Forums | MacLife

matt wrote:

Making a promise one does not intend to keep is immoral. Making a promise and then refusing to follow through with your end when you feel that the other party has not fulfilled its part or is acting immorally is not immoral. It is sound judgement.

They know when they sign up that there is a chance that may happen. If they feel they cant live up to following the rules of the .mil on how to deal with it, they should not sign up.

Tallgeese wrote:

I am amazed that you don't get the "volunteer" part of all this.
I'll try to make this as simple as possible so that you might comprehend it:

Don't make commitments to people or organizations that might require you to do things you don't like.

Furthermore, if you find something you do not like, fix it. Don't run away and put your head in the sand like a damn coward.

To require someone to do something immoral today because of a pledge they made yesterday when yesterday they did not know the party to whom they were making the pledge would do something immoral with it is crazy.

matt wrote:

To require someone to do something immoral today because of a pledge they made yesterday when yesterday they did not know the party to whom they were making the pledge would do something immoral with it is crazy.

...because the U.S. government has never used the military for immoral purposes before, ever. Totally unexpected event, it is.

matt wrote:

To require someone to do something immoral today because of a pledge they made yesterday when yesterday they did not know the party to whom they were making the pledge would do something immoral with it is crazy.

You ignore the alternatives besides running away.

Farmerkev wrote:

matt wrote:

To require someone to do something immoral today because of a pledge they made yesterday when yesterday they did not know the party to whom they were making the pledge would do something immoral with it is crazy.

You ignore the alternatives besides running away.

A lot of the guys who came to Canada insist that all legal alternatives were closed to them. It came down to participating in illegal and immoral acts or running away. Which would you choose?

Farmerkev wrote:

It certainly is in my opinion and the way I was raised.

If I contract an individual to assassinate someone, and that individual instead goes to the police, can I sue for breach of contract?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Is there any circumstance under which desertion is a reasonable choice? Any at all? Ever?

Sure. If you're drafted to fight an immoral war feel free to move to Canada.

And only under that circumstance????

Seriously?

The only one I could think of off the top of my head too.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Sure. If you're drafted to fight an immoral war feel free to move to Canada.

And only under that circumstance????

Seriously?

The only one I could think of off the top of my head too.

I really find that amazing.

Not to mention delusional.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

A lot of the guys who came to Canada insist that all legal alternatives were closed to them. It came down to participating in illegal and immoral acts or running away. Which would you choose?

If I really felt it was wrong I would refuse to participate and accept the responsibility for the consequences.
It's called standing for something.
It often has a price to be paid.

It seems as though soldiers are held to a much higher standard than anyone else.

They're just human beings, you know. Joe Shmoes. Faced with extremely difficult choices. And expected, apparently, to be supremely noble under any and all circumstances -- unlike anyone else in society.

I find it amazing how easily one can take a human being ordinarily lionized as some kind of knight, and turn 'em into villains for refusing to stay inside that image.

No, I hold everyone to that standard and judge them by it.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Is there any circumstance under which desertion is a reasonable choice? Any at all? Ever?

Sure. If you're drafted to fight an immoral war feel free to move to Canada.

And only under that circumstance????

Seriously?

Dunno. That's what I thought of first. Doesn't mean there aren't any other circumstances, just none I can think of at the moment.

I will say this, however - maybe you'll get it. matt sure hasn't:

All members of the U.S. armed forces signed up voluntarily. They have access to full historical writings on the affairs of the U.S. since its creation. They have access to the laws of the United States. The U.S. can and has legally used the military for purposes that many would consider immoral. If one does not want to accept this possibility, that one could be ordered to do things that one does not find moral but which are legal (for example, an unprovoked invasion of Iraq - or Iran for that matter), one should not sign up.

The terms of enlistment are spelled out very simply. Nobody has the option of fighting in Iraq as long as they are a threat, or the option of joining the Army as long as you only have to fight in Afghanistan and bailing if you get sent to Iraq. You sign up to serve at the order of Congress, the President, and those lawfully appointed over you. That's it. You may be ordered to do anything that Congress says is legal. It's all there, as are the consequences for violating that promise. If you don't accept the terms you are 100% free to not sign up. However, by signing, you are morally and legally obligated to follow those terms.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

We've already addressed the chain of command issue (and that includes the chaplain). In the examples I cited, the chain of command, up to very high levels, was deeply involved in covering up atrocities. As for elected officials, you must be joking. You seriously expect some douchebag in Congress to stick his neck out?

Which leaves the press.

What are the regulations about soldiers speaking to the press?

Off the top of my head, I do not know. I know classified info is out, sensitive info is out, and generally guessing beyond my job about the way things are going is out. Personally I prefer to avoid the press because they try to trip me up and twist my words.

Or better yet, let me put it this way: what if a superior officer orders a solider specifically not to talk to the press? Keeping in mind that the chain of command routinely tells junior people how to speak to the press (say this, don't say that).

So if your commanding officer says "keep your goddamned mouth shut and that's an order," what do you do?

Me? I am a stubborn fool. Just let some old ass general tell me to keep my god damned mouth shut.
The big problem is that some people are not willing to throw away their careers for it which usually means playing along.
There was the one helicopter pilot who pointed his huey's cannons at US troops to prevent them from massacring a village.
My point boils down to this: Don't run away. Illegal orders be damned. Get the story out.

Your point, by the way, about illegal orders being illegal, is useful, but only to a point. When illegal actions are routine, illegal orders are institutional, and it's all part of an illegal war, doesn't the whole concept become pretty absurd?

Yeah pretty much, when viewed that way. I can't do much better than make my little part of the world right.
Congress voted for the war, which makes it legal under our system of laws. As to whether the war was legal per international standards I will not get into here.

matt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

matt wrote:

bullsmurf.

I just don't believe that someone gives up his morality by signing a piece of paper.

You are arguing that I believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, and that is not the case.

I am the one arguing from a point of morality. You are arguing from a point of legality.

You're arguing morality when you call an obligation a "piece of paper"? No, you don't care about the morality of keeping oaths. You clearly do believe that going back on one's word is acceptable, you've been arguing it this entire time.

I don't believe that oaths have any bearing on morality. They're ceremonial things. Morality is not ceremonial. Morality is internal to the individual. Making a promise one does not intend to keep is immoral. Making a promise and then refusing to follow through with your end when you feel that the other party has not fulfilled its part or is acting immorally is not immoral. It is sound judgement.

If I make a contract with you, I should be required to fulfill that contract or forfeit any benefits you may be offering. I am not against requiring those who leave the military to return any benefits they may have received for work not done.

Tallgeese wrote:

The U.S. has, in its past, used the military for actions that some people think are immoral though they were entirely legal. Anyone who signs up for the military should be aware of this and accepting of that possibility. Anyone who signs up for the military also is aware that the consequences for desertion may include imprisonment.

The military should not legally be given that power.

Tallgeese wrote:

This isn't a difficult thing, here. If you think that a contract is just "a piece of paper" and that you shouldn't have to do things you really don't want to, then don't smurfing sign up. Nobody is making you do it.
You act like this guy was drafted.

It's a difficult thing if you have the ability to think independently and without relying of the thoughts of someone else to determine one's morality.

I don't believe I ever mentioned a draft.

I said that if a party to which I have made a commitment chooses to use my commitment to do something I feel is immoral, I no longer feel any need to fulfill my end of that commitment, and no need to fulfill any punishment such party might which to use against me.

I am amazed that you would attempt to make an argument that I am arguing from an immoral perspective.

Moral: Do not make any oaths, or sign any contracts with Matt.