• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The hypocrisy of supporting the soldiers but not the action

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Like our efforts to have the position of Prime Minsiter created so there is a viable politcal representative for the Palestinian people?

What about our recent rebukes on Israel regarding ther settlements?

What about Bush's stated and repeated belief that there needs to be a viable independant Palestinian State?

some of the burden falls on the parties invloved as well, you cant blame us for everything...
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Honestly I think the ONLY motivation was to make sure he didn't pass along ANY MORE of his WMD to terrorists.
There is no evidence that he has passed any WMDs to terrorists in the first place.

It is no secret that the Iraqi regime -- being, as it is, largely secular -- is unpopular with Islamic extremists -- most notably, al Qaeda. It seems extremely unlikely that that group, at least, would be supplied with WMDs by Saddam.

Freeing the people is a great plus, helps provide a better cover story. Saddam's actions make it easier for us, especially with his own people. But if he had fully complied and destroyed and documented his WMD we would not be there.
For all we know, they have been destroyed (or used...). The WMD motivation is severely undermined, I think, by the US's refusal to allow inspections to continue. This refusal seems very odd to me. Had WMDs been found, it would have swayed world opinion in favour of war. It would have removed a big question mark about the legitimacy of the invasion; it would almost certainly have resulted in a UN mandate.

But instead of allowing that to happen, the US decided to invade. Honestly, the only real justification I can see for this (from the US's PoV) is that if there was a very real fear that there was nothing for the inspectors to find. We know that the intelligence provided by the US and UK was not particularly well-received by the inspectors -- none of it constituted the smoking gun that I think the US hoped it would be. Perhaps there was a genuine fear that there was nothing to find.

I think too many countries worldwide did not place enough stock in Bush saying "we will wipe out terrorism", I don't think this will be the last step in that process by ay means.
That is certain. If that is the true aim then there will be no last step.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: zer0burn
actual Iraq screwed US over.

I dont mean resentment only in Iraq I mean throughout the whole arab community

The thing is bin laden and saddam hold a deep resentment towards eachother and the CIA was even quoted as saying they couldnt find a link.

I believe the terrorist reason isnt much of a threat to America. There's greater countries posing a greater threat to Americans then IRAQ
You don't think americans has a right to think terrorism IS a threat to ourselves? We have good reasons, WTC, 9/11.

The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite. So is his possesion of WMD.

Let's hope he did not get a tiny sample of that airborne strain of Ebola the Russians were working on, and handed it off to ANYONE wiling to release it on mainland US.......

There is NO GREATER threat to this country than that, there isn't another country that can hang with us militarily, even on theri own truf and no one is ever going to try and occupy the US.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Like our efforts to have the position of Prime Minsiter created so there is a viable politcal representative for the Palestinian people?
I'm not entirely convinced that this is really an issue. If a line is drawn on a map to the effect of, "Israel stops here, Palestine starts here, and the UN will police the border" then I suspect that the rest will follow. Without a nation, the creation of political representation seems to be jumping the gun.

What about our recent rebukes on Israel regarding ther settlements?
Until the money stops flowing, I will tend to view any such rebukes as minimal in value.

What about Bush's stated and repeated belief that there needs to be a viable independant Palestinian State?
Ditto.

some of the burden falls on the parties invloved as well, you cant blame us for everything...
Everything? No, certainly not. I am sure that Sharon, for instance, represents a large problem.

But that isn't really the point. The point was that if the aim of the US is to create greater trust amongst the Arab world then they are going about it completely the wrong way. As such, I'm not convinced that this was an aim of the invasion.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Except the invasion of another nation without UN approval.
Nothing in US law requires permission from the UN to go to war.
Except he won't because soldiers are duty bound to refuse to follow illegal orders.
Except he will because the war is not illegal.
So you disagree? You think that I will do more good in prison than not? Can you explain?
No I think you will have an equal effect in or out of prison. I was just highlighting your hypocrisy.
If I could directly influence policy -- if my going to prison directly prevented a soldier from going to war -- I would. I can't; it doesn't. As such, I will retain my ability to directly influence policy.
You have as much influence as one soldier who refuses to fight. That is to say -- none. Yet you are calling on soldiers to put down their guns, go to jail, give up the means to support themselves, etc. Those who refuse to risk the same punishment, despite the rationalizations, are nothing more than hypocrites. If you are advocating that all soldiers quit fighting then I advocate that all taxpayers quit paying taxes. Shared sacrifice.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
You don't think americans has a right to think terrorism IS a threat to ourselves? We have good reasons, WTC, 9/11.
The terrorists who attacked on 11/9 were Saudis. They were Wahabbists. They want clerical (i.e. Islamic, non-secular) rule.

The Iraqis are not Saudis (obviously). They regard, by and large, the Wahabbists as extremist idiots -- though they are gaining some support as the country is weakening (it's widely observed that weak countries are more susceptible to extremism). Their government -- though you may dislike its practices immensely -- is secular, containing both christians and women. Both of which are anathema to the Wahabbist extremists.

The ties with Saddam and terrorism is clear and definite.
With Palestinian terrorism, there are some links. There is money given to those Palestinians who have their houses bulldozed due to Israeli retaliation to suicide bombing. This has been represented as rewarding suicide bombers; however, it's not really that simple. The money has been given to many, only a subset of which are the families of suicide bombers.

No credible link to al Qaeda has been demonstrated. The only significant report to suggest such a link was made by the Czech intelligence agency, and the Czechs have since discredited the report, stating it to be erroneous.

There are also likely terrorists in the northern part of Iraq; due in no small part to the northern no-fly zone, the Iraqi government has negligible control over northern Iraq, and can't readily be held responsible for what goes on there. They have no means of policing it because bombs keep getting dropped on them.

If you have some other evidence to suggest a link, I think the world would be very interested to see it.

So is his possesion of WMD.
Past possession, yet. Present possession? That is still open to question.

There is NO GREATER threat to this country than that, there isn't another country that can hang with us militarily, even on theri own truf and no one is ever going to try and occupy the US.
The Russians could certailny "hang" with you militarily. They've got more than enough nukes to do the job.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
Honestly I think the ONLY motivation was to make sure he didn't pass along ANY MORE of his WMD to terrorists.
There is no evidence that he has passed any WMDs to terrorists in the first place.

It is no secret that the Iraqi regime -- being, as it is, largely secular -- is unpopular with Islamic extremists -- most notably, al Qaeda. It seems extremely unlikely that that group, at least, would be supplied with WMDs by Saddam.

Freeing the people is a great plus, helps provide a better cover story. Saddam's actions make it easier for us, especially with his own people. But if he had fully complied and destroyed and documented his WMD we would not be there.
For all we know, they have been destroyed (or used...). The WMD motivation is severely undermined, I think, by the US's refusal to allow inspections to continue. This refusal seems very odd to me. Had WMDs been found, it would have swayed world opinion in favour of war. It would have removed a big question mark about the legitimacy of the invasion; it would almost certainly have resulted in a UN mandate.

But instead of allowing that to happen, the US decided to invade. Honestly, the only real justification I can see for this (from the US's PoV) is that if there was a very real fear that there was nothing for the inspectors to find. We know that the intelligence provided by the US and UK was not particularly well-received by the inspectors -- none of it constituted the smoking gun that I think the US hoped it would be. Perhaps there was a genuine fear that there was nothing to find.

I think too many countries worldwide did not place enough stock in Bush saying "we will wipe out terrorism", I don't think this will be the last step in that process by ay means.
That is certain. If that is the true aim then there will be no last step.
You need to remember what has happened. The Gulf War was PAUSEd on certain restrictions, Saddam agreed with each of them. One of those requirements was that he DECLARE his WMD, destroy them, and be able to prove they were destroyed. If he had done this, the inspections would have been done within 2 years, the sanctions lifted, and he would have had full power with no international oversight.

So he has admitted having them, I'm sorry you won't even take HIS word on this, but I will. Where are they now then? I agree there is no proof he gave some away. Perssonally I wouldn't really care if it's al-queda or not, I undertand their ideological differences, I also understand their common feelings and perceived enemies. I just don't want ANY terrorist to get his hands on WMD. The had at least one large training camp, we will find out later if the evidence sent to Washington contains any proof they might have WMD now, I hope they don't find anything like that.

The main reason the inspections did not work was because of his NON-COMPLIANCE, 333 violations. 1441 was supposed to be the LAST chance to FULLY comply, even the slightest violation of this would be considered a MATERIAL BREACH. He was never planning on complying and never did, he hid weapons and diverted money that was supposed to feed his people to illegal arms and rebuilding his forces.

I will say this, I am glad he is so ignorant, to think, he could have just destroyed what they wanted in a couple of years and then stayed in power with no chance to keep him in check as he used the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves to rebuild QUICKLY and with better equipment...

 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Nothing in US law requires permission from the UN to go to war.
Except that the constitution states that both federal and state government are bound by treaties made by federal government. The UN charter is such a treaty, and as such the war does require UN permission.

No I think you will have an equal effect in or out of prison. I was just highlighting your hypocrisy.
I don't agree that I will have an equal effect, so it isn't hypocritical.

You have as much influence as one soldier who refuses to fight. That is to say -- none.
I have considerably less influence than any one soldier who refuses to fight. If one soldier refuses to fight then there is one fewer soldier fighting. I can't even manage that much.

But to say I have no influence is absurd. Pressure from anti-war protestors has certainly been influential in the past (I wouldn't go so far as to say it brought about the end of the Vietnam conflict, but I certainly think it made it end sooner), and there is no reason to believe it won't be in the future.

Yet you are calling on soldiers to put down their guns, go to jail, give up the means to support themselves, etc.
Because they can directly bring about change. I can't. If I could, I would.

Those who refuse to risk the same punishment, despite the rationalizations, are nothing more than hypocrites.
If the same punishment had the same reward, it would be hypocrisy. It doesn't have the same reward.

If you are advocating that all soldiers quit fighting then I advocate that all taxpayers quit paying taxes. Shared sacrifice.
Taxpayers are not by and large invading another nation. They have no direct influence. Soldiers do.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
The russian "miliatry" is a joke of what is was. They can't even pay the soldiers, some are abandoning posts, selling equipment, etc...lol

How long has the mighty russian army been fighting to control Chechnya?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
a soldeir has no choice in this, as a soldier you FOLLOW orders, not decide, well I don't "personally" agree with this one. If you cannot fulfill your DUTY, don't enlist.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
You need to remember what has happened. The Gulf War was PAUSEd on certain restrictions, Saddam agreed with each of them. One of those requirements was that he DECLARE his WMD, destroy them, and be able to prove they were destroyed. If he had done this, the inspections would have been done within 2 years, the sanctions lifted, and he would have had full power with no international oversight.

So he has admitted having them, I'm sorry you won't even take HIS word on this, but I will. Where are they now then? I agree there is no proof he gave some away. Perssonally I wouldn't really care if it's al-queda or not, I undertand their ideological differences, I also understand their common feelings and perceived enemies. I just don't want ANY terrorist to get his hands on WMD. The had at least one large training camp, we will find out later if the evidence sent to Washington contains any proof they might have WMD now, I hope they don't find anything like that.

The main reason the inspections did not work was because of his NON-COMPLIANCE, 333 violations. 1441 was supposed to be the LAST chance to FULLY comply, even the slightest violation of this would be considered a MATERIAL BREACH. He was never planning on complying and never did, he hid weapons and diverted money that was supposed to feed his people to illegal arms and rebuilding his forces.

I will say this, I am glad he is so ignorant, to think, he could have just destroyed what they wanted in a couple of years and then stayed in power with no chance to keep him in check as he used the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves to rebuild QUICKLY and with better equipment...


Why is the US the only UN member to EVER ask for permission to wage war? What about the two dozen plus other wars where none was asked?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
If you don't think the "real" reason behind this is the war on terrorism you didn't listen to Bush clearly enough when he spoke after 9/11.... You should look up what he said to the UN on 9/12.

out for a bit, keep the debate lively...
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
You need to remember what has happened. The Gulf War was PAUSEd on certain restrictions, Saddam agreed with each of them.
The UN also agreed to them, but it isn't at all clear that it has upheld its side of the bargain either.

One of those requirements was that he DECLARE his WMD, destroy them, and be able to prove they were destroyed. If he had done this, the inspections would have been done within 2 years, the sanctions lifted, and he would have had full power with no international oversight.
The sanctions on arms would not have been lifted, I don't believe, as they were slightly separate than the other restrictions.

So he has admitted having them, I'm sorry you won't even take HIS word on this, but I will.
He hasn't admitted to having any presently. He says (with no evidence either way) that he has destroyed those which were known to exist at the time the inspectors left in 1998. Whether this is actually the case is anyone's guess.

Where are they now then? I agree there is no proof he gave some away.
Yet you maintain that he did? To whom, and why?

Perssonally I wouldn't really care if it's al-queda or not, I undertand their ideological differences, I also understand their common feelings and perceived enemies.
I think the ideological differences are important, because it determines whether such weapons will be used, and in what capacity. If, for instance, Hamas obtained WMDs I don't think that would pose any threat to the US, though it would certainly pose a threat to Israel. For there to be a threat against the US requires one to specify which terrorist group he is associated with.

I just don't want ANY terrorist to get his hands on WMD.
If this is so, it seems strange to back someone who may have WMDs into a corner. Desperate men do desperate things. I suspect that a more tactful approach would minimize any potential unforseen consequences.

The had at least one large training camp, we will find out later if the evidence sent to Washington contains any proof they might have WMD now, I hope they don't find anything like that.
If the training camp is in northern Iraq then I find it difficult to blame the Iraqis, since the illegal UK and US-enforced no fly zones have made policing the north of the country impossible.

The main reason the inspections did not work was because of his NON-COMPLIANCE, 333 violations.
Non-compliance with 1441 has not (and probably never will be) shown.

1441 was supposed to be the LAST chance to FULLY comply, even the slightest violation of this would be considered a MATERIAL BREACH.
And since the UN route hasn't been taken, this has never been decided.

He was never planning on complying and never did, he hid weapons and diverted money that was supposed to feed his people to illegal arms and rebuilding his forces.
If he hid them, why is there no evidence as to their existance?

I will say this, I am glad he is so ignorant, to think, he could have just destroyed what they wanted in a couple of years and then stayed in power with no chance to keep him in check as he used the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves to rebuild QUICKLY and with better equipment...
If you think that would have been allowed to happen I think you are mistaken. Opinions voiced by various US officials suggest that the sanctions would never have been lifted until he was no longer in power.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
The russian "miliatry" is a joke of what is was. They can't even pay the soldiers, some are abandoning posts, selling equipment, etc...lol
As long as enough of those missiles still work, it doesn't matter. The US could at best draw with them.

How long has the mighty russian army been fighting to control Chechnya?
How long was the mighty American army fighting in Vietnam?

soldeir has no choice in this, as a soldier you FOLLOW orders, not decide, well I don't "personally" agree with this one.
Actually, that is not true. Soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders.

If you cannot fulfill your DUTY, don't enlist.
It is their duty to disobey illegal orders.

If you don't think the "real" reason behind this is the war on terrorism you didn't listen to Bush clearly enough when he spoke after 9/11.... You should look up what he said to the UN on 9/12.
The terrorist threat posed by Iraq to the US is nil, which is why I don't believe that the War on Terrorism is the motivation behind the invasion.

Far more productive would be to invade Saudi, to overthrow the extremist Wahabbists who effectively rule the country, and exported, amongst others, bin Laden and the 19 11th September hijackers.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Alistar7
a soldeir has no choice in this, as a soldier you FOLLOW orders, not decide, well I don't "personally" agree with this one. If you cannot fulfill your DUTY, don't enlist.
Please see both DoctorPizza's and my earlier posts about a soldier being required to not follow illegal orders. You can't refuse an order because you personally don't agree with it. You can refuse if you believe the order given to you is illegal. Your duty does not entail following illegal orders. Many enlist in the army because they want to defend their country. Saying don't enlist, means that you shouldn't enlist because there's the chance you may be given an illegal order. In that case no one should ever join.
 

zer0burn

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2002
1,485
0
0
I agree with a lot of what you say however I do feel that the war in Iraq is and should be a legitimate war.

Should they have handled it differently? Yes they shouldve stretched it out longer trying to build a stronger coalition.

Is there Iraq a major threat to the US? Not really to the world? Not really. However there are far greater threats then Iraq and these must, and shouldve been taken care of first...

I think the most pressing matter is forming of a palestine state, threw peaceful means. It doesnt mean I think there innocent because both parties are far from it
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
PeterB - I won't play the ping pong with the same chirping bird again on this board. The basic premise of your argument is flawed because the war is not illegal , not in your country nor in ours. Your call for the soldiers to do something that you are unwilling to do is hypocritical in the extreme. It is not surprising to me however. I am familiar with your beliefs from Ars and I have written you off long ago as just another shrill little boy that Ars is overrrun with.

You can refuse if you believe the order given to you is illegal.
Wrong. You can refuse an order if it is illegal not if you believe it is illegal.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
PeterB - I won't play the ping pong with the same chirping bird again on this board. The basic premise of your argument is flawed because the war is not illegal ,
Yes it is.

not in your country
To be honest, you may be right there; I'm not sure how bound we are by the UN Charter.

nor in ours.
But it is in yours.

Your call for the soldiers to do something that you are unwilling to do is hypocritical in the extreme.
If I could bring about the same result I would do it. If by going to prison I could stop a soldier from fighting, I would do it.

I can't. A soldier can. The acts are not equivalent. Until this disparity is accounted for, there is no hypocrisy.

It is not surprising to me however. I am familiar with your beliefs from Ars and I have written you off long ago as just another shrill little boy that Ars is overrrun with.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
If I could bring about the same result I would do it. If by going to prison I could stop a soldier from fighting, I would do it.

I can't. A soldier can. The acts are not equivalent. Until this disparity is accounted for, there is no hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with your perceived outcome. You are demanding that someone else risk everything because you think it will produce your desired outcome. At the same time you are willing to risk nothing for that outcome. That is hypocrisy no matter how you want to spin it or rationalize it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
You know exactly what I am talking about, Peter.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with your perceived outcome.
It has everything to do with it. When determining the equivalence of the positions, the outcome is one aspect that must be considered.

The situations aren't equivalent -- because the outcomes are not equivalent -- so one can be afforded different courses of action without being hypocritical.

You are demanding that someone else risk everything
You overstate a tad.

because you think it will produce your desired outcome.
It will avoid participation in an illegal conflict.

At the same time you are willing to risk nothing for that outcome.
I can't bring about the same outcome. I can't stop soldiers from fighting. A soldier can.

That is hypocrisy no matter how you want to spin it or rationalize it.
If the outcomes were the same, it would be. They aren't, so it isn't.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
It has everything to do with it. When determining the equivalence of the positions, the outcome is one aspect that must be considered.
The situations aren't equivalent -- because the outcomes are not equivalent -- so one can be afforded different courses of action without being hypocritical.
Your perceived outcome is a farce. One soldier not fighting is not going to accomplish anything. If you are calling for all soldiers to quit fighting then I call on everyone to quit paying taxes. Equivalency, yes. Or are you going to tell me that no one paying taxes won't stop the war? If you aren't willing to share the sacrifice then you are hypocrite and saying it's not possible to achieve the same result, without knowing what that result will be, is just the shrill rationalization of the hypocrite.

You overstate a tad.
Your calling for a soldier to give up his freedom and his means to support his family and I'm overstating it a bit. You're kidding me right.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
I think the war was a mistake but I don't blame the soldiers. It's the people telling them what to do that are the problem.
The people telling them what to do are ultimately impotent. W hasn't launched any cruise missiles. Poodle hasn't dropped any bombs. Rummy hasn't shot down any friendly planes with Patriots. Er...


With no people to follow them, the orders become meaningless. Iraq is not being invaded by the will of the administration alone -- it's being invaded by the people on the ground.

As such, the fault lies with both parties. It lies with the administration for giving the orders, and it lies with the people on the ground for following them.

This is a precedent clearly established at the Nuremberg trials.
I place the blame squarely on those giving the orders.

I also don't want to see any of them get hurt.
What do you want to see them do, then? Successfully invade another nation? That would strike me as an unusual way to support your claim that the war is a mistake.
Wow....that's an incredible jump in reasoning. If I don't want them to get hurt it must follow that I want them to invade a nation? No.

I would like to see them come home.

 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
If I could bring about the same result I would do it. If by going to prison I could stop a soldier from fighting, I would do it.

I can't. A soldier can. The acts are not equivalent. Until this disparity is accounted for, there is no hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with your perceived outcome. You are demanding that someone else risk everything because you think it will produce your desired outcome. At the same time you are willing to risk nothing for that outcome. That is hypocrisy no matter how you want to spin it or rationalize it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
You know exactly what I am talking about, Peter.
What his name is has nothing to do with the debate.

If his desired goal is to do everything in his power to stop the war in Iraq, then there is no hypocrisy. Taxes are not synonymous with war funds. If the only thing his taxes went for was to fund the war, then he would have to stop paying. I believe that the death penalty is immoral. Some of the taxes I pay go into the death penalty being enforced (thankfully Illinois just stopped them, so now I just fund national executions). By your argument, if you disagree with anything the government does, you should stop paying taxes because .00000000000000001 percent of what you pay in taxes helps to fund it. If that made sense, no one would ever pay taxes, because no one is ever in 100% agreement with the government.

A refusal to pay taxes will not stop those practices you disagree with. It won't have any impact on those programs being funded. The money that is earmarked for the war is going to go there no matter how much is collected in taxes. It's not dependent on how much is brought in. If necessary, we will go into debt to fund the war, but once it's approved by congress, it will be funded regardless of what's collected. They do, however, make cutbacks on education when the intake gets lower. I want education to be better funded, not less so. So what logical sense would it make to withhold taxes that will make no difference on what I want to change, but will negatively impact something that's important.

A better solution would be to only attack the thing that I have a problem with. Publicly protest against the war. Refuse to go if I'm drafted. Call and write my congressmen with my opinion on the war. Try to drum up support among my fellow citizens to stop it. Going to jail in sympathy would not help to advance my desired goal. It would only hurt my goal, as I would lose my political voice.

Something isn't hypocrisy just because you label it so. If you show consistency in your actions, it's not hypocritical. If in each case you make the decision that you believe will do the most for your cause, that's not hypocrisy.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Alistar7
a soldeir has no choice in this, as a soldier you FOLLOW orders, not decide, well I don't "personally" agree with this one. If you cannot fulfill your DUTY, don't enlist.
Please see both DoctorPizza's and my earlier posts about a soldier being required to not follow illegal orders. You can't refuse an order because you personally don't agree with it. You can refuse if you believe the order given to you is illegal. Your duty does not entail following illegal orders. Many enlist in the army because they want to defend their country. Saying don't enlist, means that you shouldn't enlist because there's the chance you may be given an illegal order. In that case no one should ever join.
Your argument is easier said then done. There are many times even supreme court has difficulty deciding what is legal and what is not. For example, this war, there are arguments from both sides but no body has the final say if this war is legal or not.

How do you expect every single soldier, many with only high school education to decide what is legal and what is not.

And if every single soldier can decide which order is legal and which is not, how do commanders make sure the orders are followed and executed? Just a simple example, order to shoot at any Iraqi car that comes close to a check point, to many people that would be illegal if the car is occupied by civilian. But if that order is not executed, how can check point be protected?

I don't agree with this war, but I do want our troop to finish fighting and go home safely. I hope the soldiers do not decide on their own on what order to follow, because if that is the case, people's life will be in danger.

I just hope the politicians will pay for the injustice that has already been done because of their greed.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Your perceived outcome is a farce. One soldier not fighting is not going to accomplish anything.
Yes it will. There will be one soldier who does not have Iraqi blood on his hands.

If you are calling for all soldiers to quit fighting then I call on everyone to quit paying taxes.
Which will still have no direct effect.

Equivalency, yes. Or are you going to tell me that no one paying taxes won't stop the war?
Not directly. I can't stop a soldier from fighting. A soldier can stop a soldier from fighting.

If you aren't willing to share the sacrifice then you are hypocrite and saying it's not possible to achieve the same result, without knowing what that result will be, is just the shrill rationalization of the hypocrite.
If you can demonstrate a mechanism by which I can prevent one soldier from going to fight then let me hear it. Until you do so, my going to prison and a soldier's going to prison are not equivalent.

Your calling for a soldier to give up his freedom and his means to support his family and I'm overstating it a bit. You're kidding me right.
He would give up neither, as he cannot be penalized for refusing to follow an illegal order.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY