Military rant
 

I started to put this in general discussion, but figured it would get moved here anyway.

I would like to state that I am in no way trying to intentionally piss anyone off. I am stating my feelings on a subject that I take very seriously. I have edited the following several times in an attempt to rephrase what might be considered inflammatory to those who hold differing opinions. I would be interested on the feelings of others on the military in their respective countries. Please feel free to agree or disagree.

I was just listening to the radio and heard a song by Shelly Wright. I'm not particularly fond of it, but the story behind it has my attention. Her brother is in the Marine Corps, and he sent her a bumper sticker to display. She puts it on her SUV and this lady flips her the bird. How she knows it is for the sticker, I don't know. So, she writes this song to get back at the lady.

I am very proud of my service to this country. I also have great respect for those who have served, or are currently serving their home countries. I appreciate and am very humbled by the show of appreciation from this community to it's veterans.

However, I am saddened by a growing resentment toward our military. There are people out there that think military personnel are heartless, warmongering, blood-lusting bastards. We are categorized as less than intelligent for the beliefs we hold and for whom we tend to vote. It is not as bad as it was for those coming back from Vietnam, but it is disturbing none the less. And to think it has only happened in the last sixty years.

What misguided hatred it is to be directed at the military for fighting and dying in an unpopular war. And why are they dying? They are dying because they are trying to fight a humane war against an inhumane adversary that doesn't have to play by the rules. I believe that it is naive to think that the most powerful military on the planet couldn't start at one side of that country and march death and destruction across the land while sustaining minimal casualties. The only thing that keeps this from happening, is trying to save civilians and limit collateral damage.

Even though I would prefer that we had not went into Iraq, we are there now. As much as I would like a civil end to this conflict, we won't be talking our way out. Furthermore, if we leave without finishing what was started, it will be ten times more difficult when we have to go back.

Interesting. I have never experienced this. Then again, I was born the year we left Vietnam. I guess there will always be people out there with totally whack priorities.

I have yet to talk with a war protestor who hates the military. I have talked with a number of bushies that like to paint the protestors as hating the military. So far, from what I've seen (and I've talked with a LOT of protestors) the idea that they hate the military is total horseshit.

The anti-war crowd hates what the soldiers are doing, but they do not blame the soldiers for it. They realize the soldiers were sent there by the leaders of our country, and it is at those leaders that their anger is directed.

i live in a precinct that went 73% kerry...and there are signs up all over. "Peace is patriotic" is probably the most common, but "Support our troops, bring them home" is #2. when anti-war becomes anti-soldier...then it's distortion.

It's hardly a shock considering we had a "loathe the military" president, Bill Clinton, for eight long years.

Then, of course, Clinton and Gore tried to disenfranchise the active duty soldiers in 2000.

Which brings us to Kerry, who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stories about American troops cutting off heads and ears, razing villages "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan" and committing "crimes . . . on a day-to-day basis."

His apology was that his words were "a little bit excessive . . . a little bit over the top."

I'm still amazed that he tried to be elected president on the basis of his four months in Vietnam.

Then again, he sure couldn't run on his Senate record.

seriously, i have known some HARDcore anti-war people and none of them ever, EVER insult the soldiers or military in general. They will go after bush/co, rummy, etc, but as far as the soldiers are concerned, none have any disparaging remarks.

I will say, the ONLY time i have ever heard someone attack the actual troops was in nyc by a homeless socialist who was merely saying he doesn't support the troops at a free-speech rally..he had nothing specific other than "Well, you support the troops, but i don't" sentence directed at the crowd..

otherwise, the troops are respected while the driving force behind them are attacked...

psst....the election is over, pass it on.


To address the comments in the original post, I too echo what shakran posted. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq does not equal hating the troops. After our experiences with the returning Vietnam soldiers, I don't think the American public will ever make that same mistake again.

I totally agree with the poster. I have a girl in one of my college courses that puts down the military for standing for a cause. It's really sad in my opinion. Also, she tends to use an argument that our troops support killing innocent people. I find it hard to believe the entire nation of Iraq is innocent people. It's not like we have been anything other than hostile towards them in the past 20 years.

That, for the most part sums up my feelings towards military personnel. Although it is the administration that sends them to war, it is the soldiers that make the decision to go kill people for whatever 'cause' they may believe they are 'fighting' for.

Regardless of popular opinion on this matter, I believe most people are afraid to express hatred towards the military, be it for any country, because society tells them they must “support the troops.” Most people unfortunately don't think for themselves, but rather let society and media do the thinking for them.

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/2112/duh76.gif

yeah... the notion that the anti-war crowd isn't anti-military personnel also doesn't stand up to my personal experiences. i've run into countless people who would agree with rdr4evr.

but then again... what do i know? i'm just a heartless, warmongering, blood-lusting bastard.

Really? because LONG before the Iraq war... on Sept 13, 2001 I was walking in unifrom and got called a baby killer, got food thrown at me, and had a hippy try to fight me. Though of course according to the UCMJ I couldnt do anything but keep walking.

Oh, and Rdr4evr go fuck yourself

If this post is serious, it's very very sad. The soldiers' jobs are to follow their commanding personnel. They're doing their job. If you believe the commanding chief is acting on false pretense, then so be it. But, how can you fault people for doing their job? As far as they are concerned, their job is necessary in defense of the nation. They cannot be held responsible because their commanding chief acts in a way that many people disagree with in some aspect.

However, the post I'm replying to seems to be the toughts of a very small minority of people. I would think most people feel this opinion is a radical thought and would quickly reject it. Therefore, I won't waste more of your time to continue to argue a point.

i'm w/ya seaver... but i'd also rather this thread not get locked immediately.

I was in ArmyROTC during Sept. 11 and we weren't allowed to be in uniform for the week following to avoid any chance of events occuring.

This is absurd. When people join the military, they are not supposed to think for themselves, if they did the whole system would be thrown into disarray. Soldiers, for better or worse, are the laborers, not the decision makers. You have to hold the Administrators (President, Joint Chiefs etc.) almost completely responsible for where our military is and why. I'd be willing to bet that, like a majority of the rest of the U.S. citizens, a fair percentage of the soldiers in Iraq could not have found it on a map before they left. They are there to do a job, nothing more nothing less. Just as you may not approve of the new skyscraper they're putting up, you can't blame the iron workers.
For my part I am very pro-military, but I believe that we should be extremely judicious in their use. Fro instance I believe the action in Afghanistan is justified while the war in Iraq is not. I do not condemn any of the soldiers, however, which I feel is typical for this country now, unlike during Vietnam. Even the most liberal people in this country such as Michael Moore say that the best way that we can support our troops is to support people who will not put them in harm's way unnessarily.

"and Rdr4evr go fuck yourself"

Typical response I would expect from a miltary individual....I'm not surprised in the least.

Your post is below response. It is inaccurate, hateful, and closeminded. I shouldn't have even written this much. Blech.

Actually, I'll take the low road: why is it OK to disrespect Kerry's Vietnam service but accusing ANYONE else who served of anything is treason? Just curious.

I also want to say that I don't know anyone who actually hates the soldiers. I go to a very, very, very, very liberal college (and I fit right in), and I don't know anyone who does that. It is a small college, and everyone kind of knows almost everyone else. One student who was in the reserves went to Iraq for a year and a half and just recently returned. Everyone greeted him with open arms. He gave a well attended speech with a student from Iraq, and there were no hard feelings towards anyone. My cousin's commission starts on January 1 with the Army.

The point is, we lefties hate this war. It's wrong, should never have happened, and dramatically counterproductive for America. But we don't hate the soldiers. We just want them home, safe, or if it is absolutely necessary, fighting somewhere we need them to be.

In the immortal words of General Douglas MacArthur:

"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

I shall say no more, on this Veteran's Day.

this is only partly true. while it's true that the soldiers themselves aren't the decision makers, they are completely free-thinking and autonomous individuals. in fact, i would say more so because while war is an abstraction to the protester in the street... it means sweat and blood and tears to the soldier. trust me, we think about these things... a lot. the various moral implications are always in our minds. we do not relish taking human life and are keenly aware of the circumstances that have been arranged to make this unavoidable to the soldier on the front lines.

the difference is the sense of duty and discipline soldiers possess. the discipline they MUST possess. they realize that the common good isn't always going to be in line with their own personal good. because of a faith and commitment to the common good (and to the institutions who direct the efforts to safeguard the common good), they make sacrifices to promote that ideal. don't mistake a sense of duty for a lack of critical thinking or understanding.

you bait the bear and the bear bites you, I wouldn't be surprised either.

Look I never said there aren't nutcases out there. There are bad eggs in the military too - remember tailhook?

The anti-war movement is not anti soldier. Anyone who claims to be anti soldier is not upholding the values of the anti war movement.

The vast majority of those of us who are against this war frankly feel it's astonishing that people who want to bring the soldiers home where they are safe are considered anti-soldier while people who want them to go fight a war they don't need to be in where they run a high risk of getting killed or maimed are considered pro-soldier.

How the hell does that work?

Actually I think most people are smart enough to realize that a military is necessary in this world. Necessary for survival. Without it, we would be the slaves of those who do not share your qualms about killing. They also recognize that in order for a military to function properly in life and death situations, orders must be followed without question, and sometimes you have to take part in actions you may not agree with. But by doing so you ensure the people you serve have the protection they need.

So I guess since we realize that a military is essential for our existence we are all sheep. :rolleyes:

While realistically soldiers do think for themselves, they are in fact trained to think alike and follow orders automatically.

On my first day of basic training, our drill instructors told us, "There are no individuals here, there will be no individuals here, and if I find an individual, I'll kick his ass out!"

The whole point of basic training is to drill out individual behavior. Not saying this is a bad thing, because in a war people need to be interchangeable, which means you need to know what the guy next to you is thinking, what his actions will be, and how he will respond to situations. Your life depends on that.

I got out of the military because I didn't like that I had to spend most of my time in groupthink.

i've been through similar training jumpinjesus... though my perspective is that of an officer. not having been trained as an enlisted man, my experience could have been different.

my training to be an AF officer clearly puts a premium on groupaction but doesn't even seem to address groupthink.

perhaps if i were an infantry soldier it might be different?

Mod: This kind of personal attack is not tolerated. You've earned a time out. Let's avoid the personal attacks folks.

See above. Keep it civil.

Unfortunately, humanity has failed so miserably, that the mentality that war is necessary for survival is how far we have come. Sadly, this has been true from the beginning and will continue to remain so, until people realize that killing is not the proper solution. What is even more disturbing is that the end of humanity will most likely be caused by humanity themselves, rather than a natural event.

war will always be necessary as long as there is a single group at any time who is willing to kill to get what they want.

it just takes one country. we're to choose between the likelihood that ALL will not choose violent means of getting their way or the possibility that some will and defend, as best we can, against it.

I only made it up to E-4 sgt (Air Force) before I got out. That was when they had E-4 sgts.

Groupthink may have been the wrong term to use on my part. However, enlisted people were definitely were not looked upon highly when we attempted individual thought. Socially we could be as individual as the military allowed.

I remember being a 22 year old E-4 sgt, back when the Air Force still had E-4 sgts. Our flight commander was a 23 year old 0-1. Socially we were similar, but militarily we were worlds apart. I could always sense his discomfort when inspecting a 35 year old E-6 who had been in 15 years. Yet, because of his rank and training, he was in command of the veteran enlisted people, and while the sgts would sometimes rib him behind his back, we never questioned his orders or his behaviors because that was how we were trained.

Basically, in the lower enlisted ranks, any sign of brass caused us to instinctively snap to attention and suddenly become more aware of our appearance and actions. We were trained to hold the officer class in a much higher regard than other enlisted.

While unpopular, it is still his opinion- and was presented in a civil, calm, and honest manner.

Telling someone to go fuck themselves, as a response, is not civil or calm, and lacks any useful discussion- and feeling "baited" is bullshit- this is the real world, not kindergarten.

If you can't behave like an adult, that's what time-outs are for.

Of course this would be a fundamental difference between officer and enlisted training irateplatypus. See jumpinjesus's reply.

Groupthink does not only refer to, say, invading a country under false pretenses. It is also a necessary component of "groupaction." You were being taught to direct groupaction not succumb to it.

what i valued most about jumpinjesus' reply is that he was speaking from experience.

Yeah, me too. My actual experience with anti-war protesters, which is quite extensive, has been that they're across the board 100% in support the soldiers in the field. I've never even heard something as tame as RedReaver's post in opposition to the military. I don't even take qualm with the military voting strongly Republican in almost every election. Support for the troops does not at all equate to support for the war.

Michael Moore also has said he never supported the war in Afganistan. If no circumstances warrent putting our troops in harms way - why should we have a military? Michael Moore's answer would be we don't need one, but then again he lives in fantasyland. How many of the terrorists in Fallujah do you think would be caseing buildings in the US if our military wasn't over there?

I love the Military - the one place I hope my taxes are going.

If you seriously believe this way, then you might get more bang for your protection buck if the military were to line up, shoulder to shoulder, around the parameter of the United States.

I can fault anyone for blindly following a command of their superior or boss. If I work at an accounting firm and my boss instructs me to cheat on a clients taxes, I would be at fault if I carried out that instruction. Soldiers have the ability to determine if they support the overall actions of the people at the top giving them commands. If a soldier feels it is immoral to continue the actions as outlined by those at the top, the soldier has a responsibility to disobey those orders.

Simply because they are in the military does not preclude them the ability or requirement to judge the actions of their country. They are not robots, even as much as they are trained to be. They remain human, and if they forsake their humanity for their country, they are at fault.

Personally, I find fault in killing innocent people for the political machinations of the President and the Defense Secretary. I find it inexcusable for a soldier to accept the killing of innocents (or even the guilty if there are other avenues towards defense) for those political machinations. Therefore, I find fault with the soldiers fighting this war. Do I consider them baby murderers? No. That's a loaded description. I'm certain they feel they are doing the right thing, even while I know they are not. Their intentions are admirable, even as their actions, on behalf of the President, are deplorable. They are simply misguided - in every sense of the word.

That's an interesting topic. Are you referring to the partying pilots, the admirals who lied about being there, the people who wrongly denied Bob Stumpf promotion, or Paula Coughlin?

Just for the record, a friend of mine had breakfast with LT Coughlin the next morning. His account of her statements at that time varies dramatically from her later ones.

I have no problems with your moral objections, but as a matter of practicallity, I would have to assume that a soldier rarely has time to consider the morality of his actions until well after the fact. I can only imagine the sheer chaos of being in an urban battle. I would certainly think fear and self-preservation would override any internal debate of the morality of each individual action. Again having never been in anything that I think could even come close to replicating the terrifying stream of emotions and thoughts that must run through those guys I feel wholly unquallified to make any substantial remark for or against them.

-fibber

In a war, there is no humanity. Those who want to be nice to those that are shooting at them die. The great writers around the American civil war wrote out against war and the fabric that caused it, but they still understood that if the soilder was humble, he would most likly be killed. (present example is in Saving Private Ryan)

War is not something that can be equated to logical everyday anwsers. It is pasion. As my history prof loves to say: "War is started with pasion, and War is ended with Pasion." In war one can not logicaly think about what he is doing, there is no logic in killing a man.

But, with that said. War will still be a definning part of human existance. Even if we make it to a would peace like in Star Trek, there will still be war with someone else. Like the BORG :lol:

My question, to those that compare the job of the U.S. military to that of a tax accountant, and to those that claim that military personnel are indeed heartless, warmongering, blood-lusting bastards, is where are you getting your information...and off of what experience are basing your opinion?
I know from where my own viewpoints are based. I've lived it. I walked the walk. I possess a basis of experience from which I can draw to formulate an informed belief system.
Do not presume that you know what the military is, and how it operates, just because you've seen it in a movie.
I've seen Star Trek...that doesn't qualify me to speak with any authority on intergalactic space travel.

Yes, the rest of us just think it, consider your "'tude" a major black mark against you personally, and keep it in mind in the future. Seaver simply told you. Which do you prefer, the one who just tells you what he thinks, or the rest of us who just note it and make it come back to you later?

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.

I am very specifically speaking about actions which would fall within the UCMJ, Geneva or whatever - i.e., commonly accepted actions. Most certainly, soldiers who break those rules would be even more responsible.

There are degrees of responsibility. First and foremost, I hold the people that have decided to take our military to war as the most responsible. And then down through the chain of command. I simply do not stop placing responsibility on someone simply because they have been given an order. Any soldier who has killed a foreigner in the past 2 years (atleast) shares a portion of the responsibility for the immoral process of this war. Even the soldier that strongly disagrees with the war, but convinces himself to stay in order to support his fellow soldiers shares responsibility - he is an enabler. In my mind, the only honorable soldier is one who refuses to fight or administer. And the medics, even though they are technically enabling.
I mentioned that it would be a seperate debate (one that has been repeated ad infinitum) to talk about the specifics of the morality of this war. But essentially I disagree - I fully believe there were avenues open to us which would have achieved our goal without the necessity of war. And instead it was decided that war was the path we would take, this is the definition of reprehensible.

I've met people who really dislike the military, both as an institution and what they perceive the people to be. I consider them misguided, and personally have great respect for the military.

First off I would like to apologize for breaking the rules earlier in this thread. No, I'm not apologizing for what I said, but I apologize for breaking the rules.

I feel I must explain what happened just that day. I was eating lunch in uniform when some bastard threw fish at me. Mind you we were having inspection that day, so the uniform HAD to look its best. Luckily it missed, he came over and tried to get me to pick a fight with him, yet I couldnt lift a finger to him because of yes, the higher standard we are held to.

So I made that post when I was still pissed off from it. I went out to go running to calm down, and when I came back my account was blocked for 24 hours. It was wrong of me to attack him personally like that, but I felt he did just that to me.

threw a fish at you?
a fish?
geez.

there are fuckwits everywhere.

routing this astonishing observation through the topic of the thread, the set of people who oppose this war is not equivalent to the set of fuckwits.

for myself, when i see someone in uniform i usually figure that the situation is not one in which i would start talking about the politics of the war. if i do talk with someone in uniform, and if they are heading to iraq, i usually wish them luck in not getting killed there or something like that.
if i ran into the head of the joint chiefs of staff in a tavern, it might go otherwise.
but that does not seem likely.
because at least he occupies a position where he could be held to account for the politics that inform the war in itself.
the folk who are getting sent there are getting sent there.

a fish?
jesus.
sorry you had to put up with that.

Well to be technical it was some fish. He was eating some sort of fish sandwitch or something. Either way it doesnt change anything... and he either didnt cook it right, or left it too long in the fridge I could tell from the smell. But thanks, I know anti-war =! anti-military, but it's just hard to not lump everyone into that category immediately.

Nevermind........

I'd been wondering that myself--why someone with his perspective would support the dirtiest-playing team in the NFL.


Psyday scores up the middle!!

I liked the rest of the post, too.

In that case, thanks for pointing out that the UN supported Saddam's point of view.

You mean he murdered some poor defenseless fish?????

I find that reaching for a cell phone and pretending to call the cops usually gets rid of dickheads like that.

It's a lot easier than filling out the paperwork if you follow your first instinct.

Maybe this would be better posted as a new thread than here, but here goes:

In Desert Storm I, some military members (I believe they were SEALS) were inside Iraq doing recon. Concealed in a spiderhole. Before a major engagement.

Some little Iraqi kid came by, lifted the top, and saw two or three foreign soldiers inside.

Ethical dilemma:

Does the soldier

1. Kill the kid,
2. Try to capture the kid and keep him/her quiet
3. Let the kid go, knowing full well that the kid will tell its parents, and the result may be the torture/death of the American and his friends, as well as enabling the Iraqis to foil the assault. This, in turn, may result in the deaths of many more Americans.

I know how things went down, but for those who don't, it may be an interesting dilemma to ponder.

I think I saw this episode of JAG as well.

Rest assured, seaver, that this ass will cry and wail the loudest, for intervention, if and when, his rights and freedoms are ever abridged.

JAG may well have used it, but the incident I'm describing actually occurred.

How did it turn out on TV?

So are you saying one that opposes the military is a "fuckwit"?

Sounds like it... but who am I but a heartless, warmongering, blood-lusting bastard to you?

http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/falluja.asf

God bless and keep kicking ass.

I read it to mean that people who toss fish (or just rude/belligerent people, in general) on others are fuckwits.

The dude seaver described was acting like an idiot, irrespective of his political stance or how he feels about miitary people. Of course, maybe there was more to the story.

You are most likely correct, but what led me to believe otherwise was the fact that he stated during his "observation" of this specific thread, he noticed "the set of people who oppose the war is not equivalent to the fuckwits." It appeared to me that he was referring to the few that are not exactly fond of the military (including myself) as opposed to the few that are for the military but not for the war. I could be completely wrong though.

These are people's homes being cut in to pieces with gunfire and mortars. Widespread destruction costs innocent lives.

God bless and keep kicking ass? Sounds like a jihadist God to me.