Sorry, I don't see what the problem is, are generals not allowed to make phone calls?

I DEMAND JUSTICE

In my humble understanding of a democracy, TheGhostmaker, generals are payed to give orders to soldiers about which targets to hit, not to bother civilians with their interpretation of good behavior.

No one's saying he isn't allowed to burn the books--

They're simply REQUESTING that he not burn the Koran because, you know, that might actually endanger American lives, and lead to more American deaths...

Which is a lot worse and a tad more important than some far-right Christian extremist having a fun little bonfire denouncing an entire religion and people all while claiming to belong to "a religion of LOVE."



So, yeah--they're allowed to request him to stop, redhouse. No free speech is being infringed here, not when it's a mere request.

Generals are paid to achieve the objectives of their political masters via the lowest cost (both in lives and in the financial sense). The unnecessary burning of Qurans significantly increased the risk to the lives under his command and so the action of a phonecall that might erase that risk was very much justified. If he'd shot him, you'd have the right to complain about it.

It's good that your understanding about democracy is humble, because you are also wrong. Generals are allowed to give phone calls to people, and possibly even request favours.

There was a time when disagreements like this would have been taken to the Thunder Dome! alas, alack! Those days have passed.

^What they said (gee, if Octavious and TGM keep making my points for me, the size of my posts might actually approach reasonable levels!)

"That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also."

Also sprach Heine. And, in fact, both the Americans and the Arabs are already doing that. Admittedly, the US are burning (foreign) people in a much nicer fashion, without so much cursing, shouting and flag waving. They just push buttons.

What?

Are you guys sure there is not the legal matter of the separation of military and civilians? To me this is like Obama calling the Chief Justice Roberts to ask him if he'd please accept his medical bills.

And can I safely suppose the general speaks for President Obama then?

Lol, *medical bill.

Wasn't the burning of Jewish religious texts one of the things that made the Nazis the bad guys?

How quickly we become what we despise.

Well I'm eagerly awaiting the answers to the two questions above:

1. Does the separation of military and civilian affairs not imply that generals can't just "ask favors" to civilians?
2. Does the fact that the general did this means he's speaking on behalf of /his/ commander, the President?

Redhouse, I remember you raging at Assange for revealing state secrets. Now this. My conclusion is that you're a legalist. You're one of those guys who think that everything legal is great and everything illegal is awful. Am I right?

Yup.

Don't you think there really aren't any causes you should fight for? Everything that you defend or attack is already defended or attacked by the state.

I feel trolled. I'm not sure if I'm being trolled but I've been trolled and this is what it felt like. Are you trolling?

Redhouse, don't you think a general's duty should be stopping the fire from spreading? Since burning Korans can throw fuel in that fire, asking him to stop, apart from being proof of common sense, is a precise military duty. That man's actions are putting lives (civilian and military) in danger.

Please note, I'm not saying that those actions are killing people (which is others' doing). I'm saying that those actions are putting them in danger.

BreathOfVega,

An excellent question. Yes, I believe it is a general's duty to stop the fire from spreading.

And I believe that the only healthy way to do that is for him to contact his Commander in Chief, whose administration is charged with civilian affairs.

I was in the same situation the other day. I sat with my kids on the curb of the Ministry of Defense because my daughter wanted to show me some photos. A military policeman approached us and told us we should move to the other side of the road. I told him I wouldn't. I understood he had the duty to tell us off, but I also wanted to make him understand he'd have to call the civilian police before I budged. I still don't see what harm there was in him trying to make us leave by telling us so.

(BTW, we didn't wait for the police to arrive. We waited until the soldier went behind the corner and then we split.)

Trollmute.

Lol. Redhouse, you just trolled me out of this thread. Before I leave, there's just one thing I want to say... fuck you. Don't take it the wrong way (up the ass).

He may have understood that he'd have to call the civilian police and learnt an important lesson about the limits of military powers, zmaj, but more likely you just helped reinforce the popular military belief that civilians are a bunch of self obsessed awkward arseholes and that the world would be much better off if the army were in charge.

Question: Is that same General calling the White House and asking Obama to withdraw all American troops to US soil? Because that would be a way to save countless lives being lost in useless causes that irritate the shit out of radical Islamists.

I wonder if that General is calling (fill in teh blank) and asking....(insert a million things that would save lives...) of civilians.

ow many soldiers die in alcohol related car crashes? Maybe they should put out a general call for bars to stop serving soldiers alcohol?

The absurd point...if the General is to intervene in PUBLIC affairs to save lives, he ha sa pretty big fucking plate full of phone calls to make!

He stepped out of bounds...and no doubt he did it because Obama was too much of a pussy to make the call himself.

Krellin, I don't know if you're being serious (I suppose you're not), but I think that an attack to an American Embassy is pretty much a military problem, while a car accident involving soldier isn't.

I don't think krellin's joking and I sure as hell wasn't joking when protesting this stuff. I completely agree with you and +1 it.

@Breath: A soldier causing a car incident would be handed over to the military police right? (Here he would)

Breath - the prvious argument is that the general is justified in harrassing a civilian to save a soldier's life.. If his job is to save lives, then save lives.

A soldier can be court-martialed for their civilian behavior, thus any interaction of civilian with a soldier is of concern to the military…thus, bar owners should be called by the general to saves live.

Absurd? OF COURSE…it is also absurd for the General to harass this guy for his asinine film…it is also ASSININE that all you fools have bought in to the media lie that this uprising had something to do with this film as opposed to, oh, I don’t know…Obama and the Dems bragging over and over and over again the they killed Osama at their convention? Maybe you all should listen to the knews today where they grudgingly admit that…oh yes…it was a PLANNED ATTACK to commemorate 9-11…not some respose to a film. You are all suckers.

But back to the argument at hand…the way to examine the legitimacy/logic of an action is to follow through and apply the same logic ad absurdum…General calling civvy to save a life…ok…then let General’s start interfering in civilian life. Next target – multi-national corporations, whom invest in the middle-east and bring corrupt western culture with them. They should be militarized to save lives, right?

But...a General's job is NOT to save lives....it is to kill people (enemies) and break things (enemy's things) - usually specifically while endangering a soldiers life. Your understanding of the military is wrong, and I suggest you read a few history books on the military. If was about saving lives, we would have not invaded Normandy...