(June 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm)Annik Wrote: I often wonder if that was a more calculated choice than how it looks at first glace. As if it was some sick campaign to send moral plummeting. I could be over-thinking it, of course.

The legal implications of overturning Calley's punishment, as well as the lightness of the sentence, overturns Nuremberg where Japanese and German soldiers were executed for precisely what Calley did, as well as the defense Calley had "I was only following orders".

If there was a calculated choice, it was to destroy what Nuremberg established, regardless of the consequences to returning honorable veterans who most of all needed support.

Guys don't forget that all boxers are immoral because punching people in the face is bad, ok?

(June 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Jeremy Hall was raised into religion, while on tour he took the time to read the Bible and found what so many have found. That it makes about as much sense as Gary Busey when he talks about... anything. Afterwards he became the victim of threats on his life from his own comrades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hall_%28US_Army%29




Thoughts?

These same soldiers who claim to value the words of the founders and Thomas Jefferson would not elect Jefferson if he ran today considering what he said about religion.

Not to mention Pat Tilman served and died as an atheist and gave up an NFL career to do so. And at the Unitarian Church I used to attend I knew a WW2 vet and a Vietnam vet who were both atheists.

And what part of "NO RELIGIOUS TEST' in the United States oath of office do they not understand?

If they want to serve for only a religious military, we had that, it was called the Dark Ages. And if they want a current example, the Middle East is ripe with entire country's with military bent on defending Allah.

When the founders said "freedom of religion" they did not mean use military to defend a pecking order.

Let me get this straight. The policeman with a gun, and the prison guard who flicks the switch on the electric chair, those people are nothing but slope headed killers.


I think you're conflating necessary, justified killing with unnecessary, unjustified killing, and claiming that anyone who does either is immoral. Good luck with that.

(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?

Damn, if people, including you would see actions as evolutionary and not label based you wouldn't be saying such stupid crap.

It is true that there are humans who have in our entire history of conflict DO get into it just to kill. But you've got to be out of your mind to make such a statement. Otherwise we should be Speaking German and all be Nazis with that logic.

War sucks, but I am damned glad that the west kicked Germany's ass and it is absurd to suggest that every western soldier of the Allies was there just to end someone's life for fun. And I doubt Pat Tilman, an atheist who went to Afghanistan and died via friendly fire, went there thinking "I get to end a life".

War is a product of evolution. And in evolutionary terms loyalty is mostly local, we tend as a species to defend that which we are close to and familiar with.

We even see that in other mammals. A male lion will protect it's own loins but try to kill the young of it's rivals. Just like we as a species protect our own boarders and politics and social clubs and social norms.

Quote:Well, this is why I'm an advocate of conscription

Of course you are . Been conscripted have you?.

Conscription is a limitation of personal freedom. Therefore, it should not be considered.

(June 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm)ElDinero Wrote: Guys don't forget that all boxers are immoral because punching people in the face is bad, ok?

In my opinion professional boxers are not bad,merely ignorant,naive and often quite stupid.

Those who exploit them have no such excuses.

(June 5, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Annik Wrote: Conscription is a limitation of personal freedom. Therefore, it should not be considered.

I'm a big fan of the German system. Civil service or military service, you get to choose, but it must be service to the State.

I like to delude myself into thinking that it forces everyone into considering that any war might involve all of them, and thus must be a last resort, not a first.

Quote:I'm a big fan of the German system. Civil service or military service, you get to choose, but it must be service to the State.

I'm with Annik; I do not support such forms of legalised coercion.

Here we have 'work-for-the-dole' for people under 25. (unemployment benefits,here using the cynical euphemism 'Newstart' ) Short answer: an utter waste of time and resources, with the added risk of exploiting the kids as cheap labour.