Printable View
I've been saying it for years and years, the instant the US pulls out of Iraq, no matter what we do, it will immediately go into civil war. Seems to be happening, rebellions against the elected powers and the recent bombings. The media is acting like it's a surprise. Is anyone really surprised at all that the US spent several trillion dollars "bringing democracy" to a place where it's currently impossible?
Bestial creatures. We should have put them down when we had the chance. Ron Paul 2012.
nope
What can be done about it? Staying there wouldn't accomplish anything. Leaving will only accomplish less dead non-Iraqis and less money wasted.
Maybe we should install some sort of secular dictator, since Iraq's situation can not handle majority rule due to the nature of their differences.
Time machine?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Too early to say that this is civil war. This is not a particularly abnormal event, and naturally it's a stunt. We'll see.
Egypt is more interesting right now. Despite the free election the army is still killing people and now the new government is pulling the typical 'it's the protesters' faults for causing unrest and baiting the soldiers' shit.
Yeah but the US isn't directly responsible for the problems in Egypt.
The US didn't engender the situation in Egypt? They propped up Mubarak didn't they?
That's not the same thing as occupying the country for a decade to make it a better place only to make it worse.
I suppose I should say the US and UK though, to be fair you guys have a dickish foreign policy too.
Hahaha I knew that was coming.
Spoiler for Haha, charade you are:
Anyway, I don't see much a difference. Propping up a dictator, invading a country on false grounds; they're both illegitimate actions which directly led to the current situations.
Great job you just described reactionary bias.
Fair enough. Buuuuuuuut the UK were the assholes that implanted Western style Government in the first place and started this whole mess.Quote:
Anyway, I don't see much a difference. Propping up a dictator, invading a country on false grounds; they're both illegitimate actions which directly led to the current situations.
Yes, and your cute tendency to criticize a group and then become fiercely partisan when somebody else criticizes 'your side' of it. For instance complaining the US government as a whole is trying to oppress the citizens and then feeling the need to attack the Republicans when somebody criticizes the Democrats. Or bringing up the UK when it was utterly irrelevant as you just did.
I'm sorry, before I address anything else you've said, please clarify what is hypocritical about defending Liberals (not the DNC) as well as defending the Rights of the People in a nation?
Nothing. Why did you feel the need to point out an obvious truth about the UK when it was irrelevant to the conversation?
Why do you feel the need to suddenly defend the UK? Everything the US has done in the Middle East has been backed by the UK in the Security Council. They're both colonizing the Middle East, the US is simply leading the charge.
Now we've established that the above post is either a lie or the genuine (but bemusing) result of a massive misinterpretation, care to actually answer the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Reactionary Bias. My people can criticize my people. Other people should look at themselves before they cast stones.
Well I'm glad you've been intellectually honest enough to admit it was bias. Where I am from should have no bearing on which conversations I can participate in and how.
For the record I find the actions of the UK to be just as bad as the US; I've posted about it before and voted the fuckers out as soon as I got the opportunity.
Well, I have fought over in Irag and Afganistan. We really are helping the kids there and the people but I agree, it is a waste of money to try and bring democracy.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p...png?1318992465Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
I don't get it...
Right but my point is that bias is a force of preservation. If you aren't willing to advocate something then how do you know if it has value? I am ashamed of my country, but it's mine and my nature is to defend it. Criticizing myself allows me to learn while dealing with an opponent that means no harm to my ideas, only to improve them. Communication between separate institutions or individuals is a fight for superiority on some level or another. Admitting the US sucks when someone else casts the first stone, a part of an equally corrupt institution, is a way of condoning their institution and admitting it's superior. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It isn't a competition, no one wins by being the worse, or slightly not as bad. Back to the main topic though, there has always been unrest in Iraq. At the point where we had the most troops on the ground, there was still unrest. Pulling out isn't causing unrest, it was always there from the start, and we have not even pulled out yet.
Sure we wont have a base and troops in Iraq. We will just have a mile and a half wide embassy, and 15,000 'security guards'.
I don't give a shit, just get them the fuck out of the middle east already so we can focus on our own countries -___-
Can't we just get along and hate on both the US and UK? Both have morons in power. Though from what I can tell the US morons are more moronic. To the point of absurdity.
Wait waht? You still believe in nations and defending them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Belief has nothing to do with it. It's my country. It's my nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
It's your indoctrination.
I live here too and feel absolutely nothing like that. I feel the opposite in fact. Nationalism in all it's forms is deplorable.
I'm not a nationalist at all. I simply live here. Honestly I think we went wrong with James Madison and the Federalists but the only other powerful forms of infrastructure are the Mafia, the Gangs, the Terrorists and the Authoritarians. I do not support nor condone any of the behavior of my government that I've witnessed. I find it absolutely appalling. All I'm trying to do is describe Reactionary Bias. You all do it, I'm just admitting it. When one criticizes something you associate with, the obligation becomes to take a defensive stance. A debate has begun and the criticizer must make a legitimate point for the associate to apprehend and respond.
If I'm criticizing my own country, or another American is criticizing the country as a whole (and not just my political side) then I would react differently. But when an outsider criticizes something I associate with, my reaction is to look at them. If they acknowledge the clarification that this is a Western problem it becomes a different situation but if they remain in a teaching attitude I am forced to become skeptical of them. We are designed to respond to example, not explanation.
I still don't get that Poker Face joke…
Don't worry it wasn't funny, he was trying to ridicule you for spelling Iraq with a G.
Thanks bro. ;)
My 100th post!
Yeah, you invaded a country that you don't even know how to spell the name of. Congrats.
It's called auto correct.
When I hear people like you I feel better because I can't believe how great everybody in the Military is. Risking their lives to help other people and to protect the American people. If you think that your comment is going to bring me down you're wrong. I would still give my life for somebody like you.
You would give your life for me? Brainwashing ftw.
It's not brainwashing it's my job. If you were in Iraq (which I doubt you'll ever be) then you would see all the brave men and women who are over there. I hate it how almost everybody (civilians) watches the news on TV and thinks about the soldiers as robots. They think "Oh 4 Soldiers got killed by an IED. Not my problem because Obama is a jerk!" They rarly ever think about what we actually do. I have done many things that Im sorry for but I know that somebody has to do it or the world wouldn't be the same. What if Hitler won WW2 because American forces didn't help?
In fact, since your critizing me click the link or search Marine Reconissance and see what people like me have to do everyday in Afganistan. We are away from our families to protect people like you who go around and critize soldiers on the Internet because they don't have anything better to do. What are you even thinking???
"Oh, this guy is a soldier, let's try and f**k with him and see what happens!"
I don't have time to talk to ungrateful kids on the Internet. You can think what you want, I really don't care...
Here, let me quote to you what we do if you don't want to click the link,
FORECON is fully capable of operating independently behind enemy lines performing unconventional special operations, in support of conventional warfare. Their combined methods of airborne, heliborne and waterborne insertions and extractions are similar to those of the United States special operations forces of USSOCOM (e.g. Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, United States Army Rangers, or Air Force Combat Controllers).
This is what I do everyday...
United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you'll excuse me I'll take my leave from this thread. Happy holidays.
I have no doubt you do brave things. And probably some good things.
I just can't have any empathy for someone in your position, because the entire war is a farce.
It's pointless.
Yes, fighting Hitler was good.
Fighting.... actually I don't know who they're fighting now. What potential threat to the world lives in Iraq?
I have nothing against you. I just wouldn't participate in a pointless war myself.
Civilians need to know that individual soldiers are not responsible for their country's foreign policy. These are the guys who would put their lives on the line to protect you in the event of a national emergency, they're on your side.
Soldiers (especially Americans) need to know that they must represent their country with honour and dignity wherever they go, because the rest of the world is watching and has no patience left.
It's a tough, thankless job.
I'd like for you to answer me something. I hear people in the military or conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq say that the soldiers are "protecting my freedom" or just generally protecting me and other Americans. My question is, how did your actions in Iraq and Afghanistan protect me or my freedom exactly? How am I safer now that you have fought Iraqis and Afghanis in their home countries? How are my freedoms safer, especially knowing that many of my freedoms have been undermined by laws that were justified as necessary for the war on terrorism (patriot act, etc.)?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
I'd also like to know why you believe that you were helping Iraqi children. Can you tell me how it is that you were helping them, and still be able to justify the 100,000+ civilian casualties?
I ask these questions honestly in hopes of getting a straight answer, I would really like to know. After reading your last post I must emphasize this and that I am not just trying to "fuck with a soldier". I really do hope you come back and have a personal (as in, not some regurgitated propaganda) well thought out response to my questions.
Some very good questions. Firstly, I don't really support the war myself but it's my job and wether I like or not I have to do it.
To answer your first question you are now safer because the risk of another national attack to America is lowered. For example, Osama is dead. He coordinated tons of attacks, his most famous one is the attack on the Twin Towers.I hope this answered your first question.
For the second. The innocent people that were killed were obviously killed by accident. Imagine this, you are a sargent in charge of a group of 5 guys. You're doing a regular patrol of the market place to make sure everything is in check. Then you hear the rattling sound of an AK47. Your squad takes cover. You have no idea where the attack is coming from. Almost everybody looks the same. They are pulling things from their cloths. Your mind is on edge. You look up to one of the 2 story window. He is in there! You and your squad enter the building looking for any trip wires that may be there. You get to the top and silence the enemy. You look down and see middle flashes from a truck that drives by. You take out the driver. Oh shit! You killed An innocent civilan. The shots came from behind in the house and it was an optical illusion.
You see, there are many ways that soldiers can be tricked. I personally think that having 18 year olds with guns that have only had "basic" training shouldn't go out on patrols. They weren't trained to remain calm when thier life is on the line. There should be more experienced people out there instead but ovbioisly we can't have our beat guys doing patrol missions. I think they should increase the basic training in the Army because they are usually the ones on patrols.
I hope this has made you think or at least changed your viewpoint at least. Happy holidays, have a good time with your family. :)
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
(Absolutely nothing).
Why do you think people attack America in the first place? These failed wars have turned millions of Arabs against you (you invaded their country based on lies and killed their family members) and left completely unstable countries in their wake. When the next terrorist attack occurs on American ground: that was your fault.
That's the point: in the last two wars, you were the Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
I don't think what is essentially a lack of curiosity and blind faith in your bosses is an excuse. If your country starts launching illegitimate wars, you resign. If you're going to kill civilians, you'd better have an extremely thoroughly considered, rock solid fucking reason before you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Okay, I should have expected the "Osama is dead" line. Now, what do you think about the fact that our involvement in Iraq had nothing to do with even the government's story about Al qaeda and we actually destabalized the region, which helped those groups that are hostile to the US?
That's a good point but like I said many times already. Many soldiers do not like what were over there for. It's our job. We follow orders from everyone in charge (Obama). What you need to userstand that the soldiers do not always agree what they are about to do. When I'm asked to go behind enemy lines to gather intel I do it. I may like it but I signed up for it.
Following orders is not an excuse for killing people. The commandant at Belsen was following orders. Taking responsibility for your own actions is a basic moral imperative. If you don't like it then quit.
To be fair, you can't just "quit" the military if your contract isn't up.
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.
What happens if you refuse to go or try to quit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
And how exactly did that help the kids? There seem to be just as many explosions going off in that country as there were before the war. Don't mean to bombard you with questions but as I'm sure you know many people aren't too happy about their money being taken from them and used for warfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You go to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
It is no surprise that a lot of people in the military are naive, because people get recruited young when they don't know all the details that are going on. And when they really start to learn more, they are already over there fighting and there is nothing they can do about it.
A lot of our troops end up doing bad things over there, not because they are bad people but because they are overworked, over stress, and in situations they shouldn't be in.
There are a lot of soldiers who do know who do know what is up though, which is why Ron Paul is getting so much support from active military, from people in the military that know how pointless these wars are oversea. If he gets elected he will end all those wars, which we need to hope for because everyone else running(including Obama) want us to go into Iran next.
The last thing we need is another war in Iran.
Military jail, right? Doesn't seem as bad as normal jail to me but I don't know. Nor does it seem as bad as participating in a war I think is unjust, but that's just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Being imprisoned seems a bit much, no? =/
But what if you're cell mate is the military equivalent of Bubba? :0Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
It's freakin' jail. You know, live in a cell behind bars for years, eat shit, become unemployable...Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
It's considered desertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Yeah but being raped seems much less likely there... And I'm just guessing but they probably have better food and better company. I don't like military people much myself but people who are in the military usually do. Either way I'd rather be stuck hanging out with a bunch of marines than a bunch of criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
And I doubt that you'd be unemployable when you got out if you explained that you were in jail for refusing to fight in an unjust war. Some people might not hire you but others would take this as a sign that you are a very responsible and ethical person.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Guess what, there is not proper way to spell Iraq in english. Just like there's no proper way to spell Gaddafi. So... joke's on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Iraq is an English word for that country. A rare alternate form is Irak. No form is Irag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Just like Germany isn't a misspelling of Deutschland you utter fool.
Germany is an english word invented by english people to describe foreigners from a foreign area. What do Iraqis call themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Roflysst you are actually arguing about this. Россия is pronounced 'rawseeya' by Russians. Rawseeya is not the correct spelling of Russia.
What does that have to do with what Iraqis call themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Because it's literally exactly analogous. Like, the most straightforward analogy ever. Iraqis have a different alphabet but what they call their country sounds a bit like Iraq.
Iraq is an english pronunciation of the word Iraqis call themselves just like how Russia is an english pronunciation of how Russians refer to themselves. We adapted an english spelling based on our english pronunciation. That doesn't make it right. You just like to ridicule people for making human mistakes and I decided to show you how flimsy the proper spelling of Iraq is to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There are definitely mechanisms in place that allow you to disregard the orders of a superior if you believe that he is putting people at unnecessary risk or not following the rules of engagement. You'd probably be in hot water for a bit and have to participate in some tribunal, but if it's over something as clear as "he ordered me to kill civilians", it would indeed be your duty to refuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This applies to countries like the US, UK... not really the same in Syria or Libya.
War is a nasty, terrible, horrible, dangerous thing. Nothing good will ever come out of it. Have you ever attacked an enemy base at midnight? Looked into the eyes of a man you're about to kill? Walked the streets Afgan and Iraq having kids run up to hug you? Having parents smile at you? Having people grown men thank you and hug you with tears of happiness? The people over there are very appreciative of what we do over there. They are sad were leaving Iraq. The only things that are left are some troops training their army for combat. That's it. In Afgan the war may still be ragging but people still love us anyway even though some of their loved ones may have been killed. You may think and say wherever you want to say Xei but all you really know is what you read in the paper or watch on TV. These soldiers share a close bond. They know a feeling that almost nobody else in America knows. They know the truth. What would happen if all these soldiers quit? Well, first of all we would have no defense. Our country would be invaded. Alliances would break, nukes would go off, more people would die. The world would be forever changed at the end of WW3. Once again you may say, think, do whatever you want but what you really know is what the media tells you. It's pretty easier to complain about the world in the comfort of your chair. The question is, how can you change it? The soldiers of every country have things they don't want to do. I have killed men. Does that make me unethical? Does that break my relationship with God? I don't think so. There are many people who are very stong beloved of God on our front lines. I understand why you may feel angry towards the soldiers but you see, people have to do this. The world isn't a perfect place, I wish it was but it isn't. If every country didn't have an army terrorists would destroy them. Why are we over in Afganistan? Because Obama/Bush commanded it. It may not be the right thing, but it's sure as hell not the soldiers fault. War is a horrible thing. In the valley of death...
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. But you have been fed lies and been brainwashed.
That is all. I'm not gonna try to change your mind though. Just saying.
Of course war is horrible, which is why we shouldn't be starting wars all across the world. The US is a great destabilizing force in the world. We killed democratically elected leaders and install dictatorships, which often grow out of control and then we have to come in and kill them, and in the process thousands of innocent people are killed by our bombs.
You can't have peace through the use of force. If we want peace we need to put the weapons down and talk with each other.
All that I was trying to say is that it is not the soldiers fault. It is the people who are in charge. Yeah, I do not completely agree with most of the decisions past Presidents have made. What exactly was I "brainwashed" about. All that I was saying is that you should stop blaming the soldiers and blame the people in charge...Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
This. And the fact that Iraq somehow hurt the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
But mostly what Alric said. You think you have helped people, and they may think that too. But you can never solve problems with war.
It is also the soldiers fault. You can't pass the blame on to the people in charge. If there were no soldiers, whatever they were giving orders to do would not be done.
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 also agree that war is horrible. It is curl and unjust. The fact is soldiers are used for so many different things then war though. We are all over the world doing many different things. Handing out food to the poor around the world, saving people from natural disasters, making sure that the world is safe. Obviously soldiers in Iraq are causing more harm than good but we have no choice. The world would be a better place without any combat soldiers, but I am one so I guess some blame could go towards me for deciding to train to go behind enemy lines to capture high level enemies. Not all soldiers are bad though.
Do you know, just as a complete guess, how many people join the army to simply to the humanitarian work? (Build houses, supply food to the poor etc.)
Nope but there is defiantly more combat oriented soldiers though. People don't really join to do humanitarian work they are called on when needed. For example, I know a guy who was in the army. He just came back from Iraq when Japan got hit by the huge wave. He got called on to go help out over there so he did. So yes, that is a good point, they are called on when needed.
Why do you keep using this defence when it's clearly not true. Like I said, it is an obvious moral imperative to not act based on arbitrary edicts but rather act according to your own morality. It's for this reason we don't accept that the Nazis running the concentration camps were engaged in acceptable moral practice because they were 'just taking orders'. Or do you think they were acting morally? Come on, you're supposed to learn as a child to take responsibility for your own actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Its not a defense. The world needs soldiers but they do not need them for combat. If there was no training program to become a deadly weapon who could kill anyone in any situation then that would be good. People need soldiers for humanitarian reasons I think instead of for war. The bottom line is, there has not been one single war in history that a innocent was killed. I agree though, it is a bad thing to go around shooting at people who you may "think" is bad. Thats why I joined to go behind "enemy" lines. To take out the real threat. I would hate ( and I hate) people in the Military who jack off and are so eager to shoot their weapon that they killed a whole family of civilians.
I know why there's unrest in Iraq; if we can't even agree to disagree on how to spell a fucking country's NAME in a language that IS NOT THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE of said country... How can we expect anyone else to get along?!
No, it's coz people get angry....^.... over trivial shit.
Touche.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
There is a fine line between arguing and debating.
I feel like they crossed that line when they got into the spelling of Iraq...Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
:D Yeah I agree 100%. :D
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I apologize, I'm very reactionary against Xei's ridicule and it has a tendency to derail threads when we butt heads which is pretty much all the time.
But I digress, I have to agree with Tommo, though I don't think he's raising the point correctly by saying MarineRecon is brainwashed.
The soldiers in Iraq are helping people. The fact is they need to help people because the real war is over people's minds. This doesn't make them right just because they've tricked some people into being appreciative of their presence. The heroes (such as Bomb Squad Afghanistan) are extensively publicized to put a positive face on the endeavor. It's the same thing as when a presidential candidate poses for a photo-op helping the needy.
In much the same way, in order to win over the minds of the people being colonized, projects have to be undergone which easily demonstrates to the population how much better off they are. These projects are given maximum publicity on their local news stations (as well as the colonizing force's general population) and the tragedies going on are swept under the rug (such as orders from commanding officers to kill any Iraqi that looked sketchy).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Again, it was just an analogy dealing specifically with the idea that taking orders relieves moral responsibility.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.
It is so good to see a faimilar face! When do you plan on enlisting for the Navy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
When I decided to go in the Military it was between Reconissance and being a Paratrooper. :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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?
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.Quote:
On the issue of moral responsibility, does an individual not have a moral responsibility to fulfil a contract that they pledged to fulfil?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
SEAL, eh? I swam with them a couple of times. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
No one is denying the sacrifice made by the soldiers. You are heroes, your superiors are cowards. You were on the front lines, Bush sat behind a desk. You just followed orders, so did every soldier in Vietnam. Just because a war is illegal, pointless, and personal, doesn't make your sacrifice any less. I'm sure you knew while you were there that the war was wrong, but you did your service anyway, nice job :)
Nice post. Of course, the real heroes of war are always the women. It's just that men control the media and the writing of the history, so the sacrifices of women are paid token heed.. but I notice..Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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?Quote:
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.
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.
Uhhhhhh, invade Iraq?Quote:
Give me an example of something a soldier could be asked to do which is technically legal but may also be considered morally wrong.
What's wrong with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Thanks for understanding. I appreciated it, and Im sure others who have severed too appreciate it as well. Most people don't really understand our jobs. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Okay, you don't like it. That doesn't really have much to do with my questions though. Whether you like it or not, you claim to be protecting my freedom. I personally have not seen how that can possibly be true as my freedoms have been progressively eroded since the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so I wanted to know how exactly your actions (or anyone's) in the middle east have protected freedoms for Americans living in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
We are over there because Obama said so. We are killing terrorists and trying to change their government. Its not the soldiers decision on what they do. We're tools. We really aren't helping the American people in this war besides eliminating terrorists that may pose a threat to us. It may be a dumb reason but its not our choice to say so. We do what we are commanded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
You're creating more terrorists than you'll ever kill. Maybe the green revolution would have actually worked if Ahmadinejad's 'the West wants to conquer the Middle East' demagoguery wasn't actually evinced by reality.
It's not even a case of the war just being illegitimate; you're responsible for endangering your own countrymen.
You can't hold the soldiers personally responsible. What about the soldiers who joined before Operation Iraqi Freedom? They were sent to Iraq from the start.
Yes I've already discussed that.
A question strikes me which should have occurred to me before, to both you and Caprisun, and tangentially aimed at those supporting you in the way that ninja and Spart are: you seem to concede that the war was morally wrong (certainly Caprisun suggests that), but soldiers can't simply up and leave without due process.
Am I to understand therefore that you are now following that process?
The process of leaving the Military? Hell no. I won't leave, I can't. I wouldn't even want to leave though.
Then you can never seriously claim to be acting morally. I consider that to be immoral and hopefully ninja and Spart will concede their defences to be invalid here.
I know plenty of gullible people. Why is it my problem that they joined on impulse? If you sign a contract in the civilian world without reading the fine print, you only have yourself to blame when you get burned. We have to hold people responsible for their actions or we lose order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Soldiers would still quit during a war they agreed with. I know a lot of people in the military who hate it. They can't wait until their contracts are up. But every single one of them hates it for reasons other than what we've discussed here. My point is that the number of people who are waiting to leave the military on moral grounds are a tiny minority. A lot of people join without realizing how much hard work it is, so they want to quit because they are lazy, not because they object to the war.
No I would not expect a German to continue to fight for Hitler, and the ones who have been "sworn to Allah" are not a part of any official army and presumably have no contracts. Nazis were obviously asked to do horrible things on a regular basis. In such an extreme case it is easy to object. Hitler broke international laws and committed blatant crimes against humanity in his own country against his own people. No such thing is occuring in my country. While the situation is as it is, no person can have legitimate moral grounds for deserting the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I think it's rather foolish to consider a problem such as this in such black and white terms. I look at the military as a tool. It is there for our government to wield when it needs it. So the place for philosophy to meddle is in politics, not the military. It's the car, not the driver. It doesn't make sense to waste energy trying to make our military a perfect moral haven if it means undermining it's effectiveness, or even it's basic ability to function. What then would be the point of even having a military if you're just going to immediately cripple it?
That's pretty weak if you ask me. By now, everyone who is in the military joined/re-enlisted knowing that we were in Iraq. For those who were in the military when we declared war on Iraq, they didn't have to go. They can't physically force you and they won't lock you up if you refuse. They'll be pissed and things won't be good for you, but they'll find something for you to do in America. This isn't 1942 and it isn't Nazi Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'll bet considering they're basically your Navy counterpart. I'm excited for the swimming, the drown-proofing not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Actually, if you're speaking to MarineRecon personally, he is probably doing a great deal to eradicate terrorism. The Army and Marine platoons riding through cities, leaving heaps of destruction in their wake are creating more terrorists. Special forces is cleaning up the mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Seeing that he seems to be recon, and knowing what the job market is for ex-soldiers with no education, I won't. I'm sure her knows that our occupation created more terrorists than it destroyed, no one will deny that. We promised them freedom and peace, we gave them war. They wanted us our of their country, they armed themselves and allied themselves with the terrorists who wanted the same thing. Exact same thing happened in Vietnam, everyone knew an occupation would result in that, but Bush probably failed history class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The middle east knew Iraq had nothing to do with 911, The UN told them that, so they saw the invasion as simply the US doing it's "flex our muscles dare the world to stop us" aggression thing, so the other countries armed themselves to the teeth. Marine Recon knows this, he doesn't seem to be the blind brainwashed redneck that you normally think of when you think US soldier. Even if he was, you know the power of brainwashing, and there are very few people better at it than the US military, hell, a good chunk of the population still believes Iraq was involved in 911.
Surprisingly, the person who summed it up best, was Ron Paul :shock:
Before you admitted to not liking the wars (although still participating in them) you claimed that "everybody in the Military is [great, they risk] their lives to help other people and to protect the American people." and that you "are really helping the kids there". So far you haven't been able to give me a straight answer as to how these statements are true. All you can say is that you don't agree with the war. If you can't defend your own statements then just admit that they are not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
So basically Caprisun, random authorities are moral arbiters, and not yourself. That's all you have to say in your defence. And then you ignore the moral arbiters when they disagree; again, the head of the UN declared the Iraq war against international law. And you arbitrarily declare other armies to be 'unofficial' in order to maintain your ridiculously asymmetric beliefs that everybody you're in conflict with is not justified in exactly the same way that you claim to be.
The war in Iraq was based on a total lie, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, the country is going to fall apart, you've perpetuated terrorism and hence endangered your own country; what is your moral excuse for continuing to serve??
What the actual fuck. Aiding illegitimate killing is okay if it helps unemployment?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
And continuing to do something immoral is made okay if you know it's immoral??Quote:
Marine Recon knows this, he doesn't seem to be the blind brainwashed redneck that you normally think of when you think US soldier.
Get a grip ninja.
Apparently you've never heard of stop-loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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?
Yes in the sense that "Yes you are going" or yes in the sense of "Yes, that's fine you aren't going?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Yes in the sense, "Sure you can go any where you want, how about Hawaii?" Which they might say, but only in a very sarcastic way.
Wait, so because the job market is bad his actions are OK???Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
You guys seem to be personally talking about me here now, so Ill guess Ill get more in depth in what I actually do for a living. I do have a masters degree in engineering first of all so that is what Ill do when I get out of the Military. Anyways, I go into hostile areas where there is known to be terrorists, not cites with civilians. I either go in by air, land, or sea. I spy and attack if/when necessary. Then I haul my ass out of there and hope for the best.
Im not killing civilians, Im killing the already known terrorists in their base and I take whatever means necessary to do it. Also, I don't give a damn if you think my actions are immoral. If you think so there really isn't nothing you can do about it besides overthrowing the United States of America.
Or y'know, elect someone who also thinks so.
It is your prerogative to not give a damn, but I personally would be concerned if I were unable to provide consistent answers to such important moral questions.
You have to have personal experience to actually get the point I was trying to make. Your mind was set on one goal, you tried to prove your point without taking into consideration what others here have said. Im fine with that because I don't give a damn.
I thought about it long and hard before I joined. I have already made my choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You say that, yet you don't seem to be able to supply answers to the simple questions that some posters are asking you. So I would question that, or at least that you did it effectively.
I was just talking generally about anyone who does something that they think is wrong. I can't really understand how anyone ever justifies invading another country. Force doesn't solve problems, it creates them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
I don't really care if I did it efficiently or not. You all can have your views on the subject at hand and I can have mine. I don't really care.
You don't really care what we think, or whether or not what you did is right or wrong?
I just want to know what makes someone a terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
No, I'm saying because the job market is terrible, he has no choice but to stay in the army, it doesn't make up for the war crime. Recon is meant to aid intelligence to make sure the bombs hit the right targets and minimize civilian casualties. If he has no choice but to participate in an immortal and illegal war, he might as well help make sure the bombs hit the right places.
Acting on bad intelligence is why the war was such a clusterfuck for so long, remember:
UN - No WMDs, no connection to 911
FBI - No WMDs, no connection to 911
CIA - No WMDs, no connection to 911
British Intelligence - No WMDs, no connection to 911
CIA document by someone within the Bush administration - WMDs, connection to 911 (took UN 20 minutes to identify it as forged)
Rafid Alwan's testimony with no proof - WMDs
There must be WMDs and a connection to 911, wouldn't you have rather the president have acted on the good intel?
We are already there, I'd rather the intel being used is good. If he was in recon before the war and reported that there was yellow cake uranium or some other lie, yeah, he should be executed. He had nothing to do with that though.
If you would read what I said then you might actually understand what the hell Im saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
I have already made my choice. I know what Im doing. I think what Im doing is right. I don't care about what your think. End of story.
Imperialism :(
it never benefits the country that you want to colonize...
The US itself is based upon imperialism anyway...no surprise that they want some more pieces of the pie.
Soldiers need to wake up to what they're actually doing...they're just pawns in the game.
Anyway, Ron Paul 2012...yada yada..
Thats what a Military is. A tool that is used by the government. If you join the Military then you do what your told. We're pawns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Different
Not a job for freethinkers then.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Exactly, Im happy that you are starting to see the point. In the Military people don't really want your opinion. You do what you're told and thats it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Different
Reminds me of the Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
What authorities are you talking about? What makes you think they are random? Who/what are they disagreeing with? I don't think I quite understand what you are saying. You are ultimately the arbiter of your own code of ethics. Nobody can take away the beliefs you hold inside your head. But you should understand that when you join the military, legally, you are defering to another authority, if only for a while. It would be wise not to commit yourself to an organization which does not mirror your set of values. People in America are free to exercise their will. They don't have to be a part of an "illegal" war if they don't want to. They are also free to leave the country if they are strong in their convictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda is officially endorsed as the army of any real nation. Members have no legal obligation to serve. That's why they are not "official." It isn't arbitrary.
I'm not even trying to say that I'm justified and others are not. I thought we were talking about the moral implications of military service in America.
There are a number of legitimate reasons to continue to serve (and I don't really like that you call it an "excuse," Im not excusing or apologizing for anyone.) One of the most notable being there are no more American troops fighting in Iraq and the war is officially over. It also depends on what you do in the military. Special forces such as what MarineRecon is a part of do more to create peace and prosperity than most humanitarian organizations, sadly. Another person might feel compelled to protect his brothers in arms. He'll say, "as long as my countrymen are somwhere fighting and getting shot at, I want to be there with them to do my part and make sure they get home safe." That is a legitimate moral imperative in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I should know better than to engage Laughing Man in a debate, but here goes nothin: "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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. American troops may be out, but that does not mean the American presence is out. Imperialism is about leaving but making sure that you're still in control of the country. Are the American bases also going to get up and just fly out of the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
2. "as long as my countrymen are somwhere fighting and getting shot at, I want to be there with them to do my part and make sure they get home safe." I'm sure a lot of Iraqi and Afghan "insurgents" say that to themselves too.
That's how it is in every Military. That's what a Military does, follow orders. Please, before youstart a debate about a war learn exactly what a Military is. If not then get out of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Different
Don't say that the contract never changes when you get into the military because stop-loss clearly shows that it does happen and it can happen without the consent of one of the parties involved namely the signers of the contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Well now you are just obfuscating. Are there or are there not there such things as illegal orders in the military? If you are told to kill a civilian, are you require to follow that order?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
I'm studying the history of warfare 1792-1945, so I'll stay here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Do the US military even know why they were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan?
We went to war with Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Just like how we are about to go to war with Iran because they are developing weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait that was just propaganda, Iraq didn't have WMDs and there is no evidence Iran is developing them either. In fact all evidence suggest that Iran stopped working towards nuclear weapons a decade ago.
I am sure the military doesn't know why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, or why we may end up in Iran. They are vague and hidden political reasons, that most Americans in general don't even know.
yup.
I have read what you said. You first said something about the war being good for children, then you said something about disagreeing with it, then you said it was ok. I was just trying to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
wikileaks anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4z6DhaDBvE
I hope they don't fly away. I say an American presence is what is needed to keep stability. History clearly shows that in terms of major American invasions, the countries that were left to fend for themselves tended to fare poorly while the countries where we remain today prosper (Germany, Japan, South Korea; as opposed to Vietnam, Somalia, Cuba, and Panama.) Speculate all you want about our intentions, but you can't deny that statistically Iraq stands a much better chance with an American presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Different
I'm sure some of them do. Though their situation is quite different. You can begin to see how many different shades of grey there are in these types of issues. Again, I'm not trying to say an American's choice to fight is more legitimate than another's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Different
Laughing Man, the stop-loss policy is clearly written in the contract. When you sign the contract you are giving your consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
That was already covered, we are aware of unlawful orders. Get with the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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.
All gonna be just dirt in the ground.
Do you have a contract right in front of you confirming this? If so can you scan it and present it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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.
Of course it's safe to leave Germany and Japan, but why would we want to? We are allies, we can work together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
"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.
It's cognitive dissonance. The "proud" part, whether the soldier or the people from the soldier's country of origin, is simply due to this bullshit patriotism stuff. Which literally no one can define or explain logically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Ernest Becker literally defined it decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Ernest Becker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
In that case that was a scared ass commander then. Thats what happens when the Military training is so easy. The commander managed to get to that rank and he still thought of himself higher than others. They should teach you that it is your responsibility to not just shoot anybody. Whoever shoots an innocent should get punished. Also they need to teach you that you are no better than anybody in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I believe they would teach that consistently if they valued ethics over tactics but they don't. They teach good ethics when it suits the mission.
When I watch Bomb Squad, Afghanistan, I see soldiers handing out candy to the kids and stuff. They say it's about winning the Hearts and Minds, and that's true. For a colonization to be successful, one must win the hearts and minds of the people. That's why one unit is told they need to treat the locals with respect and use only the force necessary and another unit is told that the ends justify the means.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarineRecon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Well democracy, Anglo-Saxon decency, and Protestantism. Gotta Christianize those Catholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.
I guess I misunderstood you. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseantlers
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
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.
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
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 MarineRecon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.
Page C., nearly every section. You could have easily looked that up yourself but you insist upon being difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
Quit hiding behind technicalities.