|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2006 : 12:20:43 [Permalink]
|
I'm with you on all that Kil.
But then, there is a difference between treating them like shit and applauding their patriotism and courage. I don't know what any of them have done to deserve that applause. Do we generally applaud victims? Why are victims heroes? Aren't the people who drove those planes into buildings the same kind of victims? Brainwashed and hoodwinked? Why are they different? Gangsters who don't know any better than to gather in their little tribe and protect the rules of the gang? Why are they different? Why are you and I different? Sitting in our comfortable chairs acting like we care while we support terrorism all over the globe. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 12:55:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
I'm with you on all that Kil.
Really? Which part? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 13:06:00 [Permalink]
|
| Did I sound like I disagreed with anything that you said? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 13:57:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo...
You don't understand something, so therefore someone else is a poor communicator.
No, that's not it at all. Apparently your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your ability to express yourself in a clear and understandable manner. If we don't understand you, and obviously many of us don't, we ask you to clarify your position. The fact that you can't, or won't, is what makes you a lousy communicator.
You opened this thread. We're on the sixth page now. Very early on I tried to get you to elaborate on your feelings about the subject you chose to discuss. You had an opportunity then, and you've had several opportunities since to explain your concerns. Maybe you can help us understand what you're trying to say if you'd respond to some of these issues I raised way back on page one...Suppose you tell us what sort of accountability should be required from those who are, according to your judgment, performing an illegal act by simply participating in the Iraq War. Would you have them arrested before shipping out to their various military stations overseas? Would you have them imprisoned as they step off the planes when returning home from their tours? Are the guys driving the tanks and shooting the guns the only criminals? Are the support personnel, medical, maintenance, transportation, logistics, construction, and intelligence people criminals, too? How about those who willingly pay the soldiers to commit those crimes? Are the US taxpayers engaging in an illegal act, or maybe just those who have yellow ribbon "support the troops" magnets on their cars?
You entitled this thread, "A Duty to Disobey Illegal Orders." It seems the responsibility falls on you to define which orders you feel are illegal, and to explain how those soldiers should know which are legal and which are not. It seems if your objective is to initiate a discussion, you'd be willing to say whether you think those soldiers should make their own legal judgment call on every order handed down, if they should simply refuse orders if they have any doubts, if they should somehow automatically know your position and accommodate your desires, if they should have more extensive training on legal issues and be educated on the precedents.
You seem to be saying that those participating in the war, the soldiers anyway, should have come to the same conclusion as you regarding the questionable legality of this war, and should have chosen to participate (or not) with specific consideration to that part of the issue. But you haven't mentioned how they should know this. You haven't mentioned what process might be applied to determine if they are in fact criminals, or what sorts of repercussions these "criminals" might be subject to. Do you think they ought to be tossed in jail or brought before some international tribunal? You've cast a very wide net here, huge, then limited your comment to simply suggesting a soldier has a duty to disobey illegal orders. And as Dave W. has mentioned, if you feel a soldier is required to disobey an illegal order, but you aren't concerned with fault, blame, responsibility, accountability, repercussions, or whatever your favorite word may be for the results which might logically follow when a soldier does not disobey an illegal order, then your entire premise is moot and your comments amount to nothing more than a simple complaint.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 14:10:47 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for your comments GeeMack, but I don't think you've been paying attention, or you wouldn't have written what you wrote. There's no way I can talk about something that "should" be done when all I've done is begin a discussion. I have no idea.
It's your need to talk about punishment, I don't need that. Please, you're reading things into what I've written that aren't there. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 14:52:18 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo said:
quote:
I don't know what any of them have done to deserve that applause.
They have done what we asked them to do, and many of them have died or been mutilated doing it.
Your continued assertion that the soldiers are somehow at fault, and now your comparison of them to gang/mob members, is absolutely moronic.
It has been explained to you, multiple times, by multiple people, why the soldiers of our armed forces are not breaking any laws simply by obeying the orders of their commanders to fight. Your failure to comprehend is your own, and it doesn't change the fact that they are not (and have not) commited any crime.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 15:13:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo...
Thanks for your comments GeeMack, but I don't think you've been paying attention, or you wouldn't have written what you wrote. There's no way I can talk about something that "should" be done when all I've done is begin a discussion. I have no idea.
Okay, so you've opened a discussion by claiming that soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, and apparently believe the soldiers involved in the Iraq War are shirking that duty, since you believe the war itself is illegal, and since those soldiers are indeed following orders to participate. But you don't have any idea what should be done about it. So you're just complaining about a situation you feel is a problem, but unwilling to propose any solutions. Although that's okay, if you had made it clear in your opening post, you probably would have saved several people a lot of frustration in trying to understand what the hell you were trying to say.
quote:
It's your need to talk about punishment, I don't need that. Please, you're reading things into what I've written that aren't there.
Wrong again. I'm trying not to read things into what you're saying. I am trying, and from what I've picked up from the comments of the others in this discussion, they are also trying to understand what you do mean. I asked a whole series of questions to get you to elaborate on your position so we don't have to assume your meaning or intent. It's certainly worthy to note that you've once again refused to answer those questions which may have helped immensely to clarify your point.
And you have a mistaken belief that others here have some kind of hang-up about punishment. Keep in mind that you're the one who continues to equate responsibility or accountability with some sort of resultant punishment. Nobody else here believes that, or even seems to feel any punishment is necessary. And if other people here assumed that's what you meant, it's only because you don't do a very good job of making yourself understood.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 15:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Punishment, fault, blame, those things are useless. The responsibility for finding out what's happening and what to do about it lies with us.
How can we determine right from wrong without assigning fault? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 17:00:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How can we determine right from wrong without assigning fault?
I'm not particularly concerned about right from wrong. I'm concerned about what's best for everyone.
GeeMack, this is a continuation of the other thread, in which I asked a question. I have brought the opinion of experts into the discussion on the subject. None of those experts is asking that soldiers be put in prison. None of this is complex.
You keep telling me I'm not answering your questions, but why aren't you answering mine? Why are gang members or other kinds of terrorists different than people that work for terrorists like George Bush? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 17:01:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
moronic.
It has been explained to you, multiple times,
If this were any other subject, you'd be asking for facts to back up what is being said. Show me facts to back up what you say. Citations? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 18:02:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo...
GeeMack, this is a continuation of the other thread, in which I asked a question. I have brought the opinion of experts into the discussion on the subject. None of those experts is asking that soldiers be put in prison. None of this is complex.
One of your experts is Lawrence Mosqueda. Who is he? What is his area of expertise? I find him described as a peace activist. Big deal. I know a nearly illiterate garbage truck driver who is a peace activist. I find Mosqueda listed as a teacher at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, but no description of particular qualifications showing him to be an expert in international law, United States constitutional law, or US military law. The op-ed piece you linked is over three years old. Does Dr. Mosqueda, if he is indeed an expert in a relevant field, still hold the opinions he expressed in that article?
Your other citation was an article written in October of 1999, by Bruce Ramsey, a columnist with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. What credentials does he have to show that he's an expert in international law, treaty law, or United Nations policies? In the six and a half years since he wrote that opinion piece, has Mr. Ramsey changed his opinion on the issue? And you clearly quote mined the only comment from the article that even remotely mentioned the United Nations charter. It looks to me like that comment was interjected as a means of making comparisons to other decades old international agreements. The article has nothing directly to do with the United Nations charter.
So far your "evidence" sucks. You'll need to provide more substantiation of your "experts'" qualifications before their opinions hold any weight. Do some more research. Find some real experts and get some more contemporary legal opinions.
quote:
You keep telling me I'm not answering your questions, but why aren't you answering mine? Why are gang members or other kinds of terrorists different than people that work for terrorists like George Bush?
You're the one who made the claim. The reason we're asking you these questions is because you're a lousy communicator and we'd like to actually understand what you're trying to say. Since you refuse to clarify yourself, obviously you don't give a rat's ass if anyone actually understands you. We miss your point. So what? You certainly don't care. Why should anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 18:23:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I'm not particularly concerned about right from wrong. I'm concerned about what's best for everyone.
You said you didn't want to make judgements, but how can one tell what's "best" from what is less than "best" without doing so? Furthermore, wouldn't an act which is not in everyone's best interest (internationally) be a wrong thing to do? I just don't get why you're so hung up on avoiding terms that are perfectly reasonable. Well, really, I don't get your point at all anymore, since if right and wrong are as meaningless to you as blame and consequences, then it whether a soldier has a duty to disobey illegal orders is a meaning-free question.
Was it your intent to start a meaningless thread, evade questions about its possible meanings, and then fling insults at the people who tried to respond anyway, just because they had the nerve to respond? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 21:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Why are gang members or other kinds of terrorists different than people that work for terrorists like George Bush?
Er... Bush isn't a terrorist. Unfortuanatly he's the President. Hell even Saddam isn't a terrorist. The term terrorism does get thrown around pretty loosely though.
Maybe you're just having trouble differentiating between some maniac with a gun who goes on a killing spree, and a soldier who may kill just as many people but is lawfully fulfilling his duty.
The difference is that the soldier's role is deemed nessessary to the security and well being of the country and the psycho's role os not. The laws of the land simply reflect this reality.
The blame for the current war lies with the White House and voters, not with the soldiers. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 21:37:49 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo said:
quote:
Why are gang members or other kinds of terrorists different than people that work for terrorists like George Bush?
Terrorists and gang members are not empowered by a recognized government, not acting within the legal authority of any government.
Your characterization of Bush as a terrorist is a premise you are not going to be granted here. Like it or not he is the elected leader (elected once anyway) of the US.
You have not even come close to presenting a compelling argument that concludes the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.
The actions of the individual soldiers, as you have been told a dozen fucking times, are governed by the laws of land warfare and the Geneva Conventions.
A sure fire way for a soldier to break the law and end up in prison (possibly for a capital offense, cowardice under fire or treason) is to disobey the order to mobilize and fight. At a minimum they will be arrested, tried, and be dishonorably discharged after they serve a prison sentence, if found guilty. Desertion under fire can see you in front of a firing squad.
quote:
If this were any other subject, you'd be asking for facts to back up what is being said. Show me facts to back up what you say. Citations?
Go read the Laws of Land Warfare, you can google it up easily. Then go read the Geneva Conventions. Those documents will provide you with the guidelines for soldiers to determine if an order is legal or illegal.
Under no circumstances can a soldier refuse an order to mobilize or to fight, regardless of the legality of the overall war. What part of that do you not comprehend? The reference for that one is the UCMJ. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) The set of laws that our military lives under, in addition to the civil laws of the USA and whatever country they happen to be serving in.
Get it through your thick head man.... soldiers cannot disobey an order to fight, without breaking a law. The only orders they have a reponsibility to judge the legality of are orders that pertain to their specific personal conduct while fighting.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2006 : 04:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So far your "evidence" sucks.
Again, this is a continuation of another thread, where I had articles by lawyers on the subject. If you're disagreeing with the idea that the U.N. Charter is not a ratified treaty, let me know your source, there were others, I just pulled the first one out of the hat. If you disagree with any other ideas presented here, that's fine.
This is not a court of law. This is just a discussion on the subject. I'm not promoting any particular idea. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/12/2006 04:47:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
