TOPICS:
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
AUG 22, 2007 01:44 PM
I've been accused, probably justifiably more often than not, of self-righteousness. But you guys, Mike and Nick (and others), disgust even me. You're obviously well-matched to your smug judgmentalism, and considerations of how to get along with your fellow citizens apparently needn't impinge at all upon your comfortable sense of moral superiority.
How awesome for you. We obviously have nothing to further to discuss. Good day.
DrStinkypants said:
Also, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it terribly obvious that the threat of nuclear (or any other military) retribution is not a completely effective deterrent against attacks, and conventional ground forces are still very much needed and in use, respectively
Actually, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as the Vietnam War before them) have only shown that conventional forces are utterly incapable of establishing security or implementing policy in the modern world.
AUG 22, 2007 01:45 PM
rabidrabbit said:
NickFaust said:
I believe that joining the military is tacit agreement with the tactics the military uses. That is why they spend all of that time teaching you how to shoot a gun. Does anyone really believe that they will never be called upon to use one?
Probably not, but I'm sure a lot of them hope they won't be called upon to use it, but if they are called it's better to be trained to use it than not.
They teach you how to use guns because the military is a war making organization. Anyone in that organization who does not understand that this is its primary function is an idiot. Worse, they are a fool.
AUG 22, 2007 03:20 PM
Zarth said:
I've been accused, probably justifiably more often than not, of self-righteousness. But you guys, Mike and Nick (and others), disgust even me. You're obviously well-matched to your smug judgmentalism, and considerations of how to get along with your fellow citizens apparently needn't impinge at all upon your comfortable sense of moral superiority.
How awesome for you. We obviously have nothing to further to discuss. Good day.
Show me these fellow citizens. The ones who are doing kind of not-very-bad things in everyday jobs, sure I can get along with them. The ones that sign up to go off and kill people because their government says so on some very flaky logic, then berate me for not supporting their decision to do so, I'm not going to rub along with them so well.
I find it gratifying that you feel the need to post to say that you have nothing more to say.
Dr Stinkypants: I'm not talking blame so much as responsibility. A doctor, for example, can be a very high-stress and high-responsibility job, and doctors know this before they do it. If a doctor does his or her job as well as s/he can, they are living up to that responsibility and are absolved from blame. A doctor can do everything in their power and still a patient may die, in fact that's almost certain to happen at some point, but as long as they've done what they should do then there is no blame on them.
A doctor knows that if they go into their job and do that job well, then people should hopefully live. A soldier, on the other hand, knows that if they go into their job and do their job well, they will have killed the people they are meant to have killed.
All the other jobs you listed:
Police - to protect. Can kill, but as a last resort.
Rescue workers - to preserve life
Lawyers - if we're talking criminal lawyers, to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent walk free. Can put forward evidence that may condemn a human to the death sentence if there is one in that country, but if they've done their job well, it should only be if the person deserves it (in that country's morality)
Doctors - to preserve life
Research Scientists - depends what they're researching. If it's cures for cancer, go them. If it's new chemical weapons, I hold them as culpable as anyone else involved in the war machine.
Government Programs - again, depends very much on the program, as does my response to it.
Restuarants - to provide nice food that hopefully won't kill anyone through being poorly cooked
Construction - to build things safely and securely so people can use them without fear of injury
Farms - to provide food so people can eat
Vehicles - to move people and goods safely from place to place
Do you see the pattern? The jobs you list all have responsibility, yes, but in the vast majority the responsibility is that if the job is done well, people REMAIN SAFE. The military is the only job where if the job is done well, PEOPLE DIE*. That is why I believe people should think so carefully before committing themselves to it, and shouldn't assume that it gives them an inherent right to demand my support, or that of anyone else.
*if anyone wishes to use an argument about the military guarding things, keep in mind what will happen to anyone who doesn't heed the warning signs. Yup, they'll die.
Adroitbeing
I'm lost
September 2003
AUG 22, 2007 03:56 PM
Zarth said:
I've been accused, probably justifiably more often than not, of self-righteousness. But you guys, Mike and Nick (and others), disgust even me. You're obviously well-matched to your smug judgmentalism, and considerations of how to get along with your fellow citizens apparently needn't impinge at all upon your comfortable sense of moral superiority.
How awesome for you. We obviously have nothing to further to discuss. Good day.
DrStinkypants said:
Also, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it terribly obvious that the threat of nuclear (or any other military) retribution is not a completely effective deterrent against attacks, and conventional ground forces are still very much needed and in use, respectively
Actually, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as the Vietnam War before them) have only shown that conventional forces are utterly incapable of establishing security or implementing policy in the modern world.
Zarth snap out of it
Zarth snap out of it
Zarth snap out of it
It's unusual for you to adopt snarkiness as a defense; as an offense, yes, but rarely as a defense.
I fail to see any smugness in demanding that anyone enlisting in the military with the express desire of achieving personal objectives (college, income, free stuff) be held culpable for working out a barter program that requires them to kill other innocent people in exchange for their "free stuff."
Offering up excuses including, we all prostitute ourselves from time to time, or someone has to do it, or that such this arrangement is part of a greater human chaos we should simply accept ,is wholly unworthy of your typically keen opines.
AUG 22, 2007 06:16 PM
Zarth said:
I mean, if you've ever worked in any job, you've almost certainly been required (by the terms of the job - theoretically you're always free to walk) to do things that were stupid or distasteful or ultimately harmful in some way to somebody. Should that really be held against you?
The issue of where complicity begins and ends is not as black-and-white as you presume.
I agree with you that it should not be held against a person. I also agree that complicity is not so easy to understand and it is easy to make asses out of ourselves judging other people who for whatever reason did not fully understand what they signed up for. Calling people either morons or monsters for signing up for the military does not help the situation at all.
Personally, I support people in the military the same way I would support any other human that hasn't directly pissed me off. I hope that they don't have terrible painful experiences and live a long happy life. If one of them talks to me about a tragedy I handle it the way I would with anyone talking about tragedy, with as much sensitivity and tact as I am capable of.
Outside of the basic care towards other humans, I see no reason to offer anything additional because they are in the "military" and at "war".
I can see how others see the article as a demand to offer "support" to military members because there is some great benefit to us all from this occupation. Sorry, no dice.
I do understand the right to not offer any kind of support to people who argue they joined the military for "free stuff" and claim to know full well that they will have to kill people. There is something horribly wrong with that attitude, if you're failing to see it I am really surprised.
Now, if a soldier was helping with something that I personally consider "extra support worthy", sure I might send cookies or whatever I can muster; based on individual achievement. What I do not believe in doing is holding anyone to higher "support" standards than others simply because of their job.
AUG 22, 2007 08:30 PM
Zarth said:
I've been accused, probably justifiably more often than not, of self-righteousness. But you guys, Mike and Nick (and others), disgust even me. You're obviously well-matched to your smug judgmentalism, and considerations of how to get along with your fellow citizens apparently needn't impinge at all upon your comfortable sense of moral superiority.
How awesome for you. We obviously have nothing to further to discuss. Good day.
Dude, I am not judging anyone. My sole and simple point was that people are not released from the moral responsibility for their acts because they are in the military.
You want to think that that is self righteous, have at it.
What it is is a fact.
AUG 22, 2007 10:56 PM
MikeofEvil2 said:
Dr Stinkypants: I'm not talking blame so much as responsibility. A doctor, for example, can be a very high-stress and high-responsibility job, and doctors know this before they do it. If a doctor does his or her job as well as s/he can, they are living up to that responsibility and are absolved from blame. A doctor can do everything in their power and still a patient may die, in fact that's almost certain to happen at some point, but as long as they've done what they should do then there is no blame on them.
A doctor knows that if they go into their job and do that job well, then people should hopefully live. A soldier, on the other hand, knows that if they go into their job and do their job well, they will have killed the people they are meant to have killed.
All the other jobs you listed:
Police - to protect. Can kill, but as a last resort.
Rescue workers - to preserve life
Lawyers - if we're talking criminal lawyers, to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent walk free. Can put forward evidence that may condemn a human to the death sentence if there is one in that country, but if they've done their job well, it should only be if the person deserves it (in that country's morality)
Doctors - to preserve life
Research Scientists - depends what they're researching. If it's cures for cancer, go them. If it's new chemical weapons, I hold them as culpable as anyone else involved in the war machine.
Government Programs - again, depends very much on the program, as does my response to it.
Restuarants - to provide nice food that hopefully won't kill anyone through being poorly cooked
Construction - to build things safely and securely so people can use them without fear of injury
Farms - to provide food so people can eat
Vehicles - to move people and goods safely from place to place
Do you see the pattern? The jobs you list all have responsibility, yes, but in the vast majority the responsibility is that if the job is done well, people REMAIN SAFE. The military is the only job where if the job is done well, PEOPLE DIE*. That is why I believe people should think so carefully before committing themselves to it, and shouldn't assume that it gives them an inherent right to demand my support, or that of anyone else.
*if anyone wishes to use an argument about the military guarding things, keep in mind what will happen to anyone who doesn't heed the warning signs. Yup, they'll die.
Well, that was exactly my point.
"in the vast majority the responsibility is that if the job is done well, people REMAIN SAFE." is entirely true for the military as well. Of course combat is a part of the job but it's not this singular purpose for a military. You act as if they're mercenaries or executioners, that's simply not true. Most military procedures are comparable to police procedures, only their environments differ.
Unless you're arguing against the institution of the military all together, I don't know how you can support the one and not the other
AUG 22, 2007 11:00 PM
Zarth said:
DrStinkypants said:
Also, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it terribly obvious that the threat of nuclear (or any other military) retribution is not a completely effective deterrent against attacks, and conventional ground forces are still very much needed and in use, respectively
Actually, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as the Vietnam War before them) have only shown that conventional forces are utterly incapable of establishing security or implementing policy in the modern world.
Well that may be true. I was simply arguing against the idea that seemed to be popular in the past, that American ground troops were unnecessary against the backdrop of American nuclear power.
They are highly ineffective in these sorts of wars, but they're certainly not about to go out of style
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
AUG 23, 2007 12:12 AM
NickFaust said:
Zarth said:
I've been accused, probably justifiably more often than not, of self-righteousness. But you guys, Mike and Nick (and others), disgust even me. You're obviously well-matched to your smug judgmentalism, and considerations of how to get along with your fellow citizens apparently needn't impinge at all upon your comfortable sense of moral superiority.
How awesome for you. We obviously have nothing to further to discuss. Good day.
Dude, I am not judging anyone. My sole and simple point was that people are not released from the moral responsibility for their acts because they are in the military.
You want to think that that is self righteous, have at it.
What it is is a fact.
If that was your sole point then I misunderstood you. My apologies.
AUG 23, 2007 12:55 AM
KUNGFOO said:
Cheyenne said:
also, can someone please tell me why the war is thought to be illegal? I've failed to see this...Congress approved it in Oct. 2002...war started march 03...maybe i just missed something...
I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who has read a bit on the subject of our foreign policy (books are awesome!). If there's any actual lawyers or law professionals out there that would like to dispute, clarify or add to this, please do.
There are two different realms of law at work here. There is domestic law. This is more procedural. Did the Administration follow the law during the run up to war, have they conducted it lawfully? These are things that are more likely to be decided domestically (if it actually ever came to trial, doesn't appear likely). With the Republican Congress in control through 2006, the very secretive Bush Administration enjoyed a free pass (I believe the GOP Congress issued zero subpoenas of the Executive Branch during this time). With the Democrats now in control, more information is coming to light, but I believe with the Administration's history (lack of) with transparent government, there is still quite a bit we may not (or ever) know.
The real argument is in international law. This is where all of the charters, conventions and treaties to which the United States are signatories to (therefor, legally liable), come into play. I believe this sums up the situation well:
From: FindLaw
Under international law, force is authorized in essentially two or, at most, three circumstances.
First, Articles 39 and 42 of the U.N. Charter permit the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to authorize the use of force "to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Second, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" against "an armed attack."
Third, an international norm may be emerging that would permit nations to use military force to prevent genocide or other humanitarian catastrophes. However, while Saddam Hussein has, in the past, committed horrific acts against his own people, the U.S. has not argued that intervention is necessary to address ongoing crimes against humanity.
U.N. Security Council Authorization: The First Possible Ground For War
In his March 17 speech, President Bush claimed that prior U.N. resolutions have already provided the necessary legal authority for attacking Iraq. Speaking for the Blair Administration, British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith made the same point. Are they correct? The answer is no.
In November 1990, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 678, authorizing nations "co-operating with the Government of Kuwait . . . to use all necessary means" of dislodging Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait.
This resolution authorized force only for the purpose of driving the Iraqi military out of Kuwait, an objective which was fully accomplished by 1991. It would be arguably relevant now only if Saddam reinvaded Kuwait.
Then, at the conclusion of the Gulf War, the Security Council adopted Resolution 687. It called for, among other things, Iraq's destruction and renunciation of various weapons, including biological, chemical and nuclear arms. And it stated the Security Council's intention "to take as appropriate all necessary measures" to guarantee the inviolability of the Iraq-Kuwait border. Although that language is broad, it does not refer to the disarmament provisions. Resolution 687 makes clear that its disarmament provisions are governed by the Security Council's resolve "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
That last statement hardly reads as a blank check to any Security Council member or other state to act on its own to require Iraq's disarmament. Instead, it suggests, quite to the contrary, that the Security Council itself, acting via additional resolutions, could take "further steps."
Last November, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441. It warned that Iraq would "face serious consequences" if it were to remain in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations. Employing the Resolution's language, the Bush Administration has argued that Iraq is in "material breach" and that war is thus justified.
However, as I explained in an earlier column, Resolution 1441 implies that the Security Council itself will decide if a material breach has occurred, and expressly states that the Security Council itself, in the event of such a breach, will "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security."
We know that the Security Council does not think that a serious breach warranting all-out war has occurred. Perhaps the Security Council, under veto threat from France (and possibly Russia as well), has behaved unreasonably and irresponsibly in this respect, as suggested by American and British diplomats. But if so, that still does not alter the fact that the Security Council did not authorize war. At most, it bolsters the moral case for war, not the legal case.
Self-Defense: The Second Possible Ground for War
The boldest argument for war is that the United States and other countries face the prospect of an "armed attack" by Iraq, thus justifying the sovereign right to use force in self-defense. But certainly Iraq was not about to invade the United States or even Kuwait, where thousands of American and British troops have patrolled the border since the Gulf War. Nor have Bush and Blair pointed to any information indicating an imminent threat; instead, they have rested their arguments primarily on the fear of Saddam's future direct or indirect use of weapons of mass destruction.
Thus, the argument for self-defense must be based on an expansion of that concept - from self-defense as repelling an ongoing or imminent attack, to self-defense as pre-emption of a feared future attack.
Under the pre-emption doctrine, touted by the Bush Administration, an enemy that is in the process of acquiring weapons of mass destruction can be attacked before using those weapons. The underlying concern is no doubt a serious one. The doctrine, however, remains outside of international law and could potentially prove quite dangerous.
Self-defense, as it traditionally has been understood under international law, is very much like self-defense in the law governing individuals. If an aggressor is in the midst of, or just about to, attack, one need not absorb the first blow before fighting back. The attack, however, must be imminent, if not already underway.
The imminence requirement is extremely important in international affairs. If the U.S. can take non-Security-Council authorized pre-emptive or preventive military action, then other countries can as well. Thus, regional powers fearing the rise of neighboring rivals could decide that it is better to act against their future enemies before the threat fully materializes.
Not every invocation of the doctrine of pre-emption will be justified. Some will be based on misjudgments, and others will simply be pretextual - justifying aggression under the guise of pre-emption. Ultimately, the doctrine allowing pre-emption of long-term threats has the potential to be enormously destabilizing.
Is the Iraq war illegal? There would have to be a trial before that could be a actual legal claim. (And I wouldn't hold my breath for that trial, unless things dissolve to a much worse situation where the global economy is hurt badly).
Underneath all that law, however, we have to look at the morality of the situation using available facts, intellect, reason and even a little bit of emotion. It's the reason humans developed laws. Is this right or wrong?
so obviously open to interpretation...However...Saddam violated the cease fire agreement, hence Bush didn't need approval from Congress, nor from the UN.
I believe this could easily fit into the Article 39 and 42 you posted.
AUG 23, 2007 01:00 AM
NickFaust said:
Zarth said:
I mean, if you've ever worked in any job, you've almost certainly been required (by the terms of the job - theoretically you're always free to walk) to do things that were stupid or distasteful or ulimately harmful in some way to somebody. Should that really be held against you?
Yes. If you do it.
Of course these things can be prioritized. Selling someone a less that truly good washing machine minor. Leaving land mines all over peasant farm land. Major. Ditto for dropping cluster bombs, etc. etc.
While I agree that no one can be held accountable a priori for the outcomes of any decision,(by that reckoning everyone who voted for Truman is responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I do believe that, despite the fact that we wonder around in sort of a moral fog, there is a voice inside of most of us that tells us when something we are doing is truly wrong.
We ignore this voice at our peril and, yes, are responsible for that that happens as the result.
I believe that joining the military is tacit agreement with the tactics the military uses. That is why they spend all of that time teaching you how to shoot a gun. Does anyone really believe that they will never be called upon to use one?
Does anyone really believe that eating Big Macs is good for your heart?
I am gonna have to agree (somewhat) with Faust here. Soldiers are held accountable for acts they commit that violate Geneva conventions...which is why the lower enlisted involved with Abu Ghraib are doing time. they could have pointed out the fact that their orders were a direct violation and took it up their chain. it was bullshit for them to attempt the ole "captain made me do it, just following orders" routine.
There have been service members tried for killing Iraqis just for fun. it's disgusting.
AUG 23, 2007 01:57 AM
hmmm..I made some responses and theyseem to have magically disappeared. anyone else having this problem?
and now they're back but my blog is wonky...SG must be having some issues...
AUG 23, 2007 08:09 AM
Cheyenne said:
NickFaust said:
Zarth said:
I mean, if you've ever worked in any job, you've almost certainly been required (by the terms of the job - theoretically you're always free to walk) to do things that were stupid or distasteful or ulimately harmful in some way to somebody. Should that really be held against you?
Yes. If you do it.
Of course these things can be prioritized. Selling someone a less that truly good washing machine minor. Leaving land mines all over peasant farm land. Major. Ditto for dropping cluster bombs, etc. etc.
While I agree that no one can be held accountable a priori for the outcomes of any decision,(by that reckoning everyone who voted for Truman is responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I do believe that, despite the fact that we wonder around in sort of a moral fog, there is a voice inside of most of us that tells us when something we are doing is truly wrong.
We ignore this voice at our peril and, yes, are responsible for that that happens as the result.
I believe that joining the military is tacit agreement with the tactics the military uses. That is why they spend all of that time teaching you how to shoot a gun. Does anyone really believe that they will never be called upon to use one?
Does anyone really believe that eating Big Macs is good for your heart?
I am gonna have to agree (somewhat) with Faust here. Soldiers are held accountable for acts they commit that violate Geneva conventions...which is why the lower enlisted involved with Abu Ghraib are doing time. they could have pointed out the fact that their orders were a direct violation and took it up their chain. it was bullshit for them to attempt the ole "captain made me do it, just following orders" routine.
There have been service members tried for killing Iraqis just for fun. it's disgusting.
My statement did not relate to the legality of the actions of people in wartime situations, they related to the fact that war presents a moral morass through which a person negotiates a path that is itself simply a series of compromises. How and what one compromises on is the test of one's moral character.
It is possible for something to be legal and immoral and illegal and moral. The two concepts do not align. They intersect intermittently.
AUG 23, 2007 01:03 PM
wow. even if you agree with people in here they still treat you like an idiot. you just can't even tie with some breeds, i guess.
AUG 23, 2007 01:30 PM
Cheyenne said:
wow. even if you agree with people in here they still treat you like an idiot. you just can't even tie with some breeds, i guess.
That's just NickFaust. He's like the annoying, wrong all the time, "know it all" kid in the back of the class. The sooner you can ignore him the better.
AUG 23, 2007 02:06 PM
DrStinkypants said:
Cheyenne said:
wow. even if you agree with people in here they still treat you like an idiot. you just can't even tie with some breeds, i guess.
That's just NickFaust. He's like the annoying, wrong all the time, "know it all" kid in the back of the class. The sooner you can ignore him the better.
Oh gosh. Thanks for that substantive contribution. You have truly advanced the discussion here.
AUG 23, 2007 02:10 PM
Cheyenne said:
wow. even if you agree with people in here they still treat you like an idiot. you just can't even tie with some breeds, i guess.
If you felt like an idiot I can only say that is your problem not mine. My comments were directed at clarifying my points, not at "treating" you like anything at all.
Besides you only agreed with me "somewhat," your present characterization of your previous response exemplifies your approach to other matters of fact.
AUG 23, 2007 02:27 PM
This was the perfect article for an American soldier to write right now. That said, isn't it illegal for ya'll to say stuff like that? Isn't it illegal for soldiers to speak critically of the government? ("thinks being in Iraq sucks balls") - I'm sure it does.
AUG 23, 2007 03:03 PM
cowboybert said:
This was the perfect article for an American soldier to write right now. That said, isn't it illegal for ya'll to say stuff like that? Isn't it illegal for soldiers to speak critically of the government? ("thinks being in Iraq sucks balls") - I'm sure it does.
no. It's not illegal. we still have constitutional rights, just like everyone else.
AUG 23, 2007 03:06 PM
NickFaust said:
Cheyenne said:
wow. even if you agree with people in here they still treat you like an idiot. you just can't even tie with some breeds, i guess.
If you felt like an idiot I can only say that is your problem not mine. My comments were directed at clarifying my points, not at "treating" you like anything at all.
Besides you only agreed with me "somewhat," your present characterization of your previous response exemplifies your approach to other matters of fact.
um, ok. well, anyway, i did not say I felt like an idiot. I said you treat people like they are idiots. there's a difference
AUG 23, 2007 03:29 PM
cowboybert said:
This was the perfect article for an American soldier to write right now. That said, isn't it illegal for ya'll to say stuff like that? Isn't it illegal for soldiers to speak critically of the government? ("thinks being in Iraq sucks balls") - I'm sure it does.
Its illegal for me to participate in protests, marches, or rallies in uniform, leak senstive, secret, or top secret information to people without clearances or vocally advocate the assasination of our dear old POTUS.
But I can say I'd love to pee in POTUS's coffee.
AUG 23, 2007 03:31 PM
OhSoOrdinary said:
cowboybert said:
This was the perfect article for an American soldier to write right now. That said, isn't it illegal for ya'll to say stuff like that? Isn't it illegal for soldiers to speak critically of the government? ("thinks being in Iraq sucks balls") - I'm sure it does.
Its illegal for me to participate in protests, marches, or rallies in uniform, leak senstive, secret, or top secret information to people without clearances or vocally advocate the assasination of our dear old POTUS.
OK. I guess the Patriot Act is not as completely fascist as I thought. Peace.
AUG 23, 2007 03:41 PM
As far as I know, the Patriot Act didn't really affect me as a soldier...
But I claim ignorance. I could be wrong.
imzadi1974
Queen City, TX
May 2007
AUG 22, 2007 12:34 PM