Question For Republicans

[hismajesty]

I don't know. But what I do know is that I'm much more concerned about the lives of those who defend me and my family than those who most likely agree with those trying to bring them harm. Of course though, one million civilians to one American is a bit extreme.

[Hazard]

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...

First of all, both cities had military importance. I suggest you pick up the book "Rise to Globalism" by Steven E. Ambrose and read it if you are interested in learning more about US tactical decisions in World War II.

Second, dropping the bomb saved lives. Care for me to go in depth?

[Adron]

I don't know. But what I do know is that I'm much more concerned about the lives of those who defend me and my family than those who most likely agree with those trying to bring them harm. Of course though, one million civilians to one American is a bit extreme.

Good to hear that you think that's a bit extreme

It sounds like your moral standpoint on the issue of enemy civilians and friendly troops is something not unconventional or very strange to me. Doesn't mean I have to agree, but...

You'd probably make a reasonable trade-off in enemy civilian lives vs friendly troops. Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

[hismajesty]

Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.

[Grok]

Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.

Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.  Maybe even the president is misguided human being and not the government, if we use your definition.

Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.

The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.

[Adron]

Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?

[quasi-modo]

Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?

When planes fly into buildings full of civilians they are monsters. Targeting civilians is completely wrong. The cole bombing was bad but that was targetting our military not our civilians. When they hit innocent people just to kill innocent people it is completely wrong.

[Adron]

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?

When planes fly into buildings full of civilians they are monsters. Targeting civilians is completely wrong. The cole bombing was bad but that was targetting our military not our civilians. When they hit innocent people just to kill innocent people it is completely wrong.

Good, you saw what I was getting at.   I'll be glad if things can stay on an intellectual, analytical level.

But the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs targetted civilians, didn't they? They were justified because they saved American lives. Saved American lives compared to what? To surrendering? To invading Japan and fighting their infantry, their military?

Consider al-Qaeda as having the option of sending thousands of Afghanistani men against your armies, probably not making a statement of the same strength as the twin towers, or to just send twenty men, taking out civilians instead of fighting your modern well-equipped troops and tanks.

It seems to me like al-Qaeda's choice is supposed to be to kill civilians, or to do nothing (lose). But then Americas choice could've been to drop nukes or retreat, where retreat wouldn't cost more American lives at that time?

[Hazard]

Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.

It has never been the stated practice or a standing order in the US military to torture or humiliate prisoners. These are misguided people wraught with emotion who did something foolish.

Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.

I firmly believe that no officer in the high command would have ordered this. You ahve no evidence whatsoever to back that up, and its insulting to the commanders.

The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.

If it is, indeed, a general order, why hasn't this order been published anywhere, and why cant it be found?

[Grok]

Hmm, care to clarify what you mean by "US government"?  Is a misguided human being who works for the US government still part of that government?  Or are they just a misguided human being?  If they are a government employee who orders the torture of prisoners, and you classify them as misguided, then you have won your argument every time.

It has never been the stated practice or a standing order in the US military to torture or humiliate prisoners. These are misguided people wraught with emotion who did something foolish.

Sorry, but enlisted ranks and junior officers get guidance on what to do from their superiors.  The superiors have direct knowledge of what is going on on a daily basis.  I have no faith that negligence is the extreme crime here.  The officers in charge of the guards doing the torturing had to have their own asses covered by their superiors having ordered them, albeit maybe verbally and not written, to extract information from the prisoners in the manner done.

I firmly believe that no officer in the high command would have ordered this. You ahve no evidence whatsoever to back that up, and its insulting to the commanders.

The abuses were too widespread and common to be anything but a general order.

If it is, indeed, a general order, why hasn't this order been published anywhere, and why cant it be found?

Orders are not always written ones.  A general order can come down and you would never get anything but a verbal.  Disobey it and you're screwed.  With Bush and Congress passing the Patriot Act which destroys civil liberties and due process, how could an uneducated junior enlisted know the difference between right and wrong anymore?  With his commanding officer (Bush) stating that civil liberties can be suspended in a time of war, and with the US Supreme Court backing him on this, those in the chain of command had better just obey or be threatened with courts-martial and being called traitor and other names.

I've been in the military for 6 years, during good years in which these situations and fears were not present.  Even during my time, 95% of my orders were verbal, not written.  About 30%-40% of the time the order was given to me when no one was around.  How does one prove a verbal order?

[hismajesty]

Have you considered the reverse though, i.e. an enemy of yours making a trade-off between his troops and your civilians?

Yes. When I was typing my response earlier I was thinking that the same is true elsewhere.

What do you think about that? Is it acceptable that your enemies show little concern for your civilians, or does that make them "monsters"?

I don't think it makes them 'monsters'  since anybody with patriotism should have more concern for their countrymen than their enemies. However, when radical groups target civilians because they have a different religion - I think that makes them monsters.

[quasi-modo]

Adron Al Quida target our innocents not in hopes of saving their blood, but just to kill our innocents. Our reason from dropping the bomb was very different from their reason for knocking down our buildings. We knew that using the bomb would end the war, they knew that dropping our towers was not going to end anything, but it would kill our people so we did it.

If I were the president I would not have chosen the bomb. But that does not make it the same as an act of terrorism like that on 9/11. Because we did not go after civilians just for the hell of it makes it very different from 9/11.

[hismajesty]

They didn't go after us on 9/11 'just for the hell of it' though. I mean, they had their reasons. They think they're still in jihad (holy war) and Christians are the enemy. To them, they're fighting to keep their faith alive and keep the infidels from potentially harming it.

[quasi-modo]

They didn't go after us on 9/11 'just for the hell of it' though. I mean, they had their reasons. They think they're still in jihad (holy war) and Christians are the enemy. To them, they're fighting to keep their faith alive and keep the infidels from potentially harming it.

Yes yes, but their goal was stricktly to kill civilians. That was not our goal when we dropped the bomb. It was to get japan to surrender.

[Hazard]

Orders are not always written ones.  A general order can come down and you would never get anything but a verbal.

So, Bush ordered Rumsfeld who in turn ordered Army Cheif of Staff Gen. Schoomaker who in turn ordered Gen. Franks at CentCom who in turn ordered Gen. Ricardo Sanchez who in turn ordered some Brigadier General who in turn ordered some Colonel who in turn ordered some Captains who in turn ordered some Sergeants who in turn ordered some corporals and privates? Sounds kind of...

Disobey it and you're screwed.

You do not have to follow an order that is unlawful and if the order is demanded one could request that the order be put in writing. Officers know that full well.

With Bush and Congress passing the Patriot Act which destroys civil liberties and due process

Thats not true, its just common misconception. Read the Patriot Act. Not the summary given to you by the Washington Post, read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

how could an uneducated junior enlisted know the difference between right and wrong anymore?

Common sense? Enlistedmen are all farmiliar with the UCMJ, as I'm sure you are.

I've been in the military for 6 years, during good years in which these situations and fears were not present.

No offense Grok, but that means you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about when it comes to this exact situation.

Even during my time, 95% of my orders were verbal, not written.  About 30%-40% of the time the order was given to me when no one was around.

How many of those orders did you find legally and morally questionable? How many of them asked you to violate the rules of war?