Thread: Unrest in Iraq, is anyone surprised?

I'm glad to see a Marine on here! I graduated from USMC OCS last summer but decided that I'm not going to go through with the commissioning after all. Instead I'm gonna join the Navy and go to BUDs!!! I used to be on here a lot but I got burned out on it a couple years ago. I think you and I are like minded, though. I would typically find myself defending my views about war and the military alone against an onslaught of haters. It's usually invigorating at first but then it inevitably deteriorates into mind numbing arguments about trivial matters.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wasn't aware of the details about this. As far as I'm concerned this in itself is hideous morally; what if your commander starts ordering you to kill civilians without reason? There's a fine line and by making it illegal to quit you discourage troops from acting morally. But still, 18 months in prison is not in itself a legitimate reason to kill innocents.

It's called an unlawful order. You will be court martialed for following an order that you know to be unlawful. Nobody in the United States military is making a practice of killing innocent civilians and getting away with it. It kills me how many people think that's whats going on.

Originally Posted by Xei

Oh of course, continuing to kill people for what you know are illegitimate reasons out of practical/financial considerations is perfectly okay.

Not even worse.

Sorry ethics, I can't stop stuffing Jews into this furnace until I get my paycheck on Friday.

Why are you comparing this situation to the Nazis? Why must everyone equate what they perceive as evil to Nazism? In one situation, unarmed prisoners are being systematically murdered, in the other, armed combatants are being engaged and killed in battle (a mutual attempt to kill each other.) I'm sure MarineRecon can tell you all about the rules of engagement.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It's called an unlawful order. You will be court martialed for following an order that you know to be unlawful. Nobody in the United States military is making a practice of killing innocent civilians and getting away with it. It kills me how many people think that's whats going on.

I didn't say that's what is going on. Read the post again. It was a hypothetical situation for inquiring about the issue of punishing conscientious objection.

Why are you comparing this situation to the Nazis? Why must everyone equate what they perceive as evil to Nazism? In one situation, unarmed prisoners are being systematically murdered, in the other, armed combatants are being engaged and killed in battle (a mutual attempt to kill each other.) I'm sure MarineRecon can tell you all about the rules of engagement.

Again, it was just an analogy dealing specifically with the idea that taking orders relieves moral responsibility.

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't say that's what is going on. Read the post again. It was a hypothetical situation for inquiring about the issue of punishing conscientious objection.


Again, it was just an analogy dealing specifically with the idea that taking orders relieves moral responsibility.

It blew the issue way out of proportion. Nobody punishes conscientious objectors. Fighting in the infantry is an honor and a privelage, if you don't want to be there you can be reassigned to a desk job. You get punished for deserting. Nobody is saying "pull the trigger or go to jail." They are saying "serve your time or go to jail." And that time can be served a safe distance from the battlefield.

On the issue of moral responsibility, does an individual not have a moral responsibility to fulfil a contract that they pledged to fulfil? Is it our problem if they decided to object after they've committed themselves? Its not like we have a draft. I think as adults they have the responsibility of making wise choices.

I don't think MarineRecon was saying that following orders relieves moral responsibility, and I know the Marine Corps teaches that because that's where I learned it. You don't have a choice who you fight or where you fight, but nobody can ask you to break the law. If you shoot an unarmed civilian, it's on you to take responsibility for your actions if you should be charged with a crime. If you don't want to shoot anybody, even armed combatants, then you don't have to join the infantry. Any soldier/Marine who is under the impression that they can do whatever they want and hide behind their superiors is wrong. Watch A Few Good Men if you've never seen it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I don't think MarineRecon was saying that following orders relieves moral responsibility, and I know the Marine Corps teaches that because that's where I learned it. You don't have a choice who you fight or where you fight, but nobody can ask you to break the law. If you shoot an unarmed civilian, it's on you to take responsibility for your actions if you should be charged with a crime. If you don't want to shoot anybody, even armed combatants, then you don't have to join the infantry. Any soldier/Marine who is under the impression that they can do whatever they want and hide behind their superiors is wrong. Watch A Few Good Men if you've never seen it.

It is so good to see a faimilar face! When do you plan on enlisting for the Navy?

When I decided to go in the Military it was between Reconissance and being a Paratrooper.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It blew the issue way out of proportion. Nobody punishes conscientious objectors. Fighting in the infantry is an honor and a privelage, if you don't want to be there you can be reassigned to a desk job. You get punished for deserting. Nobody is saying "pull the trigger or go to jail." They are saying "serve your time or go to jail." And that time can be served a safe distance from the battlefield.

I didn't blow anything out of proportion, I was asking a question about the impression I had got from Spart. You've told me otherwise.

Although, why do you think conscientious objection is just about guns? Even if you go and push paper, you will end up serving a cause you consider unjust. Or can you always opt for a job not related to helping warfare?

On the issue of moral responsibility, does an individual not have a moral responsibility to fulfil a contract that they pledged to fulfil?

Of course not. What a backward idea. You could be mistaken when you signed the contract; you could see things and develop moral insights which later contradict that contract. And it is then your duty to act morally and contradict it.

There is no moral power in pieces of paper, and there is no moral imperative to continue to serve something if for whatever reason you later decide it is morally wrong. How could you even suggest such a thing? You need to become much better at conceptualising circumstances not amenable to your conclusions, because it is quite clear with a little imagination that this idea is completely wrong.

I don't think MarineRecon was saying that following orders relieves moral responsibility, and I know the Marine Corps teaches that because that's where I learned it. You don't have a choice who you fight or where you fight, but nobody can ask you to break the law.

The law is simply another authority. It is always created and applied by the side you are fighting for. No country has ever considered their own war to be illegal, so what use is it? The secretary general of the UN declared the entire war in Iraq to be illegal. The law is no more of a just moral compass than orders; you must make your own moral judgements, and plainly, you can be asked to break them.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

It is so good to see a faimilar face! When do you plan on enlisting for the Navy?

When I decided to go in the Military it was between Reconissance and being a Paratrooper.

I still haven't quite decided whether I want to enlist or go to OCS. I graduate college in May and that's when I'll make my decision. I'll probably end up enlisting just because I want to get into BUDs as soon as possible. The only reason I want to join the Navy is to be a SEAL.

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't blow anything out of proportion, I was asking a question about the impression I had got from Spart. You've told me otherwise.

Although, why do you think conscientious objection is just about guns? Even if you go and push paper, you will end up serving a cause you consider unjust. Or can you always opt for a job not related to helping warfare?

If you are a tax paying citizen, you serve that cause no matter what. The least you can do is serve it indirectly. The jobs most removed from warfare would probably be a recruiter or some type of supply. You can get away from the fighting, but you'll still be involved somehow.

Originally Posted by Xei

Of course not. What a backward idea. You could be mistaken when you signed the contract; you could see things and develop moral insights which later contradict that contract. And it is then your duty to act morally and contradict it.

There is no moral power in pieces of paper, and there is no moral imperative to continue to serve something if for whatever reason you later decide it is morally wrong. How could you even suggest such a thing? You need to become much better at conceptualising circumstances not amenable to your conclusions, because it is quite clear with a little imagination that this idea is completely wrong.

I guess I have to respect that everyone has their own set of values. To me, someone who backs out on their word, whether it be spoken or written, is morally reprehensible. Papers hold moral power since they stand for your word. They aren't just inanimate objects, they say words which mean things, and they speak the truth. The papers tell you exactly what is expected of you during your tour of duty and they can never change after you've signed them. There is nothing in a military contract that says you must kill anyone or do anything you object to morally. Your argument might be valid if any such thing existed in the United States of America. If your views change, you can be accomodated. You just can't quit until your contract is up. You find this absurd, but how can a military function if anybody was allowed to up and quit when ever they wanted? Responsibility and duty to others must be chosen over immediate personal gratification, or a military can't function. That's how it's always been done. It would be ridiculous to grant such freedoms to soldiers if it undermines the power of your force. If complete freedom is what you are after, stay away from the military. It is by nature a subservient organization. It promotes uniformity and discourages creativity and individuality. To join such an organization and expect to enjoy the same freedoms you enjoy in the civilian world is down right stupid. I say when you sign the papers, you knowingly accept the risk of serving a cause you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by Xei

The law is simply another authority. It is always created and applied by the side you are fighting for. No country has ever considered their own war to be illegal, so what use is it? The secretary general of the UN declared the entire war in Iraq to be illegal. The law is no more of a just moral compass than orders; you must make your own moral judgements, and plainly, you can be asked to break them.

Give me an example of something a soldier could be asked to do which is technically legal but may also be considered morally wrong. And that aside, if you find a lawful order to be against your moral code, you can refuse to follow it and you won't get sent to jail. You'll be reprimanded and maybe reassigned, but the issue isn't as serious as you seem to perceive it. The matter of serving time in a brig is only with desertion and breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I still haven't quite decided whether I want to enlist or go to OCS. I graduate college in May and that's when I'll make my decision. I'll probably end up enlisting just because I want to get into BUDs as soon as possible. The only reason I want to join the Navy is to be a SEAL.

SEAL, eh? I swam with them a couple of times.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If you are a tax paying citizen, you serve that cause no matter what. The least you can do is serve it indirectly. The jobs most removed from warfare would probably be a recruiter or some type of supply. You can get away from the fighting, but you'll still be involved somehow.

Right, and that's a problem. The fact it's also a problem on a national scale doesn't make it anything less of a problem.

I guess I have to respect that everyone has their own set of values. To me, someone who backs out on their word, whether it be spoken or written, is morally reprehensible. Papers hold moral power since they stand for your word. They aren't just inanimate objects, they say words which mean things, and they speak the truth. The papers tell you exactly what is expected of you during your tour of duty and they can never change after you've signed them. There is nothing in a military contract that says you must kill anyone or do anything you object to morally. Your argument might be valid if any such thing existed in the United States of America. If your views change, you can be accomodated. You just can't quit until your contract is up. You find this absurd, but how can a military function if anybody was allowed to up and quit when ever they wanted? Responsibility and duty to others must be chosen over immediate personal gratification, or a military can't function. That's how it's always been done. It would be ridiculous to grant such freedoms to soldiers if it undermines the power of your force. If complete freedom is what you are after, stay away from the military. It is by nature a subservient organization. It promotes uniformity and discourages creativity and individuality. To join such an organization and expect to enjoy the same freedoms you enjoy in the civilian world is down right stupid. I say when you sign the papers, you knowingly accept the risk of serving a cause you don't agree with.

That's nonsense, there are many gullible people in the army who will just have been told, 'your country is under attack', and will have believed it; and that's why they joined. Because they thought it was morally necessary. You honestly don't know anybody like that?

What do you mean, 'how would a military function if people could leave whenever they wanted'? It would function via the soldiers actually agreeing with the conflict.

The idea that promises are more of a moral imperative than, for example, helping the killing of people when you've decided that it's untenable, is so obviously wrong, I can't imagine how it got into your head other than by conditioning. It doesn't stand to a moment of scrutiny. The people who swore to fight for Hitler; you would advise them, on moral grounds, would you, to continue doing that, and to continue trying to conquer your country and kill your fellows, rather than violate their promise? And the very troops you fight in foreign countries who have sworn to Allah; you would say that it's a moral imperative for them to keep trying to kill you? Surely you see how untenable that is.

Give me an example of something a soldier could be asked to do which is technically legal but may also be considered morally wrong.

Uhhhhhh, invade Iraq?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm sure you knew while you were there that the war was wrong, but you did your service anyway, nice job

What's wrong with you.

Originally Posted by Xei

What's wrong with you.

The soldiers don't have a choice, they aren't the ones who chose to invaded a sovereign country for a personal vendetta and to make money for Haloburden. They can not disobey orders, they get thrown in prison if they do, regardless on whether or not the war is legal or not. I have a bunch of friends who served, they knew the war was wrong, but there was nothing they could do about it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I guess I have to respect that everyone has their own set of values. To me, someone who backs out on their word, whether it be spoken or written, is morally reprehensible. Papers hold moral power since they stand for your word. They aren't just inanimate objects, they say words which mean things, and they speak the truth. The papers tell you exactly what is expected of you during your tour of duty and they can never change after you've signed them.

Apparently you've never heard of stop-loss.

I really do not understand this reverence for military soldiers. A soldier here has said that war is terrible and I think many of us would agree. Yet what makes war terrible? The actions of those involved. The inhumanity in which they are enacted. Who is doing these inhuman actions? The soldiers themselves. So why do we revere men and women who do these terrible things? Why paste the false premise that they are securing our rights by killing others? Who gives us our rights? Soldiers and government? I think not. I find the truth to be that my rights, as they stand right now, are more in danger from the institution of government and their "tool" called the military. As my signature says below, war is all the horrors of human nature compacted into a singular event but war is not a separate entity. It is the concentrated actions of individuals. Actions show preference.

I am pretty sure you can't refuse to a deployment because you don't like war. That sounds like a line from a recruiter. Does anyone here really believe you can just say you don't feel like going to Iraq, and they will say yes?