Audio Asylum Thread Printer

In Reply to: First off, thanks for at least keeping part of YOUR vitriol in control posted by tinear on October 13, 2006 at 13:46:54:

"How many veterans you have had the courage to discuss this matter in person?
--Well, that's hardly pertinent but I have many friends who were Vets and with whom I've disagreed for years. I also ran a homeless shelter for years whose clients predominantly were Vietnam-era vets."
It is pertinent, because you indicted those soldiers that chose, if they volunteered, to fulfill their obligation (contract), or if they were drafted, their countries order. You essentially called them killers, a point which you reiterate in your post - "They didn't think of the children, women, elderly, and innocent men they'd be killing or help to be killed." If killing children is not murder, then what is it? At least have the courage label it as you describe it.
You are able to label these soldiers are killer. I was simply wondering whether that was a view you provide here, somewhat anonymously, without actually confronting those you are accusing, or whether you have the "cajones" to tell these soldiers to their faces that they were "killer" at best, or murderers or aiders of murderers of children. I think I know the answer.
"--If this is their argument (why do I feel it's really yours?) it is incorrect. When we had our 500,000+ troop levels, which we did for years, in 'nam, the vast majority were draftees."
Givne your age during that period in our history, I am surprised that you missed the point. The anti-war groups complained that this was a poor man's war not only because the poor enlisted man presumably had no other choice but to enter the military for economic purposes, but also because, those drafted, lacked the finanical wherewithall and family connections to either defer, or dodge the draft. Therefore, there was no socio-economic difference between the drafted and the enlisted soldier.
"Surely you'd agree that one could be a volunteer and then refuse to fight in a specific war? In other words, a man cannot be coerced into killing another."
Certainly. Which dovetails to the original point - have you personally criticized as killer those soldiers who allowed themselves to be cooerced into killing another - or do you leave that to posting, where there is little chance of consequence (read - pissed off vet).
"They didn't think of the children, women, elderly, and innocent men they'd be killing or help to be killed. Ignorance or non-consideration of consequences, of course, is not a strong defense."
You know this? How about those massive bombing runs over Berlin? You mean these soldiers were duped into thinking there is no collateral damage? Not only do you think them murderers (my word - but call it what it is), you think them stupid and naive. Heightened sense of superiority?
"You need to read a condensed version of The Pentagon Papers. Hint: we didn't intervene out of any great desire to see a better life for the Vietnamese. One reason was the Domino Theory, advanced first by Ike. Another was to send a message to China that we wouldn't stand for communism in a SE country. Then there was the fact that Vietnam was the "rice basket" of SE Asia. You may wish to take a gander at F. Fitzgerald's "Fire in the Lake" and be disabused of your right-wing rantings."
No doubt our intervention was due to a perceived need to protect our "interests", which at that time was the containment of communism. But this was a war, ultimately, to stop South Vietnam from becoming communist, as opposed to ending communism in North Vietnam. At the end of the day, it was a civil war, whereby North Vietnam was attempting to make South Vietnam communist, thereby uniting Vietnam. I merely wrote that this was a defensible position - not the U.S. motivation.
"Arguing with yourself again? The Nuremberg PRINICIPLE is that "just following orders" is NOT a justifiable defense in conflict of ANY sort."
That was not the point of Nuremberg. The "following orders" defense has been used as a defense to committing atrocities long before Nuremberg. The purpose of Nuremberg was to bring criminals to justice. Some Nazi underlings attempted to defend their actions by claiming they were ordered to commit atrocities, and had no choice, while others offered no defense. Nuremberg had nothing to do with those soldiers who fought in uniform against allied forces. Following your line of logic, every soldier who fought for Germany (most of which were not Nazis) would have been prosecuted for killing allies, for bombing London, for pillaging the Soviet Union, etc.
Article 6 of the Nuemberg Charter:
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan
Your statement that Nuremberg stood for the proposition that "following orders" is not a defense in conflicts of ANY conflict is factually and historically incorrect. Many of the defendants never wore a uniform.
"Of course morality is critical to a film's standing. Art does not occur in a vacuum. For instance, slasher films which glorify torture and killing as "sport' no matter how cleverly filmed, well-acted, or perfectly scripted must always be execrable trash.
Art is, after all, for human beings, not wild animals."
Which would seem to run counter to your love of Tarantino, particularly Pulp Fiction. Jules viciously murders for a living, killing unarmed, helpless people. His punishment? Walking into the sunlight a' la Caine. Marsellus, the ringleader of the carnage, calls his peeps over to give some rapists "what for", apparently carrying on his criminal enterprise with nary a reprocussion. Maybe you are a proponent of moral relativity. But heaven forbid a filmmaker not protray Vietnamese people to your satisfaction. I might start throwing out all those John Wayne westerns where the Indians say "How."
"---You have twice missed my points about why this film is amoral. Go back and try again."
I have not missed them. They simply make no sense.

Films/DVD Asylum

Re: First off, thanks for at least keeping part of YOUR vitriol in control