U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

[santafe2]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Santafe2 -

In all honesty - I have not got the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Take a deep breath. Shake the cobwebs out of your head.

Ok, at the risk of wasting my too short life, here is what you opened with on this thread.

I think that's an excellent post

Sorry, this was an awful post, really a despicable post. I've noticed that Rajiv gets a pass here but this post violated every rule of modern civility and the minimal bit structure I've come to expect on iTulip. Please don't defend your wordy position and be thankful this thread has found it's way into the iTulip dustbin.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

I've noticed that Rajiv gets a pass here but this post violated every rule of modern civility.

You have no idea how many other people in this comunity you are "giving a pass to" according to your principles and viewpoints, so don't pontificate to me. Stop your yapping to me, and ask some tough questions to the senior editors of this website.

When I have an issue, that's what I do. If I have a real ground to stand on, and I stand my ground, I get an answer. You can too, but you are only performing a "milk run" by sounding off with me. Take your argument of principle upstairs Santafe2, and get some real answers. Guess what? You'll fall out of your chair to find me backing you up! Put up the real questions to this community, or stop getting so puffed up with indignation.

You will find, that if you have a question no-one wants to answer, the asking will be a lonely task. Only occasionally will there be a payoff. I'm watching you now - to see what follow up you can muster on your concerns. No follow up = no seriousness!

[santafe2]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

So your imaginary beef with me is seriously misguided...Here you are, a late-comer, mixing it up with one of the very few guys on this website who maintained unwavering respect for your service...But for Pete's sake Santafe2, until you get your bearings on who took what positions on this issue - stay well clear of my back - because you are mixing it up with one of the few people here who has never compromised themself by offering your kind "faint praise".

Point 1: I've been misguided most of my life but thankfully that has not slowed my progress.

Point 2: Um, latecomer, I guess you got me there. But, I'm betting EJ and a few others are glad I'm here. I love this place and I'm sure I'm adding something of value to the iTulip narrative.

Point 3: No one needs your respect, just join up. Are you ready or would you rather intellectualize it to death so you don't have to put your butt on the line?

Point 4: I've never spoken personally with anyone on this board but any person that refers to me as "your kind" scares me.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Go ahead Santafe2, be a woodenhead. I don't have a beef with you. You are the one seems to have a beef with me - and frankly if we are looking at the substantive issues, it's hard to fathom the reason. What is the reason - can you enlighten me? Anything rational at all here?

What about the issue I suggested you put before this community? After all, it's your issue? Are you sliding away from addressing that here, in the midst of all this rhetoric?

[santafe2]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

You have no idea how many other people in this comunity you are "giving a pass to"

I've not given a pass to anyone here and thankfully no one has given me a pass, including you. I appreciate the community at iTulip calling me out as my ideas are well formed but never perfect.

[santafe2]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Go ahead Santafe2, be a woodenhead.

Ok, I've nothing of substance to say here, my kids have accused me of this so he might be correct.

[EJ]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Tell you what - let's put the senior editors on the spot here, where they have to take a hard position, (and some flak from some quarter!).

No fence sitting.

Ask the senior editorial staff to issue a "clear, unequivocal position statement" on the reputability of our military who in overwhelming majority have tried to carry out a policy of suppressing sectarian violence and fostering sufficient stability in the theatres in which the US attempted to intervene - namely Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Were the US military trying to foster sufficient civil peace so elections could occur in these nations and the US forces could go home with some honor? Yes or no?

Make the call Mr. Janszen. I've heard a heck of a lot of "sophisticated" arguments on this site which equate to a lot of fudging. Let's reiterate them here clearly, so these servicemen can see where iTulip stands without middle terms? Would that be constructive, or do we not comment because "iTulip does not do politics"?

Seems some months ago when I was making some of these same arguments a lot of voices were piping up suggesting to me I was an ingenuous fool? Geez, where are all those voices now, when we have two or three servicemen listening in here, waiting for a clarification?

__________

POSTSCRIPT - Ah yes, I see Fred has moved this "sensitive" topic over to the "rant and rave" pages. We have our answer gentlemen.

I'm a fan of free speech because the alternative is worse. The rules here are simple: respect your fellow members. Period. That simple rule covers a lot of ground and simplifies editorial decisions. You'll notice there are no anti-Semitic rants or other bigotry expressed here. We have a one strike rule on that kind of disrespect in particular.

This thread may be over the line as an expression of disrespect for our members who are in the armed forces. Frankly, I find it despicable. That said, it is an opportunity to set the record straight for anyone who may share the sentiments is expresses.

My feeling is that unless you've walked in the shoes of our men and women in the armed forces you have no right to criticize them. The stressful circumstances under which they are routinely asked to make life and death decisions is simply unfathomable to anyone who has not experienced it.

How do I feel about our armed forces in the Gulf? I'll tell you a story.

In 2002 when I was CEO of Bluesocket, my VP Sales came to me with an emergency situation. One of his Systems Engineers who was an Air National Guardsman had been called up to go the Gulf. He had two weeks to settle all of his affairs. Without revealing too much personal information about his circumstances, the economic hardship with respect to his family obligations put him in an impossible situation. I went to my board and requested that the company show its support for him and his service by making up the substantial difference between his service pay and the salary we paid him. In the end the team wound up pitching in to make it work within our payroll budget, the other SEs had to work harder to cover his work load, and everyone contributed with care packages and communications to help keep his spirits up and know that we were thinking about him and supporting him. I was very proud of the team.

Here's the story that ran on it. It states that his tour was 90 days but as I recall it was extended six months.

Aligning around the armed forces
February 25 2002 (Network World)

Bluesocket, a wireless gateway vendor in Burlington, Mass., is coping with the absence of a systems engineer on military leave. Stephen Kim, a lieutenant in the Air National Guard, left in October for Central Asia. He returned to the U.S. for two weeks in January and is serving an anticipated 90-day tour of duty with the Massachusetts National Guard. The company is delegating his duties and paying the difference between Kim's military pay and his regular salary.

It's a supportive gesture for the start-up, especially because Kim began working for the company just weeks before being called to active duty. "He's out making sacrifices for his country and it's the right thing to do," says Eric Janszen, Bluesocket CEO.

Bluesocket staff met Kim's family at the company picnic, and they've kept in touch since he left. Colleagues get a chance to exchange frequent e-mail with Kim, a rare military privilege afforded to those who have a communications systems role.

Bluesocket also has mailed care packages containing Halloween candy, beef jerky and ketchup. "We wear more hats, while he wears a helmet." Janszen says.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

E.J. -

I much appreciate the gesture your company undertook, and I would have tried to do the same. Here is what sticks in my craw a little bit. What about all those people on this website who have claimed America is a whisper away from a "neo-fascist state", with overt implications that the Armed Services and all police agencies are it's "strongarm"?

You acknowledge that multiple threads on this website have delved into that topic? And you must recall my statements of position on this as expressing some considerable exasperation regarding the overwrought extent of this interpretation? We all have our points of view, and notice I am avoiding any mention of who may be right or wrong here.

My question is another one. Accountability. A good few iTulipers (many quite prominent - who are around reading this in silence today!) were quite outspoken and emphatic that this was the case, and that our trops overseas were merely carrying out (implication = were the uncritical lackeys of) an utterly cynical US foreign policy?

The record evidences that iTulip editorial staff remained studiously silent on those occasions. There was little or no stern expression of a more centrist position on the "police state" thingy back then, only six months ago.

So now we have some US service personnel expressing dismay about a portrayal of the services which would appear much in line with that. I commented on it based on my very high level of respect for the vast majority of Rajiv's contributions here. He's a really decent guy, and far more widely read than nine tenths of us all. Somehow in the process, I wandered into a tangle here, because I recounted a story of some GI's I observed in Tijuana who behaved shamefully. I told what I saw only.

My observation is, that I don't much admire all those people here who were openly stating, categorically, that the US's entire action in the ME is morally bankrupt. Certainly, there are powerful and emotionally laden arguments to be made in all directions. My real beef is with all those here, who were so moralistically outspoken in those discussions, and who remain stunningly silent today in the face of these servicemen's questions.

It's time they all got their seats warmed a little bit, to reiterate those former observations here and stand up to these servicemen's questions. Wouldn't that be real salutary to the propensity to make grandly idealistic claims? Why don't the Spartacus' and Sapiens, and Rajiv's and Barts, and Metalmans of this community - all very intelligent and worthy contributors (and I really appreciate all their many excellent other contributions), step forward here and restate their arguments now that we have some real servicemen here to put forward their point of view?

America is sliding into a police state, according to all of you, and all military, security, intelligence, and armed forces agencies are the arm of this emerging police state. Ok now boys, you hold these principles - step forward, don't be shy now!

There is something in this widespread silence that is less than admirable. If they have some convictions, then show the courage of them and state them here, (like they've stated them so freely elsewhere!) where their principled notions have a foil to face, among those who've actually served and seen what's happening in those war theatres.

Above all, it's hypocrisy that grates on me. We have, as you've doubtless noted, a good few in this community who insist America is sliding into Fascism and the armed forces are sliding towards being the enforcers of that trend. To be factual, iTulip has been notable in it's silence in the face of numerous such posts. Why don't these people show some courage to speak of their convictions here, where they actually have to address the people they have been referring to?

You all know very well who you are, and your silence speaks volumes about the courage of your convictions.

[metalman]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

E.J. -

I much appreciate the gesture your company undertook, and I would have tried to do the same. Here is what sticks in my craw a little bit. What about all those people on this website who have claimed America is a whisper away from a "neo-fascist state", with overt implications that the Armed Services and all police agencies are it's "strongarm"?

You acknowledge that multiple threads on this website have delved into that topic? And you must recall my statements of position on this as expressing some considerable exasperation regarding the overwrought extent of this interpretation? We all have our points of view, and notice I am avoiding any mention of who may be right or wrong here.

My question is another one. Accountability. A good few iTulipers (many quite prominent - who are around reading this in silence today!) were quite outspoken and emphatic that this was the case, and that our trops overseas were merely carrying out (implication = were the uncritical lackeys of) an utterly cynical US foreign policy?

The record evidences that iTulip editorial staff remained studiously silent on those occasions. There was little or no stern expression of a more centrist position on the "police state" thingy back then, only six months ago.

So now we have some US service personnel expressing dismay about a portrayal of the services which would appear much in line with that. I commented on it based on my very high level of respect for the vast majority of Rajiv's contributions here. He's a really decent guy, and far more widely read than nine tenths of us all. Somehow in the process, I wandered into a tangle here, because I recounted a story of some GI's I observed in Tijuana who behaved shamefully. I told what I saw only.

My observation is, that I don't much admire all those people here who were openly stating, categorically, that the US's entire action in the ME is morally bankrupt. Certainly, there are powerful and emotionally laden arguments to be made in all directions. My real beef is with all those here, who were so moralistically outspoken in those discussions, and who remain stunningly silent today in the face of these servicemen's questions.

It's time they all got their seats warmed a little bit, to reiterate those former observations here and stand up to these servicemen's questions. Wouldn't that be real salutary to the propensity to make grandly idealistic claims? Why don't the Spartacus' and Sapiens, and Rajiv's and Barts, and Metalmans of this community - all very intelligent and worthy contributors (and I really appreciate all their many excellent other contributions), step forward here and restate their arguments now that we have some real servicemen here to put forward their point of view?

America is sliding into a police state, according to all of you, and all military, security, intelligence, and armed forces agencies are the arm of this emerging police state. Ok now boys, you hold these principles - step forward, don't be shy now!

There is something in this widespread silence that is less than admirable. If they have some convictions, then show the courage of them and state them here, (like they've stated them so freely elsewhere!) where their principled notions have a foil to face, among those who've actually served and seen what's happening in those war theatres.

Above all, it's hypocrisy that grates on me. We have, as you've doubtless noted, a good few in this community who insist America is sliding into Fascism and the armed forces are sliding towards being the enforcers of that trend. To be factual, iTulip has been notable in it's silence in the face of numerous such posts. Why don't these people show some courage to speak of their convictions here, where they actually have to address the people they have been referring to?

You all know very well who you are, and your silence speaks volumes about the courage of your convictions.

what are you yammering on about? this is an econ and finance site. if you want to rant about police states you can do it here but i don't know why anyone has to take a stand here either way... especially on your say so. ridiculous! go to prison planet's site and argue about it with someone over there.

listen, pal. our military happens to be the best in the world and its the people in it that make it so. if they get sent someplace by their commander and chief, well then off they go to do their duty. if their commander and chief and defense secretary turn out to misuse their authority to get usa troops to go to war for reasons other than the ones stated, well, guess who'll settle that score? the military itself, that's who... totally capable of taking care of that and if they need help from civilians to get the politics fixed to deal with the problem, well guess what... they ask for it and they goddamn get it, too. look where bush and rove and rumsfeld are today. you don't think the military that trusted them didn't have a thing or two to do with that?

as for this police state crap, you don't get that from your service people. that's not how it goes. what happens is a separate quasi-military police org develops... a private army with broad police powers granted by the state. you know, brown shirts and other goons. not professional mil. so if you're worried about a fascist state... look out for that development not at the folks who joined the service to defend their country.

[WDCRob]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Brown Shirts, Blackwater...

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

OK, we have the first of the blanket disclaimers. Any more?

[ Jesus, what a bunch of marshmallows ]

[metalman]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Brown Shirts, Blackwater...

under the right circumstances, possibly. hard to imagine, tho... blackwater operating in the usa as a police force.

luke, i know you...



...probably disagree!

[WDCRob]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

I wasn't saying Blackwater was a threat today, just agreeing with you MM that forces like that are how it happens. i.e. it's not the regular military.

[Andreuccio]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

under the right circumstances, possibly. hard to imagine, tho... blackwater operating in the usa as a police force.

Perhaps hard to imagine, but read on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090702214.html

or for a slightly more tin-foil-hatish version:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/scahill.

Agree with you about the US military, though, and especially about this being a financial/econ site, and demanding posters take positions. Still, this is the "Rant and Rave" section.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens

Agree with you about ... this being a financial/econ site, and demanding posters take positions.

Andreuccio - this is a total red herring. If 'this is a financial / econ site' why have numerous extended discussion on the above issues occurred here over the months? Presumably these entire threads were off topic, but everyone was joining in on those discussions with great enthusiasm then, no?

The request, very clearly phrased above, was that these former posters 'acknowledge statments they've already made in the past. Don't you also recall some long threads around here dedicated to precisely those issues, where lots of people made very clear statements of position? Where are all those 'I have a clear position on this topic' guys now? It is highly disingenuous to now say 'all that is off topic because this is a financial / econ site'. Humbug!

Asking people to merely acknowledge what they've previously stated has to do with that elusive concept called 'being accountable for your prior statements", which is not a red herring. Meanwhile, have you not noticed the yawning gap of silence in response to an invitation that these contributors merely clarify their prior thoughts? They sure seemed fairly convinced of their views at the time.

Police state? What police state? Who ever said anything about it being a police state here, or the security services being agents of repression of Americans? :rolleyes: The sound of silence here, from people who were formerly so self-assured in these observations is *cavernous*.