Things Liberals Believe in

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

History gives us plenty of examples of what the military personel would do when given an order against civilians. If you think the American military are special in some way, you'll hve to do better than this well, it depends malarky!

Then please share with the rest of the class!!! As a veteren, I would like to know what makes you think the US military would act one way, or the other, with regards to opening fire on "innocent" civilians.

I was not trying to be sarcastic, so don't get that way with me.

I don't think the argument is specific to the US military. I guess the question would be - is the US military any more patriotic than other armies that have done this kind of thing? Excluding the obvious historical examples that everyone is familiar with - we had the former Yugoslavia where both military and civilian militias carried out crimes against humanity.

If the conditions are right (or rather - very very wrong) - there's no reason to suppose that it wouldn't happen anywhere in the world. We're all human beings after all - the US doesn't have a monopoly on human nature.

[kaydee457 13]

Someone clearly loves their stereotypes.

It's a shame that you're still in the closet. I think you would have a heavy burden lifted if you just embrace your liberal beliefs instead of castigating others that point out your beliefs and behaviors.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Someone clearly loves their stereotypes.

It's a shame that you're still in the closet. I think you would have a heavy burden lifted if you just embrace your liberal beliefs instead of castigating others that point out your beliefs and behaviors.

You mean it would make it easy for you - given that your whole rationale to comprehending anyone else's views depends on cartoonish stereotypes.

I might as well say you are a typical right-wing nut - angry, vicious, gun-obsessed and seeing enemies in your soup. Would that be a fair characterisation?

In any case its hard to believe that you're serious when you trot out that sort of guff. If you are... that's quite scary.

[Peikko 1,575]

Another mistake, and a common one Kaydee. Just because someone doesn't share your prejudices, and speaks out against them, doesn't make them automatically librul. Nice try though, as usual

[nowhereman 1]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

I'll ask you the same question. What is different in the command structure of the US military that would allow for mass disobediance of an officer by the foot soldiers? Are you suggesting that somehow they weigh up all the moral probabilities of their actions before they take them? I have to say, I find that dubious in the extreme - although of course we always like to think that these things would be true.

Do you think they grow soldiers in a test tube????? Before we were soldiers we were Americans & most Americans have a moral compass pointing in the right direction. In other militarys soldiers are discouraged from thinking for themselves, but in our military we encourage creativity & doing the right thing (google "Army Values" and you will see what I mean). Of course there are exceptions to this & yea there have been some inexcusable incidents, but in almost every case you will see that a weak leadership was the root cause.

Two examples: Mei Li Massacre in Vietnam & more recently Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The common theme in both is weak leadership... LT Calley in the first case & an absent chain of command in the second case (most of the soldiers committing the acts in Abu Ghraib were E-4 and below). You want to know who finally stopped the killing at Mei Li? A Warrant Officer/ helicopter pilot named Hugh Thompson placed his helicopter between the Vietnamese civilians and the Army soldiers & he trained his guns on the American troops. Thompson & his crew received the Soldier's Medal for their actions, and rightfully so.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

That's not actually true. Posse comitatus prevents active duty & reserve (i.e. federal) forces from performing law enforcement duties in the U.S. but national guard troops on state duty are not bound by this limitation. I'm an Army officer & I work in homeland defense, so I'm well versed in this area.

i thought you said earlier that you were retired

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Aren't we talking about a situation in which such details are deemed irrelevant? Or at least very quickly ignored?

Not really. How many soldiers would obey an order to shoot their fellow citizens?

Its not unthinkable.

I'm curious... who actually thinks soldiers would obey, and who thinks they would not? And what about the situation? Would it not affect an individuals actions?

Sure - I'm only talking in generalities, but there certainly are historical precedents for it.

It depends on the commander and the command climate. If he's a strong commander & gives a ####### about doing what's morally right then it's highly unlikely that his troops will do something unethical or immoral. If he's a weak commander or has questionable ethics than yea it's totally plausible.

I'll ask you the same question. What is different in the command structure of the US military that would allow for mass disobediance of an officer by the foot soldiers? Are you suggesting that somehow they weigh up all the moral probabilities of their actions before they take them? I have to say, I find that dubious in the extreme - although of course we always like to think that these things would be true.

Do you think they grow soldiers in a test tube????? Before we were soldiers we were Americans & most Americans have a moral compass pointing in the right direction. In other militarys soldiers are discouraged from thinking for themselves, but in our military we encourage creativity & doing the right thing (google "Army Values" and you will see what I mean). Of course there are exceptions to this & yea there have been some inexcusable incidents, but in almost every case you will see that a weak leadership was the root cause.

Two examples: Mei Li Massacre in Vietnam & more recently Abu Ghraib in Iraq. The common theme in both is weak leadership... LT Calley in the first case & an absent chain of command in the second case (most of the soldiers committing the acts in Abu Ghraib were E-4 and below). You want to know who finally stopped the killing at Mei Li? A Warrant Officer/ helicopter pilot named Hugh Thompson placed his helicopter between the Vietnamese civilians and the Army soldiers & he trained his guns on the American troops. Thompson & his crew received the Soldier's Medal for their actions, and rightfully so.

Well at the risk of bringing up cliches - why did the SS operate the Death Camps? Wouldn't they, as supposedly patriotic German citizens not also have a right-pointing moral compass that would tell them that what they were doing wasn't exactly "good".

And this wasn't weak leadership either - it was handed down from the highest level as a matter of government policy.

Which is why I say that if the right conditions prevail - people can be persuaded to do anything. You might not be able to imagine such an event taking place in the current climate - but if that climate were sufficiently altered perceptions of morality can become fluid. In uncertain, desperate times a person (a soldier) might cling to the only ordered system they know - even if that involves doing immoral, unethical or illegal things.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[*Robert* 2]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

I would say that the US military is not as "black and white" as it used to be, because blindly following orders just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

If I were ordered to open fire on US civilians, I better know damn good and well that it is a "lawful" order, and there is justification for doing it... otherwise I am commiting murder, and I am NOT a murderer.

Now if I were being shot at, that would be a different matter. I think there are enough people in the military these days that have better educations than in the past, that would not want to be a part of killing fellow Americans, unless there was a very good reason for it.

[nowhereman 1]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

That's not actually true. Posse comitatus prevents active duty & reserve (i.e. federal) forces from performing law enforcement duties in the U.S. but national guard troops on state duty are not bound by this limitation. I'm an Army officer & I work in homeland defense, so I'm well versed in this area.

i thought you said earlier that you were retired

Never said that... wishful thinking?

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Could be me but I've never really understood the rationale that the 2nd amendment allows for the citizenry to take back government from a dictator. Seems to me that you'd really need to have the lot to have any chance of success on that score (rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, tanks, 50-cals etc). Even an automatic assault rifle isn't going to do much against a bunch of guys in a fully armed Blackhawk.

The government cannot use the military in a law enforcement capacity within the United States,

except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

That's not actually true. Posse comitatus prevents active duty & reserve (i.e. federal) forces from performing law enforcement duties in the U.S. but national guard troops on state duty are not bound by this limitation. I'm an Army officer & I work in homeland defense, so I'm well versed in this area.

i thought you said earlier that you were retired

Never said that... wishful thinking?

not at all.

[*Robert* 2]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am going to completely disregard the moral compass pointing in the right direction argument. It's silly. Even your predecessors who fought in the world wars would recognize that for the delusion that it is.

Moving right along, so, you are suggesting that in the US military there is so much emphasis on the individual that it's not possible for foot soldiers to be persuaded by their officers that even a seemingly unpleasant course of action isn't in fact the right course of action, if for no other reason than the alternate would be far worse?

Where I completely agree, is that the officers have to be in collusion with the dictator for it to be successful. What is a highly dubious proposition is that the foot soldiers themselves would automatically reject their officers decision based on a 'moral' stand point. Killing people isn't moral, period.

I would say that the US military is not as "black and white" as it used to be, because blindly following orders just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

If I were ordered to open fire on US civilians, I better know damn good and well that it is a "lawful" order, and there is justification for doing it... otherwise I am commiting murder, and I am NOT a murderer.

Now if I were being shot at, that would be a different matter. I think there are enough people in the military these days that have better educations than in the past, that would not want to be a part of killing fellow Americans, unless there was a very good reason for it.

Don't these very boards illustrate that in fact there are many, many varied and 'good' reasons for killing people? That killing your fellow American can be seen as a good thing, if your fellow American is not of the 'right sort'? Suppose the officers suggested that the people in front of you were 'illegal aliens' for example and that as such they were a threat to the security not only of you and your fellow soldiers, but to the legitimate populous. How would you check that in fact they were illegals before you opened fire?

These are just examples of how seemingly terrible actions can be justified at the time - and who is going to 'verify' anything once the deed is done? I am not laying blame on people for taking these types of actions. I don't 'blame' the german foot soldiers for their actions during the world wars. They were doing what they thought was just and right. I am merely saying simply that an army is incapable of making the kinds of moral determinations that you are claiming would 'naturally' occur simply because American's know right from wrong.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

So what's your take on this Charles, concerning being given an order to fire on civilians?

i think quite a few would refuse to do it and would regard it as an illegal order.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

I am merely saying simply that an army is incapable of making the kinds of moral determinations that you are claiming would 'naturally' occur simply because American's know right from wrong.

given you didn't serve in the us military, you have no clue about the training the military gets, do you? whereas quite a number of us who have are telling you otherwise, you still wish to contest the point.