Should military personnel be allowed to object to war?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="67gt500"]
Apparently baselessly attacking another sovereign nation, without the sanction of the UN, is against International Law...
67gt500
If by baseless you mean to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq. . .
That, and making baseless, unsubstantiated claims that a country is in possession of weapons that they are in fact, not... "During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted." "2009 Declaration Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[110] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2009_Declaration Even if they weren't planning on using them it was a precautionary measure.
If I were to be the most prudent individual that I ought to be, then yes; it would hamper my ability to act if I am even to gauge the legality of a given act while performing that act. For, as a soldier, I do not have complete access to the set of facts at any given moment to help me go through the rigorous logical process of determining if a given instance conforms with the rules that have been laid out. To perceive to be fired at does not seem sufficient in all instances to justify shooting back.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]We aren't talking about Laws of society. We are talking about Rules of engagement. Those rules are based off accords that the US follows in times of war. Sure sometimes things are hazy and when that happens you just have to make a judgement call but are you seriously trying to suggest that if you are being shot at you would have a hard time determining if you had the legal right to shoot back? Frattracide
Here is the ROE (We'll call it ROE 1): You have the inherent right to self defense.
Here is the scenario: Someone is trying to kill you. Assume you have the capability to fight back.
Given the scenario, do you have the right, per ROE 1, to fight back.
There is no perception here. If you can fight back, then you haveacquired and identified your target. This is not a rigorous logical process. It is an almost instant determination.
The assumption that one is trying to kill you is truly a hard thing to comprehend. To hear firing and to retaliate need not necessarily go hand in hand. What direction is the firing coming from? Who is doing the firing at you? At whom are you firing? Such a problem presented itself to Blackwater when trying to escort some people through a crowded market place. They heard firing, they felt they were under attack, and they proceeded to fire into a crowd of what was later found to be innocent civilians. It seems, atleast in the Blackwater scenario, your ROEs are insufficient to help determine a course of proper action. Also, how do we determine that self-defense is truly a right to kill?That, and making baseless, unsubstantiated claims that a country is in possession of weapons that they are in fact, not..."During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted." "2009 Declaration Iraq became a member state of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2009, declaring "two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" according to OPCW Director General Rogelio Pfirter.[110] No plans were announced at that time for the destruction of the material, although it was noted that the bunkers were damaged in the 2003 war and even inspection of the site must be carefully planned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2009_Declaration Even if they weren't planning on using them it was a precautionary measure.[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]
If by baseless you mean to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq. . .
Snipes_2
Precautionary measure? Since when is it alright to attack someone because they 'might' use something? That's like saying you and me are walking down the street - I observe that you're using a knife to clean some junk out from under your fingernails, so I pull out a gun and shoot you and it's somehow ok because you 'might' have used the knife against me? LOL...
If you voluntarily sign up for the military it's ridiculous for you to object to fighting in a war. I mean, anyone who goes into the military thinking that they won't have to kill, fight in a war, or even fight in a war that they may not agree with is so naive as to be an utter moron. If you don't want to fight, don't join. It's as simple as that. During a draft it makes sense to have a concentious objector status since people don't have a choice in whether they join up or not, but in an all-volunteer army like the one the USA has you're essentially stating that you will do whatever you're told to do when you enlist.
Our military can't have half its servicemen refusing to fight for obvious reasons. It results in a completely disorganized army when you can't count on a soldier doing what you tell him to.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment