selectbutton :: View topic - So, how can I get military recruiters off my campus

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile / Ignoring

So, how can I get military recruiters off my campus

selectbutton Forum Index -> GBF 120%

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:00 pm

zebadayus wrote:

I can't stand unbridled military hate. It really doesn't help anything.

But yeah, there are some real scumbags in our military as well! But some of these people are just doing their jobs, so cut them some slack.

But I may be biased, since I've never been harassed a lot by recruiters. The Air Force tried for a little bit to get me after I scored the highest in my school on their ASVAB test, promising me a cushy position as an aircraft technician, but they didn't bother me a whole lot about it.

Do some of you people think that nobody should ever ever join the military, or what?

I think if you go back and read IW's post it will explain that the problem they have is that the recruiters are in a high school. So I don't think that their position is quite that "no one should ever join the military", but something more along the lines of "the military does not belong in an ever present form in our high school lives."
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Last edited by Predator Goose on Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:48 pm

LWJoestar wrote:

I think a few of us need to ponder the fact that most high schools have an ROTC program, and that it is entirely voluntary.

This SHOULD help you understand something important.

That one of us doesn't understand what ROTC is? To be honest I'm not sure if it's you or I, it's been a while since I've been in high school. It also sound like you have some concrete example of a ROTC program in a high school. I however, have only seen ROTC in colleges. Indeed, the Wikipedia article describes it as a college program, never mentioning it being present in high schools. A quick google search (quick, not exhaustive sadly, I'm at work) turned up a couple of ads for high school students to apply for a ROTC college program, but I didn't see any description of a ROTC program in a high school.

Of course, my confusion is merited if you meant that there were ROTC recruiters in most high schools.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:47 pm

Thanks for clearing up the ROTC thing for me guys. _________________ I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:10 am

BEIGE wrote:

So, America's Army.

Great video game or greatest video game?

Also, I firmly agree that color guard is for sissy fairy boys. So far I've avoided being assigned to it.

Actually I thought it was a really good video game. Had some good times in college with it when it first came out.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:04 pm

Joe wrote:

You're not gonna throw a screwdriver in prison if someone shoves it into another guy's head, you know?

If that screwdriver was made of people and co-operated willingly, then yes I would. You can't make those kinds of moral comparisons between inanimate objects and human beings, or organizations of human beings.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:47 pm

internisus wrote:

The military does not "cooperate willingly." It answers directly to the commander-in-chief. It is a tool without general free will.

However, its members can be held accountable for their conduct during operations -- for instance, war crimes like the rape of nan-king (sp?).

But you cannot argue that the military is responsible for evil actions like invading sovereign nations for no good reason. That responsibility falls to the commander-in-chief. The military obeys commands, and that's that. The screwdriver analogy is fine.

What are you talking about? Of cousre the military cooperates willingly. It is not a collective entity possessing one will, so you could say that it does not have a "general free will." But ever component of it has their own free will.

I cannot argue that the concept of military is responsible for an action like invading a sovereign nation, but I can argue that a military that commits such an act is responsible for it. Entrusting your morality to another does not save you from the consequences of your own actions. I do not feel the screwdriver analogy is correct.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:38 pm

internisus wrote:

Predator Goose wrote:

internisus wrote:

Then according to your argument each individual comprising the military should be held accountable for the actions he takes part in. Therefore, it is silly to dismiss the military outright. Every soldier and officer chooses whether or not to obey orders. However, such an argument fails to recognize that the military does not need to be given rationales or intelligence that its government has access to. The military and its individuals choose to obey the orders they are given, yes, but they have so little insight into the motives and knowledge of their governmental commanders that this free will is useless. Orders are very rarely refused. Besides, there are consequences to refusing an order, regardless of one's reasons. So, no, you cannot hold the military or its individuals responsible for their actions. The military is a tool.

Internisus, I'm ordering you to go rob a bank. I can't tell you why, it's classified. Suffice to say it's a matter of national security.

Now, if you were to actually go through with what I just typed (btw, I'm rescinding the order now, just in case) what moral crime would you be guilty of? What would you be held responsible for?
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:08 pm

internisus wrote:

I don't answer to you.

Look, I get your point, but it's a dumb argument. First of all, I know that there could not be any good reason for me to rob a bank. You might equate that with killing people, but as we've covered sometimes fighting and killing is not only justified, but righteous.

Secondly, the actions of the military hinge upon far more complex moral and intelligent background than robbing a bank. These are almost always highly ambiguous matters debated all over the world, and it is the profession of those in the government and intelligence agencies to make these kinds of decisions and call for action as follows. The job of the soldier is to carry out those orders. He is not equipped to consider their moral and intelligent character.

Thirdly, because of this, the military is largely protected from moral reprehensibility. If the American people stand up all at once and declare that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a lie, that support for the war was due to media-fed misperceptions, that the action was undeniably criminal, then the Bush administration would be held responsible, not the soldiers who did the invading. Why? Because the military is just a tool.

Actually I think you missed my point. Your flippant comment at the beginning was actually closer than the rest of your post.

Basically the moral crime that I would have held you responsible for was trusting a fucktard from a game forum to know what's right and to dictate your actions. If one is willing to fight and kill someone one at an order, then one should be as informed about the one, or the organization, giving the orders as possible, and decide whether or not to trust them. Keep in mind that the as possible wording is very important, as many times soldiers don't have much time to do research before enlisting. But if you make a mistake and trust the wrong person, then you can't tell the families of the men you killed that it was someone else's fault. You pulled the trigger, you trusted the morals and objectives of another man. You tried your best, and we all use that as a salve, but if you're best wasn't good enough you have to face that fact.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:35 pm

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. As for your comment about the commander in chief having the nation's best interest at heart, I hardly taken it for the given that you do. Beyond that though, what is best for the nation does not always, and indeed frequently does not, coincide with what is moral to do. See slavery, the near genocide of the native Americans, and probably at least a dozen other atrocities. I would like to say though that I am only arguing that one could judge the military. I am ill informed of the current conflict, so please do not take my comments as a condemnation of the current military. _________________ I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:18 pm

internisus wrote:

I actually agree with everything you said in that post. However, you're still not countering what I've stated regarding the role of the military in a larger process or mechanism or whatever that we call a nation.

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.

Let me give an extreme example. Billy hears that the country is going to war with Mexico. Apparently Mexico caught and killed 3 American soldiers prior to the onset of hostilities. Billy considers himself a patriot and has always wanted to fight for his country, just like his father did. Billy joins up and fights what appears to be a routine war with Mexico.

Now, had Billy been paying attention prior to the war, he would have heard that the current commander in chief got elected on the "Kill all Mexicans" platform. He would have heard that the war was a genocidal campaign, supported by the public, and that the 3 soldiers captured and killed were actually trying to assasinate key members of the Mexican government, a fact openly admitted by the American government.

Should Billy, and by extension the military, be held responsible for the genocide that ensued? If the military had been completely formed after the president was elected, but before the war started, should it still be held responsible?

Protip: Yes, and yes.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:26 pm

Ebrey wrote:

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.

Please do not take my comments as an attack on the current military or a condemnation of the war in Iraq, that is not the pont I am trying to make at all.

And for the record I do not believe that morality is synonomous with democracy and national stability.

Edit: Actually, I guess your morality can be whatever you want. I should have said that I do not believe that morality should be synonomous with democracy and national stability, and that my morals are not.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:40 pm

I'd like to make a bit of a retraction. Earlier I said:

Predator Goose wrote:

You tried your best, and we all use that as a salve, but if you're best wasn't good enough you have to face that fact.

I think I implied, and I know that I meant, that if you try your best and fail you are morally responsible for the consequences. I actually don't believe that is true. I think that we can only try our best, we are not omniscient, omnipresent, nor omnipotent. If we fail that is a fact we should learn from, but not feel shame for.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:32 am

Ebrey wrote:

Predator Goose wrote:

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.

Last time I checked, racially cleansing the world of Mexicans was wrong. I know Carlos Mencia is working hard to make it right, but he hasn't gotten there yet. So yeah, I'd still blame the military for it if they were serving the wants of a democracy. I'd also blame the public, the president, congress, and any one else invovled. But you don't get a free ride just because you've subordinated your judgement to someone else.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:48 am

Joe wrote:

This is a hilariously bad example that assumes that someone could be raised in the modern U.S. with no exposure to the mass media until he was 18 and heard "We are fighting a war with Mexico." Please try to present realistic examples for your argument or don't bother at all. Like, try one about someone who has grown up in the media, knows about the "Kill the Mexicans" platform, and still joins up. Also, how would you view the morality of someone who got drafted into such a war? Perhaps the drafters used the tried and true "follow orders or you'll be shot" persuasion technique former Second/Third World militaries seemed to be fond of.

The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that.

It's an exaggeration. A simplified version to prove a point. It removes other complications in order to express a view that I think anyone would have, and that supports my conclusions about judging the military. If we all agree that the military can be judged in this case, we can move on from there. If you've got an issue with the morals presented in the case, then we should discuss those instead.

Then again, not many people like the way I argue. They say I get too technical and argue semantics. I do so love semantics. I also like to boil down arguments to their abstract form. So yeah, I'm kind of a prick.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:13 am

Quote:

The degeneration of this thread just makes me more firm in my belief that philosophers are only good at philosophy. When you guys wanna get hip to reality and talk about modern international relations, let me know. I'd be pretty interested in that.

Geez man, I was just defending the ability of other people to judge the military. You and others seemed to want to dismiss them because you thought that the military is in an unquestionable position, that it is merely a tool to be used by someone else. It was that assumption that I was addressing, a point that I assumed was important. You know, since if I just accepted it that would mean you were right. And if we just screamed at each other we wouldn't get anywhere.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:53 am

internisus wrote:

Goose, I think you need to worry less about semantics and more about how your statements contradict your conclusions. You recognize that:

Predator Goose wrote:

and then immediately state:

Predator Goose wrote:

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 your admissions in the first quote imply the complete reverse of your conclusions in the second.

Yeah, I've got to work on my English skills.

I assume that the contradiction that you're pointing out is that I said that the military usually isn't well informed of the situation, and then turned around and accused them of being lazy and ill informed? Yeah, I meant for that statement to read on a man joining the military, being lazy and ill informed of the people he will be serving and for what purpose he will be fighting.

If your point is that this statement:

Predator Goose wrote:

It is true that the rest of the govnt. issues a command and the military should comply.

means that the military is not responsible for it's actions, I don't think that's true. Should is more of a general guideline. For the proper functioning of a modern government, the military should obey the government. But that does not excuse it. A child should obey his parents, but a child is still held responsible for what it does, regardless of whose direction it was acting under. And if that parent is unfit, such as being an abusive alcoholic, the child should learn to kick its parent in the teeth. But I guess that last part of the analogy doesn't work too well for the military.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:42 pm

internisus wrote:

The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have an arm that unquestioningly obeys its sentient master but also has the free will to disobey. Each option carries consequences. If the arm is itself sentient and free, it is not adequately dependant upon the physically weak powers that control it to ensure that it will not eventually take over. If the arm is stupid and obeys without question, then it cannot be held accountable for its actions.

The latter is the better option, and this is one of the primary strengths of democracy. We choose and elect a commander for that arm. It is up to us to determine the moral character and intelligence of its commander. Unfortunately, the process for doing so fucking sucks right now thanks to big money and big media. The principle is good, though, because the arm is necessary and the other option is very, very bad.

And yeah, the issue of leadership taking responsibility is so hopelessly tied up in the bullshit of political strength and public image that it never really happens. Have you ever heard any kind of politican apologize for his own actions? But that's also kind of a necessary development. How can you design a society precluding the development of politics, a corruption of weak character, when politics is such a natural human phenomenon?

I think that literally, semantically, you are correct. I was using the word should improperly, colloquially. I forget that it is actually a derivative of shall, and implies more of a definite action to be taken.

So, I'd ammend my statement to say that the military should usually obey the government, and that there are exceptions that exist where they should oppose the government. Keep in mind that this opposition does not always take the form of direct opposition of immediate superiors and disregard for orders being given. It can often take other forms, such as speaking out against an administration's military policy while obeying it.

To use another analogy, though I know I'm batting 0 out of 1000 with my analogies, it is correct to say "citizens of a nation should obey that nation's laws." But there are times when it is not right to do so, when one should oppose laws.

Well, that will be my second to last point on the subject, as I'm wasting too much time at work on this. I'll answer Ebrey's post and then I'm going to quit this thread, so make sure to get the last word in.

Internisus, it's been fun. Joe, it has not been fun.
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Predator Goose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Location: Oversensitive Pedantic Ninny

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:53 pm

Ebrey wrote:

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.

You're right Ebrey, I am dismissing international treaties with my example. Do you know why? It's because I live in America. You know, that little country that decides to disregard things like international treaties when they're not convenient. Torture? We don't torture people, because we don't call it torture. How fucked up is that?

A soldier answers to his own nation, not to an international treaty. The only reasons those treaties work is because the soldier's country will enforce the treaty. Law is arbitrary, and the ones who make the law, the ones who hold authority over you, can change it when it's convenient. So when you say that a soldier is supposed to only follow lawful orders, he'll be doing so when he goes out to "kill the Mexicans."
_________________
I can no longer shop happily.

Unfilter / Back to top

Quick Reply

Attach signature
Notify on replies

Display posts from previous:

	selectbutton Forum Index -> GBF 120%	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum