http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May30.html
Login: eoff@eoff.com
Password: eoff
Printable View
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May30.html
Login: eoff@eoff.com
Password: eoff
It's no one's fault but his own that he's made a complete idealogical 180 since he was kicked out of the Air Force. You make your choices in life, and you deal with the consequences of them. I would have been proud to stand up to that General, proud to have stood up for what I believed in, proud that I would not be forced into fighting for something in which I didn't believe. But then I guess I'm not him.
He did what he thought was right. I don't think one can ask any more than that.
I don't get what he's saying. He still doesn't believe in Vietnam... yet he regrets not serving? That sounds bizarre. There's no point at all in fighting for something that you don't believe in.
That's because he understand the duty of a soldier. You think all the soldiers that went into Iraq, or Vietnam, were happy to do so? I can assure you, many weren't. But, they realised it was their duty, their country's decision, and that it was what they had to do. To them, it goes beyond personal beliefs and needs.Quote:
He still doesn't believe in Vietnam... yet he regrets not serving? That sounds bizarre.
You hit the nail on the head. When you put on the uniform of your country, it's not about what you think is right - it's about your duty, and what you have sworn to uphold and defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD." ---US Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment
As far as I'm concerned, that's crazy.
Agreed. I could never have that much faith in my 'superiors'.
Agreed. That's way too much trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burtsplurt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skogs
Then obviously none of you belong in military service. You should be lucky that you have the choice not to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaralia
I couldn't agree with you more.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
You always have the choice. It just depends how far you are willing to to go to protect your right to choose.Quote:
You should be lucky that you have the choice not to be.
So far as I understand, part of being in the military means following orders even if you don't agree with them, so long as the orders are lawful. Even if your commander orders you to your death, you have to trust that it's worth it, that you're probably saving countless other lives by giving your own. A bunch of people running around doing whatever they want to do isn't an army that's going to be successful. Your superiors in the army are your superiors in the ways that matter, i.e. they know how to lead, and they know how to win battles.
Couldn't have said it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
I agree with that, which is one reason of many that I have no desire to serve in the armed forces, particularly at the moment.
At any rate, I should hope that a soldier would question his orders if he believed them to be morally objectionable; not doing so could potentially lead to atrocities on a grand scale.
I've an interesting counterpoint to that article here - although, by no means, am I condemning everyone who serves/served in Vietnam and Iraq, and neither is the letter. The truly important stuff is at the end.
I agree with you completely, Man. It's too bad that oath doesn't include going against your superiors when they are clearly, inarguably wrong. For example, the abuses at the Abu Gharaib prision were evil by pretty much every definition of the word, and completely inexcuable; and yet, the man who released the information about what was going on is being punished by the army. If Bush does not correct this situation, which he can being commander in-chief of the army, I will have no respect for him as a human being. This guy knew he couldn't stop these atrocities except by letting the world know what was going on. He should be commended.
Yeah. I definitely wouldn't do well in the army, as I would refuse to follow orders that don't sit well with me. (Heck, I'm reluctant to take orders in the first place.) I'm just glad I have a choice about it. And it damn well better stay that way.
Yes it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Christ
"...AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE..."
That means that if you're given an illegal order, you have the right not to follow it.
But if you're given a perfectly legal, albeit lethal, order, you have no choice whatsoever.
The Iraq war may well be considered illegal, but American and the UK governments consider it legal. Would I still be able to get out of it if I were a soldier and didn't believe in its legality?
No, because you volunteered your services. When you enlist, you are committing yourself to that oath. If a superior tells you to shoot a child holding an AK-47, you do it.
Of course, you could always desert and face the consequences.
Do they still shoot deserters in the back as they run away? I think they did in the Civil War.
Nah, it's usually a court-martial followed by a prison sentence and dishonorable discharge.
Would these rules apply to a soldier who was drafted?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Yes, unfortunately, which is why I am vehemently against a draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
[qq]"...AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES..."[/qq]
I was ok with it right up to that part. :smash:
Doc, are you allowed to have a public stance on whether you would like more civilians to enlist in some aspect of the military? I'm sort of unsure about that little aspect which may compromise the congruency of my beliefs:
I live in a country with a military. The military is supposed to protect my country, and as such members of the population must serve as the military. In the event the military requires more members of the population to replace men/increase man-power, it is my duty as a citizen to take up arms and do what I can.
As for listening to your superiors, that makes a great deal of sense to me. Nothing makes less sense to me than the image of a private talking back to his commanding officer because s/he (are women allowed in the front lines yet?) doesn't want to kill. By protesting commands you are delaying execution of a formulated plan (I doubt heavily that high-ranking officers spend their times thinking completely idiotic ways to kill American infantry), probably endangering your comrades, and very well could be the sole cause of any problems.
I may be hediously unpatriotic, refuse to vote, or even follow every law to the letter, but I know the difference between idle intellectual-peace-time banter and action time.
Anyway, though I support the military and will not run if conscripted, conscription has ceased, and thus the only reason I'm not running around in Iraq right now is (aside from being Canadian I would think) that I haven't enlisted. So if I support the war does it mean I should enlist (in the case that Canada is not involved in the war, assume I am an American)?
PG - I'm definitely not going to act as a recruiter here, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can. Yes, it is allowable to have a stance on that issue. I ususally don't, because I really don't have a stance on that issue, and here's why. In my opinion, only you yourself can tell you if you want to serve. No one else.
For some people, it's just a job, and those people tend to be pretty miserable in the military. Would you put your life on the line just to pay back your college loans? When I came to the Air Force Academy, the only thing that kept me going through the first year - the toughest year - was that I was getting a free college education out of it. And I was pretty miserable. After that year, though, I realized that service in the military - especially as an officer or senior NCO - was more along the lines of a calling. And quite frankly, I don't really understand it. I don't know why I'd ever want to give up my life for a bunch of people who could care less about my existence. But this is what I do, and it makes me happy for some reason.
Anyway, enlisting (or entering an officer training program) is definitely not a requirement for supporting a war. If you really feel that giving your services is the best way to help out, then go for it, soldier. But if we all went off and enlisted, there wouldn't be much of a country left to defend. I don't know if I'm making a whole lot of sense right now - it's pretty early and I just woke up. Assuming that you're an American considering enlistment, I'm certainly not going to push you one way or the other - it's your life, and your decision.
As for listening to your superiors, that makes a great deal of sense to me. Nothing makes less sense to me than the image of a private talking back to his commanding officer because s/he (are women allowed in the front lines yet?) doesn't want to kill. By protesting commands you are delaying execution of a formulated plan (I doubt heavily that high-ranking officers spend their times thinking completely idiotic ways to kill American infantry), probably endangering your comrades, and very well could be the sole cause of any problems.
I may be hediously unpatriotic, refuse to vote, or even follow every law to the letter, but I know the difference between idle intellectual-peace-time banter and action time. - PG.
It depends. If we're talking about something that I consider just and right, say WW2, then I'd volunteer, do my job and try my hardest. I'd be a lot less likely to question orders if I believed in the war.
Saying that, COs can still get things wrong. WW1 seems to me to be a case of pretty much all the commanders messing up. British soldiers were told to slowly jog over No Man's Land (I think the idea was behind it was to avoid tiring out soldiers before they got to the German lines... the only problem being that most of them were dead by then). I think it's absurd not to question orders like that.
I should think that abolishing that requirement for drafted soldiers would more or less eliminate that problem. That would probably bring with it its own Pandora's Box of issues as well, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Whatever happened to conscientious objectors anyway?
http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=46504Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
I have concluded that most politicians suck and do not deserve to receive anyone's votes.