army

[stafffighter]

I could never be a soilder. I understand that there are rare and extreme situations in life where killing would be the answer but I don't think I could do it just because my government said it was a good idea. People say I would feel diffrently if one of them had a gun pointed at me, but if I was a soilder wouldn't he also be seeing someone with a gun pointed at him?

[bumcheekcity]

Neither could I. I don't think I could kill a man just because someone told me to. Especially not a politician.

[mrpopenfresh]

I owuld only join the army for a fight that I believed in. If I was sent off somewhere to fight a war that I though was completely unecessary and evitable, then the answer would be no.

I could be a soldier because there's a too big chance that I might end up fighting in somthing that I dont believe in.

[stafffighter]

you can't join the army and then only fight the wars you want to, once your in you go where they say to untill your times done. Or untill someone makes you extreamly dead and then your parents or wife are given the flag of the nation you died for. "You lost a loved one, heres a peice of cloth, your country will be disgraced if you let touch the ground."

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/8/03 05:32 PM, stafffighter wrote: you can't join the army and then only fight the wars you want to, once your in you go where they say to untill your times done. Or untill someone makes you extreamly dead and then your parents or wife are given the flag of the nation you died for. "You lost a loved one, heres a peice of cloth, your country will be disgraced if you let touch the ground."

God Bless Capitalism. Thats why I don't trust soldiors. Thewy signup for a job that involves killing random people, for a cause they might not believe in, and then they bitch about the war.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/9/03 01:31 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

God Bless Capitalism.

What does the military have to do with capitalism?

Thats why I don't trust soldiors. Thewy signup for a job that involves killing random people, for a cause they might not believe in, and then they bitch about the war.

First off, it's not a job that involves killing random people. It's a job that involves fighting military enemies of their nation.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "then they bitch about the war". There are many people in the military that don't agree with Bush's (and I'm sure in the UK also Blair's) politics. Nothing about joining the military means you have to agree with everything politicians say. If you are allowed to disagree with the politicians, there is no reason you can't also "bitch about them" in your free time. I think that soldiers have more right than anyone else to "bitch about the war", because the war affects them the most directly.

I'm not quite sure where your allegations of soldier's "bitching about the war" are coming from.

I'm also not quite sure why I'm bothering to entertain this thread with a response, as it started out quite stupid, and hasn't improved. Feel free to let this response drop to hell with all the other posts that should have just been put in the general forum in the first place.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/9/03 02:10 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 6/9/03 01:31 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Thats why I don't trust soldiors. They signup for a job that involves killing random people, for a cause they might not believe in, and then they bitch about the war.

First off, it's not a job that involves killing random people. It's a job that involves fighting military enemies of their nation.

So it does involve killing, and it involves killing people youve never met before and might like if you met them without guns in your hands. I believe I was completely justtified in using the phrase and dont ever use that kind of Politically Correct crap on me again.

Fighting Military Enemies of their Nation = Killing Soldiors because Politicians tell you to.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "then they bitch about the war". There are many people in the military that don't agree with Bush's (and I'm sure in the UK also Blair's) politics. Nothing about joining the military means you have to agree with everything politicians say. If you are allowed to disagree with the politicians, there is no reason you can't also "bitch about them" in your free time. I think that soldiers have more right than anyone else to "bitch about the war", because the war affects them the most directly.

They have the complete right to bitch about the war. You might want to say complain, but they just bitch (at least the UK soldiors do.) They knew full well that the job involved fighting/killing people that they might not want to and they complain about it when they are called to do so.

I'm not quite sure where your allegations of soldier's "bitching about the war" are coming from.

On the TV, I have seen tens of interviews with soldiors complaining about the war.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/9/03 01:41 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

So it does involve killing, and it involves killing people youve never met before and might like if you met them without guns in your hands. I believe I was completely justtified in using the phrase

Killing people you've never met before who are members of an opposing nation's military is completely different than killing random people. Yes, they are people you have never met before, no, they are certainly not random. If a person broke into your house intent on killing someone in your family and you killed them, would you say you just "killed a random person"? No, you killed a person you never met before.

and dont ever use that kind of Politically Correct crap on me again.

You misused words, it had nothing to do with political correctness. Don't you ever use that kind of mususe of words on me crap ever again.

Fighting Military Enemies of their Nation = Killing Soldiors because Politicians tell you to.

And killing random people= taking the lives of unknown people without any reason or discretion.

On the TV, I have seen tens of interviews with soldiors complaining about the war.

Well that never happens in the US. Actually, I couldn't imagine it even happens in the UK, but I'm not in the UK to verify. Members of the Military swear an oath to defend their country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and for one to go on tv bitching about the war is really rediculous. When I say they have a right to complain, I mean, when they are with friends talking casually there is nothing wrong with them saying "hey, I think this is bullshit", but to go on TV and broadcast as a representative of the armed forces is something completely different. The same is true for any employee- when you are with friends you could say "I really hate my boss, he is a douchebag", but you wouldn't go on tv saying "This is Joe Smith from McDonald's, and I'd like to formally state that my boss is a douchebag". I don't believe it should be illegal for someone to do this, but I wouldn't feel too sad for any member of the military or any other organization who did this and lost their career entirely.

[stafffighter]

Taxman, as for soilders complaining I have one word for you, nam. And from your posts I can tell your a big bush supporter and I honestly hope you never make enough money to qualify for his tax cuts. Those will never trickle down into the american economy because whens the last time you saw a rich person buy something american? I know Im oversimplifeing but I felt the need for a light moment. I know guys like you can't stand going against someone with a sence of humor.
Killing a man like that is still killing. You saw in the scenario I provided that if he shot me he would have the exact same reasoning and justification for me to shoot him.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

You can get in a lot of trouble if you complain about war or the president while in uniform (or present yourself as military) to the media. The Military pays a lot of money to get good PR and it gets really pissed when it's people talk to the media without permission.

Dr. Arbitrary

[stafffighter]

Ok, does anyone else find it facinating that defenders of American ideals like the freedom of speech have restrictions on expressing their own feelings? This is one of those poetic moments where I dont know to laugh or cry.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/9/03 07:23 PM, stafffighter wrote: Taxman, as for soilders complaining I have one word for you, nam.

Soldiers themselves never complained about the war in Vietnam, at most veterans who had been in the military and gotten out were protesters. Besides- even if soldier's themselves did complain, this is a completely different scenario, considering people were drafted into the military. Quite contrary to today when everyone who joins the military quite wanted to do so.
I think someone who is drafted into the military should be able to do about whatever the hell they want. It's just wrong for a government to just pick its citizens at random to go die for politics.

" And from your posts I can tell your a big bush supporter and I honestly hope you never make enough money to qualify for his tax cuts.

I can see you are about as perceptive as a brick wall. I am not a "big bush supporter" at all. The matters we are discussing here have nothing to do with tax cuts. Try and stay on subject.

Those will never trickle down into the american economy because whens the last time you saw a rich person buy something american?

I know Im oversimplifeing but I felt the need for a light moment. I know guys like you can't stand going against someone with a sence of humor.

I don't mind "going against" someone with a sense of humor. What I can't stand is having to explain arguments to someone who can't even handle writing a sentence without completely butchering the English language.

The worst part about it is I'm dealing with a person who thinks they know all about soldier's and their actions and what it takes to be one- yet they can't even spell the word correctly. It's SOLDIER, goddammit. We aren't splitting the atom here.

Don't breed.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/9/03 07:56 PM, stafffighter wrote: Ok, does anyone else find it facinating that defenders of American ideals like the freedom of speech have restrictions on expressing their own feelings? This is one of those poetic moments where I dont know to laugh or cry.

You should cry, because in place of a fully functioning brain you were given a mere stem. Quite a pity.

They don't have restrictions on their own feelings at all. What they have restrictions on is going in public, officially as a member of the military, and expressing their political views. This is not because they are not allowed to dislike their politicians, it is because when they express their political feelings they are speaking for themselves, not the military. When you are in military uniform, you are acting on behalf of your government no matter what you are doing. This being the case, you are not allowed to speak politically in uniform, because the government does not want you to speak on their behalf.

[stafffighter]

Someone wearing a uniform is still an individual. And I said limetations on expressing what they feel, not the feelings themselves.
I also love how your best thought out argument against me was about my spelling, and you accuse me of getting off topic.
I do agree with you that someone who singed on comes from a diffrent place than a draftee. I personally know a few guys from high school who thought they would get money for college and big breaks on buying a house without ever seeing real combat. This is being purely naive. If I spelled that word wrong, I don't care.
People who think joining up will have nothing to do with killing or death are wrong in many ways. Those who think their killing for the ultimate good against the ultimate evil are alot worse, because they tend to be alot more willing to kill. Again, if I spelled things wrong, I don't care. Thoughts do not invovle spelling the words, if anything please comment on the thoughts.

[misterx2000]

War and violence is never the best answer. A wise general is one who gains victories without fighting. Obviously Bush needs more diplomacy classes...

[Commander-K25]

At 6/10/03 10:20 AM, misterx2000 wrote: War and violence is never the best answer.

But sometimes the only one.

A wise general is one who gains victories without fighting.

Then they're not a general but a diplomat.

Obviously Bush needs more diplomacy classes...

Or the U.N. needs non-obstructionism classes.

I know that it's fun to hate war, but sometimes it's the only means and, ironically, the only route to peace. True, there is no such thing as a "good" war, but there is also no such thing as a lasting peace.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/9/03 04:42 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 6/9/03 01:41 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

Fighting Military Enemies of their Nation = Killing Soldiors because Politicians tell you to.

And killing random people= taking the lives of unknown people without any reason or discretion.

Soldiors take the lives of people unknown to them without discretion or (good) reason other than they were told to.

If I kill someone because he called me a cunt, is that a good reason: Provocation?

[misterx2000]

At 6/10/03 07:09 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I know that it's fun to hate war, but sometimes it's the only means and, ironically, the only route to peace.

That's true, without war unjust monarchies and the Hussein may never be deposed. A quick, "painless" war is the way to go. Blitzkrieg style!

:True, there is no such thing as a "good" war, but there is also no such thing as a lasting peace.

Don't be so pessimistic, there are some nations that have never gone to war, or haven't for centuries, i.e. Scandanavian countries.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/11/03 01:41 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

Soldiors take the lives of people unknown to them without discretion or (good) reason other than they were told to.

The only reason that a soldier would take anyone's life is because their life is being threatened. This is most likely the ONLY time when taking the life of another human being is acceptable.... but I'm not trying to start a death penalty debate here.

Many times soldiers are given commands to not fire unless fired upon. Other times they are ordered not to fire EVEN IF fired upon. This can be seen in the fact that there was division after division of Iraqi soldiers lay down their weapons during this past war. They didn't want to fight for Saddam, so US forces didn't want to assault them.

If I kill someone because he called me a cunt, is that a good reason: Provocation?

I have yet to hear of any soldier killing someone because they called them names. That's rediculous.

[bumcheekcity]

At 6/11/03 12:09 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 6/11/03 01:41 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

The only reason that a soldier would take anyone's life is because their life is being threatened. This is most likely the ONLY time when taking the life of another human being is acceptable.... but I'm not trying to start a death penalty debate here.

I wont go into the Death Penalty debate either, but soldiors will open fire on anything. The Americans shot ast hundreds of camals because they showed up on radar before they came into vision. They would have shot at a family car if it were driving along that road.

Many times soldiers are given commands to not fire unless fired upon. Other times they are ordered not to fire EVEN IF fired upon. This can be seen in the fact that there was division after division of Iraqi soldiers lay down their weapons during this past war. They didn't want to fight for Saddam, so US forces didn't want to assault them.

Quite correct. Are you sure about the EVEN IF command? I'm sure no general would ever command his troops to do that. And it cannot be seen in the fact you described, as the Iraquis surrendered and surrendering people dont shoot at you.

If I kill someone because he called me a cunt, is that a good reason: Provocation?

I have yet to hear of any soldier killing someone because they called them names. That's rediculous.

Yer, but if I was actually provoked severely, would it be morally right for me to kill someone. Keep in mind this is SERIOUS provocation. Or is it alright if my friend doesn't like his boss, and they tell us to fight?

[Taxman2A]

At 6/11/03 01:49 PM, bumcheekycity wrote:

I wont go into the Death Penalty debate either, but soldiors will open fire on anything. The Americans shot ast hundreds of camals because they showed up on radar before they came into vision. They would have shot at a family car if it were driving along that road.

Without knowledge of the actual case you are referring to, I can say that yes, things like this do occur. Troops also end up killing other troops from time to time due to a poor flow of communication. This is different from troops acting immorally, it is just an example of how disorganized things can sometimes get. The military relies on many people working profiently and as a team. If there is a weak link in the chain (e.g. some idiot not paying attention, someone not telling the truth for whatever reason) then people, often innocent ones may die. This is the reason that the military tries to instill virtues of integrity and discipline in its recruits during their training (a.k.a. boot camp).

Many times soldiers are given commands to not fire unless fired upon. Other times they are ordered not to fire EVEN IF fired upon. This can be seen in the fact that there was division after division of Iraqi soldiers lay down their weapons during this past war. They didn't want to fight for Saddam, so US forces didn't want to assault them.

Quite correct. Are you sure about the EVEN IF command? I'm sure no general would ever command his troops to do that.

It actually does happen quite often. Many times troops are involved in reconnaissaince work where they are sent in order to gather information, and are told to not shoot even if fired upon. Obviously, if the shit hit the fan for these troops, and they ended up getting ambushed or entered into a serious firefight, they would fight. This command is given in order to prevent giving away one's position.

And it cannot be seen in the fact you described, as the Iraquis surrendered and surrendering people dont shoot at you.

That was my point entirely. The iraqis surrendered (aka. They did not shoot at the US troops), and the US troops did not shoot at them either. The US troops entered Iraq to remove the Hussein regime. The only fighting US troops did was when they encountered military opposition that was still loyal to Saddam.

Yer, but if I was actually provoked severely, would it be morally right for me to kill someone. Keep in mind this is SERIOUS provocation.

You have described a situation where someone is provoking you by doing things that make you angry. This is still not even close to a situation where it would be morally right for you to take another person's life. It would only be right if this other person threatened your life.

Or is it alright if my friend doesn't like his boss, and they tell us to fight?

Troops are required to have the moral compass to disobey commands that are morally wrong. For this reason, the defense "I was only following orders" does not hold up at court martials involving war crimes. (i.e. My Lai).