|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2005 : 08:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't be an ass.
And the obtuse horse you rode in on. Both of you. If you can't engage in a discussion without being insulting, then get lost.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/09/2005 05:43:36 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 08:50:34 [Permalink]
|
It's absolute nonsense to say the solders should have disobeyed the orders of the leaders of this mess. From their point of view the orders were legal. If the war itself is illegal, and there is plenty of reason to think that, it is not the grunts obligation to rise up and defy their commanders. Lets not get into the Viet Nam mind-set where the poor shlub out doing a job they were sworn to do are guilty. Instead, let's try to get them out of harms way by bringing them home. Unless they personally break the law, they are not guilty of anything.
Our fight is with Bush, his Neo-con advisers and the congress that got us into this mess. They are the criminals. Not the poor bastards who should really be seen as some of the victims of our insane policies…
It was wrong to vilify the troops fighting in Viet Nam and it is wrong to do that now…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 09:53:31 [Permalink]
|
Okay, but why is it absolute nonsense? Because a lot of people are killing and getting killed? If the President tells them to go rob liquor stores and bring the money to him is that okay if all the troops do it?
Our fight is with the idea that murdering one person is not good, but murdering thousands is okay, or at the worst, "a mistake."
George Bush is a terrorist. Why are the people who follow his orders in violation of international and domestic law not terrorists as well?
The argument seems to be that these brave men and women, fighting for democracy and all that is right, are still brave and are still fighting for democracy and all that's right even though they are following the orders of a terrorist, and they can't be questioned because they're afraid to do the right thing because the people of the U.S. will want to put them in prison for doing the right thing?
That seems to be the argument. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 10:26:38 [Permalink]
|
Here's an article that tells us to vote for an admitted war criminal:
'Kerry ...told Meet the Press that "I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," specifically taking responsibility for shooting in free-fire zones, search-and-destroy missions, and burning villages.'
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040322/hayden
Why is this considered sane? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 11:31:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The argument seems to be that these brave men and women, fighting for democracy and all that is right, are still brave and are still fighting for democracy and all that's right even though they are following the orders of a terrorist, and they can't be questioned because they're afraid to do the right thing because the people of the U.S. will want to put them in prison for doing the right thing?
That seems to be the argument.
Gorgo, if you can't engage in a discussion without being insulting, then get lost.
And yes, it is insulting to ask questions, get "how is that relevant" in return, and then get told that I'm spewing the garbage you posted above as my "argument." They can't be questioned? Where the hell did that nonsense come from? And nobody is asking our troops to be forgiven because they were "just following orders," forcryingoutloud!
The fact that you don't understand the relevance of my questions simply underlines the idea that you don't understand what I'm saying, but you're willing to invent some argument for me. But the relevance is this:
How is a soldier in Iraq supposed to know that the war is illegal when that fact is hardly in the news at all, while there are plenty of people in the news talking about the war as if it were legal, every day? This isn't an excuse of ignorance, I'm saying that we tend to hold people who've committed a crime because someone lied to them to a lesser responsibility than those who actually did the lying.
When the vast majority of the resources a soldier has all seem to agree that the war is legal or (at least) not illegal (and a large portion of the remainder can be dismissed as left-wing extremists who would say that any Republican-led war is illegal), should that soldier be held responsible for not following any niggling doubt he/she might have about the legality of the war?
Because that small doubt wouldn't hold up in court as a basis for a defense against charges of desertion or mutiny.
And I'm all for questioning the troops. Let's ask them if they're aware that they're fighting an illegal war. Maybe then they'll start hijacking planes in droves to come home. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 14:32:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, but why is it absolute nonsense? Because a lot of people are killing and getting killed? If the President tells them to go rob liquor stores and bring the money to him is that okay if all the troops do it?
What part of "responsible for actions on an individual level" are you not comprehending?
Yes, a soldier would be commiting a crime if they followed an order to rob a store.
The soldier would also be commiting a crime (a worse crime, with much heavier punishment, including the death penalty in some circumstances) if they refuse orders to travel and fight.
Soldiers are not commiting a crime by going where they are ordered and fighting who they are ordered to fight.
Even in your comparison to the Nazis, NO Nazi was EVER tried for the act of invading and fighting. They were tried for atrocities commited, like the gas chambers and ovens and executions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 15:59:02 [Permalink]
|
It is easy to sit in the armchair and speak of atrocities. Easier yet to cast blame. But when one is in a position where "it's root hog, or die!", the wise soldier shoots anything that fucking moves, lest it rise up and shoot him first. That's the basic rule of combat survival. It's never been put in writing, but there it is and it is as ancient as armies and the wars that they fight.
Respectfully refusing an order to commit torture is legal as it is an unlawful order, although it might result in 'unofficial' repercussions. Those repercussions can and do tend to discourage refusals.
Refusing to perform lawful duties and obey lawful orders are covered by the UCMJ, and the punishments can be severe, and rightly so. As the government has committed the armed services to this asinine war, the orders to go to Iraq and proscute that war are lawful and cannot be refused with impunity.
As to the Iraq war itself, legal or not, it is no more moral nor ethical than Hitler's invasion of Austria, as it was based on the lies and the ambitions of this country's leader(s). The similarities are glaring to anyone who has read history.
Impeach the pigfucker now!
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 16:07:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
I think it's pretty clear that when the Congress "approves" sending troops into another country, the troops themselves aren't going to be able to claim that it's an illegal order which should be disobeyed. So, the troops risk prison time for refusing. And now some here want them to go to prison for not risking going to prison.
And, it's as if you're expecting these individuals to be well-versed in international law, and go where international law isn't going. Where is the outrage from other governments that the U.S. is committing an illegal act?
I don't take the position that the troops should balk at getting on the plane when their platoons ship out to Iraq. I do, however, consider it a display of seriously bad judgment on the part of those who have joined the military since the beginning of this war. My issue is with the general use of the phrase, "Support the Troops." That cliché has been a propaganda device from the very beginning. It is an umbrella slogan designed to stifle those who disagree with the war. It is intended to evoke an emotional response -- okay, even if the war is bad we still need to support our troops, so don't criticize the war -- and it misdirects us from the real issue, the Iraq War and those who are the cause of it.
From my experience, most of the people with those magnetic "Support the Troops" ribbons on their cars don't really support the troops. They think they do, but they don't realize their "support" isn't helping the troops. Whether through ignorance, stupidity, naivety, or even mental illness, those people waving the yellow ribbons generally support the war. Supporting the war is not supporting the troops, it's killing them.
And since the call to "Support the Troops" is almost never made with qualifiers, it becomes a call to excuse the actions of many of those troops who do step outside the bounds of legal, ethical, moral, or righteous behavior. Criticize the bad apples by reminding the war supporters of situations like this...quote:
U.S. Soldiers Get Off Easy for Crimes Against Iraqis, Review Finds...
Using previously undisclosed Army records, the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News found that dozens of soldiers have been accused of crimes against Iraqis since the first troops deployed for Iraq. But despite strong evidence and convictions in some cases, only a small percentage resulted in punishments nearing those that civilian justice systems routinely impose for such crimes.
In a number of other cases, there was no evidence that thorough or timely criminal investigations were conducted. Other cases weren't prosecuted, and still others resulted in dismissals, light jail sentences or no jail sentence at all.
"I've been surprised at some of the lenient sentences," said Gary Solis, a former military judge and prosecutor who teaches military law at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "I have an uneasy suspicion that it relates to the nationality of the victim."
... and you'll likely hear some rehashed, "Well, but, ugh, support the troops!" And criticize the troops by bringing this topic to the floor...quote:
Torture of Iraqis Was for ‘Stress Relief', Say US Soldiers...
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 16:59:22 [Permalink]
|
The idea that most of the troops in Iraq are stuck in a moral and ethical dilemma about what they should be doing because they know the war is illegal is in your head, Gorgo. For whatever reasons, from escaping poverty to doing their patriotic thing, and all points in between, they joined the service and are now doing what the service tells them to do. They took an oath to do that. That bullshit about robbing liquor stores was, well, bullshit. Are you prepared to spit on returning solders because they should have known that they were involved in criminal acts by fighting an illegal war? This is the world according to Gorgo? The fact that you see the troops more as criminals than victims of Neo-con policies strikes me as black and white thinking to the point of absurdity. Sort of like what the Neo-cons are apt to do, even while arriving at a different conclusion then your own.
Those of us who see the problem should do the protesting. That would be our patriotic duty. If anyone currently in the service wants to join us, at whatever the risk, fine.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2005 : 18:21:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
RIGHT: Support the troops, bring them home. Support the troops, end the war. Support the troops, impeach George W. Bush. Support the troops, criticize them if that's what it takes to keep them in line. Support the troops, convince them not to go back in the service once they get out.
I agree wholeheartedly, GeeMack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 00:00:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And since the call to "Support the Troops" is almost never made with qualifiers, it becomes a call to excuse the actions of many of those troops who do step outside the bounds of legal, ethical, moral, or righteous behavior.
I am unaware of anyone who condones illegal actions by our troops.
I also agree with your basic point about the "support the troops" phrase.
Most of the time it is used to divert attention from other topics, like why are we in Iraq in the first place and why are we still in Iraq when the reasons given for the initial invasion were found to be false... and so on.
You have to admit it is effective though.
Also, Gorgo, I agree that the war, as a whole, is not legal. G.W. Bush and his administration should be held to account for it.
But you must understand the difference in responsibility between the president, his generals, and the actual troops who do the fighting.
As long as the soldiers follow the laws of warfare, obey the rules of engagement, and comply with the Geneva convention... they cannot be held responsible for where they are sent to fight.
"We The People", and our elected representatives/officials bear that burden.
Laws of warfare: Nice online edition.
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm
Individual soldiers are not accountable for where their government sends them to fight, ever. They are accountable for how they conduct themselves only.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 16:09:11 [Permalink]
|
We see, because of the emotional reaction of some, that we are treading on some sacred cows for asking a question. Some have me spitting on troops and sending them to prison. Some think I'm an ass or obtuse because they're unable to understand the question, and their emotional ties to the question keep them from engaging in reasonable discussion. One of them tells me to join the service to understand. Why don't I ask them to join a gang to understand?
The question I am asking, is not, how can we jail all the troops, or how can we spit on your sacred cows. I'm not asking whether or not the U.S. thinks it is above international law. I'm not asking if the Supreme Court or the UCMJ agrees that the U.S. is above international law. The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. is above international law. I am asking why, since these attacks on other countries are in violation of international law, and the Constitution clearly states that these treaties are the law of the land, why we do not consider the troops to be criminals. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 16:17:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Gorgo, you keep on assuming that everyone thinks the war in Iraq is an illegal one. That is far from true. Like I said, it is a grey area. There are some who say it is legal, and some who say it's not.
How could you expect an army to ever work when soldiers could just say, "I think this war is wrong, so I'm not going to fight."? Who the hell would go to war then?
No one.
You examples of Nazi's and gangs are wrong because those are not gray area subjects. It is illegal to kill someone who is unarmed. It is illegal to rob stores. There is no debate here, unlike the situation in Iraq.
It is much worse to start a war than to rob liquor stores. This is not a grey area. This is a crime against humanity. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
