I believe the mods have already dealt with this, so why drag it up again?

Cadwiz, I wish you hadn't edited. I can't imagine your first thoughts would have been inappropriate. There has been a lot of discussion concerning whether those who disagree with a particular use of the military are actually anti-military or anti-soldier. The answer is that there are people who fit into all of these camps.

There are those who disagree with going into Iraq, but fully and openly support the troops, applaud those in charge for good decisions, and criticize the correct people when poor decisions are made.

There are those who look at it through a political lense and aren't really all that anti-military, but will criticize everything they can about the president and sec'y of defense b/c it meets political goals.

There are those that are anti-military and criticize everything about it, including the baby-killers who follow orders of the mass-murdering generals.

There are those who are pro-military and support whatever happens, including making excuses for prison abuse.

There are those who are pretty rational about all of these matters

There are also those who are relentlessly negative about the decisions of war, the day to day of war, and the progress of war, but claim to only be anti the leaders and supportive of the troops. Their language bears examination when these claims are made. JFKerry was not supportive of his fellow troops with his rhetoric following Vietnam. The criticisms about the missing explosives had a lot of anti-troop flavor. It's convenient for people to say they are anti-war and pro-troop, but it isn't always true.

How do you know the people fighting are terrorists? Maybe they were taxi drivers, street vendors, fathers, sons, brothers. Maybe they turned to the gureilla movement because they don't want the US in their country, maybe they had a family member who was killed by the US. I don't consider them terrorists at all, they are soldiers fighting for something they believe in, just like all soldiers.

As for caseing building in the US, isn't your traffic light alert system supposed to stop that? Turning into a very Alarmist society.

thanks for the good post bill. i was considering posting something along those lines... but you said it with more tact than i feel like presenting at the moment. put me down for a big "ditto".

An accountant is responsible for his actions even when ordered by his boss. A soldier is responsible for his actions even when ordered by his commanding officer. That is all I said, in response to the post that claimed one could not hold a soldier responsible because they were only following orders. If that is "comparing the job of the U.S. military to that of a tax accountant" in your mind, you must be reading far more into it.

And no, I do not accept the "you can't judge them because you don't know what it's like" argument. There are countless things I have not done, that does not mean I do not possess a basis of experience from which I can draw to formulate an informed belief system.

What Seaver told me does not offend me in the least. I also really couldn't care less what you think of me as well. This is an online community where people come to discuss issues and share opinions. I am not personally here to make friends; I have friends and family that care about me in real life, and personally don't care about anyone’s personal feelings about my views online. If you don't like my opinion, fine, that’s why it’s my opinion and not yours, nobody is forcing you to agree with it. But if the only response you could come up with is that of Seavers, than you have other anger issues you need to deal with. I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else, I am simply here to listen to others' views as well as share my own.

I find it funny that someone with your attitudes has a picture of a raider under their name and their location as -raider nation-. There is just something about football, the most violent team in the game, and peaceniks that go together, right?

I will say this much, the purpose of a soldier is to kill other people that are trying to kill them or the civilians they protect, so if you don't support that then don't pretend to support the soldier, because you don't. At least you have that part right.

I'd die for your right to say what your opinion is, as I am sure you wouldn't for mine. The fact that your ideas are formed in ignorance has been clearly demonstrated thus far. You can hate war and death and killing all you want, but don't pretend to know the mind of those that would willingly give their life to defend your freedoms. Whether or not you feel that is what they are doing at this moment is not relevant, that is their mandate and purpose and that sacrifice is always there and ready to be called on.

Regardless of your opinions on the matter, that deserves respect. The fact that there are human tyrants and people who wish to see you dead is evident whether it's the gangster down the street or Osama. You were fine up until this point. Enough with more warnings, it's been stated several times. Keep it polite or be banned. 24 hour Bannination.
-lebell

- Wandering soul that calls ‘raider nation’ (minus Berkeley) home

*sigh* Again with the insults.....congratulations. And to compare a football team to war..... :lol:

Quit being so melodramatic. Neither you nor he are going to die to hold the opinions either of you hold.

You castigated him for holding an opinion based on ignorance, so you might want to lay off the judgementalism in your post since you don't know his history, standpoint, or social context.

In case you haven't noticed: no one is currently dying to preserve my freedoms. If that were the issue, soldiers would be lined around the white house.

Nothing deserves automatic respect.

Saying that a person is ignorant of something is hardly an insult, we are all ignorant, some people just choose to realize it and keep their trap shut.

One main problem with your post is that I'm sure half of the people disregarded everything you said after reading your second comment. An accountant vs. a military official is probably regarded as blatant disrespect in the views of many.

However, regarding your statements. First, you have to define each position. Define an accountaint. Define a soldier. If an accountant's position is defined that he must do what ever possible to make the most potential profit, then how can you hold him responsible for his actions? He's doing his job. His job itself may be immoral, but it's not immoral to do it in the way that it is defined. But, you're not dealing with something like that. You're dealing with people that do not leave their moral beliefs at home. I mean they have the ability to use free will to avoid aspects of their job that would compromise their morals.

Also, I believe that military personnel should have the ability to not participate in action that he believes conflicts with his morals. The problem with this is that people abuse that aspect. Furthermore, we live in a democracy with many different belief systems. I support democracy and, therefore, I feel I must have that belief.

I'm confident you would agree with much of the previous 2 paragraphs.

Everyone can agree that cheating people out of their deserved money is wrong. So, your argument is rejected. It's something everyone could agree on.

But, lets focus on our current situation in the world. The account, for example, should be harshly by his peers if he cheats people out of taxes, and he knows that he is cheating people. However, what if he thinks that he is not cheating people? Even if his belief is a minority, you're still running into exactly what we are dealing with now. People have different opinions as shown in the post.

I'm confident you would also agree with the previous paragraph.

I think that is the extent of our agreement.

What is you define a soldier as "Someone that serves an army?" If they choose not to serve it are they moral soldiers? They're not following the established principles. What about an accountant? If his job is to keep financial records and his boss asks him to cheat other people, who is acting outside outside of their role? Simple, the boss. It's his responsibility to act in a way to allow the accountant to do his job without having to conform his own morals. Apply this to the military. Sure, you can blame a soldier for his or her actions, but are you targeting the right person? Afterall, it is his commanding officer's responsibility to make moral or ethical decisions.

You made a comment about how a soldier has a responsibility to make a moral decision. No he doesn't. The person that is the soldier does in my opinion but not as a soldier. You have to address each seperately. You can be a moral person but a immoral soldier and vice versa.

just as an aside: ALL who serve in the U.S. military are subject to the UCMJ and wage war according to the LOAC. there are standards in something as extreme as combat by which our military men and women are judged. in many ways... servicemen and women are held to a higher moral standard than the regular citizenry and sometimes get hit twice as hard (for offenses that violate both military and civil law, those punishments are administered independently... meaning they often get hit twice for a single offense.) when they go awry.

That is most certainly not a problem with my post.

As for the rest of your unnecessarily detailed breakdown of my rather simple opinion that people are responsible for commiting acts they know are immoral and that whether they know their acts are immoral does not stop me, personally, from holding them responsible when I know they are immoral - well, let's just say I'm not interested in debating it, particularly when you are repeatedly telling me which of your opinions I should be agreeing with.

Irate - I do not agree that a generalized rule book is adequate to justify the purpose of the actions being taken by our military. So no, I do not see the soldiers as being held to a higher standard of morality simply because someone has written down overly simplified guidelines on how to wage war "morally".

Well, why are you posting on a political messageboard then? I read your post and I still have no idea where the hell you actually stand based on how you jump from one topic to the next.

But, in fairness, you are right in that it is your opinion. You have your opinion that these solders actions are immoral. In your opinion, they are directly to blame for the immoral act. Even though your opinion may be shared by a very tiny percentage of people, you're entitled to it.

In my opinion, however, there are some soldiers who act immoral by many people's standards. Some may step over the line. But, I think the majority are fighting because it's their job, and they believe their job is essential to uphold the values and freedom we've established in the nation just as I believe. Also, in my opinion, I don't think it's fair to use a difference in political opinion or assumptions based on propaganda to judge these individuals in the way you have.

That's all well and good. I hold them responsible for their actions because I believe they are wrong if they believe they are "essentially upholding the values and freedom we've established in the nation".

I'll keep that in mind when political opinion or assumptions based on propaganda are no longer used to justify a war.

[QUOTE=In my opinion, however, there are some soldiers who act immoral by many people's standards. Some may step over the line. But, I think the majority are fighting because it's their job, and they believe their job is essential to uphold the values and freedom we've established in the nation just as I believe. Also, in my opinion, I don't think it's fair to use a difference in political opinion or assumptions based on propaganda to judge these individuals in the way you have.[/QUOTE]

I believe that Irate brought up a point that is overdue in this discussion. There are codes of conduct that soldiers must adhere to or face court martial etc.; individuals are governed by the UCMJ, many countries, and individuals by the Geneva convention, and so forth. I am quite sure that there are some who would find many military actions immoral that are allowed within the "rules," however the reason that the civillian and military have separate justice systems is because they exist in vastly different environments. I have no doubt that some soldiers have both acted immorally and against regulations, war can really fuck with you mind, but I do not feel that it is appropriate to compare an accountant with a soldier (at least during wartime).

I coulnt even imagine what the response would be if I posted some broad negative generalizations about some other group of people, similar to what people are saying on this thread who chastize our soldiers. Doesnt seem like it would be very well received (unless it was something negative about christians im sure). I'm constantly astonished at how people think.

I guess broad generalizations/stereotypes are OK if you dont like the group in question.

You call that "well received?" Interesting...

No... Im simply pointing out something I find logically inconsistent.

Manx, these are the punitive articles of the UCMJ. Twenty-four out of sixty deal with issues that would be considered moral offenses. These are above and beyond what would be considered illegal for civilians. This also doesn't take into account the constraints of the Geneva Convention rules for combat operations. So, YES, the military is held to a higher moral standard than civilians are.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...IVE%20ARTICLES

Also, I never said that anyone who didn't like the war hated the military. I said those who hate the military are misguided. They say we are baby killers, we kill indiscriminantly, and have no remorse. If that were the case, the war would have been over long ago. And those coming back wouldn’t be having nightmares or psychological problems. Men and women are dying trying to limit civilian deaths. They have to go from street to street and house to house. Why would anyone want to risk their lives doing this? To keep from killing innocents.

As far as those with overtly anti-military sentiments, I tell them they are welcome. They are welcome for the freedom to express them.

No. In order to believe that, I would first have to believe that the war in Iraq is moral. I do not. Therefore, a soldier does not have to break any of the written rules of warfare in order to be committing an immoral action.

In all my time on this board I've yet to see a well received attack on Christians. I've seen lots of people disagree with them over many, many issues. But as others might say - the people arguing with Christians might "hate the sin, not the sinner."

So, would you be morally opposed to sending our military into a country to put an end to countless human rights violations? How about torture? How about genocide?

There have been countless debates on the righteousness of this war. I'm not going to revisit those debates at this time. Just know that I have opposed this war since it was first imagined, and that is the foundation of the opinions I have expressed in this thread.

Uhh...Geneva convention? Not shooting civilians on purpose? Not killing prisoners for sport?

My previous post was very bad, so I wanted to clarify my opinions to show that I my opinions are just that: My opinions

I would assume that are some soldiers who has committed actions while acting as a soldier that would be considered immoral by a portion of the population. I also assume that at times a soldier's actions may cross in a behavior that is unaccepted by the military as well as the people of the nation. But, I would also assume that the majority are fighting because it's their job, and they believe their job is essential to uphold the values and freedom we've established in the nation just as I believe. Also, in my opinion, I don't think it's fair to attack individuals from a point of view that is not directly expressed from them and perhaps not entirely agreed upon by them

Manx - I just asked simple yes or no question.

Martinguerre - Or not destroying religious buildings unless being fired on. On not killing POW's. Show me one section of society that would levy the same type of penalties as those against the guards at Abu Ghraib ,for the same types of actions.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

That was not a simple yes or no question. But more importantly, it was a question concerning an entirely seperate debate - the debate of when war is valid. I am not nor have I been expressing my opinion on that topic, and assuredly there is no simple answer to such a topic.
If a soldier goes into battle, they are supporting the point of view expressed by those who have ordered them to go into battle. A morally sound soldier would refuse to go into battle if they do not share the point of view of the person who has decided to wage war.

i know many many anti-war activists.
none of them make the slide from opposing this war in iraq to slagging individuals who are in the military.

but what is the boundary being policed here?

are you "anti-military" if you think present levels of defense expendutires obscene for example?
are you "anti-military" if you hear reports from fallujah about the use of loud metal as a soundtrack for fighting because it brings killing people more into line with a video game and find that to be kinda strange?

what exactly is at issue here?

it seems to me that this attempt to confuse protest of a war that, in this case, is to say the least a problematic undertaking, with some kind of animosity directed at military personnel is of a piece with many elements of the revisionist pseudo-history of vietnam.
but this is only background.
what conservatives seem to really hate is opposition to their positions.
what seems to be the case is that there is personal animosity from many conservatives directed at people who oppose the war in iraq--leaning on the pseudo-history of vietnam, and reverting to form ideologically, they project their motives onto the opposition and then blame the opposition for the whole mess.

i dont see much of anything more than that going on here.

Actually they are not supporting the point of view, they are simply executing instructions. No one sits around and debates the relative merits of each engagement and then votes on it. When someone joins the military they voluntarily relinquish some of their autonomy and acknowledge that they may be asked to perform some unsavory tasks, within the rules outlined by the UCMJ and elsewhere. Furthermore, if a "morally sound" soldier refused to fight in a particular battle and placed his fellow soldiers who did their job at risk, it would seemingly raise other moral questions as well, I would think.
I don't like the U.S.'s activity in Iraq any more than you; however, I feel the responsibility lies at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and not in the barracks in Iraq.

Interesting.

How do you square this analysis with the reports of soldiers feeling moral compunction with being sent into battle without proper protection, and subsequent refusal to embark on their missions?

I don't see where morality has anything to do with this. It sort of seems that requesting adequate equipment to perform a job, and questioning whether they should be doing the job at all based on moral quandries are two different things.

The information I read stated the soldiers felt their orders were wrong, and subsequently refused to abide by them, based on the fact that they didn't have enough/proper equipment.

Didn't they feel their orders were "wrong"? They refused their orders, and felt justified doing so, due to the immorality of requiring someone to go into battle unprepared or ill-equiped.

How would you evaluate that situation if not through a lense of moral evaluation?


Of course, your statement went beyond issues of 'morality' (I take this to be decisions between right and wrong, I don't know what you take it to mean), anyway.

You claimed that soldiers relinquish autonomous decision making and do not debate the merits of their actions. I'm pointing to the examples I know of where soldiers did engage in discussion and thought regarding their actions. Moreso, they refused to follow orders and so far haven't been punished. Interestingly, however, all these factors are in play when their own safety is at stake rather than what they might inflict on thousands of civilians.

Executing instructions to implement a point of view that you do not agree with is analogous to supporting the point of view. They are human beings, not robots, so they have the ability to say yes or no to an order they are given. It is not enough to absolve oneself of responsibility simply because you were given an order.

Apply this to any of those written rules on how to wage war and you would agree, if a commanding officer orders a soldier to fire on children, the soldier is responsible to disobey the order. I simply apply this same principle to the entire Iraq war (in fact, most wars, maybe even all of them since WWII). The Iraq war is not morally ambiguous in my mind - it is categorically reprehensible.

And yes, I most certainly hold 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. responsible, as I have said. But it is the duty of a soldier, as a human being, to refuse orders which are wrong. I also find it to be a shame that instead of allowing our soldiers this necessary recourse, our society punishes them if they take it. The less human you are, the more you are able to either deny or ignore your humanity, the "better" a soldier you are.

Perhaps here is the real issue in this debate. We are expecting these people to make a judgement call, between doing that which they are required to do, and for which we hold them responsible. And doing what they may consider to be morally correct, knowing it is going to cost them dearly should they follow concience. Add to this the stresses of warfare, and respect of command structure, it would seem a lose, lose situation.

I have not the experience of facing warfare, and would be remiss to think I KNOW what is involved here. But, I can see some of the difficulty of these descisions, and the position these men and women are in. My personal understanding of the realities of war, are uninformed, and have little bearing on what transpires in the field....but I can certainly make a general judgement call on my dislike of policy.

Our soldiers are dying, and so are many others......I question the reasoning behind this war, I DO NOT question the military descisions, as I am not qualified, or entitled to do so.

Indeed. It is assuredly not an easy life, that of a soldier. Which adds to my suprise that so many would eagerly sign up. I can only presume it is because of their youth and some inherent propensity to fall prey to the propaganda, i.e. the "sacrifice", "honor", "duty", "courage".

I would be careful to place such labels on a diverse group of people....who are respected for the service they provide us all. You are of course, welcome to opinion, as we are all here....just try to phrase it as such, thus avoiding the retribution of those in opposition to the views you hold. It helps quite a bit in keeping debate civil, and garners respect within the community.

While I do agree with you on several points, and find your whole question intriguing, I must at least clarify a couple of your points. Soldiers have every right to disobey an order from a superior officer that violates the UCMJ, Geneva or whatever, as killing a child would, but I was not strictly speaking of illegal actions, only sanctioned actions, in which soldiers are expected to carry out their assignment.
I would also again state that I believe that carrying out orders is not the same as supporting them. Generally it is my understanding that except in extreme cases (again, we're talking about violations here, most likely) it is those who give the orders who are held most responsible. I don't necessarily like this idea, but frankly when given all of the variables of a combat arean, I can't think of a better solution.
Of course I wish that all soldiers could choose to accept or decline orders at their discretion, but I also know that that would result in utter chaos while the military ground to a halt.
I also would stop short of calling the entire Iraq war "catagorically reprehensible." I would say that it's not theoretically or morally wrong to remove a genocidal dictator from power, or to eliminate possible terrorists, but I would seriously question our motives for being there (nearly by ourselves). As I said, I believe that we should never have engaged in this war in this manner, but it is not really as cut and dried as saying that we have no business being there so everything we do there is morally bankrupt.

0 would be my guess.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do with that post. I have certainly not insulted anyone in this thread and I most certainly will not alter my opinion to "avoid retribution" from those who simply do not share my opinion.

What helps in keeping a debate civil is to treat each other with respect. I have done so. It is beyond my control if others decide not to do the same.