23 replies to this topic

[AllStarZ]

As some of you may well know, men who were enlisted in the US Army for various reasons have moved to Canada so as to avoid going to Iraq, for whatever reason.

This is not new. During the Vietnam War, many young men moved to Canada to prevent themselves from participating in the Vietnam conflict, for many of the same reasons as they would not prefer to go to Iraq.

And so this brings up the question: As a citizen of a free and democratic society, are they allowed to avoid military service as required due to personal objections, or is it their duty as a soldier and a citizen of that country to serve their country in times of war?

[Ion Cannon!]

These people have chosen to be in the military service, thereforce they should follow that with the responsibility of military service. No one forced them to join up, they made a choice, they should be made to carry out their obligations.

OT; Not seen much of you recently AllstarZ, welcome back.

Edited by Insomniac!, 08 October 2008 - 19:50.

[Warbz]

Are you talking about people that join out of free will or those who are enlisted through conscription?

[Dr. Strangelove]

If it(conscription) was in a lassiez-faire capitalist society like one I have described, if it was clearly stated in the contract of citizenship than I would have no problem with it.

However, no country on earth currently abides by those rules, so I disagree with having any drafts at all.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 08 October 2008 - 22:36.

[AllStarZ]

I'm speaking in a general sense. Should a soldier go to war despite objections, regardless if he is a conscript or an enlisted?

[CommanderJB]

They're two different scenarios and should really be treated as such. You cannot disregard whether they're in the army by choice when dealing with conscientious objectors as they will both require different approaches.
Here are my armchair views on the topic:
If a soldier has joined the army by choice, the act of 'signing up' requires him to pledge his loyalty to the service and to obey orders. There's no excuse that would override this pledge. The only question that remains is whether to send them off anyway or give them a dishonourable discharge, which is probably best answered on a case-by-case basis.
If a soldier has been forcefully drafted into the army against his will then it's clear he's not going to want to participate in the fighting or he would have already done so by choice. Thus if you don't make them go, you defeat the whole purpose of conscription. I'm not saying I agree with the process by any means, just that if it's in place, right or wrong, then as it functions on denying people a choice it must do so here as well.

Edited by CommanderJB, 09 October 2008 - 04:06.

[Dr. Strangelove]

AllStarZ, on 9 Oct 2008, 3:54, said:

I'm speaking in a general sense. Should a soldier go to war despite objections, regardless if he is a conscript or an enlisted?

Well, I'd prefer that we didn't have to fight at all, but not if it means abdicating our principles.

In the case of invading a country and toppling it's government, it can only be morally excused(not justified, killing evil people doesn't make you any better of a person, it just doesn't have the negative moral effects of killing someone who is not evil.) if the country being invaded doesn't respect Man's Rights and the new regime to be installed does.

[The Wandering Jew]

AllStarZ, on 9 Oct 2008, 11:54, said:

I'm speaking in a general sense. Should a soldier go to war despite objections, regardless if he is a conscript or an enlisted?

As long as the reason is viable (i.e. "We have been attacked by the Scrin!"). One should defend his country once its been intently attacked. Or if a country "promised" military support on its sieged ally. Whatever the case may be, as long as the they didn't start it, they should go.

Other than the reasons stated, one can go to a "neutral" country. Ignorance is bliss. :chillpill2:

[Shirou]

If one enlisted for an army but is too lax to go out to Iraq, shouldn;t enlist at all.

/thread

[Lucid]

I believe that if someone joins the military voluntarily, then they should be made to fight. if they are drafted/conscripted, then they shouldn't be able to be made to fight.

[AllStarZ]

Now to ask you a question:

Are there such things as bad orders? What happens if the policy of said army was to torture suspected civilians?

[Dauth]

That is very nearly a leading question, I advise people be very careful with their responses.

[AllStarZ]

Consider the Wehrmacht in World War II. Would you go to war if that is what your orders entailed? Would you try to ditch your country and possibly leave your family to social ostracization? What happens if your favourite aunt and uncle were fanatically devoted to the country?

Edited by AllStarZ, 10 October 2008 - 22:39.

[Ion Cannon!]

AllStarZ, on 10 Oct 2008, 23:25, said:

Now to ask you a question:

Are there such things as bad orders? What happens if the policy of said army was to torture suspected civilians?

If you joined the army by choice you have two options ;
A - Carry out the orders of your superiors, your just doing your job.
B - Refuse to carry out the orders because of your personal opinion.

Now, depending on who gave the orders B could result in alot of suffering for yourself. So in that situation do you put someone you don't know over yourself? I wouldn't. In a less strict regime if B wouldn't result in personal pain, I would choose B. Otherwise A because I consider myself more important than someone I don't know / care about. Now if it was someone I cared about, that would be a different matter. But I would probaly still do A, if I don't do it, someone else will, and why make two suffer when only one needs to?

[Dauth]

Anyone read up on the Milgram Experiments? Before talking about disobeying orders, see what it requires to do so.

[Lucid]

isn't it true that you can't be charged with something if you were ordered to do so?

[Dauth]

That would depend on the situation and on the state, neither item can be commented on with any strength by me as I am not legally trained.

[The Wandering Jew]

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 6:25, said:

Now to ask you a question:

Are there such things as bad orders?

Bad orders arise out from bad decisions (or misplannings). Bad orders also came out from poorly executed and miscommunicated procedures (i.e. It is a damned good plan from the commanding officer, too bad the sergeants messed up and never held the line.), thus making a well-planned order look bad.

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 6:25, said:

What happens if the policy of said army was to torture suspected civilians?

If torture is necessary to extract information on the said civilians, I would suggest less violent means. You don't have to exert much effort just to make him/her talk. Sometimes, torture is like teaching a pig to sing. It exhausts the interrogator and annoys the pig.

Chinese water torture, anyone?

[CommanderJB]

Double post there, hope you won't mind if I delete one.

[AllStarZ]

Viper, on 10 Oct 2008, 18:59, said:

isn't it true that you can't be charged with something if you were ordered to do so?

That is called the Nuremburg Defence. The thing about law is that there is a certain limit on how many people you can actually charge with a crime before said crime becomes questionable. Like prohibition. If a significant portion of the population is sidestepping the law you cannot make otherwise ordinary people guilty. In World War II, in most circumstances most people had no rational choice but to follow those orders.

The Wandering Jew, on 10 Oct 2008, 20:14, said:

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 6:25, said:

Now to ask you a question:

Are there such things as bad orders?

Bad orders arise out from bad decisions (or misplannings). Bad orders also came out from poorly executed and miscommunicated procedures (i.e. It is a damned good plan from the commanding officer, too bad the sergeants messed up and never held the line.), thus making a well-planned order look bad.

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 6:25, said:

What happens if the policy of said army was to torture suspected civilians?

If torture is necessary to extract information on the said civilians, I would suggest less violent means. You don't have to exert much effort just to make him/her talk. Sometimes, torture is like teaching a pig to sing. It exhausts the interrogator and annoys the pig.

Chinese water torture, anyone?

What I meant by bad orders are anything which is inadvisable. Like rounding up all the men in a village.

Torture quite often does not accomplish its aims, and can cause undue mental and physical duress on a person, to the point where they may falsely admit to something or may cause lasting damage.

[The Wandering Jew]

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 12:51, said:

...
Torture quite often does not accomplish its aims, and can cause undue mental and physical duress on a person, to the point where they may falsely admit to something or may cause lasting damage.

Indeed. Torture is just intimidation (and power abuse) through violent means. The gain is usually lead to nothing much, except that the "torturer" just wasted his BTUs by flogging that civilian into insensibility.

[markintellect]

The Wandering Jew, on 11 Oct 2008, 10:38, said:

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 12:51, said:

...
Torture quite often does not accomplish its aims, and can cause undue mental and physical duress on a person, to the point where they may falsely admit to something or may cause lasting damage.

Indeed. Torture is just intimidation (and power abuse) through violent means. The gain is usually lead to nothing much, except that the "torturer" just wasted his BTUs by flogging that civilian into insensibility.

Another factor is that the tortured would do anything to stop the torture, and if they are innocent and have no real information to give, then they would tell their torturers false information, information which could have serious consequences if their torturers acted on it, like the tortured person saying that there is a militant base in building x, and so their torturers attack building x, sometimes without clarifying anything that they had 'extracted' from their prisoner, and then realise that it was a school, hospital or housing block full of refugees, which understandably would make the whole situation worse as well as disgracing their reputation.

[TehKiller]

markintellect, on 11 Oct 2008, 11:22, said:

The Wandering Jew, on 11 Oct 2008, 10:38, said:

AllStarZ, on 11 Oct 2008, 12:51, said:

...
Torture quite often does not accomplish its aims, and can cause undue mental and physical duress on a person, to the point where they may falsely admit to something or may cause lasting damage.

Indeed. Torture is just intimidation (and power abuse) through violent means. The gain is usually lead to nothing much, except that the "torturer" just wasted his BTUs by flogging that civilian into insensibility.

Another factor is that the tortured would do anything to stop the torture, and if they are innocent and have no real information to give, then they would tell their torturers false information, information which could have serious consequences if their torturers acted on it, like the tortured person saying that there is a militant base in building x, and so their torturers attack building x, sometimes without clarifying anything that they had 'extracted' from their prisoner, and then realise that it was a school, hospital or housing block full of refugees, which understandably would make the whole situation worse as well as disgracing their reputation.

Yep. Torture in most cases leads to useless info. An example is Al-Quaeda and evidence of WMD's in Iraq (this is an example not a debate)

[CommanderJB]

Either way this thread is getting a bit off-topic. Please try and redirect the discussion to its original course.