Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Metacell wrote:

But why is it nonsense?  We all know from history that the militaries of all nations are guilty of far worse crimes than any racketeering outfit.  Is the badge of state all it takes to distinguish the path of valor from that of profiteering?

I have a question too: if you get out of the mafia, what moral logic does one use to deal with the people sent out to snuff you? Lets say you are a really small fish, not too much to offer in any way that your testimony is valuable for the government to deal for it, but pretty bad enough that your absence is definitely noticed.

"You cant shoot me- I am a free moral agent!!"

Heh, I hadn't thought of that response. Also, I was more expecting this to come in the form of an Al Qaeda member surrendering to U.S. forces and being told to get back and finish his obligation to Al Qaeda...

In either case, it's stupid. A more apt comparison would be if the wise guy were to come to the police and say "I want out! I was fine being a hit man, running numbers, helping with the prostitution ring... but my next hit was going to be Charlie up the street and I used to get the best sandwiches at his deli!" or the terrorist to say "I was okay in Al Qaeda as long as I was just blowing up the white devils but now they want me to blow up the mosque where my friend Ahmed goes!"

If the mafioso were to come to the police and renounce organized crime, he should be accepted. If the mad bomber were to come to the U.S. forces and renounce terrorism that would be a moral act.
...just like if an American soldier were to become a conscientious objector, renouncing the morality of serving in the military, he would be allowed to and it would be a moral position to take.

Ah, so he's allowed to, but its bad because he should accept the consequences head-on, just like the ex-mafioso who is making the right decision but should accept the hitman's bullet with honor, rather than seeking the protection of say, a witness protection program, like some kind of snitch, rat, wuss, or fink.

Well, probably not, it was all fairly abstract, but I got some kind of analogy along the lines of  "Hey, I was all for fighting enemy soldiers, but when they started asking me to shoot entire families of civilians and burn down their homes, I had a change of heart," that I felt was meant to imply that we attach certain levels of sentimental attachment to different types of people.

Or was that the problem...we should not discriminate?

Anyway, not trying to put words in your mouth, nor thoughts in anyones head.  Just exploring.

But I am not on this persons side, I'm only on the side of personal autonomy in as many situations as possible.  It may be the guy is a complete wiener who deserves to be, court-marshaled, drawn, and quartered.  I don't want worse case scenario deciding the issue for everybody else!  If this was a verdict based on an impartial jury with fair representation for both parties, I'm OK with it.  I am not even trying to stand up for this guy, just for my future selves.

I'm more interested in the philosophy behind this morality and legality of contracts and the extent to which it goes.  I just wonder how much power (over myself) my signature holds and how far that can be used against me.

At least he didn't run away like a coward!

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I think the Tillman case illustrates what might happen to someone who is genuinely interested in entering the fight but is frustrated by counterproductive leadership at the highest levels. Fragged.

By George W Bush himself no doubt.

You learn well, my son.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I think the Tillman case illustrates what might happen to someone who is genuinely interested in entering the fight but is frustrated by counterproductive leadership at the highest levels. Fragged.

By George W Bush himself no doubt.

More likely, Dick Cheney.

Here's an interesting look at what a potential recruit might face. This is some people's idea of a contract with the military.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/ … 16366.html

So Gonzales signed up – but only to “pre-enlist” in the Delayed Entry Program.  DEP allows kids to try out the military without a binding commitment.

But the 11 News Defenders have found there is a problem: Army recruiters aren’t sticking to the program and are bullying and even lying to potential recruits and their families to keep them from dropping out.   

After he had a change of heart, Gonzalez became one such victim.

“I’d rather just stay here, go to college,” he said he told his recruiter.

The reaction: Gonzalez said a recruiter told him if he did drop out, they would send him to jail.

Scared, Gonzales called Sgt. Glenn Marquette, a supervisor at the Greenspoint Recruiting Station.

Marquette told Gonzales there was no way out.

“You signed a binding contract,” he said.

But that wasn’t true.

...

Army recruiting regulations say delayed entry members can leave any time. They specifically mention “under no circumstances will any (recruiter) threaten, coerce, manipulate, or intimidate (future soldiers), nor may they obstruct separation requests.”

Further, they state: “At no time will any (recruiter) tell a (Delayed Entry Program) member he or she must go in the Army or he or she will go to jail.”

But when Gonzales asked Marquette what would happen if he just didn’t show up for service, a phone recording captured this reply:

“Then guess what?” said Marquette. “You’re AWOL. Absent without leave. You want to go to school? You will not get no loans, because all college loans are federal and government loans. So you’ll be black barred from that. As soon as you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, they’re gonna see you’re a deserter, they’re going to apprehend you, take you to jail.”

Marquette continued: “So guess what? All that lovey-dovey 'I wanna go to college' and all that? Guess what? You just threw it out the window, because you just screwed your life.”

I wonder for how many recruits that tactic has worked.

Now there's a contract worth smurf.  I'd say if someone wanted to persuade me to stay in the service, they better come up with a more compelling argument than waving a contract in front of me.

Blather on, Shnookums

Mr. Long, who fled to Ontario in 2005, had signed up to join the U.S. Army in July, 2003. He believed at that time that his country was justified in going to war in Iraq

Ribtorus wrote:

I've often pondered the nature of my major malfunction, but to no avail.

Absence of honour, clearly.

I find it terribly interesting that ribby's comments are being ignored by so many people.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Here's an interesting look at what a potential recruit might face. This is some people's idea of a contract with the military.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/ … 16366.html

So Gonzales signed up – but only to “pre-enlist” in the Delayed Entry Program.  DEP allows kids to try out the military without a binding commitment.

But the 11 News Defenders have found there is a problem: Army recruiters aren’t sticking to the program and are bullying and even lying to potential recruits and their families to keep them from dropping out.   

After he had a change of heart, Gonzalez became one such victim.

“I’d rather just stay here, go to college,” he said he told his recruiter.

The reaction: Gonzalez said a recruiter told him if he did drop out, they would send him to jail.

Scared, Gonzales called Sgt. Glenn Marquette, a supervisor at the Greenspoint Recruiting Station.

Marquette told Gonzales there was no way out.

“You signed a binding contract,” he said.

But that wasn’t true.

...

Army recruiting regulations say delayed entry members can leave any time. They specifically mention “under no circumstances will any (recruiter) threaten, coerce, manipulate, or intimidate (future soldiers), nor may they obstruct separation requests.”

Further, they state: “At no time will any (recruiter) tell a (Delayed Entry Program) member he or she must go in the Army or he or she will go to jail.”

But when Gonzales asked Marquette what would happen if he just didn’t show up for service, a phone recording captured this reply:

“Then guess what?” said Marquette. “You’re AWOL. Absent without leave. You want to go to school? You will not get no loans, because all college loans are federal and government loans. So you’ll be black barred from that. As soon as you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, they’re gonna see you’re a deserter, they’re going to apprehend you, take you to jail.”

Marquette continued: “So guess what? All that lovey-dovey 'I wanna go to college' and all that? Guess what? You just threw it out the window, because you just screwed your life.”

I wonder for how many recruits that tactic has worked.

Now there's a contract worth smurf.  I'd say if someone wanted to persuade me to stay in the service, they better come up with a more compelling argument than waving a contract in front of me.

SHUT UP YOU DISHONOURABLE CONTRACT-BREAKING TOAD

I ran into a person who this happened to. He was lead to believe that on the first day he would be making roughly the same pay as the recruiter who had 10-12 years seniority and a few promotions.

The Army (which individual, specifically I do not know) approached him after he had been in for 6 months or so (basic training completed, in the unit for a few months) and offered him a complete and total out with no ill will or repercussions because he had been brought in under false pretenses. They also allowed him to renegotiate his contract or keep the one that had. The soldier renegotiated a better deal, as I recall.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I find it terribly interesting that ribby's comments are being ignored by so many people.

They aren't.
They just aren't pertinent to the point you're so desperately trying and failing to make.

I consider incompetence or bad faith by the leadership, at any point of the term of the contract to release me, ethically, from my end of the bargain. How I go about that release may involve difficult choices. Then again, it might be easy.