Unrest in Iraq, is anyone surprised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

When we colonized the Philippines, in order to get our Pacifists to go along with it, the nation was told it was to bring democracy to the Philippines. This backfired when the Filipinos revolted against the US occupiers in order to reign in an actual democracy rather than simple annexation.

---

Well democracy, Anglo-Saxon decency, and Protestantism. Gotta Christianize those Catholics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

This is the problem with you getting involved in a discussion that I told you that you had no place in. Now you say ridiculous things and are a mouthpiece of someone without actually reading what they are saying.




I'll say it again, this discussion I am having with MarineRecon has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with an attempt to pass the blame of someone's actions as a free willed agent onto those above them who "command" them to carry out orders. This is what MarineRecon is currently doing.

So..shut up...

---

I knew I would regret addressing anything written by you. I read everything he wrote and evertything you quoted. Nowhere does he say anything about excusing illegal actions on account of following orders. Everything he wrote about "just following orders" is about legal orders. It is implied. It is obvious to everyone except you. Stop being so dense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am showing you the contract. That link is to the contract that every military member must sign in order to join the military. You are showing a wikipedia page. Just because a court says its there does not mean it actually is. Judges can have a false interpretation or interpretation that goes beyond the original scope of the document and this does not infer that this is moral.

---

For the last time you never showed me any contract. Click on that link you provided, it's a fucking website about the military, not a contract.

It's not a court, it's federal courts, as in plural. Im pretty sure if a court says it's in the contract, then it's in there. If you discount all of the judges' interpretations of the law, who the fuck is gonna be the authority on the matter? What other authority is there? And why the fuck are we arguing about it? If the judge made the ruling then it's legal and you are wasting my time but suggesting otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

This is the problem with you getting involved in a discussion that I told you that you had no place in. Now you say ridiculous things and are a mouthpiece of someone without actually reading what they are saying.











I'll say it again, this discussion I am having with MarineRecon has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with an attempt to pass the blame of someone's actions as a free willed agent onto those above them who "command" them to carry out orders. This is what MarineRecon is currently doing.

So..shut up...



I am showing you the contract. That link is to the contract that every military member must sign in order to join the military. You are showing a wikipedia page. Just because a court says its there does not mean it actually is. Judges can have a false interpretation or interpretation that goes beyond the original scope of the document and this does not infer that this is moral.

---

I guess I misunderstood you. xD

Of course Im implying legal orders. Why would I kill a random person if I got ordered too? We are pawns in the game but we still can choose to do what is obviously right. When I kill a terrorist that is not "morally" right but it has to be done. You see, if I was ordered to kill a civilian I could object, but if I was ordered to go on a mission to kill terrorists than I can do it. I only had a few times when I was able to choose if I wanted to go on a mission or not. Not because it was immoral, but because it was dangerous. I mean code-word dangerous. I can't just be ordered to kill a civilian...thats insane. Where did you even get the idea that it would actually be okay for a member of the US Military to purposely kill a random person.

In that video above me of that guy protesting, he is at fault as well. Idiots like him and his squad need to get it together. If your commander tells you to kill an innocent if you are scared then nobody in your squad goes out. Your job is to report the commander who said that.

They screwed it up in the first place, why spend money on other people's problems when there is no way to really solve it? They basically went in, shat all over everything, and left it worse than it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

They screwed it up in the first place, why spend money on other people's problems when there is no way to really solve it? They basically went in, shat all over everything, and left it worse than it was.

---

Yes, I believe the order to invade Iraq and Afghanistan just for revenge isn't right. I do think however we need more Special Recon and Special Op teams to take care of the "big" commanders over there.

I think we need to take care of the big commanders back here

^^ watch Kubrick's Paths of Glory.

Or Dr Strangelove. Hell, watch any Kubrick movie concerned with warfare! It's scary to think about what might really be behind decisions to deploy in the Middle East.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I knew I would regret addressing anything written by you. I read everything he wrote and evertything you quoted. Nowhere does he say anything about excusing illegal actions on account of following orders. Everything he wrote about "just following orders" is about legal orders. It is implied. It is obvious to everyone except you. Stop being so dense.

---

You are speaking for a stranger. Until he says it, I'm not going to assume it. Again, shut up. You are not apart of this discussion, it was never addressed to you. I don't care what you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It's not a court, it's federal courts, as in plural. Im pretty sure if a court says it's in the contract, then it's in there. If you discount all of the judges' interpretations of the law, who the fuck is gonna be the authority on the matter? What other authority is there? And why the fuck are we arguing about it? If the judge made the ruling then it's legal and you are wasting my time but suggesting otherwise.

---

Whether it is one court or multiple courts does not validate it. Hypothetically if slavery was allowed by all the Southern state courts, that does not infer that it is legitimate or correct. Having numbers does not validate an argument.
DD Form 4/1 - Military Enlistment/Reenlistment Document
Click on the DD Form 4/1 That is the contract.

Realize that judges can misinterpret documents. It happens. You act as though it is a done deal if some a-hole judge from some a-hole court rules upon it. It can be appealed. Though in this case it seems rather trite because the very institution that is ruling the case is the one already holding the plantiffs in custody. It's like trying to get a trial with your kidnapper as judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

I guess I misunderstood you. xD

Of course Im implying legal orders. Why would I kill a random person if I got ordered too? We are pawns in the game but we still can choose to do what is obviously right. When I kill a terrorist that is not "morally" right but it has to be done.

---

So your are not "pawns," You are free-willed agents. You have the ability to defy an order which can be considered illegal. Hell you can tell your platoon sgt to get bent. That was my point all along. You have the ability to think beyond orders and choose which to follow and which not to follow. What I object to is this victimization that you seem to be throwing out where you are merely a "tool" (which is your word) of the edicts of your commanders. You are not a tool. You are a human being who is capable of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

You see, if I was ordered to kill a civilian I could object, but if I was ordered to go on a mission to kill terrorists than I can do it. I only had a few times when I was able to choose if I wanted to go on a mission or not. Not because it was immoral, but because it was dangerous. I mean code-word dangerous. I can't just be ordered to kill a civilian...thats insane. Where did you even get the idea that it would actually be okay for a member of the US Military to purposely kill a random person.

---

Where do I get the idea that it would be okay for a member of the U.S. military to purposely kill civilians? You go on this rant about how war is the most terrible thing and then get antsy about me talking about soldiers killing civilians? Name a war in U.S. history in which civilians were not in some capacity harmed and when I use the term harmed I mean stolen from, raped, assaulted or killed. I can at least go back to the Civil War with instances of civilians being harmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You are speaking for a stranger. Until he says it, I'm not going to assume it. Again, shut up. You are not apart of this discussion, it was never addressed to you. I don't care what you think about it.

---

Are you selectively blind to things that contradict your opinions? He has explicitly stated that he understands the concept of an unlawful order and that he is not required to follow them...... more than once. This is a public forum and I can address any comment I want should I feel compelled. I don't know where you get off thinking you can tell me to shut up. The only reason I addressed it in the first place was because I sensed you were about to sidetrack the discussion with muddled arguments about an issue that was already cleared up. Lo and behold, two pages later I think anyone who has attempted to follow your train of thought is still confused as to what it is you are trying to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Whether it is one court or multiple courts does not validate it. Hypothetically if slavery was allowed by all the Southern state courts, that does not infer that it is legitimate or correct. Having numbers does not validate an argument.
DD Form 4/1 - Military Enlistment/Reenlistment Document
Click on the DD Form 4/1 That is the contract.

---

Page C., nearly every section. You could have easily looked that up yourself but you insist upon being difficult.

In this case, having numbers very much does validate the argument. There isn't any logical discourse to be had here. There is no debating it. The policy is clearly written in the document. If you sign it, you agree to it. I don't think there is a moral issue here. Nobody is forcing anybody to sign anything. Slaves didn't have a choice on whether they could relinquish their freedom. Obviously that argument falls flat on its face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Realize that judges can misinterpret documents. It happens. You act as though it is a done deal if some a-hole judge from some a-hole court rules upon it. It can be appealed. Though in this case it seems rather trite because the very institution that is ruling the case is the one already holding the plantiffs in custody. It's like trying to get a trial with your kidnapper as judge.

---

Realize that judges are the few qualified to interpret such documents and thus authorities on the matter. I just read the document and it's written clear as day. It doesn't take a judge to see it.

Quit hiding behind technicalities.