|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:21 pm |
  |
|
| internisus wrote: |
| There is such a thing as military action for good. The UN uses it all the time. |
Are you talking about the same UN that declined to stop the Rwandan genocide? The few genocides that the Western world has stopped (the holocaust, Kosovo) were organized by different groups like the Allies in WWII and NATO.
| slipstream wrote: |
| Joe wrote: |
You're a fucking punk. What the hell is wrong with military recruiters again?
The military provides many people a way out of working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives. |
So do jobs as fire fighters, police officers, community college classes etc etc.
|
But if you're not willing to join the military because there's a chance of losing your life, then you sure as hell shouldn't become a fire fighter or cop. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:33 am |
|
|
| slipstream wrote: |
| Ebrey wrote: |
| internisus wrote: |
| There is such a thing as military action for good. The UN uses it all the time. |
Are you talking about the same UN that declined to stop the Rwandan genocide? The few genocides that the Western world has stopped (the holocaust, Kosovo) were organized by different groups like the Allies in WWII and NATO.
|
The UN can only take actions that have been voted on by its member states, so rather than look at it as the fault of the UN, point the finger at every represenative that didn't vote to help stop said genocide. The UN wasn't even around during the Holocaust so you can't blame it for not stopping Hitler. As for Rwanda? I'd have to go look up voting records and such. |
What about Darfur? The UN was going to send a peacekeeping force to the area, then backed down BECAUSE SUDAN ASKED THEM NOT TO. When a country is trying to wipe out an ethnic group, you generally don't ask politely whether you are allowed to send in a military force.
I'm convinced that 99% of the support for the UN stems from the fact that republicans don't like it.
By the way, there was a UN-like organisation around during WWII called the League of Nations. It was replaced by the UN because the LoN had become a laughingstock. Today's UN is in the exact same situation. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| What I'm talking about is that I think that the military should be held responsible for it's actions, that a collection of men is more than a tool. That each man in the military must make a choice to suspend his own judgement, and should know full well the import of such a monumental action. And because of that I do believe it is possible to judge the military. |
You can judge them, in which case 99% of the American military are good people because they follow orders. The MORAL thing for a soldier to do is to follow his orders (when they aren't war crimes). Even if the war isn't justified. Because the idea of democracy and civilian control of the military is far more important than whether this particular war is righteous. As much as the Iraq war sucks, it's not as bad as replacing Bush with a military state. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:22 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
It is true that the military is the arm of the government. It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply. It is also true that the large body of the military ususally does not know what's going on at the time the order is issued. My point is that the military shares responsibility of carrying out that command. If the command is in error, then the arm has made an error as well, either in trusting the wrong men, being lazy and ill informed, or actually knowing what's going on and willfully participating.
. |
But the military HASN'T made an error by following the command. If they didn't follow civilian commands then we would live in a military state. There are plenty of those available if you'd like to move to one, but 99.999% of people living in democracies would rather not.
What you're proposing is like holding the warden of a prison where a few innocent men are jailed responsible for their unfair condition. The warden is doing the right thing by jailing these men because he'd be violating one of the basic elements of the constitution by freeing them: a trial by your peers. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Ebrey
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:46 am |
|
|
Predator Goose, you're completely ignoring that there are already international treaties about what soldiers can and cannot be ordered to do. Soldiers are actually SUPPOSED to disregard orders such as "kill all the Mexicans." When I say that orders should be followed, I mean lawful orders, such as "kill the enemy combatants."
Yes, it sucks when thousands of soldiers die in an unnecessary war. But replacing our democracy with a military dictatorship would cost millions of lives in government oppression and civil war.
Psiga, your questions aren't that hard to answer. If Democrats didn't pay taxes when Republians were in power and vice versa, the government has half as much money. I have no trouble paying taxes when Bush is president because I know plenty of people will give money to Obama's government who would rather not. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
