Should we really honour the modern soldier?

asguard, i just know more about afghanistan, i'll address iraq eventually...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your point? What part of “American officials have told ABCNEWS...” did you miss?

Give me a break. Believe what you want to believe. The Pentagon has total control over the information. They did little about the torture until the press got wind of it; that much is clear. Do you really expect an honest accounting from them?

Again, how is this relevant? Can’t you just answer the question? I answered yours.

Bush Co. is plundering the resource which is Afghanistan’s geographic positioning for a pipeline worth billions. The Afghanis will get some low-wage jobs and that’s about it. If Afghanistan were a democracy, presumably its public would reap a much bigger share of the pipeline profits.

That’s because the article predates Karzai’s awarding of the contract to Unocal. You asked how the US is plundering; I gave you an article about the pipeline being built.

Keep looking. I read that it was Unocal; I don’t care to search now. If it isn’t Unocal it’ll still be part of Bush Oil. Do you think Bush is dumb enough to let a multi-billion dollar project be awarded to some company he has no connection to, when he is the dictator of Afghanistan and has near-total control over the country? The same Bush who awarded huge no-bid contracts to his VP’s former company?

They did. You haven’t shown how they haven’t. You asked for a source that showed that Saddam was interested in exile; I gave you one. You asked for a source that showed how dozens have been tortured to death by the US; I gave you one that any reasonable person could read between the lines on. Oops, looks like the count’s gone up:

You asked what Bush is plundering in Afghanistan, I told you. And that’s all you asked me about. I can’t help your interpretation of the sources.

But you ignored my question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is Unocal’s current position on an Afghanistan pipeline. They say they are not involved. Al Jazeera says the pipeline is undergoing a feasibility study. I can’t find an online source about which company(s) have been chosen to build the pipeline. I take back what I said about Unocal being chosen.

The important point, regarding plundering, is that all this activity is going on while the country is still a dictatorship. Were Afghanistan destined to be a true democracy, the US would establish that democracy before making unrelated decisions that greatly affect the Afghanis’ future, so that the people could have a say in them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The modern soldier is giving as much as jesus christ, life to save others (his country), both are human lives, both are selfless acts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

the relevancy of deaths from torture or otherwise:

i'm not saying that torture is alright, however, in comparisson with the iraqi government, the deaths of now 37 people under american control, PALE in comparison to the thousands. why do you focus so much on 37 deaths? you seem to say how bad iraqis have under the americans, but IN COMPARISON, the deaths caused by American control are miniscule compared to what their own government did prior to the US coming. and that i think is relevant.

the point of Mauritania officials is that, they knew nothing of the fact that Saddam was being offered exile in their own country. I would think that the sponsor nation would know something about it. hence, it puts doubt as to whether or not the exile was actually offered.

and going back to the US Soldier...

you yourself, in your research and your opinion have already stated that you were incorrect in i think, two points, the Unicol being assigned the pipeline building and something else. even so, let's just take that one point then. in all your research, you felt that Unicol was tied to Bush Co. and would swear by it. Yet as you indicate it cannot be confirmed that Unicol has the contract (by the way, Unicol did do the feasibilty study and I agree with that). My point, in all your research, it is still difficult to gather the correct facts and there always are counterpoints as i thought have effectively presented to counter your sources. Now, for an American soldier deployed on the front lines, who has much less time to spend time on this research, and even less access to such, it is not appropiate to blame him for refusing or not refusing to serve. You claim that the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq should refuse to serve in order to be respected by you. When me and you can go constantly back and forth and argue, i think convincingly, either side, how can you expect soldiers who are concerned with their survival 24/7 to take the time and engage in a debate that will probably have no clear cut victor? That's why soldiers do what they do, they follow orders, unless they are illegal and they recognize it as such and refuse to do it. Otherwise, if the orders are legal, they will follow them, and they will trust in their superiors to make the right decisions. Just because you seem to have problem with their trust, does not mean that they should be automatically condemned for putting faith in their leadership. They should not be automatically honored, each person should be judged on their merit. However, they do not deserve a broad disrespect just because they serve in a war that does not suit your conscience.

 

Finally, someone with common sense making a common sense statement.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because it shows that we’re not there to help the Iraqis. Otherwise we wouldn’t brutally torture them. You say the torture isn’t right, but you keep comparing it to Saddam’s torture. I think you’re trying to justify it. It can’t be justified.

It doesn’t put it in doubt very much. I can see why they’d deny it even if it were true. They’d have an incentive to deny it until Saddam arrived, to provide better security for Saddam and also to delay public outrage there. Presumably not everyone there would welcome Saddam.

No, I don’t swear by anything I write here. Look below my avatar. I’m human. I read a lot. Not everything I read can be backed up by online sources. Nor is my memory infallible.

Lots of people are in prison now, convicted on much less evidence than we have that Iraq & Afghanistan are now offensives leading to puppet governments. The circumstantial evidence, in total, is overwhelming. You don’t build 14 military bases in a country destined to be a true democracy, for example. You don’t leave those--whom you’re ostensibly there to help--to die after you accidentally injure them. You don’t pay a measly $1500 for a civilian death.

The soldiers are not concerned with their survival 24/7. They come back to base daily for R&R and sleep. They have cafeterias, basketball hoops, and internet access. They can have daily communication with family and friends. At the beginning of the wars there may have been reasonable doubt. Now there is not. They deserve disrespect for ignoring the obvious, which is that the wars are not only illegal, but also blatantly against the spirit of the democracy they swore to uphold.

The movie Fahrenheit 9/11 features an active-duty soldier who refuses to return to duty in Iraq. He says (paraphrasing), “I will not go back there and kill poor people like myself who harmed nobody.” It is as simple as that.

 

i hate to end this like this, but i guess you'll never know what it means to be a soldier. and you'll never know what it's like to be deployed. i give up. you would rather send the sons and daughters of america to their deaths, than make sure they survive in harms way. as long as they died for righteousness and all that crap. get real man, the world isn't white and black. everything is a shade of gray. their families don't give a shit about righteous causes, all they care about is having their husbands/wives home. i hope you're never in charge of anything where people's lives are at stake.

i'm tired of pointing out that US war is the most sophisticated and least casualty producing in history of warfare. us forces are the most discriminate in their targeting. nothing is perfect, yet you demand perfection. so typical. i'm sure you would argue that we should not drop the atomic bomb on japan and instead send thousands of GIs to their deaths. but you don't seem to argue that US was wrong in cutting off their trade with Japan and thus adding yet another reason for their attack on US in WWII. No conspiracy theories there huh? your defensive GIs in WWII were honorable? even those that plundered German homes during the invasion for spoils of war? in my opinion you contradict yourself considering the backdrop of history in which you claim defensive wars were faught.

you say that military bases shouldn't be built. how else do you occupy a country if you don't build bases in them??? before returning to democracy there must be peace, which will be inforced by the military forces until such time when civilian authority can take over. or should we just allow anarchy on the streets and let people loot and kill each other? let me guess, you don't have a solution, but it's easy to criticize.

there's a thing called reality that is very different from your moral high ground. soldiers must live that reality and they must kill in that reality. and they must come home all fucked up because they had to kill for this democracy. and then people like you just wait for them and take away even more than what the soldiers already gave. give the soldiers a break. or become a soldier and then make your stupid stand and go to jail. or are you too scared to put your beliefs into practice?

i'm done with this thread. i hope other readers saw the point of my arguments and will judge each soldier on their individual merit and not spit on them for serving you.

 

They should not put themselves in harm’s way when it’s offense. That’s optional for them. In defense I'd want casualties to be minimized on both sides. An American life is not worth more than another’s life to me. I’d be a sick bastard otherwise.

In the case of defense vs. offense it is indeed white and black.

And thus they deserve disrespect, those who support the troops, those who support the killing of innocent civilians just so they can have their husbands/wives home.

That’s great if it’s used in defense. Not offense.

Maybe so, but they could greatly improve. No need to shoot into crowds of protestors, for example, like they did.

No, I demand a higher standard. A reasonable standard. Like fighting only in defense. That’s not too much to ask.

I certainly wouldn’t have dropped it on a city full of civilians. I can easily think of better ways to minimize casualties.

Why would I have argued that in this unrelated thread? Nothing wrong about the US cutting off trade, if it's done fairly. Each country is responsible for diversifying its trade.

Not once it became clear that the war had become an offensive, with the atomic bombs and fire-bombings of other cities. Obviously we didn’t need to cremate toddlers to win; that’s overkill. The soldiers should have quit then. The war would still have been won.

Of course they deserve disrespect and dishonor.

In my opinion you’ve done a piss-poor job in showing how I’ve done that.

What a question! I thought we weren’t there to occupy the country. I thought we were there to liberate them. If so, why not build them the bases and train them to run them?

Sure, but whose forces? Saddam enforced peace with Iraqi soldiers. Obviously Iraqi soldiers can do the same under US direction. If the US paid US soldiers’ wages to the Iraqis, they could likely put together a million-strong Iraq force within a couple years. US forces aren’t needed except temporarily. But those are permanent US bases being built, to be staffed permanently by US forces.

I guess so, because that’s just what we did. More proof we weren’t there to help. While the looting and raping and murdering was going on, we were busy securing the Oil Ministry and the oil fields. Not that those weren’t important to the Iraqis. Both were important.

No, I have a solution, and yes, it’s easy to criticize an offensive war.

False. Killing is optional. When it’s offense they should not take the option.

They come home much less fucked up when it’s defense. It’s their choice to ignore their conscience and pay the price later. What kind of democracy is it that invades another country just to plunder it?

In offense they give me nothing. Rather they make me partially pay for their murderous actions. For that I disrespect them, and they deserve that.

Would you give a bad cop a break and if not, then become a cop? Or are you too scared to become a cop? Doesn’t compute, does it?

Hey, we agree. Indeed people should judge each soldier on their individual merit. When they freely choose to fight an offensive war, my judgment is that they deserve disrespect, for they did me a disservice.

 

Zanket:

They come home much less fucked up when it’s defense. It’s their choice to ignore their conscience and pay the price later.

Dont make statments that arent true. there is NO SUCH THING as a "just" war. WAR IS WAR. People die, things suck, and in the end there isnt always clear winner. Whether or not YOU think the war is just has no merit on the mental state of a soldier after being asked to kill. The soldier is just a regular citizen that has actually chosen to sign on that dotted line and swear an oath to protect the citizens of their country, and follow the commands of their chief of staff. The fact that you think that because they are doing that, and doing something that i might add i am pretty confident in saying you would NEVER have the guts or balls to do, they deserve automatic disrespect is appalling. You cheapen the morals and values of every civil servant that has ever come before you, including the ones that give you the right to say such rubbish.


Would you give a bad cop a break and if not, then become a cop? Or are you too scared to become a cop? Doesn’t compute, does it?

That statement is not even close to being the same statement that Fallen Angel said. And i dont hesitate to state that i seriously doubt you would be willing to take up a gun and a badge and defend your fellow citizens either. You seem so quick to deal out judgement but slow to take any blame.


Hey, we agree. Indeed people should judge each soldier on their individual merit. When they freely choose to fight an offensive war, my judgment is that they deserve disrespect, for they did me a disservice

You seem to actually NOT agree. You seem hellbent on judging every soldier over there for doing their duty. no soldier chooses anything that they do. they are at the military's whim. Their lives, their dreams and their futures become that of their country. There is no choice involved which you STILL seem to not recognize. Every statement you have put on here seems to simply judge every soldier and state that they are all disrespectful because they have been selected to go over there. The fact that you contradict yourself over and over just shows me that you not only will never see the other side, you dont care to see the conflicting views in your own statements.

 

Sure there is.

Anything is itself. Defensive war is just. Offensive war is not.

War should not be about winning, but about minimizing casualties.

Didn’t say it did. I said whether or not THEY think the war is just affects their mental state.

They are not doing that. As I’ve said before, they swore an oath, and now they make a mockery of that oath by blindly following the illegal orders of a megalomaniac.

How so? I respect the ones who serve and protect. I respect the good cops and disrespect the bad cops.

No, it’s about the same except I replaced “soldier” with “bad cop.” Offensive soldiers are like bad cops.

Doubt if you will, it remains irrelevant. By making this tangent you’re only showing how weak your argument is.

Blame for what?

No, for not doing their duty. They swore to uphold the Constitution. But they do the opposite. Apparently you’re not reading my posts.

Negative.

Optional.

Because it’s false. Soldiers have quit, even gone AWOL. Have they not?

No, because they remain there when it’s obvious they are murdering people, killing offensively.

Show me a contradiction; I might see your side. Where is it? I’m willing to be wrong.

Spaganya, I think this thread riles you mainly because I’m challenging your mind to follow your conscience. Your mind says, “People die, things suck, WAR IS WAR.” Your conscience says, “There is a better way than that and you know it!” You will find no contradictions in your conscience.

 

No, for not doing their duty. They swore to uphold the Constitution. But they do the opposite. Apparently you’re not reading my posts.

what part of the constitution are they violating by following orders and fighting in iraq?


Soldiers have quit, even gone AWOL. Have they not?

that is true but honestly unless they are quitting because of strong moral convictions (which is usually NOT the case) i think THEY are the dishonorable ones.

No, because they remain there when it’s obvious they are murdering people, killing offensively.

again, you seem to not understand the fact that the military is not a democracy. ask any JAG lawyer or any MP on a military base and you will find that military men and women and their families have less rights than everyone else.


Spaganya, I think this thread riles you mainly because I’m challenging your mind to follow your conscience. Your mind says, “People die, things suck, WAR IS WAR.” Your conscience says, “There is a better way than that and you know it!” You will find no contradictions in your conscience.

wrong, this thread does not challenge my conscience. If by some strech of the imagination, this thread causes someone else to look down on the modern soldier for doing their job then THAT would weigh heavy on my mind. My conscience and my mind are in harmony knowing that there are evils in society that are inevitable. As a woman, i often say that the world would be a better place if we were in charge, we would settle our differences in a more constructive way than war. But alas, we dont live in such a society. Violence is a certainty in today's society. I had a friend say to me that today's society isnt how it used to be in saying "i will proudly serve", now they say "i dont have to go because someone else will."

Ultimately, you still refuse to recognize that military life is NOT civilian life. The choice is not yours. The only choice you have is to be part of the military or not be part of the military. How the military chooses to utilize you is beyond a soldiers wishes.

Zanket, it seems to me your ideals are based on a utopian society that cannot and will not exist in the near future. Its fine to say that soldiers should throw down their arms, and pacificity is the "way to go" but its unrealistic and irresponsible to think that way. Getting back to the original statement, i believe that the soldier in the fact that he/she is willing to commit themselves to something and do their job inspite of low pay, low respect, bad conditions, and obvious distain from people like you shows they KNOW and embody duty and honor.

 

Let’s start with the preamble:

The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan make a mockery of justice (U.S. news networks agreed to let the American military censor out certain images of Saddam Hussein's court hearing Thursday), are shredding the domestic tranquility (the country is polarized), are offending rather than defending, demote the general welfare (huge deficits for offense), and threaten my liberty and that of future generations. We are less safe because of them. They form a less perfect Union.

Here is the soldier’s oath:

Allegiance to the Constitution comes first. That allegiance is more important than any person's order. But we see that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan do not support and defend the Constitution. Anything the president does is legal if its part of an executive order. The Supreme Court upholds or rejects the executive orders when cases challenging the orders are raised up to them by lower courts, a path which takes time. When Bush orders that brutal torture and indefinite detention without trial is okay, for example, a soldier need only consider the spirit of democracy stated in the preamble to know that they need not wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the orders. (The soldier takes the oath for the express purpose of ensuring that he or she does not wait for the Supreme Court to rule on an order that violates the Constitution.) Such orders are as blatantly illegal as telling the soldier to kill a toddler. Likewise the wars themselves, being offensives, are illegal despite that congress okayed them. When the soldier quits, he or she will be jailed for committing a crime. Later, if justice serves, they will be pardoned when the majority comes to its senses. Like how Vietnam draft-dodgers were pardoned.

Then see that have the option to quit. Nobody forces them to serve. There might be a penalty for quitting, that’s all.

I agree with that. I agree it is not a democracy. Nevertheless, the soldier can quit. That is a choice they have.

Agreed. But why support society as it is by lending it your respect? Disrespect leads to change. As long as soldiers are supported no matter what, there will always be war.

Only because you and others stick to the beliefs that keep violence rooted in it.

More people proudly serve when it’s defense. For some fifty years the US wars have been almost exclusively offensives. That is why attitudes are changing.

Agreed. Soldiers ordered to offend should not be part of the military. They should quit.

Its existence is inevitable. When it exists is solely dependent upon the beliefs of the people. It starts with you.

Pacifism is not the way to go. Defense-only is the way to go. As I’ve said many times in this thread.

Replace “soldier” with “gang member” and read it back to yourself. Does the conclusion still follow from the same facts?

 

First i still dont see how the soldiers violated their oaths or the constitution by following orders and going to iraq or any other war zone. You state that because the war itself is unjust and not valid that gives the right to say that they should just walk off their jobs like a friggin protest. It doesnt work that way. Not to mention the fact that although you might deem what Dubya did as wrong, the supreme court has done no such thing, and because thats how military works, you follow orders that are given to you, they arent to judge what is and isnt constitutional to begin with. why dont you write the supreme court?

not to mention a soldier understands that he is given orders with the assumption that the orders are valid and righteous, and lets the command staff figure out the details. Thats how military works. thats how battles are won. thats how democracy is kept in check. soldiers are not to blame if you think people are out there "killing toddlers" as you so retardedly put it. If you have a problem with what is going on in the world take it up with the decision makers in society not the people who are charged with the task of carrying out orders without question. THAT IS THEIR JOB.


Its existence is inevitable. When it exists is solely dependent upon the beliefs of the people. It starts with you.

NEGATIVE. that is what is wrong with socialism, communism and all societies that believe everyone should be equal and peaceful. There will always be conflict because that is human nature. to err is to be human. the day we are perfect and live in a perfectly peaceful society is the day you find yourself in heaven aka DEAD.


Pacifism is not the way to go. Defense-only is the way to go. As I’ve said many times in this thread.

Again, who says what is defense and offense? One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter. You arent the only end all be all on that source.

Replace “soldier” with “gang member” and read it back to yourself. Does the conclusion still follow from the same facts?

Honestly why the hell would you even compare the two? soldier is a job. gang member is a club affiliation as far as i am concerned. the fact you would even try to affiliate the two is insulting.

I stand by my views that soldiers as a group should be respected for the sacrifices they make on a daily basis. All civil servants do. Why? because look at the title, they are CIVIL SERVANTS. slave to society. they do what is needed to be done. end of story.

one question for you.

Under your way of thinking you would say that someone who's job to "flip the switch" or "inject the poison" into someone who is condemned to death that if they disagree with the verdict that they should refuse to carry out the task of putting that person to death. I am assuming you didnt study philosophy in that a person has to sometimes just give up and trust the system lest they succumb to anarchy. For example, you might believe the person that you are "flipping the switch" on is innocent, but being that the person has gone through trials, appeals and so on and EVERYONE at every turn has found them guilty, for the sake of decorum and keeping order, you are obligated to go through with your orders because that is how the system works. and you dont fault the undertaker, you fault the system. hence if you dont think its just you change the system, you dont crucify the undertaker.... follow me? or does this reasoning completely escape you?

 

one thing id like to add, that i dont think has been touched from what i read, is that most people i know in the australian defence force would go to war to protect their best friends who are in the defence force with them. i have and have had family and best friends in the defence forces, and repeatedly they will say that they want to be there because their best friends are going to be there. they want the chance to protect them as they love them like family. i hope everyone can understand and respect that at the least, because i know that some people in the defence forces are dickheads and think they ant to kill people, but once they have im sure its a different matter. i know if my mates who are in the army went to a war zone and i had the chance id be over there looking out for them, regardless of why they are there. and if u cant respect that then i pity the friendships you have.

 

yes mza, number one reason people fight is for each other, i agree. i don't think zanket cares tho. he feels that if the war is illegal in his opinion, the soldiers should stand by and die for the cause of "justice" (his version, not everyone elses). i'm still waiting for him to crucify the guy that flips the switch at executions.. got kinda quiet after that post didn't it?

 

Let me give you a hypothetical. Please answer it. If Bush ordered the military to imprison the Supreme Court justices, should the soldiers follow that order without question? (Remember that everyone in the military--even those of the command staff--is a soldier.)

A little disrespectful of the toddlers they killed, methinks.

As I showed, that is not their job. They took an oath to question their orders. Their primary allegiance is to the Constitution. Their job is to filter all orders through that allegiance. If they do not, we could become a military dictatorship overnight.

I didn’t say equal and peaceful. I said defense-only. When all armies are defense-only, war will end. There will still be conflicts-o-plenty in the courts and elsewhere. An optimal society provides equal opportunity, not equality. It is not peaceful.

With globalization, defense-only is inevitable. The “United” States used to war with each other. Now even defense-only is hard to perceive between them, as it is between the US and its allies. The historical trend is clear that someday all countries will be mutual allies. That day is delayed when the US invades another country to plunder it.

The Iraq war in particular is so clearly offense that the word would otherwise be meaningless. I need only look up the word in the dictionary.

I didn’t say to compare the two. I asked, does the conclusion still follow from the same facts? If the facts are the same while the conclusion differs then your logic is flawed.

Yes, they should refuse. Killing incarcerated people is not defense-only; it's offensive.

Trusting the system when it is obviously wrong can lead to dictatorship. At a minimum it leads to a sub-optimal society.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, they should not be killed. The order is obviously wrong.

I would not crucify the executioner. I disrespect them.

 

Do you respect gang members who back up their friends while they (their friends) kill innocent people? If you were on a jury for the trial of the backup, would you respect him enough to acquit him, or find him guilty as an accomplice to the murder?

 

No, they should quit for the Constitution’s version of justice, the one to which they swore an oath. They can defend themselves until they get back to base, and then quit. No death necessary. Their leadership can then decide how to optimally fight with fewer soldiers. In an offensive war the choice is easy: simply switch to defense-only (like when we retreated from Vietnam). A lot less soldiers are needed for that.

A little thing called a Fourth-of-July holiday.

 

Zanket,

I suppose i should have learned my lesson earlier on in this post and just shut the hell up, but i had to say something....

Its clear to me that you will never see my point in this whole situation. You have already prejudged the modern day soldier and blamed him for things that he has no control over as well as defaming him by calling him a heartless toddler murderer.

I hope one day you learn that society isnt so black and white. There are other factors that enter into peoples minds when they do things.

I also hope that if you see a soldier fresh from a deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan just keep walking and leave him alone, because it would break my heart if you told him some of the things that you believe in that i would fear he would think his life is less than anything but honorable.

I pray that one day you will see the other side.