[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
:rolleyes: Yeah, right, because there’s no difference at all between shooting and bombing innocent people, supporting bombing and shooting innocent people, and OPPOSING bombing and shooting innocent people.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you do not believe you have an obligation to oppose the government, at the very least I should think you would want to see these mass murderers brought to justice. Have you tried to file a police report? Or made any overtures to advocacy groups which might help you find a way to convince the government to arrest these people. If these soldiers are mass murderers as you assert, they can be indicted and even executed under U.S. law.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
That is an invalid and unfair comparison. What comparison is there between the atrocities perpetrated *en masse * by Nazi Germany upon Jews to the US soldier of today?
The answer is almost zero. Yes, some (a distinct minority) soldiers get all crazy and defy morality with their behavior, but instances like Abu Ghraib are not only rare, but a direct result of a failure in command and control. That sorry Brigadier general bitch that was in charge of the prison claiming innocence is more vile than what her underlings did, IMO.
And that Asian USAR general’s investigation backed all that up. Can’t remember his name, nor provide a cite right now.
[/QUOTE]
Of course the US in Iraq is nothing like Nazi Germany, but your post suggested that soldiers who follow orders have no moral or legal responsibility. That is not true, nor should it be.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Dude, it’s clear that you have NO idea of what it means to serve in the military in defense of this country, whether you agree with that defense or not is irrelevant.
Shiny helmets and guns are provided in exchange for the loss of some rights in order to kill people and not get into trouble for it (within reason).
Defying a direct order from a superior is a tricky thing. Back in the day, if you fled, you wuold be shot in the back as a traitor. Now that we’re all PC and fuzzy clouds, we look into the psyche of the warrior culture, etc.
I would like you to stand up in front of a bunch of fucking Marines and say this shit. They would beat you about the head and you would deserve it.
[/QUOTE]
Fois, just do what I do and don’t take **DT **seriously. I mean, he’s serious, but largely inconsequential, so don’t let him get your dander up. Its easy for anyone to say “soldiers should just say no!” or whatever when they have nothing to lose themselves. If he was more bite than bark he’d be trying to get the troops home in some timely manner instead of keyboarding the same things over and over.
As a former recruiter though, I don’t think compulsory service or drafting would work. Too many people I met then simply weren’t qualified. forcing them into a military they aren’t capable of working in isn’t the army I joined.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Well, if you do not believe you have an obligation to oppose the government, at the very least I should think you would want to see these mass murderers brought to justice. Have you tried to file a police report? Or made any overtures to advocacy groups which might help you find a way to convince the government to arrest these people. If these soldiers are mass murderers as you assert, they can be indicted and even executed under U.S. law.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. And who would do such a thing ? The vast majority of Americans will always regard them as heros for mass murdering so many people in Iraq. All I can do is wish the Iraqi’s luck in killing their occupiers, which I do. And no, I have no obligation to go there to join in; if for no other reason than I seriously doubt the Iraqis want yet more Americans there. Reasonably enough, they’d assume I was another enemy and shoot me.
[QUOTE=Jolly Roger] Fois, just do what I do and don’t take **DT **seriously. I mean, he’s serious, but largely inconsequential, so don’t let him get your dander up. Its easy for anyone to say “soldiers should just say no!” or whatever when they have nothing to lose themselves. If he was more bite than bark he’d be trying to get the troops home in some timely manner instead of keyboarding the same things over and over.
[/QUOTE]
I tried; I voted for the Democrats. Who, being Democrats, naturally caved in to the Republicans and haven’t done a thing to get our soldiers out of Iraq.
And I note your utter lack of regard for the people the soldiers are killing. Of course, that’s the standard American attitude; we are supposed to worry about the “sacrifices” our poor, put upon soldiers are making, and if they kill a dozen or a hundred Iraqis in the process, so what ? It’s not like Iraqis count as human. Not to a good American, they don’t. To the typical American, anyone outside the border is an animal; cattle to be exploited, or vermin to be killed. So if avoiding legal consequences means that a soldier has to kill some of those animals, who cares ?
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Dude, it’s clear that you have NO idea of what it means to serve in the military in defense of this country, whether you agree with that defense or not is irrelevant.
I’d like to hear your trumpet play "My Country Right or Wrong! " in all twelve keys,not just that monotone.
It would seem a volunteer army might be composed of an "informed citizenry"and therefore contain those who disagree with your idea of “defense”.
Know what I’d like to see? People discussing what can or should be done about the Army Chief of Staff stating that our military cannot sustain our current level of military actions and be prepared for any eventuality with an all volunteer army.
Because there are at least a gazillion thread about the Iraqui action, no?
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Know what I’d like to see? People discussing what can or should be done about the Army Chief of Staff stating that our military cannot sustain our current level of military actions and be prepared for any eventuality with an all volunteer army.
[/QUOTE]
Well, what CAN we do ? The First Rule of Holes is that when you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING. We are disinclined to stop digging. We are not leaving anytime soon, and a draft is presently politically unlikely. I’m sure Bush would like one, and the Democrats would just cave into him like always, but I don’t think the Republicans would follow Bush on that now. So, we won’t stop wearing out our military equipment and driving people off; and we won’t draft people to replace those that leave.
So, all we can really do is watch while we wreck our own military. And no doubt watch while it’s all blamed on the liberals.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course I can. They aren’t automatons. You do realize that that is what you are accusing soldiers of being ? Inhuman things, with no judgement of their own.
Soldiers are people, capable of making choices and judgments on their own; not Terminators. Since they CAN make choices, they ARE liable for the morality of what they do. “I was just following orders” is NOT an excuse, for anything. Which means that they are guilty of mass murder.
[/QUOTE]
I know you don’t, but I’m gonna ask for it anyway.
I’d like a cite for this “mass murder” you accuse US forces of doing.
Not a listing of the believed casualties of the “occupation” that is usually bandied about. You shouldn’t hold the US soldiers responsible for the barbaric acts of insurgents against Iraqi civilians. (“But they woudldn’t have done it if the US hadn’t come in!” I hear you whining. Maybe, maybe not. But that’s a whole other thread.)
I want cites for the “mass murders” commited by US soldiers against unarmed civilians. If you can find one.
[QUOTE=Tristan]
I know you don’t, but I’m gonna ask for it anyway.
I’d like a cite for this “mass murder” you accuse US forces of doing.
[/quote]
All the people they killed. Given that it was an unjustified war of aggression, any US soldier who kills anyone there for any reason is a murderer. And yes, that includes self defense; morally, they don’t get to kill Iraqis and claim self defense any more than a burglar gets to shoot a homeowner and claim self defense.
And yes, I’m aware that the law doesn’t agree with me. But that’s because the law was written to except this sort of mass murder.
[QUOTE=Tristan]
Not a listing of the believed casualties of the “occupation” that is usually bandied about. You shouldn’t hold the US soldiers responsible for the barbaric acts of insurgents against Iraqi civilians. (“But they woudldn’t have done it if the US hadn’t come in!” I hear you whining. Maybe, maybe not. But that’s a whole other thread.)
[/quote]
In other words, “Provide me with evidence of the killings ! But beforehand, those corpses over there don’t count !”
[QUOTE=Tristan]
I want cites for the “mass murders” commited by US soldiers against unarmed civilians. If you can find one.
[/QUOTE]
Killing Iraqi soldiers was just as much murder as killing civilians. It’s murder because of why we are killing them, not because of what clothing they are wearing. Although we’ve slaughtered plenty of civilians; the people of Fallujah, for example whom we claimed were “insurgents” - even the teenage boys we forced back into the city at gunpoint, and used their remaining there as a justification to kill them.
Ok, good to know. You’re stance begins to make a twisted sort of sense, if this is how you think.
The possible illegalities of the invasion aside, in your opinion the soldiers that followed the orders to enter Iraq are all guilty of murder.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the campaign in Fallujah was poorly done. Of course, the insurgents that were killing people there puts the folks in a tough spot, no matter what.
And I’m not saying ignore bodies, I’m saying that the debate as to if these deaths (to sectarian violence, etc.) being put on the US is not the point of this debate.
I posit that this violence was coming, no matter what, when Saddam died. The US just sped things up. Again, another thread maybe…
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Know what I’d like to see? People discussing what can or should be done about the Army Chief of Staff stating that our military cannot sustain our current level of military actions and be prepared for any eventuality with an all volunteer army.
Because there are at least a gazillion thread about the Iraqui action, no?
[/QUOTE]
To quote PNAC, we need a new Pearl Harbor. Another 9/11 would either (a) encourage more people to sign up for military service and/or (b) make political opposition to a draft less powerful (the same way that 9/11 made opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, etc., difficult and unpopular).
We just need to wait long enough for someone to attack us. Or else wait for Israel to bomb Iran’s nuke sites and start WWIII (or whatever number we’re on now). Once Iran retaliates against our forces in the region, draft legislation would pass handily.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Of course the US in Iraq is nothing like Nazi Germany, but your post suggested that soldiers who follow orders have no moral or legal responsibility. That is not true, nor should it be.
[/QUOTE]
I never intended to imply that they have NO moral obligations. But to throw the Nuremburg reference out there implies that our military is systematically and philosophically conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the sheer volume of atrocities that the Nazis did. They aren’t.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] All the people they killed. Given that it was an unjustified war of aggression, any US soldier who kills anyone there for any reason is a murderer. And yes, that includes self defense; morally, they don’t get to kill Iraqis and claim self defense any more than a burglar gets to shoot a homeowner and claim self defense.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. So I’m going to ask: do you then lump all those that served in the Vietnam War under this umbrella as well? How about the Korean War? Kosovo? The First Gulf War? All murderers? All?
[QUOTE=toadspittle]
To quote PNAC, we need a new Pearl Harbor. Another 9/11 would either (a) encourage more people to sign up for military service and/or (b) make political opposition to a draft less powerful (the same way that 9/11 made opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, etc., difficult and unpopular).
We just need to wait long enough for someone to attack us. Or else wait for Israel to bomb Iran’s nuke sites and start WWIII (or whatever number we’re on now). Once Iran retaliates against our forces in the region, draft legislation would pass handily.
[/QUOTE]
Man, I hope that neither of those options come to pass.
I think the best way is to simply make serving in the military more monetarily attractive on the front end, with signing bonuses, or increase the GI Bill some more for college tuition.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Know what I’d like to see? People discussing what can or should be done about the Army Chief of Staff stating that our military cannot sustain our current level of military actions and be prepared for any eventuality with an all volunteer army.
Because there are at least a gazillion thread about the Iraqui action, no?
[/QUOTE]
Well, look at what we’ve done so far:
Incentives: Enlistment and retention bonuses and a lot higher than they were before the war.
The “backdoor draft”: Stop-loss orders keep people from leaving when their commitment is up.
Relax the standards: We now let in older, stupider, fatter, sicker, drunker, and more criminal soldiers than we did before the war.
Hire contractors: There are tens of thousands of them doing what in years past would have been the military’s job.
Raid the Air Force and the Navy: Thousands of airmen and sailors have been pressed into service doing ground duty in Iraq.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Dude, it’s clear that you have NO idea of what it means to serve in the military in defense of this country, whether you agree with that defense or not is irrelevant.
I’d like to hear your trumpet play "My Country Right or Wrong! " in all twelve keys,not just that monotone.
It would seem a volunteer army might be composed of an "informed citizenry"and therefore contain those who disagree with your idea of “defense”.
[/QUOTE]
Change “O’Genic” to “Palmer” and all will be right with the world.
As for your post, maybe I came off as a browbeater, but
the military is in my blood. Both Grandfathers WWII and Korean War Vets, both retired colonels. My Dad a retired USAR Major General, West Point grad, two tours in Nam. Both my Dad’s brothers, West Point grads, one a Cobra pilot in Nam, the other a Cobra pilot in the mid 1970’s and 1980’s, both retired colonels, two of my cousins either have or are currently serving in Iraq as enlisted soldiers, I was an enlisted soldier during the first Gulf War…
…so you’ll forgive me if I have a certain ingrained POV regarding the perception of the military and why I defend the soldiers plight.
Because make no mistake about it, it IS a plight. Those guys don’t want to be over there, are you kidding me? Well, most don’t, except for the gaggle of nutjobs that get off on killing people.
So, I tend to get ired when people get all accusatory towards the soldier regarding the perception of the conflict that the soldier may find themself in. It isn’t like the soldiers get to pick and choose where they go and whom they fight.
You CAN disobey an unlawful order, but you CANNOT refuse a lawful order to do what you were trained to do when the bell rings, and that’s fight because your country says so. You have to follow that order or risk imprisonment or a less than honorable dishcarge.
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
Well, look at what we’ve done so far:
Incentives: Enlistment and retention bonuses and a lot higher than they were before the war.
The “backdoor draft”: Stop-loss orders keep people from leaving when their commitment is up.
Relax the standards: We now let in older, stupider, fatter, sicker, drunker, and more criminal soldiers than we did before the war.
Hire contractors: There are tens of thousands of them doing what in years past would have been the military’s job.
Raid the Air Force and the Navy: Thousands of airmen and sailors have been pressed into service doing ground duty in Iraq.
Extend tours: 15 months is now a typical tour.
Expect more of the same.
[/QUOTE]
I have a big problem with number 3. I realize that they are doing what they have to do, but I think a certain level of intelligence and physical ability should never be compromised as requirements for entrance into service. It gives me the same feeling a Notre Dame alum would get if they lowered their academic standards to “enhance” their sports programs…it isn’t honorable.
Number 2 is typical. Since there is no draft, there’s no steady supply of new soldiers to replace those leaving their tour.
5 I don’t have a problem with either, especially since the Airmen and Sailors aren’t being pressed into ground combat duty, rather, they are serving in some capacities like prison guards, supply chain, etc where they can “free up” more infantry-trained personnel.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Because make no mistake about it, it IS a plight. Those guys don’t want to be over there, are you kidding me? Well, most don’t, except for the gaggle of nutjobs that get off on killing people.
So, I tend to get ired when people get all accusatory towards the soldier regarding the perception of the conflict that the soldier may find themself in.
So, I tend to get ired when people get all accusatory towards the soldier regarding the perception of the conflict that the soldier may find themself in. It isn’t like the soldiers get to pick and choose where they go and whom they fight.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, but why is it that the single most important reason that our troops are in Iraq is that this is what we do to show that we “support” them? Anyone who gets all accusatory towards those who did pick and choose to go to war are accused of being downright abusive toward the troops.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Wow. So I’m going to ask: do you then lump all those that served in the Vietnam War under this umbrella as well? How about the Korean War? Kosovo? The First Gulf War? All murderers? All?
[/QUOTE]
Every war is different. The idea that every war is the same and that following orders is a blanket excuse is YOUR bugaboo, not mine.
