Are all soldiers like the Nazis?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Just because they should know something doesn't mean they do.
too bad.
Why do you even bother posting anything at all?:shrug:
I'm not at all sure John puts any thought whatsoever into his posts, but I think he thinks he does...
SAM , according to the peace movement Osama Bin Laden is innocent and that 9/11 is a dirty CIA job .
No.
In fact it's written into many military codes that a soldier should question orders he considers to be wrong.
[quote[Do they all justify wrong behaviour with ideology?[/QUOTE]
No.
Spoken like someone who has no idea.
Wrong and wrong.
Most militaries desire and require intelligent, thinking soldiers.
Morale? Or morality?
One should always question the morality of war.
You are definitely on spot with this, but once you make the commitment to serve, the rest is mostly out of your hands. Orders are orders...
@SAM - a soldier is, however, taught the difference between a "legal" and an "illegal" order - they are under no obligation to follow an illegal order, as was plainly shown during the Guantánamo fiasco - if they had total freedom, the a**holes that clearly broke American policy would not have to fear punishment, now would they?
The G.W. Bush twisted the rules, regulations and the laws in GITMO, Abu Ghraib, in Mazari Sharif.....etc. When generals and colonels are receiving orders from Dick Cheney and ordering soldiers to torture detainees.....etc the whole system breaks for worse . The same crap was witnessed in Vietnam whereas too many atrocities occurred .
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
The military just kills people. That's it. Nothing else. Everyone who willingly serves in the military is either a murderer themselves, or an accomplice to murder. There is nothing righteous or noble about it and there are no exceptions to that rule. The opportunities to engage in killing and destruction are primarily what attract people to military service. Denying that fact makes no difference.
It's akin to the people who join the police force after they get out of the military...because they wish to continue living a violent lifestyle with impunity. Trying to substantiate that kind of primitive barbarism, with grandiose claims of being "patriotic" or "wanting to serve," is an insult to the intelligence of every peaceful and rational human being. Death and destruction are not noble concepts... regardless of the scenario. Nor are death and destruction "necessary evils." That's just more of the same rationalization, by savages who refuse grow up and leave the cave.
It's akin to the people who join the police force after they get out of the military...because they wish to continue living a violent lifestyle with impunity. Trying to substantiate that kind of primitive barbarism, with grandiose claims of being "patriotic" or "wanting to serve," is an insult to the intelligence of every peaceful and rational human being. Death and destruction are not noble concepts... regardless of the scenario. Nor are death and destruction "necessary evils." That's just more of the same rationalization, by savages who refuse grow up and leave the cave.
Does the irony of killing another human being being legal ever strike anyone?
One could simply point out that a military is a government agency that carries out the policies of its parent government. I don't think you will find any that are tasked with just randomly killing people.
I think what you are suggesting is naive, albeit perhaps well-meant.
Having a question to ask does not yet mean that there will be suitable sources to get answers from, or that those asked will give truthful answers.
Moreover, there is no point in asking questions of someone (or consulting a book) if one doesn't trust them.
People have done it since time immemorial, and since time immemorial, some of the killings were accompanied with the notion of being legal.
What is your point?
Yeah, just like the caste system, torture, slavery etc.
Earth is heaven and hell in one package. When more to ask? What else to ask for?
No
No
Yes
Where to start...
My grandfather, mother's father, fought the Nazi's with the partisans in Italy. He actually killed Nazis and had a body count. Why would I be proud? Europe is free, not under a dictator.
My father, the Soldier, was a wheeled mechanic in Italy during Vietnam. He voluntarily served his country during an unpopular (among other things) war in a peaceful manner. He has no kills, assisted in no kills. He served honorably.
My uncle, the Marine, was a wheeled mechanic too in California. There were no conflicts while he served. He has no kills, committed no crimes.
My uncle, the Sailor, served mainly as an admiral's aide. He assumes he has a low body count from Lebanon. He was also the admiral's body guard and they walked into a "very hairy" situation once. He sailed out of Lebanon 3 days before they blew up they Marine barracks.
My brother, the part-time Soldier (National Guardsman) served a tour in Iraq. He has zero kills too. He mainly performed guard duty in the hospital & escorted the Iraqi contractors on & off base. We sent care packages to him consisting of candy, toys, coloring books, etc., to hand out to the sick & wounded Iraqi children. He also served in Mississippi post-Katrina, and locally when flooding hit.
Then there is me, ex Soldier. But I can't really talk about my career for another 50-odd years. I'm bound by a confidentiality agreement. I can say I have no kills and committed no crimes and no one was killed by my actions.
And I have too many cousins to mention that have served, and are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Not every single position in the Armed Forces is a violent one, one where you will have to engage in combat. There are cooks, file clerks, mechanics, etc., that serve in a peaceful, non-combative manner. These are usually (and lovingly, jokingly no disrespect intended) referred to by the combat-arms troops as REMFs: Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers.
Do I know any bad apples serving in the military? Sure, several. They have committed various crimes, were tried, convicted and sentenced by either a military or civilian court. But I wouldn't call a single one of them a Nazi. There are bad, immoral people in every profession.
Am I to label every member of the clergy a Nazi because of the actions of many Catholic priests? Should I assume every Catholic priest is a child molester?
Oh, and one thing I learned in leadership school while I was in (not covered by the NDA): In combat, your life is worth $0.16...the price of an M16 round. If you are a bad leader, screwing your troops over, asking them to do illegal things, you run the risk of being fragged (that's being killed by your own troops).
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well here is a somewhat recent article on the issue. Its focus is Pakistan but the same thing is happening in Afghanistan:
OCTOBER 21, 2009
JANE MAYER ON PREDATOR DRONES AND PAKISTAN
Posted by Avi Zenilman
In this week’s issue of the magazine, Jane Mayer writes about the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan—a program that the Obama Adminstration is relying upon more and more. Mayer spoke about the costs of a remote-controlled war, the C.I.A.’s lack of transparency, and the Pakistan’s complicated response.
How has the use of Predator drones by the United States changed the situation in Pakistan?
Well, there’s good news and bad news. According to the C.I.A., they’ve killed more than half of the twenty most wanted Al Qaeda terrorist suspects. The bad news is that they’ve inflamed anti-American sentiment, because they’ve also killed hundreds of civilians.
And how is it different than other uses of American force?
It’s not coming from the military. It’s a covert program run by the C.I.A. People know about Predator drones, but not that there are two programs. The U.S.-military program is an extension of conventional military force. The C.I.A. runs a secret targeted-killing program, which really is an unprecedented use of lethal force in places where we are not at war, such as Pakistan. It’s a whole new frontier in the use of force.
John Radsen, a former lawyer for the C.I.A., told me that [the C.I.A.] “doesn’t have much experience with killing. Traditionally, the agency that does that is the Department of Defense.” You’ve got a civilian agency involved in targeted killing behind a black curtain, where the rules of the game are unclear, to the rest of the world and also to us. We don’t know, for instance, who is on the target list. How do you get on the list? Can you get off the list? Who makes the list? What are the criteria? Where is the battlefield? Where does the battlefield end?
It originally seemed simple, because in the beginning it seemed like they would just go after Al Qaeda, but the target list has been growing, particularly in Pakistan.
If the C.I.A. doesn’t have experience killing people, who is piloting the drones?
It doesn’t take as much talent or experience or training to pilot a drone as it does to pilot a real plane. The skills are much like what you need to do well in a video game. And the C.I.A. has outsourced a lot of the drone piloting, which also raises interesting legal questions, because you not have only civilians running this program, but you may have people who are not even in the U.S. government piloting the drones.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/jane-mayer-predators-drones-pakistan.html
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8329412.stm
That's the cia. They fuck up all the time.