Yeah, because the world is full of so many nice folks. Its a shame, and I wish it were different, but the world doesn’t work out that way in reality.
You’ve got to be joking. The two things aren’t even remotely comparable.
Trouble is, too often we’re the “nice folks.” Think the people of Iraq are super happy about our military excellence? Personally, I think they’d rather have electricity and a functioning sewer system.
You paid to blow it up. I haven’t been to Iraq since the 90’s. I’ve never ever been in a tank either.
Excuse me for not reading the rest of the thread. I just wanted to say this is a really good point. There is, however, a small percentage of soldiers who got out and were re-activated from the IRR and sent to Iraq.
So there are some soldiers in Iraq right now who left the military (maybe even because they disagreed with the war) and were later called back to active service to go fight in that war.
There’s also people who not only reenlisted with full knowledge of the war, but actually volunteered to go there. Maybe some of them what to fix what’s wrong over there. Or at least do their part to make things a little better. I know a guy like that.
Your argument is effectively, “Don’t blame me, I’m just a desk jockey.” Hope it’s not affecting your chance of promotion.
That’s some funny shit right there. Don’t like the war? Don’t pay your taxes. I’m sure you wouldn’t end up in jail as fast a soldier refusing to obey orders but in jail you would end up.
Just got promoted recently, actually. But since you don’t know how the promotion system works in the army maybe you shouldn’t make cracks about it. Your excuse is “I didn’t volunteer for the military. I’m just a tax paying citizen of the country. Its not my fault the army I pay for is at war. But I’m too comfortable here to consider not paying taxes or leaving this gawd-awful evil country. Its the fault of all of those dang servicemen! If only they had the balls to just quit. Oh well, I’ll just tell them its all their fault on the internet”.
Hey, you already admitted you share some blame. Don’t take potshots at me for doing my job. Don’t go to work! That’ll show 'em! If you don’t have any money you can’t pay taxes and fund the iraq fiasco. Take the moral high ground. Don’t tell me what I have to do to solve the problem when you apparently aren’t doing anything about it either. The very least you could do is chain yourself to the doors of the local recruiting station so they have to shut down. Set an example! I swore the oath, you didn’t. I am compelled to follow my lawful orders, you aren’t. What are they going to do to you? Make you join? Whats stopping you?
And you don’t actually know if i’m a desk jockey or not do you? I said I work in support, and you don’t actually know what my MOS is. But if I am a desk jockey, just a middle management schlub, how is it MY fault Bush decided to lie about WMD’s and invade Iraq? The memo didn’t come across my desk at all. I didn’t even vote for him. Heck, you have more access to information about the war than I do…I don’t have CNN or Fox here. So considering that its both of our faults and you have more flexibility to take action, well…hey, do something.
You know, the death penalty is still on the books for disobeying orders during wartime. They probably would never USE it, (imagine the shit storm that would bring on the news!) but they won’t threaten to kill you for not paying taxes.
Yes, and yes. Blood is on the hands of everyone who reelected him. They are all scum, period. They committed an evil that deserves no forgiveness, ever.
That’s your commander-in-chief you’re talking about. If he’s such a schmuck, what does that say about letting him decide for you on the morality of this or that?
It’s a simple question, yet you keep muddying it with this false equivalence between the taxpayer who passively supports the war (because he’s imprisoned if he doesn’t), and the serviceman who actively enlists to support it. No one incurs a penalty for not enlisting. Paying taxes and volunteering for Iraq are not equivalent, however much you insist they are.
I has u no dat i was in army for 6 yeers, and got my gud edyucashun thair. so fuk u!
How do you know that Bush decides my morality? I didn’t machine gun anyone or blow up any building. You can’t say its my fault or anyone else serving unless they actually did something like that. If someone in the army does something like that they get punished. I’ve already said that I am against the war in Iraq, but I have to follow my lawful orders. When I follow an unlawful order and murder someone then you can blame me or anyone else that has done something like that. I haven’t been ordered to do anything like that. So how is it MY fault or anyone else that hasn’t committed some kind of atrocity fault? You don’t know me. I could be the nicest guy you’dve ever met if you met me on the street or the biggest jerk. (actually, I’m a pretty nice guy. My family and friends tell me I’m too nice). If i was ordered to fire on a village kust to kill some people for no reason hell yes I’d refuse. I’m not a cold blooded machine and neither are the majority of people in the military. Just like you and your friends and people around you.
You’re making a big leap in thinking that anyone but me decideds what is moral or not for me. Quite frankly I take offense at the notion that you think I’m an immoral person simply for being in the military and not disobeying orders that in my case, have nothing to do with killing anyone. Its not too fun to be blamed for something you didn’t actually do or have any input in the decision process is it? And you said
Hey, you’re an immoral person for not doing what I said. You’re to blame for this because you should have just not paid taxes or moved to Mexico. Not fun is it?
Simply enlisting doesn’t garuantee you a ticket to Iraq, nor does it make a person a blood thirsty killer. If you didn’t know, recruitment numbers are down. They took a dive a long time ago and many people in recruiting command have said they’re bound to get lower. The government in power lowered the standards to join to up the numbers. I personally think thats a bad thing. But again, I don’t get to make that decision, and I was a recruiter then. So once again, maybe you should have told your elected officials how you disagree with that. I couldn’t refuse to process someone that made the current qualifications even if I thought they were not going to make a good soldier. Why blame me, when I’m not the guy that had a choice in the standard? You’re going to say I should have quit, I’m going to say you should have stopped paying taxes or held a rally to tell people not to join. Some people joined for college money, or trainingor a bonus like a garuanteed station of choice in Hawaii. Or they wanted to just move around. Some joined because they wanted to serve the country in some way. Some joined because their parents were prior military and they wanted to be like ol’ dad or mom. If you say they are passively supporting the war I’ll tell you that you are too, since you can do something about it besides calling them monsters. Heres a side hint: I often told folks who did join during that period to pick a technical non-combat MOS because I wanted to lower their chances of being deployed to Iraq. And most of them didn’t want to go to Iraq in the first place. They joined for reasons I’ve mentioned above. Not once did someone ccome in to my office and say “I want to go kill Iraqis”. If they did they probably wouldn’t pass the entrance exam anyway and my commander would have refused to process them. But thats his choice, not mine, because I worked for him and lets say it again I had to follow my* lawful ** orders*. I’ve been in a combat zone. Its not fun and trust me, no one wanted to be there. I almost shit myself the first time I was under fire. (You won’t believe how fast your bowels can actually turn against you) But thats as far as I could go with my then current orders. You should have chained yourself to that door. I would have appreciated it.
People in the military have to follow lawful orders just as you have to pay taxes. So by your own admission you share some blame too, and you have a bit of freedom in what to do about it. You want me to quit, fine. You chain yourself to that door I talked about. Neither one of us made the decisions Bush did. We’re both taking the blame it seems. Do you honestly think every troop over in Iraq wants to be there? Have you talked to any of them? They hate it. They want to come home. But they have to follow orders just like you have to pay taxes to clothe and feed them. And except for the few that have done anything wrong they’re just regular guys and girls that don’t want to hurt anyone. You actually have the power to change things. Why waste it blaming the people that don’t have a say in the matter?
All I’m saying is blame the people that call the shots. Or take that leap and stop paying taxes or move to a country that has nothing to do with it. Blaming the soldiers is simple minded, childish and unfair. Since you copped to the tax thing you’re equally as immoral aren’t you? You have something to lose if you chain yourself to that recruiters door or stop paying taxes. You were paying them before these people joined. At the very least you’re asking for servicemen and women to take a risk you’re not willing to.
You could take the energy and complain to your congressmen instead of blaming the people that took an oath to obey the lawful orders of the president, whether they agree with those orders or not. Because, believe it or not, they’re doing a job for you. Its a job no one really wants to do in Iraq and elsewhere too. If you don’t like the job they’ve been given blame the people that made that decision. I took that oath and I’d take a bullet for you if I had to, because you’re a civilian and I’m a soldier. Would I want to? Hell no, my life is a precious to me as yours is to you and I have a family to care for. But I’d do it because I took that oath…and you called me a desk jockey. Hey. I volunteered for it, right? I’ve never denied that.
Jolly Roger, for all the electrons you killed with that post, it still seems to me you’re missing the obvious point: we can’t fight in Iraq without people willingly having signed up to do so. They did; they’re there. They didn’t have to be. No enlist, no war. End of story. You’ll call my viewpoint simplistic, and it is – it’s not that complicated a matter.
And you seem to think I’m blaming you personally far, far more than I actually am. Au contraire. On the blame scale, you’re a lot closer to me than you are to George Bush.
True. But I disagree that simply enlisting makes someone to blame. To be honest, theres little need for us to be at odds. We have doffering views, but I don’t think you’re a bad evil person.
I understand your reasoning, though I disagree. And you’re right in the fact that if recruitment dropped to a low point, the war would stop. You can’t fight with no soldiers, and a draft? Make me laugh, it would be a disaster if they tried it. (trust me, I know just from common sense that Bush probably considered it.) You don’t know how much I disagreed with the lowering of some of the standards to join. The reasons they were “high” was to keep the military professional and capable. By lowering them this administration has effectively lowered the quality of the soldiers they get. As an NCO I cringe at the thought. I’m pretty sure if you talked to some drill sergeants they’d tell you how much they hate it.
I think the bone of contention between us is that I dson’t think that merely enlisting makes one to blame. We disagree, but I believe in your right to say and think that, and actually I think you believe in my right to think otherwise.
Look, I really don’t agree with the Iraq thing. I think Bush needs to at the least, be held accountable for it. (sidenote: By regulations I am not allowed to say anything bad about the gov’t or the president while on duty or in uniform. Bad for morale and I agree with that regulation. Of course, I’m off duty now and at home wearing sweats)
I’d like to see our troops come home. They don’t need to be there and the reason they ARE there is pure folly. But I don’t blame them for being there. Its all of our faults. We let fear and lies take us there. The true shame is Bush and co. will probably never pay a price for what they’ve done and the people that died will still be dead.
Hell, when I finally do retire we can have a beer together. I do have some fun and entertaining stories about the army. 
Hey, it’s the weekend. Hoist one for me!
Anyone interested in talking about the “Stop- loss Program” I have opened a thread over in INHO.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9025675#post9025675
How about you answer this one: ignoring what you own, how much cash do you own? Does it makes sense for me to ask that of you?
It makes as much sense as asking me, a person who has said that participation in Iraq as a US soldier is immoral, what percentage of US soldiers in Iraq have done anything immoral. It seems you want me to give *my * views on what percentage of soldiers in Iraq have done something that would fail *your * rather narrower test of immorality, a test you have not even bothered to particularise.
In other words, asking me this question makes no fucking sense.
Furthermore, this thread is about whether soldiers are themselves culpable *given * the premise that the current Iraq war is an outrage. That’s what everyone else in thread is discussing. If you want to have a discussion about whether Iraq is in fact an outrage, if you want to argue that it is not: fine. Go play somewhere else. It’s not a discussion I am currently having.
Now fuck off and leave the thread to those actually capable of understanding the discussion, there’s a good boy.
I think you typed this poorly. You no doubt meant to type: “asking me this question makes me uncomfortable because it reveals the poor thinking that my position is based on.”
Your welcome. Don’t mention it.
All I’m really doing here is defing terms in the debate. When we say someone is immoral, we have an idea of some disgusting thing that person has done: raped, stole, killed without justification, cheated, etc. You want to apply the label of immoral to people without having anything on the list apply. I’m asking you to define how you’re using the term. What, specifically, have they done that is immoral? You answer “b-b-but they voluntarily joined an immoral war”. But that is not a fact, it is an opinion. And if you are talking with peolpe who share that opinion you have a low threshold of proof. But in a more open forum the burden for your case is increased.
Now we can have a purely hypothetical discussion about soldiers joining up to fight in War X, which is 100% immoral, and ask if those soldiers are immoral. But that is not what the OP was asking. He was talking about our real world. I suggest you reread it.
You Funnyman! Are there any other things that you’d like to suggest that I do that I won’t be doing? And if you don’t want to have the discussion, don’t. Scratch your ass. See, that’s you not having the discussion you don’t want to have. Typing the post to me, not as much.
And that was cute of you, using “an outrage” instead of “is immoral”. There is more agreement on the former, but then you can switch back to the stronger word again in conclusion to label soldiers as immoral. Tricky as the dickens you are. B+ for effort. F for arguing honorably.
Oh, and the defintion of coward is someone who displays cowardly behavior. Helpful, huh?
Heavens! You seem a little miffed. I guess it true what they say, never corner a rat. Even though you caused it yourself, I understand your frustration. You simply want to state:
- The war is immoral
- Soldiers are voluntary participants in the war
- Therefore the soldiers are immoral
Sorry, Princess, that’s not how this works. I’ve stated that there were two aspects to this and that I am interested in discussiing them both. In discussing #2, I’ve been willing to grant #1. But that doesn’t mean #1 is off the table. Not by a long shot. It is perfectly acceptable for one to challenge a premise, especially when it is repeatedly given as the only support for said immorality.
Now, surely you know that in war that soldiers sometimes commit “acts” that most people would characterize as immoral. If I point to Person A and say not only is he a soldier, but an immoral one, the implication is that he either tortured, raped, ran a black market operation with medicine, etc. Now in reality he acted honorably during the entire war—except for what: signing up. No, no, Princess, the only way the act of signing up would automatically qualify as an immoral act is is there was agreement on the immorality of the war. There isn’t. You wantiing to so cheaply slap the label of immoral on people without them having done anything that people would normally qualify as immoral is in itself an immoral act. Congratulations! Now let me pin your medal onto your forehead.
Signing a piece of paper, taking an oath and then going where your told is not an immoral act. If you are sent to serve in Alaska, joining up it is not immoral. If you are sent to serve in Iraq, joiniing up is not an immoral act. A person is only fairly labeld as immoral if while in Alaska or Iraq he commits an actual immoral act. Why you cannot muster the decency to assume people moral until they prove otherwise is baffling. And telling.
Now why don’t you do the honorable thing for a change and argue in good faith. More important, before you so readily attempt to slap a label of immorality on people wholesale, remember that your talkiing about individuals, and that no person deserves such a label unless you can point to a specific act they’ve committed that is, in fact, immoral.
Seems like a small thing to grant people. Guess it’s too much for you, eh Princess?
Signing up doesn’t automatically send you to Iraq. Some people are in training for months, and surely the majority of them hope to not go to Iraq…yes, even if they sign up for infantry. Because there are a lot of other places they can get stationed other than Iraq. The majority of the army is not in Iraq, but no one seems to realize that.