Deserters
- Thread starter paul_valaru
- Start date
Winky
Well-Known Member
Re: any attempt at discourse with Flamio.
Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the
difference.
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Never argue with an idiot, listeners may not notice the difference.
or perhaps
Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway?
I mean, all you get is that one trick, rational thinking,
but when you're good and crazy, well, the sky's the limit!
and lastly
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the
difference.
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Never argue with an idiot, listeners may not notice the difference.
or perhaps
Isn't sanity just a one-trick pony anyway?
I mean, all you get is that one trick, rational thinking,
but when you're good and crazy, well, the sky's the limit!
and lastly
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
unclehobart
New Member
If a soldier has a truly meaningful objection to an act or direction of a military incident (Abu-Ghirab, per se) the primary recourse is to refuse to carry out the order. A soldier has the right to refuse an unlawful order. These over the top genocide scenarios of poisoning and slitting the throats of babies are a prime example. They are against the basic protocols of war, modern humanity sensitivities, and the UCMJ. Such orders to commit 'atrocities' usually come from the very local level where the chain of command has broken down under stress, anger, or an overwhelming adrenal sense of revenge. These illegal orders are given usually by sergeants or captains upon a very local level and are by no means the condoned practice of the greater entity.
When such a soldier refuses an order, he/she will certainly face detention and a court martial for disobeying a direct order. If the order was of this magnitude of the genocide that you are trying to insinuate, the trial will vindicate the soldier and the chain of command that gave such orders will be held accountable (again, Abu-Ghirab). What I am trying to say is that there is a well defined list of grievences and remedies to corruptions and whatnot. Desertion is the most extreme act a soldier can take. It is right up with, and in some cases, held in higher contempt than murder and espionage as it is defacto treason.
If your argument is one of more simplistic basal moral objections to the military being deployed because of flimsy reasoning... then its just plain tough cookies. You joined the military voluntarily; You swore an oath to be the property at the disposal of the government. You are in effect an inanimate tool. To enter the military thinking 'naive thoughts of a trusting 18 year old' is immaterial. If one is too simple to understand simple history and political shifts and their resultant effect upon the military, then they are too simple to noodle out that they would object to its direction. I would give your argument a little credibility if the subject at hand were a draftee... but certainly not a volunteer.
Your juice bar analogy would be better as: You work for Jamaba Juice and discover that corporate HQ is using dirty tactics such as undue government influence and false rumors to crush other juice bars in the area so as to increase their own position or sieze the property... so then you flee to Canada in protest.
When such a soldier refuses an order, he/she will certainly face detention and a court martial for disobeying a direct order. If the order was of this magnitude of the genocide that you are trying to insinuate, the trial will vindicate the soldier and the chain of command that gave such orders will be held accountable (again, Abu-Ghirab). What I am trying to say is that there is a well defined list of grievences and remedies to corruptions and whatnot. Desertion is the most extreme act a soldier can take. It is right up with, and in some cases, held in higher contempt than murder and espionage as it is defacto treason.
If your argument is one of more simplistic basal moral objections to the military being deployed because of flimsy reasoning... then its just plain tough cookies. You joined the military voluntarily; You swore an oath to be the property at the disposal of the government. You are in effect an inanimate tool. To enter the military thinking 'naive thoughts of a trusting 18 year old' is immaterial. If one is too simple to understand simple history and political shifts and their resultant effect upon the military, then they are too simple to noodle out that they would object to its direction. I would give your argument a little credibility if the subject at hand were a draftee... but certainly not a volunteer.
Your juice bar analogy would be better as: You work for Jamaba Juice and discover that corporate HQ is using dirty tactics such as undue government influence and false rumors to crush other juice bars in the area so as to increase their own position or sieze the property... so then you flee to Canada in protest.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
Actually, there is a way to quit. It's just easier to run.
Bottom line is...you signed the contract, you fulfill your obligations. Since you have no clue as to the difference between healthy smoothies and waging war, as referenced in your post, the concept is lost on you. Our basic job is to wage war. A job we may not like, but a risk that is inherent in joining. We, as members of the armed forces, do not get to choose which wars we will fight and which wars we will not. That is for the civilian policy-makers to decide. If you don't like it, don't join in the first place.
flavio
Banned
It seemed an over the top example was needed to first establish that you just don't always follow orders. How about something slightly less extreme...unclehobart said:
Orders are issued to attack Canada in order to secure breweries, strip clubs, or fishing holes (take your pick) and conventional warfare ensues. Tens of thousands of civilians are killed. You thought you had signed up to defend the country and are horrified at the loss of life over this ludicrous violence because some officials want to get some beer, see some strippers, or go fishing.
I think this is the heart of the matter. The list of remedies are not going to help in this case. My point is not really to approve of or encourage deserters, just that I can imagine why some of them chose that path.
They should have paid more attention to politicd and what was going on before they joined. For some thorough understanding comes a little too late at times. I can imagine though that some eventually think "this is wrong... there's no way I can kill for this" realizing they've made a mistake.
Although they should have examined the situation before, but I can undserstand why they do thngs the way we did. As you've pointed out desertion is an extreme act and they aren't going to be taking it lightly. It is likely a very hard decision and a hard thing to do These people arn't ust dimply cowards.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
1. Your scenerio is faulty because it, too, is extreme.
2. Any such scenerio must have the backing of of both houses of Congress and the White House.
3. You have no clue as to how it works, or you wouldn't be trying to build your argument on fallacy.
flavio said:
They chose their path because they didn't think things through. Betcha most of those deserters are first-termers who joined "to go to college", and never gave war a second thought...
flavio said:
There are other ways to leave. Just refuse to go, take a quick court-martial, and go back to civilian life. That's what they're going to get for desertion, and the penalty is much more severe.
flavio said:
Nope. They're idiots as well.
flavio
Banned
Why is it faulty?Gato_Solo said:
Sure, my scenario assumes that backing. Although, Bush started attacks before he had it.
Odd that you don't point out any fallacy.
Maybe, or they thought they would be fighting to defend the country.
"While at Fort Bragg, Hinzman says he filled out the forms for conscientious objector status, which would let him stay in the Army in a non-combat job.
While he waited for a decision, he went to Afghanistan and worked in a kitchen. But later, the Army told him he didn’t qualify as a conscientious objector, and he was ordered to fight in Iraq.
Hinzman decided to take his family to Canada, where he’s been living off savings accumulated while he was in the military.
Wasn't he supposed to follow orders? "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it," says Hinzman. "And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do." "
Maybe, or posibly they're brave and smart....
"What do these men, who have violated orders and oaths, have to say for themselves? They told Correspondent Scott Pelley that conscience, not cowardice, made them American deserters. "I was a warrior. You know? I always have been. I’ve always felt that way -- that if there are people who can’t defend themselves, it’s my responsibility to do that," says Pfc. Dan Felushko, 24.
It was Felushko's responsibility to ship out with the Marines to Kuwait in Jan. 2003 to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Instead, he slipped out of Camp Pendleton, Calif., and deployed himself to Canada.
"I didn’t want, you know, 'Died deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone," says Felushko. "If I'd gone, personally, because of the things that I believed, it would have felt wrong. Because I saw it as wrong, if I died there or killed somebody there, that would have been more wrong."
He told Pelley it wasn't fighting that bothered him. In fact, he says he started basic training just weeks after al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington –- and he was prepared to get even for Sept. 11 in Afghanistan.
But Felushko says he didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein.""
..............
"Hughey volunteered for the Army to get money for college. He graduated from high school in San Angelo, Texas, just two months after the president declared war in Iraq.
What did he think about the case for going to war? "I felt it was necessary if they did have these weapons, and they could end up in our cities and threaten our safety," says Hughey. "I was supportive. At first, I didn't think to question it."
He says at first, he was willing to die "to make America safe." And while Hughey was in basic training, he didn't get much news. But when he left basic training, he started following the latest information from Iraq.
"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destruction. They were beginning to come out and say it's not likely that we will find any -- and the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least," says Hughey. "It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiers, basically."
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
Nice source. Suppose you didn't remember that we've been attacking Iraq on and off since the first Gulf war, right?
[/Quote=flavio]
Odd that you don't point out any fallacy.[/Quote]
That's because the whole thing is nothing more than a load of crap trying desperately to give you credibility. It's quite obvious, to me, at any rate, that the both scenerios you outlined are nothing more than the rantings of ignorance. You don't know what you're talking about.
flavio said:
Translated, that means he didn't have the history before the war to qualify, so why should he now?
flavio's source said:
So he's still living off money that he earned when he vowed to follow his orders...and then changed his mind when he found out following those orders could get him killed...
flavio's source said:
flavio's source said:
Too bad that the US isn't the entity purposely killing the civilians here in Iraq. We actually go out of our way not to. Another argument bites the dust...
flavio's obviously biased and flawed source said:
1. Before this whole thing started, we had ample reasons to invade Iraq. He violated the cease-fire at least 80 times by firing on coalition aircraft.
2. He joined up for revenge. Nice.
More whining and disinformation said:
So how did he find out about the WMD's? He left because he, too, joined for the wrong reasons. He was never willing to die "to make America safe." He was ready accept the money for College, until the die part of his contract was activated, though, wasn't he?