BF2S Forums Gunsights' Biblical References Concern US & UK forces

started terrorising and exterminating the Palestinians.

I don't think anyone's going to be too receptive to your points now.

Cybargs wrote:

With Iraq, you signed up you get sent. Live with the consequences of signing up.

Oh, and by the way you're basically right. You do have to live with the consequences. So you know that when you join up you might have to either be involved in an illegal or unjust war in some capacity, and contribute to the war effort, for example even by being a cook on a ship, or actually be involved in combat and shoot people or drop bombs on them, or whatever. So as a soldier I guess you're assuming that your action of killing is justified morally automatically somehow.

Or let's take Iraq as an example. A war that is extremely dubious in its legality, and some say outright illegal. Couldn't you want to serve in the armed forces to DEFEND your country but strongly feel that invading another country isn't going to help. Or might actually harm your country more? So you refuse to go, citing moral or even religious grounds. After all, if the war is illegal, then all the killing done by your country, even of enemy combatants, could be viewed as murder! Horrendous war crimes on a scale of hundreds of thousands! I say the man who refuses to fight is most definitely morally justified in his refusal to fight or participate. We are very rarely so completely constrained in our possible courses of actions that we cannot refuse to do something. Of course, it is perhaps only people with exceptionally strong moral values who find the inner strength and determination to push back against the juggernaut. Like this guy maybe, Lt. Ehren Watada:

Watada: I realized that to go to war, I needed to educate myself in every way possible. Why were we going to this particular war? What were the effects of war? What were the consequences for soldiers coming home? I began reading everything I could.

    One of many books I read was James Bamford's Pretext for War. As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform. How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies? It was a betrayal of the trust of the American people. And these lies were a betrayal of the trust of the military and the soldiers.

    My mind was in turmoil. Do I follow orders and participate in something that I believed to be wrong? When you join the Army you learn to follow orders without question. Soldiers are apolitical, and you don't voice your opinion out loud.

    I started asking, why are we dying? Why are we losing limbs? For what? I listened to the president and his deputies say we were fighting for democracy; we were fighting for a better Iraq. I just started to think about those things. Are those things the real reasons why we are there, the real reasons we were dying? But I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them.

    The deciding moment for me was in January of 2006. I had watched clips of military funerals. I saw the photos of these families. The children. The mothers and the fathers as they sat by the grave, or as they came out of the funerals. One really hard picture for me was a little boy leaving his father's funeral. He couldn't face the camera so he is covering his eyes. I felt like I couldn't watch that anymore. I couldn't be silent any more and condone something that I felt was deeply wrong.

http://www.tomjoad.org/supportlt.htm (random hit from a Google search)

Even if you DO join up voluntarily, or for that matter if you're drafted, you still have a moral obligation to do the 'right' thing and not say 'oh I was just following orders'. Just because your commanding officer tells you to drop a bomb on that village, does it mean you should if you kill children as well? After all, make no mistake innocents are killed all the time in war. As many here argue that's 'just' a natural consequence of war. Collateral damage, etc. Does 'living with the consequences' also mean accepting gravely immoral actions?

rdx-fx wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Even if you DO join up voluntarily, or for that matter if you're drafted, you still have a moral obligation to do the 'right' thing and not say 'oh I was just following orders'.

Exactly.

And that would describe the vast majority of US military personnel I've known.  Especially the medics.

Remember that, next time you're off on one of your "Americans are Evil" rants, painting with the super-wide brush, generalizing, having coffee with the strawman and the stereotype, etc

WTF man just read the rest of the post. You get so damn defensive you Americans don't you? Even if you TAKE PART in a war that is illegal on ANY level you're still contributing to an illegal act.

I believe you about the medics and what not. Fine, OK. But please just read the whole post and comment on the point of it rather than just accusing me of being anti-US blah blah bollocks. I'm not even SPECIFICALLY talking about US soldiers. If I mention the US it's JUST AN EXAMPLE. the principles apply to ALL armed forces everywhere. OK??????

ruisleipa wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

With Iraq, you signed up you get sent. Live with the consequences of signing up.

Oh, and by the way you're basically right. You do have to live with the consequences. So you know that when you join up you might have to either be involved in an illegal or unjust war in some capacity, and contribute to the war effort, for example even by being a cook on a ship, or actually be involved in combat and shoot people or drop bombs on them, or whatever. So as a soldier I guess you're assuming that your action of killing is justified morally automatically somehow.

Or let's take Iraq as an example. A war that is extremely dubious in its legality, and some say outright illegal. Couldn't you want to serve in the armed forces to DEFEND your country but strongly feel that invading another country isn't going to help. Or might actually harm your country more? So you refuse to go, citing moral or even religious grounds. After all, if the war is illegal, then all the killing done by your country, even of enemy combatants, could be viewed as murder! Horrendous war crimes on a scale of hundreds of thousands! I say the man who refuses to fight is most definitely morally justified in his refusal to fight or participate. We are very rarely so completely constrained in our possible courses of actions that we cannot refuse to do something. Of course, it is perhaps only people with exceptionally strong moral values who find the inner strength and determination to push back against the juggernaut. Like this guy maybe, Lt. Ehren Watada:

Watada: I realized that to go to war, I needed to educate myself in every way possible. Why were we going to this particular war? What were the effects of war? What were the consequences for soldiers coming home? I began reading everything I could.

    One of many books I read was James Bamford's Pretext for War. As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform. How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies? It was a betrayal of the trust of the American people. And these lies were a betrayal of the trust of the military and the soldiers.

    My mind was in turmoil. Do I follow orders and participate in something that I believed to be wrong? When you join the Army you learn to follow orders without question. Soldiers are apolitical, and you don't voice your opinion out loud.

    I started asking, why are we dying? Why are we losing limbs? For what? I listened to the president and his deputies say we were fighting for democracy; we were fighting for a better Iraq. I just started to think about those things. Are those things the real reasons why we are there, the real reasons we were dying? But I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them.

    The deciding moment for me was in January of 2006. I had watched clips of military funerals. I saw the photos of these families. The children. The mothers and the fathers as they sat by the grave, or as they came out of the funerals. One really hard picture for me was a little boy leaving his father's funeral. He couldn't face the camera so he is covering his eyes. I felt like I couldn't watch that anymore. I couldn't be silent any more and condone something that I felt was deeply wrong.

http://www.tomjoad.org/supportlt.htm (random hit from a Google search)

Even if you DO join up voluntarily, or for that matter if you're drafted, you still have a moral obligation to do the 'right' thing and not say 'oh I was just following orders'. Just because your commanding officer tells you to drop a bomb on that village, does it mean you should if you kill children as well? After all, make no mistake innocents are killed all the time in war. As many here argue that's 'just' a natural consequence of war. Collateral damage, etc. Does 'living with the consequences' also mean accepting gravely immoral actions?

First gulf war never ended in the first place. Cease-fire agreement was broken, therefore the war just "restarted"

It should read:

"For I shall fear no evil, because I'm the meanest motherfucker in the valley"

Airforce

"As I go through valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I'm 15'000ft and climbing"

etc...

The people's in the Levant have been killing each other for millenia.  It's rather hard to ID the original "owner" of any land. 

In more recent history, the Balfour Declaration is an interesting jumping off point.

But really, Dilbert?  Do you really claim Afghanistan is about Israel?  On it's face, that is a rediculous assertion.  If you have some evidence, I'd be interested.

M.O.A.B wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

huh? funny how only the US and UK thgouht that was enought to prove the legality of going to war.

and what about the overall point of my post, eh? Try talking about that. I'd be interested to know what you think about it.

Apart from all the other countries who went in as well.

hmmm....yes. A lot of those. All no doubt thoroughly in agreement with the 'legality' of the war.

Until now, at least...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/2 … chael-wood

Tony Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq was illegal, the Foreign Office's former chief legal adviser will tell the Chilcot inquiry this week.

The Observer has been told that Sir Michael Wood, who was the FO's most senior lawyer, is ready to reveal that, in the run-up to war, he was of the opinion that the conflict would have been unlawful without a second UN resolution. This will provide an explosive backdrop to the former prime minister's appearance before the inquiry on Friday.

The evidence from Wood, who will appear before the committee on Tuesday, will provide the firmest proof to date of the bitter wranglings that divided the government in the countdown to war.

His testimony will come the day before the appearance of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, who is said to have dropped his legal objections days before the invasion, following intense pressure from Blair and his closest advisers, and the US authorities.

Anyway you're rather missing the point of my previous posts.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-01-23 16:35:21)

11 Bravo wrote:

erm....how can it be illegal since all sides were in a cease fire?  the war was still going on.  politcs ftl.  and sheep who eat it up ftl.

lol. Gee I dunno, ask the the Foreign Office's former chief legal adviser!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hard luck if the truth doesn't suit them.

The truth? That statement is little better than shitstirring and you know it. Very low-bro IMO.

Seriously, read some history.

If you have evidence that Israel is or was conducting a systematic campaign of wiping out the Palestinian people i.e. mass genocide, then I'll believe you.

ruisleipa wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

lol. Gee I dunno, ask the the Foreign Office's former chief legal adviser!

lol.  Gee I will.  One mans opinions doesnt make it so.  good job on the google search.

well I'd trust him over anyone on this forum

who do you trust - blair, bush and cheney? Not that one mans opinion makes it so, of course.

anyway like I said this is getting off my original point...and the whole thread ftm.

i trust the people who signed the cease fire....thats not negotiable.  that did happen.  thats not opinion.

ruisleipa wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i trust the people who signed the cease fire....thats not negotiable.  that did happen.  thats not opinion.

mmmkay.

are you saying that during the intial gulf war a cease fire was not signed?  i understand you were prolly a kid then or something, but i have a medal to prove it.

FEOS wrote:

The tinfoil's a little too tight around your noggin, Dilbert.

To be fair, Dilbert's tinfoil hat is a much better fit than Russipedia's lead-lined jock strap

eleven bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

mmmkay.

are you saying that during the intial gulf war a cease fire was not signed?  i understand you were prolly a kid then or something, but i have a medal to prove it.

I was a kid

but you arent stupid