On the contrary. The people who volunteer make it necessary for others to enlist. Without those volunteers, there would be nobody to protect against.
Iraq and Vietnam were pretty much criminal wars.
Huh?
I think it’s quite simple. It goes like this:
A foreign power might look at my country with envious eyes, and draw their plans against us. The foreign power might then hire volunteers to conduct the invasion. Those volunteers probably don’t agree with the invasion, but they agree to participate in it anyway. Just doing their jobs, no offence meant. They would say that I should blame their leaders for sending them over here, and not them. They would say that they don’t have a choice. They have been given orders and aren’t allowed to disobey.
And because they are willing to do this, people like me are conscripted to fight them. That is why I say that volunteers create the need for conscription. Without volunteers there would be no war.
Don’t expect me to be grateful to them.
We were in Vietnam pursuant to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the President to “take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” South Vietnam was a member of SEATO, requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
We were in Iraq pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, authorizing the president to use the military “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Wait a second… So we’re to analyze the legality of a war by whether or not the aggressor’s conduct is authorized by the agrressor’s own *domestic *legislation?!? Well then, you’ve just pretty much eliminated the category of “illegal wars” wholesale, since apparently all it takes to justify a war in your eyes is a self-serving proclamation giving yourself the right to wage war. Nice.
Personally, I’m going to stick with an analysis based on international law and obligations. Under that test, both of the wars were and continue to be illegal.
Precisely. And so they should.
It’s not about being scared of being shot at. That kind of fear is usually dealt with during boot camp (when it’s still easy to get out), and besides one might suggest that if someone is afraid of getting shot at, there might be more worthwhile careers to pursue than choosing to be a bloody soldier :p.
But as long as:
a) the public believes that soldiers have to do whatever they’re told no matter how wrong the orders are, else they’re coward traitors yaddayadda
b) the soldiers believe they don’t have a choice but to obey orders and go to war, no matter the war, and
c) nobody can question no one…
Then people like George W. Bush will keep taking the military for granted and will keep on sending the troops into bogus, illegal, fully self-serving wars because they will assume the troops won’t fret. And with good reason.
You mention soldiers took an oath, and that is true. But the oath is not “I swear not to give no fucks no how and to do what I’m told, hooah !”, and the contract is not signing your soul away in blood. They swear to protect the Constitution and what it stands for from threats foreign and domestic, and to obey orders from the CnC according to the rules laid out in the UCMJ. That is the oath and the whole of the oath.
In the specific case of Iraq, not only was there exactly zero threat, but the orders from the White House were of questionable legality. That’s 0 for two. Had the troops barracks lawyered up en masse, who knows what could have happened ? Now, I’m biased in this matter because I’m a pretty staunch pacifist, but it’s still something to think about. And on the flip side, it’s pretty damning for the folks who did *not *think about it.
If you choose to be a soldier and choose not to give no fucks about who you’re shooting at because brass tells you to, then damn straight you carry the guilt. “Just doing mah job” didn’t cut it for the Nazis, it shouldn’t cut it now.
Perhaps not, but it is something. I seem to recall a recent furor that arose recently when some video game or other allowed players to play as insurgents fighting against US soldiers. The argument was that it is unacceptable to allow people to shoot digital US soldiers. The absence of such an outcry when it comes to killing representations of Germans seems to indicate that it is acceptable to feel some kinds of negative emotions towards them. I call this “demonization;” you can choose whatever term you prefer. The argument stands: if we are justified in feeling negative emotions towards soldiers simply for carrying out barbaric policies without setting them, then such negative emotions should be directed at US soldiers no less than at German ones.
No, not quite. My argument here is not about US soldiers conducting war crimes / crimes against humanity during current ongoing wars. That’s certainly a major discussion that we can have, and should serve as an additional basis for hating US troops, but is not the argument that I am presently advocating here. What I am discussing here is an accomplice liability-type situation, in which we have soldiers actively participating in a war that was illegal from the outset, regardless of how it was waged. Even if the soldiers were pure angels in carrying it out and didn’t kill a single innocent civilian, they would still be criminals for partaking in the crime. We can assign additional fault as we go along, but we cannot travel in the opposite direction and erase the blame that has already been acquired simply by setting foot in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/etc. in violation of international law.
[QUOTE=Commissar]
What I am discussing here is an accomplice liability-type situation, in which we have soldiers actively participating in a war that was illegal from the outset, regardless of how it was waged. Even if the soldiers were pure angels in carrying it out and didn’t kill a single innocent civilian, they would still be criminals for partaking in the crime. We can assign additional fault as we go along, but we cannot travel in the opposite direction and erase the blame that has already been acquired simply by setting foot in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam/etc. in violation of international law.
[/QUOTE]
The trouble, of course, being that it’s your OPINION that they violated ‘international law’. Feel free to quote a reputable body who has concluded that the US indeed violated ‘international law’ in either Afghanistan or Iraq (or Vietnman for that matter, since you brought that up earlier).
Of course, the irony is that if the US has violated ‘international law’ in Afghanistan then your great Soviet empire likewise violated the same supposed laws…which sort of means that ‘international law’ is more a set of guidelines than actual laws that can be enforced.
-XT
That kind of fear never goes away.
One could also say that if someone objects to war on moral grounds they should pick another career.
It’s not what “the public believes,” it’s the truth. If you are given an illegal order there are proper channels to report the individual giving you the order, but you alone cannot decide what orders to follow. It would completely contradict the purpose of orders.
See above.
It’s not that nobody is allowed to question anything, it’s just not a soldiers job to question orders. Civilians are tasked with the job of questioning these things, and they should. I never stated that orders shouldn’t be questioned, but it shouldn’t be done by soldiers.
Again, it’s civilians job to question the actions of our government.
The part you should pay attention to is "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.
It doesn’t say “unless I think it might be an unjust order”
Comparing US troops to Nazis is just bad form. You may question the legality of the occupation in Iraq or Vietnam, but US soldiers are not rounding up unarmed civilians for labor camps and medical experiments.
That’s circular and completely illogical, but okay…
I live in the real world. And in the real world there will always be war. Regardless of your perfect vision for a global society every country will need some type of military force.
Given that, I suggest that a volunteer Army is a more palatable solution for many over the alternative of conscription embraced by many other countries around the world.
Your argument fails here, at this ridiculously false premise.
There is no universal agreement that “it is acceptable to hate a type of people”, and you will never be able to find it.
xtisme and others: You’re completely wasting your time trying to explain to Commissar that his opinion is merely his opinion when it comes to any governmental action of either the United States or his chose pretense, the USSR. Remember his balderdash about “good faith attacks” (I may not be quoting that exactly but that’s the sentiment he was pontificating on). The communist over-run of protests outside of the the USSR but in their so-called client states were perfectly legitimate because they were done in good faith. On the other hand, anything, anything at all, done by the USA is automatically a bad faith act. One would presume granting Commissar US citizenship would be included in that. Given that set of facts, one would be forgiven if one were to guess Commissar corrected that last by renouncing his US citizenship. Alas, one would be sorely mistaken. Like most other Americans, like any other “product of the American schools,” Commissar is quite content to enjoy the rights he rails against, the rights he wishes to deny others. Too bad this isn’t in The BBQ Pit so I could use the most appropriate word to describe that stance.
I don’t know if you’ve participated in it, but there is actually a Pit thread here for our favorite aparatcheck…
-XT
That’s not how it works. Rickjay’s explanation is how it works and there’s nothing really to add to it. Soldiers don’t decide to wage war, they just fight it. You can’t hold soldiers responsible for decisions that are beyond their control.
If you’re merely suggesting they should be held responsible, that’s different (others make the same argument). It’s not clear that you are, though. I know you know that’s not the way it currently is.
And, lo and behold, when other people make similar claims but actually provide exhaustive proof unlike Commisar, Commissar then believes that without the ruling of a tribunal, their opinions are utterly worthless. Empty pretense, if you will.
What a surprise.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
And, lo and behold, when other people make similar claims but actually provide exhaustive proof unlike Commisar, Commissar then believes that without the ruling of a tribunal, their opinions are utterly worthless. Empty pretense, if you will.
What a surprise.
[/QUOTE]
He’s certainly not going to let little things like facts get in his way…not if he can at least fantasize about bringing the Iron Hand of Tyranny (ignorance plus 9, oppression plus 12) down upon any who disagree with the assertions from on high… :eek:
-XT
You mean The BBQ Pit thread where I pointed out Commissar urinating on mod instructions? Yep, I’ve participated in that thread.
You’re saying wars and bloodshed have nothing to do with eithern the price of oil and sexslavery? Even the simplest people I know can make the connection. An A-Rab Wimmens recently made the equivocation, foreign and conquered sexslaves for their Izz-lamic husbands… One of our major security details as an occupying force is to defend the oil fields.
The price of subjugation.