"kill Team"

[Sternhauser]

I think I remember reading about something like this in the construction worker profession. Or was it the farming profession?

"In one of the most grisly war crimes investigations to date, 12 American soldiers face charges over a secret "kill team" that allegedly murdered Afghan civilians for sport and collected bits of their fingers as war souvenirs."

[url="http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/us-troops-allegedly-took-afghan-fingers-as-kill-souvenirs/19626565?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C169523"]http://www.aolnews.c...ec3_lnk1|169523[/url]

You have to ask yourself: how on earth did all those psychopaths get together? Where did they find each other?

~Sternhauser

Edited September 9, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Selah]

Holy Shatner.

[Semper Catholic]

Yeah right just like the Haditha "Massacre" that never really happened, but ruined the lives and careers of some excellent Marines. Thanks John Murtha.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1284347639' post='2172510']
Yeah right just like the Haditha "Massacre" that never really happened, but ruined the lives and careers of some excellent Marines. Thanks John Murtha.
[/quote]

Are Marines told to shoot at anything that moves after an ambush, even in an urban setting, where women and children may be present?

~Sternhauser

[Johnny]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284371899' post='2172577']
Are Marines told to shoot at anything that moves after an ambush, even in an urban setting, where women and children may be present?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
No. Speaking as a former Marine I can tell you that we were never given that order. Part of our weapons training was "Know your target and what lies behind it." Tell me, how come you never post any news links where terrorists killed people, or a gang member shot down a child? Why is it always anti-military/law enforcement?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Johnny' timestamp='1284373934' post='2172582']
No. Speaking as a former Marine I can tell you that we were never given that order. Part of our weapons training was "Know your target and what lies behind it."
[/quote]

I'm not asking about what you were taught in classes at Parris Island or Pendleton. I'm talking about what the low-grade officers and NCO's tell their platoon members to do in the field, where things don't run according to the way the books say they're supposed to. In combat zones. Like these guys. [url="http://www.stripes.com/news/troops-rules-of-engagement-have-apparently-changed-to-kill-anything-that-moves-1.3929"]http://www.stripes.c...at-moves-1.3929[/url]

Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers coming back from Iraq are coming out and saying they were told to shoot anything that moved when ambushed. And if they weren't told, they lived by the rule anyway. Who would hold them accountable anyway? "It was a firefight." Stuff happens, right? War is just plain messy.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284410049' post='2172702']
I'm not asking about what you were taught in classes at Parris Island or Pendleton. I'm talking about what the low-grade officers and NCO's tell their platoon members to do in the field, where things don't run according to the way the books say they're supposed to. In combat zones. Like these guys. [url="http://www.stripes.com/news/troops-rules-of-engagement-have-apparently-changed-to-kill-anything-that-moves-1.3929"]http://www.stripes.c...at-moves-1.3929[/url]

Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers coming back from Iraq are coming out and saying they were told to shoot anything that moved when ambushed. And if they weren't told, they lived by the rule anyway. Who would hold them accountable anyway? "It was a firefight." Stuff happens, right? War is just plain messy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Yeah it is so why are trying to pin this on servicemen? Go harp about fat white man and their oil greed like the rest of the trust fund anarchists.

You act like commander's just pull ROE's out of their behind. Only time that type of ROE is issued is when there is no shadow of a doubt what is going down.

I bet you also think soldiers and Marines are done with training after boot camp too, hence the PI and San Diego comment.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1284411884' post='2172710']
Yeah it is so why are trying to pin this on servicemen? Go harp about fat white man and their oil greed like the rest of the trust fund anarchists.[/quote]

Why am I trying to pin this on Stateservicemen? Why wouldn't I? Are you suggesting they aren't able to judge basic morality any better? Are they not capable of being responsible for their own actions? Do we get to blame everything on the fat white man and their oil greed? Are you telling me that "following orders" is an excuse for targeting anything that looks like it has a pulse? I blame the person who is actually doing the will of the fat white man who sends bravado-laden young men to die, all the while lying about how they're "protecting America from terrorists."

It would be condescending to blame "the man" for the individual actions performed by sentient individuals.

Trust fund? No. Just a newsboy. Didn't "pull myself up by my own bootstraps" by getting issued a pair of them and receiving money taken from productive and constructive people at gunpoint. Uncle Sugar is a real big trust fund.


[quote]
You act like commander's just pull ROE's out of their behind. Only time that type of ROE is issued is when there is no shadow of a doubt what is going down.[/quote]

Which is apparently all the time, in Iraq.


[quote]I bet you also think soldiers and Marines are done with training after boot camp too, hence the PI and San Diego comment.
[/quote]

Wrong. Training anywhere, whether it's in the Philippines or Okinawa or Twenty-Nine Palms, does not equal what soldiers are being taught in the [i]field.[/i] Hence the PI and San Diego comment. Would you not have made your condescending comment if I had listed every single place a Marine trains?

~Sternhauser

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284410049' post='2172702']
I'm not asking about what you were taught in classes at Parris Island or Pendleton. I'm talking about what the low-grade officers and NCO's tell their platoon members to do in the field, where things don't run according to the way the books say they're supposed to. In combat zones. Like these guys. [url="http://www.stripes.com/news/troops-rules-of-engagement-have-apparently-changed-to-kill-anything-that-moves-1.3929"]http://www.stripes.c...at-moves-1.3929[/url]

Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers coming back from Iraq are coming out and saying they were told to shoot anything that moved when ambushed. And if they weren't told, they lived by the rule anyway. Who would hold them accountable anyway? "It was a firefight." Stuff happens, right? War is just plain messy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I'm no "salty" war veteran, I had no MOS integrity or combat integrity either, as on 0311, as I did all my time in Security Forces on a battleship during the Gulf War and latter barracks duty stateside. But, in my opinion, Stern, I would say something like this comprises two or more issues. At minimum two, but likely more than that.

One: there is always the necessity for strong leadership, even at the level of an E-4. Eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-three year old men are easily stoked into "group think" that involves and encourages murder and mayhem. I also believe every males is capable of rape. Social formation and stable environments subduing a more primitive impulse. So, conditions of war provide ripe environments to see the best and worst in man. NCO's and officers must keep their troops in check.

Two: the fog of war is a stressor and recipe for incoherence and even paranoia. The effect of this can be compounded in urban terrain and even more so when confronting unconventional forces. No conventional military wants to fight in urban environments because they are too problematic, not least of which the battle field is no longer confined to the horizontal but must be fought the vertical build ups (buildings). I think any NCO or officer will try to effectively if not efficiently reduce the probability is troops will inflicted with casualties, and mission objectives compromised if not failed.





Some other things to keep in mind: every military in the world draws its service men and women from their respective societies - their national culture. So, in not a little sense, military personnel are developed from the cradle. The same I would argue, holds true for the Priesthood too. Whatever vices or corruptions one sees in society they can expect to see them in the military as well. I served with a number of gang members in the Marine Corps. One of the most feared Marines (though not the physically toughest) on the battleship I was on, was a Blood from L.A.

What was that book become an HBO movie? About Marines going through Iraq? I can't remember the name. I remember reading most the book though. "Generation Kill" I think it was!

The book was authored by a journalist from Rolling Stones magazine, if I remember correctly, at any rate, he described the Jarheads of the Battalion Recon unit he was traveling with. They were from people like this: From single parent homes; From homes of crack addicts; Raped as a boy; From urban streets and reared on rap music. As whole, they have no problem killing, they shoot without hesitation (something many Marines new to combat did not do in WWII), and they attempt to desert at a rate much lower than WWII and Vietnam.

[Chi Zhuzi]

Here's a clip that partly talks about that book I mentioned: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_5vxM8PYM"]Generation Kill[/url]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284414908' post='2172733']
I'm no "salty" war veteran, I had no MOS integrity or combat integrity either, as on 0311, as I did all my time in Security Forces on a battleship during the Gulf War and latter barracks duty stateside. But, in my opinion, Stern, I would say something like this comprises two or more issues. At minimum two, but likely more than that.

One: there is always the necessity for strong leadership, even at the level of an E-4. Eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-three year old men are easily stoked into "group think" that involves and encourages murder and mayhem. I also believe every males is capable of rape. Social formation and stable environments subduing a more primitive impulse. So, conditions of war provide ripe environments to see the best and worst in man. NCO's and officers must keep their troops in check.

Two: the fog of war is a stressor and recipe for incoherence and even paranoia. The effect of this can be compounded in urban terrain and even more so when confronting unconventional forces. No conventional military wants to fight in urban environments because they are too problematic, not least of which the battle field is no longer confined to the horizontal but must be fought the vertical build ups (buildings). I think any NCO or officer will try to effectively if not efficiently reduce the probability is troops will inflicted with casualties, and mission objectives compromised if not failed.[/quote]

While all true, this is beside the point.

Were you on the Missouri or the Wisconsin?

Don't you remember why you were in Desert Storm? You were in Desert Storm because the Iraqis were throwing babies out of their incubators in Kuwait City. We know this because a Kuwaiti nurse, "Nayirah," was there. She saw it. In perfect English, she tearfully described how the evil Iraqis threw dozens of babies out of incubators "onto the cold floor." Who could do that? [i]Babies! [/i]Not only that, but [i]preemies, [/i]the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. Monsters! They [i]have [/i]to be stopped!

Do you know who "Nayirah" was? The daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United State. She wasn't a nurse. She was nowhere near Kuwait City when the Iraqis invaded. One of the Doctors at the hospital said, later, "Yes, the Iraqis came into the hospital, and they just walked around. We only have about 8 incubators, and no one was harmed." She lied to congress, and to the world, in order to help get the United State involved. Bush cited this "barbarism" as one of his reasons for sending in troops. And the people [i]ate it up. [/i]There's [i]always a lie[/i] when the State starts a war. "[i]War[/i] [i]is the health of the State!" [/i]You would think people would, perhaps some day, understand history and human nature.

[quote]What was that book become an HBO movie? About Marines going through Iraq? I can't remember the name. I remember reading most the book though. "Generation Kill" I think it was!

The book was authored by a journalist from Rolling Stones magazine, if I remember correctly, at any rate, he described the Jarheads of the Battalion Recon unit he was traveling with. They were from people like this: From single parent homes; From homes of crack addicts; Raped as a boy; From urban streets and reared on rap music. As whole, they have no problem killing, they shoot without hesitation (something many Marines new to combat did not do in WWII), and they attempt to desert at a rate much lower than WWII and Vietnam.
[/quote]

Nothing has changed, either. As the citizens of Rutland, Vermont opined in the time of the revolutionary war, "A standing army is principally composed of the refuse of society, whose idleness and dissipation denies them existence by any other means." So those young men, from broken homes and no stability are now full of raging hormones, full of themselves, and willing to submit themselves to a hierarchy as is found in packs of wolves. They find that pack mentality in the gangs and in the military, where they are, as Napoleon said, "willing to die for little bits of ribbon." They're putty in the hands of politicians. They do what they're told without question, and because what they're told to do is [i]kill people, [/i]this rapidly becomes problematic. They are utterly convinced that they are awesome people fighting for freedom, and they try to convince others of that often.

As Voltaire recounted in a discussion with a Quaker: [font="Arial"][size="2"]"Our God, who has commanded us to love our enemies and to suffer without complaining, would not permit us to cross the seas to slaughter our brothers, just because murderers clothed in scarlet, wearing caps two feet high, enlist citizens by making a noise with two little sticks beating on a stretched arse's skin. [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]When after a victory, all London is lit up with illuminations, and the sky is ablaze with fireworks, and the noise of thanksgiving is heard from bells, organs and cannons, then we groan in silence about the murders which caused the public rejoicing." [/size][/font]

And the Quaker was right. The soldiers join up because men with fancy uniforms promise that they'll get fancy uniforms, and allure them with the sound of martial drums. Oh, the [i]glory [/i]of [i]combat,[/i] they think. Young men will always be allured to the military. But they're not so dedicated to the supposed causes for which they're fighting. They would not go overseas and fight in Afghanistan unless someone else paid for them to do so. They don't believe in the cause strongly enough, like that 50-year old Floridian on dialysis does, when he goes over to Pakistan looking for Osama Bin Laden on his own dime. No, they don't believe in it strongly enough to fight on their own dime. I remember an account given by a soldier who joined the military "Because with all the helicopters and guns and tanks, it looked like the coolest job in the world." They join because no one else would pay them nearly as much money in the free market. A lot of them join for "money for college." I knew a few of them. It's why so many people joined the military in the Great Depression: three squares and some sets of clean clothes were hard to turn down. How many of them would admit to a stranger that they joined for those mundane reasons, however? No, it has to be about some glorious "cause," like "keeping the terrorists from stealing our freedoms." "Freedom isn't free!" "I fight to keep America free!" "You can sleep in your bed because I'm kicking hornet's nests 4,000 miles away."

So they go off to war. Whether or not to engage in war is a grave decision. But as they go off to fight, they are trusting in the moral judgment of the pro-partial-birth abortion politicians, the bribe-taking, alcoholic, gun-banning womanizers who send them over there to kill people in a place they probably could not have found on a map in 2000. Politicians who have never heard of the Just War Doctrine, and couldn't be bothered with it if they had. Politicians who have no problem with torturing people. That's who's sending them to fight, Chi. If a politician sends me to fight because he gets kickbacks from "defense" manufacturers, and I'm going because I think I'm protecting people, does my belief change the reality of [i]why[/i] I'm being sent over? Does it change what I'm [i]actually[/i] accomplishing? No. Because idealism, the idea that believing something is true [i]makes [/i]it true, is a lie.

You could tell me that the troops are actually accomplishing the protection of America. I'd say, "prove it objectively," and you might, like the majority of State military members or their supporters, become instantly dismissive or outright insanely hostile. I could blow my silent anti-terrorist whistle, and get equally upset if you claimed my whistle didn't protect America from terrorists. Fact is, the troops of the largest military on the face of the earth didn't protect anyone on 9/11, and they won't be able to stop any other determined individuals from getting through again. They're actually creating more enemies overseas than they are killing, as Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, pointed out. I know I wouldn't be feeling too happy about a foreign army in my country for 9 years, with bombs exploding and gunfights breaking out constantly, and their APCs racing around my neighborhood, no matter what they were there for. Not everyone killing Americans over in Afghanistan or Iraq is a "terrorist." A lot of them are just regular local Joes, killing invaders, doing the same stuff you'd be doing if the Chinese rolled through your neighborhood, no matter [i]why[/i] they were there.

Chi, I don't hate the individuals in the military. They're mostly decent people. But I [i]hate[/i] the false notions, the unrealistic ideology they cling to so fiercely, and the bravado and arrogance with which they do so. And I will always speak out against those false ideologies, because by acting upon those false ideas, they invariably causes more violence and suffering than they prevent. I [i]hate[/i] that they go over to kill people, daring to do it in my name and the name of my [i]neighbors[/i], using the money I earned in [i]productive labor, [/i]and that they invariably end up killing a lot of innocent people for politicians' lies.

As Hermann Goering said, "It's easy to get the people into a war. All you have to do is tell the people they are under attack, and denounce the pacifists for being unpatriotic." I'm not a pacifist, but I am against unnecessary violence and wars. And when the State decides to wage a war, you can be pretty sure that it's unnecessary. Do they consult the people? No. They just send people in to fight and die. They stand to lose [i]nothing[/i] in a war. They won't be fighting it, and their kids won't be fighting it. So they send the poor kids to go and die. And to see the poor, gullible kids defending their being sent over by those slimy politicians breaks my heart. It's like watching how gang members look up to a gang leader, as though he truly had their best interest in mind. It's like watching a wife defend an abusive husband, because she [i]has [/i]to believe he really loves her. Doesn't he provide for her? Doesn't he give her clothes to wear and food to eat, and housing? She [i]has[/i] to believe that he wouldn't be hurting her if she didn't deserve it. Otherwise, she'd recognize what a scumbag he was and leave him.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Johnny]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284410049' post='2172702']
I'm not asking about what you were taught in classes at Parris Island or Pendleton. I'm talking about what the low-grade officers and NCO's tell their platoon members to do in the field, where things don't run according to the way the books say they're supposed to. In combat zones. Like these guys. [url="http://www.stripes.com/news/troops-rules-of-engagement-have-apparently-changed-to-kill-anything-that-moves-1.3929"]http://www.stripes.c...at-moves-1.3929[/url]

Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers coming back from Iraq are coming out and saying they were told to shoot anything that moved when ambushed. And if they weren't told, they lived by the rule anyway. Who would hold them accountable anyway? "It was a firefight." Stuff happens, right? War is just plain messy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

[quote]Tell me, how come you never post any news links where terrorists killed people, or a gang member shot down a child? Why is it always anti-military/law enforcement?[/quote]

Edited September 13, 2010 by Johnny

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Johnny' timestamp='1284419345' post='2172772']
Tell me, how come you never post any news links where terrorists killed people, or a gang member shot down a child? Why is it always anti-military/law enforcement?[/quote]

Because it's already obvious to most people that avowed terrorist groups and street gangs tend to attract men with violent tendencies, and that people in terrorist groups and gangs are more prone to violence and more destructive violence when they act in concert.

The fact that one group of violent men are intended to use that violence differently does not change the natural dynamic of groups of violent men. Especially ones that rob productive people to maintain their state in life. Even terrorists get donations from voluntary donors, and gangs sell drugs to willing customers for a living. The State military relies upon money taken at gunpoint. I've got a problem with that.

St. Augustine said, "Without justice, a government is no better than a gang of robbers writ large." Do you think the men running the government can rightly be called "just," by any Catholic definition of the term?

Furthermore, street gangs and terrorists weren't able to slaughter 200,000,000 in the span of a single century. The State [i]did[/i] slaughter 200,000,000 in the span of a single century. Only because they had the power to conscript and tax. And they only had the power to conscript and tax because the people thought it was acceptable for them to take money at gunpoint and enslave people to fight for them. I'm trying to change that irrational, yet popular idea.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 13, 2010 by Sternhauser

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284419974' post='2172780']
St. Augustine said, "Without justice, a government is no better than a gang of robbers writ large." Do you think the men running the government can rightly be called "just," by any Catholic definition of the term?
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Do you think ANY government, at ANY point in time, at ANY location in the world can be called "just" by the Catholic definition of the word?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' timestamp='1284421095' post='2172791']
Do you think ANY government, at ANY point in time, at ANY location in the world can be called "just" by the Catholic definition of the word?
[/quote]

Perhaps the Vatican government.

But as Joe Sobran said, St. Augustine spoke of the gang of robbers, and "left doubt that any state could ever be otherwise." I don't believe there has ever been a State has existed justly. I don't believe anyone has the right to take money from non-aggressors at gunpoint.

~Sternhauser

[Johnny]

Stern-
Your arguments for anarchy are compelling however they'd be more compelling if anarchy wouldn't devolve into what we have today or worse. I'll admit the government is inefficient and is full of problems. However I don't truly believe an anarchist society could maintain itself without devolving into tribal warfare and well anarchy in the more common sense of the word.

There's plenty of violence in the world, and there needs to be a force of good people to protect the masses. I know you claim you can protect yourself better than the cops or whatever and maybe that's true but there are thousands of innocent people in the world who can't protect themselves. The lame, elderly, children, mentally ill, etc need the protection of society and a well prepared individualist such as yourself is not equipped to protect the whole of society. Violence is a fact of life which is unfortunate however it doesn't negate the need for a police force. If the good people of the world sit around concern themselves only with themselves then the world will be left to the murderers, rapists, and criminals.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Johnny' timestamp='1284426118' post='2172819']
Stern-
Your arguments for anarchy are compelling however they'd be more compelling if anarchy wouldn't devolve into what we have today or worse. I'll admit the government is inefficient and is full of problems. However I don't truly believe an anarchist society could maintain itself without devolving into tribal warfare and well anarchy in the more common sense of the word.[/quote]

I am arguing for anarchy/voluntaryism because it is immoral to take money from non-aggressors at gunpoint. You are arguing against it for utilitarian and hypothetical reasons.

[quote]
There's plenty of violence in the world, and there needs to be a force of good people to protect the masses. I know you claim you can protect yourself better than the cops or whatever and maybe that's true but there are thousands of innocent people in the world who can't protect themselves.[/quote]

And many of those people, such as the people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, [i]died[/i] because they had the inculcated mindset: "I don't have to protect myself. The [i]government[/i] will protect me." They don't take measures to protect themselves or help themselves because they think they don't [i]have [/i]to. How many people screamed out their last while on the phone with 9-1-1, while counting on the State police and its 7 minute national average response time to come save them from the violent invaders who kicked in their doors? Thousands upon thousands. Without the shielding umbrella of a coercively-funded State, people would be forced to protect themselves. If they can't protect themselves from gangs of individuals, then they certainly can't protect them from the State ,and it is only the State with such a proven record of destruction, and only the State with the [i]capacity[/i] for such slaughter, because it rests on public support. No neighborhood, in a world without State-funded cops, is going to let a bunch of thugs terrorize them. They will band together and do what needs to be done for mutual support, voluntarily.

[quote] The lame, elderly, children, mentally ill, etc need the protection of society and a well prepared individualist such as yourself is not equipped to protect the whole of society.[/quote]

Exactly: they need the protection of a [i]society.[/i] A society is a group of people acting in mutually-beneficial, free-will exchanges. Taking money from others at gunpoint is not "social behavior." A society that cannot come up with a moral, voluntary means to protect the weakest and most vulnerable in that society is a society that does not deserve to continue in existence. Americans survived and thrived for over 150 years without an income tax, State education, State welfare, Federal roads, CPS, and for much of that time, without State police.

Is your solution to poverty the State (coercively-funded) solution? "Great Society?" Welfare? Food stamps? Section 8? It has failed. Or is your solution the effective, voluntary one, based on love of neighbor, the Church, charities, who actually care about the people to whom they give support? I know I'd give a lot more to charities if the State weren't taking over 40% of my income in all sorts of taxes and "registration fees." Are humans such scumbags that poor and crippled people would starve to death unless money was taken from the members of society? Then your society is doomed to failure anyway, and will crumble from the bottom up, State or no State, but especially if it has a State.

[quote]Violence is a fact of life which is unfortunate however it doesn't negate the need for a police force. If the good people of the world sit around concern themselves only with themselves then the world will be left to the murderers, rapists, and criminals.[/quote]

I never denied the need for a group of armed men who are paid to stop murderers, rapists, robbers, and other [i]real[/i] criminals. San Francisco has a group which is voluntarily funded by private individuals and shopkeepers. The people love them, while they usually aren't the biggest fans of the San Francisco P.D.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 14, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Chi Zhuzi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284417899' post='2172760']
Were you on the Missouri or the Wisconsin?
[/quote]

BB64. The USS Wisconsin.

Some of what you say is true about the history conscription into the military throughout the world. But Napoleon also stated that poverty and want were the best schools for a soldier. And Napoleon was no fool, he marched men barefoot for miles, into victory, early in the Republics history. Napoleon also too medals off his own chest and placed them upon the chest of a "nobody" French soldier in the Grand Army. He knew how to inspire his men.

And it's true many people join the military for college money. That's not really true for those that enlist in the Marine Corps or double volunteer in the U.S. Army for units like the Rangers or the Army's excellent Mountain Battalion.

Of course motivation can be for adventure, status, personal trial, or a number of other reasons.

Just causes are great. And I'm familiar with the Just War Doctrine.

But, in my mind, sometimes the honor is not contingent on a just cause, but just showing up on game day.

Of course, governments can use it's "expendable" citizens as pawns, treating or making nothing but geniuses out of them. In a certain sense this is what happens in most U.S. wars. The small nation of Vietnam that was no threat to the United States is a perfect example. Arguably so was Iraq. In the case of the former we were intent for economic reasons, to subdue Vietnam for the neo-colonial interest for Japan. In the latter case oil and civilian military contracts seem to have been large motivators.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Chi Zhuzi' timestamp='1284512892' post='2173288']
Just causes are great. And I'm familiar with the Just War Doctrine.

But, in my mind, sometimes the honor is not contingent on a just cause, but just showing up on game day.[/quote]

Someone who fights for an unjust cause is unjustified in fighting, and hence, his showing up on "game day" is not honorable.

What is worse, but probably not applicable to you, is that having such a mindset might indicate the gravely immoral desire to fight for the sake of fighting. I'm sure we've both known people who want to get in fights just to fight, or for the excitement. It is gravely wrong to entertain such desires.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 15, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Fragments]

I just wanted to say, I don't feel I have enough debating skills to take part in this debate but I am finding the attitudes clashes that occur at times very interesting to read. Good discussion has come from this.

+1