2 pages of stupid

1/9/2012 8:38:20 PM

Quote :

"I don't see that as trolling. "I was just following orders" is never an excuse, unless there's a gun to your head. It's still not an excuse when you signed up to be there."

truth

1/9/2012 8:44:44 PM

Speaking of government employees having too much government influence, aren't government unions banned in NC? Why was this teachers union(I'm sorry, it's a "lobbying group") ever allowed to dock pay via government paychecks in the first place?

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/nc-educator-group-gets-automatic-dues-bill-blocked-now

1/9/2012 8:56:48 PM

you spray more shit around this place than my dog after a week of eating wet food

1/9/2012 9:16:56 PM

There's a lot of people ITT who have no idea how the military works.

1/10/2012 5:53:46 PM

No kidding

1/10/2012 6:04:06 PM

Quote :

"There's a lot of people ITT who have no idea how the military works."

1/10/2012 6:44:11 PM

No one needs to know "how the military works" to recognize that our foreign policy is flat out wrong and should be resisted.

1/10/2012 6:50:28 PM

So, service members should pick and choose what orders to follow? Deployment to Iraq? No sir, I don't like the war.

Service members do not dictate foreign policy, they are led by the civilian government. Are you suggesting it would be better for them to decide on their own who to attack/defend/etc?

1/10/2012 6:56:51 PM

Quote :

"So, service members should pick and choose what orders to follow? Deployment to Iraq? No sir, I don't like the war. "

You're willing to sacrifice your life in a war you disagree with, but you're not willing to sacrifice your military career by refusing deployment? I just don't follow.

This guy did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

Sure he went through a lot of bullshit afterwards, but he retained his life and his personal morality.

Individual orders are a different story, I suppose. It depends on the situation.

1/10/2012 8:01:54 PM

There is no such thing as agree or disagree for the military, only Constitutional or not Constitutional.

Is this a lawful order?

1/10/2012 8:55:26 PM

Quote :

"There is no such thing as agree or disagree for the military, only Constitutional or not Constitutional. Is this a lawful order?"

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

1/10/2012 9:03:59 PM

Yeah, I don't think you're getting the whole military service thing.

1/10/2012 9:06:59 PM

Last time I checked, joining the military was 100% optional. You join, you agree to follow all lawful orders regardless of whether or not you agree with them. You also agree to give up certain rights like 'oh hey, I can't go to a protest wearing anything I want'...instead you have to wear civilian clothes.

1/10/2012 9:08:06 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I don't think you're getting the whole military service thing."

I get it, and I disagree with the entire premise. It's a cop-out to justify sacrificing your moral obligations for your job or perverted sense of duty. Sorry.

Quote :

"Last time I checked, joining the military was 100% optional. You join, you agree to follow all lawful orders regardless of whether or not you agree with them."

It is optional, but what if you joined right before the War in Iraq? What if you joined now and we decided to go to war with Iran? Also, the "follow all lawful orders" agreement does not absolve you of personal responsibility.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2012 9:29:35 PM

Out of curiosity what personal responsibility and moral compass are you holding yourself to? Is bitching on TWW your 'perverted sense of duty' or do you actually go out and protest, campaign, etc

1/10/2012 9:45:02 PM

Quote :

"I get it, and I disagree with the entire premise."

You are free to disagree by either not joining, not re-enlisting and/or posting here.

Quote :

"Also, the "follow all lawful orders" agreement does not absolve you of personal responsibility."

You're right, it doesn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility. In fact, it defines the obligations and responsibilities of every service member.

1/10/2012 9:47:22 PM

Quote :

"You are free to disagree by either not joining, not re-enlisting and/or posting here."

I shouldn't voice criticisms of the military because I'm not in the military? No, doesn't work that way.

Quote :

"You're right, it doesn't absolve anyone of personal responsibility. In fact, it defines the obligations and responsibilities of every service member."

It defines the obligations and responsibilities of service member. It does not define the moral obligations and responsibilities of a human being, which supercedes ALL contracts.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2012 9:56:43 PM

Again, what morals and standards are you holding yourself to? If you're that against the military, go out and protest.

1/10/2012 10:07:53 PM

Quote :

"I shouldn't voice criticisms of the military because I'm not in the military? No, doesn't work that way."

You're trying too hard, because I didn't say that at all. I would, however, recommend a reading comprehension remediation class.

Ah, the ol' Oxford comma. Is this better?

You are free to disagree by either not joining, not re-enlisting, and/or posting here.

Quote :

"It does not define the moral obligations and responsibilities of a human being, which supercedes ALL contracts."

I'm not sure where I or anyone else claimed otherwise...?

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2012 10:09:44 PM

Quote :

"Ah, the ol' Oxford comma. Is this better?"

Yes.

Quote :

"I'm not sure where I or anyone else claimed otherwise...?"

Your posts in this thread imply that you believe a military member must obey a lawful order, even if it is unjust. If moral obligations are above military obligations, then it is your moral duty to disobey unjust orders, even if they are lawful. Maybe you should explain your position further.

Quote :

"Out of curiosity what personal responsibility and moral compass are you holding yourself to?"

Well I can't really rattle off my morals can I? It's situationally dependent, not black and white. I'm not anti-military, if that's what you mean.

Quote :

"Is bitching on TWW your 'perverted sense of duty' or do you actually go out and protest, campaign, etc"

I'm not bitching. I'm having a discussion on a messageboard. I apologize if the topic intrudes on your life decisions.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 10:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2012 10:17:00 PM

Aww, not going to answer my question?

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 10:22 PM. Reason : you did in your edit]

1/10/2012 10:22:13 PM

^
My bad, I missed it before.

1/10/2012 10:27:14 PM

Quote :

"Your posts in this thread imply that you believe a military member must obey a lawful order, even if it is unjust. If moral obligations are above military obligations, then it is your moral duty to disobey unjust orders, even if they are lawful. Maybe you should explain your position further."

No, my posts in this thread state that a military member must obey a lawful order, period. Being "unjust" or immoral has nothing to do with it.

As I said before, "service members have lawful obligations. [T]hey don't have moral obligations."

1/10/2012 10:29:49 PM

Then I respectfully disagree.

1/10/2012 10:34:03 PM

I suppose we shall agree to disagree, good sir.

1/10/2012 10:36:08 PM

Any military member can refuse to do something if they feel it is immoral, unjust, against their beliefs. That member has to be willing to face the consequences of said actions. I've known many to get booted for "failure to adapt to military life".

Military uses along with all civilian laws, The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which dictate more to the military side.

Article 92 is a common one. Its pretty much a catch-all.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Article 88:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[Edited on January 10, 2012 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ya]

1/10/2012 10:41:17 PM

The armed forces should really get some labor unions. Big business is walking all over them.

1/10/2012 10:44:15 PM

We don't need unions. It's called taking care of your people. I don't need to pay "union fees" to have someone go to bat for me.

1/10/2012 10:53:30 PM

Quote :

"I get it, and I disagree with the entire premise. It's a cop-out to justify sacrificing your moral obligations for your job or perverted sense of duty. Sorry."

There are some complexities to this issue that I feel you're glossing over however. We can't simply treat them as if they're common citizens or civilian bureaucrats since they are an armed force. As a democratic society, we've decided that the military is subordinate to the will of the people via our elected officials. Think of it this way, we've shackled our military to civilian authority and the Constitution, removing them as a political force that can determine national policy.

Therefore, the military must obey the legal orders of elected officials, even if they disagree with them. Otherwise, you give the military the green light to directly challenge the elected leadership, and that will lead to a lot worse things. The same philosophy that don't allow a soldier to protest orders out of personal conviction also prevents some uppity colonel from deploying forces in Washington DC simply because they disagree with the President. It's not perfect a perfect system, but I would rather err on this side than the other.

Let's flip this scenario. When President Obama ordered a draw down in Afghanistan, it was clear that General Petraeus disagreed at a personal level. I don't know exactly what he was thinking, but I would believe it was his conviction that the President was making a policy mistake, throwing away the war and the sacrifices of his men for political expediency and potentially ruining his own legacy in the process. Yet in the end, he did his duty "he decided that resigning would be a 'selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications' and that now was 'time to salute and carry on.'"

Plenty of other examples as well.

If you disagree with the wars, that's perfectly fine, but these issues need to be solved at a policy level; get new elected officials. Asking officers and enlisted to disregard legal orders issued by the President and approved by Congress is not the way to go about it.

1/11/2012 11:29:42 AM

^This.

Also, I wanted to highlight something:

Quote :

"Think of it this way, we've shackled our military to civilian authority and the Constitution"

This is actually an interesting aspect of the American military that actually makes it unique. Civilians authority is rampant on many levels from within the DoD and it impacts directly how we operate. Sometimes you get the impression (from movies, 'talking with buddies in uniform', or other sources) that when a soldier gets an order, it could be something that a small room of uniformed generals sat in and came up with things that needed to get done. Targets, missions, and objectives are hashed on on many levels by both uniformed and civilian personnel, and is ultimately driven by the politicians.

A soldier or civil servant working in defense is guided by policy that is set in motion by the elected officials, defined and detailed by his staff, and implimented by their direct points of contact within the Department. Trying to say that civil servants or uniformed servicemen shouldn't be allowed to vote because of some added implication of ownership for the government's actions is just not reasonably looking at how things really work in our government.

If you want to take the vote away from someone, take it away from the politicians, themselves. I still don't agree with it, but you would have a stronger argument.

1/11/2012 11:38:02 AM

^^
I get what you're saying, that to ensure smooth operation of the military, you can't have soldiers refusing orders left and right. Lawful orders are not always just. If it's minor, sure, let it slide. It's something everyone needs to do from time to time. There is, however, a line drawn somewhere. If an entire WAR is unjust, I believe it is necessary to break your oath.

To illustrate my point, what if it became legal for soldiers to execute civilians? Would it be a soldier's duty to carry out these executions?

Quote :

"If you disagree with the wars, that's perfectly fine, but these issues need to be solved at a policy level; get new elected officials. "

That's not what happens, though. When a large majority of the population is against a war, something has gone awry.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2012 12:53:15 PM

Quote :

"So, service members should pick and choose what orders to follow? Deployment to Iraq? No sir, I don't like the war. "

Absolutely.

Some of you think I'm ignorant about how the military works, and in many respects, I am. That's irrelevant, though. This idea that you should have to sign your life and your rights away in order to serve your country is not benefiting anyone. We don't need an army of mindless drones. We need an army of educated (but well-trained) soldiers that are hellbent on protecting liberty and upholding the law of the land.

It's not hard to draw a line between lawful, justified, national defense-oriented orders and orders that are driven by other motives. If a foreign army is invading (or threatening to invade or otherwise harm) the United States, there's reason to fight, and you'd follow orders as is necessary in a combat situation. If the President orders a full scale invasion and you know that Congress didn't vote on it, you (and your superiors) should be saying "what the fuck?" If you're being shipped off to the other side of the world to "protect" allies (or, more likely, protect corporate interests), you should have the good judgment to know that it's bullshit. If you don't, well...ignorance isn't an excuse in this case.

Educating the military is just as important as educating the general population. Not surprisingly, many active military are crossing over to our side (i.e. the side of liberty and a foreign policy that puts America first), much to the chagrin of the neo-conservative GOP establishment.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 1:00:32 PM

Quote :

"We don't need an army of mindless drones. We need an army of educated (but well-trained) soldiers that are hellbent on protecting liberty and upholding the law of the land."

No, you need an army of educated and well trained soldiers who will follow the lawful orders of the elected civilian leadership.

1/11/2012 1:20:56 PM

Quote :

"To illustrate my point, what if it became legal for soldiers to execute civilians?"

then you would have a situation that is drastically different than simply disagreeing with a specific war.

1/11/2012 1:27:53 PM

FWIW, the "mindless drone" is also a staple of many militaries around the world. That is actually one of the reasons the US military has been so dominant against formal military forces; we empower our ranks to think for themselves at the appropriate level of command to ensure a mission gets done. The way the Germans use to put it, when we first engaged in WWI, all of the European powers were chess players who wanted soldiers that the commanders could move like peices on a board. The Americans were poker players who enacted a strategy based on calculated risk and relied on their unit-level decision making to sway the odds.

The battle field has gotten more complicated which takes some of that away, but we are much less mechanical than many other militaries around the world.

1/11/2012 1:29:25 PM

What happens when the civilian leadership is bought and paid for and they use the military as a tool to line their pockets? Thousands of soldiers are maimed or killed, and we chalk it up to, "WELP, IT WAS LEGAL, SO THEY DID THE RIGHT THING." What happens when war is not officially declared, and the President unilaterally decides to go to war?

The broad problem with our society is that people aren't taught to think for themselves. If we're looking for lasting peace, then we don't want our military servicemen to be the most unthinking among us. I'm a strong supporter of nullification, where bad laws simply aren't enforced.

1/11/2012 1:35:36 PM

^ in those cases, you throw the bums out. there certainly is a line that I imagine military men will not cross. but "I don't agree with this war" shouldn't be it.

1/11/2012 1:40:05 PM

Quote :

"What happens when the civilian leadership is bought and paid for and they use the military as a tool to line their pockets? "

If you could buy out the entire civilian leadership, it would be catastrophic. What I don't think a lot of conspiracy theorists realize is exactly how robust the civilian leadership is and how long they have to enact change. This scenario is a massive "if" that isn't really realistic.

For such a thing to realistically take place, you would need the "bought out leadership" to be around for several presidential terms and each new set of leaders would need to be up-to-speed on the previous leaders' plans and also buy into the same system. It's very difficult to enact radical change in the military but very easy to put a hault to existing change.

Quote :

"and the President unilaterally decides to go to war?"

There aren't too many "wars" that the US wages without getting some form of congressional approval or having to account for what their plans on. Even with Libya, Obama didn't respond to requests for what his plans were in Libya and so his plans had to be dramatically scaled back which is why NATO took such an aggressive role.

1/11/2012 1:41:42 PM

Quote :

"^ in those cases, you throw the bums out. there certainly is a line that I imagine military men will not cross. but "I don't agree with this war" shouldn't be it."

Sorry, this doesn't work when the population is dumbed down by corporate media and government schools. Even CNN, the allegedly "liberal media", is beating the drums of war with respect to Iran.

Quote :

"If you could buy out the entire civilian leadership, it would be catastrophic."

I have some bad news for you, then.

It doesn't take generations for the President to order military action, because Congress doesn't do shit when the President acts unilaterally. They let it happen - just look at the Libya conflict.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2012 1:45:55 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, this doesn't work when the population is dumbed down by corporate media and government schools. Even CNN, the allegedly "liberal media", is beating the drums of war with Iran."

and if the people want to be stupid, then there's nothing we can do. but, having the military just disobey orders willy nilly is not the way to solve it. You've got this absurd notion in this scenario that "everyone is bat shit insane except for Private Timmy" and you are coupling it with "private Timmy can make a massive difference." and all of this is despite the perfect explanation above of why you don't want the military ignoring orders willy nilly. We want civilian control of the military as opposed to military control of the civilians. End of story. You DON'T want it the other way around.

1/11/2012 1:49:37 PM

Quote :

"They let it happen - just look at the Libya conflict."

...yeah, look at Libya. The President deployed naval forces (who were already operating in the region, at least) to support the air campaign around Libya. He did not provide Congress with his plans or seek Congressional approval, so he had to scale back the number of sorties which is why NATO took over.

I'm not denying that political platforms come into play, but I think you are trying to suggest something much more radical is going on than what really exists. Tell me what else we did without Congressional approval, specifically where troops were put on the ground.

1/11/2012 1:50:04 PM

Quote :

"then you would have a situation that is drastically different than simply disagreeing with a specific war."

Do I need to play the Nazi card here? It's an extreme example, but where do you draw the line?

1/11/2012 1:51:59 PM

I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine that many people join the military while being opposed to its current activities. Most people sign up knowing that they'll be sent to fight.

What happens when you serve, fight, and then either slowly or suddenly come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a racket, and these wars are not defensive in any way? Then what?

1/11/2012 1:52:27 PM

Quote :

"We want civilian control of the military as opposed to military control of the civilians. End of story. You DON'T want it the other way around."

Ever asked any prior-enlisted men, particularly someone who was infantry, cavalry, or artillary, what they think we should do with Iran? Policy is not their strong point. To be fair, I don't want it to be their strong point... that's what you train civilians for.

1/11/2012 1:52:42 PM

Quote :

"What happens when you serve, fight, and then [...] come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a racket, and these wars are not defensive in any way? Then what?"

"Strategic" operations are a part of the "defense" of the nation, it's assets, and it's allies.

1/11/2012 1:54:27 PM

Quote :

"Do I need to play the Nazi card here? It's an extreme example, but where do you draw the line?"

what part of "then you would have a situation that is drastically different than simply disagreeing with a specific war" did you not understand? Where is the line? Certainly somewhere between "execute civilians" and "I don't agree with this specific war".

Quote :

"What happens when you serve, fight, and then either slowly or suddenly come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a racket, and these wars are not defensive in any way? Then what?"

then you don't reenlist and you join some protest movement. Damn, that was simple!

1/11/2012 1:56:12 PM

^
Fair enough. What I'm saying is how unjust does a war or operation have to be for it to be unacceptable for troops to take part? Obviously there is a limit somewhere. It just seems that mine and d357r0y3r's is lower than yours.

[Edited on January 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2012 3:27:40 PM

Quote :

"Ever asked any prior-enlisted men, particularly someone who was infantry, cavalry, or artillary, what they think we should do with Iran? Policy is not their strong point. To be fair, I don't want it to be their strong point... that's what you train civilians for."

Politicians, who are the ones crafting policy a lot of the time, aren't trained for shit. Their trade is telling people what they want to hear, then voting in a way that will get them re-elected. Generally, this means catering the lowest common denominator, and in America, that's quite low.

As far as the higher ups that are really steering policy, they couldn't give less of a shit about the defense of average Americans. Their goal is to keep the military-industrial racket going, because as soon as the American empire crumbles, their income stops.

You don't need to be a policy wonk to know that the U.S. military is stretched too thin. Fiscal disaster is on the horizon. It's time to face reality.

Quote :

""Strategic" operations are a part of the "defense" of the nation, it's assets, and it's allies."

I don't agree. The oil in the middle east does not belong to us. We do not have a right to it. Iran is not a threat to the U.S., just as Iraq wasn't. The United States is pushing a nuclear apocalyptic narrative because it plays into what the policymakers have already decided, but if we would just stop meddling, it's doubtful that it would actually end that way.

Quote :

"what part of "then you would have a situation that is drastically different than simply disagreeing with a specific war" did you not understand? Where is the line? Certainly somewhere between "execute civilians" and "I don't agree with this specific war"."

"I don't agree with this war" is the #1 reason I can think of to not fight in said war.

Quote :

"then you don't reenlist and you join some protest movement. Damn, that was simple!"

Meanwhile, you continue fighting a war that you've come to realize is unjust? Oh, and by the way, keep your mouth shut and don't support any candidates that are offering a vastly different foreign policy?

Listen, no one cares about protesters. They're much more likely to care about someone that has actually fought and can verify that these wars are a lost cause.

1/11/2012 3:29:20 PM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, you continue fighting a war that you've come to realize is unjust? Oh, and by the way, keep your mouth shut and don't support any candidates that are offering a vastly different foreign policy? "

Are you continue to fail to grasp the concept is YOU CAN SUPPORT ANY CANDIDATE YOU WANT, YOU CAN ATTEND ANY PROTEST YOU WANT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. You just can't make certain remarks about your leadership and can't do certain things in uniform. And by can't make certain remarks, I mean you have to phrase shit like 'I support Ron Paul because he would pull our troops out of the Middle East' as opposed to 'I think President Obama is a real shitbag for deploying troops'

1/11/2012 3:45:59 PM