Do you look down on people who...

[Walsingham]

I do find it rather funny that one only ever hears civilians talking about blindly following orders. No soldier, private or otherwise that I've ever met blindly followed even an order to shower.

[SteveThaiBinh]

You mean all the movies in which soldiers have their will to resist beaten out of them by screaming drill sergeants aren't true?

[astr0creep]

I do find it rather funny that one only ever hears civilians talking about blindly following orders. No soldier, private or otherwise that I've ever met blindly followed even an order to shower.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can soldiers refuse an order that seems inappropriate to them?

[213374U]

What I look down on and this is because I can't understand it, is blindingly following orders no matter what. Doesn't good sense in the face of the obvious count for anything?

That's why they call it "chain of command", you know. It all comes down to efficiency, and quickness of response. Debating stuff takes up an awful amount of time, time that in the situations a military force is expected to operate in, cannot be wasted convincing soldiers.

 

The military is not a democracy, and with good reason.

 

 

Can soldiers refuse an order that seems inappropriate to them?

"Inappropriate" isn't good enough a reason. "Illegal", on the other hand, is probably enough to refuse obeying an order.

 

That is all theory, however. I doubt anyone would be court-martialed for refusing to take a shower. They'd just be discharged, I guess.

[Lucius]

Not exactly on topic, but not long ago the politicians decreed that Danish army transport helicopters in Iraq shouldn't be armed... However, if word got around that these were unable to defend themselves, they'd quickly have plenty an insurgent trying to shoot them down, so they went around it and outfitted em anyway.

 

My point? Politicians should let the army do their job and stfu.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Lucius

[213374U]

Politicians should let the army do their job and stfu.

Funny you'd put it that way. If politicians were to "stfu", they wouldn't be doing their job, now would they? "

[astr0creep]

What I look down on and this is because I can't understand it, is blindingly following orders no matter what. Doesn't good sense in the face of the obvious count for anything?

That's why they call it "chain of command", you know. It all comes down to efficiency, and quickness of response. Debating stuff takes up an awful amount of time, time that in the situations a military force is expected to operate in, cannot be wasted convincing soldiers.

 

The military is not a democracy, and with good reason.

 

 

Can soldiers refuse an order that seems inappropriate to them?

"Inappropriate" isn't good enough a reason. "Illegal", on the other hand, is probably enough to refuse obeying an order.

 

That is all theory, however. I doubt anyone would be court-martialed for refusing to take a shower. They'd just be discharged, I guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I just have to add: Wasn't it illegal to invade Iraq in the first place and why are they still there?

 

And I know and understand the need for the chain of command. I'm just putting myself in the shoes of a soldier faced with a decision to follow an order or refuse because it seems immoral or illegal or whatever.

I don't think I could blow up a schoolbus, for example, just because my superior says it's carrying enemy soldiers, not children. I think I would second guess everything and wait for the bullets to whiz by.

 

Meh.

[Lucius]

Well they're obviously not capable of conducting proper protection in a warzone, so wouldn't it be better if they stfu, in this case? Or were you just looking for an excuse to use that annoying emoticon.

Edited May 15, 2006 by Lucius

[213374U]

Well I just have to add: Wasn't it illegal to invade Iraq in the first place and why are they still there?

Depends on who you ask. So far, I haven't heard of any US court that has ruled that the war was illegal.

 

 

And I know and understand the need for the chain of command. I'm just putting myself in the shoes of a soldier faced with a decision to follow an order or refuse because it seems immoral or illegal or whatever.

Again, illegal and immoral aren't necessarily the same thing. If an order is illegal, then the only real decision to make is, want you be outside the law or not?

Otherwise, there's no reason to second guess any orders given to you, as you put in jeopardy your life and that of those who may depend on you. Pretty simple, really.

 

 

I don't think I could blow up a schoolbus, for example, just because my superior says it's carrying enemy soldiers, not children. I think I would second guess everything and wait for the bullets to whiz by.

Why? A schoolbus is just a regular bus painted in yellow. Also, I doubt you'd be so reluctant after you'd seen a schoolbus used as delivery vehicle for half a ton of dynamite against a checkpoint, for instance.

 

At any rate, not everyone is accepted in the military. There are screening tests, and all that. If you are so sure you couldn't live like that, you probably wouldn't pass those tests.

 

 

Well they're obviously not capable of conducting proper protection in a warzone, so wouldn't it be better if they stfu, in this case? Or were you just looking for an excuse to use that annoying emoticon.

Nah, just being a bit cynical.

 

But you know I don't need an excuse to use it!

[Lucius]

Why of course not. "

[astr0creep]

Well I just have to add: Wasn't it illegal to invade Iraq in the first place and why are they still there?

Depends on who you ask. So far, I haven't heard of any US court that has ruled that the war was illegal.

 

 

And I know and understand the need for the chain of command. I'm just putting myself in the shoes of a soldier faced with a decision to follow an order or refuse because it seems immoral or illegal or whatever.

Again, illegal and immoral aren't necessarily the same thing. If an order is illegal, then the only real decision to make is, want you be outside the law or not?

Otherwise, there's no reason to second guess any orders given to you, as you put in jeopardy your life and that of those who may depend on you. Pretty simple, really.

 

 

I don't think I could blow up a schoolbus, for example, just because my superior says it's carrying enemy soldiers, not children. I think I would second guess everything and wait for the bullets to whiz by.

Why? A schoolbus is just a regular bus painted in yellow. Also, I doubt you'd be so reluctant after you'd seen a schoolbus used as delivery vehicle for half a ton of dynamite against a checkpoint, for instance.

 

 

At any rate, not everyone is accepted in the military. There are screening tests, and all that. If you are so sure you couldn't live like that, you probably wouldn't pass those tests.

 

 

 

- International law counts, no matter what Dubbya says.

 

- I understand that second guessing an order can be extremely dangerous. But in my current state of mind, that is still what I would do. Of course, my state of mind would surely be different if I was a soldier.

 

- The schoolbus example was just that, an example. Surely there are situations in which soldiers are faced with overwhelming moral choices. Even shooting at the enemy, I wonder if there isn't any soldiers(on both sides) who hope they will miss simply because the thought of killing someone is a frightnening, revolting one.

 

I never joined the army. Because I am lazy and because killing someone, no matter how much they hate me or how much danger my life is in, is not appealing to me at all. And I have a hard time understanding how anyone can do it and be proud of it to a certain extent.

 

Can I and others like me be looked down upon for this? I don't think so.

Edited May 15, 2006 by astr0creep

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

amen. not joining the army is not somthing shameful.6

[213374U]

- International law counts, no matter what Dubbya says.

You are mixing things. There is this little wonderful thing called Separation of Powers. No matter what Dubya says, if he's done something illegal, the Courts will sort it out. For a US soldier, it's only the US Courts that matter.

 

But anyway, I don't think I have heard any international Court declare the war on Iraq "illegal". I might be wrong, though. By the way, the UN doesn't count, so don't bother. They are just a bunch of fat, hypocritical lobbysts.

 

 

Surely there are situations in which soldiers are faced with overwhelming moral choices. Even shooting at the enemy, I wonder if there isn't any soldiers who hope they will miss simply because the thought of killing someone is a frightnening, revolting one.

I doubt it. In a high stress situation like that there's no time for high moral disquisitions, and instinct takes over. Before and after? Probably. Not during, though.

 

 

 

killing someone, no matter how much they hate me or how much danger my life is in, is not appealing to me at all. And I have a hard time understanding how anyone can do it and be proud of it to a certain extent.

Well, I'm not sure but I don't think everyone who joins the military is a natural born killer. The military is not used only to shoot people up.

It might come down to that, though. And you know, sometimes, you have to do things that are not too appealing. And when somebody is able to overcome their own selfishness and do things they don't find too appealing, it's a commendable thing, and they are right to be proud of it.

 

Trying to depict proud soldiers as merry, bloodthirsty killers is a gross simplification.

 

 

Can I and others like me be looked down upon for this? I don't think so.

Why not? It's fun to! )

[astr0creep]

- International law counts, no matter what Dubbya says.

You are mixing things. There is this little wonderful thing called Separation of Powers. No matter what Dubya says, if he's done something illegal, the Courts will sort it out. For a US soldier, it's only the US Courts that matter.

 

But anyway, I don't think I have heard any international Court declare the war on Iraq "illegal". I might be wrong, though. By the way, the UN doesn't count, so don't bother. They are just a bunch of fat, hypocritical lobbysts.

 

 

Surely there are situations in which soldiers are faced with overwhelming moral choices. Even shooting at the enemy, I wonder if there isn't any soldiers who hope they will miss simply because the thought of killing someone is a frightnening, revolting one.

I doubt it. In a high stress situation like that there's no time for high moral disquisitions, and instinct takes over. Before and after? Probably. Not during, though.

 

 

 

killing someone, no matter how much they hate me or how much danger my life is in, is not appealing to me at all. And I have a hard time understanding how anyone can do it and be proud of it to a certain extent.

Well, I'm not sure but I don't think everyone who joins the military is a natural born killer. The military is not used only to shoot people up.

It might come down to that, though. And you know, sometimes, you have to do things that are not too appealing. And when somebody is able to overcome their own selfishness and do things they don't find too appealing, it's a commendable thing, and they are right to be proud of it.

 

Trying to depict proud soldiers as merry, bloodthirsty killers is a gross simplification.

 

 

Can I and others like me be looked down upon for this? I don't think so.

Why not? It's fun to! )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All very good counter points.

 

Good discussion.

 

Signing off.

[Krookie]

I think rebuilding their cities was more of a priority to the German people than sex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Silly Germans!

[Judge Hades]

Politicians should let the army do their job and stfu.

Funny you'd put it that way. If politicians were to "stfu", they wouldn't be doing their job, now would they? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But they aren't doing their job anyway, at least not in Iowa, so I rather have them to STFU and not doing their job than making too much useless noise and not doing their job.

[alanschu]

Well I just have to add: Wasn't it illegal to invade Iraq in the first place and why are they still there?

 

As l33t d00d pointed out, the law that matters for soldiers is US Law.

 

As for international law, as much as we may want it to, it doesn't count. Because it's unenforceable.

[metadigital]

... And the US hasn't signed up to any treaties with the International Court, so there is no jurisdiction for their authority in US legal space.

[Cantousent]

I do find it rather funny that one only ever hears civilians talking about blindly following orders. No soldier, private or otherwise that I've ever met blindly followed even an order to shower.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can soldiers refuse an order that seems inappropriate to them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this question is best answered by a front line soldier from a combat zone.

 

In the absence of such a soldier, I will give the best answer I know. Yes, soldiers should refuse any order that violates the Constitution. It is not only appropriate to do so, it is necessary. The civilian government should never stay quiet while the military command acts of its own accord. In the United States, as well as all other western democracies, the civilian government controls the military. It is right that this is so.

 

Whether our actions in Iraq are lawful in other countries is irrelevant. The military in our country is sworn to protect and defend the Constitutionof the United States of America. It is right that this is so.

 

It is a damnable thing, conflict. I agree with you, Astr0creep. I hate conflict. I always have. It is good that we hate conflict, but even better to face it than hide from it at all costs. It is right that this is so.

[Azarkon]

I would hardly term not invading Iraq as hiding from conflict at all costs, unless you buy into Bush's doctrine that a preemptive strike is the only path to peace.

[Cantousent]

I do not equate one with the other. The Iraq war, as a policy, is open for debate. That's the nature of democracy. However, if the civilian leaders decide upon war as a course of action the military is bound by the Constitution to carry out such a war.

 

Conflict, in a more general sense, is a different matter. So you should take my comments regarding conflict only as they regard conflict. We could change the nature of the debate, but I'm far more sympathetic to folks who agitate against our involvement in Iraq than I am with folks who suggest that we should avoid conflict. This is especially true for those folks who suggest we should avoid armed conflict at all costs.

 

In short, I believe there are worse things than conflict but the exact nature of the conflict in Iraq is a different matter.

[Azarkon]

Ah, then I am in agreement.

 

There will come a day when mankind may bid a farewell to arms. That day is not anytime soon, unfortunately.

[alanschu]

Cue an Einstein quote!

[Walsingham]

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato. [according to the opening credits of Blackhawk Down :"> ]

 

As for the legality of both the Iraq war and war in general, I can only recommend the UK Attorney General's official advice to the govt. It is exceptionally clear, and most interesting. Just make sure you get the whole text. I've seen plenty of anti-war sites that cut out the bit about war being legal and even obligatory where a nation is engaged in acts of genocide, or there is a humanitarian catatstrophe.

[astr0creep]

Whether our actions in Iraq are lawful in other countries is irrelevant.  The military in our country is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is right that this is so.

 

 

Iraq did not put the Constitution of the United States of America in danger. Al-Qaeda did, or so the American media says, and Afghanistan was "cleaned" for harboring them at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't anyone remember G.W. Bush's "mission accomplished" speach on that aircraft carrier?

Iraq was supposedly invaded for having WMDs that could possibly threaten the US(and the rest of the world), WMD that were never found, either because they don't have them anymore or because they are well hidden and the inspectors didn't have time to do their job properly before President Bush launched his famous pre-emptive strike.

American soldiers are still in Iraq because if they leave, there will be a civil war for control of the territory(and oil) that used to be kept in line, albeit with an iron fist, by Saddam Hussein.

 

If my country would be invaded I would fight to the death to protect my family, my home, my rights, my way of life. Which is why I would've liked that my country had mandatory military service incorporated in the education system, so that I would have the means, the skills to fight.

 

Joining the army to fight and die so that men of power can have more power does not seem quite right to me.