Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


just curious.... what's stronger and bigger than hitting us with a bunch of nukes?

i figure you can't top bombing a large place out of existence.

Nukes were definitely one of the topics discussed. One fellow (I wasn't sure if he was a student) suggested direct military action by taking out the US bases in Korea and Okinawa before moving to the West Coast. "Ah, but the East Coast," the fellow said, "let's think about what we should do with that." There was also some talk about sending the PLA to assist the Serbians (nevermind they were the agressors). Besides the US embassy getting stoned, the UK, German, French, and even the Albanian (nevermind they were the victims of ethnic cleansing) embassies were getting stoned.
 
As for all those chat rooms and bulletin boards, we Macrumors regulars can probably agree with my observations that we talk more loudly online than in real life.

Great point. Flaming is all too easy here. I doubt the arguments would get nearly as bad if we had to look each other in the face.


They clearly destested what the US did, but they didn't hate the US itself.

It was a freakin' ACCIDENT! I mean granted, we could always have better intelligence, but c'mon! If we REALLY wanted to hit China, we all know the CIA's capable of doing so much more to hurt them than us hitting one of its embassies.
 
all these example you guys are using are either accidents or actions of a single person, not state policy.

we aren't systematically killing kurds (iraq) or tibetans (China).

we are not promoting policies which will lead to international sanctions which will ultimately hurt and kill our citizens due to lack of food and medicine (iraq and n. korea).

we do not have a "president" who wants to act as a dictator and shoot people in the streets from his "presidential" palace (venezuela)

we do not support terrorists who fly fully loaded transatlantic jets into 100+ story business towers. (iraq, iran, saudi arabia...)

we do not put people to death without trial (nigeria, iran, iraq...)

woman are not systematically segregated against, and this is not supported by the state and our religion. (most Muslim countries)

while those incidents were bad and probably preventable, **** happens. sorry people. there are bigger things to deal/complain about.
 
Originally posted by idkew
all these example you guys are using are either accidents or actions of a single person, not state policy.

Of course it is not the United States' policy to have its soldiers run over Korean girls or rape Japanese women in Okinawa. But does this mean that the US military shouldn't do more to prevent such incidents from happening in the future? And does this mean that the United States should continue to allow its soldiers to be above the laws of the host country?

To borrow another analogy, should we just shrug when we hear about the molestation cases in the Catholic Church? Of course, since it's not the policy of the Catholic Church to have their priests molest children, these incidents are indeed "actions of a single person." Nonetheless, does this mean the Catholic Church should continue to operate as it always does? Or should it identify some of the root causes and strive to never allow such incidents from happening in the future?

In the incident in Italy, the Italians had complained many times about how low the jets were flying. Their complaints were ignored. An incident finally occurred, and although the act was of a single person and was an accident, doesn't the United States military hold some responsibility for the incident considering how many times they've been warned? Before the Okinawan gang rape incident a few years ago, the Okinawans had long complained about how US servicemen were (and still are) responsible for alot of the crime on the island. Their pleas were ignored. Is the United States completely blameless?

while those incidents were bad and probably preventable, **** happens. sorry people. there are bigger things to deal/complain about.

The grand strategy of the United States is to maintain a military presence around the world for commerical and geopolitical reasons. These incidents unnecesarily damage the prestige of the United States, and tests the goodwill of the host countries. Though I was born in another country, I am a proud to consider myself an American, and I think the United States has a lot to offer to the rest of the world. However, such incidents unnecessarily soils the reputation of my adopted homeland and also unnecessarily imperils its military flexibility. Maintaining a forward presence is especially important in this "War on Terrorism" that requires the United States military to respond quickly around the world.

Look, there are always "bigger things to deal/complain about", but this doesn't mean the United States can continue to let its servicemen act in such a manner overseas. The United States needs to have its soldiers act in a responsible manner--if not for the goodwill of the host country, then at least for its pride and self-interest. What other countries do is a non sequitur with respect to this problem.
 
If we participate in enforcement assistance actions or other friendly occupations of countries, then our troops in these states need to be subject to the the laws of those states. If you don't like that, then we should get out of these countries, because if we stay we'll make enemies of friends. No matter our good intentions, the more American soldiers get off so easily, the more we'll be viewed as an imperialist monster.
 
Originally posted by Kyle?
If we participate in enforcement assistance actions or other friendly occupations of countries, then our troops in these states need to be subject to the the laws of those states. If you don't like that, then we should get out of these countries, because if we stay we'll make enemies of friends. No matter our good intentions, the more American soldiers get off so easily, the more we'll be viewed as an imperialist monster.

Exactly. We don't need to make enemies where we don't have to. You hit the nail right on the head, man.
 
i agree with you mactheknife, i hope you did not think i was saying that the troops should be above the law.

i don't know the insides of the trials, but if these people were indeed guilty, they should have been punished according to military law.

we can not have our troops follow foreign laws. in some countries i am sure it is illegal to have sex before marriage. maybe the punishment is castration. would you support the castration of a man who innocently had consensus sex with a soon-to-be wife?

what we need is military law to be enforced. like i said, i don't know all about those incidents, but if you are guilty, you shouldn't get off.
 
Originally posted by idkew
i agree with you mactheknife, i hope you did not think i was saying that the troops should be above the law.

i don't know the insides of the trials, but if these people were indeed guilty, they should have been punished according to military law.

we can not have our troops follow foreign laws. in some countries i am sure it is illegal to have sex before marriage. maybe the punishment is castration. would you support the castration of a man who innocently had consensus sex with a soon-to-be wife?

what we need is military law to be enforced. like i said, i don't know all about those incidents, but if you are guilty, you shouldn't get off.

Understood. I agree--the laws of some countries may be vastly different than what Americans would consider just, and the judiciary systems of other countries may also be very weak. What if, however, the situation was reversed? Let's say country X has a base stationed in California and it is not against the laws of country X to have its soldiers sleep with 5 year-old girls/boys? And what if country X had an agreement with the US similar to the one the US has with South Korea? If such an accord did exist and a country X soldier did commit such a vile act, the soldier could--in theory--be protected by the US-country X military accord.

Wouldn't it just have been better if country X was a good guest who told its soldiers to respect the laws and customs of the US and to exercise greater supervision to prevent such incidents from occuring? Besides, South Korea is a modern industrialized nation and a firm ally of the United States. I think it's not out of the question to trust their judicial system.

Now, I agree we should protect the men and women of our armed services against unjust laws abroad. However, the incidents in Korea, Okinawa, and Italy were cases of manslaughter or rape--something a bit more universal than a cultural misunderstanding.

Sorry for the rant. ;) What distresses me is how many Americans seem to have this attitude that the rest of the world owe us something for protecting them, and that incidents like these--while certainly regrettable--is just the price of the protection of the United States. But I have already shown in this thread that it is also in the interests of the US to have its soldiers stationed abroad and that such ugly incidents threatens the position of the US and did not have to occur.
 
Originally posted by macktheknife


Understood. I agree--the laws of some countries may be vastly different than what Americans would consider just, and the judiciary systems of other countries may also be very weak. What if, however, the situation was reversed? Let's say country X has a base stationed in California and it is not against the laws of country X to have its soldiers sleep with 5 year-old girls/boys? And what if country X had an agreement with the US similar to the one the US has with South Korea? If such an accord did exist and a country X soldier did commit such a vile act, the soldier could--in theory--be protected by the US-country X military accord.

well, i guess that as a parent you must keep your children away from their base.

another reason: we can not have our women soldiers in the middle east wearing "coveralls" (i don't know the correct term for COMPLETELY being covered) when they are trying to wage war. the indigenous people would prolly much rather have it that way.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.