Why do pacifists join the U.S. military?

[xyyz]

<< Just found out that someone I know, another Air Force officer, is a pacifist. That pisses me off. How can I expect this person to "support and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" when this officer has an avowed aversion to violence? It's that kind of person who claims CO status when a conflict starts, just like happened after Sept. 11th. In an all volunteer force, they should NOT be given honorable discharges. >>



there are alot of other positions other than fighting positions on the military... think about all the logistics... besides... other than pilots and spec ops... what other airforce personal really engage in combat?

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< BTW, don't bother saying I have no idea what I'm talking about. My father is an ex American citizen and fought in the Vietnam War and my grandfathers were in WWII. I have heard many a story about what goes on in the army, and I hardly doubt the type of individual has changed much in 30 years. >>



The very statement itself proves your ignorance.

We have moved into two distinctive topic here. The original topic was about someones sudden decision to be an objector and now many of you are confusing that with the responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders. They are two distinct areas and should not be intertwined.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< BTW, don't bother saying I have no idea what I'm talking about. My father is an ex American citizen and fought in the Vietnam War and my grandfathers were in WWII. I have heard many a story about what goes on in the army, and I hardly doubt the type of individual has changed much in 30 years. >>



The very statement itself proves your ignorance.

We have moved into two distinctive topic here. The original topic was about someones sudden decision to be an objector and now many of you are confusing that with the responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders. They are two distinct areas and should not be intertwined. >>



No....read my post again....PrinceofWands spotted it....the part that begins "Likewise, if you don't agree with the cause...."

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< No....read my post again....PrinceofWands spotted it....the part that begins "Likewise, if you don't agree with the cause...." >>



I have read it several times. I don't think I need to amend any of my posts.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Actually I didn't say anything about illegal orders, although those would definately be right out. I was talking more about entire campaigns which run counter to 'American' ways, compared with the intent of the Constitution. For instance, refusing to take part in dumping waste before making port or in covering up the dumping of waste (which every ship does by the way, just like planes). Refusing to serve on an Aegis class cruiser due to the ecologic impact of their active radar pulse and VLF equipment. Refusing to serve on Nuke subs due to the use of open seawater for cooling. These things could not really be deemed 'illegal orders' (well, maybe the dumping, not sure about international laws on that one), but they are wrong and should be opposed. That's more what I was referring to, just for clarification.

 

[Dually]

Thats so not right. I expect someone in the military to defend their country not just willingly but to the death. I think all Americans should be willing to defend the country.

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< . Refusing to serve on Nuke subs due to the use of open seawater for cooling >>



You are dead wrong. Period. End of conversation. Don't post things if you don't know if they are true. I will assume you said that out of ignorance and that it wasn't just a malicious lie. And don't think I don't know what I am talking about, I have served on subs my entire career- USS Florida, USS Pennsylvania, USS Louisiana and Submarine Squadron 20. Your 2 yrs. worth of experience at CINCLant as a YN/PN SN does not make you a subject matter expert.

 

[Cyberian]

<< Actually I didn't say anything about illegal orders, although those would definately be right out. I was talking more about entire campaigns which run counter to 'American' ways, compared with the intent of the Constitution. >>

Does each individual soldier get to decide what the "American way" and the "intent of the Constitution" is?

"No, Sir, I won't cut that tree down to construct a barricade. There might be a great horny owl living there"

 

[PrinceofWands]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! First of all, yes I think every human has the capability of deciding for themselves if something is acceptable or not.

Now, as for the classification thing...as I've said numerous times, the United States government can suck my hairy butt. I've served with dignity during a time of war, working my rear end off 16-20 hours a day, constantly upholding the highest standards, not only military but personal as well. I have EXTENSIVE exposure to the United States classification system and it is WRONG! I object to it and I will not support it. I will ABSOLUTELY post anything TRUE that does not DIRECTLY jeopardize peoples lives. The whole 'American way of life' BS is WRONG and I won't be a part of it. If the US wants me for releasing classified TRUTHS, then they can bloody well come get me.

 

[skace]

I'd just like to disagree with the whole misconception that people who want leadership roles do not go into the military. My brother is an Ex-marine as is my Boss. When either of these people speak, you listen. That simple. As marines they hold themselves proud and speak with commanding voices, a lot easier to follow them than some 2-bit dork who can't form half a sentence. If anything, the military taught them how to lead. My brother is a cop now, he gets jobs pretty damn easily due to his ex-marine background.

If you think military roles don't teach people how to become leaders or think as individuals, you are wrong. It is true that marines are taught to react without thinking and are desensitized to violence, but they also learn to think on their own and become independent outside of combat. A good marine would be damn good in any leadership position IMO.

 

[Jzero]

<< I have read it several times. I don't think I need to amend any of my posts. >>



Then you have missed the point.

I'm also not sure I agree with PrinceofWands' second post. I guess an environmental concern is a reason to be a CO during peacetime, but that's not what I'm talking about.

If you are serving in the military, you took an oath similar to the USMC oath I posted above. You swore to follow orders and defend the constitution. It does not mean that you swore to uphold what you consider to be aggressive or imperialistic actions. In other words, if you feel that the US is unjustified in staging a pseudo-war in Afghanistan, you are a CO (not necessarily a coward). You don't feel that the operation constiutes defending the constitution, you're going to be a liability on the battlefield because you're fighting for the wrong reason, even if the rest of the force is fighting for the right reason.
Why do you want to keep people like this around against their will?
If I was in any branch of the military and one day we decided, completely uprovoked, to annex Mexico, would I be a coward if I said "This isn't right and I want no part of it?" Heck. I'd say it takes a good deal of guts to set aside all that you trained for and telling your commanding officer this.

 

[Moonbeam]

They kill us and so we kill them which means that they have to kill us and so we kill them and then they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them and they kill us and we kill them.

Occassionally somebody may come along and say, "This ain't working."

Would that make them cowards?

 

[AndrewR]

Funny, but I thought that free speech, no matter how moronic, was a basic right and therefore you'd be all for it.

Free speech is a right, though it should be exercised with intelligence. The comment posted above implying that all those in the military are "unintelligent meatheads" is about as idiotic as they come. As a perceptive person, you should easily be able to see the truth in that assessment.

("Get out of my service". Ummmm....okay. Last time I checked you were a Navy Reservist lawyer or something of the sort????????????? NOT Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? But hey, I've been away awhile.... who knows.)

I am now on active duty with the Air Force though currently at tech school and should pin on Captain shortly. It is "my service" in the sense that I serve in it and have sworn to execute the mission of the service up to and including sacrificing my life for it. I claim no overriding control over it -- that's your reading into my statement.

Isn't the ULTIMATE GOAL of a soldier is to defend PEACE and JUSTICE? I don't see what the conflict is here. If someone who joined to just "shoot people", then they should repeat 3rd grade.

See, that's what the idiot liberals want to make the military into or what they PERCEIVE (wrongly) the purpose the military to be. To quote the oft-used phrase, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Period. Any other use of the military (peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, etc.) is a secondary mission for which the military is poorly equipped and trained. A MILITARY FORCE IS NOT A POLICE FORCE NOR THE PEACE CORPS. Until liberals understand that, we will have people dying in such places as Somalia and Bosnia (weren't we supposed to leave there Christmas 1995?). Any overarching goals, such as peace, justice and the American way, are those of the governmental organization which directs the military, NOT of the military itself. We train to fight and to kill. Deal with it.

IMO, this is the reason why some people hate Americans. Many times, we don't fight wars for the right reasons.

We fight wars in our national interest, as do all countries on the face of the earth and all countries, peoples, and nations which have existed since the beginning of time. International politics demands such actions because the results of an altruistic foreign policy can be seen in the results of Jimmy Carter's presidency. He is a great man, but he was a lousy President.

You fly planes from above the enemy.You never see the faces nor the damage.

Bullsh|t. Plain and simple. Ever hear of FACs? Ever hear of PJs, CCTs, and SOF pilots? I direly hope to fall into the latter section, at least in an Intelligence capacity. I also can vouch for a fact that people in my field do witness firsthand the results of battle. I am not a grunt, but in no way does that mean I am in some way isolated from war (speaking theoretically at this point, of course). SOF go nowhere, in most cases, without a USAF asset carrying them.

Yes SIR I would love to meet this guy friend of yours.

Bad assumption. Female officer.

Now, while it does specifically say to obey the orders of your superiors, however I believe the code of military justice is where it also says that if your superiors are off their cabooses, that it's your business to not obey. If your superior said to line up all the Jews and start killing them, you'd get in a lot of trouble later on.

BTW, that's not the Marine Corps oath, that's the military's oath of enlistment (which I did take when I contracted into ROTC, incidentally -- then subsequently took the officer oath when commissioned). In any event, the key aspect which you allude to is that the given order from a superior must be LAWFUL. Woe be it to the junior person who decides that an order is unlawful when it in fact is not. It is not the place of an Army private (nor an Air Force 2Lt) to decide that a certain action taken by the Commander in Chief is unlawful when the rest of the government and the majority of the nation agree with the CINC.

Don't get me wrong, I think it takes a lot courage to fight in a war, I just don't think that deserves to be placed on a pedestal above other careers. And yes, I have friends in the Canadian Military who basically sum up my "meathead" comment. One guy in particular gets amusement out of getting wasted and heat butting trees. Go figure why he joined the military.

It takes more courage and conviction to enter into a job where you risk your life than it does to push paper around an office, where the worst thing that can happen is you are fired or laid off. Those with hazardous jobs deserve respect for the job that they do so that you don't have to or so that you can enjoy the benefits which result. Police officers take on the criminal element every day, an element which is often better armed and perfectly willing to use deadly force to escape the law. Those in the military train for the day that they will enter hostile territory and face an enemy intent on killing them. You have enjoyed the freedoms you do today and the guarantee of those freedoms in the future because people fought and died, are fighting now, or will fight in the future. If you do not recognize that sacrifice, you denigrate their sacrifice and their memory.

what other airforce personal really engage in combat?

Security Forces, anyone on a forward airfield, FACs. Yes, there are a great many positions in the ENTIRE military (the support train the Army and the Marine Corps is long) which have little chance of seeing combat, but the presence of a person UNWILLING whatsoever to take part in offensive operations forces someone else in the military to take their place. Or, if they are forced by circumstance to defend themselves and their buddies but do not, they are a detriment and a liability.

 

[AndrewR]

Hence, if the government undertakes an action I feel is against the spirit of the Constitution it is my duty to refuse to participate.

Frankly, non-flag rank officers and non-very senior enlisted (and even then you could say "all enlisted") are not paid to make judgments about the "spirit of the Constitution". You are a Constitutional scholar? Legal expert? AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS? Hardly.

First of all, yes I think every human has the capability of deciding for themselves if something is acceptable or not.

No military could ever hope to survive if every person within it always judged for themselves the efficacy or wisdom of each of their orders. Key in on "knowing the facts". Every human has the capability, but every servicemen does not have the luxury nor the right.

 

[Cyberian]

<< In other words, if you feel that the US is unjustified in staging a pseudo-war in Afghanistan, you are a CO (not necessarily a coward). You don't feel that the operation constiutes defending the constitution, you're going to be a liability on the battlefield because you're fighting for the wrong reason, even if the rest of the force is fighting for the right reason.
>>

This is what I was trying to get at before in my reply to PrinceofWands. It would get pretty hairy if every soldier got to decide in which 'war' he would fight or in what particular campaign he would participate.
I think that if someone wants to make those decisions on a case by case basis, then they should not be in the military to begin with.

 

[Moonbeam]

"No military could ever hope to survive if every person within it always judged for themselves the efficacy or wisdom of each of their orders."

Hum, I wonder if that means there is hope? Help me out.

If not it doesn't seem to imply much confidence in the quality of 'orders'.

 

[Pennstate]

"that's what the idiot liberals want to make the military into or what they PERCEIVE (wrongly) the purpose the military to be. To quote the oft-used phrase, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Period. Any other use of the military (peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, etc.) is a secondary mission for which the military is poorly equipped and trained. A MILITARY FORCE IS NOT A POLICE FORCE NOR THE PEACE CORPS. Until liberals understand that, we will have people dying in such places as Somalia and Bosnia (weren't we supposed to leave there Christmas 1995?). Any overarching goals, such as peace, justice and the American way, are those of the governmental organization which directs the military, NOT of the military itself. We train to fight and to kill. Deal with it."

Hmm, you don't seem to understand. The Role of the military may be to kill or destroy. But the GOAL is peace. The Military is a tool for peace in many instances. WE fought WWII for PEACE.

 

[AndrewR]

The Role of the military may be to kill or destroy. But the GOAL is peace. The Military is a tool for peace in many instances. WE fought WWII for PEACE.

Many fought WWII for revenge.

It's a dangerous road that you're traveling. The political goal is set by the government. The MISSION of the military is different. The MISSION is: secure the airfield, destroy that tank, bomb the radar facility, guard the embassy. The military is decidely separate from political decisions because we, as a nation, have learned from the past when militaries were given wide influence in political affairs (and still are in many areas of the world). The result? One simple phrase will suffice: coup d'etat.

In any event, another PROFOUND justification for the reasoning behind my position is that the military trains for war. We are trained to fight, to kill, and to conquer. With the exception of a very small percentage of the force, we are not trained to be policemen or to be country builders or relief workers. There are no courses in how to hand out food packets -- we learn marksmanship. There is no part of the course I am in which deals with nation building -- we talk about vulnerabilities of air defense systems and how to destroy them. The bottomline is that we train to fight and win wars, not to promote peace.

 

[kepnachhouse]

violence is bad, your all putting your faith in something that is wrong....idiots