Ethics and our Military

[rigney]

Looking at ten minutes of what these kids are capable of and do best at this point in their lives, makes me proud to be an American. They, along with the other tactical carrier groups in our Navy are capable of totally destroying half the world before breakfast, and Lord only knows the mayhem that could be generated between that time and brunch? But that will never happen! These kids are in the Navy being trained in a process that will continue for the rest of their lives. "Morals/Ethics", and how to handle a situation while under adverse conditions. Here is a reminder of just how lucky we are to have them serve our nation.

 

OUTSTANDING.....AND THE IRANIANS WANT THIS VESSEL OUT OF THE PERSIAN GULF????I WONDER WHY?

 

Impressive: http://www.dump.com/aircraftcarrier/

Edited April 2, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I think it's such a pity that the Discovery Channel lends itself for this kind of propaganda. I remember when it was an informative channel. It's a long time ago...

 

rigney, I fail to see how this movie, or the text you write has anything to do with morals/ethics. Could you explain that? And could you also provide anything to discuss?

This kind of propaganda movies leave no room for discussion. You either like it, or you don't. I don't.

[Joatmon]

Well, I've looked at it and I don't see it as propaganda. I see it as a straightforward description of what the American tax payer gets for his money. There isn't even a description or account of any act of war the carrier has been, or will be, used in. I agree that, apart from wondering why the Iranians want this carrier out of the Gulf, there hasn't been much attempt to discuss anything. Perhaps people might like to introduce discussion points? e.g. Should America see itself as the world's policeman? In the light of the perceived fact that home terrorism is a growing threat is running floating airfields the best way to protect yourselves?

In the meantime I marvel at the courage and the faith that the pilots have in technology that allow them to take off at an incredible rate of acceleration with their hands off the controls!

I suppose I'd better mention that I might be a little biassed as I was in the British Air force for 22 years. (in a pretty safe role)

[rigney]

I think it's such a pity that the Discovery Channel lends itself for this kind of propaganda. I remember when it was an informative channel. It's a long time ago...

 

rigney, I fail to see how this movie, or the text you write has anything to do with morals/ethics. Could you explain that? And could you also provide anything to discuss?

This kind of propaganda movies leave no room for discussion. You either like it, or you don't. I don't.

 

Captain, if I may I ask, where are you from? I ask this only in trying to understand your opposing viewpoint, since evidently you aren't from from the United States. As for morals and ethics, these kids are not mercinaries by any stretch of the imagination and by and large, most will return home after a four year hitch, non the worse for wear and with an education money can't buy. It's a shame that many of us are so narrow minded as to venture why this type of action still remains necessary after 60+ years. But, when the leader of a nation openly calls for our destruction and the total annihilation of another sovereign country, or murders its own people because they are unhappy with their present regime, there's trouble in River City. My fervent hope is that this nation never has to undergo such an ordeal again. Edited April 2, 2012 by rigney

[ecoli]

Captain, if I may I ask, where are you from? I ask this only in trying to understand your opposing viewpoint, since evidently you aren't from from the United States.

 

... uh oh, now you've done it.

[rigney]

Well, I've looked at it and I don't see it as propaganda. I see it as a straightforward description of what the American tax payer gets for his money. There isn't even a description or account of any act of war the carrier has been, or will be, used in. I agree that, apart from wondering why the Iranians want this carrier out of the Gulf, there hasn't been much attempt to discuss anything. Perhaps people might like to introduce discussion points? e.g. Should America see itself as the world's policeman? In the light of the perceived fact that home terrorism is a growing threat is running floating airfields the best way to protect yourselves?

In the meantime I marvel at the courage and the faith that the pilots have in technology that allow them to take off at an incredible rate of acceleration with their hands off the controls!

I suppose I'd better mention that I might be a little biassed as I was in the British Air force for 22 years. (in a pretty safe role)

 

Be biased, I'm sure that over those years, you served well and with some pretty good airmen. And I'll bet that you learned many things about morals and ethics during those 22 years?

 

... uh oh, now you've done it.

 

Where are your gonads Lad? Speak your mind! and don't try egging others into where you dare not go. Let's discuss your, "uh oh, now you've done it" remark. What is your meaning? Edited April 2, 2012 by rigney

[Arete]

Here is a reminder of just how lucky we are to have them serve our nation.

 

A

1) The days of every day citizens signing up/being conscripted to fight against imperial, invading forces threatening our nations are, for most western nations, thankfully long gone. Most soldiers I would argue, join the military as a career choice rather than out of an obligation of servitude.

 

http://theblogaboute...n-the-military/

http://enlist.milita...n-the-military/

 

2) The current US military does not primarily protect America from invasion. In fact, it carries out far more of its own invasions than most other nations in recent history. Most of these are to protect American economic and sociopolitical interests rather than the actual invasion of the nation itself. The argument that Iraq or Afghanistan were about protecting the nation from decentralized, internationally mobile terrorist groups like Al Queda seems a bit simplistic and naive at least to me.

 

So, I see soldiering as similar to any other career path. You do a job to either earn an employer money or protect an employer's capital. In this case the employer is a nation. Granted it's a dangerous job - but one they are compensated for. I see soldiering in the present day as no more or less admirable than say - oil rig diving, underground mining, etc. People do it to earn money. Its dangerous. The risk is part of the reason it comes with the perks (education, health coverage, travel, etc)/paycheck. It's sad/tragic when the risks culminate in someone's death, regardless of who/what they do.

 

B This:

 

While I understand the need for a country like the US to have a powerful military presence, does the nation really need to spend more than the next 14 military spenders combined? I can't help but think of how much national and global benefit would arise if just one billion of the $707.5 billion the US military will spend in 2012 (http://en.wikipedia....akdown_for_2012) was diverted to the NSF ($7.03 billion budget http://news.sciencem...st-in-2012.html) or NIH ($30.860 billion http://officeofbudge...13_Overview.pdf) instead...

[questionposter]

If both sides of a disagreement never used the military, there would be no war. However, sometimes the other side does want to go to war, and so the known way to actually counter that is with weapons. It would be great if there was just some EM pulse to disable all weapons, until then, we just have to work with what we have.

Sometimes soldiers abuse civilians, and I would also think that's a problem and shouldn't even be a part of the war.

Edited April 2, 2012 by questionposter

[swansont]

As for morals and ethics, these kids are not mercinaries by any stretch of the imagination and by and large, most will return home after a four year hitch, non the worse for wear and with an education money can't buy.

 

But what does that have to do with morals and ethics? Not being a mercenary is not really much of an endorsement. There are lots of immoral and/or unethical people who are not mercenaries. I don't think refraining from blowing things up — when there are no orders in place to do so, so pressing the button is a violation of orders — is a very strong case for moral behavior.

 

Having asked that, the military does instill a certain ethical code in the form of teamwork and comradeship, and in the sense of duty in putting the team before yourself. I have a lot of respect for the sacrifice that many sailors make and the job they do. But that "ethics" can backfire, too, and turn this into immoral behavior, like covering up when you think your duty is to your shipmates rather than to the truth. There's a lot of pressure not to be a rat, but is that ethical?

 

Also, and things may be much different today than when I served, but the navy is/was simultaneously a gender-progressive and a massively misogynistic organization. The system treated women well in some respects, such as equal pay for equal rank, but on an individual level, women were often not treated particularly well.

[rigney]

But what does that have to do with morals and ethics? Not being a mercenary is not really much of an endorsement. There are lots of immoral and/or unethical people who are not mercenaries. I don't think refraining from blowing things up — when there are no orders in place to do so, so pressing the button is a violation of orders — is a very strong case for moral behavior.

 

Having asked that, the military does instill a certain ethical code in the form of teamwork and comradeship, and in the sense of duty in putting the team before yourself. I have a lot of respect for the sacrifice that many sailors make and the job they do. But that "ethics" can backfire, too, and turn this into immoral behavior, like covering up when you think your duty is to your shipmates rather than to the truth. There's a lot of pressure not to be a rat, but is that ethical?

 

Also, and things may be much different today than when I served, but the navy is/was simultaneously a gender-progressive and a massively misogynistic organization. The system treated women well in some respects, such as equal pay for equal rank, but on an individual level, women were often not treated particularly well.

 

Supose I should have explained myself a bit more in detail. I'm not saying that of the 6,000 kids on that vessel all will come home as choir boys or girls. But of the ones I do know who served, all of them came home as better people because of their experience. Two of the guys in particular had been on a slippery slope even before they were in their teens. Both did their tour as Marines and for the past 20 years they have been good citizens. Something changed them for which I am glad.

Now, if we could just get our elected politicians to follow such regimentation.

Edited April 3, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Ok, so being in the military makes the kids more obedient, and perhaps teaches them to take some responsibility. They learn to work with the system, not against it... but that's not moral/ethics... that's just growing up. I would actually suggest that following orders is the exact opposite from morals and ethics. But when you're in the military, you have little choice but to follow orders.

 

Regarding my use of the word propaganda:

I know it's very common in the USA to see movies/documentaries/series about the military (and the US tv programs are also aired in Europe, so I am familiar with them). What is perhaps strange is that I know more about the US army/navy/airforce than about any European armies, including the one from my own country (Netherlands). Strange, isn't it? After all, the Dutch are also present in the wars where the Americans are fighting. We also have a navy, an army, and an airforce. But there is no tv show about it. We don't show off.

 

The simple reason I know so much about the US's military is because the USA makes a huge effort to tell the world how strong it is. It's quite important for the USA that everybody knows that they are the strongest... that prevents a lot of conflicts. It is information deliberately spread to influence opinions. And that's propaganda. Search carefully, and you can find more. And still more.

 

The US military cooperates (and even sponsors) tv shows that show the military in a positive way, and refuse any cooperation when it is negative. Although this is very logical from a strategic point of view, that means they deliberately want the world to be presented with a biased picture. When a company does it, it's called an advertisement. When a state does that, that's propaganda.

 

And the easiest way to do that is by inviting the Discovery Channel, who will be "factual", but always in a positive way. (Your challenge for today: Find a documentary by the Discovery Channel which is critical or negative about the US military).

 

Also interesting is the list of movies which got support from the Pentagon, and which didn't.

 

I hope this explains why I call that movie "propaganda". It's not a stand-alone incident. It's part of a huge Pentagon-sponsored information machine.

[swansont]

The US military cooperates (and even sponsors) tv shows that show the military in a positive way, and refuse any cooperation when it is negative. Although this is very logical from a strategic point of view, that means they deliberately want the world to be presented with a biased picture. When a company does it, it's called an advertisement. When a state does that, that's propaganda.

 

I think a lot of this is driven by recruiting. In the US, conscription hasn't been in place for almost 40 years. Compulsory service in European countries is either in place or, for many, was abolished relatively recently and those with all-volunteer military have a lower number of troops per capita.

[rigney]

Ok, so being in the military makes the kids more obedient, and perhaps teaches them to take some responsibility. They learn to work with the system, not against it... but that's not moral/ethics... that's just growing up. I would actually suggest that following orders is the exact opposite from morals and ethics. But when you're in the military, you have little choice but to follow orders.

 

Regarding my use of the word propaganda:

I know it's very common in the USA to see movies/documentaries/series about the military (and the US tv programs are also aired in Europe, so I am familiar with them). What is perhaps strange is that I know more about the US army/navy/airforce than about any European armies, including the one from my own country (Netherlands). Strange, isn't it? After all, the Dutch are also present in the wars where the Americans are fighting. We also have a navy, an army, and an airforce. But there is no tv show about it. We don't show off.

 

The simple reason I know so much about the US's military is because the USA makes a huge effort to tell the world how strong it is. It's quite important for the USA that everybody knows that they are the strongest... that prevents a lot of conflicts. It is information deliberately spread to influence opinions. And that's propaganda. Search carefully, and you can find more. And still more.

 

The US military cooperates (and even sponsors) tv shows that show the military in a positive way, and refuse any cooperation when it is negative. Although this is very logical from a strategic point of view, that means they deliberately want the world to be presented with a biased picture. When a company does it, it's called an advertisement. When a state does that, that's propaganda.

 

And the easiest way to do that is by inviting the Discovery Channel, who will be "factual", but always in a positive way. (Your challenge for today: Find a documentary by the Discovery Channel which is critical or negative about the US military).

 

Also interesting is the list of movies which got support from the Pentagon, and which didn't.

 

I hope this explains why I call that movie "propaganda". It's not a stand-alone incident. It's part of a huge Pentagon-sponsored information machine.

 

I didn't say the program wasn't propaganda. To me the word fits perfectly well and with very good reason. At least it's an honest propaganda, not a scam to sell you a new toaster or a solar panel. An old adage I once heard and learned many years ago says, Never bring a knife to a gun fight, unless you have a bigger gun to back it up. And, this nation that I love clearly fits into that catagory quite well. Yes, we have made mistakes since WWII. But never ones of malicious hate or a quest for power. No!, by 1945 this country had amassed an arsenal second to none in the world. And from what our intelligence saw at the time, new threats for world domination were coming from our neighbors, The U.S.S.R. and China. Russia had already gobbled up over half of Europe, and China was hell bent on dismanteling the Far East. How was this rape supposed to be stopped? By some well motivated but troubled allies assuming they may be next, and the good old U.S.A., now referred to as a Super Power. Perhaps "Scruples" should have also been brought into the mix, along with Morals and Ethics. Scruples to me are the culmination of ethics and morals. Most of these kids you see on that carrier will go home as well grounded, mature adults with no axe to grind with anyone, or loss of body parts. And chances are you will never see any two of them standing on a street corner looking for trouble to get into.

.

Edited April 3, 2012 by rigney

[JustinW]

Captain,

 

It's quite important for the USA that everybody knows that they are the strongest... that prevents a lot of conflicts.

You said so yourself. So why do you think of it as a bad thing? There's is one thing you won't see from us and that's the use of unwarranted threats like those from North Korea or Iran. The shooting off of rockets against international treaty or the shooting down of public aircraft without confirming intent. I would say that we have made our fair share of mistakes, but there is a reason that we remain stronger than the rest and show that strength. You've already asserted that fact and I'm wondering why you disagree with it?

 

 

We also have a navy, an army, and an airforce. But there is no tv show about it. We don't show off.

Can you imagine what we would think if you did? Please don't take that wrong, it just gave me a little chuckle when I read it.

[CaptainPanic]

Captain,

 

You said so yourself. So why do you think of it as a bad thing?

So, as I said, I understand that the US military or Pentagon creates propaganda. I just prefer not to see any of it.

I am not in the US military. I am not even in the US. I would prefer a more objective analysis of the military, or none at all.

 

There's is one thing you won't see from us and that's the use of unwarranted threats like those from North Korea or Iran. The shooting off of rockets against international treaty or the shooting down of public aircraft without confirming intent. I would say that we have made our fair share of mistakes, but there is a reason that we remain stronger than the rest and show that strength. You've already asserted that fact and I'm wondering why you disagree with it?

Really?

 

So, did GW Bush not sign the The Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the invasion of MY country (the Netherlands) by any means necessary, without even approval of congress, if we would try a US soldier at a court of human rights? Human Rights, FFS! Not some Guantanamo Bay prison of torture, but a human rights court.

 

How is ignoring human rights, and then signing an act that authorizes violence against a civilized country like the Netherlands not exactly what you say the US does not do?

[John Cuthber]

"And, this nation that I love clearly fits into that catagory quite well. Yes, we have made mistakes since WWII. But never ones of malicious hate or a quest for power. "

I think the invasion of Iraq, might be seen as a counterexample to that.

[rigney]

"And, this nation that I love clearly fits into that catagory quite well. Yes, we have made mistakes since WWII. But never ones of malicious hate or a quest for power. "

I think the invasion of Iraq, might be seen as a counterexample to that.

 

Yes, the United States could have probably stayed out of the Gulf War had they wished to do so. And I know we should get away from this big brother attitude that has steadily grown on us since the early 1940s. But when an unethical, immoral and unscrupulous bully such as Saddam Hussein overpowers and annexes a small neighboring nation, you've pulled the pin on this big fire cracker. We just can't stand idly by and watch little Johnny get his nose rubbed in the dirt. Oh, I'm sure we had other reasons for kicking his ass I suppose, and oil may have even been one of them? Anyway, read the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Edited April 4, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have missed the point.

In Gulf war 1 the UN invaded with, obviously, a lot of contribution from the US. Nobody finished the job so Saddam was left in power.

In Gulf war 2 it was essentially the US (and the UK as the 51st state) who got all the oil and rebuilding contracts.

 

If the reason for the invasion was to depose the dictator then why not do some of the others?

Mugabe would seem like an excellent candidate for regimen change.

 

I think the second counts as a counter example to "But never ones of malicious hate or a quest for power. "

[rigney]

You seem to have missed the point.

In Gulf war 1 the UN invaded with, obviously, a lot of contribution from the US. Nobody finished the job so Saddam was left in power.

In Gulf war 2 it was essentially the US (and the UK as the 51st state) who got all the oil and rebuilding contracts.

 

If the reason for the invasion was to depose the dictator then why not do some of the others?

Mugabe would seem like an excellent candidate for regimen change.

 

I think the second counts as a counter example to "But never ones of malicious hate or a quest for power. "

 

No John, you evidently never got the point to start with. You see, "We have the power!", and malicious hatred is something we leave to others, so that when we do see fit to kick their ass, the reasoning is obvious. Thank God we do not seek conquest, only justification for our actions. Are we right all of the time? "Hell no". But the only land America owns in any foreign nation is hallowed, where many of our troops will lie for an eternity, in defense of those countries. Perhaps this kind of assistance will also stop when the US finally realizes the jealosy that is harbored by those who think of us only as a cash cow.

I may not know the full meaning of morals and ethics. But I do know that being unethical and immoral is when you smile at a meaningful friend, and stab him in the back.

Edited April 4, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Thank God we do not seek conquest,

Nonsense. You do.

 

You seek that foreign governments listen to the US, and that their economies are controlled by the US. You invade, then you put a puppet government in the country, and you're done. There are dozens of examples of this.

 

So, while you are smart enough to not to want to occupy countries, you definitely want to conquer - economically.

[Sergeant Bilko]

We just can't stand idly by and watch little Johnny get his nose rubbed in the dirt.

 

 

 

Well thats not true is it? You do. What about Tibet, Georgia, Bosnia, The Falkland islands and far to many to list. You are justifying the USA excercising its military power how? When the opposition is too weak to fight back much? Please dont lecture me about democracy and dictators, unless you are going to propose invasions of Saudi Arabia so that democracy can flourish there.

 

The United States military is no doubt the most impressive and powerful in the world, however the Ethics which the political leaders often use it are in my opinion questionable on occasion.

[John Cuthber]

The good Captain beat me to it.

I'd also add that law is the codification of morality and the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Guantanamo was also illegal and immoral.

[rigney]

I think it's such a pity that the Discovery Channel lends itself for this kind of propaganda. I remember when it was an informative channel. It's a long time ago...

 

rigney, I fail to see how this movie, or the text you write has anything to do with morals/ethics. Could you explain that? And could you also provide anything to discuss?

This kind of propaganda movies leave no room for discussion. You either like it, or you don't. I don't.

 

Believe me Captain, I didn't start this post for your edification. My only intent was to explain that training and cooperatrion are good examples of how to improve ethical and moral fortitude, not that either is a cure all.

[CaptainPanic]

It was not clear to me at all what you wanted to discuss, and it sounded more that you were just writing down that you think the USA, and its military, are very very awesome. So, I decided to reply to that.

 

The next time, it would help if you clearly state what you want to discuss.

[rigney]

Well thats not true is it? You do. What about Tibet, Georgia, Bosnia, The Falkland islands and far to many to list. You are justifying the USA excercising its military power how? When the opposition is too weak to fight back much? Please dont lecture me about democracy and dictators, unless you are going to propose invasions of Saudi Arabia so that democracy can flourish there.

 

The United States military is no doubt the most impressive and powerful in the world, however the Ethics which the political leaders often use it are in my opinion questionable on occasion.

 

Personally, I have questioned our leaders ethics and morals, historically; going back to Jeffersons time. Does the United States look out for its best interest? Bet your sweet ass it does. No!, I didn't mention: Tibet, Georgia, Bosnia, and the Falkland islands, among others, simply because I didn't mention the Aleuts, native Alaskans, the Innuit, Hawaiians or Samoans. Tell me, is there a country anywhere in this world, who; having had some sort of power, didn't screw up morally and ethically, somehow? Please don't try explaining to me what your concept of screwing up, means. Edited April 4, 2012 by rigney