In Somalia several corporals and privates disobeyed orders, the military punished them and Canada publicized the process. The entire regiment was disbanded in disgrace. The US examples are qualitatively different. US atrocities were committed by whole units under orders and the US only came clean after the facts were exposed - and not always then (Google Tiger Force). They happen time and time again – Vietnam then all over again in Iraq. And how many others successfully hidden?
And you have presented that as typical, in the sense that you presume that a colonel about whom you know nothing except that he fired a comedian who made off-colour sexual jokes is a Southerner, a right-winger, a Bush worshipper, and an actual or would-be war criminal.
Oh, and by the way, you also presume that attacks which kill civilians are intended to do so, when anyone with a shred of sense not overwhelmed by blind hatred and bigotry would realise that is not the case.
I don’t believe that any U.S. serviceperson who comes to my notice would like to commit atrocities. Nor did I sayso or even imply it. This isn’t a personal issue. However it is clear history that official America commits and conceals war crimes as a matter ofcourse. There is a difference between periodic criminal activities by individuals and systematic war crimes by a national government. We grew up in the Cold War being told what constituted unacceptable war crimes. The US government was forever accusing Russia of them, only it turns out America was the guilty party.
You cannot lie your way out of this. Your words are on record. I quote, bolded for convenience:
"That comedian was bad? Herr Colonel is SO typically American conservative, obsessed with other peoples’ morality, women’s genitalia and breeding habits, and straining at the bit to jump into his high performance aircraft and kill a few Muslim families for Christ and the US Constitution.
His lifelong ambition is probably to do with sitting beside George W. Bush on a Sunday morning in a Southern Baptist church, or matching IQ’s with Ronald Reagan."
You judged that Colonel Ciero is, and I quote, "straining at the bit to. . . kill a few Muslim families." And now you're claiming you didn't say that. And once again, I re-emphasise that you made this judgement based on precisely ONE fact. . . the fact that the Colonel had fired a comedian who made what you thought at the time were crude sexual jokes.
[FONT=Times New Roman]Please accept my apology if you feel personally attacked. Such is not my intention.
I reject your apology because it is no apology, merely a form of words. A true apology involves three elements:
1. An acknowledement that you have done something wrong.
2. Genuine regret that your wrong action has harmed someone.
3. An intention to avoid repeating the error.
You have not acknowledged you did anything wrong, and you have made it clear you see no reason to avoid bigoted snap judgements based on next-to-zero information in the future.
I suppose it must hurt seeing how the rest of the world feels about your country. America is a world pariah – as nasty as North Korea and Syria but unfortunately much bigger and closer to home. I am home and I feel entitled to discuss it. Please don’t leave. Somebody has to take the word back to America.
And this little fling demonstrates the insincerity of your "apology." Otherwise, don't make me laugh. I've dealt with dog turd bigots like you all my life, whose personal inadequacies and fears led them to lash out at the colour of my skin, my rank at the time, my profession, my nationality, and even such trivia as my preferred sports teams. You think yourself of particular weight and significance? Get over it. Bigots are a penny a tonne.
So, let us reiterate. I am under no illusion that you will profit from the lesson, but pour encourager les autres
. . .
You read the little snippet in the OP.
You went off on your rant, stating as fact
things about Colonel Ciero that you could not possibly know, and thus were based on your predispositions (also called "prejudices").
I, by going through the massive effort of clicking on one link and reading a handful of paragraphs, found a possible alternate explanation of the colonel's actions: that he was highly concerned about "jokes" that laugh at and make light of sexual assault and rape, of particular importance as the U.S. Forces struggle with a sexual assault crisis no less serious than the race problems they suffered in the 50s and 60s.
You, being a bigot, rejected this new information when it was brought to your attention, and merely redoubled your attack on the colonel as a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian, Republican war criminal, none of which you know or can demonstrate with the first scintilla of evidence.
I have little doubt you were, and remain, quite proud of yourself. For reasons that utterly escape me, I have found that bigots are often actually proud of their willful ignorance and truculence.
OK, I lied. I know exactly why they are proud of their willful ignorance and truculence.
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy
First of all those who are critical of those in command are a little over the top.
Then there is the material, yes likely offensive to some especially conservatives,
Christians and those who don't think sexual assault is funny.
The truth is I don't think jokes about sexual assault are funny I have daughters and
granddaughters. Don't see anything funny about that subject at all. I am not
known as a conservative either.
The other problem is military brass really shouldn't determine what's funny either.
That is determined by those attending the concert. Really soldiers are grown ups
they don't need to be told what is good and what is bad, or what is sinful or not.
Soldiers should have enough sense to know that sexual assault isn't funny either.
I agree. Nonetheless, policing the conduct, and even the thoughts, of soldiers is a time-honoured military tradition.
Let me re-frame the issue for one and all.
I have presented evidence, not conclusive but weighty, that the colonel's actual motivation was objection to jokes that made light of rape, a matter of particular concern in our military.
Well, fifty years ago, military leaders were struggling mightily to effect racial integration in our military. Would you all be similarly incensed if a unit commander fired a comedian who was making vicious jokes about how stupid and lazy "n*iggers" and "sp*cs" were? Or would you mount up your liberal high horse and approve of his actions?
If you object to the colonel shutting down violent, sexist jokes addressed to men and women for whose attitudes he is responsible, but would not object to the colonel shutting down racist jokes similiarly addressed, you are a mere hypocrite.