US forces alledgedly bombed MSF Hospital.

[K. A. Pital]

One needs to look no further than Abu Ghraib to understand that the US indeed sticks to the rule of "our son of a bitch" and will cover up and obfuscate and muddle down every single instance of its war crimes:

...Soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.

We are talking about systematic torture (sanctioned at the top through Torture Memos), rape and murder of prisoners. And Abu-Ghraib is no isolated incident, too - in the recent wave of leaks, other CIA and US Military black sites and torture and murder cases were exposed.

What is the benefit in protecting these people? Well, you have to ask the torturers. If you hand down very harsh punishments on criminals in your own rank when you sanction war crimes at mid-level or top-level command (torture, for example), then your low-ranking personnel will no longer follow these torture guidelines fearing they might be prosecuted despite internal documents saying these "techniques" are authorized.

Consider the similarities: whoever authorized the strike is probably a ruthless son of a bitch, a cold-blooded murderer ready to reach the goal at any cost. Publicly, this person is a PR nightmare, but inside the military he can be considered a "useful asset" and this type of mentality can actually be encouraged. So by covering such a person from prosecution, you inspire others to behave in the same way if "circumstances dictate".

[Thanas]

Besides, we all know how this will end.

Anybody willing to bet money that nobody above the rank of the pilots involved will stand trial for this?
Anybody willing to bet money that the pilots will be convicted of any wrongdoing?
Anybody willing to bet that in half a year nobody will even remember this and people will claim it as being an isolated incident instead of yet another thing in the long list of US military failures of accountability?

[Napoleon the Clown]

I don't get why anyone high up would think its worth it to cover this up.

I mean, how does it help PR-wise? Anyone who's inclined towards anti-American attitudes isn't likely to believe them anyway if they deny it. And if its eventually revealed that it was a cover-up, they're going to look worse than if they'd just come clean and basically said "Somebody committed an atrocity without authorization so we threw them in prison."

Is it just an "us vs. them" mentality where you defend your own no matter what, like we see so much of with police forces? Is it some larger political thing? Does the reasons why this happened involve classified information? I don't know. I'm just trying to figure what the motive could be for such a thing, hypothetically.

As far as I can tell, the US does not REALLY care about PR in this War on Terror and campaigns in Middle East. They may say so, but the bottom line is that the US will rather cover everything up than admit that they have Bad People in their ranks and not only Glorious American Freedombringers of Liberty.

The US doesn't truly care about bad PR because who the fuck is going to actually do something about the horrible things it does? It knows there aren't any other countries that can do jack shit about evil crap it does. The only real "weapons" that can be leveled against the US are sanctions, and the amount of economic leverage the US has makes it a really risky proposition.

That's what it all boils down to. The military in this country knows that nobody can actually do jack shit about heinous actions. So they cover shit up, and six months later when it comes out that they've done absolutely horrid shit the American public, the group whose opinion they vaguely give a damn about, considers it "old news" and wonders why anybody cares.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you saying that it would be an improvement if other countries were able to stop the US by military force? That certainly appears to be the case. And while I am not in any way a defender of all actions of the American government, I can't morally condone military action against the United States even as a hypothetical.

That said, their are forces that can still, in theory, exert some control on the actions of the US government. Congress or the courts can reign in the executive branch if they wish to, and vice versa. And while Congress is pretty much useless at present, the courts are by no means purely a rubber stamp for the executive branch. Their are no certainties of a ruling going your way, of course, and I'm sure you could point to cases where the courts did support dubious actions by the executive branch. But the counter does exist in theory.

Then, of course, their's the people. The problem is that military worship is strong in the American populace, but the fact of the matter remains that the only real way to bring change in the United States is from within, not imposed from without.

However, it also depends, I think, on changing the underlying culture in the military, which is likely to take time. If there's a "protect our own" mentality toward criminals similar to what we see in police forces, well, you can't throw someone in jail very easily if all the people who could testify against them are covering their asses instead.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I'm not condoning force, I'm just explaining why they feel they can afford to not give a fuck what the international community thinks. And if the other bits of the government gave a flying fuck about heinous bullshit the military pulls, it would have done something by now. They know that nobody who can do anything will, and that anybody who would quite simply cannot.

It's a large part of why Putin's being so awful. He knows that nobody is willing to do what it takes to stop him. The cost would be too high, so he can do just about anything with impunity.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its true that their really is no way to stop a nuclear power from without if they're really determined to do something no matter what, unless you're prepared to fight a nuclear war. And no one sane is.

So reform has to come from within. Outside parties can try to encourage such reform, but it ultimately has to be internal.

How to effect that with the US? Well, I think mass media helps somewhat- images and stories of atrocities get broadcast everywhere, and its not dependent on a few big companies. Of course, people may become jaded to it after awhile.

Ultimately, its about changing the culture. While I often feel contempt for the simple-minded approach, hypocrisy, and hackneyed slogans rampant in the anti-war crowd, I do think building a stronger anti-war movement in the US is a possible route to creating a culture that encourages greater accountability for military atrocities. Which is where I make my shameless attempt to plug Bernie Sanders for President (he's probably as close to an outright anti-war candidate as you're going to see at a high level).

[Raw Shark]

Jaded is hardly the worst reaction to this news that I've seen from my casual samplings of American popular opinion at work. I actually had one guy who, after requiring an explanation of what MSF was, declared that those French-soundin' hippies deserved getting blown up by AMERICAFUCKYEAH for performing medical treatments on, "Goddamn Sand-Nigs who're just gonna pick up a gun and start killin' our guys again as soon as they get out of there."

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, yes, their are those bigoted scumbags/lunatics who actually think slaughtering doctors and wounded civilians on the basis of race, nationality, and political affiliation is a great idea. But presumably they're part of the fringe and not the majority.

By far the bigger problem, I think, are people who just don't give a shit, or think something along the lines of "It sucks, but its acceptable/unavoidable collateral damage". As opposed to people who wouldn't sound terribly out of place in the Gestapo.

[Raw Shark]

Doctors, wounded civilians, wounded insurgents, nurses, the fucking janitor... It kind of feels like somebody wanted to make an example out of this place, if you look too closely, but to Joe Blow on the street, "We really fucked up, hey, people fuck up, right?" is usually a perfectly acceptable narrative.

[Edi]

Well, its true that their really is no way to stop a nuclear power from without if they're really determined to do something no matter what, unless you're prepared to fight a nuclear war. And no one sane is.

So reform has to come from within. Outside parties can try to encourage such reform, but it ultimately has to be internal.

How to effect that with the US? Well, I think mass media helps somewhat- images and stories of atrocities get broadcast everywhere, and its not dependent on a few big companies. Of course, people may become jaded to it after awhile.

Ultimately, its about changing the culture. While I often feel contempt for the simple-minded approach, hypocrisy, and hackneyed slogans rampant in the anti-war crowd, I do think building a stronger anti-war movement in the US is a possible route to creating a culture that encourages greater accountability for military atrocities. Which is where I make my shameless attempt to plug Bernie Sanders for President (he's probably as close to an outright anti-war candidate as you're going to see at a high level).

Your mass media is explicitly complicit in covering up American atrocities when they happen. You will NOT find serious criticism of US foreign policy, US actions or calls for actually doing anything to address the issues on any major American news company, because they are businesses first and foremost and doing that would instantly lead to protests, boycotts and a hit to the bottom line because of reduction of ad revenue.

Your nation in general is completely unable to take ANY serious criticism and the most common reaction to still receiving it from others is either a temper tantrum, denial, appeal to American exceptionalism, some bullshit about how the US saved everyone in WW2 or all of the above. That is what happens every time this shit crops up, and the few lone voices in the wilderness who do bring things up in the US are always from small, marginal internet based outlets which then get a full muslinging treatment by the right wing blogosphere and Fox News.

As long as Americans think they are, by virtue of being from America-fuck-yeah, innately superior to everyone else on the planet (both morally, militarily, economically and in all other ways too), they will never give a shit about what Americans do to others somewhere else in the world. Pretending otherwise is just delusion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its true that their really is no way to stop a nuclear power from without if they're really determined to do something no matter what, unless you're prepared to fight a nuclear war. And no one sane is.

So reform has to come from within. Outside parties can try to encourage such reform, but it ultimately has to be internal.

How to effect that with the US? Well, I think mass media helps somewhat- images and stories of atrocities get broadcast everywhere, and its not dependent on a few big companies. Of course, people may become jaded to it after awhile.

Ultimately, its about changing the culture. While I often feel contempt for the simple-minded approach, hypocrisy, and hackneyed slogans rampant in the anti-war crowd, I do think building a stronger anti-war movement in the US is a possible route to creating a culture that encourages greater accountability for military atrocities. Which is where I make my shameless attempt to plug Bernie Sanders for President (he's probably as close to an outright anti-war candidate as you're going to see at a high level).

Your mass media is explicitly complicit in covering up American atrocities when they happen. You will NOT find serious criticism of US foreign policy, US actions or calls for actually doing anything to address the issues on any major American news company, because they are businesses first and foremost and doing that would instantly lead to protests, boycotts and a hit to the bottom line because of reduction of ad revenue.

This is overly simplistic at best. Its typical of idiots who treat "the media" as one homogenous mass to attack and condemn (and no doubt think they're very smart and sophisticated for doing it).

Much of American media (and other countries' media) certainly leaves a lot to be desired, but I've seen plenty of criticism of US foreign policy and government actions in mass media.

In any case, I would argue that traditional mass media is less important than it used to be, or at least has less of a stranglehold on information, since literally anyone can theoretically reach a mass audience via the internet.

Your nation in general is completely unable to take ANY serious criticism and the most common reaction to still receiving it from others is either a temper tantrum, denial, appeal to American exceptionalism, some bullshit about how the US saved everyone in WW2 or all of the above. That is what happens every time this shit crops up, and the few lone voices in the wilderness who do bring things up in the US are always from small, marginal internet based outlets which then get a full muslinging treatment by the right wing blogosphere and Fox News.

Yes, do lecture me on how my whole nation is evil. I've never heard that before.

Your characterization of Americans is, again, overly simplistic, seeing only the negative, and frankly is the kind of sweeping stereotypical attack that if you said it about a race rather than a nationality, would probably get you in serious trouble.

But I really don't want to derail this thread into an argument over weather Americans are bad or not, so I'll drop it if you will. And I certainly don't contest that their are very dangerous attitudes that have far too much sway in this country.

As long as Americans think they are, by virtue of being from America-fuck-yeah, innately superior to everyone else on the planet (both morally, militarily, economically and in all other ways too), they will never give a shit about what Americans do to others somewhere else in the world. Pretending otherwise is just delusion.

When did I "pretend" anything?

I don't think all or nearly all Americans are a stereotype of bigoted nationalism who think bombing hospitals is cool, if that's what you mean.

However, I fully acknowledged that their is a real problem with people simply not caring enough or thinking its unavoidable. Apathy and ignorance. And I suppose American exceptionalism can play into that.

However, I would note that the US has undergone drastic changes in its history towards embracing a greater respect for peoples' rights, repeatedly. Slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote, and gay people can marry now, to name three obvious examples. So I prefer to think that this is a solvable problem, rather than to just write off a nation of over 300 million people as totally bad and wallow in cynicism, which serves zero purpose except to vent your anger and let you pretend you're smarter than everyone else.

Frankly, it seems to me that you're trying to pick a fight when their isn't really a reason for one. I'm not blind to America's failings, much as you'd evidently like to pretend that I am. I'm obviously not defending what happened at this hospital, or any attempt to minimize, ignore, or excuse it. I just don't see the point of simplistic tripe about how bad all Americans are.

[Thanas]

Quite frankly, his description is accurate as long as Manning is behind bars while the perpetrators of the largest torture program in recent history are also free.
Or how about the guys who cut the ski-lift cable, got caught destroying evidence and now are free as well?
Or the guys who did Abu Gharaib and those who ordered it?
Or the guys who knowingly shot ambulances as snipers and helicopter pilots, then got caught on camera and nothing happened to them?

No, the US public by and large does not give a shit. No, the mass media and entertainment media have gone out of their way to not report on any of that stuff while also glorifying torture on the small screen, big screen and video games.

There can be no change from within as long as those who speak out against it are subject to trumped-up charges and kangaroo courts, whereas those who committ actual abuse continue to be wined and dined by the elite.

[Jub]

This is overly simplistic at best. Its typical of idiots who treat "the media" as one homogenous mass to attack and condemn (and no doubt think they're very smart and sophisticated for doing it).

Much of American media (and other countries' media) certainly leaves a lot to be desired, but I've seen plenty of criticism of US foreign policy and government actions in mass media.

In any case, I would argue that traditional mass media is less important than it used to be, or at least has less of a stranglehold on information, since literally anyone can theoretically reach a mass audience via the internet.

Mass media such as nightly newscasts, online newspapers, and other largely consumed forms of news media are still extremely important. Your average 40+ still isn't that plugged into to alternative news sources and they're still the loudest richest voices in America. Even alternative news sources are iffy because you have to compare them to a baseline, aka mass media, to see what biases they hold.

Your characterization of Americans is, again, overly simplistic, seeing only the negative, and frankly is the kind of sweeping stereotypical attack that if you said it about a race rather than a nationality, would probably get you in serious trouble.

As a whole, America is doing some evil shit and each and every American holds part of the blame. Save those who actively lobby for the cessation of America's evils and the punishment of those who perpetrated the acts. Merely voting for the lesser of two evils every four years and whining about policies on facebook and some message boards doesn't count.

However, I fully acknowledged that their is a real problem with people simply not caring enough or thinking its unavoidable. Apathy and ignorance. And I suppose American exceptionalism can play into that.

Apathy and Ignorance might as well be the motto of the United States.

However, I would note that the US has undergone drastic changes in its history towards embracing a greater respect for peoples' rights, repeatedly. Slavery was abolished, women gained the right to vote, and gay people can marry now, to name three obvious examples. So I prefer to think that this is a solvable problem, rather than to just write off a nation of over 300 million people as totally bad and wallow in cynicism, which serves zero purpose except to vent your anger and let you pretend you're smarter than everyone else.

Slavery was only tackled decades after other western nations had abolished the practice and even then the United States has some of the worst race relations of any western nation. So, the US, in every aspect of treating African Americans as equals is and has been regressive. On the matter of Women's Sufferage, the US was at best average in the matter of giving women the right to vote. The US is by no means a leader in terms of LGBT rights, not by a long shot.

For all the positives, you've tried to note the US was late to the party on two of them and average at best on the other. The US is also far behind Canada and Europe when it comes to separation of Church and State. These are not signs of a progressive nation.

Frankly, it seems to me that you're trying to pick a fight when their isn't really a reason for one. I'm not blind to America's failings, much as you'd evidently like to pretend that I am. I'm obviously not defending what happened at this hospital, or any attempt to minimize, ignore, or excuse it. I just don't see the point of simplistic tripe about how bad all Americans are.

What are you doing to protest the vile acts of your government?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not going to go through your posts line by line because I don't want to clutter the thread and I really don't think this thread should be turned into an argument about weather America is bad or not. I only brought it up because Edi posted some rather antagonistic oversimplifications/falsehoods that I felt should be addressed. I'll try to address the main issues, however. Apologies if I miss anything.

I do not deny that their have been a lot of dubious and outright despicable acts committed by people in the US government, often under official policy. Nor do I deny that their is a certain portion of the population that supports such acts, and that their is a certain portion of the population who accepts them out of apathy, ignorance, or a belief that change is impossible (that last position, incidentally, is only going to be boosted by self-indulgent cynicism like I'm seeing here).

What I do dispute are needless aggression and sweeping attacks and generalizations, particularly directed at all or nearly all inhabitants of a diverse nation of over 300 million people. It isn't accurate, it isn't helpful, and it simply serves to vent your anger and let you feel better than other people while fuelling divisiveness and ensuring that Americans who are sympathetic to criticisms of the US government, such as myself, become antagonized.

Nor am I claiming that the US is the best nation, or that it was ahead of everyone on civil rights. My point in bringing up abolition, suffrage, and gay marriage was simply that change, even seemingly unlikely change, is possible. This should, I hope, be obvious to anyone.

I also have to ask weather any of you would so condemn the people of other nations in this manner for the actions of their government. And if you would, why it is acceptable to so condemn a nation on this board when it is (rightfully) unacceptable to condemn a race, keeping in mind that we no more choose what country we are born to than what race we are born to, that your citizenship no more automatically dictates your principles/actions/character than your race, and that I have seen criticism not only of US policy, but of the American people in general here.

Also, Jub, I will not detail my political activism or lack thereof to you, because I consider it irrelevant to the validity of my argument. You are trying to refute my argument by turning it into a referendum on my character, which in my opinion is a borderline ad hominem.

In conclusion, I do not dispute that their are very serious political, cultural, and moral problems in the United States. What I do dispute is oversimplification and prejudice, pointless cynicism, and excessive hostility toward America and American people. If nothing less than a condemnation and renunciation of the US as a whole will satisfy you, you will be disappointed, and I suggest that it would be best if we simply agree to disagree rather than derail the thread in a debate that can only go in circles. If, however, you wish to reasonably discuss specific problems in the United States and how they might be addressed, I'm all ears. Because as an America, I actually want to make my country better rather than simply write it off, hard as that may be for you to understand.

Edit: I also wish to apologize if I have inadvertently taken the thread too far off topic. I only continued to discuss this issue because I felt it necessary to respond in some manner to the posts directed at me.

[Jub]

I also have to ask weather any of you would so condemn the people of other nations in this manner for the actions of their government. And if you would, why it is acceptable to so condemn a nation on this board when it is (rightfully) unacceptable to condemn a race, keeping in mind that we no more choose what country we are born to than what race we are born to, that your citizenship no more automatically dictates your principles/actions/character than your race, and that I have seen criticism not only of US policy, but of the American people in general here.

Nations, unlike races, can be changed by their citizens. Due to this simple fact, nations and the citizens are fair game when it comes to criticism, mockery, and derision. America is the way it is entirely due to the actions of the people who have voted in favor of the politicians who have made it this way. Every vote, lack of vote, or anything in between has all contributed to shaping America. Thus, all citizens have played a part in allowing America to act as it currently does.

Also, Jub, I will not detail my political activism or lack thereof to you, because I consider it irrelevant to the validity of my argument. You are trying to refute my argument by turning it into a referendum on my character, which in my opinion is a borderline ad hominem.

If you aren't working for change you're just another cog in the apathetic machine that silently condones torture, bombing hospitals, and the other less than savoury acts of the United States. If you haven't petitioned for change, you don't get to complain about being lumped in with people who outright support acts that you may find moral objectionable.

In conclusion, I do not dispute that their are very serious political, cultural, and moral problems in the United States. What I do dispute is oversimplification and prejudice, pointless cynicism, and excessive hostility toward America and American people. If nothing less than a condemnation and renunciation of the US as a whole will satisfy you, you will be disappointed, and I suggest that it would be best if we simply agree to disagree rather than derail the thread in a debate that can only go in circles. If, however, you wish to reasonably discuss specific problems in the United States and how they might be addressed, I'm all ears. Because as an America, I actually want to make my country better rather than simply write it off, hard as that may be for you to understand.

All I've gotten from this is Leave America Alone! and whining about #NotAllAmericans.

When America stops acting like a manchild with anger issues maybe people will start to respect the nation and here citizens. Until then grow a thicker skin or work to actively change things and rise above the criticism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nations, unlike races, can be changed by their citizens.

That is a fair point. I'll concede its not a perfect analogy.

My point, however, is pretty much that citizens of a nation do not choose where they were born, are individuals, and are not defined simply by their nationality, and thus should not be collectively judged. And I feel that's still valid.

Due to this simple fact, nations and the citizens are fair game when it comes to criticism, mockery, and derision.

National governments are certainly fair game.

I do not believe that all individual citizens of a nation should be judged together, however. An individual should be judged on their beliefs and actions, not what lines on a map they happened to be born within.

That I have to state something this obvious, and that this is seen as controversial or offensive, is frankly shocking.

America is the way it is entirely due to the actions of the people who have voted in favor of the politicians who have made it this way.

Their are numerous factors that shape a country besides who votes for who. Either you are speaking very clumsily, or you are betraying more highly simplistic thinking.

Every vote, lack of vote, or anything in between has all contributed to shaping America. Thus, all citizens have played a part in allowing America to act as it currently does.

By that reasoning, even those who oppose a policy actively are guilty for its implementation, simply because their side hasn't won.

If you aren't working for change you're just another cog in the apathetic machine that silently condones torture, bombing hospitals, and the other less than savoury acts of the United States. If you haven't petitioned for change, you don't get to complain about being lumped in with people who outright support acts that you may find moral objectionable.

One does not have to earn the right to object to a falsehood.

And I would argue that their is a moral distinction between limited action (such as voting or online commentary, which you said do not count), complete inaction, and actively supporting evil. Obviously one should make a real effort to achieve reform. However, I find your oversimplification again distasteful.

In any case, again, my character and actions are irrelevant to the validity of my argument, unless I am arguing my own personal merits or appealing to my personal authority/experience. By and large, that is not what I have done here. Thus I refuse to detail my level of political activism, as it has no bearing on the topic and is none of your fucking business.

All I've gotten from this is Leave America Alone! and whining about #NotAllAmericans.

Then you got something that isn't their (well, I do feel that it is objectively false to condemn all Americans because I am opposed to stereotyping and guilt by association in all circumstances).

Secondly, I have frequently criticized the American government (including in this thread) and have no problem with others doing so as long as said criticisms are intelligent, accurate, and reasonable. Which makes you a liar, I'd say.

Third, cute trick with the #NotAllAmericans line. If I understand the connotation correctly, you are saying that anyone who does not accept that all 300 million plus Americans are collectively guilty is equivalent to a racist. Which I consider such a ridiculous and hypocritical proposition that I do not deem it worth a further response.

When America stops acting like a manchild with anger issues maybe people will start to respect the nation and here citizens. Until then grow a thicker skin or work to actively change things and rise above the criticism.

What makes you assume I haven't worked to actively change things, other than the fact that I am an American?

I also do not believe that anyone, anywhere is ever under an obligation to accept a falsehood. And by the way, I'm not just saying this because I happen to be a target in this case. I wouldn't approve of such shit directed at any other nationality either. If you came on here saying all British people are guilty for David Cameron, or all Chinese people are guilty for communism, or all Syrians are guilty for ISIS and Assad, I'd have a problem with that too.

The difference is that I wouldn't be straw manned as a blind nationalist if I did so.

[Jub]

My point, however, is pretty much that citizens of a nation do not choose where they were born, are individuals, and are not defined simply by their nationality, and thus should not be collectively judged. And I feel that's still valid.

They can choose their level of involvement in politics and the methods they use to push for change.

National governments are certainly fair game.

I do not believe that all individual citizens of a nation should be judged together, however. An individual should be judged on their beliefs and actions, not what lines on a map they happened to be born within.

That I have to state something this obvious, and that this is seen as controversial or offensive, is frankly shocking.

The only way be absolved for the sins of your nation is to act as a force of change within that nation. That bar can be set as low as an annual letter to each of your representatives. This would take a few hours out of a weekend at most to accomplish. If you fail to meet this low bar you don't get to complain. You chose the path of apathy, now you get to deal with being called out on it.

Their are numerous factors that shape a country besides who votes for who. Either you are speaking very clumsily, or you are betraying more highly simplistic thinking.

I was speaking in simplest terms. As 99% of people will never do more than vote, and many will do less than that, it can be said that by only interacting with your government at this level you are complicit in it's deeds for both good and ill.

By that reasoning, even those who oppose a policy actively are guilty for its implementation, simply because their side hasn't won.

It's objectively true. Failing to gather enough votes for change steers the nation just as much as actively voting for a policy.

And I would argue that their is a moral distinction between limited action (such as voting or online commentary, which you said do not count), complete inaction, and actively supporting evil. Obviously one should make a real effort to achieve reform. However, I find your oversimplification again distasteful.

I would argue that the distinction is too small to matter and that your defending of such laziness makes you the very poster child for the slacktivism movement. It's funny that you object to being lumped into the too apathetic to care segment of the US population while advocating for such apathy.

In any case, again, my character and actions are irrelevant to the validity of my argument, unless I am arguing my own personal merits or appealing to my personal authority/experience. By and large, that is not what I have done here. Thus I refuse to detail my level of political activism, as it has no bearing on the topic and is none of your fucking business.

Your level of involvement does matter in terms of being blamed for the actions of your nation. My view is that those who do nothing to push for change are equally culpable as those who actively push for evil. Given this standpoint, your level of political activity is of the utmost importance.

Then you got something that isn't their (well, I do feel that it is objectively false to condemn all Americans because I am opposed to stereotyping and guilt by association in all circumstances).

Every person that lives within the borders of any group you can name and is mentally capable of being held accountable for their actions has the responsibility to ensure that their group doesn't go down the path of darkness. That so many choose not to act is an indictment of democracy and a black mark on society.

Third, cute trick with the #NotAllAmericans line. If I understand the connotation correctly, you are saying that anyone who does not accept that all 300 million plus Americans are collectively guilty is equivalent to a racist. Which I consider such a ridiculous and hypocritical proposition that I do not deem it worth a further response.

Not entirely. I was more looking at things from the angle of the stereotypical MRA hashtag Not All Men.

Still just as every cell of a guilty man is guilty every citizen of a guilty nation is guilty.

What makes you assume I haven't worked to actively change things, other than the fact that I am an American?

Your refusal to declare that you have done so.

I also do not believe that anyone, anywhere is ever under an obligation to accept a falsehood. And by the way, I'm not just saying this because I happen to be a target in this case. I wouldn't approve of such shit directed at any other nationality either. If you came on here saying all British people are guilty for David Cameron, or all Chinese people are guilty for communism, or all Syrians are guilty for ISIS and Assad, I'd have a problem with that too.

The difference is that I wouldn't be straw manned as a blind nationalist if I did so.

The people you listed are responsible for those things so long as they choose to only passively stand against them. The only way to clean your slate is through action. To have tried and failed is still better than to not have tried at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

They can choose their level of involvement in politics and the methods they use to push for change.

Granted, to a point. Their may be other factors in a person's life (age, needing to work two jobs to feed their family, disability, etc.) which keep them from being involved in ways they otherwise would be.

Moreover, their are a lot of problems to address, and one person cannot focus much effort on every issue. So if they focus their activism on one problem, are they culpable for all others?

Individual circumstances need to always be taken into account. That's kind of at the core of my position here.

In any case, as you go on to make clear, no amount of effort is enough.

The only way be absolved for the sins of your nation is to act as a force of change within that nation. That bar can be set as low as an annual letter to each of your representatives. This would take a few hours out of a weekend at most to accomplish. If you fail to meet this low bar you don't get to complain. You chose the path of apathy, now you get to deal with being called out on it.

I do not see how one needs to be absolved for sins that they did not commit. Failing to act is a separate offence from committing or defending atrocities yourself. I maintain that it is obviously ridiculous to treat a person doing little or nothing to change the situation as equivalent to someone who is actually out torturing and murdering.

In any case, as you go on to make clear, no amount of effort is enough.

I was speaking in simplest terms. As 99% of people will never do more than vote, and many will do less than that, it can be said that by only interacting with your government at this level you are complicit in it's deeds for both good and ill.

How does that follow? Its what most people do, so therefore it means you're complicit? That sounds to me like you're starting with the conclusion that most people are guilty and working backward to say that anything most people do therefor doesn't count. In other words, like ou're going from conclusion to argument rather than the proper way around.

Anyway, I have no idea what percentage of the US population does more than vote, and I doubt you do either.

In any case, as you go on to make clear, no amount of effort is enough.

It's objectively true. Failing to gather enough votes for change steers the nation just as much as actively voting for a policy.

In other words, no amount of effort is enough. If you try to bring change and fail, you are just as guilty as if you were a torturer at Abu Graib or dropped the bombs on that hospital.

You're shifting the goal posts to maintain your insane argument.

I would argue that the distinction is too small to matter

You consider the difference between someone sitting at home doing nothing and someone actively torturing and murdering "too small to matter"?

Okay, you're an imbecile. I don't know why I'm even bothering to argue with you, since you have about as much credibility as a drunk Donald Trump would.

and that your defending of such laziness makes you the very poster child for the slacktivism movement.

That is a non-sequitur. You can defend someone without being one of them.

It's funny that you object to being lumped into the too apathetic to care segment of the US population while advocating for such apathy

Not treating apathy as equivalent to active participation in atrocities is advocating apathy?

Have I not said in this thread that apathy is a problem and said that people should work to bring about reform (in the very quote to which you are responding here)? Oh yes, I have.

Liar.

Your level of involvement does matter in terms of being blamed for the actions of your nation. My view is that those who do nothing to push for change are equally culpable as those who actively push for evil. Given this standpoint, your level of political activity is of the utmost importance.

Culpable? Arguably.

Equally culpable to someone who is out murdering and torturing? Bull shit.

You know, there's a reason why "All crimes are equally severe" is not how the justice system runs.

In any case, weather I am personally guilty does not change the fact that it is ridiculous to treat all or nearly all Americans as bad. I'm not arguing merely in my own defence here. I am arguing against oversimplification and prejudice in general.

Every person that lives within the borders of any group you can name and is mentally capable of being held accountable for their actions has the responsibility to ensure that their group doesn't go down the path of darkness. That so many choose not to act is an indictment of democracy and a black mark on society.

It is not an indictment of democracy. It is at worst an indictment on those individuals, but not one equivalent to active participation in atrocities.

Also, since you claim that you hold all groups to this standard, not only Americans, I am curious as to what you are doing to give you the moral high ground in this discussion, since you seem to find our personal actions relevant to this debate.

Not entirely. I was more looking at things from the angle of the stereotypical MRA hashtag Not All Men.

Oh, that. I was thinking of some variant along the lines of Not All White People that I recall being tossed around of late. Hence my thinking that you were drawing a parallel to racism.

Still just as every cell of a guilty man is guilty every citizen of a guilty nation is guilty.

That's an odd analogy.

Your refusal to declare that you have done so.

I explained my reasons for that, however you wish to construe them.

And frankly, I don't feel any particular need to validate myself to you.

But let's turn it around: You're a Canadian, based on your location. Canada has its share of problems (as a duel citizen residing in Canada, I ought to know). So what have you done, that lets you look down on me?

The people you listed are responsible for those things so long as they choose to only passively stand against them. The only way to clean your slate is through action. To have tried and failed is still better than to not have tried at all.

Except you stated that people are guilty even if they try and fail. Get your argument straight. I cannot effectively debate a shapeshifting argument.

In any case, I agree that you can argue that inaction entails some responsibility. What I dispute is that it is remotely equivalent to actively committing atrocities or actively supporting those who do.

Edit: Also, apologies for the lengthy reply, but I would not wish to be accused of ignoring your argument, and their was a lot to address here.

[Gandalf]

I also have to ask weather any of you would so condemn the people of other nations in this manner for the actions of their government.

Yes. I hold Australia's populace responsible for the crimes of its government, be it against the Indigenous population, or throughout the Middle East as the government ties itself to the US' silly imperial misadventures.

Is it not common to hold Germany's populace (at the time) responsible for the crimes of the Nazi regime?

[The Romulan Republic]

I also have to ask weather any of you would so condemn the people of other nations in this manner for the actions of their government.

Yes. I hold Australia's populace responsible for the crimes of its government, be it against the Indigenous population, or throughout the Middle East as the government ties itself to the US' silly imperial misadventures.

Is it not common to hold Germany's populace (at the time) responsible for the crimes of the Nazi regime?

Well, I'm glad you're apparently willing to be consistent, at least, even if I think its a stupid position to blame every citizen of a nation for every action of its government.

As to Germany, yes, a lot of blame people Germany as a whole for the Nazis. Personally, I would say that's largely fair. However, I would put less blame on those who simply did nothing than to those who were actively working in the Nazi government, military, or death camps. And I would attach no blame at all for Nazism to those who actively tried to resist Nazism, or who were unable to do anything due to be infants/small children at the time, for example.

I would also be wary of the Nazi comparison because such comparisons are notoriously overused and I don't think the US today is in any way equivalent to Nazi Germany. I feel as though you are using something of a straw man, therefore- that you are comparing defending America/Americans to defending Nazi Germany, as a way of falsely attacking my position. I hope that that was not your intention.

[Gandalf]

Well, I'm glad you're apparently willing to be consistent, at least, even if I think its a stupid position to blame every citizen of a nation for every action of its government.

As to Germany, yes, a lot of blame people Germany as a whole for the Nazis. Personally, I would say that's largely fair. However, I would put less blame on those who simply did nothing than to those who were actively working in the Nazi government, military, or death camps. And I would attach no blame at all for Nazism to those who actively tried to resist Nazism, or who were unable to do anything due to be infants/small children at the time, for example.

Can you determine the difference between one people's collective guilt and millions of people's individual guilt?

I would also be wary of the Nazi comparison because such comparisons are notoriously overused and I don't think the US today is in any way equivalent to Nazi Germany. I feel as though you are using something of a straw man, therefore- that you are comparing defending America/Americans to defending Nazi Germany, as a way of falsely attacking my position. I hope that that was not your intention.

TRR, you never disappoint. Actually I brought it up because the idea of German collective guilt with relation to WW2 is very prominent. Many have written about it, so I assumed that you would understand such a thing instead of jumping to... whatever you would call that paragraph.

[The Romulan Republic]

Can you determine the difference between one people's collective guilt and millions of people's individual guilt?

The difference is this: those millions of guilty individuals may all be guilty, but they do not necessarily comprise the entirety of their nation/people. Ie, if their is a nation of 100 million, and fifty million of its people are guilty (by whatever standard you use to measure guilt), that does not make the other fifty million guilty as well.

This is, of course, a simple hypothetical, and these numbers should not be taken as representing my idea of the ratio of guilty to innocent people in any actual nation.

TRR, you never disappoint. Actually I brought it up because the idea of German collective guilt with relation to WW2 is very prominent. Many have written about it, so I assumed that you would understand such a thing instead of jumping to... whatever you would call that paragraph.

Don't try to be cute.

Of course I understand the concept of collective guilt for Germany, you condescending twit. I don't know why anything I said would lead you to believe otherwise.

I was not, after all, expressing incomprehension or incredulity at the concept of collective guilt for Nazi Germany. I was questioning its relevance to this discussion.

I argued that Americans (and others) should not be collectively condemned. You argued in favour of collective guilt, using the Nazis as an example. In other words, you used pretty much the most extreme possible example, which isn't really equivalent to the situation I am debating.

Hence, straw man. Got it yet?

[Thanas]

There is no collective guilt in dictatorships. There is plenty of collective guilt in democracies and in those who allow a democracy to turn into dictatorships. Guilt can only arise by sovereign, free actions.

[The Romulan Republic]

There is no collective guilt in dictatorships. There is plenty of collective guilt in democracies and in those who allow a democracy to turn into dictatorships. Guilt can only arise by sovereign, free actions.

That's an interesting perspective.

Would you then argue (as would appear to logically follow from this), that Germans do not bear collective guilt for the actions of the Nazis, while Americans do bear collective guilt for the actions of, say, George W. Bush?

[Thanas]

They bear collective responsibility of ever electing Hitler (though not for the Holocaust) and massive individual guilt for the Holocaust, so vast an individual guilt that taken together it comes very close to collective guilt. But no, not collective guilt per se because for the years of WWII the people definitely were not the sovereign.

The US people however were at all times the sovereign, so they bear the collective guilt. Even moreso because they showed - by reelecting him - that they agree with Bush's actions, even though they were horrible.