100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Should a soldier....... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Do you believe that a soldier (does not matter which branch of the service) should have more say in what he or she is ordered to do? In other words, should a soldier have the right to refuse to do something simply because they dont want to, or they dont agree with the person giving the order? Or should they just shut their mouths and do what they are told, no matter what? Please discuss.... WTF...? You are kidding....right????? 
So what is your opinion on this? I am not kidding with this question as the last three years I was in service, it seemed the general belief was that an order was more along hte lines of a suggestion unless it was given by your first sergeant (army ranking) or higher. I personally follow the belief that to disobey a LAWFUL order is an act of mutiny during war time, and still punishable with a bad conduct discharge during no war time. :quote:This time around!!!!! I feel, they shouldn't have to do what they're told!!!! We're solving nothing over there, It's pointless. Bush, needs a reality check :/quote: what makes this time around any different than any other war? Popular opinion aside, when a soldier signs the dotted line and raises their hand they no longer have certain inalienable rights, one of which being the right to disobey. A soldier also does not have the reight to freedom of speech during the time of hteir enlistment. Believe it or not, a soldier that speaks out against a war, even a reservist or national guard, is guilty not neccesarily of mutiny, but of other military regulations and articles. This is explained to all soldiers prior to their enlisting, yet so many would be soldiers still go in thinking they can say "no" whnever they dont feel like doing something, or that they have the right to talk to a reporter or state that they do not agree/disagree with orders or actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the military is a job.... those actions in the working world would be cause for termination,.... correct...
That is the biggest misconception out there. The military has never been, and never will be a job. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we sign the paper and give up our rights. if we dont follow orders, more people could needlessly die. even if we think that they should not be done, we do them anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe that a soldier (does not matter which branch of the service) should have more say in what he or she is ordered to do? In other words, should a soldier have the right to refuse to do something simply because they dont want to, or they dont agree with the person giving the order? Or should they just shut their mouths and do what they are told, no matter what? Please discuss.... WTF...? You are kidding....right?????
So what is your opinion on this? I am not kidding with this question as the last three years I was in service, it seemed the general belief was that an order was more along hte lines of a suggestion unless it was given by your first sergeant (army ranking) or higher. I personally follow the belief that to disobey a LAWFUL order is an act of mutiny during war time, and still punishable with a bad conduct discharge during no war time. :quote:This time around!!!!! I feel, they shouldn't have to do what they're told!!!! We're solving nothing over there, It's pointless. Bush, needs a reality check :/quote: what makes this time around any different than any other war? Popular opinion aside, when a soldier signs the dotted line and raises their hand they no longer have certain inalienable rights, one of which being the right to disobey. A soldier also does not have the reight to freedom of speech during the time of hteir enlistment. Believe it or not, a soldier that speaks out against a war, even a reservist or national guard, is guilty not neccesarily of mutiny, but of other military regulations and articles. This is explained to all soldiers prior to their enlisting, yet so many would be soldiers still go in thinking they can say "no" whnever they dont feel like doing something, or that they have the right to talk to a reporter or state that they do not agree/disagree with orders or actions. Justify the killing of thousands of innocent people...do that and I will support your military 100% instead of 50%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soldiers are "property" of the U.S. government. When they join the military they agree and are expected to do as told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when a person signs there name on the line they make a contract. in that contract they willing give up there right to refuse a lawfull order. imagine the chaos if they ccould just refuse to do something becuase they dont want too Yeah ur right!!! But, still I hate Bush :) however the subject of this thread is not wether you like bush or agree with iraq or any of that. It is wether or not you think a soldier should follow orders no matter what. Please stay on topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we sign the paper and give up our rights. if we dont follow orders, more people could needlessly die. even if we think that they should not be done, we do them anyways.   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the military is not only a job but a choice. it is a job by definition because somebody is paying a soldier to do what they do. its a choice to give up the rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reference to the geneva conventions: "It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. "It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary who surrenders or who can no longer take part in the fighting" Definately not followed often There are always loop holes to the rules, you stating what you did reminded me of things I have been told in the past from people I knew serving over there. One told me that there is always a way around the "rules". I had forgotten that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If caught doing something against the Geneva conventions, they can suffer worse consequenses for those actions. Those "rules" are loosely followed But as it was stated, if you get caught not following those conventions to the letter, you WILL suffer more hardship and punishment than not. And yes, there is such a thing as an unlawful order. You can not legally give the order to ignore the geneva convention. You also can not legally give certain other orders, such as to kill all non military personell even if they have thrown down their weapons and are lying on the ground with hteir hands on their head (obviously giving up). A soldier CAN refuse to follow such an order. Yes they will probably end up in a court martial cause the person giving the order will not garee that it was unlawful, lol, but you will not be punished or reprimanded or anything if you can show that it was an unlawful order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are always loop holes to the rules, you stating what you did reminded me of things I have been told in the past from people I knew serving over there. One told me that there is always a way around the "rules". I had forgotten that. Like how a .50 cal machine gun isn't supposed to be used against people, so you say you were aiming at their "equipment"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't like admitting to killing innocent civilians?
Doesn't suprise me much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on the phone with a former Army Soldier, and we are discussing this topic also, that is exactly what I brought up to him, about the .50 cal. The loop hole is the equipment, whether it be the vehicle they are in, or their canteen hung on their side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If caught doing something against the Geneva conventions, they can suffer worse consequenses for those actions. Those "rules" are loosely followed But as it was stated, if you get caught not following those conventions to the letter, you WILL suffer more hardship and punishment than not. And yes, there is such a thing as an unlawful order. You can not legally give the order to ignore the geneva convention. You also can not legally give certain other orders, such as to kill all non military personell even if they have thrown down their weapons and are lying on the ground with hteir hands on their head (obviously giving up). A soldier CAN refuse to follow such an order. Yes they will probably end up in a court martial cause the person giving the order will not garee that it was unlawful, lol, but you will not be punished or reprimanded or anything if you can show that it was an unlawful order. Yeah but if someone had just blown up your friend then dropped their weapon and started to rau away, 99% of the time you would shoot them without thinking about it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
daniel48706
on
Tue 01/22/08 09:32 PM
|
|
"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering."
We drop bombs all over a city. A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote: A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. Casualties of war...makes you wonder what they would do if those were americans in city alpha... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote: A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
all loss is loss!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are always loop holes to the rules, you stating what you did reminded me of things I have been told in the past from people I knew serving over there. One told me that there is always a way around the "rules". I had forgotten that. Like how a .50 cal machine gun isn't supposed to be used against people, so you say you were aiming at their "equipment"
That was my favorite line... When asked why I was aiming th efifty cal (during training) at an advancing soldier, my reply was very simply : "Who said I was aiming at the soldier? I am aiming at the web belt around their wasit that is holding all their extra ammunition..." Too bad in real life you would still be prosecuted for not folowing the geneva convention, lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:quote:"It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering." We drop bombs all over a city. :/quote: A bomb is NOT dropped over a city to take out just one or two military involved people. Before the order to bomb is given, it has to be decided what the actual cost (death of enemy fighters versus innocent civilians) will be. Let's say there are 1000 people in city alpha. And it is thought that 100 or them are actively working against the us. No the order will not be given to bomb as there will be too high a number of civilian (and innocent) caasualties versus those of enemy personnel. Now lets say that out of 1000, it is believed that 700 of them are militaristic against us. Hell yes it is going to be strongly considered to bomb that city. Okay, then thats 300 non-combatants that will die. I'm pretty sure 1 non-combatant is a "unnececssary loss" Sensible post, thank you. Support for troops now up to 55%. |
|
|
|
|
