Forums | MacLife

Perhaps he would be receptive to changing the oath of the armed services to something along these lines:

"On my honor I will do my best to help myself and cheat the rest"

Jdude wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

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

That is what I read into it. His morals seem to be based on what is individually and immediately best for him, regardless of any agreements in the past or potential agreements in the future.

My morality does not change, but my loyalty and feeling of obligation change when others do immoral things.

matt wrote:

Jdude wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

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

That is what I read into it. His morals seem to be based on what is individually and immediately best for him, regardless of any agreements in the past or potential agreements in the future.

My morality does not change, but my loyalty and feeling of obligation change when others do immoral things.

Well with  random loyalty and desire not to follow through on things previously agreed to doesnt make a good soldier, so it is wise not to sign up. However, that doesnt mean the .mil should be forced to accept the whims of such morally broken people consequence free.

Chickenhawk wrote:

From what I understand by how the military works, if this guy refused to do something which was distasteful, immoral, and / or against military rules, then he might not have even suffered any punishment. That makes the reason why he deserted seem like something other than morality.

It is supposed to work that way. The only thing I saw that might apply is a person who became a conscientious objector while in the box. He was required to continue to carry around a firearm (for uniformity purposes, generally), but denied ammunition. He couldn't work at most jobs because almost all of them theoretically could involve the risk of force. I think he ended up on the smurf burning detail after bouncing around to see who could work him because there was not much else he could do.

*smurf burning detail
Take 1 55 gallon drum, half full of smurf
take 5 gallons of diesel
Ass 1 long pole
Stir thoroughly.
Set ablaze.
Stir thoroughly.
Set ablaze again, getting any smurf you missed.
A lovely aroma will penetrate your clothing and will not ever wash out. People who get stuck on this detail trash or burn their clothes. Always.

matt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Perhaps he would be receptive to changing the oath of the armed services to something along these lines:

"On my honor I will do my best to help myself and cheat the rest"

It is ironic that the rest of you argue that I am immoral.

You are arguing that one should continue to act on behalf of the military when it is used to do immoral things.

You are the ones whose morality should be questioned. You argue that loyalty should be held above morality.

I have argued no such thing.
If you feel that part of your contract is immoral, fix it. Walking away is not the solution.

So why would signing a contract be moral but following it be immoral?

Tallgeese wrote:

So why would signing a contract be moral but following it be immoral?

If a soldier signs a contract intending to protect his country and then under contract is told to commit an action which involves something like torture or the killing of innocent people, or action which enables those who will commit such actions, then the contract was signed for a moral reason but following the contract would be immoral.

matt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So why would signing a contract be moral but following it be immoral?

If a soldier signs a contract intending to protect his country and then under contract is told to commit an action which involves something like torture or the killing of innocent people, or action which enables those who will commit such actions, then the contract was signed for a moral reason but following the contract would be immoral.

The contract says to not follow those orders and report those actions to:
- the chain of command
- IG
- Congress

All moral options. If the person feels quitting is the only option, they get ti accept the consequences of doing so.

Running away is in no way a moral choice, and people who are doing it are using morality as a weak rationalization to mislead those who are not inquisitive enough to see the obvious truth.

Steyr AUG wrote:

matt wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So why would signing a contract be moral but following it be immoral?

If a soldier signs a contract intending to protect his country and then under contract is told to commit an action which involves something like torture or the killing of innocent people, or action which enables those who will commit such actions, then the contract was signed for a moral reason but following the contract would be immoral.

The contract says to not follow those orders and report those actions to:
- the chain of command
- IG
- Congress

All moral options. If the person feels quitting is the only option, they get ti accept the consequences of doing so.

Running away is in no way a moral choice, and people who are doing it are using morality as a weak rationalization to mislead those who are not inquisitive enough to see the obvious truth.

Why, I'd even say that the choices to either obey such orders or to run away vice reporting them would be [i]immoral/i] actions, since they would only get the coward out of the war zone and leave the abuse to continue.

everlong205 wrote:

Was this guy actually given orders to torture or kill innocent people, or did he bolt before even setting foot in Iraq?
His stance assumes of course that all soliders in Iraq are torturers and killers of innocent people and that orders to torture and kill are routine and merely setting foot in Iraq would mean he would have to torture and kill innocent people as a matter of course.

To renege on said contract without even being subjected to said hypothetical is just dishonest and frankly insulting to the thousands of soldiers in Iraq now who have not killed innocent people let alone tortured them based on orders from up high.

according to the story quoted no. He apparently was in tank training when he came to his conclusion

His perspective changed while in training at the army base at Fort Knox. After hearing that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq, Mr. Long thought the U.S. had no reason for being at war.

Caroline Christiaens, a lawyer with the federal Department of Justice, told the court that Mr. Long voluntarily joined the army, was not deployed to Iraq and did not apply to be recognized as a conscientious objector while in the United States.

No evidence was submitted on what Mr. Long would be required to do in Iraq, whether he could have requested an alternative assignment or even what would happen if he was sent back to the United States, she said..

Yes I understand this war is terribly wrong on many different levels.
However when you are in the military you give up the right to pick and choose your job.
If you feel so strongly against the refuse  to deploy and face the music

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0 … -iraq-war/

This I can respect and sympathize with

matt wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

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.

Refusing to infringe on humans' right of self-determination would check, and would be the only check, to wanton military action.

You say "the consequences of our self-determination" and completely ignore that most military members would not exercise said self-determination were the military action just.

Humans would be (and are) exercising their self-determination in response to another action that must have its own consequences. Humans actions are the response. Humans actions are the consequences of unjust action, consequences which you argue against.

No, I am simply pointing out that no one can limit which actions other humans also are free to make, including prosecuting another for deserting the army etc. You have the freedom to do what you want- others have the freedom to do what they want, including reacting negatively towards your own decisions. Freedom does not come in with a safety net, it can be a dangerous thing.

StaticAge wrote:

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?

No.

StaticAge wrote:

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?

Morality is not nobility.

Signing on to protect one's country and refusing to participate in the invasion and occupation of another are two distinct things in my mind. If they are not distinct in yours, I both pity and fear you.

Spare me the drama- I would take a bullet, a hanging, etc before I would kill another person in the name of my country. It has nothing to do with nobility, it has to do with standing up for what I believe in. If I am going to be free, I am going to embrace my choices knowing full well I may die for them.

No doubt, soldiers have free will to desert or to do anything else the laws of physics permits, but they have no security net underneath them if they want to by their own free will jump off a cliff. Similarly, they dont get one when they disobey orders either. Thats the way it works, and they knew that when they signed on.

Not only that, but you are acting as if the military in general is always some passive reaction to home invasion- since when? It is not up to the soldiers what  their commanders are allowed to do or not to do since they operate under the authority of the majority of the people of the nation who elected their CIC into office.

StaticAge wrote:

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?

Should the military be used to further a nation's *goals*?

Military should be used for defense, even if for the defense of allies. Using it for other purposes is immoral.

Sounds like something to address and reform at the level of politics, because thats not how it works. Military structure is top down- thats how they get goals acheived even at great losses sometimes, because the choices made have to stay in place even when everyone is dying. If some idiot signs up for the armed forces not knowing that, its really their own stupidity to blame.