and prosecute actions that are potentially damaging. "You're just a young kid that we give guns to and send you out to kill people" ought not to be any part of the argument in determining whether an event in the field requires investigation and/or trial.

I can't disagree with anything you've said here. I was one of those 'bad apples'.

What I wanted to emphasize was the fact that we never hold the people who make the decisions that result in the unnecessary ruination of millions of lives accountable. And, I sincerely think that we should, as a people, collectively, at least think seriously about how we might do that.

Anyway, I'll repeat my mantra. Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Gokul43201]

Right. So I have no say in the war.

I wouldn't go so far.

It was the huge support among the electorate[1] for a war in Iraq that, IMO, made it all possible. I don't think, for instance, that the Dems would have caved and signed on to the Iraq War Resolution bill if they hadn't calculated that objecting would make them look wimpy to a constituency that was still demanding revenge[2] for 9/11. If there had not been a 9/11, it would have been a whole lot harder for the Bush admin to sell the idea of the necessity of war in Iraq to the people, and hence to Congress. It would also have been much harder to enlist recruits[3].

1. 72% of public support war in Iraq (March 2003) - Pew Research
2. Poll shows 69% of public believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11 attack - Washington Post
3. 90% or troops serving in Iraq think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 - Zogby

 

[ThomasT]

How you can you sit there and complain about 'not having any say' in the war, when you can directly vote these people out of office - gimme a break. If the majority of people don't vote but only complain, they really ought to just keep their opinions to themselves... The US is not a direct democracy.

Well, I can't directly vote anyone out of office. But if people stop voting for Republicans and Democrats, then maybe we'll get some positive changes in this country. The problem is, everybody is fairly comfortable. Precious few people actually take their civic responsibilities seriously. We've been, collectively, lulled to sleep. The congress is free to pursue this war or that war. Nobody gives a s**t. Is this really the sort of situation that you would call a 'democracy'. Are you really proud of a country where fully 50% of those who are eligible to vote don't even bother to? Personally, it makes me sick. The US will get what it deserves, which is third world status by 2100. This is our destiny. It's what not giving a s**t gets you.

 

[ThomasT]

I wouldn't go so far.

It was the huge support among the electorate[1] for a war in Iraq that, IMO, made it all possible. I don't think, for instance, that the Dems would have caved and signed on to the Iraq War Resolution bill if they hadn't calculated that objecting would make them look wimpy to a constituency that was still demanding revenge[2] for 9/11. If there had not been a 9/11, it would have been a whole lot harder for the Bush admin to sell the idea of the necessity of war in Iraq to the people, and hence to Congress. It would also have been much harder to enlist recruits[3].

1. 72% of public support war in Iraq (March 2003) - Pew Research
2. Poll shows 69% of public believe Saddam personally involved in 9/11 attack - Washington Post
3. 90% or troops serving in Iraq think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11 - Zogby

As I said in my previous post, citizens of the US do not take their civic responsibilities seriously. They do not dig to find the truth. They are satisfied to be manipulated by advertising and propaganda. They are comfortable. They don't give a s**t. Hence, they are pawns of the 'elected' elite.

The remedy -- as I've said, stop voting for Republicans and Democrats. If there isn't any other party on your ballot, then write somebody in. That's what I do. It isn't difficult.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I can't directly vote anyone out of office. But if people stop voting for Republicans and Democrats, then maybe we'll get some positive changes in this country. The problem is, everybody is fairly comfortable. Precious few people actually take their civic responsibilities seriously. We've been, collectively, lulled to sleep. The congress is free to pursue this war or that war. Nobody gives a s**t. Is this really the sort of situation that you would call a 'democracy'. Are you really proud of a country where fully 50% of those who are eligible to vote don't even bother to? Personally, it makes me sick. The US will get what it deserves, which is third world status by 2100. This is our destiny. It's what not giving a s**t gets you.

Where do you get this third world status by 2100 claim from?

Note: I don't disagree with you on the people not caring but we can directly measure that by the number of people that actually go to the polls. Historically, it isn't any more or less now than it has been in the past, so your assertion that we are going down because of a lack of voter turnout has no basis. If what you said were true, the US would have been on the decline since the 1960s.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html