NUance Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How would Americans react if the French defaced the graves of dead American WW-II soldiers? We'd probably say something like, "Stupid frogs. We were on your side." Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm not sure whether it's PR or PC. All of the beheadings, hangings and dragging soldiers behind vehicles gets a 30 sec. spot after a Ron Paul or Obama for Prez ad. But when "our" soldiers do this "OMG, OMG, OMG" the sky is falling reaction from top govt orificials on down. Why is that? Because we, as a nation, hold ourselves and those that represent us on the front lines to a higher standard. It's this standard which has made us successful in prior endeavors public and private. And as long as efforts to undermine these standards in our culture (e.g. dismissing intelligence and education as unnecessary) are thwarted, it is this standard that will continue to ensure our prosperity as a nation. Additionally, this standard allows us as Americans the comfort of richeous indignation being shocked when we see sickening displays of disrespect in Iraq, or from Somolia. When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? The short answer is, we don't. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? Doesn't this intimate that at one time we did not do things like this? That our troops have, at one time, been "above" such things? Because if so, when would that have been? Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 ehhh, maybe not the best idea. But this has happened in every war since the beginning of wars. The biggest harm I see is that these images will be used to incite terrorists into retaliating. But then we'll kill them and piss on their corpses. How would Americans react if Afghanis were urinating on dead American soldiers? How would Americans react if the French defaced the graves of dead American WW-II soldiers? So you are saying this is worse than beheading soldiers and dragging them around nude behind a truck? Why would the French want to deface graves of a country that saved them from the Nazis? Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? Doesn't this intimate that at one time we did not do things like this? That our troops have, at one time, been "above" such things? Because if so, when would that have been? I was wondering if you could explain this a little better? Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? Doesn't this intimate that at one time we did not do things like this? That our troops have, at one time, been "above" such things? Because if so, when would that have been? I was wondering if you could explain this a little better? What do you want explained? I don't know how that could be more self-explanatory...? Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? Doesn't this intimate that at one time we did not do things like this? That our troops have, at one time, been "above" such things? Because if so, when would that have been? If we indicte the armed services as a whole, no, we've never been above such antics and never will. But the difference is that we continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard, or at least communicate that we do. To parallel (but not equate), we Nebraska fans en masse have upheld standards to be welcoming to visiting fans, to be respectful of other teams, and to be good sports, win or lose. But just because we have a few idiot fans, does that reflect on the entirety of the whole fanbase? No, it doesn't. Do we as a fanbase then go back and revise our standards because of the actions of a few twits that behaved boorishly? No, we maintain our existing standards as a fanbase, and the result is that we are known as one of the best (if not *the* best) fanbase in all of college sports. Additionally, it afords us the comfort of richeous indignation when other fanbases (see Colorado 2007, IIRC) act in a horrible manner towards us and helps to cement our reputation. Our military has standards which help maintain disipline and maintains respect throughout the world. Do the actions, like what these kids undertook, happen? Yes. But when you lower the standards because of their actions, that gives tacit approval for this sort of dehumanizing behavior to happen. As a result, where is our justification in the public being upset when an enemy does to our men what we have publicly done to them? Perhaps I should have defined 'stooping' better, but I feel that being dismissive, or worse, accepting (e.g. Rick Perry) of this incident undermines the standards we have in place. And then what right do we have to condemn others for actions that we have taken ourselves? --- And no, I don't want the book thrown at these kids--their actions were stupid, and if anything, it should serve as a learning exercise for how not to act for everyone else serving. Hell, if anything, I wouldn't even dishonorably discharge them--I'd instead let them work Public Relations (indirectly--direct would likely be too dangerous) with the Afghans so they could perhaps one day understand the enormity of their actions and why we have standards in place that prohibit their actions. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I agree with you, matthew. But to carry your analogy further, when a Husker fan does something that reflects poor sportsmanship, that becomes, in the eyes of the press/other fans, that much more egregious because he's supposed to be the best of the best. I think that's unfair - Husker fans are human, too. You cannot expect everyone everywhere to uphold the right ideals at all times. It's not realistic. But I agree that it is to be expected, whether it's realistic or not. And when we fail, we take steps to try and mitigate the damage, properly, not by sweeping it under the rug. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 When we start stooping to their level, what right do we as a public have to be shocked and appalled? Doesn't this intimate that at one time we did not do things like this? That our troops have, at one time, been "above" such things? Because if so, when would that have been? I was wondering if you could explain this a little better? intimate [in-tuh-mit] adjective 1. associated in close personal relations: an intimate friend. 2. characterized by or involving warm friendship or a personally close or familiar association or feeling: an intimate greeting. 3. very private; closely personal: one's intimate affairs. 4. characterized by or suggesting privacy or intimacy; warmly cozy: an intimate little café. 5. (of an association, knowledge, understanding, etc.) arising from close personal connection or familiar experience. Link The definition in bold is perhaps the best definition that applies to Knapplc's usage of the word. --- I agree with you, matthew. But to carry your analogy further, when a Husker fan does something that reflects poor sportsmanship, that becomes, in the eyes of the press/other fans, that much more egregious because he's supposed to be the best of the best. I think that's unfair - Husker fans are human, too. You cannot expect everyone everywhere to uphold the right ideals at all times. It's not realistic. But I agree that it is to be expected, whether it's realistic or not. And when we fail, we take steps to try and mitigate the damage, properly, not by sweeping it under the rug. And I agree with you too in where you carried my analogy, I don't think, realistically, that everyone expects all ideals/standards to be upheld constantly, as we are not a perfect people, nor will we ever be. And yes, one may constrew it to be unfair, but it's the price of maintaining a reputation of being one of the best vis a viv your standards/ideals. Plus, if we're going to say it's unfair to be judged by higher expectations created by your adherence to ideals and standards...couldn't one say it's unfair to have said standards in the first place, knowning that humans are faliable by their very nature? Then why bother with having ideals or standards? Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I used the word intimate, not intimate. Long "a" on the end, not short. in·ti·mate verb \ˈin-tə-ˌmāt\ in·ti·mat·edin·ti·mat·ing transitive verb 1 : to make known especially publicly or formally : announce 2 : to communicate delicately and indirectly : hint LINK Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How Americans would react in either scenario doesn't obviate the fact that NUance's assertion that this kind of thing has happened in every war is correct. Modern warfare tends to happen in front of more cameras than had past warfare. Napoleon did not have to deal with a multitude of cable news networks that broadcast 24/7. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How Americans would react in either scenario doesn't obviate the fact that NUance's assertion that this kind of thing has happened in every war is correct. Modern warfare tends to happen in front of more cameras than had past warfare. Napoleon did not have to deal with a multitude of cable news networks that broadcast 24/7. And? This still doesn't obviate NUance's point. EDIT - two things 1) I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just don't know where you're going with these posts. 2) Congratulations on 888 posts. Seems like a milestone to me. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How would Americans react if the French defaced the graves of dead American WW-II soldiers? We'd probably say something like, "Stupid frogs. We were on your side." Or Bill O'Reilly would lead a boycott against wine, cheese and freedom fries. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 How Americans would react in either scenario doesn't obviate the fact that NUance's assertion that this kind of thing has happened in every war is correct. Modern warfare tends to happen in front of more cameras than had past warfare. Napoleon did not have to deal with a multitude of cable news networks that broadcast 24/7. And? This still doesn't obviate NUance's point. I don't get where you are going with this. Is my point incorrect? Which point am I missing? Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sorry - see my edit. Looks like we're in the same boat. Link to comment
Recommended Posts