Topic: Should a soldier.......
Sorcha6's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:31 PM
It all goes back to following orders.

You don't sign up to follow President XXXX, you sign up to follow orders from a Commander in Chief. You sign up to keep other people safe by following orders.

Even though you may not like the peas your mother feed you, they were good for you.

Redhat11's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:32 PM


Too bad in real life you would still be prosecuted for not folowing the geneva convention, lol


Never seen it happen

wanttachat's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:32 PM
soldiers are trained people and if these soldiers do not do as ordered there will be punishment. If sldier have the freedom to refuse any order then where is the reason for training. If a soldier refuses an order then they put the lives of not only himself but the other soldiers at risk. when a person signes up for service they acknowlegde the condition of a superior officer and the fact that his mind and body no longer be longs to him or herself.
so no they cannot refuse an order, not without punishment

briank66's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:33 PM



Do you believe that a soldier (does not matter which branch of the service) should have more say in what he or she is ordered to do? In other words, should a soldier have the right to refuse to do something simply because they dont want to, or they dont agree with the person giving the order?

Or should they just shut their mouths and do what they are told, no matter what?

Please discuss....


WTF...? You are kidding....right????? smokin


So what is your opinion on this?


They are paid to take orders...NOT ask questions.

They signed...they should DO and NOT ask questions

FearandLoathing's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:34 PM

It all goes back to following orders.

You don't sign up to follow President XXXX, you sign up to follow orders from a Commander in Chief. You sign up to keep other people safe by following orders.

Even though you may not like the peas your mother feed you, they were good for you.


...Explain this more, no offense here, just facts...the bombs that the US has dropped have in fact killed more civilians than combatants. Another lesser known fact, we have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan (you know where Osama Bin Laden is) and slightly over 100,000 in Iraq (where Osama Bin Laden is not)...what justification can you come up with for that?

Sorcha6's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:34 PM
Can we help we have bad aim? laugh

daniel48706's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:35 PM


:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering."

We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote:

A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be.

Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel.

Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city.


Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss"


That right there is where you have to stop and ask yourself though if you are thinking of being a soldier...

"Can I accept that there WILL be innocent lives lost during a war no matter what I do to prevent it?"

The sad fact is that there is no way possible to prevent all collaterall damage. The best you can do is to minimalize it to hte lowest amount possible. If you refuse to do soemthing because there is the possibility of one innocent death, then you might as well just lay down and let them do what they want any way.

FearandLoathing's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:36 PM

Can we help we have bad aim? laugh


Terrible aim costing thousands of innocent lives...I would probably work on that a bit...

Redhat11's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:38 PM



:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering."

We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote:

A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be.

Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel.

Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city.


Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss"


That right there is where you have to stop and ask yourself though if you are thinking of being a soldier...

"Can I accept that there WILL be innocent lives lost during a war no matter what I do to prevent it?"

The sad fact is that there is no way possible to prevent all collaterall damage. The best you can do is to minimalize it to hte lowest amount possible. If you refuse to do soemthing because there is the possibility of one innocent death, then you might as well just lay down and let them do what they want any way.


I'm not protesting anything, just stating several rules in the geneva conventions are loosely followed.
ROE changes (well, used to) on a daily bases. One day it would be to only engage if you're being engaged. Next day it's "shoot anyone wearing all black" or whatever outfit

Sorcha6's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:40 PM
If you have an address for Mr. Crazy we would love to have it.

Second, in a place that can sometimes use women as decoys, and children as walking bombs it is hard to tell cilvian from the enemy. Ever heard of a wolf in sheeps clothing.

You make it sound like we drop bombs for the fun of it.

briank66's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:41 PM

Can we help we have bad aim? laugh


Gotta' love it drinker

daniel48706's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:43 PM
Edited by daniel48706 on Tue 01/22/08 09:47 PM
................The sad fact is that there is no way possible to prevent all collaterall damage. The best you can do is to minimalize it to hte lowest amount possible. If you refuse to do soemthing because there is the possibility of one innocent death, then you might as well just lay down and let them do what they want any way.


I'm not protesting anything, just stating several rules in the geneva conventions are loosely followed.
ROE changes (well, used to) on a daily bases. One day it would be to only engage if you're being engaged. Next day it's "shoot anyone wearing all black" or whatever outfit


I am not saying the roe (rules of engagement) dont change regularly. They do change regualrly depending on the intelligence your superiors have at the time. If the enemy was wearing all green on monday, and word comes downt hat they are all inblack now, then yes you are going to be instructed not to shoot at thos in green anymore, but those in black.

And yes I agree that the geneva convention is only loosely followed at times. However look at the recent history of top military leadership in iraq and what not. A couple years ago it seemed that every other day someone new was being brought up on war crimes or crimes against the geneva convention. Gunatanamo Bay is one example, where the prisoners were being mistreated so grossly. People WERE being prosecuted for such heinous acts.

littlebluebear22's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:44 PM
Edited by littlebluebear22 on Tue 01/22/08 09:49 PM
I just enlisted in the Air National Guard a lil over a month and a half ago and will leave for basic training in early March.. I am a registered democrat and have been since I turned 18 so I am obviously not the biggest Bush fan.. However! When I swore in I took an oath that said....

(Army and Air National Guard Oath)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.



So ya, whether or not I like the president or agree with the war going on over there I swore to obey the orders of bush, schwarzenegger, and my commanding officers.. nothing in there said unless I choose not to..

FearandLoathing's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:44 PM

If you have an address for Mr. Crazy we would love to have it.

Second, in a place that can sometimes use women as decoys, and children as walking bombs it is hard to tell cilvian from the enemy. Ever heard of a wolf in sheeps clothing.

You make it sound like we drop bombs for the fun of it.


I'm not trying to make it sound like anything, again I was stateing facts. Your putting words in my mouth, I'm confident you don't drop 1,000,000 worth of a bomb for the fun of it...but it's hard to believe that your "lack of" aim is costing thousand of non-combatants their lives. It's also difficult to believe that this is an excuse that you would follow behind...I do understand they use children as decoys, and women likewise carry bombs, but is it also difficult to judge a threat before takeing a shot?

daniel48706's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:46 PM
ok folks just a reminder this thread is [n]not about the war in iraq/afghanistan; it is not about president bush, or any of the other miscelanious things that have cropped up.

The question asked was wether or not a soldier should have the right to refuse a lawful order if they do not like or agree with it.

For those of you who have remained on topic, thank you. For those that have slipped a little, thank you too, lets all just try and remain on topic though, ok?

Thanks

Redhat11's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:47 PM


And yes I agree that the geneva convention is only loosely followed at times. However look at the recent history of top military leadership in iraq and what not. A couple years ago it seemed that every other day someone new was being brought up on war crimes or crimes against the geneva convention. Gunatanamo Bay is one example, where the prisoners were being mistreated so grossly. People WERE being prosecuted for such heinous acts.


True, but I was refering to the on the ground, in the middle of a firefight aspects. Sorry if I didnt clarify. Yes, those people in guantanamo bay and abhu ghraib are getting cracked down on. But people I know shooting a .50 cal or a mark 19 at a person don't get prosecuted. In the midst of a firefight, no one cares thinks about those kinds of rules, as long as you and your platoon/squad/section/company all survive

FearandLoathing's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:48 PM
All falls into the topic in one way or the other...

daniel48706's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:49 PM

I just enlisted in the Air National Guard a lil over a month and a half ago and will leave for basic training in early March.. I am a registered democrat and have been since I turned 18 so I am obviously not the biggest Bush fan.. However! When I sore in I took an oath that said....

(Army and Air National Guard Oath)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.



So ya, whether or not I like the president or agree with the war going on over there I swore to obey the orders of bush, schwarzenegger, and my commanding officers.. nothing in there said unless I choose not to..



Thank you...
That is what I have been trying to get at. Several others have stated similar responses, but not quite as clear and concise as yours.

daniel48706's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:52 PM

All falls into the topic in one way or the other...



no it does not bro. The topic is not wether we are killing the right people. It is wether or not a soldier should have to follow a lawful order if they like it or not.

briank66's photo
Tue 01/22/08 09:53 PM

I just enlisted in the Air National Guard a lil over a month and a half ago and will leave for basic training in early March.. I am a registered democrat and have been since I turned 18 so I am obviously not the biggest Bush fan.. However! When I swore in I took an oath that said....

(Army and Air National Guard Oath)

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.



So ya, whether or not I like the president or agree with the war going on over there I swore to obey the orders of bush, schwarzenegger, and my commanding officers.. nothing in there said unless I choose not to..


This brave young lady just answered everything in this post...yes, EVERYTHING...now read it carefully....K...??

Thanks for enlisting, on behalf of those of us that never had the b@lls to do it..!!! We appreciate you and every other soldier !!!! drinker


smokin