He knows. He knows.
Thanks, GomiBoy. It was a typo. Of course, I meant that said individuals had been punished for obeying unlawful orders.
Zoe was posting stupid crap about military being “just following orders” and thus equating them to…nah, I refuse to be the one to explicitly Godwinize this thread.
Dear God in heaven, some of the pacifists around here are sanctimonious SOBs. It’s easy to be a pacifist is easy in a country where human rights abound and the rule of law governs the actions of the vast majority of the citizens and its government. It’s easy to be a pacifist in a country where there is a standing volunteer army of people willing to do the dirty work so you don’t have to. It’s easy to be pleased with yourself for being against the taking of human life, when there have been so many who have died so one of those lives taken wasn’t yours. Heck, in Zoe’s case, she’s proud of 3 generations of pacifism…sounds like that goes back to WWII or so. I guess standing up for the principle is more important than, you know, trainloads of people who were gassed and incinerated in ovens.
This so reminds me of the anti-war folks who stand out on a busy corner near my house every weekend, imploring people to honk for peace. This, in a neighborhood where every other car has an anti-war bumper sticker on it, and the fucking town council issued a resolution denouncing the war. A town where 90% of the vote went for John Kerry, and people wrote letters to the paper saying they were in tears because one lone Bush supporter put a large sign on his lawn that they were forced to look at every day. I live in one of the bluest towns you’ll find in my blue state…and those folks are standing there asking us to honk for peace. “Just following orders” is cowardly? These folks aren’t even brave enough to go to a place where there are actual supporters of the war driving past to tell them to honk for peace. They aren’t brave enough to face the parents and spouses of the people who are fighting and tell them to honk for peace. Just like those Code Pink people, who protest in a town where even the police won’t back up members of the military who are trying to do their jobs. Talk about cowardly…that’s worse than cowardly…it’s pathetic.
And before everyone jumps on ME as an apologist, don’t bother…I’m not going to defend the decisions made regarding this war. But I’m also not going to pretend that it’s SO SIMPLE to do the “moral” thing…just be a pacifist. Yeah, that’s great, but life just isn’t like that. I’m not about to tell those soldiers to do a fucking thing that might risk their lives, including second-guessing orders because they might be “immoral,” when I’m sitting here in my cushy house on my cushy chair, thanking God that I’m not the one out there tramping through the desert hoping not to get killed. What they are doing out there IS our dirty work…don’t kid yourself for one minute that if you didn’t vote for Bush, or if you stand out on a fucking street corner with a sign that you are absolved from guilt. This is YOUR war and MY war, and unless we are willing to do a little more than wring our hands over it…like put our OWN lives on the line for the principle…then we are just as guilty as anyone.
Amen.
Not looking for absolution, Sarah, my dove, simply want it to stop. From what I learned in Sunday School, me and the Lord don’t have any major issues, we get along just fine. He has His faults, of course, but I’m willing to overlook them.
There are some people involved in this who do need some absolution, Hugh Betcha. Lots of it. (I’m told the supply is infinite, that seems practical…) If I were Bush, Rummy and Rice, I would probably seek solace in atheism. Don’t know if they believe in Judgement, but they sure haven’t shown much of it.
Yes, its annoying and tiresome, and sometimes just plain dumb. Sorry about that, hope you can find it in your heart of forgive us. (You think it’s easy, you try listening to Maya Angelou for forty-five goddam minutes!)
After reading your declamation I was convinced we SHOULD pay reparations to slave descendants, after you point out it's MY war,even though I didn't want it.
After I write the check,I’ll be over to put some OSHA approved handrails around that towering soapbox of yours.
That’s a nice circular argument. Shall we all use your personal definition of morality? Or mine?
Hey I have an idea - why don’t we take our collective morality as an electorate and choose our leaders and ask them to make moral decisions? And how about we develop a system of checks and balances so that if that person in charge starts making immoral decisions we can remove them from office? Then how about we codify what is strictly illegal and make sure that all the folks in the military know that they have every right to question and refuse to follow illegal orders and let that define the code of ‘moral’ behavior?
The military takes their ultimate orders from the civilian leadership. If you feel an order is immoral take it up with them; as long as it’s not illegal the military and individual soldiers have no right to question or refuse those orders. The only option for the military member if they feel dubious about the morality of their actions is to not join in the first place - it is an all-volunteer military after all.
What I thought 
This will serve to answer everyone raising this forever-raised point: you should look for the most accurate definition of morality and use that one. I am no moral relativist, as many of you are; I believe there is such a thing as objective morality, and I believe every one of us who is capable of finding it (that is, excluding infants, the profoundly mentally disabled, etc.) is obligated to try to find it and adhere to it. Meanwhile, a person is obligated to act morally at all times according to their best understanding of morality. If they believe I am not acting morally according to their best understanding of morality, they will consider my actions immoral; likewise, if they act in a way that does not match my best understanding of morality, I will consider their actions to be immoral. This is not rocket science.
sarafreenah, it’s interesting you pick on the pacifists for being self-righteous. There are plenty of warmongers around this thread who consider themselves the bee’s knees and who think that we all choose between fighting wars and eating Doritos.
Daniel
I don’t expect you to do anything about a war or a social problem that’s been over for 100 years. I’m talking about a war that’s happening right now, you see. RIGHT NOW people are being killed. So you didn’t want it, so what? The question is what are you willing to do to stop it? From what I see, the extent most people go to involves: 1) Posting on a message board and 2) Staging protests in a place where 90+% of the people are in complete argeement with them.
MY soapbox? that’s a hoot.
Look, be against the war. That’s great. I appreciate the fact that you don’t want any more killing going on in your name. My point is that it’s obnoxious the way people piously delclare themselves pacifists, insult the troops, and then make pronouncements about how those troops ought to be doing their jobs. When you all are out there being shot at, you can tell me about how you stopped to consider the morality of what you were doing every time you had to pull the trigger.
I THINK you are directing this to me…I don’t think I’ve ever seen my user name butchered quite that badly before.
Those “warmongers” are making of the same points I am…that you can call yourselves pacifists all the live long day, but if your way of life and indeed your life has been saved because of people who are willing to do something that you are not. Like I said, it’s nice to have principles…and it’s even nicer to be in a position to be able to enjoy them.
Let me try that again…
Those “warmongers” are making of the same points I am…that you can call yourselves pacifists all the live long day, but if your way of life and indeed your life have been saved because of people who are willing to do something that you are not, then you should at least appreciate that. Like I said, it’s nice to have principles…and it’s even nicer to be in a position to be able to enjoy them.
Nice try, but you’ve given another circular argument. No, it’s not rocket science, but your definition certainly doesn’t define much of anything and is far from objective. Is this self-evident and objectively accurate moral code posted somewhere, so that I might know what I am to adhere to and strive towards?
Your whole moral statement is relative and flexible. We’re all supposed to seek our own code of morality and strive towards it as we best understand it? OK, fine - in my view of morality the only core value of any importance is personal liberty and the protection of me and my family against anyone who would harm us. Therefore I will turn my home into a fortress, go about heavily armed, and shoot anyone who threatens me in any way or attempts to interfere with my personal liberties in any way. By your definition, as long as I strive towards that moral goal that I have decided is my best understanding of morality, then it’s all good and I am behaving morally and will get a prize or something for doing that.
I know what is right and wrong by my own definitions. The difference is I certainly don’t expect that my morals, based on a peaceful existence in a country with the rule of law and protection for civil rights, applies everywhere or to everyone, most particularly soldiers on the battlefield or someone who doesn’t have the protection of a law-based government like me.
Another point Daniel- you’re talking about how to judge whether someone is behaving morally or not. That doesn’t help define what is moral in the first place. Your definition will vary from mine; and to be perfectly blunt, I don’t really care about your morality but only mine. So your judgment of the morality of my action has no bearing on my behavior whatsoever.
So to be honest, I see this as nothing more than a distraction of the thread. If you want to discuss how best to define morality, I’ll happily join in, but I think it best to be put in another forum and another thread. YMMV.
Had Saddam Hussein sank the Lusitania,bombed Pearl Harbour or toppled Dominoes, I wouldn’t ponder any morality.Issue my rifle.
Shooting dogs that haven’t attacked,especially on the owner’s premises, seems immoral.Definitely provokes reaction.
“What are you willing to do to stop it ?”
Back to reparations.Why is the onus on those who didn't commit the action?I think what has never been argued is that we were legitimate (or moral) in going in. That’s not even the topic of debate - the debate seems to be whether we have a moral imperative to stay in until it’s stable / safe / pick your word.
These arguments aren’t exactly new:
That’s an interesting article, Mr. Moto. I had heard the “pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist” line before, but never knew where it came from.
Regards,
Shodan
Forget reparations. For one thing, your argument suffers if you haven’t established that I am against them. For another, the people who suffered slavery are long dead, so it’s not exactly analagous. Stopping slavery itself is a better analogy…there were plenty people who went to war and died to stop slavery. Now THAT’S sticking to principle.
Well, you know, I’m not sure if we do or we don’t, but I’m not going to criticize the troops who are there under lawful orders and who are trying to accomplish that goal.
Even more damning in its entirety, IMHO. And another data point in why I can’t be a pacifist.
I said I wasn’t a combat veteran, but one of the things I did in the Navy was support hundreds of maritime patrol flights that were enforcing sanctions against the former Yugoslavia and conducting reconnaissance missions in Bosnia. This was in the mid-1990s, when the really nasty stuff was going down.
Pacifism wouldn’t have halted the genocide there.