Thread: Unrest in Iraq, is anyone surprised?

Originally Posted by Alric

So do you think it is safe to pull out of German and Japan yet? Or will both of those countries crumble into chaos if we leave? And do we need to have a base in Iraq for 60 years until things are fixed there?

There doesn't seem to be any sign of the US pulling out of Iraq any time soon though. I believe the plan was to permanently station 15,000 people there.

Of course it's safe to leave Germany and Japan, but why would we want to? We are allies, we can work together.

I've been saying for years that we should be in Iraq indefinitely, not just for our sake but for the sake of the entire Middle East.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am making a point implicitly. If there are such things as unlawful orders, or orders that are given which are not suppose to be followed then being in the military is not just "following orders." It involves but is not limited to deciding what is and is not a lawful order which in turn requires that a soldier think beyond just "following orders." This in turn requires the soldier to be a free-willed agent who can choose to or choose not to follow an order.

Yes. I am aware of this. You still don't choose to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and you don't choose to patrol this town or that town. You follow orders that are legal. That was implied.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf

Nevermind, I have the DD 4/1 contract. Please, show me where it says anything about stop-loss.

That is no contract. But don't waste your time looking for one, I already showed a link that said federal courts have ruled that military personnel contractual agree that their terms of service might be involuntarily extended. That means it's in there somewhere. It has to have a legal basis or it couldn't be enforced.

"The policy has been legally challenged several times. However, federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended until the end of their obligated service."

Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you join the Military you follow LEGAL orders. You have the right to not follow an order if it is ILLEGAL. Also, soldiers do not choose to kill innocents. Their commanders do not tell them to kill innocents. That video that someone posted is clearly wrong. He has obviously never served in the Military and he does not seem to even know firsthand what is going on over there.

The people who accidentally killed innocents are under trained soldiers. Yes, Im angry at them. They ruin the Military's reputation so people like you can have "solid evidence" to prove your point. Young soldiers shouldn't join the Military if they are going to think of themselves better than the civilians living in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they get scared (which is very easy at first) then it is their fault. There should be a punishment of some sort. The training for the Military should be harder and more advanced to help combat the problem. Most of the soldiers know what they're doing though.

You can't blame the whole Military for something a scared 17 year old does. Most of the Military members are honest and hardworking people. They would give their lives to save a family in the Middle East because it is the right thing to do. I know I would at least. I think training should put more emphasis on how important it is to not kill a civilian.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

When you join the Military you follow LEGAL orders. You have the right to not follow an order if it is ILLEGAL. Also, soldiers do not choose to kill innocents. Their commanders do not tell them to kill innocents. That video that someone posted is clearly wrong. He has obviously never served in the Military and he does not seem to even know firsthand what is going on over there.

The people who accidentally killed innocents are under trained soldiers. Yes, Im angry at them. They ruin the Military's reputation so people like you can have "solid evidence" to prove your point. Young soldiers shouldn't join the Military if they are going to think of themselves better than the civilians living in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they get scared (which is very easy at first) then it is their fault. There should be a punishment of some sort. The training for the Military should be harder and more advanced to help combat the problem. Most of the soldiers know what they're doing though.

You can't blame the whole Military for something a scared 17 year old does. Most of the Military members are honest and hardworking people. They would give their lives to save a family in the Middle East because it is the right thing to do. I know I would at least. I think training should put more emphasis on how important it is to not kill a civilian.

The thing is, different soldiers are given different orders because this is a PR war as much as it is a physical war and they cannot have every soldier thinking they can do whatever they want. The following testimony is not only delivered by someone that served in Iraq but served for 3 tours.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

When you join the Military you follow LEGAL orders. You have the right to not follow an order if it is ILLEGAL. Also, soldiers do not choose to kill innocents. Their commanders do not tell them to kill innocents. That video that someone posted is clearly wrong. He has obviously never served in the Military and he does not seem to even know firsthand what is going on over there.

The people who accidentally killed innocents are under trained soldiers. Yes, Im angry at them. They ruin the Military's reputation so people like you can have "solid evidence" to prove your point. Young soldiers shouldn't join the Military if they are going to think of themselves better than the civilians living in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they get scared (which is very easy at first) then it is their fault. There should be a punishment of some sort. The training for the Military should be harder and more advanced to help combat the problem. Most of the soldiers know what they're doing though.

You can't blame the whole Military for something a scared 17 year old does. Most of the Military members are honest and hardworking people. They would give their lives to save a family in the Middle East because it is the right thing to do. I know I would at least. I think training should put more emphasis on how important it is to not kill a civilian.

So then the military DOES NOT "just follow orders" as you previously stated. It needs the capacity to distinguish legal codes which implies some sense of morality and ability of choice.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Yes. I am aware of this. You still don't choose to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and you don't choose to patrol this town or that town. You follow orders that are legal. That was implied.

The discussion is whether soldiers are just tools that follow orders or if they have the capacity to think beyond "just following orders." Honestly, you are not apart of this point and I don't know why you are getting involved. This was directed at MarineRecon.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is no contract. But don't waste your time looking for one, I already showed a link that said federal courts have ruled that military personnel contractual agree that their terms of service might be involuntarily extended. That means it's in there somewhere. It has to have a legal basis or it couldn't be enforced.

"The policy has been legally challenged several times. However, federal courts have consistently found that military service members contractually agree that their term of service may be involuntarily extended until the end of their obligated service."

Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the DD 4/1 contract which every military service utilizes. Where does it say in the DD 4/1 contract that Stop Loss is acceptable?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The discussion is whether soldiers are just tools that follow orders or if they have the capacity to think beyond "just following orders." Honestly, you are not apart of this point and I don't know why you are getting involved. This was directed at MarineRecon.

They are human beings, of course they can think beyond orders. You know that, I know that, MarineRecon knows that. So cut to the chase, what point are you trying to make? When he says he's only following orders he obviously means legal orders.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is the DD 4/1 contract which every military service utilizes. Where does it say in the DD 4/1 contract that Stop Loss is acceptable?

That's not a contract, it's a wikipedia page. I can see you won't be satisfied until I hold a contract in front of your face, so Im just gonna leave you unsatisfied. If federal courts ruled that it was in there, it's in there. It might not even explicitly use the term "stop-loss." Im not about to waste my time.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They are human beings, of course they can think beyond orders. You know that, I know that, MarineRecon knows that. So cut to the chase, what point are you trying to make? When he says he's only following orders he obviously means legal orders.

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.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

A tool that is used by the government. If you join the Military then you do what your told. We're pawns.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

In the Military people don't really want your opinion. You do what you're told and thats it.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

Its not the soldiers decision on what they do. We're tools.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

It may be a dumb reason but its not our choice to say so. We do what we are commanded.

Originally Posted by MarineRecon

Soldiers are basically an extension. They are a tool and nothing else. Obama asks us to do something, we do it. No questions asked. I agree, everything we do may not be moral, but if it has been commanded then it is our job to get it done.

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...

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That's not a contract, it's a wikipedia page. I can see you won't be satisfied until I hold a contract in front of your face, so Im just gonna leave you unsatisfied. If federal courts ruled that it was in there, it's in there. It might not even explicitly use the term "stop-loss." Im not about to waste my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.