-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Jimi Hendrix - say it isn't so....Un-American?
- Thread starter Motokid
- Start date
Zolipara
New Member
I was not commenting on this specific case. I believe Jimi only used his "get out of jail free" card. (Why wasnt he sent back to prison when he was judged unfit for the military?)leckert said:
What i commented on was:
And i probably was influenced by this post by robert:
Robert said:
Basically sounds like if your president says we go to war, then you should obey even if you think his decision is wrong.
Maybe you didnt mean it that way but it sounded like it.
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
I'd say the same rules should apply to all; presumably this is your stance too?Sergo said:
Jimi Hendrix being a draft dodger doesn’t stop me liking or disliking his music as it’s relevant to him as a human but not as a musician. If however he was advocating going to war, either as a politician or as a private citizen, then that would be more relevant as he was being hypocritical in wanting people do something he was unwilling to do himself.
Zolipara
New Member
Robert said:
Well that was supposedly the first ever trial to be started there but it was halted because a federal Judge ruled the proceedings invalid under U.S. and international law.
Amnesty International has this to say about the supposedly "fair trials" in gitmo:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-250705-action-eng
The US military officers assigned as defense lawyers has protested against the way the trials are held. Saying among other things that the system gives GW Bush the power to be judge,jury and executioner in these trials.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/27/wguan27.xml
Another interesting article on these "fair trials".
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/02/wtrial02.xml
*Edit*
I'll stay out of this from now on as its probably too political.
Sergo
New Member
Kenny Shovel said:
Of course. And so far as some fat cat's son wouldn't get to prison because of his father's money and then he will not have to go to war for the same reason, I cannot see that JH has done an absolutely wrong thing by dodging both.
As to the necessity to fight a war you think unjust... Yes, it is very pathetic, and quite a lot of books and films exploited this situation. But I do not think that a person in contemporary society should be held in the same position as hundreds years before. Essentially, that is what could make us different from the Muslim maniacs: some person told them to kill kyafirs - and they go and kill unquestioningly. If my president says I have to go and kill... say, Americans... How do you think, would I come of my own accord? If I think that is an unjust thing to do - I will try every means possible to dodge the unjust order.
If a person was paid to kill by his government - OK, he/she should have thought about it before signing the contract, but even then should be a possibility to return money, pay a penalty or something, and not to do what you think is wrong.
So: as I see it, it all sums up not to anarhy, but to a more just society, when the Chief of State has to think very thoroughly before declaring a war, taking into consideration what ordinary people would think and do.
I imagine that nobody would have doubted in the USA about whether to fight or not when it was Saddam who attacked America?
(Sorry, but can you say you genuinly cannot understand those who foolishly fights back in Iraq even now? What would you have done in their shoes?)
(Kenny, of course my questions are rhetorical, and not addressed to you)
Robert
Active Member
Zolipara said:
Well, you have to start with one, now don't you? And don't fly Amnesty International by me, the way they are one has to wonder if they are owned and operated by terrorist organizations.
I know a couple of military judges, I'll have to remember to get their opinon on that article.
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
Presumably you're not of the same opinion regarding the US military officers quoted?Robert said:
Robert
Active Member
Kenny Shovel said:
Almost as many people hate Amnesty International as they do the UN. Two worthless corrupt organizations that should be disbanded. As far as the Military Officer, I don’t know what to think. That’s why I’m thinking about asking one of my military judge acquaintances about it next time I cross paths with one.
leckert
New Member
Zolipara said:
I did mean it that way. If our Government decides that we need to go to war, and that it requires drafting an army to do so, then it is the obligation of those who are eligible to participate in that draft, or follow the appropriate procedures exempting them from the draft. Anything short of this is treason, and punishible by law.
If you have a philisophical difference of opinion with those leading the country to war, then you should absolutely voice that opinion. It is your duty to do so. However, that voicing of your opinion does not relieve you from the obligation to serve the country that has so well protected your right to free speech.
If I go before a judge and say "your honor, I do not agree with the posted speed limit signs, and, thus, as a conscientious objector, I refuse to obey them" he may be fair minded enough to say "good luck with your protest" before he awards me my fine and deducts points from my license.
We must obey ALL the laws, or face the consequences. If we disagree with them, there are appropriate measures to be taken to get them changed. Treason is not an honorable protest.
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
Is it everything they campaign about you dislike or just the bits you feel are unfairly criticising your country? I wouldn't have thought you would have too much problem with their criticism of Cuba or China, or indeed the reports condemning Saddam Hussein’s regime which were used as part of the justification for the 2003 invasion. Their ‘Stop violence against women’ campaign seems fair enough as well, unless it’s used as the cloak behind which hides a ‘worthless corrupt organization that should be disbanded’.Robert said:
Yes, it is a puzzler.Robert said:
Robert
Active Member
Kenny Shovel said:
Amnesty International is Synonymous with hypocrisy. They’ll criticize the US because they don’t like the cereal the prisoners are given, but they don’t say a damn thing when some of our soldiers are taken alive and tortured and killed. I have also never seen them object to genital mutilation.
Kookamoor
New Member
I have some issues with Amnesty International as well, but it started with their hearts in the right place, and they do some good work. I'm not entering this argument, I mean discussion, I just wanted to point out that AI does have a stance and a program against genital mutilation. See Female Genital Mutilation - A Human Rights Pack.Robert said:
bobbyburns
New Member
aww, robert got sucked into the intellectual black hole too...
p.s., the only reason you hate people criticizing the US is because you're a product of it, paleface.
p.s., the only reason you hate people criticizing the US is because you're a product of it, paleface.
Robert said:
Kenny Shovel
Active Member
Yeah, I'd roughly agree with that. I personally think they have to maintain a difficult balance of trying to be politically neutral whilst operating in a highly political area, and don't manage this anyway near as well as they should. Hence critics like Robert.Kookamoor said:
I'd hope this is a discussion rather than arguement. Personally I find Roberts posts on subjects like this to be the most interesting to me, as he often views things from a different angle than I do.Kookamoor said:
Thanks for that Kookamoor.Kookamoor said: