Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:But joining the military is not always the same as just standing up to protect your country. You can join to protect your country, but that doesn't mean that what you are going to do will protect your country. If there was an invading force coming into your country, than anyone who joins the fight against them gets my respect. But being send to kill Iraqis is not protecting me or you, so I do not see the point of it deserving respect. Anyone who thinks that by joining the military they will only protect their country and nothing else is being foolish.

The problem is that when you join the military, the need doesn't have to arise for you to be send into war. Your last sentence implies that the military is a tool of the government, and whether they use it for good or evil doesn't matter in regards to following orders.

Snorri1234 wrote:Uhm...if you refuse to go to war because you think it is unjust you can be send to jail. You can say you think the war is unjust, but you can't refuse to go along with it.

Snorri1234 wrote:It also lists information about times in which soldiers are required to follow orders even when they are suicidal. It shows the problem of disobeying orders because even though the soldier thinks they are unlawful, the deciders are his superiors and the courts. Recruits are told from early on to obey, it is no surprise they obey orders when they might be crimes because how are they supposed to know that their orders are unlawful? If the president himself tells you to humiliate prisoners, what are you supposed to do?

Snorri1234 wrote:For example: in WW1 there were a bunch of big pushes. These big pushes, as I'm sure you are aware, involved you getting over the top of the trench and run at the enemy who were waiting there for you with their machineguns and safety of cover. Any idiot can see that such a thing is the most retarded tactic one can think off.
But when you refused to go over the top on account of not being an idiot, you would get courtmartialed and likely shot. Is that right and why do people who sign up to do that get respect? How is following orders which are suicidal not being a mindless robot?

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:But joining the military is not always the same as just standing up to protect your country. You can join to protect your country, but that doesn't mean that what you are going to do will protect your country. If there was an invading force coming into your country, than anyone who joins the fight against them gets my respect. But being send to kill Iraqis is not protecting me or you, so I do not see the point of it deserving respect. Anyone who thinks that by joining the military they will only protect their country and nothing else is being foolish.

The problem is that when you join the military, the need doesn't have to arise for you to be send into war. Your last sentence implies that the military is a tool of the government, and whether they use it for good or evil doesn't matter in regards to following orders.

Okay let me get this straight. It's foolish and worthy of contempt for people to sign up for military service, but a government that waits for an invasion and then haphazardly tries to muster a defense is both wise and honorable? Im...um..a...er...uh.....I disagree.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Uhm...if you refuse to go to war because you think it is unjust you can be send to jail. You can say you think the war is unjust, but you can't refuse to go along with it.

No, you can't (not in the US). There is no draft and our armed forces have been all volunteer since the late sixties early seventies. Where did you get your facts on that one?

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:It also lists information about times in which soldiers are required to follow orders even when they are suicidal. It shows the problem of disobeying orders because even though the soldier thinks they are unlawful, the deciders are his superiors and the courts. Recruits are told from early on to obey, it is no surprise they obey orders when they might be crimes because how are they supposed to know that their orders are unlawful? If the president himself tells you to humiliate prisoners, what are you supposed to do?

The article is very specific about what they are supposed to do. They are to act as individuals who know right from wrong. Mistakes and atrocities happen, but it's also very clear from the article that policy demands that soldiers disregard unlawful orders. If an inquiry is made by courts martial, that's to be expected, the chain of command can't lightly be broken but it can and should be at appropriate times. That alone shows a requirement among the U.S. military to for their soldiers to evaluate orders as to their legality if their is reason to question them.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:For example: in WW1 there were a bunch of big pushes. These big pushes, as I'm sure you are aware, involved you getting over the top of the trench and run at the enemy who were waiting there for you with their machineguns and safety of cover. Any idiot can see that such a thing is the most retarded tactic one can think off.
But when you refused to go over the top on account of not being an idiot, you would get courtmartialed and likely shot. Is that right and why do people who sign up to do that get respect? How is following orders which are suicidal not being a mindless robot?

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Uhm...if you refuse to go to war because you think it is unjust you can be send to jail. You can say you think the war is unjust, but you can't refuse to go along with it.

No, you can't (not in the US). There is no draft and our armed forces have been all volunteer since the late sixties early seventies. Where did you get your facts on that one?

Actually snorri is correct. If you are in the service, you can be prosecuted and sent to jail for refusing to fight in a war that you believe to be unjust. The "volunteer" army does let you out upon request.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:It also lists information about times in which soldiers are required to follow orders even when they are suicidal. It shows the problem of disobeying orders because even though the soldier thinks they are unlawful, the deciders are his superiors and the courts. Recruits are told from early on to obey, it is no surprise they obey orders when they might be crimes because how are they supposed to know that their orders are unlawful? If the president himself tells you to humiliate prisoners, what are you supposed to do?

The article is very specific about what they are supposed to do. They are to act as individuals who know right from wrong. Mistakes and atrocities happen, but it's also very clear from the article that policy demands that soldiers disregard unlawful orders. If an inquiry is made by courts martial, that's to be expected, the chain of command can't lightly be broken but it can and should be at appropriate times. That alone shows a requirement among the U.S. military to for their soldiers to evaluate orders as to their legality if their is reason to question them.

No soldier is required to follow an illegal order, true. However, it takes extraordinary courage and support from others to prevail in such an effort when the entire weight of the government comes down on you.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:For example: in WW1 there were a bunch of big pushes. These big pushes, as I'm sure you are aware, involved you getting over the top of the trench and run at the enemy who were waiting there for you with their machineguns and safety of cover. Any idiot can see that such a thing is the most retarded tactic one can think off.
But when you refused to go over the top on account of not being an idiot, you would get courtmartialed and likely shot. Is that right and why do people who sign up to do that get respect? How is following orders which are suicidal not being a mindless robot?

Extension of your example: In the big pushes lots of people survived. Ergo it wasn't suicide to go over the top, it was merely very dangerous. As dangerous as say running into a burning building or facing down an armed gang. Are police and firemen idiots to be held in contempt as well? They certainly follow orders to protect and rescue others with the full knowledge that it could very well cost them their lives. Are they mindless robots? I can only say that I disagree with you on public serivce being contemptuous.

I don't recall snorri saying public service was contemptuous. To the contrary, he did say that defense of your community and country was commendable. He is complaining, however, and I agree, that the military expects and trains its troops to be robots that follow orders without question. Anyone who has been in combat knows that questioning authority is risking your life, and possibly that of others. The difficulty of questioning an order during combat is enormous, but necessary if we are to remain civilized.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Uhm...if you refuse to go to war because you think it is unjust you can be send to jail. You can say you think the war is unjust, but you can't refuse to go along with it.

No, you can't (not in the US). There is no draft and our armed forces have been all volunteer since the late sixties early seventies. Where did you get your facts on that one?

Actually snorri is correct. If you are in the service, you can be prosecuted and sent to jail for refusing to fight in a war that you believe to be unjust. The "volunteer" army does let you out upon request.

I'm certainly aware of the penalty for desertion, but that's a different kettle of fish. The volunteer has given his word to serve and then recanted. Still, nobody is required to go that does not volunteer to do so. Yes, once you've signed up there are penalties for breaking that contract as there are for breaking most contracts. That hardly changes the original point though. Everyone in the military right now has chosen to be there. Nobody is in jail for refusing to join up, and certainly nobody has gone to jail for criticizing the war.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:It also lists information about times in which soldiers are required to follow orders even when they are suicidal. It shows the problem of disobeying orders because even though the soldier thinks they are unlawful, the deciders are his superiors and the courts. Recruits are told from early on to obey, it is no surprise they obey orders when they might be crimes because how are they supposed to know that their orders are unlawful? If the president himself tells you to humiliate prisoners, what are you supposed to do?

The article is very specific about what they are supposed to do. They are to act as individuals who know right from wrong. Mistakes and atrocities happen, but it's also very clear from the article that policy demands that soldiers disregard unlawful orders. If an inquiry is made by courts martial, that's to be expected, the chain of command can't lightly be broken but it can and should be at appropriate times. That alone shows a requirement among the U.S. military to for their soldiers to evaluate orders as to their legality if their is reason to question them.

No soldier is required to follow an illegal order, true. However, it takes extraordinary courage and support from others to prevail in such an effort when the entire weight of the government comes down on you.

It takes extraordinary courage and support from others to serve in the first place. These people embody extraordinary courage. I'd say when your government puts you out front to get shot at, that's pretty much it's full weight. What else could they do, take you home to shoot you?

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:For example: in WW1 there were a bunch of big pushes. These big pushes, as I'm sure you are aware, involved you getting over the top of the trench and run at the enemy who were waiting there for you with their machineguns and safety of cover. Any idiot can see that such a thing is the most retarded tactic one can think off.
But when you refused to go over the top on account of not being an idiot, you would get courtmartialed and likely shot. Is that right and why do people who sign up to do that get respect? How is following orders which are suicidal not being a mindless robot?

Extension of your example: In the big pushes lots of people survived. Ergo it wasn't suicide to go over the top, it was merely very dangerous. As dangerous as say running into a burning building or facing down an armed gang. Are police and firemen idiots to be held in contempt as well? They certainly follow orders to protect and rescue others with the full knowledge that it could very well cost them their lives. Are they mindless robots? I can only say that I disagree with you on public serivce being contemptuous.

I don't recall snorri saying public service was contemptuous. To the contrary, he did say that defense of your community and country was commendable. He is complaining, however, and I agree, that the military expects and trains its troops to be robots that follow orders without question. Anyone who has been in combat knows that questioning authority is risking your life, and possibly that of others. The difficulty of questioning an order during combat is enormous, but necessary if we are to remain civilized.

He has stated that anyone who signs up for the military is an idiot and not deserving of his respect. He also stated that this was basically on the grounds that the military demands that it's members be mindless robots, ready to follow suicidal orders. I merely countered that the level of contempt he shows for the military could also be levelled at the police and fire departments as well. At any moment a firefighter of police officer may be called upon to handle a similar type of "suicidal" situation for any reason, but they have committed to that career and generally go through with their duties.
I agree that it would be difficult to question orders as you rightly point out it should be, but the fact remains that it is not only necessary but required. The main point of that article was that "I was following orders" is not a defense according to our military. That suggests that the government wants an effective fighting force that follows orders, yes. It also suggests that the same personnel have a responsibility to question them when the situation demands, as you put it, to remain civil.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote: I'm certainly aware of the penalty for desertion, but that's a different kettle of fish. The volunteer has given his word to serve and then recanted. Still, nobody is required to go that does not volunteer to do so. Yes, once you've signed up there are penalties for breaking that contract as there are for breaking most contracts. That hardly changes the original point though. Everyone in the military right now has chosen to be there. Nobody is in jail for refusing to join up, and certainly nobody has gone to jail for criticizing the war.

Actually I was not discussion "desertion." A soldier does not have to desert to refuse to engage in an illegal war or obey an illegal order. In fact, such acts are legal acts under military law. It is not a matter of contract law, but of military law and constitutional law.

mpjh wrote:I differ with you on another point. People have gone to jail for criticizing the war, there have been several courts martial of military personnel who have openly called the war illegal.

mpjh wrote: It takes more courage to join the military than it does for a grandmother to cut back on her medication in order to help a grandchild have lunch money -- an act I have seen on numerous occasions. That is the full weight, living your life for others, and it is done every day my million throughout this country. Military service does not rise above that.

mpjh wrote:Snorri apologized for the "idiot" statement and explained his meaning. Snorri's "level of contempt" for the military is a righteous contempt because he is challenging a military used for acts beyond self defense of home and country.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote: I'm certainly aware of the penalty for desertion, but that's a different kettle of fish. The volunteer has given his word to serve and then recanted. Still, nobody is required to go that does not volunteer to do so. Yes, once you've signed up there are penalties for breaking that contract as there are for breaking most contracts. That hardly changes the original point though. Everyone in the military right now has chosen to be there. Nobody is in jail for refusing to join up, and certainly nobody has gone to jail for criticizing the war.

Actually I was not discussing "desertion." A soldier does not have to desert to refuse to engage in an illegal war or obey an illegal order. In fact, such acts are legal acts under military law. It is not a matter of contract law, but of military law and constitutional law.

Certainly there are different standards for conduct once you have joined many institutions. The fact remains though that nobody is forced to join, and therefore nobody is forced to participate in the war at all. You, yourself, state that refusal to engage in an illegal war or obey illegal orders are legal acts under military law. That's a point upon which I agree, even after joining there is a legal means through which a soldier could refuse to participate in an illegal war or to follow an illegal order.

mpjh wrote:I differ with you on another point. People have gone to jail for criticizing the war, there have been several courts martial of military personnel who have openly called the war illegal.

That's probably so, although, I'd imagine that it's very rare and I'd like a link to see the actual circumstances. Regardless though, they were volunteers to begin with, weren't they? Once you've taken the oath you have to abide by it, but nobody makes you take the oath.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote: It takes no more courage to join the military than it does for a grandmother to cut back on her medication in order to help a grandchild have lunch money -- an act I have seen on numerous occasions. That is the full weight, living your life for others, and it is done every day my million throughout this country. Military service does not rise above that.

Nor does military service fall beneath it. Sure there are people who do what needs to be done all over, but the point was that I appreciate the military personnel that do their job, not that I have contempt for anyone else. More power to Grandma, and give her a free and reduced lunch form so she can get her medication too.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:Snorri apologized for the "idiot" statement and explained his meaning. Snorri's "level of contempt" for the military is a righteous contempt because he is challenging a military used for acts beyond self defense of home and country.

As far as the apology, my fault, I missed it as I was out of pocket for a week, and basically that's all I was going for. As for his righteous contempt, he's firing a volley at the front line grunt for decisions that are made by politicians. As I stated earlier, it's the general citizenry and it's representatives who are ultimately responsible for the actions of the military. They give the orders. They vote. Their voices will be heard. Yes, it's the responsibility of individual soldiers to prevent atrocities, but it is the responsibility of the populace at large to be aware of what their government is doing and make their voices heard. His contempt would be better aimed at those who put more thought into their "Dancing with the Stars" vote than the ones they cast on Nov. 4th.

mpjh wrote:You rely almost exclusively on the "volunteer" aspect of service to make your point. In reality many who volunteer are entering for enticements of college tuition, bonus payments, and a job that pays. In a significant number of cases, some join to gain citizenship for themselves and their family. Some few join purely out of patriotism to service their country. (Ironically the football player that did that was killed by his own men.) But more importantly, they volunteered to protect this country in legal wars, and just because they volunteered does not impose on them an obligation to engage in torture, murder, or genocide. The real world case of this involves the thousands who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan to get the perpetrators of 9/11. Instead they were sent to the illegal war in Iraq.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:Nor does military service fall beneath it. Sure there are people who do what needs to be done all over, but the point was that I appreciate the military personnel that do their job, not that I have contempt for anyone else. More power to Grandma, and give her a free and reduced lunch form so she can get her medication too.

Actually, I would say it does. There is no medal of honor for a grandmother's sacrifice. There is no guaranteed tuition, medical care or pension, or demand for unconditional respect. They just sacrifice and die. They give much, much more to this country than any military person.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

mpjh wrote:Snorri apologized for the "idiot" statement and explained his meaning. Snorri's "level of contempt" for the military is a righteous contempt because he is challenging a military used for acts beyond self defense of home and country.

As far as the apology, my fault, I missed it as I was out of pocket for a week, and basically that's all I was going for. As for his righteous contempt, he's firing a volley at the front line grunt for decisions that are made by politicians. As I stated earlier, it's the general citizenry and it's representatives who are ultimately responsible for the actions of the military. They give the orders. They vote. Their voices will be heard. Yes, it's the responsibility of individual soldiers to prevent atrocities, but it is the responsibility of the populace at large to be aware of what their government is doing and make their voices heard. His contempt would be better aimed at those who put more thought into their "Dancing with the Stars" vote than the ones they cast on Nov. 4th.

No he is not firing at the grunt. You are wrong about the general populace. They have opposed the war in Iraq ever since they learned of Bush's lies about WMD. Despite that opposition the war continues. The idiots still reign in leadership, but soon to go back to Dallas and Wyoming.

mpjh wrote:Your beginning to repeat yourself. Got any new facts to support your argument?