OT: HBO's Taking Chance

[wdboyd]

Listen you blithering fool... you would not have your damn country, democratic or not, if dedicated warriors were not out ther sacrificing their arm, legs, health and lives to defend it.

Individual feelings about this are irrevelant.

How could the U.S. poor get their welfare and food stamps is the country fell to its enemies? Money... bah. We have and still pour enormous amounts of money down too many socialist ratholes as it is. Our Great Society programs spent Billions to eliminate poverty. Result? Money gone, poverty remained. People that think like you turn my stomach.

The best any country can do is provide the economic potential for success (wealth) to those that apply themselves. Sadly, a ever growing problem is that more and more people want the government (tax payers) to support their, non tax paying, sorry butts and feel they are entitled to it. And the number of non tax payers, is continually increasing. These same, non performers, can vote, and they elect and re-elect socialist who think like you to keep getting their handouts from the government.

Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that pay no taxes and financially burden our countries institutions (hospitals, schools etc.)

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Remember, "The poor you will have among you always."

Also, I'd wager you would be one of the first to flee his country if asked to defend it in the military.

wdboyd (Retired U.S.M.C.)

[skrewball]

ORIGINAL: Japan

Instead of waging war, use the resources on improving your own country, educate your citizens, provide health care and a good living standard for everyone.

And again...this is a policy statement...this has to do with what a government does with the funds it maintains. This is not the purpose of the movie or the intent I had when I posted the link. I do not disagree with you that I wish the funds spent on the wars of our world could have been used towards better options. However, wishing never really gets us anywhere.

I am talking about a single individual...I am talking about closure for a grieving family.

I understand that you and I have different viewpoints and I am not going to debate those here. If you want to talk the politics of "wasteful government" please open another thread, I wanted those people in this forum who have a connection to the military (both the US and abroad) to know about this movie.

[sabre1]

ORIGINAL: wdboyd

Listen you blithering fool... you would not have your damn country, democratic or not, if dedicated warriors were not out ther sacrificing their arm, legs, health and lives to defend it.

Individual feelings about this are irrevelant.

How could the U.S. poor get their welfare and food stamps is the country fell to its enemies? Money... bah. We have and still pour enormous amounts of money down too many socialist ratholes as it is. Our Great Society programs spent Billions to eliminate poverty. Result? Money gone, poverty remained. People that think like you turn my stomach.

The best any country can do is provide the economic potential for success (wealth) to those that apply themselves. Sadly, a ever growing problem is that more and more people want the government (tax payers) to support their, non tax paying, sorry butts and feel they are entitled to it. And the number of non tax payers, is continually increasing. These same, non performers, can vote, and they elect and re-elect socialist who think like you to keep getting their handouts from the government.

Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that pay no taxes and financially burden our countries institutions (hospitals, schools etc.)

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Remember, "The poor you will have among you always."

Also, I'd wager you would be one of the first to flee his country if asked to defend it in the military.

wdboyd (Retired U.S.M.C.)

Before this gets locked down:

Amen Wdboyd

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: wdboyd

Listen you blithering fool... you would not have your damn country, democratic or not, if dedicated warriors were not out ther sacrificing their arm, legs, health and lives to defend it.

Individual feelings about this are irrevelant.

How could the U.S. poor get their welfare and food stamps is the country fell to its enemies? Money... bah. We have and still pour enormous amounts of money down too many socialist ratholes as it is. Our Great Society programs spent Billions to eliminate poverty. Result? Money gone, poverty remained. People that think like you turn my stomach.

The best any country can do is provide the economic potential for success (wealth) to those that apply themselves. Sadly, a ever growing problem is that more and more people want the government (tax payers) to support their, non tax paying, sorry butts and feel they are entitled to it. And the number of non tax payers, is continually increasing. These same, non performers, can vote, and they elect and re-elect socialist who think like you to keep getting their handouts from the government.

Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that pay no taxes and financially burden our countries institutions (hospitals, schools etc.)

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Remember, "The poor you will have among you always."

Also, I'd wager you would be one of the first to flee his country if asked to defend it in the military.

wdboyd (Retired U.S.M.C.)

PS: Well, there was alot of Political statements in your text, only reason to why i mantion it is because it was mantioned above that it was not allowed.


As replay, i say this:


1) I have nothing against the military, nor that one uses it as an armed force to defend its own or anothers nation.
I do however have alot against using it as a offensive weapon against suverigan nations, something I any time would voulentere to defend.
With other words, I would use my own head and decide if my country is attacked or if it is my country who is the one declaring war.
(If the common German or Jap male would had those values then there would been no WW2. - The danger starts when you stop thinking yourself).

2) I live in Scandinavia, pr definition they are all sosialist counters.
They work actually very very very good, so there is nothing wrang with that as pr principal governmental system.
I don't understand why you call nations with that govement form for "socialist ratholes".
They are actually the most happy in the world..

3) I don't understand what you mean with USA falling to the enemy, I assume it would defend itself as any other nation.
There is a huge difference between waging war on independent countrys and defending itself.
If any country is attacked It is my opinion that they have the right of defend themselves.
Any attacker however, I think should be disabled.

If you travel the world sir, (I recommend to Afrika) you will see the effects of Offencive war.

[old man of the sea]

looks like the language barrier is to thick to have a real discussion here

you all should call it quits

Japan,

I'm not sure what to say to you, but if you are going to continue get a translator.

E

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Japan

I do however have alot against using it as a offensive weapon against suverigan nations, something I any time would voulentere to defend.
With other words, I would use my own head and decide if my country is attacked or if it is my country who is the one declaring war.
(If the common German or Jap male would had those values then there would been no WW2. - The danger starts when you stop thinking yourself).

[:D] You can't be serious.

Henceforth, I will set my coffee down before reading one of your posts.

You may live in an utopia, but I assure you; it is a very, very small speck on this earth. You will be absorbed.[:D]-oh, and you will like it.

[mlees]

1) I have nothing against the military, nor that one uses it as an armed force to defend its own or anothers nation.
I do however have alot against using it as a offensive weapon against suverigan nations, something I any time would voulentere to defend.
With other words, I would use my own head and decide if my country is attacked or if it is my country who is the one declaring war.
(If the common German or Jap male would had those values then there would been no WW2. - The danger starts when you stop thinking yourself).

Unfortunately, once you join the military, you're in. You are expected to carry out the orders of those who are placed into the proper positions of authority over you.

There is not a regular military organisation in the world were the soldiers get to vote on which wars or battles they fight in.

(Irregular forces are, of course, different.)

I assume the movies message was about grief (the loss of a loved one), and how some folks deal with it, and not about current political events. As such, such a story could be set in any 19th/20th century war.

[old man of the sea]

I assume the movie is all about respect......

Anyone know anything about that?

E

[Grell]

ORIGINAL: wdboyd



Also, I'd wager you would be one of the first to flee his country if asked to defend it in the military.

wdboyd (Retired U.S.M.C.)

Let him have it man![:)]

Regards,

Grell

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Unfortunately, once you join the military, you're in. You are expected to carry out the orders of those who are placed into the proper positions of authority over you.

When I did my military servise (here it is universal military servise, I also spent time abroad) I remember one very important thing I learned (sorry if the translation is bad) :

"Do not follow any order or decission that I personaly can not guarantee is within the limits of International law,
the Geneva Convention or regulations defined in the Human Rights Regulation, any of those threatys are above my personal valus, they stand above my commanding officers orders, and they stand above any political decissions from my own goverment, I will personaly be responsible if I or any under my command fail to obay them".

Now with that in maind, it is also pointed out specificly (evan at seval locations) that conducting offencive war aiganst another suverigen nation without a resulution from the UN is a crime, for this reason if an order like that would be given,
I would personaly arrest the officer who gave it.

So, it is (at least not here) no longer possible to blaim your commanding officers.. or to say you only followed order,
here every individual solider is expected to think himself, and to act only within the regulations of International law.
His personal opinion does not count, and he do not need to obay any order conflicting with International law.
This is not only the SOP given to soldiers, but also constituted into the Actual Law of the Country.

I understand based on what you say that it is different in your country, but here anyways you can not get away with
"only following orders", you are here not expected to only follow orders, but to evaluate them first with the Law perspective in maind, then to execute them, you are also expected to on the battlefield take own initiatives and to act without orders if you value it to be in favur of your side, aigan only you will be responsible both in failure and sucsess.
Individual responsibilety is valued, officers will guide the troops throu an opperation, but any of the troops are expected and educated to be able to do it also if neccesary.


(PS: The idea about educating privates to that degree of responsibilety is because as this is a nation with a drafted army
a full wartime mobilisation would make it over 500 000 soldiers, but the nation has only 4000 high and low ranking officers,
so every soldier in the current standing army (13 000 men) would take upon the role of an officer in a
full war mobilisation situation, this means that the current standing army has privates (not conscripts)
with a large degree of education, you can call it an standing army of semi-educated officers).

[skrewball]

You know what...this thread is getting to be rigoddamndiculous!
 
Japan...our president ordered our country to war. He was our elected leader...our armed forces headed that call. How dare you turn this into a soapbox for your beliefs. You've essentially stepped on the body of a dead marine in order to do so. I was pointing out a movie that may have had a profound impact on those of us who have lost people in this war...or any war. It is a story about the respect we show our war dead.
 
Can some one please lock this thread, freedom to listen to ignorance only goes so far!

[Japan]

Well, the thread got a political perspective,  sevral inputs from sevral individuals made it so  (evan from a Mod i think..?).
I understand the thread becomes unconfterble, and that there is alot of differences in the world, and that none here can be blaimed for that.

I (we) still think that every individual has a responsibilety,  and im sure you still think its up to a handfull of men to decide life and death for thousends.

But I agree with your point above, we have gone a bit off topic.

Good Eavning to you and yours sir.

[;)]

[Arctic Blast]

ORIGINAL: skrewball

All remains are escorted home by someone. Whether it is friend, family or military. The story stands out because he was a Lt Col...generally only Enlisted or Jr Officers will escort someone's remains home.

I was pretty sure that was the case...thanks for the confirmation. Anyway, the movie looks good, and HBO doesn't tend to waste time on crap so I'm pretty sure the production will be top notch as well.

[morvwilson]

Japan,
One Idea I would put forth to you.
How are laws enforced?
In our cities, it is by police. If your people do not obey the laws, they are forced to by police departments.
How do you enforce international law when there is no international police force.
For instance, a police officer from Tokyo has no jurisdiction in San Francisco because citizens of San Francisco are not bound to obey Japanese law.
On the international scene, military arms are used not usually to enforce law, but policy.
Since the UN has no military of its own, it can not enforce its own policy. As a result, the UN is little more than a debate club where occasionally, countries agree on common policy.
Therefor, I would put it to you that international law does not exist.
For the US military, they are not bound to evaluate every order they are given or evaluate them by using rules developed by foreign bodies. They are bound by the military law or the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) and any applicable domestic laws.
Hope this helps you.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Japan,
One Idea I would put forth to you.
How are laws enforced?
In our cities, it is by police. If your people do not obey the laws, they are forced to by police departments.
How do you enforce international law when there is no international police force.
For instance, a police officer from Tokyo has no jurisdiction in San Francisco because citizens of San Francisco are not bound to obey Japanese law.
On the international scene, military arms are used not usually to enforce law, but policy.
Since the UN has no military of its own, it can not enforce its own policy. As a result, the UN is little more than a debate club where occasionally, countries agree on common policy.
Therefor, I would put it to you that international law does not exist.
For the US military, they are not bound to evaluate every order they are given or evaluate them by using rules developed by foreign bodies. They are bound by the military law or the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) and any applicable domestic laws.
Hope this helps you.

Hello sír morvwilson

I abseloutly understand your point.

I would say that International law is a set of Rules that several nations has promised to obey.

International law covers things like "defining a war crime" and also how and who that shall prosecute individuals for it,
it also cover definitions of what's a Human Right and also covers Rules of War (Geneva Convention).

Some nations (none western) who ignore this laws will get internationaly punished, like world wide sanctions decided by the UN. If they are good freinds with a large nation they will not get punished as it will use its veto to prevent that.
So that is a good definition of International Law.


It continue however, as several nations has decided to write the actual text of several of the different paragraphs into its national laws. This they have done to regulate its own government, its military and its police forces.
In some cases it have Evan been implemented directly into the constitution, so if a soldier then ignores it, he has not only ignored International law but then also comitted a crime aiganst his own constitution.

Also a Democratic Government nor a military Officer want to give an order who conflicts with its own constitution.
Imagine the extreme public reaction if a Govermant made a decission conflicting with its own constitution.

I think Internatilnal law is important in the world as it helps us seperate the good ones from the bad ones,
and for the nations who implement it in its national laws and constitutions it also reduses the chanses for atrocitys ect conducted by this nations.



[:)]

[morvwilson]

The other problem with international law, is that in order to enforce it on any offending nation, you have to over come any resistance. I have a hard time coming up with an example of this being done by economic sanctions or negotiations. This is because it is impossible to have reasonable, honest negotiations with unreasonable or dishonest people.
The quote "trust but verify" comes to mind here for me.
Usually, resistance has to be overcome by force. This is where the military comes into play.
You can't try war criminals until you first win the war.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

The other problem with international law, is that in order to enforce it on any offending nation, you have to over come any resistance. I have a hard time coming up with an example of this being done by economic sanctions or negotiations. This is because it is impossible to have reasonable, honest negotiations with unreasonable or dishonest people.
The quote "trust but verify" comes to mind here for me.
Usually, resistance has to be overcome by force. This is where the military comes into play.
You can't try war criminals until you first win the war.

I agree in most of your statements above sir morvwilson.

The one I'm a little unsure of, is that "you have to use force to enforce international law", in sevral cases that would itself be illegal as sevral agreemants says that only with permission from the UN security causal can one use military force in offencive role aiganst another nation.
The UN security causal will regardless give premission to do this if it is importent enugth, or automaticly give it if any nation commits genaside ect.

The problem we face when dealing with international law, is that it only apply to the nations who have signed the threaty.
Ie. we can not sanction Iran for ignoring paragraph xx unless Iran actually has committed to obeying paragraph xx by signing the threaty that defines that paragraph. Now regarding Iran they did however sign sevral international treatys, and by doing so recognise sevral parts of international law. (still large parts they have not recognised, and for this reason don't need to obey).

Hopefully there will not be a war, regimes have (unfortunately) the same right to exist as any other suveregin nation.
Democracy, Communism, Facism ect is only some of many forms and ways to govern a nation, and there is no nation who can decide how another nation shall be governed.

So, the only way we (in a legal way) can deal with them is to try to sanction them, or to deny trading with them, and this we can do as independent nations or we can try to get the world to stop trading with them as well, usually this is done in the UN security causal.

There is a few flaws with the UN security causal who causes an unbalance, first of all you have "western" nations who pr legual definition should be sanctioned but who can't because other western nations prevent it by using their veto
(ie. Israel can't be sanctioned due to US vetoes). You also have nations like China who should be sanctioned,
but who can't be sanctioned because they are way to important to the world economy.
So the nations this rules actually work for as intended are nations who do not have a major nation as its friend,
or who is generally disliked by all sides, and who "the world don't need" to be friends with.

The European Union are working this year by setting up its own independent board who will have the right to sanction a nation at own will, then all EU nations will be obligated to obey their decision. It is alot easier for EU (or the US) to make a decission like this indipendently, then to have it done in the UN, as the UN is a far more complicated organization, not to mention that several nations has veto there as well. It is also fully legual to do, as any indipendent nation or union of nations have the right to decide who they will trade with.

It is however strictly forbidden for any indipendent nation or union of nations to declare war upon
another indipendent nation or union of nations unless it is sanktioned and approved by the UN security causal.
If we shall go to the actual law, it sayes that waging offencive war is a crime aiganst humanety.

Another sidenote, in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court sevral modern and new decissions was made regarding this, including the right for the court to investigate and tryl any military serviceman from any nation,

something who in 2002 caused seven countries to vote against the treaty:

China, Libya, United States, Israel, Qatar, Iraq and Yemen voted NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statu ... inal_Court


It is very interesting to see what countrys voted No to this treaty.
The treaty will for the ones who voted Yes anyways, help to reduse international crimes.

Some of the first decission made by the court, was that any servisman from any nation, regardless if his nation voted yes or no, can be arrested and be brought by force to the court for tryl if suspected for war crimes.
As far as the court is conserned, this means that any soldier can be arrested on any soil and moved by force to this tribunal for tryal, something who was reinforced by 2 other international agreemants made during 2006.
All the nations who voted No in 2002 protested aiganst the decission, but was over ruled.

Pr definition, the nations who voted No are not part of the treaty, but any servisman from that nation risk being arrested and brought to the court regardless of nationalety if suspected for comitting a war crime.
Sevral (western) named individuals are internationaly wanted by the court.
Sevral of them are suspects in ongoing torture or kidnapping investigations.

So, International law is very very advansed law, as it includes a combination of already existing treatys, new treatys and treatys not recognised by all nations, and Evan treatys not recognised by all nations but who still practicly count for all nations.

[Missouri Rebel]

ORIGINAL: wdboyd

Listen you blithering fool... you would not have your damn country, democratic or not, if dedicated warriors were not out ther sacrificing their arm, legs, health and lives to defend it.

Individual feelings about this are irrevelant.

How could the U.S. poor get their welfare and food stamps is the country fell to its enemies? Money... bah. We have and still pour enormous amounts of money down too many socialist ratholes as it is. Our Great Society programs spent Billions to eliminate poverty. Result? Money gone, poverty remained. People that think like you turn my stomach.

The best any country can do is provide the economic potential for success (wealth) to those that apply themselves. Sadly, a ever growing problem is that more and more people want the government (tax payers) to support their, non tax paying, sorry butts and feel they are entitled to it. And the number of non tax payers, is continually increasing. These same, non performers, can vote, and they elect and re-elect socialist who think like you to keep getting their handouts from the government.

Not to mention the millions of illegal aliens that pay no taxes and financially burden our countries institutions (hospitals, schools etc.)

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Remember, "The poor you will have among you always."

Also, I'd wager you would be one of the first to flee his country if asked to defend it in the military.

wdboyd (Retired U.S.M.C.)

Amen again. But have faith. When things get bad enough around here and the only ones receiving a check are cradle to grave 'disadvantaged' people, there will finally be just rewards. Many people I know are struggling and would sure like to get some of the money they paid in taxes back.

Most people I know have to take drug tests to keep their jobs so that they can pay taxes to sustain those that don't. If you are going to receive my tax dollars, you should have to take a drug test also. Seems fair.

Yet keep in mind, as a Christian, I will do much to help my fellow man. But a hand up is not the same as a handout. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps 3rd generation welfare queens, because things are getting scarce. And you will not like what happens when those that are so resourceful as to build a nation get 'hungry'.

mo reb

and Japan, your hatred for the West is duly noted. Please take the time to boycott America. You can start by turning off your electricity, throwing your telephone away, and never boarding a flight. Good day.

[morvwilson]

As for the HBO movie "Taking Chance", it looks like one I will have to watch with some tissue handy.
At any rate, I will be looking forward to watching it.

Japan,
One thing I had to learn was this.
Treaty does not equal law.
Nations only follow treaties when it is in their best interest to do so.
For instance, North Korea in the 90's agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that agreement.
The UN security council was powerless to act because one of the permanent members, China, backed North Korea.
This also tends to illustrate the greatest weakness of the UN to actually act.

As to the treaty you mentioned about allowing other nations prosecuting our soldiers for digging fox holes, how would it be in the best interest of the United States or any nation to yield so much authority to other nations who are not always friendly?

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

As for the HBO movie "Taking Chance", it looks like one I will have to watch with some tissue handy.
At any rate, I will be looking forward to watching it.

Japan,
One thing I had to learn was this.
Treaty does not equal law.
Nations only follow treaties when it is in their best interest to do so.
For instance, North Korea in the 90's agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea broke that agreement.
The UN security council was powerless to act because one of the permanent members, China, backed North Korea.
This also tends to illustrate the greatest weakness of the UN to actually act.

As to the treaty you mentioned about allowing other nations prosecuting our soldiers for digging fox holes, how would it be in the best interest of the United States or any nation to yield so much authority to other nations who are not always friendly?

Hey aigan sir morvwilson

Regarding their Court
As it is today, they will prosecute your soldiers if they have any suspects,
right now today 121 identified American Servicemen are wanted by the international tribunal, and international wanted by the Interpol.

US have however decided to not turn them over to the tribunal, this means they are safe as long as they stay inside the USA. If they leave the US however they will be arrested.
There is a group of "private individuals" in France (can't remember what they call themselves) who are raising funds to go
to the US to kidnap the individuals to bring them to trial, they will then use the Ransom to do it over and over aigan.
That would of course be illegal to do itself, but based on what i read in their newspaper add here in Scandinavia
they seme to be "semi fanatic's" I know sevral of my coulegs have donated quite alot of money to them, we had a collecting box on work for a whole week.
(Now just for the record, I have not donated any money to them because i do not want to finance crime).

Regarding Banefit the US
It would banefit the US because the individual soldier or serviceman would know "its something bigger then the US"
out there, who actually will act if they commit a wrong-doing. I'm sure the US will act as well in sevral cases, but
there is also several cases they will not act. (ie. they properly won't interwiev and prosecute Guantanamo workers ect)
Something the Tribunal will do. The Tribunal is cooperating with several European Intelligence services to identefie
war criminals, regardless if they come from Europa, America, Afrika, ... ye you get the point, from the whole world,
it does not matter were one comes from. (is the idea behind it anyway).

So the banefit would be that national interests would not stop justice.

But regardless if US is a member of the treaty or not, the servismen who have committed a crime can newer be safe..
For a few months ago a German Televition team stepped up on the door step to one of them (in the us) and brought with them the International warrant, but then the man instead only called the police, who asked the TV Team to step off his property. If this would be those French individuals then i think the story would end differently.

Regarding The UN security council
I agree they are powerless in some situations, the US block sanctions against Israel with its Veto all the time, and so does China when it comes to sanctions against North Korea. But this will be resolved with the ability for EU and US to make its own sanctions at own will. (Active as of Jan 2010)

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

and Japan, your hatred for the West is duly noted. Please take the time to boycott America. You can start by turning off your electricity, throwing your telephone away, and never boarding a flight. Good day.

Hello Sir Missouri Rebel

I have absolutely no hate for the west sir, I'm from a western country, and I live in the west.. so i don't understand why you think I have anything at all against the west. I think I'm pretty simuler to most of my countrymen actually.
Please understand sir that the US is not the West, it is only a part of the West.
And when that is sayed, i have no hate against the US either, I might think there pepole in general are a bit uneducated
but I have absolutely nothing against Americans sir, I have several American freinds and
have been to the Americen continent 15-20 times.

I see it as I think most people do,
Nations are like pepole, You have people who commit crimes and people who don't commit crimes.
Its nothing more to it then that.

I have visited all continents of the world several times and what I have learn to be to most important thing is respect for your Neighbor, Law and Justice.
It does not matter what color you have, or by what name you call god, the only thing that matter is how you see people, if you see them as equals or not.