Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Can we get some more stereotypical college hippy idiots in here? These soldiers need to be held to the appropriate standard and if they are guilty of breaking our rules they should face some consequences. This "all soldiers are baby killers!" stupidity needs to stop though.

 

[Walshicus]

Can we get some more stereotypical college hippy idiots in here? These soldiers need to be held to the appropriate standard and if they are guilty of breaking our rules they should face some consequences. This "all soldiers are baby killers!" stupidity needs to stop though.

True, but the converse is also as bad. In England at least, we need to accept that while there are a great many decent soldiers that have a genuine desire to protect their countries... there are also those who are unskilled and frankly have nowhere else to go for employment. To elevate them above criticism is just as dangerous as it is to constantly denigrate them.

In these cases I'm a firm believer that on taking the Queen's shilling a soldier should obey the state's law and follow the orders of his superiors [in that order]. If a soldier breaks those laws they've betrayed the state. But this case seems to be a bit... fuzzy at the moment. Seems there's some kind of tussle between the soldiers and their superiors?

 

[Kaervas]

Can we get some more stereotypical college hippy idiots in here? These soldiers need to be held to the appropriate standard and if they are guilty of breaking our rules they should face some consequences. This "all soldiers are baby killers!" stupidity needs to stop though.

Hyperbole much?

So saying that killing is wrong and that war is wrong is now the same as being a stereotypical college hippie?

Are you that retarded?

 

[avatar299]

Lead by example. Set and maintain high standards, and no one else can complain. That's the reason we are allowed to have such extensive global influence with our military.

That is complete bullshit. People will always complain about a large military force, no matter how goddamn nice they are.

And the reason why we have global influence is because we defend most of the western first world. It's hard to have welfare states when you have to maintain an actually effective military so many countries just rest their laurels. Also many American military bases are large economic centers. Our soldiers could be assholes and they would still be all over the world.

 

[KHarvey16]

True, but the converse is also as bad. In England at least, we need to accept that while there are a great many decent soldiers that have a genuine desire to protect their countries... there are also those who are unskilled and frankly have nowhere else to go for employment. To elevate them above criticism is just as dangerous as it is to constantly denigrate them.

In these cases I'm a firm believer that on taking the Queen's shilling a soldier should obey the state's law and follow the orders of his superiors [in that order]. If a soldier breaks those laws they've betrayed the state. But this case seems to be a bit... fuzzy at the moment. Seems there's some kind of tussle between the soldiers and their superiors?

Don't disagree with anything there.

Hyperbole much?

So saying that killing is wrong and that war is wrong is now the same as being a stereotypical college hippie?

Are you that retarded?

Saying killing is wrong in every circumstance is naive and stupid. Using the word "murderer" to sound like a jaded college sophomore rebel is transparent as hell and looks silly.

 

[Igo]

That is complete bullshit. People will always complain about a large military force, no matter how goddamn nice they are.

And the reason why we have global influence is because we defend most of the western first world. It's hard to have welfare states when you have to maintain an actually effective military so many countries just rest their laurels. Also many American military bases are large economic centers. Our soldiers could be assholes and they would still be all over the world.

What is this nonsense. It baffles me that people actually believe this. The US are protecting their interests. Nothing more. The US doesn't keep bases around the world out of the goodness of their hearts you know. They're there because having a bases in those countries is of strategic importance.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I'd say one positive thing is them fighting to protect your right to post such drivel.

Do you really believe this? I would say there is almost no correlation to the freedoms we enjoy in America and the current war in Afghanistan. There is a huge difference between defending our country and its citizens and instigating an attack on another country. If anything, by exerting our might in other countries, we are only creating enemies, which makes it more likely that we will subsequently be attacked.

 

[Atrus]

Hyperbole much?

So saying that killing is wrong and that war is wrong is now the same as being a stereotypical college hippie?

The statements 'killing is wrong' and 'war is wrong' are very much stereotypical of the college hippie.

Both are acceptable measures that MUST be considered when strategizing the end of a conflict. To rule them out of question beforehand is an indication of a zealous ideology just as much as a warmonger rules out diplomacy.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Do you really believe this? I would say there is almost no correlation to the freedoms we enjoy in America and the current war in Afghanistan. There is a huge difference between defending our country and its citizens and instigating an attack on another country. If anything, by exerting our might in other countries, we are only creating enemies, which makes it more likely that we will subsequently be attacked.

In an overall sense, yes I do (World War II being the easiest to cite). However, circumstances changes change war to war and conflict to conflict.

I have never had a problem with the Afghan war, in fact I wanted to wipe them off the map shortly after 9/11. I do think things got out of control over the years of course and it's not much use being in such a shit hole anymore. Waste of soldiers and resources if the Afghans cannot or will not stand up and take charge of their country...

I was never in favor of the Iraq war and think it is a big mistake. But is that the fault of the soldiers themselves or the civilian leadership above them (i.e the President and Congress ordering them overseas)? I mean, if they disobey orders from the President, they can be jailed or executed... what are they supposed to do if they get ordered to a war that is questionable?

And what should we do? Spit on them and tear them down like in Vietman or support them and recognize they don't have much choice in the matter while also completely shredding the political leadership that brought them there?

 

[Gigglepoo]

But is that the fault of the soldiers themselves or the civilian leadership above them (i.e the President and Congress ordering them overseas)?

Both. People are always responsible for their actions.

And what should we do? Spit on them and tear them down like in Vietman or support them and recognize they don't have much choice in the matter while also completely shredding the political leadership that brought them there?

Everyone has a choice.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Both. People are always responsible for their actions.



Everyone has a choice.

To join the military I guess (and people do that for a multitude of reasons with small percentage to just "kill" someone I wager). But not necessarily to get sent to a conflict. A war is always an Act of Congress or the President. The buck stops with them... no signature, no war. Simple as that.

And what about the case of Vietnam? There was a draft, no? Service was compulsory if you were selected. I guess the "choice" was to be hanged/jailed if you "chose" not to go.

I mean, would you rather there be no standing army at all and rely on drafts therefore possibly putting people in the military that really don't want to be in the military or have the standing army so you're not forced to be put in the situation if you don't want to (assuming there are enough volunteers to cover a specific conflict they've been ordered to).

And in this specific case, yes if these scum were in custody, they should not have been attacked.

 

[Sigmond]

Focusing on the moral failings or merits of being a soldier seems counterproductive to me. It only leads to a back-and-forth of indignation and outrage, like most of this thread.

The simple truth is that soldiers are tools, both in the literal and the pejorative sense. They are not moral actors anymore; they forfeited that right the moment they joined up and agreed to follow orders, thus casting away their "moral compass".

You can argue that this act is immoral in itself, seeing as they really should know better, but the thing is: they don't. Soldiers don't join up for logical reasons. Their reasons are either material (read: poverty) or grounded in false consciousness - they buy into the idea of "protecting one's country", when said country is nothing but a fiction maintained for the benefit of the rich and powerful, when the good of the country and the good of the people inhabiting it are so thoroughly divorced from one another that the argument "they are fighting for the people" cannot possibly be made.

Modern volunteer soldiers literally do not know what they are doing, and consequently should be treated as mentally incompetent. The blame rests on the people who command them, since those people know very well indeed what they are doing - sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers as well as the enemy's for the sake of profit, power and (sometimes) ideology.

If a prospective soldier were to stop for a second and think about the fact that by signing up, he is likely to end up shot, blown up or in the worst case captured and tortured to death, all for the sake of the political elite and the flag-waving proles they command, they would drop their pen in horror and sooner flee into the worst ghettos of urban America than getting their legs blown off in the Iraqi desert or their head sawed off in a cave in Afghanistan.

TL;DR: The morality of soldiers is irrelevant, and the debate about it is a distraction. The political and economical make-up of the society that makes them join up and sends them to shoot brown people for freedom is the real problem.

 

[daw840]

Do you really believe this? I would say there is almost no correlation to the freedoms we enjoy in America and the current war in Afghanistan. There is a huge difference between defending our country and its citizens and instigating an attack on another country. If anything, by exerting our might in other countries, we are only creating enemies, which makes it more likely that we will subsequently be attacked.

Have we been attacked again since 9/11? I'd say they are doing a pretty good job defending this country

Focusing on the moral failings or merits of being a soldier seems counterproductive to me. It only leads to a back-and-forth of indignation and outrage, like most of this thread.

The simple truth is that soldiers are tools, both in the literal and the pejorative sense. They are not moral actors anymore; they forfeited that right the moment they joined up and agreed to follow orders, thus casting away their "moral compass".

You can argue that this act is immoral in itself, seeing as they really should know better, but the thing is: they don't. Soldiers don't join up for logical reasons. Their reasons are either material (read: poverty) or grounded in false consciousness - they buy into the idea of "protecting one's country", when said country is nothing but a fiction maintained for the benefit of the rich and powerful, when the good of the country and the good of the people inhabiting it are so thoroughly divorced from one another that the argument "they are fighting for the people" cannot possibly be made.

Modern volunteer soldiers literally do not know what they are doing, and consequently should be treated as mentally incompetent. The blame rests on the people who command them, since those people know very well indeed what they are doing - sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers as well as the enemy's for the sake of profit, power and (sometimes) ideology.

If a prospective soldier were to stop for a second and think about the fact that by signing up, he is likely to end up shot, blown up or in the worst case captured and tortured to death, all for the sake of the political elite and the flag-waving proles they command, they would drop their pen in horror and sooner flee into the worst ghettos of urban America than getting their legs blown off in the Iraqi desert or their head sawed off in a cave in Afghanistan.

TL;DR: The morality of soldiers is irrelevant, and the debate about it is a distraction. The political and economical make-up of the society that makes them join up and sends them to shoot brown people for freedom is the real problem.

I really don't think it's LIKELY that you will get shot, or blown up, or any of those things really. I think there is definitely a higher chance than sitting on your couch playing COD, but it's still not LIKELY.

 

[neorej]

Both. People are always responsible for their actions.


Everyone has a choice.

I thought hippies were all dead by now.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I thought hippies were all dead by now.

Taking responsibility for your actions is hippie speak now?

 

[Burli]

This is absurd.

Can't punch a guy that murdered, mutilated and possibly tortured blackwater members (however fucked up they are).

If he points a gun at you though, 'blow him the fuck up'.

Oh btw - this thread reminds me of how much I'm enjoying Generation Kill.

 

[Dead Man]

Taking responsibility for your actions is hippie speak now?

See, here's the thing you might not get. Once you join the military, that's it for the next 2-6 years of your life. You don't get to make the kind of choices you are talking about. The only options are to follow lawful orders, or go to federal prison for 20 years. So no, unless the order is unlawful, you can't just decide 'I think I'll sit this one out'. And no matter how crap the war is, if you friends are going, you are going to go to look out for them. You aren't going to say 'Bye guys, I'm off to prison, hope you don't get killed.'

 

[Gigglepoo]

See, here's the thing you might not get. Once you join the military, that's it for the next 2-6 years of your life.

And that's a choice. If you choose to let other people decide how you live your life, you are still responsible for your actions. You are not absolved from anything you do because you are following orders.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

And that's a choice. If you choose to let other people decide how you live your life, you are still responsible for your actions. You are not absolved from anything you do because you are following orders.

I can see your point in a volunteer setting because someone joining can do so knowing they may get sent to an unnecessary war. But I still don't agree with it too much. The jury is still out in a draft setting, however. I'm not prepared to say those soldiers are at fault for what the President decides.

Edit: I also still believe it is critical to have a regular standing army, volunteer or otherwise at all times anyway. And I do not think those soldiers, by and large, are joining to just get a kill or to get sent overseas as their main and sole goal.

 

[Dead Man]

And that's a choice. If you choose to let other people decide how you live your life, you are still responsible for your actions. You are not absolved from anything you do because you are following orders.

You know what, I had paragraphs typed, but there is no point, so I'll sum it up with this:

I hope nothing ever turns out differently to what you expected.

 

[Coins]

Fuck you, dude. I laughed so hard at this I blew my shutout in the Cup finals in NHL10.

Funniest gif ever.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I'm not prepared to say those soldiers are at fault for what the President decides.

That is where we disagree. The president can order whatever he wants, but no one can force another human being to drop bombs or shoot at the enemy. At that moment, when a trigger is pulled, that is 100% the choice of the soldier, so they have to shoulder some of the blame. To strip away their responsibility in their own actions is to take away their humanity, and I do not believe that to be the case. They are not robots, they are rational human beings, and they are able to make their own decisions.

Edit: I also still believe it is critical to have a regular standing army, volunteer or otherwise at all times anyway. And I do not think those soldiers, by and large, are joining to just get a kill or to get sent overseas as their main and sole goal.

I agree completely.

I hope nothing ever turns out differently to what you expected.

People who join the military understand that there is a chance that they could be sent to war. If they were somehow unaware of this, than they choose to enter into a situation without fully understanding where it could lead. That does not excuse them of their actions, though.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

That is where we disagree. The president can order whatever he wants, but no one can force another human being to drop bombs or shoot at the enemy. At that moment, when a trigger is pulled, that is 100% the choice of the soldier, so they have to shoulder some of the blame. To strip away their responsibility in their own actions is to take away their humanity, and I do not believe that to be the case. They are not robots, they are rational human beings, and they are able to make their own decisions.

So what is going to happen if the soldier refuses to follow orders? I guess they ultimately have that choice, but not really. They can "choose" not to and get sent to jail and tried for mutiny then executed or I'm not sure of the policies of even getting shot on the spot. And war is hell, people get scared or put into disgusting positions, and for that a punishment system like that is critical or any military would fail in the heat of battle.

That's like claiming you have a choice in choosing a leader when she/he is the only one on the ballot.

 

[Dead Man]

People who join the military understand that there is a chance that they could be sent to war. If they were somehow unaware of this, than they choose to enter into a situation without fully understanding where it could lead. That does not excuse them of their actions, though.

God damn, do you make a living at being obtuse?

 

[Gigglepoo]

So what is going to happen if the soldier refuses to follow orders?

They will be punished. They entered into what is essentially an unbreakable contract and will have to deal with serious repercussions. But, once again, that doesn't excuse them for their choices. There is no draft, no one is forced into serving. It is completely voluntary. Once you choose to take part, you have to shoulder the blame for all of your actions. Just like everyone else on the planet, soldiers are responsible for their choices.

God damn, do you make a living at being obtuse?

I had a paragraph typed out but I would rather not argue my point at all. It's much easier that way.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

They will be punished. They entered into what is essentially an unbreakable contract and will have to deal with serious repercussions. But, once again, that doesn't excuse them for their choices. There is no draft, no one is forced into serving. It is completely voluntary. Once you choose to take part, you have to shoulder the blame for all of your actions. Just like everyone else on the planet, soldiers are responsible for their choices.



I had a paragraph typed out but I would rather not argue my point at all. It's much easier that way.

It's whatever. So long as you're not broadly vilifying people for what they chose to sign up for. Because let's say everyone thought like you do. Nobody would voluntarily go into the military. Would you rather have a volunteer army or would you want a much better chance of getting put into a situation that you are not going to be morally comfortable with? They are doing you a service and to have the things said about them in this thread is completely wrong in my opinion.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Because let's say everyone thought like you do.

So no wars? I could live with that.

They are doing you a service and to have the things said about them in this thread is completely wrong in my opinion.

I understand the situation. I understand that America wouldn't exist without the Revolutionary War. I understand the atrocities that were being committed during World War II. My only point is that, regardless of why soldiers decide to join the military or what the outcome of their actions is, they are responsibility for their choices. That is the main thing I have been arguing this whole time.

 

[Dead Man]

Ialso still believe it is critical to have a regular standing army, volunteer or otherwise at all times anyway. And I do not think those soldiers, by and large, are joining to just get a kill or to get sent overseas as their main and sole goal.

I agree completely.

So what is going to happen if the soldier refuses to follow orders?

They will be punished. They entered into what is essentially an unbreakable contract and will have to deal with serious repercussions. But, once again, that doesn't excuse them for their choices. There is no draft, no one is forced into serving. It is completely voluntary. Once you choose to take part, you have to shoulder the blame for all of your actions. Just like everyone else on the planet, soldiers are responsible for their choices.

Gigglepoo, you're an idiot. Have you looked at what you want from people? You think there should be an army, but you expect people who have joined to go to jail on a moral stance if the next commander in chief decides a bullshit war is necessary? So you expect people to join, but then to break the law or face your disapproval? Sounds like you have a winning plan.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Gigglepoo, you're an idiot. Have you looked at what you want from people? You think there should be an army, but you expect people who have joined to go to jail on a moral stance if the next commander in chief decides a bullshit war is necessary? So you expect people to join, but then to break the law or face your disapproval? Sounds like you have a winning plan.

I strongly disagree with the direction the American military is pointed it. It is focused much more on offense than defense at this point, and I think it's a waste of lives and money. I think a standing army is a good idea... to defend a country from outside attacks. I do not believe it is a good idea to attack other countries.

This is my last response to you until you learn how to post without tossing out insults all the time.

 

[Dead Man]

I strongly disagree with the direction the American military is pointed it. It is focused much more on offense than defense at this point, and I think it's a waste of lives and money. I think a standing army is a good idea... to defend a country from outside attacks. I do not believe it is a good idea to attack other countries.

This is my last response to you until you learn how to post without tossing out insults all the time.

LOL, all the time :lol Sorry, but that is what someone who wants two things that conflict is.

Anyway, if you feel like it, answer my post, oh eminence of all knowledge and morality.

Edit: I tell you what, I'll even take back that you're an idiot, and just say you have very elevated expectations of people that you may want to make sure are possible to meet, and that you meet those expectations yourself.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I strongly disagree with the direction the American military is pointed it. It is focused much more on offense than defense at this point, and I think it's a waste of lives and money. I think a standing army is a good idea... to defend a country from outside attacks. I do not believe it is a good idea to attack other countries.

This is my last response to you until you learn how to post without tossing out insults all the time.

Right. And who decides those conflicts? The soldiers or the President?

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I don't think they really did anything "wrong" but it's extremely stupid to defend having an arbitrary rule wrt how much you're allowed to rough up criminals. Especially when a large motivation for catching somebody like this is to give them a fair trial and execution that is all publicized.

The seals should have just said that they socked him in momentary lapse of rage or some such bs, taken a slap on the wrist, and moved on. These ones that are disputing the charges are idiots and are just making similar idiots on both sides of the fence divided when it's obvious that a law was broken.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Right. And who decides those conflicts? The soldiers or the President?

The president.

At this point, it seems clear that if you desperately want to defend America but do not want to attack other countries, you should not join the military. There is a strong likelihood that you would be shipped off at some point, unable to defend your home. There are plenty of jobs located within the United States that focus entirely on protecting citizens.

 

[Dead Man]

The president.

At this point, it seems clear that if you desperately want to defend America but do not want to attack other countries, you should not join the military. There is a strong likelihood that you would be shipped off at some point, unable to defend your home. There are plenty of jobs located within the United States that focus entirely on protecting citizens.

The problem is you seem to be saying that is reasonable to join the military, but then expect people to act only in certain ways and be happy to go to jail for that.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The president.

At this point, it seems clear that if you desperately want to defend America but do not want to attack other countries, you should not join the military. There is a strong likelihood that you would be shipped off at some point, unable to defend your home. There are plenty of jobs located within the United States that focus entirely on protecting citizens.

So long as the fault for such actions are laid with the President, Congress, and politics.

I do wish the US would go isolationist once again, though, at least militarily. Leave others to fend for themselves, I say. Screw being the world's police force. But then again, I'm a bit of a dick.

Edit: And yeah, what idaho said.

 

[Gigglepoo]

The problem is you seem to be saying that is reasonable to join the military, but then expect people to act only in certain ways and be happy to go to jail for that.

The idea of a standing army is necessary to protect against outside attacks, but the American military is currently focused on attacking outside forces. If someone is against attacking other countries, they should not join the military. If someone is against letting others make every choice for them, they should not join the military.

 

[Callo Merlose]

Some soldiers do sign up for money and out of need, but that's a decision that's exclusive to soldiers. A good soldier doesn't, but like good people in general, I think they're rare. I feel a swell of pity that you see it that way. Try not to be stubborn. If not for others, then for yourself.

 

[Dead Man]

The idea of a standing army is necessary to protect against outside attacks, but the American military is currently focused on attacking outside forces. If someone is against attacking other countries, they should not join the military. If someone is against letting others make every choice for them, they should not join the military.

Right, so we've come back to a position where you think all soldiers should not have joined, in spite of your earlier comment saying an army was necessary. This is what I mean when I called you the oh so offensive word. You want to have your cake by not insulting any soldier directly, but you want to eat it too by implying they are either ignorant, cowards, or murderers if the do serve.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Right, so we've come back to a position where you think all soldiers should not have joined, in spite of your earlier comment saying an army was necessary. This is what I mean when I called you the oh so offensive word. You want to have your cake by not insulting any soldier directly, but you want to eat it too by implying they are either ignorant, cowards, or murderers if the do serve.

I would like everyone to accept responsibility for their actions.

 

[daw840]

I strongly disagree with the direction the American military is pointed it. It is focused much more on offense than defense at this point, and I think it's a waste of lives and money. I think a standing army is a good idea... to defend a country from outside attacks. I do not believe it is a good idea to attack other countries.

This is my last response to you until you learn how to post without tossing out insults all the time.

The best defense is a good offense buddy.

 

[freethought]

Have we been attacked again since 9/11? I'd say they are doing a pretty good job defending this country

:lol Good one.

As far as the 'debate' going on in this thread, a standing military should be tolerated, not revered as is the case with some sections of (particularly American) society. If a soldier does something illegal, such as beating up a prisoner, he should be punished. It's as simple as that. I don't care who that prisoner is or what he's done.

 

[daw840]

:lol Good one.

How is that a joke? Do you think that nothing we have done in the last 9 years has had any impact on further terrorist plans to attack the US? Do you think that if we would have sat back and done nothing that we would not have been attacked in the last 9 years?

As far as the 'debate' going on in this thread, a standing military should be tolerated, not revered as is the case with some sections of (particularly American) society. If a soldier does something illegal, such as beating up a prisoner, he should be punished. It's as simple as that. I don't care who that prisoner is or what he's done

I agree with the second portion of that paragraph, the first portion I do not. These are people risking their lives VOLUNTARILY for the rest of the country.

 

[Gigglepoo]

I agree with the second portion of that paragraph, the first portion I do not. These are people risking their lives VOLUNTARILY for the rest of the country.

I have a big problem with soldiers being "revered". They are committing acts in foreign countries that I do not agree with, all in the name of America. They do not automatically earn reverence because they decided to get paid to fight in other countries. If you think they are worthy of your reverence, that's fine, but don't expect the opinion to be held by everyone.

 

[Peronthious]

How is that a joke? Do you think that nothing we have done in the last 9 years has had any impact on further terrorist plans to attack the US? Do you think that if we would have sat back and done nothing that we would not have been attacked in the last 9 years?

While I agree that actions taken since 9/11 have had an impact on terrorist activities in the US, it is naive and selfish to claim that as a victory in the 'war on terror'. Our troops in the middle east have inspired many more attacks there against both them and local civilians. Saying that they don't count since they weren't on american soil strikes me as supremely ignorant.

 

[Willectro]

I have no problem with the Seals using the prisoner for a punching bag for a few minutes. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

 

[chaostrophy]

So someone who kills a bunch of mercenaries is a "terrorist"? Fuck that. The world is better off without those Blackwater goons.

 

[KHarvey16]

So someone who kills a bunch of mercenaries is a "terrorist"? Fuck that. The world is better off without those Blackwater goons.

What a stupid thing to say.

 

[Dead Man]

So someone who kills a bunch of mercenaries is a "terrorist"? Fuck that. The world is better off without those Blackwater goons.

How stupid can you be? Hey Gigglepoo, can I call this one an idiot?

1. Killing contractors was not all he is wanted for
2. Murder is murder, even if you don't like the victim