>> ^artician:

"you don't have to agree with the war, I just get sent there. You don't have to agree with politics, the country just tells me what to do."
That's... basically agreeing with whatever you're told.
I think Ventura took the moral high-ground with the situation at large, and the man speaking used the fact that they were in a wake (at a bar????) to defend his own brainwashing.
Just what I think though.


There's a sort of...distance there...an argument can be made that you sign up to serve your country so your life is now ours collectively. In a democracy this doesn't sound like THAT bad of a thing, it's not like serving "The Crown" where a king gets to tell you where you will die. This is supposed to be a democratic sort of decision where we decide that we are threatened by a country or entity and the people who serve go and be the "point of the spear."

It's not really agreeing or disagreeing with any particular decision, it's putting the onus on others.

In Live at the Beacon (Louis CKs $5 special) Louis pointed out that a soldier is joining up to protect his country "he thinks." That to me makes perfect sense, and lets me hold respect for soldiers who are in a moral grey area at times especially in illegal wars. Of course we're not going to bring up obvious violations of human rights which have their own discussion.

The point is, I feel that the democracy fails the soldiers far more than the soldiers fail the democracy. We have a failed state, it doesn't work...so the direction that our speartip thrusts (not sexual) is definitely suspect. It's of course EVERYONES responsibility to take the country back and not allow our spear to commit human rights offenses In Our Names.

That's my boring opinion...anyone read it?

>> ^VoodooV:

hard to say unless you were there. both sides could be lying through their teeth.


that's what Louis CK says...everyone who wasn't there should just shut up. We ain't gonna though...STONE THEM BOTH TO DEATH!

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^IronDwarf:

Sorry, dupe.
Videosift's kickass (read: crapass) search engine strikes again: http://videosift.com/video/The-Seal-who-shot-Bin-Laden


*isdupe

>> ^IronDwarf:

Sorry, dupe.
Videosift's kickass (read: crapass) search engine strikes again: http://videosift.com/video/The-Seal-who-shot-Bin-Laden


Wow yeah, I thought it would show up during submission for sure, guess I'll have to use Google from now on.

Dude, you're an idiot if you think the US Constitution is for every human on the planet and not just US citizens. Seriously.

Seriously.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.


Volumpie, when interpreting the law, I'm glad the courts don't just cite portions of the law and wipe their hands of any further diligence. You can't cite 7 words of an unfinished sentence within the Preamble of the Constitution and declare you've made your case.
Anyhow, the Preamble only says the Constitution is created by the people for the US. Not a meaningful piece of text outside of setting up the important stuff to follow, such as this part specifically as it pertains to the Judicial Branch...

Article 2
Section 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

>> ^volumptuous:

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.



Sorry Vol, I do disagree with Blank on many issues but this is not one. We the people is not good enough here. One of my friends argued your point, and when I questioned him about his wife, who is a permanent, legal resident, he stated that that was different... I said, not in terms of the law...

Heck, if it were true, then Uncle Sam would just strip certain people of citizenship (By creating new laws) and water board them all day long...

>> ^volumptuous:

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States"
And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?
And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.



Volumpie, when interpreting the law, I'm glad the courts don't just cite portions of the law and wipe their hands of any further diligence. You can't cite 7 words of an unfinished sentence within the Preamble of the Constitution and declare you've made your case.

Anyhow, the Preamble only says the Constitution is created by the people for the US. Not a meaningful piece of text outside of setting up the important stuff to follow, such as this part specifically as it pertains to the Judicial Branch...

Article 2

Section 2
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence.

The right to a fair trial is a right for US citizens. And yes, the US Constitution is specifically and strictly for US citizens. Says so right there in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States"

And so on... But you knew the very first fucking sentence in the preamble to the US Constitution already, so I didn't have to point that one out to you...right?

And, if he wasn't firing back at navy SEALs who were trying to capture him, then he would've been captured and not killed. But, you have that big brain and awesome reasoning and logic to help you figure that out. You don't need me to help point out the obvious...right?



>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.

Let's hope developers actually use their imaginations with this tech because I found that SOCOM game to be utterly boring. Another bloody tedious shooter and hiding behind scenery every so often. Reminds me of the pain of playing Gears of War.

I wish developers were let off their leash to make the kind of crazy games you used to see when the financial stakes weren't so high. Sure those games are now viewed as being rubbish but you wonder how much better and more wondrous things could be if every other game title didn't have a number at the end.


>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^NetRunner:
I think that PS Move seems like it was designed with making games for actual gamers in mind. You still have a controller with buttons, and the motion sensing is super-precise.
Kinect seems to be designed to try to bring mass market appeal to the 360 by trying to be even more accessible than the Wii, and turn the 360 into some sort of social networking hub at the same time.
Time will tell if anyone manages to make a really good game that's only possible with motion control, but so far nobody's really found a way to really advance the state of gaming with it yet.
It's opened it up to a new group of people, which is great, but I've been playing video games my whole life, I don't want it if all it's for is playing party games.

Might I point you towards Socom 4 seems a bit crude at the moment in terms of controls, but it shows off some impressive visuals with a clean movement control.
It definitely isn't ONLY possible with motion controls, but it definitely seems more immersive.
and again, better looking then ANYTHING on the wii.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think that PS Move seems like it was designed with making games for actual gamers in mind. You still have a controller with buttons, and the motion sensing is super-precise.
Kinect seems to be designed to try to bring mass market appeal to the 360 by trying to be even more accessible than the Wii, and turn the 360 into some sort of social networking hub at the same time.
Time will tell if anyone manages to make a really good game that's only possible with motion control, but so far nobody's really found a way to really advance the state of gaming with it yet.
It's opened it up to a new group of people, which is great, but I've been playing video games my whole life, I don't want it if all it's for is playing party games.


Might I point you towards Socom 4 seems a bit crude at the moment in terms of controls, but it shows off some impressive visuals with a clean movement control.

It definitely isn't ONLY possible with motion controls, but it definitely seems more immersive.

and again, better looking then ANYTHING on the wii.

As much as I love jumping on the "my country sucks" horse, the more I learn about this whole event the more I'm inclined to support the Israeli side. And whoever this moron is, way to address the issue:
"Why was Israel wrong in its actions?"
"Because they evil"

The only thing I don't get about this whole thing is why the fuck someone figured the best way to deal with the situation was to land commandos on board the ship and why do it in international waters and not wait till they cross over. Following that, keep in mind these guys are the Israeli equivalent of Navy Seals, the fact they were seriously injured before opening fire pretty much convinces me they felt it was their last resort. Whether or not the use of deadly force was excessive or not I've no clue, I guess we'll never know.

Again, I'm usually the last guy to defend Israel's action, but to present this as some ruthless military takeover of a humanitarian ship is propaganda at its worst.

Hmmmm... former Navy Seal vs. body-builder. Let me think about this for a second...

We know how this marxist vermin feels about the military. Obama's Latest Attack on America: Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

@Stormsinger

There are roughly 2.5 million people serving in the US military, so almost 1 in 100 people. I think most people have at least a few people in their lives who are either active duty or veterans. I can't think of anyone in my family, but I do know a few people over there and have at least one guy I see on a regular basis that is an Iraq war veteran. I have never said anything to him, but I have spent about 6 hours trying to convince one of my friends not to go into the Navy SEALs. If one of my close friends tried to enlist, I would definitely try to talk them out if it - and if my young nephew, who will be 18 in a few years thought of enlisting I would definitely do whatever I could to get him out of it. I think the most reasonable thing you could do at this point with your nephew is make sure he doesn't re-enlist after his 1st term is up.

I think it is more important to condemn the overall philosophy rather than individual people - unfortunately for this guy, when you are in a video being spread akin to a news report, you sort of become the embodiment of the philosophy outside of your individual self.

I think the line in the sand needs to be drawn somewhere, because our current culture practically worships soldiers. People would gasp, if not lynch you, if you said such things in certain groups. If there was a paradigm shift, I don't people would be so quick to enlist - especially those that are young and impressionable.