I am starting to see why Americans tend to not see killing civilians as a crime.
They hold everyone in other countries responsible as well for what the few do.
Then what was all this moaning about 9/11. Just your civilian targets being attacked. So what? You are all complicit.
You shouldn’t act too surprised or indignant when it’s payback time.
I suppose you’re okay with your cities being firebombed and/or nuked.
Heh 
Nonetheless, the problem is one of twenty-twenty vision; most of us now accept that the Iraq war was a mistake, that the pretexts were farcical; I’ve not doubt that the Bush administration was complicit in cooking up the evidence. But it was still a free vote that authorised the war, and it is not the place of the Army to question the orders of its elected masters, whatever those orders be, assuming they are within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions.
You say that the soldiers are morally accountable for every time they pull the trigger, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near that clear. You might as well say that about any soldier, anywhere, ever. You seem to be questioning the very point of a soldier. It is within the rules of war that a soldier should follow the orders of his superiors to kill an armed enemy intentionally, and it is also the right of that opponent to defend themselves. It is neither moral nor immoral - it’s the fact of the enterprise.
Um, what? There were a few angry voices at the time of the 9/11 attacks, an understandable outpouring of anger and grief, but I don’t think the Army at any point had an active policy of liquidating civilians. Such deaths were accidental and immediately regretted.
Nor is such a thing what most Americans call for today.
I tend to somewhat agree with the OP.
This. America as a nation is immoral. The military is an expression of the popular will.
If you believe the second then the first was not a** mistake**. Not at all.
And it amazes me how you can all blithely think along the lines that ‘Heh, guess the American people collectively goofed up a little here.’
Why? It’s arguable that the American people were duped; but it remains the case that it is not the place of the Army to second-guess the will of the electorate and its representatives, who as far as it is concerned are and ought to be infallible.
Even knowing what I know today about how fraudulent the causes for the war were, I would be horrified if the Army refused to follow its orders when the war began, and would be dismayed with any soldier who refused to follow his orders. The Army is not a forum of protest.
Why not? Are you saying it’s impossible for the people to make a mistake? Do you think it’s the army’s role to stick its oar in whenever it feels like it?
Well, yes! What exactly do you think moral accountability is?
Not in this thread. In other threads, sure, but I don’t want to hijack this one with my pacifism, just address morality.
Unless your moral system is “If it’s legal, it’s golden”, that’s irrelevant, since I’m not addressing what’s in the Rules of war, but what’s moral.
No. All actions, everywhere and at all times, have a moral weight. All of them. That’s the nature of morality.
I am always amused by the folks screaming that the US commited a crime by invading Iraq. It was a mistake, most will admit that if pressed now. It was badly handled, which we knew the moment the government and military disappeared. But it wasn’t a crime, it wasn’t illegal, and calling it so because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so.
Also, I don’t think the OP is actually looking for a debate, so much as a soapbox.
The problem with debating morals is the belief in a Universal Morality. There is no such thing. All morals are changed with circumstances. If a man goes into a theater and shoots at people, he is acting immorally. If the same man, instead, enlists and is on a patrol which is attacked, and returns fire, shooting people, that is not immoral.
As for trying to argue the moral position of a nation-state, that is laughable at best. EVERY nation acts in it’s own self interest, almost all the time. Always, and forever. Those acts may be seen as good from the outside, or bad, but you can guarantee that any nation takes acts that will only benefit it (or it believes as such, which may be wrong, but it won’t be learned until after the fact).
Nations are not moral or immoral. They are amoral.
Of course - Nations! We’ve been so blind! Those magical, mythical beasts that exist completely separately from, and in no way composed of, moral human beings.
You heard it here first, folks - Nazi Germany, completely amoral.
Pot, kettle. There are things which are already firmly established as acceptable conduct in war, and there are occurrences which go flatly beyond the pale.
Before you start, nobody here is arguing the the conduct of the US, UK or any other country in the world is or is recently spotless; far from it. But the answer to minimising such misconduct (note minimising, it’s impossible to eradicate) is thorough education and training, to make it clear to soldiers such behaviour is not tolerated.
Your argument seems to be that because some soldiers, a tiny minority, go AWOL and gratuitously murder or torture civilians, then the entire Army should be tarred with the same brush; or that because they are doing what an Army should (unquestioning execution of legal orders is a feature, not a bug), then they should be likewise censured.
Your argument is full of holes. If you’re simply venting frustration at how some soldiers are shits, and/or that the decisions of governments aren’t always pinnacles of virtuous altruism, then tell us something we don’t know. Otherwise you’re pissing in the wind.
So, “the military is immoral”.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Which still leaves the question unanswered. Every military ever, or just recent US military? And, if all militaries are immoral (thus all persons who have served in these militaries are immoral by association if not by direct personal action) what remedies are indicated?
How can we address this immorality? Punishments? Public shamings? What?
Again - legality =/= morality.
That’s not what I’m arguing. You don’t seem to actually understand exactly what I am arguing. It’s got nothing to do with the definitely, unquestionably, criminal (although, to me, going AWOL from an army of aggression is no crime) and everything to do with the slightly morally wrong.
Please. Once again, for the hard of reading: legal =/= moral.
Since you don’t seem to know what my argument actually is, no, I don’t think I trust you to tell me if it is full of holes.
And no, blind service to a bad government is a moral failing no matter what, that’s not “pissing in the wind”, that’s something we actually had a trial to decide. You may have heard of a little town called Nuremberg?
That would be incorrect. The purpose of the military is to support and implement the government’s foreign policy and national security objectives. You seem to have a problem understanding that distinction because you only observe the bad parts. Selective cognizance reaps cognitive dissonance.
And in fact they are required to do so. The Code of Conduct compels all Service Men and Women to refuse unlawful orders. Always had been and always will be. What was you point?
What you are saying is you refuse to observe the reality of the topic, based apparently on some psychogenetic preponderance to pacifism, either because it too complicated for you to understand or your desire to support the anti-war movement precludes any basis in rationality.
Accepting resonsibility for one’s actions and defending their country in the process is a proud and honorable tradition of service the world over, not just in the U.S. Impuging people for that is a habit of traitors, cowards and the intellectually derelict.
He doesn’t have to based on asserting the moral complexities don’t matter. It’s just wrong. That’s all you need to know.
He certainly wouldn’t last long if he did.
Because you seem to insist this is somehow an option in your fantasy army doesn’t make it true - or even a viable point of debate. It’s simply not an option at that level - a fabricated argument supporting a non-issue. Going to war was already decided way above their pay grade. Individual soldiers may on rare occasion exercise a moral option in very limitied, specific circumstances where they may for example refuse to shoot the prisoners, but it doesn’t make for a blanket case against them in terms of the whole war.
Anyone who can flippantly use “civilan” and “targets” in the same sentance deserves to be among the next.
That would seem to be the premise of the OP, as t’were.
Saw this coming up 6th Ave. Surprising it took 4 pages to get to it.
And a right strong unrination it is. Wonder where they get the stamina?
Maybe you should title this in another thread. I think Robert could get behind it, if that’s going to be extent of it.
Since it doesn’t even actually exist at all, I believe one large empty space of a hole will suffice.
Well thank you. *Somebody *has to piss at all the shit. To clean the pot, as it were..
[del]
Your remarks have crossed the line from arguments to insults, kwimby. Get back on the right side of the line or start a Pit thread.
And don’t imply that people deserve death either. I’m going to give you a formal warning for that one.[/del]
Nevermind, this user has been banned.
This is pretty insulting on its own, and since it does not track very closely with what Oliveritaly actually posted, it’s uncalled for. Dial it back.
n/m, no need
You earlier claimed Afghanistan and WWII were justifiable, now you seem to have reversed course.
Would you mind clarifying?
Were they justifiable wars or not?
Thanks
My mistake, I accidentally confused a post from Robert as one from Latro.
Sorry.
Would one of the mods mind deleting.
Okay, folks, lets take a hypothetical example. Just suppose that a few years ago there was a teenage American woman. The Iraq war has been going on a while. She has heard about it on the news, heard stories about how innocent people keep on getting mistaken form insurgents, and dying. She does not approve of the war at all, seeing it as pointless and unjust.
She wishes to go to college, but doesn’t have the money. But the military offers to pay for her college if she enlists. So, setting aside her own personal objection to the war, she agrees to participate in it.
Lets also say that she takes a desk job, for example she is involved in the purchase of weapons, ammunition, and other equipment, and making sure they are supplied to the soldiers on the front line. She, personally, never fires a single weapon in her career, and comes nowhere near combat. But the weapons she buys are used in combat many times, and kill a lot of people, some of them insurgents, and a lot of innocent people too.
Now in that hypothetical situation, I have several questions for you all to consider.
Firstly, should we hold her morally accountable for the killings.
I say yes. It seems to me that she has made them possible, she is at least an accomplice in several thousand deaths.
Secondly, are her actions moral?
I see her as an evil person. Her actions are totally selfish and callous. She is a person with complete disregard for other people’s lives. She places her own wish to go tol college over the lives of thousands of other people.
Third, when her morality is called into question, she starts talking about patriotism, serving her country, and protecting us. Is this not totally hypocritical of her? She isn’t doing it for the good of her country. She isn’t trying to protect you and me. Her actions *might *protect us, but that’s not any part of her motivation.
Fourth, Bryan seems to be implying that this sort of attitude is extremely common in recruits. Is he right, or are people joining up just for free college in the minority?