|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 166 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 125 of 166:
| 
Aug 26 19:38 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 166:
|
Aug 26 21:27 UTC 2003 |
How is signing up for the military different from being a plain old hired
gun? You are promising to go anywhere and kill on command, no questions
asked. You don't get to question the agenda or morality of the person
ordering up the troops. You're a killer contracted out in exchange for a
steady paycheck or tuition or both.
Sorry, I see people willing to sign such contracts as drones. And if they
end up killing innocent people over, say, our oil jones, then they are
immoral drones.
Enlisting to fight for a specific cause you believe in is a different
story.
|
tod
|
|
response 127 of 166:
|
Aug 26 23:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 128 of 166:
|
Aug 26 23:30 UTC 2003 |
We thank with all our heart all of the "drones" who have served in the
U.S. military forces and to whom we owe the blessings of living in this
great country.
|
gull
|
|
response 129 of 166:
|
Aug 27 01:16 UTC 2003 |
Re #127: In the military, questioning the morals of your superior's
decisions is called 'insubordination'. I understand under certain
circumstances it carries the death penalty.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 130 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:18 UTC 2003 |
Not quite, gull. Disobeying _lawful_ orders can be punished by death.
Obeying unlawful orders is punished by at least imprisonment: consider Lt.
Calley.
|
pvn
|
|
response 131 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:23 UTC 2003 |
re#129 and #126: Perhaps in some other country's militaries, but not in
the US.
Even in basic training for enlisted grunts there is training on the
concept of lawful orders. FOr anyone who is going to be in a position
to give orders and this includes NCOs and up there is very strict
training. THe professional soldier - remember, these are not draftees,
they actually want to be there - is well versed in the Geneva
Conventions as well as the lessons of the past. "I was just following
orders" does't wash - and the penalty for the issuer of the order might
even be harsher than the follower of an illegal order. These are not
mindless drones and they are enlisting in a specific cause they believe
in - the defense of the US - definding your right to post what you do
here for one thing.
|
pvn
|
|
response 132 of 166:
|
Aug 27 04:25 UTC 2003 |
re#130 - slipped in: Note that Lt. Calley went to prison, not his
entire platoon.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 133 of 166:
|
Aug 27 05:50 UTC 2003 |
didn;t he end up owning a pizzeria?
|
cross
|
|
response 134 of 166:
|
Aug 27 19:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 166:
|
Aug 27 19:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 136 of 166:
|
Aug 27 21:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 137 of 166:
|
Aug 27 21:35 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 138 of 166:
|
Aug 27 23:34 UTC 2003 |
When I spoke of drones it was of those who sign-up, voluntarily, for the
military knowing they will have to do what they are told, wherever they
are told to do it, and how they might feel about those orders is of no
consequence, really.
Give you an example - six years ago some nice flag waving kind of guy
signs up for the Army. He gets his degree, does some special training,
and wakes up one morning on a transport plane to Iraq. Now, six years
ago little Bush wasn't on anyone's radar. We were still supporting
Saddam, our friend. But now this guy is told to shoot to kill if he sees
someone stealing food from a grocery store still smoking from our bombs.
He thinks that maybe we should have taken a more diplomatic approach,
maybe worked harder and make a case with real and convincing evidence.
Maybe worked within the UN instead of going cowboy. But he sure as heck
knows he doesn't want to be doing this gig. Does he follow his orders,
and shoot? Does he refuse?
His first mistake was signing up in the first place.
Fighting for a cause you believe in is one thing. But
this poor sod become a hired gun. I suspect he's not alone.
|
mary
|
|
response 139 of 166:
|
Aug 28 00:04 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I think we stopped arming Saddam at the end
of the Iran/Iraq war. So that makes it like 1988 since
we've been friends. Time flies...
|
tod
|
|
response 140 of 166:
|
Aug 28 00:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 141 of 166:
|
Aug 28 00:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 142 of 166:
|
Aug 28 00:19 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
pvn
|
|
response 143 of 166:
|
Aug 28 06:28 UTC 2003 |
And another thing, all military commissioned officers are far from
mindless. It is not at all uncommon for them to have post-grad degrees.
Indeed the professional trade schools such as West Point have academic
standards far higher than that of even such as UM (even EMU). Its why
their football teams suck.
|
pvn
|
|
response 144 of 166:
|
Aug 28 06:30 UTC 2003 |
(think about it for a moment, if they were mindless hulking baby killers
they'd field a heck of a football team now wouldn't they.)
|
mary
|
|
response 145 of 166:
|
Aug 28 12:22 UTC 2003 |
The "shoot looters as a deterrent" directive was reported in the New York
Times. It caused an uproar and an immediate damage control response from
Rumsfeld who when asked about it said, "We have rules of engagement; have
had; do today. They've not been changed. We will use whatever force is
necessary for self-defense or for other selected purposes," he added.
Rumsfeld, when speaking of looters also commented, "The forces there will
be using muscle to see that the people who are trying to disrupt what's
taking place in that city are stopped and either captured or killed."
U.S. officers said, "The rules of engagement haven't changed. Soldiers can
shoot suspected looters only if they ignore warning shots, resist arrest
or threaten U.S. troops." I find no comfort in the "only", not when
chaos reigns.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-14-iraq-security-usat_x.htm
|
tod
|
|
response 146 of 166:
|
Aug 28 13:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 147 of 166:
|
Aug 28 14:53 UTC 2003 |
I think that at the height of the crackdown on looters
our soldiers were put in the position of killing or
maiming Iraqis who were helping themselves to food
and other commodities. Maybe the looters didn't care
they put their lives on the line. Maybe they didn't
know that warning shot was meant for them. Maybe
they were running away out of fear they'd be taken
away, as many were.
And I also think there were soldiers there who didn't
think what they were being told to do was right and
moral but who were in a hard place so they simply did
what they were told.
The crux of the matter is some people find this obedience
an example of patriotism, in the extreme. I see it more
as a form of moral cowardice.
So we disagree.
|
cross
|
|
response 148 of 166:
|
Aug 28 15:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 149 of 166:
|
Aug 28 16:15 UTC 2003 |
So, how many actual looters were shot and killed?
|