What's America's problem? Page 183

  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

  • Tom_Servo 2 May 2014 12:43:41 17,548 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Some more information on the drugs used in the botched execution
  • nickthegun 2 May 2014 12:44:55 59,492 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Seems like its a hard thing to fuck up. I could have probably mixed something together to kill him faster than 43 minutes with domestos and red bull.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Tom_Servo 2 May 2014 12:47:50 17,548 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    On the topic of a US coup - and someone might be able to fill in some details here - I'm almost certain there was a pretty serious attempt to roll tanks in front of the White House in the... 1920s or 30s?

    That was just some disgruntled military brass as far as I remember. Obviously they weren't successful, but still.

    Edited by Tom_Servo at 12:48:56 02-05-2014
  • rock27gr 2 May 2014 12:48:46 5,565 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    There's no need for coups these days anyway.
  • sega 2 May 2014 12:50:11 805 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    But again, that's a problem with people and not just soldiers. If the majority of people are doing something then it means the majority thinks it's right, if only for that time. Future consequences and reflecting on these actions isn't really the issue here.

    If that many soldiers are thinking in such a way then a large number of civilians will be too. Someone joins the army, they say they do it because they love their country, and then their commanding officer says they're going to enslave the rest of the population. That person will just say that's not what they signed up for. You don't join the army and lose your mind. If such a thing ever does happen in the US, it's because it's how people want their country to be run, not because they were told to.
  • Psychotext 2 May 2014 12:51:12 53,965 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Not buying that. Part of military training is learning to react to an order without question in as short a response time as possible.

    You question orders for too long the system breaks down and people die.
  • Mola_Ram 2 May 2014 12:51:15 7,236 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Some more information on the drugs used in the botched execution
    I can see how they might have fucked it up, especially considering that they hadn't used one of them before. It's not as if they can test them on anyone.
  • Tom_Servo 2 May 2014 12:52:40 17,548 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Some more information on the drugs used in the botched execution
    I can see how they might have fucked it up, especially considering that they hadn't used one of them before. It's not as if they can test them on anyone.
    It does seem a rather fundamental flaw in the whole concept. The fact that they can't test it should really mean they don't use it. It's not really the place for trial and error, after all.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 12:53:05 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sega wrote:
    But Guantanamo bay is also not the same thing. You're talking about a person's individual morals. That person could be racist, or just doing it for the fun of it. That person is not the entire army. You'd need a collective ideal.
    I don't follow. It's not one racist squaddie running Guantanamo, there must be hundreds, all following orders, even though some of them must believe that they personally respect international law.
  • Mola_Ram 2 May 2014 12:54:03 7,236 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Some more information on the drugs used in the botched execution
    I can see how they might have fucked it up, especially considering that they hadn't used one of them before. It's not as if they can test them on anyone.
    It does seem a rather fundamental flaw in the whole concept. The fact that they can't test it should really mean they don't use it. It's not really the place for trial and error, after all.
    Well, uh, I suppose this sort of counts as a test. :/
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 12:56:47 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sega wrote:
    But again, that's a problem with people and not just soldiers. If the majority of people are doing something then it means the majority thinks it's right, if only for that time. Future consequences and reflecting on these actions isn't really the issue here.

    If that many soldiers are thinking in such a way then a large number of civilians will be too. Someone joins the army, they say they do it because they love their country, and then their commanding officer says they're going to enslave the rest of the population. That person will just say that's not what they signed up for. You don't join the army and lose your mind. If such a thing ever does happen in the US, it's because it's how people want their country to be run, not because they were told to.
    Run us through the scenario you're talking about step by step, because I think if I understood that I might understand your argument. Who starts the ball rolling and whose side are the armed civilians on?
  • rock27gr 2 May 2014 12:58:34 5,565 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Some more information on the drugs used in the botched execution
    Interesting read, and about more than just a failed execution.

    This part in particular is very eye-opening:
    “a $7 (£4) vial of [chemotherapy drug] fluorouracil originally sold by McKesson to a pharmacy would go on to be repurchased five additional times before finally reaching a California medical centre, which purchased the same vial for $600 (£355) – a markup of 8,471 percent”/i]
  • sega 2 May 2014 13:00:38 805 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    I don't follow. It's not one racist squaddie running Guantanamo, there must be hundreds, all following orders, even though some of them must believe that they personally respect international law.
    Hundreds? Someone leaked the photos who clearly didn't agree and those people were prosecuted.

    I'm glad you people think our country (and the US) is in the hands of mindless drones who would turn on you in a second if told to. I'm sure the soldiers appreciate that when they're out there fighting.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 13:03:30 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sega wrote:
    monkman76 wrote:
    I don't follow. It's not one racist squaddie running Guantanamo, there must be hundreds, all following orders, even though some of them must believe that they personally respect international law.
    Hundreds? Someone leaked the photos who clearly didn't agree and those people were prosecuted.
    Eh? Genuinely don't understand you. I am tired though so it could be me.


    I'm glad you people think our country (and the US) is in the hands of mindless drones who would turn on you in a second if told to. I'm sure the soldiers appreciate that when they're out there fighting.
    BUT WHAT IS THIS SCENARIO?! Why are the soldiers turning on me?
  • sega 2 May 2014 13:04:36 805 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    Run us through the scenario you're talking about step by step, because I think if I understood that I might understand your argument. Who starts the ball rolling and whose side are the armed civilians on?
    OK, fair enough, it has got a bit confusing bringing in all these different scenarios.

    Basically a dictator takes over the US government despite the election process in the states (or the President refuses to give up office). The civilians of the country are against this person but are kept in order somehow (this is where the army came in). The only way they can take their country back is by using guns to overthrow this government. My point is that won't happen because the army just wouldn't turn on the civilians in the first place.

    Edited by sega at 13:05:17 02-05-2014
  • Psychotext 2 May 2014 13:07:54 53,965 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    That one is fairly easy to hypothesise in the US. You could take it back to the election that was decided by the courts. Not hard to imagine the people turning hostile given the election could be seen to have been stolen / fraudulent. I'm pretty certain the army would defend the power structure in that instance given it wouldn't be too hard to persuade them that the people in power are the ones who are supposed to be.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 13:08:59 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sega wrote:
    monkman76 wrote:
    Run us through the scenario you're talking about step by step, because I think if I understood that I might understand your argument. Who starts the ball rolling and whose side are the armed civilians on?
    OK, fair enough, it has got a bit confusing bringing in all these different scenarios.

    Basically a dictator takes over the US government despite the election process in the states (or the President refuses to give up office). The civilians of the city are against this person but are kept in order somehow (this is where the army came in). The only way they can take their country back is by using guns to overthrow this government. My point is that won't happen because the army just wouldn't turn on the civilians in the first place.
    Right. Based on recent history, if the army hierarchy disapproved of this coup then they would stop it happening by force in the first place.

    If they agreed with it, stood to gain from it, or even were behind it, then they absolutely would fight any armed insurrection. That's not to say they'd fire on unarmed civilians, but if some armed mob came at them they'd fight back. Or some soldiers would. And some would change sides. And lo, civil war. See Libya, Syria etc.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 13:12:24 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    That one is fairly easy to hypothesise in the US. You could take it back to the election that was decided by the courts. Not hard to imagine the people turning hostile given the election could be seen to have been stolen / fraudulent. I'm pretty certain the army would defend the power structure in that instance given it wouldn't be too hard to persuade them that the people in power are the ones who are supposed to be.
    Also sega seems to be saying that if the army defends the new government, it will simply start attacking unarmed civilians willy-nilly. I don't think they'd do that, but again, if an armed gang tried to take back the White House for example, I'm pretty sure that a good number of US soldiers would fight back.
  • sega 2 May 2014 13:30:14 805 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I would hope the army would defend a government from hostile civilians if an armed gang tried to take the White House. That's assuming that the government they're against was voted in.

    Of course measures do have to be taken against the government to keep it in check, but that's more in line with exposing any corruption. For example, I'm firmly on the side of the guy who exposed the NSA's actions.

    But the scenario about needing to overthrow a government with weapons just wouldn't come up in the United States. It happens in the middle east because they're run by dictatorships and people are rising up against living in fear. But in the West I can't see how it could happen. A vast army with guns could do it, but I it's so hypothetical that we're bordering on farce discussing these.

    Basically my two points are we don't need guns to keep a modern society as a democracy and that soldiers think about actions like the rest of us. I'm not going to change that point of view unless something drastic happens to prove me wrong. So it's kind of just a speculative argument from both sides.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 13:33:22 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sega wrote:
    But the scenario about needing to overthrow a government with weapons just wouldn't come up in the United States.
    Yeah, as I said, we all agreed on this at least a page ago :)
  • sega 2 May 2014 13:42:07 805 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah I think that's why us people need to keep our arguments focused on the point at hand.
  • Khanivor 2 May 2014 14:00:35 40,547 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hate to piss on the argument but the armed forces are legally prohibited from operating inside the US. That is the job of the National Guard. Who are controlled by each state's govenor. A quick glance at the new will tell you that the federal government is not in lockstep with the people running each state.
  • monkman76 2 May 2014 14:04:10 4,176 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    OK I didn't know that. But in the event of some sort of coup d'etat, when rules go out of the window somewhat anyway, I hardly think the regular army would just sit around in their tanks.
  • thelzdking 2 May 2014 14:05:31 4,367 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I would, it's safe.
  • PES_Fanboy 9 May 2014 21:28:48 14,890 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
  • DrStrangelove 9 May 2014 22:29:32 3,726 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Isn't that business as usual in the states?
  • Tom_Servo 23 Jul 2014 23:57:34 17,548 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Sounds like there's another botched execution underway. This time it's been Arizona. Guy's lawyers say he's been gasping and snorting for an hour.
  • PazJohnMitch 24 Jul 2014 01:53:41 8,013 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Probably done it on purpose. Of course there will be a cover up to suggest it was an accident.
  • Mola_Ram 24 Jul 2014 03:05:10 7,236 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    They botched his execution... on purpose? Forgive my ignorance, but why would they do that? To reduce support for the death penalty?
  • Page

    of 184 First / Last

Log in or register to reply