Thread: Unrest in Iraq, is anyone surprised?

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.