“Lawful orders”? At what point did this become a legitimate excercise of military power? Certainly wasn’t going in, we have your concurrance with that. So when did it change? By what magic did this clusterfuck become valid? I missed that part, perhaps you’d be so kind as to point it out?
Lawful and legitimate do not mean the same thing, honey.
Not one soldier in Iraq is doing anything at all to protect me or my way of life.
But again, I’m not defending this war or the decisions made by the decisionmakers. I’m defending the rights of the troops to do their jobs as they have been told to do them.
Easy enough for us to tell them they ought to make decisions that could jeopardize their lives and careers…what have YOU done to end this war that could jeopardize your life or career?
Certainly.
I’m sure you will agree that under our system, the military cannot by itself go anywhere or do anything - it must be ordered, authorized, and funded to do such by branches of the government that are by definition civilian elected ones. This is how it was originally set up, it remains so now, and this arrangement works pretty well. I’ll get no argument from you on that one.
We get no Pinochets here, we get Eisenhowers.
Therefore, criticism of the decision to go to war or stay there rests not on the privates, or sergeants, or captains, or colonels, or admirals and generals. It rests solely on the elected leadership. The military is responsible solely for performing their mission and obeying rules and regulations and military law.
It was a lawful order to go to Baghdad because the President ordered it and the Congress approved it. Now, you might not like this law, but it is there, and a soldier is obliged to follow that - same as all of us are similarly obliged to follow laws we might not necessarily agree with.
Nicely put, Mr Moto
Another way to say it - the Iraq War is legal, made so by the Authorization of Military Force and UN Resolution. Unless violations of the LOAC or UCMJ, then the orders given to prosecute the war which are followed by the US Military are legal and lawful.
There is nothing in these statements that infer the war is legitimate, or moral. I don’t believe the war was legitimately started, nor was it moral for us to invade Iraq in the first place. But that doesn’t mean I’m naive enough to believe the war was illegal, or that I can condemn the soldiers serving there for following illegal orders (with a few exceptions of course)
I was a pacifist in a country where my human rights were scant, where a state of emergency reigned and the army was out to get me, not protect me. So take this for what it’s worth - Fuck You! To suggest that the pacifists on the Sd are such because it’s easy is just bullshit.
Pardon me. I have shown a lot of respect for other viewpoints in this thread - it would be nice to have similar respect shown to me. Specifically, I don’t think I invited namecalling, and certainly not that charge.
I don’t consider myself the “bee’s knees”. I just don’t want a guy next to me in a bad situation who isn’t clear as to what he has to do. That isn’t a terribly hard thing to understand.
I’m on the local Selective Service board. I pray we are never activated, but if we are, I will be looking seriously at everyone who claims CO status with the attitude that if they’re badly conflicted they likely will present a danger to themselves and others.
You seem to think that soldiers haven’t examined their moral obligations - I posit that they have, and that their obligations include obeying lawful orders. You don’t think a soldier can contract out his decision making in this way - which is why you wouldn’t make a good soldier. You’d be a disaster on any battlefield, secondguessing any order and decision that you get.
If soldiers hadn’t come to terms with this, they likely wouldn’t have joined in the first place, as I said above.
Now, you might think this is self-righteous. I think it is just some things I’ve learned over the years - most of which reflect a world none of us would regard as an ideal one.
OK, fine, so you aren’t included. I never said all pacifists were sanctimonious SOBs, I said some are (see my first sentence of my first post in this thread). See, the folks who had been posting in this thread before I joined it are citizens of the US. They haven’t the first clue what it’s like to actually live in a situation as you’ve described. Frankly, THEY are the ones you should give a hearty Fuck You to. Because here, it IS easy. Trust me.
That’s absolutely true that I’d be a disaster on a battlefield. But then, I think of “disaster” more broadly: people who DO follow orders without considering the moral implications have caused untold disasters on battlefields, killing millions of people throughout history.
Once again, examining one’s moral obligations is only a first step: you gotta come to a correct conclusion in order to be acting morally. I can’t tell you what that correct conclusion is, I can only guess, but that doesn’t remove your obligation to come to the correct conclusion.
Daniel
Okay. I have decided I am acting morally. Thanks for that.
So you can’t (or won’t) define morality or what is correct moral behavior, you can just know it when you see it and judge someone else’s morality as deficient, and it’s everyone’s duty to strive to act morally?
You sound like a politician trying to define what pornography is - it makes you feel horny, therefore it’s pron!
Why? Have you some special expertise in these matters? Some exclusive insight denied the rest of us? You are not, I take it, a pacifist yourself, so how then do you come by such an all-encompassing awareness?
Great, glad you have. Doesn’t mean anything except that you’re trying.
Gomi, I have a definition I use of “moral.” You’re right that it’s a topic for another thread; I’ve defined it in other threads. I won’t do so here, because it’s not relevant to the point I’m making, a point that you seem intent on not getting.
Daniel
Winter Soldier | Iraq Veterans Against the War There is a meeting for the soldiers that committed or witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan going on now. These kind of wars really contribute to ugly warfare.
I’m not intent on not getting it, I just don’t understand. I know you’ve a personal definition of morality, you’ve said it’s our individual mission to find the correct moral way to behave, you’ve shown how you judge against your personal moral code, and you’ve said that you would make a bad soldier because your moral code would require you to question every order given against your personal code. OK, fine - I agree with all of that, even how you judge against your code and I judge against mine.
What you haven’t done is define what a correct moral code is - there’s no ‘there’ there. You’ve not told us what your moral code is, or what you’d define as correct behavior. It’s your opinion, but you haven’t even shared that! I don’t get it because you’ve shown me the rules, but haven’t told me what the purpose of the game is.
If you do open a thread, please do invite me along or post a link here - I’d like to debate that with you.
Can’t speak for Sarah, but I will answer.
Our enemies use every weapon against us - and given out military strength, they typically choose not to take us on in that arena. They will instead seek to achieve victory by other means - and this usually involves elements of the American population that can be influenced to some degree.
The ways the North Vietnamese relied on the American antiwar movement to win that war are pretty well known, and in this war, our enemies have turned to asymmetric warfare specifically to produce dead and wounded soldiers and ignite calls for withdrawal again.
Now, this isn’t pacifism per se, but it is using the openness of a free society to win a victory on the other side - and Orwell saw this same thing happening about sixty years back. If you have a reply to him that would apply, please post it.
Myself, I’m of the view that pacifism must be respected in individuals and in certain groups, same as we do many other beliefs, but that it has no place as an organizing or moral value for a society. Because pacifism in the face of evil would ensure that evil wins - and we cannot allow that.
Well, let’s see…my insight on what it’s like to live in the US is based on having been born here, and having lived here for the past 40 years. My insight on what it’s like to be a pacifist is based on having been one and being personally acquainted with many. Perhaps this is not MORE insight than others have, but I do believe it is enough to judge the relative ease of being a pacifist here compared to the conditions MrDibble described.
Of course, I noticed you didn’t actually dispute my claim that it’s easier. Only a fool would do that, and you’re no fool.
I got that - I don’t think you got my point - you don’t know the history and situation of any of the posters who claim to be pacifists, any more than you knew mine. So for you to claim it’s easy for them without evidence is a little…silly. You knw, assuming and all that.
Those two sentences are not logically linked. There have been times and places in recent US history where being either a pacifist or anti-war would get you killed. How do you know none of your fellow Dopers weren’t at Kent State in '70?
I’d say being a pacifist in your country is exactly the same as it was for me - whether the army is there to protect you or harass you is irrelevant to whether you make the ethical choice to be a pacifist. Czarcasm, to pick one, has the same degree of asked-for protection as I did back then i.e. none.
The pacifist believes in me more than I believe in him, he believes that there is a decency in me that is inborn and universal, and that decency can be nourished and cherished to full blossom, and the man who puts on my shoes tomorrow will be a better man for it.
I would that they were right, I fear that they are wrong. No, its not easy to be a pacifist, what is easy is to dismiss them as hypocritical or naive, and to assure ourselves that our moral weakness is realistic and correct. Which is a way of saying that what is is what must be, it was ever thus, and the future holds the same darkness for our children as the past held for us.
So, how about a compromise with the impossible standards? How about we adopt the position that violence degrades us, and that we will undertake it only in the most urgent and desperate of situations? That will do nicely, I think. Our present involvement, of course, falls rather short of that mark, no?
As for your argument that your forty years here lends you some credibility (really, you don’t type a day over thirty!), I’m afraid I’ll have to let that one pass, as I have additional portion of years above yours, and I haven’t significantly changed my opinions in about 40 years. Heck, I’m probably old enough to be your*…OMG*! Your mom was never in Berkeley, was she?