What does this mean?

Ethics in both military service and war?

What is acceptable for a soldier to do? Where does following orders stop and an ethical stand against one's own government begin?

When does one's loyalty and duty to one's country become a moral burden that can no longer be carried?

When is it lawful for a soldier or officer to disobey orders?

When is it lawful or even of dire necessity that someone refuse to follow the command of a person or government that is no longer respectable or worthy of giving those commands?

I've decided to start this thread because of a discussion in another thread where this did not belong (floating trash island!). I don't know whether a thread has been started about this before. I don't frankly care!

I just want to know anyone and everyone's thoughts about this.
I would especially appreciate to hear from those who are serving, or have served in the past, in any military for any country. Or other similar areas like law-enforcement (police, etc).

Any thoughts?

Yes, I've got a very clear thought - and yes, I've served in the military.

War is hell - it has NO room for ethics, morality or anything else besides trying to keep yourself and your buddies alive while attempting to kill as many of the enemy possible by ANY means at your disposal.

End of story.

This isn't about any war in particular, but I've been wondering about how people feel about war in general, and what is acceptable. What kind of war is ethical?

For starters, I will say that I personally feel the Iraq war was rushed and watching the events leading up to it, I didn't feel it was necessary or just.

I have been wondering, what exactly the justifications for it were, and whether or not anyone is justified, if they are enlisted in the US military, if they are really able to say "No, I don't think it's right"?

I have only begun to look into this, and I have seen a few stories here and there, but I'm not sure about how effective the "conscientious objector" status is.

Here are a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraq_War_resisters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_Objector

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/breaking-ranks


Sorry, I really wanted to start this thread off better, but I did it at the last minute. I'll have to get back to it later. I'm certain someone knows more about this than I.

Yes, I've got a very clear thought - and yes, I've served in the military.

War is hell - it has NO room for ethics, morality or anything else besides trying to keep yourself and your buddies alive while attempting to kill as many of the enemy possible by ANY means at your disposal.

End of story.

Okay.
I guess I don't know what to say then.

Except for that I don't understand why someone would be put into a situation like that as you described.
:shrug:



To clarify, this isn't a thread for belittling anyone or whatever; I have never been in a combat situation...


Do people really feel they are enemies because they are? Is it because of what they are told to feel?

I know a story of a conscientious object having to go before a supreme court, so that he could argue his story about how he had became a shaman for his tribe which meant he couldn't take part in the military. I want to say it took them almost two years to get him out of the military. When it's only suppose to take 6 months or so.

I know the process some what. Off memory I think you would have to request the form, your commander (company level) signs off on it. Then you are supposed to meet with mental health. You'll present your case and will be examed. Then some time later on you are going to have to present an essay (i suppose it's recommended for it to be long and detailed) for them to evaluate as a board. Some cases go as high as the supreme court, others are handled at the lowest level possible.

Mind you that this is very uncommon now a days and so few in the military actually know about it.

I know a story of a conscientious object having to go before a supreme court, so that he could argue his story about how he had became a shaman for his tribe which meant he couldn't take part in the military. I want to say it took them almost two years to get him out of the military. When it's only suppose to take 6 months or so.

I know the process some what. Off memory I think you would have to request the form, your commander (company level) signs off on it. Then you are supposed to meet with mental health. You'll present your case and will be examed. Then some time later on you are going to have to present an essay (i suppose it's recommended for it to be long and detailed) for them to evaluate as a board. Some cases go as high as the supreme court, others are handled at the lowest level possible.

Mind you that this is very uncommon now a days and so few in the military actually know about it.

It took them two years, because he was a shaman-to-be?

Well, I've not heard of many cases. I have heard of a few people objecting to the Iraq war, but until recently, I had not actually looked into any cases. Does seem much fewer than I thought. I only remember anything about it from the Vietnam era when they had the draft.

I have wondered if it would be higher if people actually knew about, but I don't know. Maybe that's why some people ran up to Canada?

Do you think it is wrong for someone to object on the grounds that they think the Iraq war is illegal?

I don't think it'd help all too much if people knew about the discharge. A lot of soldiers get out dishonorably because it's quicker. That or they'll just go awol.

If you asked me if it was right for them to refuse to go to war, then i'd say "i'd rather fight with brave men then die with a coward."

Although if they think the Iraq war is illegal then, they should have voted more wisely on their congressmen & president. A soldier at any level doesn't decide himself if the war is illegal. He can only argue if it's against his morals or religion, or refuse to break the ROE or commit war crimes.

Do you think it is wrong for someone to object on the grounds that they think the Iraq war is illegal?

:bugeye: huh???? war is MURDER and THIEVERY sanctioned on behalf of people who are not held accountable for their actions. So no its not wrong to object on grounds of illegality, its just wasting breathe.

Giam, here is another link for you to review.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arreg2/blar600-43.htm

Although if they think the Iraq war is illegal then, they should have voted more wisely on their congressmen & president.
Well, yes, that's kind of a given, though none of the above are generally good on their words, with a few exceptions. ;)


A soldier at any level doesn't decide himself if the war is illegal. He can only argue if it's against his morals or religion, or refuse to break the ROE or commit war crimes.
So a soldier absolutely cannot ponder the illegality of any order? Or just general war?


:bugeye: huh???? war is MURDER and THIEVERY sanctioned on behalf of people who are not held accountable for their actions. So no its not wrong to object on grounds of illegality, its just wasting breathe.

Imhotep? Would you like to expound on that? I'm not into war in nearly any situation, but I don't know if that's always the case, frankly...


Giam, here is another link for you to review.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/arreg2/blar600-43.htm

Thank you for the link and your input on this thread. I will have to read and comment on that later because I am short on time.

So a soldier absolutely cannot ponder the illegality of any order? Or just general war?







The soldier can question orders, mostly if it is a valid point. He can refuse illegal orders and matters that just aren't right.

Example of an illegal order in Iraq with their rules of engagement would be.

Sgt Stupid tells Pvt Retard to shoot an unnarmed civillian. If he refuses, then he cannot be charged with anything.

Imhotep? Would you like to expound on that? I'm not into war in nearly any situation, but I don't know if that's always the case, frankly...

sure, my point was that this war is not a war of the people so our support for or against is really irrelevant. the justifications for this farce are beyond ridiculous.

but you are right i should have been more specific. it is the wars of politicians that i refer to(vietnam scenarios) in these situations i think that the breach of ethics and morals takes place on far larger scale than any ordinary 'combat situation'. hence if we are to to even broach the topics of ethics we need to look a lot deeper than soldiers following orders.

Yes, I've got a very clear thought - and yes, I've served in the military.

War is hell - it has NO room for ethics, morality or anything else besides trying to keep yourself and your buddies alive while attempting to kill as many of the enemy possible by ANY means at your disposal.

End of story.
Amen. I really think we've forgotten that. If we're going to fight a war, and that's a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly, we should fight it to win. If you want to avoid civilian casualties, don't fight the war. But once you've decided you must fight, hit the enemy as hard as you can with no regard for anything but killing as many of them as possible as quickly as possible until they throw their hands up in horror at the demon they've unleashed and surrender. When you fight with half measures and try to avoid civilian casualties, you make the war more bearable and prolong it. Thus an all out attack with no holds barred may ultimately be more merciful than a war fought with half measures as the suffering inflicted in the former case is over with quickly whereas the half ass war goes on and on as does the suffering.

Okay.
I guess I don't know what to say then.

Except for that I don't understand why someone would be put into a situation like that as you described.
:shrug:

Then you shouldn't even be asking the question if you don't even know what war is (obviously) because people do NOT put themselves in that situation - their GOVERNMENT puts them in that situation!




To clarify, this isn't a thread for belittling anyone or whatever; I have never been in a combat situation...


Do people really feel they are enemies because they are? Is it because of what they are told to feel?

I appreciate you not making an attempt to belittle anyone - but you actually need to think just bit about your subject here - WAR.

There's no "feeling" or "told to feel" in war. The governments have declared war on each other. Following that is the main thrust of what I'm trying to get across here: YOU are trying your best to kill the other guy BECAUSE HE is trying his best to kill YOU. That's really what it comes down to and all that matters to you on a battlefield.

Bottom line is that it's simply kill or be killed. Period. And under those conditions, there's absolutely no room or time to consider petty things like ideals, morals, etc. - your ONLY concern is just trying to keep from being killed.

Amen. I really think we've forgotten that. If we're going to fight a war, and that's a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly, we should fight it to win. If you want to avoid civilian casualties, don't fight the war. But once you've decided you must fight, hit the enemy as hard as you can with no regard for anything but killing as many of them as possible as quickly as possible until they throw their hands up in horror at the demon they've unleashed and surrender. When you fight with half measures and try to avoid civilian casualties, you make the war more bearable and prolong it. Thus an all out attack with no holds barred may ultimately be more merciful than a war fought with half measures as the suffering inflicted in the former case is over with quickly whereas the half ass war goes on and on as does the suffering.
Civilian casualties is only one possible moral issue for a soldier. There is torture, shooting people surrendering, directly killing known civilians - saying shooting children at close range - treatment of prisoners, use of WOMDs, respecting or not respecting the other side's medical personnel, having your own medical personnel treat some of the other side's casualties, rape of men or women on the other side, civilian or military, poisoning crops, wells, destruction of cultural artifacts solely to demoralize, the use of cluster bombs or land mines that will kills civilians often children after combat is over, fragging of incompetent soldiers on one's own side, how and when one sacrifices one's own fellow soldiers for certain goals, how one punishes infractions

that's just some of the potential moral issues I can think of off the top of my head.

Most armies have set some limitations on what they consider ethical, certainly the US military has.

So I can't really see how you and RO (noticed in your quote here) can dismiss the entire issue. Unless you are both really advocating total war, no restrictions whatsoever on both command and troops on the ground - iow words raping enemy children would be acceptable. One can think of some of the things that went on as Jugoslavia broke up, for example. Are you really saying once the war starts there are no moral decisions to be made in relation to the enemy and you would defend ANY behavior at all as long as it hurt the other side somehow?

Amen. I really think we've forgotten that. If we're going to fight a war, and that's a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly, we should fight it to win. If you want to avoid civilian casualties, don't fight the war. But once you've decided you must fight, hit the enemy as hard as you can with no regard for anything but killing as many of them as possible as quickly as possible until they throw their hands up in horror at the demon they've unleashed and surrender. When you fight with half measures and try to avoid civilian casualties, you make the war more bearable and prolong it. Thus an all out attack with no holds barred may ultimately be more merciful than a war fought with half measures as the suffering inflicted in the former case is over with quickly whereas the half ass war goes on and on as does the suffering.

If it were that simple, why not just nuke or carpet bomb every place where the enemy hides? Maximum enemies killed, and relatively few of one's own soldiers. It seems to me that the reason we don't go there is precisely because there are balancing factors in addition to the need to kill the enemy.

I am also a little skeptical of the notion of making the enemy regret the war. I don't see anyone reacting "in horror at the demon they've unleashed". I think it more likely that the more horrible it is, the more justified people will feel in provoking war. They may surrender, but they will surrender feeling that they were still *right.* Certainly no one believes that right makes right, or that God sides with the victors. That attitude can then become the basis of future political or military issues down the road in some cases (like post-WWI German attitudes setting up WWII). The solution to that may well be occupation and re-education, like we did in Germany and Japan. (Then again, that did not work well in the Reconstruction South, so perhaps not.)

I appreciate you not making an attempt to belittle anyone - but you actually need to think just a bit about your subject here - WAR.

Agreed.

You know, Giambattista... I would be hard pressed to explain all my reasons for having made almost ANY choice in my life- Much less, why I chose to put myself in a situation where I would end up carrying the Burden of death on my stained hands.

Nonetheless, I Know and Knew that those who were opposite me in combat were not MY enemies. They were uncles, fathers, sons-- But that did not change the situation.

You don't HAVE to Understand me- I doubt you could.

You can just sit back and say, "Thank you."

"All is fair in love and war,"

The most honorable way to fight it is to take the enemy's will and ability to fight as fast as you could before there is time for more casualties on both sides. Its also honorable to destroy tanks before the crew get in it, and the aircraft before it takes off ( basically the the weapon systems not the people ).

What is acceptable for a soldier to do? Where does following orders stop and an ethical stand against one's own government begin? When does one's loyalty and duty to one's country become a moral burden that can no longer be carried? When is it lawful for a soldier or officer to disobey orders?This was supposedly decided in the Nuremberg Trials, in which Nazis were accused of and tried and convicted for crimes they committed while obeying orders. The outcome of these trials was codified in the Nuremberg Principles. They are commonly summarized in the negative, in vernacular fashion, in the statement, which is usually spoken in a mock-German accent: "I vuss chust followink orderss."

You can read the Wikipedia article on the Nuremberg Principles, or spend a month reading all the Google hits. To oversimplify and summarize:I. If you commit a crime under international law, it is you who will be punished for it, not just the person who ordered you to do it. In other words, you have a duty to civilization that overrides your duty to your commanders. II. Even if international law does not specify a punishment for the crime, it is still you who are responsible for having committed it, not just the person who gave the order. In other words, you can be convicted of a more prosaically defined crime such as rape or murder, if this provides a mechanism for punishing you. III. Being a head of state or any government official does not exempt you from such responsibility. In other words, the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply to evil. IV. The fact that you were following a direct order from your commander or any authority in your government does not exempt you from such responsibility. This was specifically included because "I was just following orders" (in any language;)) had always been a legitimate defense in the past. This principle has been elaborated extensively and is the basis for granting refugee status to a conscientious objector if his own government does not recognize conscientious objection as a reason for deferment from military service, or if it will punish him for his conscientious objection. V. Anyone who is charged with violating international law is entitled to a fair trial. In other words, you can't execute someone without a trial just because you have him on videotape. VI. Specific acts are predefined as violations of these principles. Crimes against peace include planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; and participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of those acts. Crimes of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. Crimes against humanity include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. VII. Just in case Principle VI. wasn't clear enough, complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is specifically defined as a crime under international law.I realize that the O.P. also asks about justification for going to war in the first place, but you've gotten lots of responses to that part. I have answered the first part of the question. If you are already at war, and the world acknowledges that you are at war, the Nuremberg Principles list some very important things that you still can't do.

But note that the Nuremberg Principles do not anywhere state that they only apply during war! IMO the fact that you can't do those things when you're not at war is becoming more important. War is being supplanted by terrorism. There is no state, no command structure, no acknowledged leadership with whom to negotiate, from whom to accept a surrender, or to whom to offer one. Much of today's fighting is not war. No conflict in which the USA has engaged since the end of WWII has been a proper war because war was not formally declared by Congress, as required by our Constitution.

That doesn't matter. Our military personnel still can't violate the Nuremberg Principles.

I dream of that "Crimes against peace" thingie being enforced more vigorously in the future, perhaps in a future in which one single nation doesn't have a bigger army and more weapons than the whole rest of the world. Surely, a national leader who plans and orders the overthrow of a sovereign government, justified by a premise which he knows is fraudulent, is initiating a war of aggression and is guilty of a crime against peace.

Thanks for the thoughts. I will write a few expanded responses in a bit.

Ethics in war are a burden on the side they are imposed on. Why do you think we lost Vietnam and are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Here I was thinking people lost their soul when they joined the military. In fact it's suppose to be the best part of getting out of the military, the day you get your soul back. I figure I might have had it all wrong. Some people just lose their soul when thinking of war.

Here I was thinking people lost their soul when they joined the military. In fact it's suppose to be the best part of getting out of the military, the day you get your soul back. I figure I might have had it all wrong. Some people just lose their soul when thinking of war.

People get so melodramatic about joining the military. The military is the most pragmatic part of society because by definition it has to be. Tom Clancy explained the military like a big guard dog. Its nice to have one keeping your house safe, but whenever you have company over its not something you like to show off too much.

...There is torture, shooting people surrendering, directly killing known civilians - saying shooting children at close range ...

Doreen, surely you know that you are treading in murky waters when you question these type of questions - when you try to "explain" or rationalize (or condemn or despise) certain activities in wartime.

I picked "shooting children" as a specific example, both because it tends to cause the most animosity, and because it is one I have second-hand knowledge of.

Truly - look to the depths of your soul, forget how you got on the battlefield in the first place (for the moment, and consider what you would do when the following behavior is common, if not rampant, in some conflicts):

The enemy (which could be a Western nation, say even the U.S.), succumbs to the idea of strapping explosives to little "Kathy", the cute three year old whom the grunts have fed chocolate to in the past, and sending her to run, prance, skip, whatever over to enemy line - with the express purpose of setting said explosives off via remote control, within "enemy" groups - the same groups who fed "Kathy" chocolate yesterday.

How are the combatants to deal with this type of activity? Ignore it, become "martyrs" (in the loosest sense of the word), or save their buddies and their unit? Seriously, you tell me?

Back to the personal side of it, my brother-in-law, from the 'Nam era, had no problem relating stories of.... are you ready?

Blowing a three year old off this earth with one well placed shot between they eyes - as she came bubbling over to the troops - mostly based on being tuned in to "situational awareness" - something is different today. Perhaps the elders who sent her scampering over are acting a little different to day, whatever.

Action on this is difficult, except perhaps to the most jaded psychopath. To the other, it is a situation which arises from day to day, week to week, etc. Point is the unit, or even just one man, has advance knowledge of "something's up". One hundred percent accurate? No, of course not, and not the point being argued here.

What would you do in this (or similar) conditions? Take the chance that things are just a little weird today, and Kathy, who may vary well be acting the same as yesterday (especially as far as she can tell), really is uninvolved in whats about to going down...

My brother in law (Marine sharpshooter (sniper) - 78 confirmed kills first tour in 'Nam, NOT counting small children) mentioned you get to the unthinkable position of having almost no hesitation in doing just that - "blow her away". After all, think of the potential consequences of doing the opposite and your unit dies. This is what I want you to consider - right? Wrong? Or completely outside of any "regular" environment in which to consider it?

No weaseling, again, on how you got to that exact point described above in blood - it happened, you're there - so you have to deal with it - you have three seconds? What does one do? You may have no more than a few seconds of indecision, but that changes naught the amount of time (lot's and lot's of time) to feel the second guessing, the consideration of "if I only had...", the reflection of little Kathy's parents, etc. Who is responsible? The group here that sent little "Kathy" to her death, or the hardened soldier who saw "something" wrong, raised a rifle and condemned Kathy to death - one shot, one kill. And God forbid, what if there were no explosives in this particular case?

Do you have nothing but cut and dried condemnations to offer?

Please...

Try to understand both sides (only of this sort of low layer, one (or a few) mens' ethical decisions. In seconds!

Once you have that figured out, try to appreciate (or denigrate, if that is your final choice) that these people participate at all, so you have a warm, soft bed to sleep in tonight!

Where do you draw the line?

Randwolf,
you are completely misunderstanding my post. I never even weighed in on my own ideas about wartime ethics and what they should be. I was shocked that people considered the topic meaningless and seemed to be basically saying to the OP writer that the topic should not even be talked about, war is hell, all if fair in it, period. I think that is very strange and I would guess that both of these people would, in fact, protest certain decisions by their buddies or by officers above them ON ETHICAL GROUNDS.

Do you think the topic is meaningless?
If you do you are going against the actions and decisions made by soldiers both in the field and in command posts and in classrooms in peacetime, where the issues are confronted, often with great bravery. Somehow you took my post as saying that soldiers are bad if they are not nice and fight with Marquis de Queensbury rules, etc., etc. I have not asserted that.

Context is important and I feel like you took my posts out of context and then interpreted them in the worst possible way.

I used extreme examples to see if the people saying there was no discussion to be had really thought everything was moral and there was no need to even consider such issues. I mentioned Yugoslavia because there, for example, children were killed not because they were threats but sometimes just for fun or because of who they might someday grow up to be. And where rape was used systematically, in other words cold bloodedly as a weapon. Maybe those guys really think that kind of stuff is OK. But I find it odd that they think the issue is not even worth discussing.
For all you know I might be more understanding than you about what soldiers do, especially in the heat of battle. Please let me take a stand before you judge it.

People get so melodramatic about joining the military. .

Why wouldn't they be?

Ethics in war are a burden on the side they are imposed on.The Nuremberg Principles were carefully drafted so they would not be a burden. "Military necessity" is specifically identified as a valid excuse for doing just about anything. To my knowledge there has never been any serious crusade to prosecute United States military or civilian personnel for the excessive slaughter of innocents in two Japanese cities with minimal tactical importance, even though they are textbook examples of terrorism: attacks on civilians in an attempt to convince them to adopt a policy (surrender) so unpopular among them that there was no other way to convince them. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been accepted as "military necessities" because if we had not killed those people Japan would never have surrendered until the last four year-old was gunned down while charging into a batallion of Marines waving her dead daddy's samurai sword. We accepted a couple of hundred thousand casualties because to win the war conventionally would have taken tens of millions of casualties among the Japanese and several million on our side, and obliterated Japan as a nation like the Aztecs and Incas. This is "situational ethics" writ so large that our heads and our hearts will never stop hurting from it. (And I was only two.) But it was also "military necessity."
Why do you think we lost Vietnam and are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?We didn't "lose" Vietnam: it was never ours to lose. We arrogantly stomped into the middle of somebody else's civil war because our parents thought it was our duty to free the rest of the world from communism. The allegedly "capitalist, democratic" faction in Vietnam lost that war all by themselves, by being corrupt and not earning the loyalty of their own constituents.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, those aren't "wars" and we're "bogged down" because we have no goals by which to measure "victory." Backward Baby Bush sent us in there claiming that we'd get the people who were responsible for 9/11, in order to distract us from the reality that the people who were responsible for it were his business allies in Saudi Arabia. For his family, business interests trump patriotism and he should be prosecuted for treason. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq had no WMDs, we have no goal to achieve there. Since the only thing Afghanistan had to do with 9/11 is that Osama--a Saudi Arabian!--was hiding out there, and he's now surely long gone, we have no goal there either.

In both countries we were fighting against "enemies" of our own making. Carter and Brzezinski created the network of militias that became the Taliban, to fight against the Russian-created Northern Alliance back in the days when the entire Middle East was a chessboard for fighting the Cold War and the people who had the misfortune to live there were American and Russian pawns. We backed Saddam and gave him all kinds of assistance during his war with Iran on the principle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and he figured he was our ally.

It appears to me that our "accomplishments" so far include:Overthrowing the only secular, pro-Western state in the entire Middle East. Turning that country into a Shiite nation which will inevitably ally with Iran, the only other major Shiite country on earth. Destroying what little semblance of stability the region had. Chasing the terrorists all the way into Pakistan, an Islamic nation that is only an erstwhile ally of the USA and has nuclear weapons.I shudder to think what else our wise leaders intend to "accomplish" in order to "win" this "war."
I picked "shooting children" as a specific example, both because it tends to cause the most animosity, and because it is one I have second-hand knowledge of.The Nuremberg principles make it clear that if you have reasonable suspicion that a civilian of an enemy country may be a guerrilla warrior out of uniform--even a child--and an attack is immiment, then it's up to your judgment whether "military necessity" allows you no options except to kill him. You don't have much time to dither and nobody's going to rag on you for doing the best you could under the circumstances. The fact that children have already been exploited this way is overwhelming evidence that the threat is statistically real, even if it does not materialize in any specific instance.

The "crimes against peace" that should be the subject of this discussion include some of the crap that's been going on in Iraq. Some of it is controversial but there's no way to excuse raping a minor as "military necessity." Those guys were simply assholes taking out their frustration on a hapless child. They deserve to rot in prison (I don't support capital punishment even for assholes) because they've brought dishonor to the U.S. military and to our entire nation.
How are the combatants to deal with this type of activity? Ignore it, become "martyrs" (in the loosest sense of the word), or save their buddies and their unit? Seriously, you tell me?I don't see any problem here. If you have reason to think you're being attacked then you get to fight back. War is full of incidents in which innocent people are killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the enemy soldiers honestly believe they are a threat.

This is a reason to avoid war in the first place, not to be skeptical of the Nuremberg Principles. Tell that to Backward Baby Bush. If we'd threatened to bomb Riyadh instead of Kabul and Baghdad, Prince Abdullah would have delivered Osama's head to the White House service entrance in a FedEx truck within 48 hours. And we would now be negotiating peacefully to take over the Saudi oilfields instead of destroying the oilfields in Iraq and providing the impetus for terrorists to build bases in Pakistan.
My brother in law (Marine sharpshooter (sniper) - 78 confirmed kills first tour in 'Nam, NOT counting small children) mentioned you get to the unthinkable position of having almost no hesitation in doing just that - "blow her away". After all, think of the potential consequences of doing the opposite and your unit dies. This is what I want you to consider - right? Wrong? Or completely outside of any "regular" environment in which to consider it?You do what you think is right and you have to live with the consequences even if they are nightmares for the rest of your life. But they will not include prosecution for war crimes.

The Nuremberg Principles are just about all we have for ethical guidance in war. They can't stop you from being haunted but they can stop you from going to prison.

War itself is unethical: it's an attempt by two parties who disagree over something to kill each other, even though only one can be right and they're probably both wrong. This is not an ethical way to resolve a dispute because it will never reveal who, if anyone, is right.

So to apply ethical principles once a war has started is a little late. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed, for damage control.
I mentioned Yugoslavia because there, for example, children were killed not because they were threats but sometimes just for fun or because of who they might someday grow up to be.These are textbook examples of war crimes and any lack of resolve to prosecute them is purely political, not ethical. Politics, like war, is devoid of ethics.
And where rape was used systematically, in other words cold bloodedly as a weapon.I'm not sure how rape can ever be a weapon. Perhaps it's like nuking Hiroshima, telling your enemy, "Stop fighting now or we'll obliterate your entire civilization."
Maybe those guys really think that kind of stuff is OK.If that was really their motivation, then it's extortion. We don't want to fight a long battle with high casualties in order to defeat you, so we're going to keep raping all of your women until you lay down your arms. If that doesn't work then we'll destroy all of your farmland with Napalm and bounce your babies on our bayonets.

Why wouldn't they be?

Because its a choice they freely make. If you don't like it, do your time honorably and get out. Taking with you the considerable benefits of being an honorably discharged veteran.

The Nuremberg Principles were carefully drafted so they would not be a burden. "Military necessity" is specifically identified as a valid excuse for doing just about anything. To my knowledge there has never been any serious crusade to prosecute United States military or civilian personnel for the excessive slaughter of innocents in two Japanese cities with minimal tactical importance, even though they are textbook examples of terrorism: attacks on civilians in an attempt to convince them to adopt a policy (surrender) so unpopular among them that there was no other way to convince them. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been accepted as "military necessities" because if we had not killed those people Japan would never have surrendered until the last four year-old was gunned down while charging into a batallion of Marines waving her dead daddy's samurai sword. We accepted a couple of hundred thousand casualties because to win the war conventionally would have taken tens of millions of casualties among the Japanese and several million on our side, and obliterated Japan as a nation like the Aztecs and Incas. This is "situational ethics" writ so large that our heads and our hearts will never stop hurting from it. (And I was only two.) But it was also "military necessity."We didn't "lose" Vietnam: it was never ours to lose. We arrogantly stomped into the middle of somebody else's civil war because our parents thought it was our duty to free the rest of the world from communism. The allegedly "capitalist, democratic" faction in Vietnam lost that war all by themselves, by being corrupt and not earning the loyalty of their own constituents.

Nuremburg was a witch hunt. As you clearly pointed out the allies nuked two cities full of civilians and got away with it, while a hand full of axis officers were killed for following orders. The rules for Nuremburg were written after the war and before the trials. That would be like catching a man who flipped off a cop, then deciding the penalty for flipping off a cop should be life in prison, then trying the guy for flipping off the cop. It was that blatantly biased.


As for Iraq and Afghanistan, those aren't "wars" and we're "bogged down" because we have no goals by which to measure "victory." Backward Baby Bush sent us in there claiming that we'd get the people who were responsible for 9/11, in order to distract us from the reality that the people who were responsible for it were his business allies in Saudi Arabia. For his family, business interests trump patriotism and he should be prosecuted for treason. Since Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq had no WMDs, we have no goal to achieve there. Since the only thing Afghanistan had to do with 9/11 is that Osama--a Saudi Arabian!--was hiding out there, and he's now surely long gone, we have no goal there either.

Our soldiers are getting killed in those places because we lack the will to do what it would take to stop the enemy from fighting us.


In both countries we were fighting against "enemies" of our own making. Carter and Brzezinski created the network of militias that became the Taliban, to fight against the Russian-created Northern Alliance back in the days when the entire Middle East was a chessboard for fighting the Cold War and the people who had the misfortune to live there were American and Russian pawns. We backed Saddam and gave him all kinds of assistance during his war with Iran on the principle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and he figured he was our ally.

We went there and started shooting and bombing. I agree we made them our enemies and our presence there continues to make that so. You can't blame Bush about that anymore because his is out of the game now.


It appears to me that our "accomplishments" so far include:Overthrowing the only secular, pro-Western state in the entire Middle East. Turning that country into a Shiite nation which will inevitably ally with Iran, the only other major Shiite country on earth. Destroying what little semblance of stability the region had. Chasing the terrorists all the way into Pakistan, an Islamic nation that is only an erstwhile ally of the USA and has nuclear weapons.I shudder to think what else our wise leaders intend to "accomplish" in order to "win" this "war."The Nuremberg principles make it clear that if you have reasonable suspicion that a civilian of an enemy country may be a guerrilla warrior out of uniform--even a child--and an attack is immiment, then it's up to your judgment whether "military necessity" allows you no options except to kill him. You don't have much time to dither and nobody's going to rag on you for doing the best you could under the circumstances. The fact that children have already been exploited this way is overwhelming evidence that the threat is statistically real, even if it does not materialize in any specific instance.

Its a mess and the kids in Afghanistan seem to know how to shoot as well as our Marines do.


The "crimes against peace" that should be the subject of this discussion include some of the crap that's been going on in Iraq. Some of it is controversial but there's no way to excuse raping a minor as "military necessity." Those guys were simply assholes taking out their frustration on a hapless child. They deserve to rot in prison (I don't support capital punishment even for assholes) because they've brought dishonor to the U.S. military and to our entire nation.I don't see any problem here. If you have reason to think you're being attacked then you get to fight back. War is full of incidents in which innocent people are killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the enemy soldiers honestly believe they are a threat.

Armed men under stress tend to treat civilians poorly. Its not an excuse for what they did but it is a good reason to send them home if they are not needed there anymore.


This is a reason to avoid war in the first place, not to be skeptical of the Nuremberg Principles. Tell that to Backward Baby Bush. If we'd threatened to bomb Riyadh instead of Kabul and Baghdad, Prince Abdullah would have delivered Osama's head to the White House service entrance in a FedEx truck within 48 hours. And we would now be negotiating peacefully to take over the Saudi oilfields instead of destroying the oilfields in Iraq and providing the impetus for terrorists to build bases in Pakistan.You do what you think is right and you have to live with the consequences even if they are nightmares for the rest of your life. But they will not include prosecution for war crimes.

I blame Bush for getting us into unnecessary wars and I blame Obama for keeping us in them.

Because its a choice they freely make. If you don't like it, do your time honorably and get out. Taking with you the considerable benefits of being an honorably discharged veteran.

You must have been robbed of emotions. Seriously I love the military but joining it wasn't an easy choice & for many it's a last resort. Also considerable benefits of being honorably discharged? I wouldn't use the word considerable. Improving, yes. But considerable.. no. Unless you mean the context of considerable to be "yeah, i'll consider joining for the college money that i'm more than likely to get upon leaving the military."

But once you've decided you must fight, hit the enemy as hard as you can with no regard for anything but killing as many of them as possible as quickly as possible until they throw their hands up in horror at the demon they've unleashed and surrender.

So, total war as terrorism.



When you fight with half measures and try to avoid civilian casualties, you make the war more bearable and prolong it. Thus an all out attack with no holds barred may ultimately be more merciful than a war fought with half measures as the suffering inflicted in the former case is over with quickly whereas the half ass war goes on and on as does the suffering.

Don't be ridiculous. We're talking about a world that features massive nuclear arsenals. An "all out attack with no holds barred" would amount to the instantaneous obliteration of a huge proportion of the target population, and leave their country uninhabitable for generations. I.e., genocide. There would be no "mercy" or "surrender" in such a war: what you are suggesting is victory through annihilation.

Moreover, this take on warfare ignores the political ramifications vis-a-vis the rest of the world, which are frequently at least as important as the disposition of the parties to the war. I.e., it would create more problems than it would resolve. To go down that road, you'd have to be prepared to pursue a permanent policy of world domination through genocidal terror.

Interpretted charitably, your program would require never fighting any war unless faced with credible threat of genocide (i.e., incoming nuclear assault).

You must have been robbed of emotions. Seriously I love the military but joining it wasn't an easy choice & for many it's a last resort. Also considerable benefits of being honorably discharged? I wouldn't use the word considerable. Improving, yes. But considerable.. no. Unless you mean the context of considerable to be "yeah, i'll consider joining for the college money that i'm more than likely to get upon leaving the military."

I have emotions but I'm not a basket case over every significant decision I make in my life.

I joined the US Marine Corps and later the Army National Guard to help pay for college. I knew I would be trained to kill people and I would have to follow the orders of the people who were given authority over me. Its a fairly straightforward job where they pay you okay, feed you regularly, and give you a decent place to live as well as good healthcare. The military is a fairly good place to work most of the time these days compared to most other employers. The main obvious drawback is war which is what the military is there for. Would you get a job at burger king and cry yourself to sleep about having to make whoppers every day? That is why I don't understand why people join the military and complain about war when they have to go. The military was not there to pay for all of my college up to half way through grad school. It was not there to pay for several of my children to be born. It was not there for me to get several VA home loans. It wasn't even there for me to get free healthcare at the VA when I was a poor college student. The military is and was there to further US interests around the world at the point of a gun. The price for all the benefits I received was holding that gun, if only for a time. I have no illusions about that. Neither should you so long as you agree to hold that gun.

The price for all the benefits I received was holding that gun, if only for a time. I have no illusions about that. Neither should you so long as you agree to hold that gun.The military deliberately recruits people who are barely out of childhood and, therefore, very naive. It's not unreasonable to expect them to develop a more nuanced perception of the world, including a conscience.

Everyone has a duty to the entire human race and its civilization that trumps their duty to the pathetic little strip of land they call their "country." If their so-called "superiors" order them to subordinate that higher duty to the lower one, they have an obligation to tell the assholes to go fuck themselves.

[QUOTE]These are textbook examples of war crimes and any lack of resolve to prosecute them is purely political, not ethical. Sometimes it is tricky in a thread like this to distinguish between responses that are critique or using one's ideas as springboards. But just to be clear. A couple of posters in this thread basically said that there is not point in having any discussion at all of ethics in wartime because basically anthing goes in a war and the only thing a soldier does it protect himself and his buddies and tries to fight as best as possible. But I will bet you, that as much as my politics differ from madanthonywayne and I do not get along at all with Read Only, that both of them would balk at certain wartime acts, even by their closest buddies and certainly by their officers, their government and command AND they would object on moral grounds. I want it to be clear that what I am saying is I have faith in both these men, that even in a war, they both would consider certain acts immoral. We might disagree over which acts and how many, but they would object to certain things, just as you and I would.

So when they basically, it seemed to me, told the OP writer that the topic was moot and silly, I thought this was ridiculous.


Politics, like war, is devoid of ethics.But from the outside of politics pressure can be put based on ethics, so discussions such as this can be worthwhile if one believes in morals that would be relevent to the carrying out of a war.


I'm not sure how rape can ever be a weapon.It is a ghastly form of psyops. Women give birth to children who are seen as the enemy. Woman are looked down on as whores. FAmilies are split. Women choose abortions over their religious beliefs or have children they will forever feel mixed feelings about. The men's honor is smashed, they lose face.

NOTE: I am not saying these reactions all make sense or are moral, but they were, for example, actual reactions in Yugoslavia.

And of course it is yet another way of demoralizing people who were helpless to help those they loved, loved ones who come back with emotional scars which will also drain resources.


Perhaps it's like nuking Hiroshima, telling your enemy, "Stop fighting now or we'll obliterate your entire civilization."If that was really their motivation, then it's extortion. We don't want to fight a long battle with high casualties in order to defeat you, so we're going to keep raping all of your women until you lay down your arms. If that doesn't work then we'll destroy all of your farmland with Napalm and bounce your babies on our bayonets.yes, these are aspects also. In the Balkans of course, it was an effective 'message' to clear everybody out of the land we want. Sure, military attacks send this message, but if one knows that every single female member of your family will be raped if caught, you may decide to escort them over the mountains rather than joining the local militia.

So, total war as terrorism.
Thank you Quadrophonics for coming in. The position he and RO took basically says that the only distinction between a terrorist and a soldier is that one is sanctioned by an organization - a state - that the UN recognizes, but there is absolutely no moral difference.


I truly doubt they believe this.

The military deliberately recruits people who are barely out of childhood and, therefore, very naive. It's not unreasonable to expect them to develop a more nuanced perception of the world, including a conscience.

Everyone has a duty to the entire human race and its civilization that trumps their duty to the pathetic little strip of land they call their "country." If their so-called "superiors" order them to subordinate that higher duty to the lower one, they have an obligation to tell the assholes to go fuck themselves.

The military recruits young and healthy people. They don't want old people with bad teeth and back problems. Something about being fit enough to fight should the occasion arise.

If an 18 year old adult lacks a conscience or holds a naive view of the world then its parents did not do their job. There are much worse places than the military for a simpleton adult to find themselves.

I must say, your last paragraph made me chuckle. If it weren't for those armed people and their quaint notions of their "country" you would probably be in a Chinese or Soviet prison camp. Your high minded sentiment falls flat in the pragmatic world of international politics.

I have emotions but I'm not a basket case over every significant decision I make in my life.

I joined the US Marine Corps and later the Army National Guard to help pay for college. I knew I would be trained to kill people and I would have to follow the orders of the people who were given authority over me. Its a fairly straightforward job where they pay you okay, feed you regularly, and give you a decent place to live as well as good healthcare. The military is a fairly good place to work most of the time these days compared to most other employers. The main obvious drawback is war which is what the military is there for. Would you get a job at burger king and cry yourself to sleep about having to make whoppers every day? That is why I don't understand why people join the military and complain about war when they have to go. The military was not there to pay for all of my college up to half way through grad school. It was not there to pay for several of my children to be born. It was not there for me to get several VA home loans. It wasn't even there for me to get free healthcare at the VA when I was a poor college student. The military is and was there to further US interests around the world at the point of a gun. The price for all the benefits I received was holding that gun, if only for a time. I have no illusions about that. Neither should you so long as you agree to hold that gun.

I'd suggest you seek a therapist for your mental illness.

I'd suggest you seek a therapist for your mental illness.

What are you a Care Bear?

What are you a Care Bear?

Anyone who say's joining the army is like breathing air, and then compares it to mcdonalds.. then says high interest, unforgiving morgages funded by the va is all peachy is definitely mental.

Civilian casualties is only one possible moral issue for a soldier. There is torture, shooting people surrendering, directly killing known civilians - saying shooting children at close range - treatment of prisoners, use of WOMDs, respecting or not respecting the other side's medical personnel, having your own medical personnel treat some of the other side's casualties, rape of men or women on the other side, civilian or military, poisoning crops, wells, destruction of cultural artifacts solely to demoralize, the use of cluster bombs or land mines that will kills civilians often children after combat is over, fragging of incompetent soldiers on one's own side, how and when one sacrifices one's own fellow soldiers for certain goals, how one punishes infractions

that's just some of the potential moral issues I can think of off the top of my head.

Most armies have set some limitations on what they consider ethical, certainly the US military has.

So I can't really see how you and RO (noticed in your quote here) can dismiss the entire issue. Unless you are both really advocating total war, no restrictions whatsoever on both command and troops on the ground - iow words raping enemy children would be acceptable. One can think of some of the things that went on as Jugoslavia broke up, for example. Are you really saying once the war starts there are no moral decisions to be made in relation to the enemy and you would defend ANY behavior at all as long as it hurt the other side somehow?

Doreen, after a more careful reading of the above post...


Randwolf,
you are completely misunderstanding my post. I never even weighed in on my own ideas about wartime ethics and what they should be. I was shocked that people considered the topic meaningless and seemed to be basically saying to the OP writer that the topic should not even be talked about, war is hell, all if fair in it, period. I think that is very strange and I would guess that both of these people would, in fact, protest certain decisions by their buddies or by officers above them ON ETHICAL GROUNDS.

Do you think the topic is meaningless?
If you do you are going against the actions and decisions made by soldiers both in the field and in command posts and in classrooms in peacetime, where the issues are confronted, often with great bravery. Somehow you took my post as saying that soldiers are bad if they are not nice and fight with Marquis de Queensbury rules, etc., etc. I have not asserted that.

Context is important and I feel like you took my posts out of context and then interpreted them in the worst possible way.

I used extreme examples to see if the people saying there was no discussion to be had really thought everything was moral and there was no need to even consider such issues. I mentioned Yugoslavia because there, for example, children were killed not because they were threats but sometimes just for fun or because of who they might someday grow up to be. And where rape was used systematically, in other words cold bloodedly as a weapon. Maybe those guys really think that kind of stuff is OK. But I find it odd that they think the issue is not even worth discussing.
For all you know I might be more understanding than you about what soldiers do, especially in the heat of battle. Please let me take a stand before you judge it.Prompted by this post...

I offer my apologies - in fact, I see that you take no stand on any actual or hypothetical events whatsoever. You simply point out that someone should, maybe.

Fine, apologies again, but due to reasons I think you can infer from my reply post, this particular quote:
Civilian casualties is only one possible moral issue for a soldier. There is torture, shooting people surrendering, directly killing known civilians - saying shooting children at close range...[emphasis mine] kind of hit a nerve. I ran with it without considering the subtelties in your post.

Doreen, after a more careful reading of the above post...

Prompted by this post...

I offer my apologies - in fact, I see that you take no stand on any actual or hypothetical events whatsoever. You simply point out that someone should, maybe.No problem and thanks.


Fine, apologies again, but due to reasons I think you can infer from my reply post, this particular quote:[emphasis mine] kind of hit a nerve. I ran with it without considering the subtelties in your post.Again, no problem and I get it. I am not someone who thinks it makes sense, for example, to refer to Vietnam vets as babykillers and I can imagine what you got reminded of. I think people like to identify with one category and oppose it to others. I am peaceful, so I am not warlike. Or whatever. Well, I am peaceful and warlike. I can easily imagine doing what happens in Saving Private Ryan when the allied soldiers finally get up on the ridge where some of them shoot surrendering Germans. It's wrong, and in fact the German soldiers were 'fighting fair' by the standards of the time, they just had great positions and were bunkered in with machine guns. But I know I would want to kill if I was lucky enough to reach that ridge and I am not sure I would honor the nicities of the Geneva Convention in the heat of battle. I do hope that after battles I would not find it fun and justified to torture regular grunts from the other side who my platoon had captured. I also hope I wouldn't shoot at medics. I can't say for sure I wouldn't, but I hope I wouldn't, even though on one level it is a fantasy that this makes us moral creatures. The same would be my hopes for myself with some of the other examples I gave with children, etc. I mean you gotta walk many a mile in people's shoes before you presume that you would live their lives better. I do think it's meaningful to discuss what is truly out of bounds and what one should strive not to do, even in the heat of battle. With the humility that the latter is just not going to happen on occasion even with 'good' people.

(snip)kind of hit a nerve.(snip)

This point here is why I've started skimming this thread instead of reading...

I have some frayed nerves that are still tender, myself...

The position he and RO took basically says that the only distinction between a terrorist and a soldier is that one is sanctioned by an organization - a state - that the UN recognizes, but there is absolutely no moral difference."Terrorism" is a deliberate attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure with little or no strategic or tactical value, as a form of extortion. The purpose is to terrorize the civilians into adopting a policy so repugnant to them that there's no legitimate way to evangelize it among them, hoping that they will then be able to prevail upon their government to do (or not do) something to please the terrorists. This is not war, and people who do this are not warriors. They may be "soldiers" because soldiers only follow orders, but a soldier can be either a warrior or a terrorist.

A fighter who does not fight under the banner of a recognized state may be an insurgent, a guerrilla warrior, a rebel, or many things; but so long as he does his honorable best to restrict his attacks to genuine military targets, he is not a terrorist and may as well be called a soldier.

By this reasonably straightforward definition I call Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism, even though they succeeded: Japan did indeed surrender, a policy that their people would originally never have sanctioned because it violates their code of honor. Whereas the attacks on the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the Pentagon were acts of war because those are all obvious and valid military targets.
The military recruits young and healthy people. They don't want old people with bad teeth and back problems. Something about being fit enough to fight should the occasion arise. If an 18 year old adult lacks a conscience or holds a naive view of the world then its parents did not do their job.How many 18 year-olds have the perspective, discipline and emotional maturity to decide for themselves whether killing someone who is not shooting at them is right or wrong? Especially when the people who have spent six weeks brainwashing them tell them it's right?

And need I once again ask what reason these children (regardless of their age at the time), whom you postulate as well-raised by their parents and well-indoctrinated by their drill officers, thought that rape was a valid military tactic? Or fucking each other in front of war prisoners?
There are much worse places than the military for a simpleton adult to find themselves.Just because being in the Army may not be quite as evil a fate as being in the local chapter of the Bloods doesn't mean it's actually a good place.
If it weren't for those armed people and their quaint notions of their "country" you would probably be in a Chinese or Soviet prison camp.I am not advocating disbanding our military. Even as a pacifist I understand that this is something no country can do unilaterally. I am merely advocating compliance with the international rules of war. In every case, when slavish conformance to one of those rules would compromise a military objective, military necessity is specifically directed to take precedence. Thus, people who violate the rules of war are assholes and should be shown no mercy. They bring dishonor to their army, their cause and their nation.

Anyone who say's joining the army is like breathing air, and then compares it to mcdonalds.. then says high interest, unforgiving morgages funded by the va is all peachy is definitely mental.

VA loans are actually better than many other types that are out there as far as protecting the buyer goes.

I said joining the military is a choice with consequences, just like taking a job at McDonalds. You act like its a big surprise/personal tragedy that joining the Army might actually require you to act like a soldier.

Naivety is a rough way to go through life but i guess it could be worse.

Ethics begins at the top, as does the whole realm of unethical behavior, so leave the soldiers in the field out of it for the moment.

The military journalists consider Health Care, for example, to be the military's greatest enemy (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/03/deja-vu-guns-v-butter-election-looms.html) at the moment.

That sounds like a valid ethical conflict. :shrug:

The internationalrules of war are pretty much a
joke. Nobody enforces them. unless you commit a holocaust people will look the other way

VA loans are actually better than many other types that are out there as far as protecting the buyer goes.

I said joining the military is a choice with consequences, just like taking a job at McDonalds. You act like its a big surprise/personal tragedy that joining the Army might actually require you to act like a soldier.

Naivety is a rough way to go through life but i guess it could be worse.

You're the one being Naive. In almost every definition of the word. The consequences to working at mcdonalds are a low paying job with crappy hours. Depending on your mos, that's about all there is in common with the military. Unless of course you're mental.

Can you tell me how many people cried in your boot camp? I'm guessing around 80%? How many people cry while in trainee status to mcdonalds? Virtually none in comparrison.

Does McDonalds relocate you across the country every 2 years or so, or does mcdonalds deploy you to a foriegn country? Absolutely not.

The military is a dangerous job and should damn well be respected as such. If drill sergeants had the same attitude as you the hand basket that our military is being delivered personally to satan himself in hell would get a little bit bigger.

Also you were quite naive to assume I felt soft and emotional when enlisting. You could take my word for it that I wasn't. I opt'd for every school i possibly could. Almost 3 years into the military i'm about to make staff sergeant. I don't think you get it that quick by pussy footing around.

My advise still stands, I think it'd do you some good to see a shrink. You might get some people killed otherwise. You know, comparing rolling out of the gate to getting high at woodstock or something.

You're the one being Naive. In almost every definition of the word. The consequences to working at mcdonalds are a low paying job with crappy hours. Depending on your mos, that's about all there is in common with the military. Unless of course you're mental.

There are duties to every job and supervisors to see the job gets done.


Can you tell me how many people cried in your boot camp? I'm guessing around 80%? How many people cry while in trainee status to mcdonalds? Virtually none in comparrison.

I don't know and don't care. You must have cared enough to compile the statistics. People do cry at fast food and retail work. Stress affects people, even if they are not in the military.


Does McDonalds relocate you across the country every 2 years or so, or does mcdonalds deploy you to a foriegn country? Absolutely not.

You mean you actually had to relocate after you joined a job that requires you to relocate? That's amazing. You shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.


The military is a dangerous job and should damn well be respected as such. If drill sergeants had the same attitude as you the hand basket that our military is being delivered personally to satan himself in hell would get a little bit bigger.

Yes it is a dangerous job. It is respected as such. My drill instructors were sure to remind us of that again and again during training. That is why they trained us so hard. Some theory about training hard so we have a better chance of surviving real combat.


Also you were quite naive to assume I felt soft and emotional when enlisting. You could take my word for it that I wasn't. I opt'd for every school i possibly could. Almost 3 years into the military i'm about to make staff sergeant. I don't think you get it that quick by pussy footing around.

You seem soft and emotional now. Unless you work in some support capacity I don't see how you could make rank quickly while complaining so much about the military. Its a non-NCO trait from my experience.


My advise still stands, I think it'd do you some good to see a shrink. You might get some people killed otherwise. You know, comparing rolling out of the gate to getting high at woodstock or something.

I'm a civilian now. But when I was on duty I knew the difference between time to make a low profile and shoot straight, and time to have fun and relax. My troops did too. We survived.

If the stress is too difficult for you feel free to partake of your tax payer funded healthcare and see one of those hot shot military shrinks. Hopefully, they found a replacement for Major Hasan to meet all your mental health needs.

There are duties to every job and supervisors to see the job gets done.



I don't know and don't care. You must have cared enough to compile the statistics. People do cry at fast food and retail work. Stress affects people, even if they are not in the military.



You mean you actually had to relocate after you joined a job that requires you to relocate? That's amazing. You shouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.



Yes it is a dangerous job. It is respected as such. My drill instructors were sure to remind us of that again and again during training. That is why they trained us so hard. Some theory about training hard so we have a better chance of surviving real combat.



You seem soft and emotional now. Unless you work in some support capacity I don't see how you could make rank quickly while complaining so much about the military. Its a non-NCO trait from my experience.



I'm a civilian now. But when I was on duty I knew the difference between time to make a low profile and shoot straight, and time to have fun and relax. My troops did too. We survived.

If the stress is too difficult for you feel free to partake of your tax payer funded healthcare and see one of those hot shot military shrinks. Hopefully, they found a replacement for Major Hasan to meet all your mental health needs.

you're absolutely convinced that you can compare the military to fast food. what can i say that i already haven't. you must have been a cook.

I love traveling actually. I've been all over, fort benning, fort bragg, fort carson, california, miami and even texas. i can't say there was anything to put up with besides free first class airfare.

about your training, that's precisely my point. let's say your drill sergeants trained you to be a fry boy, which in your case is likely. you'd be pretty good at it but you'd still just be a fry boy not a soldier. it's the emotional level that makes a soldier who he is. i'm beginning to think you've never been in the military.

I made my e-5 before completing my mos school. It's hard to believe, i know. But oh every single one of us who made it that far were promoted right around that same time. We weren't selected for promotion in any regular sense. We were tested on many different levels, not like your typical army promotion board, or marine selection. We were individually graded from day 1. If we forgot an alice clip 6 weeks beforehand it was still counted against you and you never were allowed to forget your mistakes. In SOLT was the only time you could say we were allowed to relax. Most fryboys at mcdonalds wouldn't call it relaxing.

I hope your troops survived, a lot of things can go wrong in a kitchen. You sure did em' good hoss.

you're absolutely convinced that you can compare the military to fast food. what can i say that i already haven't. you must have been a cook.

I love traveling actually. I've been all over, fort benning, fort bragg, fort carson, california, miami and even texas. i can't say there was anything to put up with besides free first class airfare.

about your training, that's precisely my point. let's say your drill sergeants trained you to be a fry boy, which in your case is likely. you'd be pretty good at it but you'd still just be a fry boy not a soldier. it's the emotional level that makes a soldier who he is. i'm beginning to think you've never been in the military.

I made my e-5 before completing my mos school. It's hard to believe, i know. But oh every single one of us who made it that far were promoted right around that same time. We weren't selected for promotion in any regular sense. We were tested on many different levels, not like your typical army promotion board, or marine selection. We were individually graded from day 1. If we forgot an alice clip 6 weeks beforehand it was still counted against you and you never were allowed to forget your mistakes. In SOLT was the only time you could say we were allowed to relax. Most fryboys at mcdonalds wouldn't call it relaxing.

I hope your troops survived, a lot of things can go wrong in a kitchen. You sure did em' good hoss.

The military flew you first class as an enlisted man. I'm sure. They are known to spare no expense on such things.

Training makes a soldier, cook, truck driver etc... I don't know who fed you the line about emotions making a soldier but I'd advise you to reconsider it.

You accuse me of being a cook and make all kinds of crazy claims about getting promoted fast.

Those drill sergeants must have taught you well, once they dried the tears from your eyes and tucked you in at night.

The military flew you first class as an enlisted man. I'm sure. They are known to spare no expense on such things.

Training makes a soldier, cook, truck driver etc... I don't know who fed you the line about emotions making a soldier but I'd advise you to reconsider it.

You accuse me of being a cook and make all kinds of crazy claims about getting promoted fast.

Those drill sergeants must have taught you well, once they dried the tears from your eyes and tucked you in at night.

This confirms it for me. You were never in the military.

Obviously you'd know flying in uniform gets you bumped from coach to first class. Never had one flight where the airliners didn't bump me up. It's their way of thanking the soldiers.

Only because basic breaks you down "emotionally" and "physically". This is the definition to becomming a soldier, something you know nothing about. It's the absolute basic definition of it. Even civillians with no knowledge of the military know this. Funny thing is one of the first speeches they give every single recruit goes along the lines of "we'll break you down emotionally and physically and build you back up"

I was promoted 1 year and 10 months into my military career, long after drill sergeants. I spent the 1st 2 years and a few extra weeks training, this would tell you something if you'd ever been in the military. Not that you have been, so I don't expect you to know. My Mos is 18e, and it's a requirement to make your e-5 before completing Q course.

"Terrorism" is a deliberate attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure with little or no strategic or tactical value, as a form of extortion.

That doesn't make any sense. Targets without value are not useful for extortion.



The purpose is to terrorize the civilians into adopting a policy so repugnant to them that there's no legitimate way to evangelize it among them, hoping that they will then be able to prevail upon their government to do (or not do) something to please the terrorists.

Nonsense. The (stated) political aims of terrorist groups are frequently blandly mainstream (and protean, indicating their superficial nature, but let's leave that aside for now), and the use of terrorism in pursuit of them demonstably the least effective way to advance them.

Terrorism is not some kind of rational Clausewitzian warfare, or even a misconstrual of such by ill-informed or irrational actors. Political utility really is incidental to the phenomenon.



This is not war, and people who do this are not warriors.

Why not? What's the difference between your description and regular warfare, other than the involvement of explicit state actors?


By this reasonably straightforward definition I call Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism, even though they succeeded:

Where did "success" figure into your definition?

And since when were Hiroshima and Nagasaki without tactical or strategic value?

And where have you demonstrated that those attacks were intended to send messages to the populace, rather than the political class directly?



Japan did indeed surrender, a policy that their people would originally never have sanctioned because it violates their code of honor.

Hogwash. Japan was going to surrender one way or the other; the only question was only when and on what terms.

If Japan was really ready to face annihilation instead of surrendering, then by definition they wouldn't have surrenderred. Annihilation by nuclear bombardment would be no worse than annihilation by incendiary bombardment and land invasion; actually it would probably be preferable.

If someone prefers death to some political outcome, then threatening them with death isn't going to move them.

The relevant message sent by the atomic bombings was not that Japan faced certain defeat - that was a foregone conclusion, by that point - but that the US would achieve this without giving Japan the opportunity to inflict heavy casualties in return. Hence there was no longer any point in holding out, since it would not improve Japan's bargaining position in negotiating the surrender. Note that such a message is intended for the political class making the strategic decisions, by its nature.

This confirms it for me. You were never in the military.

Obviously you'd know flying in uniform gets you bumped from coach to first class. Never had one flight where the airliners didn't bump me up. It's their way of thanking the soldiers.

Only because basic breaks you down "emotionally" and "physically". This is the definition to becomming a soldier, something you know nothing about. It's the absolute basic definition of it. Even civillians with no knowledge of the military know this. Funny thing is one of the first speeches they give every single recruit goes along the lines of "we'll break you down emotionally and physically and build you back up"

I was promoted 1 year and 10 months into my military career, long after drill sergeants. I spent the 1st 2 years and a few extra weeks training, this would tell you something if you'd ever been in the military. Not that you have been, so I don't expect you to know. My Mos is 18e, and it's a requirement to make your e-5 before completing Q course.

My uncle once said he ate a pepper that made him cry. I was 6 or so at the time and I called him a liar. Boy did I ever get scolded for that.

Its not emotionally. Its physically, mentally, and emotionally. Its the whole package. Every job has stresses. Maybe not special forces school stresses but some people can't hack getting complained to about stupid things. Why do you think so many combat veterans have a hard time getting back to civilian life? Its a different form of stress that they can't deal with well. I know guys who can handle getting shot at but can't stand being around whiney people. They would do consecutive tours in Iraq except for the policy that they have to see a shrink before they can get the ok to do it.

Reading about your mos made me chuckle. My mos was 3531. I failed the two week part of the driving course where we drove manual transmission 5 tons. So they took me and my room mates, who failed on purpose to stay with me, to see a Major. He threatened to put us in cook school if we failed again. So we had to repeat that part of the school and we all passed. We also partied and had lots of fun.

Hope you are enjoying your time in the service. I make lots more now than I did when I got out at 4 years as an E-5. The GI Bill paid a ton of bills and the VA loan helped me get two houses so far, trying to sell the first one and its going tediously slow. Not to mention the VA hospital where I went when I was a poor college student. Add to that, the benefit of having USMC on my resume and you get the idea of how the military has helped me.

Even though we seem to disagree on a few things I have to respect the schooling you've been through. Good grief thats some high speed low drag stuff. I feel better knowing guys like you are between me and those who would harm me and mine. Keep up the good work.

The military journalists consider Health Care, for example, to be the military's greatest enemy at the moment.How amusing. We pacifist libertarians see it the other way around. If the shit-for-brains government would stop spending a hundred billion dollars a year on a war that was started for fraudulent reasons and is not likely to accomplish anything positive (unless you count pushing Al Qaeda's base of ops into a not terribly hostile country with nuclear weapons, and pissing off the entire Muslim population of this planet, as "positive") they'd have lots of money to spend at home.
Obviously you'd know flying in uniform gets you bumped from coach to first class. Never had one flight where the airliners didn't bump me up. It's their way of thanking the soldiers.I've flown coach with lots of men and women in uniform.
That doesn't make any sense. Targets without value are not useful for extortion.They have no strategic military value. Killing a couple of hundred thousand civilians and leaving the rest to suffer painful lingering deaths--especially the children--is a great way to demoralize the civilian population.
Nonsense. The (stated) political aims of terrorist groups are frequently blandly mainstream (and protean, indicating their superficial nature, but let's leave that aside for now), and the use of terrorism in pursuit of them demonstably the least effective way to advance them. Terrorism is not some kind of rational Clausewitzian warfare, or even a misconstrual of such by ill-informed or irrational actors. Political utility really is incidental to the phenomenon.Yes we all know that now, and I suspect it's more true now than it was in WWII and in the days of the IRA.
Why not? What's the difference between your description and regular warfare, other than the involvement of explicit state actors?The definition of terrorism says nothing about the status of the actors. They can be official military personnel or any other type of fighter. It's the targets that matter. Attacking military targets is war. Attacking civilian targets is not always terrorism, but it's not war. The WTC was terrorism; the Pentagon was war.
Where did "success" figure into your definition?It didn't. It was just ironic, and terribly sad, that it was successful. From then on, every two-bit terrorist on earth can say to his recruits, "Hey, it worked for the United States. So it can work for us." My country has become a role model for everyone from the IRA to the PLO.
And since when were Hiroshima and Nagasaki without tactical or strategic value?Obviously they had their share of war plants, but no more than any other cities of comparable size. There were only two atomic bombs in existence in the whole world at that time. Those two cities did not have enough value as military targets to drop those two bombs on them!
And where have you demonstrated that those attacks were intended to send messages to the populace, rather than the political class directly?Well I was a little too young to overhear any discussions at the time. But the few cogent analyses I have read, by people who had access to some of the participants, say that. They said that the Emperor did not have a strong personality and had no control over the military leaders, and that the military leaders had worked themselves into a frenzy of imperialist honor, believing that they would betray their constituents if they surrendered. Since there would never be any pressure from above, it was up to the U.S. to generate pressure from below. By demonstrating to the Japanese populace that they were up against a new kind of enemy who had absolutely no sense of honor and would do anything to win, the U.S. changed the rules and made it possible for them to consider the taboo subject of surrender.
Hogwash. Japan was going to surrender one way or the other; the only question was only when and on what terms.Reasonable people disagree. Perhaps you're right. I have found the arguments I cited persuasive. Every culture has its streak of irrationality and that was Japan's.

I have certainly seen more than one estimate that without the nukes, the war would have dragged on for many years and taken roughly 75 million more casualties, before Japan finally surrendered. This would have MORE THAN DOUBLED the death toll from that war.
If Japan was really ready to face annihilation instead of surrendering, then by definition they wouldn't have surrenderred. Annihilation by nuclear bombardment would be no worse than annihilation by incendiary bombardment and land invasion; actually it would probably be preferable.It's a lot easier to maintain the illusion that you're going to win in a conventional war. When your enemy starts dropping city-busters on you without really even coming close enough to shoot at, you suddenly have to face annihilation as a real possibility.

I feel bad for not participating more in this thread that I initiated, but I haven't really been in the mood to be on Sciforums in the last few days. That, and y'all are doing a good job bringing up points on your own!

Ethics begins at the top, as does the whole realm of unethical behavior, so leave the soldiers in the field out of it for the moment.

The military journalists consider Health Care, for example, to be the military's greatest enemy (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/03/deja-vu-guns-v-butter-election-looms.html) at the moment.

That sounds like a valid ethical conflict. :shrug:

Totally agreed. I actually wanted to add that to the discussion at some point: mistreatment of military personnel by the government. Heck, government (U.S. and others) mistreatment of people in general... you couldn't find the end of that topic!

Skimmed the beginning of your blog post.. looks interesting. I will come back to that later.


The international rules of war are pretty much a
joke. Nobody enforces them. unless you commit a holocaust people will look the other way

I wanted to briefly thank Fraggle Rocker for bringing up the Nuremberg trials and the so-called international rules of war.

But fedr808 is right in one sense and that was when Fraggle Rocker mentioned it, I wondered exactly who cares about Nuremberg or International Law? Seems like the US, or... err... okay... ONE faction in this great nation of ours... doesn't really care about any of that. In fact, defying its own constitution, and engaging in extraordinary rendition is fair according to these people.

They have no strategic military value. Killing a couple of hundred thousand civilians and leaving the rest to suffer painful lingering deaths--especially the children--is a great way to demoralize the civilian population.

An action which has "strategic military value," no?

And no, it's not, necessarily. Aerial bombardment frequently has exactly the opposite effect on the morale of the civilian population. It didn't break Britain in WWII, to cite one well-known example.



Yes we all know that now, and I suspect it's more true now than it was in WWII and in the days of the IRA.

You say that, but you keep including all the provisos about political utility in your definition of terrorism.


Attacking civilian targets is not always terrorism, but it's not war.

Sure it is. It's called "total war."

Maybe it's also terrorism, but that doesn't mean it isn't war.



From then on, every two-bit terrorist on earth can say to his recruits, "Hey, it worked for the United States. So it can work for us." My country has become a role model for everyone from the IRA to the PLO.

Right, cause there was never any instance of total war in history before that.



Obviously they had their share of war plants, but no more than any other cities of comparable size. There were only two atomic bombs in existence in the whole world at that time. Those two cities did not have enough value as military targets to drop those two bombs on them!

Why ever not? Bombing them seems to have worked, no? Is forcing a surrender somehow without strategic value?

It seems to me that you're considering only tactical military value. Strategic value is a much broader beast.



They said that the Emperor did not have a strong personality and had no control over the military leaders, and that the military leaders had worked themselves into a frenzy of imperialist honor, believing that they would betray their constituents if they surrendered. Since there would never be any pressure from above, it was up to the U.S. to generate pressure from below.

This is kooky. Japan was not a democratic government at the time, so there's no reliable mechanism for generating "pressure from below" short of open rebellion - something the US knew perfectly well would not be made more likely by aerial bombardment.

Rather, it was a means of putting pressure on the political decision-makers directly. It didn't change the expectations put on them by the populace so much as change the rules of the game they themselves were playing.

I'm not saying that it didn't also make an impression on the civilian populace - obviously it did. But I take issue with the idea that such was the primary mechanism of political impact of the bombings. For one, the surrender came too rapidly on the heels of the atomic bombings for it to have been the result of a mass realignment of popular sentiment pressuring the military leadership; that sort of thing takes months - or even years - to occur (and frequently does not occur at all in militarized, authoritarian societies like Japan's was).



I have certainly seen more than one estimate that without the nukes, the war would have dragged on for many years and taken roughly 75 million more casualties, before Japan finally surrendered. This would have MORE THAN DOUBLED the death toll from that war.

Yeah, those numbers are preposterous on their faces. There are many wild estimates out there, some of them deliberately exaggerated to justify the use of nuclear weapons.