Dude, what the fuck are you on about?
This doesn’t make it any clearer. either.
Because I’m not sorry that someone who was willingly part of a wrongful occupation force didn’t get paid for his collusion with evil makes me “devoid of compassion and basic humanity”? You’ll make me laugh. Hah! There, I laughed.
Nope, I think I’m still on the only right side.
From this one phrase flows the majority of all human evil.
You still don’t get it.
Being on the right side does not excuse everything. It does not excuse maltreatment of others, operating outside of the law or established codes of conduct, abuse of democratic norms. Hell, it doesn’t even excuse bad manners.
All it does is give you a position to fight for, which is plenty, but hardly sufficient.
And, no doubt, the majority of all human good, too. People pick sides, it’s our nature. We (unless broken) are a moral animal, we make moral judgments.
No-one has yet shown how my moral judgment about this man (that he was willingly part of an army that he had the moral responsibility to know was engaged in wrongful acts that he would contribute to) is wrong. I’m just getting called out for pointing the Emperor’s little wardrobe malfunction, or getting post-dated non sequitur ad hominems flung at me.
But are any of you actually saying that my assessment of this one man’s moral culpability is flawed, and how so?
MrDribble, regardless of your personal view on the merits of the Iraq War, these young men were recruited to serve by the very same Army that is now treating them like dirt. So, in effect, they’re being treated with as much care as you think they deserve, only the mistreatment is coming at the hands of people who say the war is a good thing.
The opinion of your opponents here is that these pawns shouldn’t pay karma’s price for the failures of the leadership, and your low opinion of the righteousness of the war they signed up to fight shouldn’t preculde them from getting the proper medical care and pay from the very people who asked them to fight.
Americans learned a hard lesson in the aftermath of Vietnam that demonizing the grunts on the ground in a questionable war is counter-productive and can cause great pain in more ways than one. It simply isn’t an acceptable attitude to think that soldiers should be denied pay and medical care for combat wounds because you don’t like the war.
When I go up to Hinkle himself and spit in his face, this becomes relevant. When I vent on a message board, not so much.
For here? More than sufficient, I’d say.
That’s not my name.
Not so young, but otherwise right.
I’m saying they’re not just paying karma for the leadership, but also their own moral choices.
Hey, they’re not my troops, I don’t have to buy that idiotic “support them” meme. If they’re not in the stockade on a “refused orders to go to Iraq” charge, they’re as culpable as their leaders. “I was only obeying orders” has never flown as an excuse.
Sure it has, as long as the orders were legal ones, which they are in the overwhelming majority of the time. I don’t know whether you noticed, but war crimes prosecutions aren’t terribly common.
I meant as an excuse for the (im)morality of one’s actions, not the (il)legality. Just because no one swung for e.g. My Lai would never make it right in my view. Yours, I don’t know about.
No, good almost never comes from that attitude.
Mr. Moto’s right. You really don’t get it.
Yes, it is flawed. It is flawed because you do not possess nearly enough information about who he was, why he joined, and what he hoped to accomplish by joining the army, to dismiss him as cavalierly and completely as you have here. In the world view you have presented here, there are two kinds of people: those who agree with you, and people who are evil. It is precisely because of this sort of thinking that the US army is occupying Iraq right now. The way to prevent this kind of debacle in the future does not lie in being just as divisive in the opposite direction.
Bad example. There was a prosecution there, and however light the punishment was (it was) there was an explicit admission by the government that a war crime occurred.
You have yet to explain what wrongful acts he was participating in. You bypassed my question about what you think will now happen to Iraq is the US pulled out immediately. Here it is a second time.
For that mistake I am sorry. Poor proof-reading on my part, nothing more.
I think it comes down to one very major postulate. You think the war is evil, wrong, illegal, etc. and extend that label to anyone who would volunteer for the effort.
It’s not up to you or the soldiers to determine the morality or legality of the war. I think it’s wrong to ask them to do so, and cheer their misfortune when they don’t pick your side.
Bullshit. I’m sure Nelson Mandela, to use an example for Moto’s benefit, knew he was on the right side and the other side was dead wrong. And now here we are, and you know what? He was right.
What, exactly, am I not getting
Yes, I do possess enough information-** he joined in 2005** - you can make one of two arguments - he joined because he had to, or because he wanted to. The article makes it pretty clear he wanted to. That, right there, says it all. The Iraqi occupation post-2003 is and has always been wrong. I do not need to know what function he served there or what he meant to accomplish. That fact suffices.
Are you arguing that the Iraq occupation is not wrong? If not, are you arguing that it is possible to partake in or assist in that occupation* without* moral blame? I’m a little lost.
Lt. Calley did not personally gun down all 504 victims. Plus I was speaking about the morality, not the legality. That’s your excuse, not mine.
He was participating in the occupation, which is itself a wrongful act. He didn’t have to personally kill or torture anyone to be complicit.
As to post-US Iraq, who knows? I’d like to think it’ll eventually settle down somewhat without the occupation as a catalyst. It doesn’t matter who’s doing most of the killing - I’m merely arguing against a moral defence of the US presence.
No prob - just pointing it out
Got it in one (except I don’t think “illegal” enters into it.
Au contraire. It is entirely up to me to make judgments of what I deem moral or not. Who else would do it for me, better than me?
It is also up to the soldiers to make these moral judgments for themselves. They are not machines, and should never act as though a uniform absolves them of moral responsibility for their actions.
Inasmuch as their morality jibes with my own, I cheer them. And when it is in contrast, I jeer them. This is my right as a free moral agent.
Off to bed…almost 1 AM here
Yep. Still not getting it. Sad, really.
No, you don’t. A join date is not sufficient to tell you everything you need to know about the moral dimension of this man’s decision to join the army.
No, I am not arguing that.
Yes, that is precisely what I’m saying. That you can’t seem to grasp this rather simple idea is very troubling.
No fooling.
And yet you are still struggling to put “it” into words. Sadder, I think.
Yes, it does.
Is there anythiung wrong with this statement:
“Hinkle willingly chose to join up with a wrongful occupation”?
If you can show me the error, I’ll be most obliged. Note that I believe his perception of the rightness of the occupation is irrelevant as to his moral culpability.
That you think no moral blame attaches to someone for assisting in a wrong action is even more troubling. And I don’t think it’s as simple an idea as you make it seem.
People like MrDibble is what the fight against ignorance is aimed at, unfortunately he seems to be rather well protected by his Wall of Ignorance.
You make think you’re right, but I think I’m not alone in thinking you’re a fucking dumbass.
People keep saying shit like this, but then failing to back it up with examples of my ignorance. So I remain unconvinced by their fervour.
And I think you’re a content-free piling-on motherfucking shitstain, so we’re good.
Wall of Ignorance, huh?
I can see it now: