Hi again.
There was this story about a retreat/camp for very rich kids, where their parents sent them to experience all kinds of depravity because rich people is above the law and such. They would torture people of all ages and then kill them, etc.
One scene is about a woman who likes to get pregnant just to have the baby killed immediately after birth.
Don't know if it was in this site, but I haven't found anywhere.
I haven't found anywhere.
From a psychological perspective, that's probably a good thing.
Sort of like the series based upon using excess women for food. One of those things you might read once, but are disturbing as hell if you try to re-read them.
No. It was disturbing all right, but the normalcy of the thing -for example, two teenagers talking about their boyfriends and prom dresses while dismembering another teenager of their same age- was strangely fascinating. ASSTR, perhaps.
Who was the author? I'd have guessed Jeffrey Dahmer but he died before AssTr was founded, I think.
I guess I'm sort of glad that you didn't find it here. I would be somewhat disappointed in SOL if you had. There are a lot of people who think that the stories here are obscene; they have no idea what real obscenity exists in the world. Sadly, there is probably some time and some place in which that actually happened. If so, I would rather not read about it. I'd like to think better of the human race!
There are a lot of people who think that the stories here are obscene; they have no idea what real obscenity exists in the world.
That was Larry Flint's point when he mailed a magazine with explicit war photos to basically every mailbox in Cincinnati in the 70s. I saw it, and there is NOTHING on this site which approaches the obscenity of what war does to human bodies.
I've been a committed pacifist since the day I saw it. That said, my version of pacifism means having a military so strong you'll never have to use it. The flaw in that theory is that having such a strong military is too tempting for the average politician not to. Sigh.
The flaw in that theory is that having such a strong military is too tempting for the average politician not to. Sigh.
Amen!
my version of pacifism means having a military so strong you'll never have to use it.
si vis pacem para bellum!
my version of pacifism means having a military so strong you'll never have to use it
Peace through superior firepower, basically.
Which is not a bad thing - just so long as whoever is in charge isn't afraid to USE that firepower. That's been our biggest issue lately - politically inspired rules of engagement instead of actually letting the military do their job, which is break things and win wars doing so.
And of course, that brings up the question once asked about why there are no Muslims on Star Trek ... because it's in the FUTURE.
Regarding what combat does to people - sanitizing history by not showing reality is possibly the worse crime the U.S. public education system has done.
politically inspired rules of engagement instead of actually letting the military do their job, which is break things and win wars doing so.
Does that imply that you'd have the military declare war on their own (instead of congress) and the military have its own commander in chief (instead of the President.)
Once the politicians declare the war it should no longer be their business, since they have amply demonstrated that they are so bad at actually running a war. The rules of engagement that are causing so many casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are the same rules that caused so many casualties in Vietnam.
Why have a professional military if you refuse to entrust the fighting to them?
The rules of engagement that are causing so many casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan
IIRC, the last time I looked it up, the casualty rates (casualties/unit time) for Iraq and Afghanistan combined were on the order of 10% of what we saw in WWII.
Even 10% is too much. It would very likely be much less if the politicians didn't stick their nose in.
Then there is the dubious justification for being there to begin with. Where was Osama bin Laden found... Pakistan. Who were the 911 hijackers... mostly Saudis. The military is to be commended for the job they have done, but the relevant politicians should have been run out of town on rails.
Why have a professional military if you refuse to entrust the fighting to them?
It sounds to me like a system - unregulated military control with no civilian checks and balances - that would insure we get a military coup de etat at some point.
It sounds to me like a system - unregulated military control with no civilian checks and balances
So pretty much like the current alphabet agencies now.
It sounds to me like a system - unregulated military control with no civilian checks and balances - that would insure we get a military coup de etat at some point.
How do you figure that giving the military control of the battlefield in foreign countries would let them stage a coup in the US?
Not allowing the troops to shoot back at people who are shooting at them is ridiculous, even the Dalai Lama says that if someone is shooting at you it is reasonable for you to shoot back.
How do you figure that giving the military control of the battlefield in foreign countries would let them stage a coup in the US?
Not allowing the troops to shoot back at people who are shooting at them is ridiculous, even the Dalai Lama says that if someone is shooting at you it is reasonable for you to shoot back.
American military troops are deployed both in foreign countries and in the United States. Are you suggesting that military troops now deployed along our Southern border should be able to cross into Mexico and, if they chose to do so, could go al the way to Mexico and overthrow the government there?
And just how would civilians in charge of the military mean that soldiers who are shot at couldn't shoot back? That's the condition we've had since the beginning of our Constitution.
American military troops are deployed both in foreign countries and in the United States. Are you suggesting that military troops now deployed along our Southern border should be able to cross into Mexico and, if they chose to do so, could go al the way to Mexico and overthrow the government there?
And just how would civilians in charge of the military mean that soldiers who are shot at couldn't shoot back? That's the condition we've had since the beginning of our Constitution.
Are we at war with Mexico?
If we are then let them prosecute the war.
If we are not at war then it is not a battlefield.
Current (civilian imposed) Rules of Engagement often forbid return fire.
Are we at war with Mexico?
If we are then let them prosecute the war.
Under your own rules, we would be at war with Mexico if the U.S. military made the decision to cross the border - with or without provocation.
Under your own rules, we would be at war with Mexico if the U.S. military made the decision to cross the border - with or without provocation.
No we wouldn't.
Both Korea and Vietnam were the reasons the 1973 War Powers Act came into existence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
The President has the Authority to take military action for 60 days with another thirty authorized to withdraw. In that time, only congress can declare war to exceed that time. Something many of the career congress critters would rather the public not be made fully aware of.
Any US military personnel crossing the border in the manner you're suggesting is committing an illegal act. The extradition treaty between Mexico and America would definitely be invoked over something like that. No military commander would be stupid enough to do something like that without a signed order from the president or a declaration of war from congress. As stupid as some presidents have been, none of them to date have been that stupid.
You really should give Motte and bailey a rest, they look beat.
Under your own rules, we would be at war with Mexico if the U.S. military made the decision to cross the border - with or without provocation.
Under those rules we are already at war with Mexico.
The Mexican military crossed the border into the US more than 250 times between 1996 and 2006.
As I understand it, most of those Mexican incursions were not so much the Mexican military, as they were corrupt units under the influence of drug cartels.
As I understand it, most of those Mexican incursions were not so much the Mexican military,
IIRC, there were at least a couple of incidents when the Mexican Army pursued drug cartel forces across the border.
IIRC, there were at least a couple of incidents when the Mexican Army pursued drug cartel forces across the border.
That is true, which is why I used the word most instead of all.
As I understand it, most of those Mexican incursions were not so much the Mexican military, as they were corrupt units under the influence of drug cartels.
Isn't the Mexican military a wholly owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Isn't the Mexican military a wholly owned subsidiary of the drug cartels?
Short answer;
Not wholly owned. Not even the majority. However, there are enough that corruption is considered rampant. I've spent close to three years living and working in Mexico. My observation/information was that it came down to geography.
The last run there, it was the states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Chiapas, Michoacán, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, and Sinaloa that were suffering the most.
Long answer;
When Felipe Calderón declared his war on drugs, he attempted to bring in troops from states not on that list into the states on the list. That got a few hundred people killed. The first shot of which was Operation Michoacán. It got ~50 troops, ~150 officers, and 500 civilians killed. Of the civilians, less than 100 were cartel.
That was from just one state. It also clearly demonstrated that not all of their military was/is corrupted.
Why have a professional military if you refuse to entrust the fighting to them?
Somewhere I read something like: "Politicians decide where and why, soldiers decide how and when".
It seems a reasonable policy.
Somewhere I read something like: "Politicians decide where and why, soldiers decide how and when".
It seems a reasonable policy.
Like McArthur did in Korea?
McArthur was an idiot, don't use him as a metric.
Sorry. I did not understood that you got to decide what points others were allowed to make.
Like McArthur did in Korea?
Agree that he was an idiot. While MacArthur was General of the Armies, he still responsible to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for his orders - and he exceeded his authority.
