Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

On the one hand, they make [POTUS] look like a coward using his family's economic privilege to avoid serving his country.

"Serving his country"? The military of any country don't serve, they murder. Calling it war, or "serving", doesn't make it not murder.

The same goes for any religion that proposes killing as a means to perpetuate itself. Like the crusades, and jihadists, etc.

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by retina

"Serving his country"? The military of any country don't serve, they murder. Calling it war, or "serving", doesn't make it not murder.

The same goes for any religion that proposes killing as a means to perpetuate itself. Like the crusades, and jihadists, etc.

There is a large range, within homicide, from self defense or defense of others that produces or may credibly produce a substantial net reduction in expected lives lost, or court ordered execution, negligent homicide, to completely unjustified murder. Had someone timely interfered with Adam Lanza's health, near or in his objective, most of 20 children and 6 staff would have lived, at Sandy Hook, that did not. I wonder where you would place abortion, with its US toll of over 60 million direct intended fatalities since 1973, on the spectrum of definitions of homicide. The killing fields of Cambodia were stopped by the intervention of its neighbor, Vietnam. When genocide or other madness is already afoot, would you have all others stand idly by or look away? There is sometimes a moral duty to act to oppose evil. As a last resort, that involves deadly force. “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/tyranny

Two of my uncles served in WWII, and I'll not have you libeling them.
Shooting someone charging your foxhole with deadly intent in the middle of the night is not murder, it is self defense. (Of course, the fellows charging the foxhole on Iwo Jima and elsewhere were serving their emperor and following orders.)
"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

"Serving his country"? The military of any country don't serve, they murder. Calling it war, or "serving", doesn't make it not murder.

The same goes for any religion that proposes killing as a means to perpetuate itself. Like the crusades, and jihadists, etc.

I'm a realist (aka pragmatist or cynic). As an example: fewer Germans died in WW2 than the size of the continental population of Jews, Roma, niggers, queers, etc. A strictly utilitarian analysis concludes that murdering a few million Germans was cost-effective.

Extremely plausible arguments, made by respected military historians of several nationalities, conclude that the incineration of about a hundred kilo-Japanese almost certainly resulted in a net reduction in Japanese fatalities --- let alone those of other nationalities.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

"Serving his country"? The military of any country don't serve, they murder. Calling it war, or "serving", doesn't make it not murder.

The same goes for any religion that proposes killing as a means to perpetuate itself. Like the crusades, and jihadists, etc.

One of the saddest aspects of Japan's war effort was its propaganda to its civilian populace, to the effect that being captured by the Americans would mean rape, torture, and death. As a result, a number of US victories -- Saipan and Okinawa come to mind -- were followed by civilians committing mass suicide by jumping off oceanside cliffs. To my mind, these unfortunate people were murdered by their own government.

Besides the nuclear bombings, Japan's surrender was impelled by the Soviet Union's declaration of war, and the invasion and occupation of the Kuril Islands. Japan's leaders knew that Stalin didn't care how many of his soldiers died (unless "the more the better" is caring), and probably feared -- rightly -- what the Red Army would do to Japan's civilian population.

The last-ditch plans for defending the home islands involved civilians being suicide soldiers, and fighting armed soldiers with swords and bamboo spears. The military part of the home defense plan was well done -- they had pretty much figured out the landing zones that would be used, and Allied casualties would have been appalling. The supply of Purple Hearts (awarded to soldiers wounded in combat) made in preparation for the final invasion is still being used to this day.

"Murder" may be properly used to describe some of Japan's operations in WWII -- the "Rape of Nanking" -- which Japan still refuses to acknowledge even occurred -- or the "three alls" policy, or mass retaliations, like leveling whole villages if they thought anyone there helped Doolittle's Raiders escape.

It is well to remember that the US tried to rein in Japan's campaign of military conquest (notably in Manchuria) with economic sanctions, rather than by force of arms. Japan responded with a military offensive throughout the Pacific, which included the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Up until that point, the US was largely isolationist. The next day, my dad, who had been contemplating becoming a conscientious objector, went to enlist, even though he was underage. A lot of his friends also went down to enlist. He wound up serving in Europe for a few months, before he was seriously wounded and shipped home. He killed enemy soldiers in combat, but if you want to call him a murderer, at least have the decency to do it personally. I hope you're not in a hurry, though.

The culpability of a soldier in wartime -- particularly in furtherance of a bad policy -- is an issue that has been around for a long long time. I quote The Bard (The Life of King Henry the Fifth, Act 4, Scene 1)

KING HENRY V: I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being just and his quarrel honourable.

WILLIAMS: That's more than we know.

BATES: Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.

WILLIAMS: But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.

[Till]

Very interesting discussion.
I would blame the politicians instead of the soldiers...

[retina]

Originally Posted by kriesel

There is a large range, within homicide, from self defense or defense of others that produces or may credibly produce a substantial net reduction in expected lives lost, or court ordered execution, negligent homicide, to completely unjustified murder. Had someone timely interfered with Adam Lanza's health, near or in his objective, most of 20 children and 6 staff would have lived, at Sandy Hook, that did not. I wonder where you would place abortion, with its US toll of over 60 million direct intended fatalities since 1973, on the spectrum of definitions of homicide. The killing fields of Cambodia were stopped by the intervention of its neighbor, Vietnam. When genocide or other madness is already afoot, would you have all others stand idly by or look away? There is sometimes a moral duty to act to oppose evil. As a last resort, that involves deadly force. “The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/tyranny

Two of my uncles served in WWII, and I'll not have you libeling them.
Shooting someone charging your foxhole with deadly intent in the middle of the night is not murder, it is self defense. (Of course, the fellows charging the foxhole on Iwo Jima and elsewhere were serving their emperor and following orders.)
"A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy

Originally Posted by xilman

I'm a realist (aka pragmatist or cynic). As an example: fewer Germans died in WW2 than the size of the continental population of Jews, Roma, niggers, queers, etc. A strictly utilitarian analysis concludes that murdering a few million Germans was cost-effective.

Extremely plausible arguments, made by respected military historians of several nationalities, conclude that the incineration of about a hundred kilo-Japanese almost certainly resulted in a net reduction in Japanese fatalities --- let alone those of other nationalities.

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

One of the saddest aspects of Japan's war effort was its propaganda to its civilian populace, to the effect that being captured by the Americans would mean rape, torture, and death. As a result, a number of US victories -- Saipan and Okinawa come to mind -- were followed by civilians committing mass suicide by jumping off oceanside cliffs. To my mind, these unfortunate people were murdered by their own government.

Besides the nuclear bombings, Japan's surrender was impelled by the Soviet Union's declaration of war, and the invasion and occupation of the Kuril Islands. Japan's leaders knew that Stalin didn't care how many of his soldiers died (unless "the more the better" is caring), and probably feared -- rightly -- what the Red Army would do to Japan's civilian population.

The last-ditch plans for defending the home islands involved civilians being suicide soldiers, and fighting armed soldiers with swords and bamboo spears. The military part of the home defense plan was well done -- they had pretty much figured out the landing zones that would be used, and Allied casualties would have been appalling. The supply of Purple Hearts (awarded to soldiers wounded in combat) made in preparation for the final invasion is still being used to this day.

"Murder" may be properly used to describe some of Japan's operations in WWII -- the "Rape of Nanking" -- which Japan still refuses to acknowledge even occurred -- or the "three alls" policy, or mass retaliations, like leveling whole villages if they thought anyone there helped Doolittle's Raiders escape.

It is well to remember that the US tried to rein in Japan's campaign of military conquest (notably in Manchuria) with economic sanctions, rather than by force of arms. Japan responded with a military offensive throughout the Pacific, which included the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Up until that point, the US was largely isolationist. The next day, my dad, who had been contemplating becoming a conscientious objector, went to enlist, even though he was underage. A lot of his friends also went down to enlist. He wound up serving in Europe for a few months, before he was seriously wounded and shipped home. He killed enemy soldiers in combat, but if you want to call him a murderer, at least have the decency to do it personally. I hope you're not in a hurry, though.

The culpability of a soldier in wartime -- particularly in furtherance of a bad policy -- is an issue that has been around for a long long time. I quote The Bard (The Life of King Henry the Fifth, Act 4, Scene 1)

Well, a lot of defending war there. But so far no one has said what they did/do isn't murder.

The primary purpose of the military is to kill the other guys, right? If it isn't then why do they have so many weapons? And if you were born on this side of that arbitrary line then you should be supporting us! Else if you were born on the other side of that arbitrary line then we will kill you because we don't like you. Oh, unless your birth was beyond another line on the other end of this piece of dirt, then you are a "good guy" because our government says so. Rah, rah, rah! Be a patriot. It's all good, nothing bad could ever come from it.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

The primary purpose of the military is to kill the other guys, right? If it isn't then why do they have so many weapons?

Not really. It is to take possession and control of land (with maybe the government thrown in as well and sometimes just particular individuals). If they can do this without shooting, they do it. The raid that got OBL did not have as the goal to slaughter everyone, it was to get the big cat. Sgt York did not get recognition for mowing down a bunch of folks, he got it by capturing them. Weapons (small arms in particular) are used when people resist the takeover (and generally are hostile back.)

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Well, a lot of defending war there. But so far no one has said what they did/do isn't murder.

The primary purpose of the military is to kill the other guys, right?
<snip>

People killing other people is homicide. Not all homicide is murder. Killing in defense of self or others is "justifiable homicide" and not a crime. Soldiers killing other soldiers in combat is generally not considered murder. Soldiers shooting captives or those trying to surrender (as in "taking no prisoners") is murder.

But on to the primary purpose of the military. With the Mongols or the Roman legions, yes, killing the other guy was the primary tactic for gaining objectives -- tribute, land, plunder, slaves, what have you. Both the Mongols and the Romans were very good at killing people. So, for that matter, were the samurai in feudal Japan.

In more recent times, shows of force and military tactics geared to put the enemy in an indefensible position have been used, to deter adversaries from a course of action, or force them to retreat or surrender in furtherance of some other objective.

[kladner]

https://readersupportednews.org/news...us-doctors-say
Actually, it is adults, as well. Notably, insulin and blood pressure, as well as anti-seizure medications are being taken and not returned or replaced. The Border Patrol [QUOTEFor the past year and a half, Dr. Eric Russell has been traveling from Houston to McAllen, Texas, every three months or so to volunteer at the Catholic Charities Humanitarian Respite Center, a first stop for many asylum-seeking migrants who’ve been released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the Rio Grande Valley.

During his most recent visit to the clinic in April, when he saw more than 150 migrants, he noted a troubling new trend: a number of people reported that their medication had been taken from them by U.S. border officials.

“I had a few adults that came who had high blood pressure, who had their blood pressure medications taken from them and, not surprisingly, their blood pressure was elevated,” Russell told Yahoo News. “There was a couple of adults that had diabetes that had their diabetes medicines taken from them, and wanted to come in because they were worried about their blood sugar. And, not surprisingly, their blood sugar was elevated.”

For Russell, a pediatric emergency medicine physician, the patient who stood out the most during that visit was a boy of 8 or 9 with a history of seizures. According to his mother, the child had been on a long-term seizure medicine in their home country, but the medication had been taken from him upon entering the Border Patrol custody in McAllen and never returned.[/QUOTE]

[Dr Sardonicus]

Il Duce's use of "acting" cabinet secretaries reminds me of Mayor Richard J. Daley's use of "temporary" appointments to get around the Shakman decree and fill positions with political loyalists. Of course, Daley had a mighty political club to wield over City Council -- in addition to being Mayor, he was also head of the Cook County Democratic Party organization -- meaning that he controlled all the patronage jobs. Il Duce has no similar hold over the US Senate.

GOP mutters, gently, as Trump sidesteps Senate for top aides

By ALAN FRAM
June 17, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s latest anointment of an acting head of a major federal agency has prompted muttering, but no more than that, from Republican senators whose job description includes confirming top administration aides.

Their reluctance to confront Trump comes as veterans of the confirmation process and analysts say he’s placed acting officials in key posts in significantly higher numbers than his recent predecessors. The practice lets him quickly, if temporarily, install allies in important positions while circumventing the Senate confirmation process , which can be risky with Republicans running the chamber by a slim 53-47 margin.

The latest example is Ken Cuccinelli, who last week was named acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He is an outspoken supporter of hard-line immigration policies and his appointment was opposed by some key Senate Republicans.

WP columnist and former Dubya speech writer Michael Gerson used part of the following quotation, which I think is especially apt here, in an October 2017 column. I found the source of the quotation here.

Brave men are all vertebrates; they have their softness on the surface and their toughness in the middle. But these modern cowards are all crustaceans; their hardness is all on the cover and their softness is inside. But the softness is there; everything in this twilight temple is soft.

-- G. K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles

[kladner]

-by Richard Wolffe

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...iled-integrate

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done,” Trump tweeted on Sunday, apparently talking about a group of American members of Congress, including those who were born in the Bronx, Detroit and Cincinnati.

That’s the problem with immigrant families like the Trumps. They have no respect for our traditions and our elected representatives.

They hate our freedoms so much that they want to turn us into some kind of European dictatorship like they used to have back home. When they talk about our God-given constitution, they sound like they haven’t even bothered to read the Cliff’s Notes version.