|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2006 : 15:37:09 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo said:
quote:
And I have brought forth some evidence to show that you are wrong.
You have done no such thing.
You just repeat your assertion that soldiers are breaking some unknown law by following the orders of their commanders and civilian leaders by participating in the invasion of Iraq.
Soldiers are, as you have been told many times now, accountable for their individual actions, not for overall strategic planning.
No German soldier was ever tried for following the order to invade Poland or France. They were tried for following orders to execute civillian prisoners.
This seems to be a distinction you are incapable of making.
|
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 - 04/09/2006 : 16:38:50 [Permalink]
|
Again, I am not the one using the words "fault" and "blame." You all are. You seem to need such things. Why, I'm not sure. I have repeatedly said that I am not condemning anyone. Your insistence on repeating that idea tells me that you have some emotional attachment to this idea.
The title of the thread repeats the idea that Nuremberg has said that soldiers have a duty, and the UCMJ says that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders. That you think they're too stupid to comprehend what is illegal is your problem. Also the idea that you think everyone who behaves in a way that you disagree with should be punished in some way is also your problem. It's not mine. I am condemning no one. All I have done is show that what the law says. It is illegal to attack other countries. The equivalent of the Third Reich's Supreme Court may not have stated that, but people were found guilty nonetheless. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court may not agree, and George Bush may never stand trial for his crimes, but that doesn't negate the fact that by the standards that he holds others, he is a terrorist and a criminal. That's not "fault" or "blame" that is stating the obvious. |
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 - 04/09/2006 : 17:20:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[No German soldier was ever tried for following the order to invade Poland or France. They were tried for following orders to execute civillian prisoners.
Nuremberg very clearly stated that no one is excused for their crimes on the plea that they were just following orders. The fact that no one is prosecuted for a crime does not mean that what they did was not illegal. In fact, again, George Bush, Bill Clinton and most other presidents are criminals, and they will never be prosecuted. You could empty out the jails today and never do the damage that the living presidents have done, much less the dead ones. |
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
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 19:24:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
You seemed to have a hard time understanding then, and it looks like you're having a hard time understanding now.
This is where Dave W. , a representative of this site, would say something like "fuck you Snake."
No, because GeeMack went on to explain what he thinks you aren't understanding. Snake (Norma) tells people that they're not capable of understanding her ideas (people will just flap their mouths, according to her), and so she doesn't bother to explain them. GeeMack was trying to engage in a discussion with you. Norma was only trying to insult me, which is why she got the reply that she did.
In a later post:quote:
Again, I am not the one using the words "fault" and "blame."
You claim that certain people are undoubtely "criminals," but how that fails to assign fault and/or blame I have no idea. Unless, of course, you intended your statements about not wanting to hang people to imply that by "fault" and/or "blame," you mean "if someone is to blame, they should be hanged." But I can't believe such a thing, and chalk it up to a bizarre grammatical structure, instead.
What do you really think it means to blame someone for some action, Gorgo? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:20:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Again, I am not the one using the words "fault" and "blame." You all are. You seem to need such things. Why, I'm not sure. I have repeatedly said that I am not condemning anyone. Your insistence on repeating that idea tells me that you have some emotional attachment to this idea.
Gorgo, you began with the conceit that the war is illegal. When it is pointed out to you that not even legal scholars can agree on that point, you respond with "by any measure that's important this is illegal," which means you don't care about the legality of the war at all. It's simply a moral issue with you. For some reason, you equate immoral with illegal, and if not in the strict sense then in some "ultimate" sense. That's the only emotion-driven thinking in this thread so far.
quote:
Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court may not agree, and George Bush may never stand trial for his crimes, but that doesn't negate the fact that by the standards that he holds others, he is a terrorist and a criminal. That's not "fault" or "blame" that is stating the obvious.
Purely an emotional argument and more proof you care nothing for the rule of law, only your own personal "law" and who you feel should be deemed guilty. It's obvious, Gorgo, that you wish the world operated according to your own personal standards of justice. I'm sorry, but it does not.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2006 : 20:25:55 [Permalink]
|
Soldiers following orders to enter into combat are not breaking any laws, Gorgo. Only entities, like countries, can be called to account for an illegal war.
Your continued insistence that the soldiers are breaking some law by participating in a conflict that you personally deem to be illegal does not mean the soldiers are breaking the law. Even if we grant you that this war is illegal (a question that is highly debatable) the individual soldiers would STILL not be breaking any laws.
A soldier is responsible for their own personal conduct, nothing more. They break no laws by entering into combat when their commanders tell them to do so, as long as they abide by the Geneva Conventions and the laws of land warfare.
No matter how many times you say that they are breaking some law, it will still not be true.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 00:27:18 [Permalink]
|
The war is illegal. Was the USA threatened? No, Bush and his cronies lied about that. Were we invaded? Did Saddam really not comply with the UN resolutions? He complied, Bush lied about that too. Didn't we just invade a sovereign nation? Isn't that illegal by international law?
Whether one can be prosecuted depends on who's in power in the world. As long as no superpower wants to challenge the US on the legality of the Iraq war then it's a moot point.
I wouldn't expect any soldier to disobey orders in this case. That might be technically correct but totally impractical in the real world. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 04/10/2006 00:29:17 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 03:05:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wouldn't expect any soldier to disobey orders in this case. That might be technically correct but totally impractical in the real world.
Thank you. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Much like some anonymous person who works for a corporation attempting to refuse to pay taxes. For what? They would take it anyway. Quit my job and become homeless? Bush and his gang would applaud that. Some of the taxes go for constructive things. I do not wish to withold any of that.
|
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 04/10/2006 03:15:01 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 03:08:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When it is pointed out to you that not even legal scholars can agree on that point, you respond with "by any measure that's important this is illegal," which means you don't care about the legality of the war at all. It's simply a moral issue with you. For some reason, you equate immoral with illegal, and if not in the strict sense then in some "ultimate" sense. That's the only emotion-driven thinking in this thread so far.
And you've brought no proof that this is in any way legal. I'm the one that said that none of us are legal scholars, and am the one that said that I understand that there is no legitimate court allowed to decide these matters. The laws themselves are on the books for all to see. |
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
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 03:22:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
No German soldier was ever tried for following the order to invade Poland or France. They were tried for following orders to execute civillian prisoners.
Nuremberg very clearly stated that no one is excused for their crimes on the plea that they were just following orders. The fact that no one is prosecuted for a crime does not mean that what they did was not illegal. In fact, again, George Bush, Bill Clinton and most other presidents are criminals, and they will never be prosecuted. You could empty out the jails today and never do the damage that the living presidents have done, much less the dead ones.
Gorgo, the thing you need to understand is that soldiers are not committing a crime when they prosecute a war authorized by the president. If the war is illegal then it is a crime perpetrated by the white house not by the soldiers. You can't hold individual soldiers accountable for decisions made beyond their scope. It's analoguous to blaming a gun for a murder rather than the person who fired the gun.
Soldiers are held accountable for their actions. If the soldiers themselves were to break the law or commit atrocities then of course they should be charged. But prosecuting a war authorised by the president and congress but that some deem to be illegal does not meet that criteria.
Think about it, was there ever a war that everyone (on both sides) completely agreed was legal? War is a dirty bussiness. Having a military that deserted at the first twinge of conscience would be worse than having no military at all. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 03:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
GeeMack was trying to engage in a discussion with you. Norma was only trying to insult me, which is why she got the reply that she did.]
I see by your example how we are to behave here. We don't discuss things, we don't tell people they're being rude, we just tell them to get fucked. I understand.
[quote]but how that fails to assign fault and/or blame I have no idea. Unless, of course, you intended your statements about not wanting to hang people to imply that by "fault" and/or "blame," you mean "if someone is to blame, they should be hanged." But I can't believe such a thing, and chalk it up to a bizarre grammatical structure, instead.
What do you really think it means to blame someone for some action, Gorgo?
Blame implies punishment. Fault implies some kind of character weakness. I'm not judging anyone. I'm just saying that the law seems to say that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders. In the same way you don't generally see me calling Bush a scumbag. I try not to make those kinds of judgments. He has clearly broken the law (in my mind of course) and that makes him a criminal. I think we need to stop putting criminals into office. That's not an emotional judgment, that's stating the facts as I see them. |
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 - 04/10/2006 : 03:49:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Think about it, was there ever a war that everyone (on both sides) completely agreed was legal? War is a dirty bussiness. Having a military that deserted at the first twinge of conscience would be worse than having no military at all.
Someone said that I don't care about the law, that I care about morality. I would say that's close to the truth. I don't care about the laws that people write very much. That is, if they're not written for a good reason. Hopefully, they're written so that we can have a constructive, peaceful society. The war on drugs is a good example. The purpose of that (if we look at what it does) is to imprison poor people, mostly people of color.
Generally, the purpose of war is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. You're right. There are no "good" wars. None of them create peace. They all suck. Are some necessary? Maybe. This one cannot in any way be called legal or "good." How could anyone even have been fooled into thinking that it was? |
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
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 04:44:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Someone said that I don't care about the law, that I care about morality. I would say that's close to the truth. I don't care about the laws that people write very much. That is, if they're not written for a good reason. Hopefully, they're written so that we can have a constructive, peaceful society. The war on drugs is a good example. The purpose of that (if we look at what it does) is to imprison poor people, mostly people of color.
Generally, the purpose of war is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. You're right. There are no "good" wars. None of them create peace. They all suck. Are some necessary? Maybe. This one cannot in any way be called legal or "good." How could anyone even have been fooled into thinking that it was?
I mostly agree with your sentiments here though it's a bit on the idealistic side. I too could care less about laws that codify a morality contrary to my own convictions.
The War on Drugs was not a war in the sense of a military conflict so I'm not sure how applicable that is here. I agree that it's a misguided destructive policy. I do think that the intentions behind it were good at least at the beginning. But 'the road to hell...' as they say.
When you say that "the purpose of war is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer" that's not really accurate, usually the purpose is to claim territory, or eradicate a threat or something like that. What you describe, brutal as it is, is more like a side effect or result of war.
The legality of this war is not an issue that the soldiers should be expected to struggle with. We've all heard the line about 'ignorance being no excuse in the eyes of the law.' but it's not strictly true. Ignorance is not an excuse if a person should have known or had a duty to know. But it is an excuse in cases where ignorance is considered reasonable.
Anyway I think your butting your head up against human nature here. And let's face it human nature just isn't all that pretty. Sure it'd be nice if people weren't so selfish, shortsighted and cruel, but it'd also be nice if I won the lottery.
Oh well, at least there's a chance that I could win the lottery. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
