3 ms·

It's not like this is a hypothetical -- the US military is deployed all over the world, and routinely faces protesters. Do these confrontations result in violen

by bcoates 12y ago

It's not like this is a hypothetical -- the US military is deployed all over the world, and routinely faces protesters. Do these confrontations result in violence more often than, for example, ones involving US domestic police forces?

rdtsc 12y ago
> Do these confrontations result in violence more often than, for example, ones involving US domestic police forces? Well if domestic police force could use drone to blast away protesters they would rather do that then get down and dirty. But alas they actually have put on their tactical vests and drive the APC to the scene...
- mpyne 12y ago
  The U.S. Army doesn't simply use drones to blast away protestors though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. There have been many soldiers who have died because in their race to follow proper "Escalation of Force" procedures, the other guy blew them up or shot them before they could get to the point where the soldier was allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. When the U.S. Army finally went to New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Gen. Honoré told his subordinates that he would get the paratroopers serving under him shot, before he would allow soldiers to walk around with body armor, weapons un-slung, or to open fire at anybody. They were quite successful in helping to restore order, and they didn't have to open fire on anybody; this was contrasted with police efforts beforehand, which had been limited to "stay in your homes". So go ahead and talk about Vietnam all you want. You should probably throw in Kent State too! But this is 2014, and the Army should be evaluated on what it's doing today and into the future.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    > The U.S. Army doesn't simply use drones to blast away protestors though, What does it do? How many large protests have there been in Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't anything large happening there. You know why. Because anyone trying to organize protests in a war zone get killed "enemy combatants". > the other guy blew them up or shot them before they could get to the point where the soldier was allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. Ok, let's talk modern day if you don't like Vietnam. What the fuck was a US soldier doing in Iraq to start with? Was there a draft? I don't recall there being one. If Iraqi Army was in the streets of New York you bet you'll see their soldiers getting below up to bits with IEDs just as much even if not more. > Gen. Honoré told his subordinates that he would get the paratroopers serving under him shot, So Gen. knows how to spew propaganda. Hell, he wouldn't be a good general if he didn't. > So go ahead and talk about Vietnam all you want. I will. It provides a solid historical basis. We can go further back too. > the Army should be evaluated on what it's doing today and into the future. What is it doing today? Have the found any WMDs yet? They sure spent a lot of time, money and lives looking. If that doesn't spell "failure" I don't know what does. It is both economic, moral, political and social. Let's chat some more. How about that Abu Ghraib? What was that all about. A few bad apples. How about the apples down in Cuba. Also a few bad apples. What happened in Mahmudiah? Raping children. Bad apples again. What the fuck where they doing there to start with. There is more. But I just get angry writing about it. So I think I'll stop here. I was just being nice talking about Vietnam. But ok if you want to talk about recent event, fine let's talk about.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > What the fuck was a US soldier doing in Iraq to start with? Was there a draft? I don't recall there being one. A draft has nothing at all to do with whether the invasion in 2003 was a legal use of armed force or not, under U.S. domestic law or international law. If that invasion was illegal without the draft, then it was also illegal with a draft. Being a conscript doesn't make your participation in an otherwise illegal invasion magically legal. But. Even if you disagree (as I do) with the justification for invading in Iraq in 2003, there are and were plenty of legitimate reasons for U.S. forces to be there to restore security after the U.S. fucked everything up. In fact, the current government of Iraq and the Kurdish pesh merge invited the U.S. back in to conduct air strikes to beat back ISIS (who prominently came to power after the U.S. military left...), much to the acclaim of practically the entire world, including the U.N., including Pope Francis, including Iraqis themselves. I'll bet even Iran was happy. But that U.S. intervention was just as legal as the U.S. presence in 2005. You can't have your cake and eat it too, man. > So Gen. knows how to spew propaganda. Hell, he wouldn't be a good general if he didn't. It wasn't just the General. The Democratic mayor of New Orleans was quite complimentary as well: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/honore.profile/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/honore.profile/ But either way, no offense but your idea that an Army General (or soldier in general) is simply locked into being a bloodthirsty monster by virtue of the system they operate in is just as crazy as the idea that being a black single mother must make you a welfare queen, or that being a gay homosexual must mean that you like home decorating and keep up with fashion. > Have the found any WMDs yet? The Army never said there was WMDs to find, so what's that have to do with anything. > How about that Abu Ghraib? Reported to the world by the Army? That Abu Ghraib? I mean, if you want to bash on the Army, you should bash on the Army for refusing to promote the Major General who investigated the conditions at Abu Ghraib after it was leaked to the world and came back with a report damning of the entire setup of the U.S. presence at the prison. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-report http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-re... There's plenty of bad apples, alright, but they were wearing stars on their collars, and suits and ties, and included officers and civilians. Not just generals, but Rumsfeld, and Congress too. Should we disband Congress then? Install a benevolent dictator? Gen. Taguba points it out best himself: "From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service. And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values...". OK, so there are a bunch of senior officer shit bags... does that make integrity, service, honor and duty bad things? No, it doesn't, and in any event soldiers get immersed in those values to a far greater degree than local and state police forces. It was those same values about sacrifice and integrity that led a junior enlisted soldier to inform the world about the Mahmuydiah atrocity you pointed out. That wasn't caught by a human rights activist, it was caught and reported by a soldier. So if your viewpoint is that an entire institution must be put to death for the crimes of its members I'm going to have to disagree. Should all libertarians have to answer for the slayings contracted by DPR? Should all Socialists have to answer for Stalin and Mao?

by bcoates 12y ago

rdtsc 12y ago

> Do these confrontations result in violence more often than, for example, ones involving US domestic police forces? Well if domestic police force could use drone to blast away protesters they would rather do that then get down and dirty. But alas they actually have put on their tactical vests and drive the APC to the scene...

mpyne 12y ago
The U.S. Army doesn't simply use drones to blast away protestors though, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. There have been many soldiers who have died because in their race to follow proper "Escalation of Force" procedures, the other guy blew them up or shot them before they could get to the point where the soldier was allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. When the U.S. Army finally went to New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Gen. Honoré told his subordinates that he would get the paratroopers serving under him shot, before he would allow soldiers to walk around with body armor, weapons un-slung, or to open fire at anybody. They were quite successful in helping to restore order, and they didn't have to open fire on anybody; this was contrasted with police efforts beforehand, which had been limited to "stay in your homes". So go ahead and talk about Vietnam all you want. You should probably throw in Kent State too! But this is 2014, and the Army should be evaluated on what it's doing today and into the future.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > The U.S. Army doesn't simply use drones to blast away protestors though, What does it do? How many large protests have there been in Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't anything large happening there. You know why. Because anyone trying to organize protests in a war zone get killed "enemy combatants". > the other guy blew them up or shot them before they could get to the point where the soldier was allowed to use deadly force in self-defense. Ok, let's talk modern day if you don't like Vietnam. What the fuck was a US soldier doing in Iraq to start with? Was there a draft? I don't recall there being one. If Iraqi Army was in the streets of New York you bet you'll see their soldiers getting below up to bits with IEDs just as much even if not more. > Gen. Honoré told his subordinates that he would get the paratroopers serving under him shot, So Gen. knows how to spew propaganda. Hell, he wouldn't be a good general if he didn't. > So go ahead and talk about Vietnam all you want. I will. It provides a solid historical basis. We can go further back too. > the Army should be evaluated on what it's doing today and into the future. What is it doing today? Have the found any WMDs yet? They sure spent a lot of time, money and lives looking. If that doesn't spell "failure" I don't know what does. It is both economic, moral, political and social. Let's chat some more. How about that Abu Ghraib? What was that all about. A few bad apples. How about the apples down in Cuba. Also a few bad apples. What happened in Mahmudiah? Raping children. Bad apples again. What the fuck where they doing there to start with. There is more. But I just get angry writing about it. So I think I'll stop here. I was just being nice talking about Vietnam. But ok if you want to talk about recent event, fine let's talk about.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > What the fuck was a US soldier doing in Iraq to start with? Was there a draft? I don't recall there being one. A draft has nothing at all to do with whether the invasion in 2003 was a legal use of armed force or not, under U.S. domestic law or international law. If that invasion was illegal without the draft, then it was also illegal with a draft. Being a conscript doesn't make your participation in an otherwise illegal invasion magically legal. But. Even if you disagree (as I do) with the justification for invading in Iraq in 2003, there are and were plenty of legitimate reasons for U.S. forces to be there to restore security after the U.S. fucked everything up. In fact, the current government of Iraq and the Kurdish pesh merge invited the U.S. back in to conduct air strikes to beat back ISIS (who prominently came to power after the U.S. military left...), much to the acclaim of practically the entire world, including the U.N., including Pope Francis, including Iraqis themselves. I'll bet even Iran was happy. But that U.S. intervention was just as legal as the U.S. presence in 2005. You can't have your cake and eat it too, man. > So Gen. knows how to spew propaganda. Hell, he wouldn't be a good general if he didn't. It wasn't just the General. The Democratic mayor of New Orleans was quite complimentary as well: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/honore.profile/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/honore.profile/ But either way, no offense but your idea that an Army General (or soldier in general) is simply locked into being a bloodthirsty monster by virtue of the system they operate in is just as crazy as the idea that being a black single mother must make you a welfare queen, or that being a gay homosexual must mean that you like home decorating and keep up with fashion. > Have the found any WMDs yet? The Army never said there was WMDs to find, so what's that have to do with anything. > How about that Abu Ghraib? Reported to the world by the Army? That Abu Ghraib? I mean, if you want to bash on the Army, you should bash on the Army for refusing to promote the Major General who investigated the conditions at Abu Ghraib after it was leaked to the world and came back with a report damning of the entire setup of the U.S. presence at the prison. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-report http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-re... There's plenty of bad apples, alright, but they were wearing stars on their collars, and suits and ties, and included officers and civilians. Not just generals, but Rumsfeld, and Congress too. Should we disband Congress then? Install a benevolent dictator? Gen. Taguba points it out best himself: "From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service. And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values...". OK, so there are a bunch of senior officer shit bags... does that make integrity, service, honor and duty bad things? No, it doesn't, and in any event soldiers get immersed in those values to a far greater degree than local and state police forces. It was those same values about sacrifice and integrity that led a junior enlisted soldier to inform the world about the Mahmuydiah atrocity you pointed out. That wasn't caught by a human rights activist, it was caught and reported by a soldier. So if your viewpoint is that an entire institution must be put to death for the crimes of its members I'm going to have to disagree. Should all libertarians have to answer for the slayings contracted by DPR? Should all Socialists have to answer for Stalin and Mao?