Forums | MacLife

KBR food rules.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

No soldier is required to carry out illegal actions.
There are avenues to take besides running away.

I ask again: what if those avenues lead nowhere?

document and report
repeat as needed until someone listens
after all Abu Ghraib got out

but running away and whining is definitely not the correct way to handle it

Last edited by davic3 (2008-07-15 8:33 pm)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Are there any other "contracts" that offer criminal prosecution in the event of said contract being broken?

Because lots of people have contracts, including with the Federal Government. Do they face jail time for breaking those contracts? Or, at worst, civil proceedings?

What makes the military different?

Stop paying your cell phone bill and watch what happens.  Or go drive without insurance.

You've seriously never heard of lawsuits for breach of contract?

those are the terms of those contracts
If I don't pay my insurance it states in the contract I willfully signed that I can be sued by the company.When someonjoins the army the cont they willfully sign states if you run away you may be put in prison
there is no big seceret here

Last edited by davic3 (2008-07-15 9:59 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

matt wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

They cannot afford to have scores of soldiers deserting them at the onset of war.

Why should the needs of the military be considered?

Wow, what a great, unanswerable question! Why indeed should the needs of the military be considered when discussing a contract with the military?

Wow, what a great, complete misunderstanding or complete misrepresentation of what you read!

Military acts as a branch of government and as a business. Of course those running it have desires which they believe must be important.

I still contend that a country which can't keep its military employment up is either not worth defending or is using its military in ways which would likely be considered unjust. While the military would love to (and is currently allowed to) prosecute people for abandonment, the desire of the military to do so should not be held above people's right of self-determination or right not to take part in action which is morally-unjust or supportive of action that is morally-unjust.

Fighting a war and then occupying a country which bore no threat to this one is not part of what should be considered appropriate military action.

And holding the desire of the military above people's rights is not part of what a supposedly free country should be doing.

War for fun and profit has nothing to do with the protection of this country, and while I believe in the concept of self-determination, the argument should especially be made when the government wants you to act not in the country's defense but in an act of offense.

matt wrote:

I still contend that a country which can't keep its military employment up is either not worth defending or is using its military in ways which would likely be considered unjust. While the military would love to (and is currently allowed to) prosecute people for abandonment, the desire of the military to do so should not be held above people's right of self-determination or right not to take part in action which is morally-unjust or supportive of action that is morally-unjust.

Fighting a war and then occupying a country which bore no threat to this one is not part of what should be considered appropriate military action.

And holding the desire of the military above people's rights is not part of what a supposedly free country should be doing.

War for fun and profit has nothing to do with the protection of this country, and while I believe in the concept of self-determination, the argument should especially be made when the government wants you to act not in the country's defense but in an act of offense.

Being prosecuted for leaving the military shouldnt affect that. Just because we will our own acts freely and are thereby accountable for them doesnt mean that we get off free from having to face consequences of our self determination.

If people have the moral stomach to sign on to help our government forcibly end foreigners lives for certain reasons but not others, arent we already on a rather slippery slope of what is moral and what is not? And while we are on the subject of self determination and moral culpability, how noble is it to run away from the problem instead of facing it head on, standing one's ground for refusing to follow orders and serving as a testament to their precious moral dilemma? If someone is ready to sacrifice their own life in pursuit of their nation's goals but not their own moral stance they take in defiance of what they perceive to be the wrong goals, then why should anyone else defend this so-called "stance" of abandonment?

matt wrote:

I still contend that a country which can't keep its military employment up is either not worth defending or is using its military in ways which would likely be considered unjust. While the military would love to (and is currently allowed to) prosecute people for abandonment, the desire of the military to do so should not be held above people's right of self-determination or right not to take part in action which is morally-unjust or supportive of action that is morally-unjust.

They still have self determination, they can do anything they want to, including running away. However, self determination does not mean freedom from consequences, and when someone volunteers of their own free will join the .mil then later decides that they would rather suck their thumb whilst hiding in a closet than do the job they were paid to do, they have to face the consequences of their actions.

Fighting a war and then occupying a country which bore no threat to this one is not part of what should be considered appropriate military action.

When they get to the level of command that affords them the ability to make those decisions, then they can dictate what appropriate military action is. Not before then.

And holding the desire of the military above people's rights is not part of what a supposedly free country should be doing.

There is no right to have actions free from consequences.

:: has lunch with bratboy ::

Jdude wrote:

Which is why desertion is still punishable by death.


It is one thing to run away from a draft, but a different thing entirely when one volunteers.
"Once you're in, you're in" is partly true. The initial enlistment contract is for 8 years. People sign, see "2 years active" or "4 years active" and totally ignore the next paragraph which says although you may not be on active duty, for 8 years from your initial enlistment you are subject to recall.

8 years, eh? That's enough time for patriotic sentiment to be replaced by bitter cynicism. That's enough time for the President to foolishly start another war.

DON"T JOIN THE MILITARY.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Yeah, that was poorly worded. I meant to state that they faced civil proceedings at worst, not ask.

Oh, good. I was afraid that you'd crossed the line from being merely wrong to being retarded.

jerwin wrote:

Jdude wrote:

Which is why desertion is still punishable by death.


It is one thing to run away from a draft, but a different thing entirely when one volunteers.
"Once you're in, you're in" is partly true. The initial enlistment contract is for 8 years. People sign, see "2 years active" or "4 years active" and totally ignore the next paragraph which says although you may not be on active duty, for 8 years from your initial enlistment you are subject to recall.

8 years, eh? That's enough time for patriotic sentiment to be replaced by bitter cynicism. That's enough time for the President to foolishly start another war.

DON"T JOIN THE MILITARY.

OH NOEZ TEH ARMY GOZ TO WAR ZOMG BACON CHEEZBURGERS

Hell the president can start (and finish) a war in the course of a few minutes, no cynicism necessary.

If Bratboy does not mind I would also like to join for lunch.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

No soldier is required to carry out illegal actions.
There are avenues to take besides running away.

I ask again: what if those avenues lead nowhere?

The IG is fairly independent, and will normally investigate.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

When this smurf gets covered up, and "legal" but brutal smurf happens all the time, let's face it, there's only one way out for someone unable or unwilling to participate in such things.

Yes, stand up for what you believe in like a smurfing man.