(June 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm)padraic Wrote: Moros; it's as likely as not the CO tacitly approved,as would the NCOs and junior officers. Those people are as committed to conservative army arsehollery as any grunt; NCOs and junior officers can be worse..

Indeed. A "professional" army my ass. Just modern day conscripts from places too weak to support themselves economically.

(June 4, 2012 at 8:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm)Polaris Wrote: In the Army, you can't speak ill of your commanding officer apart from the chain of command without facing consequences including a court martial. Correct me if I am wrong, but I also believe on an issue of violating human rights, you cannot legally override your CO...you can only report him after the massacre.

No. A soldier can refuse to obey an illegal order. However, there are practical reasons why one might choose not to.

What I mean is you cannot legally stop your CO from ordering a massacre. You can still abstain from the order, but you can't stop it without facing a court martial.

Yes you can.

Fundametally illegal orders are illegal orders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Mass...tervention

It took the threat of a gunship to make the animals stand down. But it was accepted.

Quote:Thompson then saw a group of civilians (again consisting of children, women and old men) at a bunker being approached by ground personnel. Thompson landed and told his crew that if the soldiers shot at the Vietnamese while he was trying to get them out of the bunker that they were to open fire at these soldiers. Thompson later testified that he spoke with a lieutenant (identified as Stephen Brooks of the 2nd Platoon) and told him there were women and children in the bunker, and asked if the lieutenant would help get them out. According to Thompson, "he [the lieutenant] said the only way to get them out was with a hand grenade". Thompson testified that he then told Brooks to "just hold your men right where they are, and I'll get the kids out". He found 12–16 people in the bunker, coaxed them out and led them to the helicopter, standing with them while they were flown out in two groups.

(June 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm)padraic Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 8:20 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: That doesn't make it right.

Have another look at my post: I made no such claim

I saw your post, I didn't say you did. You did however seem to lean towards the idea that he should of hidden what he was. What he was subjected to is unconstitutional and even though he was at best idealistic for thinking it'd turn out any other way than it did I don't think he should be berated for it.
We're meant to be for the idea that we shouldn't be penalized for a lack of belief, that idea isn't going to become anything more if we just tell people to feign religiousity and keep their trap shut.

(June 4, 2012 at 8:41 pm)Chuck Wrote: Yes you can.

Where in the Uniform Code of Military Justice does it say you can?

That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

(June 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm)liam Wrote: That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

Bullying, intolerance are uncontrollable and detrimental to the chain of command. As far as the chain of command is concerned, you do not eat, sleep or drink without being authorized, explicitly or implicitly.

Now, how far this is really believed?

Strangely, I feel that I have more faith in the Turkish military keeping secular than the US military being professional.

(June 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm)liam Wrote: That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

Um... Not really. My brother did not sign up for the Marines because he is immoral. People sign up for the armed services for a number of reasons; I doubt killing is the primary one.

(June 4, 2012 at 8:58 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

(June 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm)liam Wrote: That's because soldiers are inherently immoral. If they sign up for killing people, what stretch is there to bullying, discrimination and intolerance?

Bullying, intolerance are uncontrollable and detrimental to the chain of command. As far as the chain of command is concerned, you do not eat, sleep or drink without being authorized, explicitly or implicitly.

Now, how far this is really believed?

Strangely, I feel that I have more faith in the Turkish military keeping secular than the US military being professional.

The chain of command seems pretty damning, if you've just entered you get shat upon and can't do anything unless you're told. I don't understand how that's still constitutionally legal, it's quite akin to slavery in that there is no option to leave or refuse to do something, plus the rife physical violence. Not pleasant stuff from what I've heard.

That last bit sounds familiar, just less glorified than I'm used to reading

Quote:
Um... Not really. My brother did not sign up for the Marines because he is immoral. People sign up for the armed services for a number of reasons; I doubt killing is the primary one.

Well, yes, if you kill people, you're immoral. Perhaps his motivation wasn't to kill but I'm pretty sure that the main occupation of a soldier is killing people because they come from a different country to you, with whom your own country is opposed to. If I have a completely wrong view of the military please do clarify for me