Pissed Off About a Military Comment

Gkhan · July 8, 2008, 3:05am

[quote]Gael wrote:

You are ALWAYS free to disobey orders, even if this means going to prison as a result of your disobedience. I don’t care whether following the orders constitutes a crime. Most of the atrocities in history did not constitute punishable crimes. On the contrary, most were embraced by the perpetrating society as a good thing. If you follow orders that require you to go against your conscience, you are not a hero. You are a moral coward.
[/quote]

Hey, I guess it would depend on what your morals are, but if you have a problem with what the military, you are also free not to sign up.

OctoberGirl · July 8, 2008, 3:17am

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Gael wrote:

You are ALWAYS free to disobey orders, even if this means going to prison as a result of your disobedience. I don’t care whether following the orders constitutes a crime. Most of the atrocities in history did not constitute punishable crimes. On the contrary, most were embraced by the perpetrating society as a good thing. If you follow orders that require you to go against your conscience, you are not a hero. You are a moral coward.

Hey, I guess it would depend on what your morals are, but if you have a problem with what the military, you are also free not to sign up. [/quote]

good post Gkhan

Digity · July 8, 2008, 3:37am

IF he did throw it and it was alive obviously the guy needs therapy.

Zap_Branigan · July 8, 2008, 12:38pm

[quote]Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops.

Politicians decide to go to war, but the troops agree to participate. The have the freedom to disobey. Nazis operating under Hitler could have voluntarily refused to comply. Those who didn’t cannot use the excuse that they were operating under the orders of the Third Reich. Soldiers are responsible for the atrocities they commit. Period.

Troops make the decision to agree to kill for the government regardless of the cause. The agree to participate no matter how unjustifiable or atrocious the operation. They agree to surrender their conscience and their minds and blindly follow without question.

Who said the war was an atrocity and illegal? It is sanctioned by the U.S. Any soldier who commits a crime and is convicted will be punished.

I really hate comparisons to Nazis. It’s such a been-done go to and usually doesn’t fit, as it doesn’t here.

Soldiers are under orders that they must follow unless it would be a crime.

Do you try to be this dim? I compared nothing to the Nazis, and said nothing of legality. It seems you failed to comprehend all that you read.[/quote]

You launched right into Hitler, Nazi’s and atrocities. Why did you introduce this into the discussion?

Zap_Branigan · July 8, 2008, 12:40pm

[quote]Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops.

Politicians decide to go to war, but the troops agree to participate. The have the freedom to disobey. Nazis operating under Hitler could have voluntarily refused to comply. Those who didn’t cannot use the excuse that they were operating under the orders of the Third Reich. Soldiers are responsible for the atrocities they commit. Period.

Troops make the decision to agree to kill for the government regardless of the cause. The agree to participate no matter how unjustifiable or atrocious the operation. They agree to surrender their conscience and their minds and blindly follow without question.

Who said the war was an atrocity and illegal? It is sanctioned by the U.S. Any soldier who commits a crime and is convicted will be punished.

I really hate comparisons to Nazis. It’s such a been-done go to and usually doesn’t fit, as it doesn’t here.

Soldiers are under orders that they must follow unless it would be a crime.

Do you try to be this dim? I compared nothing to the Nazis, and said nothing of legality. It seems you failed to comprehend all that you read.

"Nazis operating under Hitler could have voluntarily refused to comply. Those who didn’t cannot use the excuse that they were operating under the orders of the Third Reich. "

“The(sic) have the freedom to disobey.”

Nooooo, not really. Only in the specific cases where following orders would constitute a crime. Even then there is a jurisdiction and circumstance that would have to be considered before they could or should disobey.

You are ALWAYS free to disobey orders, even if this means going to prison as a result of your disobedience. I don’t care whether following the orders constitutes a crime. Most of the atrocities in history did not constitute punishable crimes.

On the contrary, most were embraced by the perpetrating society as a good thing. If you follow orders that require you to go against your conscience, you are not a hero. You are a moral coward.

Yours is the very mindset that enables the worst sins against humanity in history. Hitler is responsible for the holocaust, but so is each and every single person at every rank under him who participated. To pretend otherwise is blind.

Were you a young man in Germany in the 40s, you and most the other people in this thread would have gladly and blindly and patriotically participated in the genocide.

And, no, I’m not comparing the Iraq war to the holocaust, in case you wish to point out again that such comparisons are stupid.[/quote]

What the fuck are you rambling about? Was the Marine ordered to throw a puppy off the cliff?

Where were our soldiers ordered to commit atrocities?

You seem very disconnected with reality.

LightsOutLuthor · July 8, 2008, 1:37pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Gael wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops.

Politicians decide to go to war, but the troops agree to participate. The have the freedom to disobey. Nazis operating under Hitler could have voluntarily refused to comply. Those who didn’t cannot use the excuse that they were operating under the orders of the Third Reich. Soldiers are responsible for the atrocities they commit. Period.

Troops make the decision to agree to kill for the government regardless of the cause. The agree to participate no matter how unjustifiable or atrocious the operation. They agree to surrender their conscience and their minds and blindly follow without question.

Who said the war was an atrocity and illegal? It is sanctioned by the U.S. Any soldier who commits a crime and is convicted will be punished.

I really hate comparisons to Nazis. It’s such a been-done go to and usually doesn’t fit, as it doesn’t here.

Soldiers are under orders that they must follow unless it would be a crime.

Do you try to be this dim? I compared nothing to the Nazis, and said nothing of legality. It seems you failed to comprehend all that you read.

You launched right into Hitler, Nazi’s and atrocities. Why did you introduce this into the discussion?

[/quote]

Didn’t you know that there’s an internet law that says this same thing?

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

It’s old…from the 90s…Godwin’s Law:

LOL

mingledorff7 · July 8, 2008, 1:41pm

OG- please keep posting, your post are music to my eyes… I agree with you 100%

lixy · July 8, 2008, 10:15am

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
im sorry i just dont get why everyone is so hung up on this whole “theyre protecting our freedom” bullshit. man, no on signed up in 5 years that wanted to protect our freedom. these guys are out there for a paycheck and thats it. dont lie to yourselves people most the people out there were like shit i can either do this, go to jail, or work some shitty ass job and hopefully make manager in 5 years. and just for clearification i know a bunch of people in various branches of the service

Perhaps that is true of the military personnel that you know, not the ones I know. A person attracts the type of people they are, the whole birds of a feather thing.

I have family and friends that are in it for more than a paycheck.

I have no doubts that there are some that are in there just for the benefits and the paycheck. [/quote]

That’s very much the case. Plenty of T-members illustrate this perfectly. However, you’d be kidding yourself if you were to believe they ever constituted a majority.

And you can’t overlook the fact that invading Iraq put a lot more stress on recruiters, drawing ever more folks for whom the army’s the best (only?) alternative.

Zap_Branigan · July 8, 2008, 2:33pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
im sorry i just dont get why everyone is so hung up on this whole “theyre protecting our freedom” bullshit. man, no on signed up in 5 years that wanted to protect our freedom. these guys are out there for a paycheck and thats it. dont lie to yourselves people most the people out there were like shit i can either do this, go to jail, or work some shitty ass job and hopefully make manager in 5 years. and just for clearification i know a bunch of people in various branches of the service

Perhaps that is true of the military personnel that you know, not the ones I know. A person attracts the type of people they are, the whole birds of a feather thing.

I have family and friends that are in it for more than a paycheck.

I have no doubts that there are some that are in there just for the benefits and the paycheck.

That’s very much the case. Plenty of T-members illustrate this perfectly. However, you’d be kidding yourself if you were to believe they ever constituted a majority.

And you can’t overlook the fact that invading Iraq put a lot more stress on recruiters, drawing ever more folks for whom the army’s the best (only?) alternative.[/quote]

McDonalds pays more.

KBCThird · July 8, 2008, 3:03pm

[quote]Gael wrote:
My point is that “Politicians make the decision to go to war, not the troops” is empty rhetorical bullshit, for the reasons I stated.

It’s a variation of “You may disagree with the cause and hate the politicians, but you should respect the troops for what they are doing.”[/quote]

But your point is an intellectually disingenuous one, since for most of us “war” does not, in and of itself, equate to “atrocity.” Killing, in and of itself, is not an atrocity. It happens every day, both in war and everyday life. So yes, soldiers who knowingly slaughter innocent civilians should be held accountable. But I dont think that every poor SOB who signed up for the army during peacetime, or even now because its the only job he/she could get, should be held responsible for the decision “This country is worth invading and these specific groups of people with this agenda are our enemies.”

OctoberGirl · July 8, 2008, 3:40pm

[quote]lixy wrote:

That’s very much the case. Plenty of T-members illustrate this perfectly. However, you’d be kidding yourself if you were to believe they ever constituted a majority.

And you can’t overlook the fact that invading Iraq put a lot more stress on recruiters, drawing ever more folks for whom the army’s the best (only?) alternative.[/quote]

lixy I am pretty sure I know more military folks than you do.

I know you are aware that percentages and statics are pretty much junk. Because I can tell you the majority of the military I know are in it for reasons other than a paycheck. Yet you will say the majority is in it for a paycheck. See? that argument will never work.

this thread isn’t about the Iraq war

NateOrade · July 8, 2008, 8:49pm

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

this thread isn’t about the Iraq war
[/quote]

Any thread + lixy = thread about the Iraq war

lixy · July 8, 2008, 4:58pm

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
lixy I am pretty sure I know more military folks than you do. [/quote]

No argument here.

In that case, carry on…

For what it’s worth, I believe you romanticize the military and extrapolate the patriotism of your acquaintances to the rest. The US is peculiar like that. Don’t know if it’s Hollywood or something else that’s causing this distortion in the mind of Americans, but it is there. You folks worship the military more than any other place.

It’s hard to isolate that incident from the war on Iraq. That kid’s actions wouldn’t have had the same treatment had he not been in Iraq and in uniform. In fact, the whole argument revolves around the possibility that he may not have thrown-a-puppy-off-a-cliff if he wasn’t put in that situation in the first place.

nomorewar · July 8, 2008, 5:02pm

[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
How is killing a puppy different than stepping on a spider?[/quote]

a dog is mans best friend,you fairy.

mmllcc · July 8, 2008, 5:03pm

[quote]Nich wrote:
LiftSmart wrote:
How is killing a puppy different than stepping on a spider?

so in this quote let me ask
how is killing a human any different than killing a puppy.

with all this killing talk let me ask something else.
have any of you actually killed anything besides what you saw was beneith you ie puppys ants spiders whatever.

have any of you actually killed a person before.
and not just from a distance,disconnected type of shooting

the entire world is so fast to cast judgement about right wrong whatever

my opinion is untill you have actually killed another person and watch them die with thier blood on your hands and you know first hand how heavy something like that weighs on the very person you think you are then maybe you should just sit back and shut the fuck up about the subject.
/rant

and with that I think
maybe this guy did it
me personally I think he droped the dog and threw a doll off the cliff I mean you hear a dog yapping in the back ground.
but even if he did do you know the mental shit these guys go through to push them over the edge like that
and also with the public talking about it they way they do why wasnt charges brought up I mean everyone knows who this guy is.
it was meant (in bad taste) to get people like us talking

EDIT: i just saw that dude was discharged or whatever punishment they had
if he did do it then he is an utter sissy along with his buddies
if i was there then I would have shot him and said he fell.
no exageration either.

[/quote]

STFU you idiot. I have killed many an animal in my life. I just cut the throat of a sheep and put it in my freezer the other day. And as to killing people. If they are bad people and need to be killed - not a problem and I won’t feel any guilt. If you are raised correctly – with the right sense of RIGHT and WRONG instead of this “New Age/New Morality feel-good self-esteem crap” then you have no problem dropping somebody that needs to be dropped.

And I can’t believe you are spouting this crap about the soldiers when you claim you would have murdered them – you would shoot a fellow soldier for killing a dog?! I sure as hell hope you are not in the military with that kind of warped moral reasoning.

mmllcc · July 8, 2008, 5:05pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, because I’m sure the extremists don’t want to control the world under their twisted interpretation of Islam.

What does that have to do with Iraq? Saddam was a secular tyrant, and wasn’t trying to expand his borders…

Stop right there. For a man that claims he has hated Saddam longer than anyone else has heard of him how can you possibly say such a thing?

The man invaded Iran and Kuwait. The man fired on our airplanes every day. The man did not abide by the terms of the peace treaty. [/quote]

And don’t forget he tried to assassinate President Bush Senior after his term was over - that alone is an act of war.

NateOrade · July 8, 2008, 5:08pm

[quote]nomorewar wrote:
LiftSmart wrote:
How is killing a puppy different than stepping on a spider?

a dog is mans best friend,you fairy.[/quote]

Not to mention - I can’t believe this actually has to be explained - mammals have MUCH more developed brains and a dog is capable of emotion whereas a spider is not.

mmllcc · July 8, 2008, 1:11pm

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
nomorewar wrote:
LiftSmart wrote:
How is killing a puppy different than stepping on a spider?

a dog is mans best friend,you fairy.

Not to mention - I can’t believe this actually has to be explained - mammals have MUCH more developed brains and a dog is capable of emotion whereas a spider is not. [/quote]

Dumbass – haven’t you seen Charlotte’s Web – she had plenty of emotion and intelligence.

Gael · July 8, 2008, 5:11pm