Ethics and our Military

[John Cuthber]

" My only intent was to explain that training and cooperatrion are good examples of how to improve ethical and moral fortitude,"

In any war there are two sides. Both have training and cooperation, but (at best) only one side has ethical and moral "Right" on their side.

It is clear to me that, for at least one side, their training and cooperation have demonstrably failed to improve morality and ethics- or they would simply refuse to fight.

 

If the training and cooperation do improve these things, why do we have wars?

 

My guess is that people go to war if they think they can gain from it either because someone is seeking to harm them (which isn't plausible in the case Gulf War two because Saddam's alleged missiles couldn't reach the US. Their range was short by about two orders of magnitude) or because they want to wield power. That may be directly, or via a a puppet government, or other means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract

Edited April 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Sergeant Bilko]

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, the Eskimos in Alaska, the Innuits, Hawaiians or Samoans. Is there a country in this world anywhere who, having 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.

 

What a strange reply, I thought the original post was about ethics and the military, funny how some people get kinda testy when their morality is examined. If yiou just wanted to post a thread where everyone agreed with you you should have said so at the beginning.

[rigney]

" My only intent was to explain that training and cooperatrion are good examples of how to improve ethical and moral fortitude,"

In any war there are two sides. Both have training and cooperation, but (at best) only one side has ethical and moral "Right" on their side.

It is clear to me that, for at least one side, their training and cooperation have demonstrably failed to improve morality and ethics- or they would simply refuse to fight.

 

If the training and cooperation do improve these things, why do we have wars?

 

My guess is that people go to war if they think they can gain from it either because someone is seeking to harm them (which isn't plausible in the case Gulf War two because Saddam's alleged missiles couldn't reach the US. Their range was short by about two orders of magnitude) or because they want to wield power. That may be directly, or via a a puppet government, or other means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-bid_contract

 

Would you consider Israel as being a puppet government of the US, or anyone else? Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time.. Israel is a friend of ours, not a crazed bunch of lunitics wanting to assail everyone outside their borders.

 

What a strange reply, I thought the original post was about ethics and the military, funny how some people get kinda testy when their morality is examined. If yiou just wanted to post a thread where everyone agreed with you you should have said so at the beginning.

 

Why do you consider it such a strange reply? And to agree with me? Au contraire!, I thrive on consternation. And "Testy", only when someone thinks they have the upper hand. Edited April 4, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

"Would you consider Israel as being a puppet government of the US, or anyone else? Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time.. Israel is a friend of ours, not a crazed bunch of lunitics wanting to assail everyone outside their borders."

 

A quick look at Wiki tells me that "42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[25] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud#Scud_attacks

 

 

 

I heard, but can't verify, that the net death rate in Israel at the time of the scud attacks actually fell.

Because people didn't want to go out during a missile attack, they stayed home and so the number of road accidents fell.

This more than offset the number of deaths due to the scud missiles.

Saddam's attack was ethically inexcusable, but not actually very effective. That's how "powerful" he was.

 

Do you remember who put Saddam in power?

 

Anyway, Israel is not part of the US.

 

Also, you seem to be going on about Gulf war 1 which was relatively well morally based as a counter to Saddam's attack on another state which was a signatory to the UN and so on.

 

I'm going to keep asking about the second Gulf war.

Edited April 4, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

Personally, I don't think morals and ethics have a high priority in the modern US military. As was mentioned before, at the troop level, following orders and esprit de corps often take precedence and morality can't truly thrive in an environment like that. Soldiers are too often asked to do things that haunt them for life, and to me that haunting has a moral and ethical basis. At the command level, morality becomes even fuzzier. Justification takes precedence, selling wars to politicians so the politicians can sell them to the public so the public can tell themselves it's all to protect us from possible but improbable invasion by ideals and fanatics.

 

Morality can't be spread over large groups, it's primarily an individual concept. When there is power involved, the larger the group the more morality becomes an obstacle to overcome on the way to the primary, secondary and tertiary goals. Most of what our military has done in the last century has had multiple objectives, and moral concerns weren't really on the list.

 

In the modern age, I think the military is being used to justify the sale of arms as a primary goal. Weaponry is a huge business, and when business needs a boost, smart management goes out and creates a new market. The War on Terror is perfect for the arms business. The enemy is small and manageable, they create intense emotions that can be used to manipulate the citizenry into footing the bill. The best part is the terrorists own fervor, which guarantees that the more weaponry you use on them, the bigger they get while still being broken up into manageable groups. Just as the War on Drugs creates an immense revenue stream for prisons, the War on Terror is one of the best branded, most insanely lucrative marketing campaigns that arms manufacturers have ever conceived.

 

I have a lot of respect for what our soldiers do at their level, and I think a great many of them are ethical individuals, but I think war these days is too profit-oriented to ever be considered an ethical endeavor. And consider this as well, the military is basically a tool; it's the people using the tool that are supposed to have the morals to wield it ethically.

[imatfaal]

Personally, I don't think morals and ethics have a high priority in the modern US military. As was mentioned before, at the troop level, following orders and esprit de corps often take precedence and morality can't truly thrive in an environment like that. Soldiers are too often asked to do things that haunt them for life, and to me that haunting has a moral and ethical basis. At the command level, morality becomes even fuzzier. Justification takes precedence, selling wars to politicians so the politicians can sell them to the public so the public can tell themselves it's all to protect us from possible but improbable invasion by ideals and fanatics.

 

Group think and esprit de corps are dangerous and can lead to real brutality that can never really be envisaged from a personal perspective. On the follies and even more the dangers of an over reliance on esprit de corps nothing beats Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" - hey, even the pulitzer prize committee changed the rules so that Tuchman could get the prize

[JustinW]

Captain,

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

I guess I can see your point.

 

 

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.

It's not the same. Not to mention my interpretation of human rights are not taken well by some people, as I see human rights as only that which is percieved as a right to the one who holds the most power. And I know that some see human rights as inalienable and God given(for lack of a better term), and not as something that is given by another human. Hence the one who holds the power to give such a right. But I think that is a little off topic.

 

 

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?

Aside from a different interpretation of human rights, I do believe he authorized violence against anyone who are percieved as a threat to the US or it's citizens.

 

Captain,

 

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

So? Is it not in our best interest to do so? Were we not the ones who took the most risk in these exchanges? From a business standpoint would it be viable to walk away from something that could benifit you in the long run?

 

John,

 

A quick look at Wiki tells me that "42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[25] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. "

And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?

[Vent]

 

So? Is it not in our best interest to do so? Were we not the ones who took the most risk in these exchanges? From a business standpoint would it be viable to walk away from something that could benifit you in the long run?

 

This is a nationalist viewpoint, but often times you hold an individualist viewpoint in your posts. This makes your philosophy contradictory. Having a contradictory philosophy doesn't bode well for ethics because it allows you to hold a certain opinion in a particular situation because you have a vested interest to hold it, and then to hold a complete different even opposite opinion in another situation because you have a vested interest in holding it. The holders' opinion becomes spurious by default.

[CaptainPanic]

Let's put the original posts in a row, because you're not answering my point. You seem to deliberately avoid it actually.

 

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?

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.

It's not the same. Not to mention my interpretation of human rights are not taken well by some people, as I see human rights as only that which is percieved as a right to the one who holds the most power. And I know that some see human rights as inalienable and God given(for lack of a better term), and not as something that is given by another human. Hence the one who holds the power to give such a right. But I think that is a little off topic.

But you were talking about international treaties, and now you switch to explain your personal views? Personal views are not relevant when you're talking about international treaties.

 

You said you don't use military intimidation to go against international treaties. I say you do, and I gave an example. And not just any treaty, but the human rights treaties.

 

And then your defense against my example is that personally you don't really agree with the human rights anyway. That's not relevant.

 

So? Is it not in our best interest to do so? Were we not the ones who took the most risk in these exchanges? From a business standpoint would it be viable to walk away from something that could benifit you in the long run?

 

Interestingly, this thread is supposed to talk about ethics and morals, yet you have the attitude of a colonist: Business before ethics.

 

Slavery is also very profitable. Slavery can also be in a country's best interest. People decided to walk away from that.

[Joatmon]

I would just like to say that, certainly in my time, military personnel were subject to the general law. But in addition, not instead of, they were subject to military law. So individuals could, and are today, be held to account if they break either law.

[rigney]

#35Today, 04:30 AMJoatmon Baryon

 

I would just like to say that, certainly in my time, military personnel were subject to the general law. But in addition, not instead of, they were subject to military law. So individuals could, and are today, be held to account if they break either law.

 

While the U.S. Codes of Military Conduct and Justice were written to enforce existing civil law, they are only as good as the people using or dispensing them. That's why I started this post by asking that each of you take a look at 10 mins. in the lives of 6,000 young people in a constant, tactical situation. "A few" will break under pressure and have to leave this ship. Some never made this trip due to their incompatibility with rules and regulations, while others didn't sail for lack of ability shown in the time allowed for basic training. But you can bet there was a psychological screening for all of those who went aboard. I wish every young person living today had a chance to be part of such a team. Morals and ethics are strengthened by association, and scruples; a combining of the two. The three are board games to be learned, if given time; and pointed in the right direction. But the one intangible, codifying all others is; "conscience". Without that ingrained and humane direction, everything else is a fools errand.

Edited April 5, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

 

 

John,

 

And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?

Do you mean how many rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from Iraq under Saddam in the last decade?

Roughly none, I think.

Not least because Saddam was dead for about half of the last decade.

The Palestinians have lobbed a lot, but that's a totally different issue.

 

I thought this thread was about the US military. The Arabs and Jews have been taking shots at each other for something like 4000 years and the US isn't directly involved.

 

Can we get back to the point?

[rigney]

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.

 

Do I detect a bit of visceral hatred from you, for those who gave their lives to have kept you from slavery?

 

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.

 

But, if I did that, then you would have nothing to bitch about.

[CaptainPanic]

Do I detect a bit of visceral hatred from you, for those who gave their lives to have kept you from slavery?

Those who kicked Hitler's ass in WWII have all my respect. But that was a different American military, different government and a different generation.

 

The way I see it, the current American military (esp. during the Bush administration) dragged us into wars, instead of helping us end them.

 

So... you only detect a dislike of 21st century American imperialism, but still loads of respect of the liberators in WWII. But the mountain of credits earned in WWII with the Europeans will run out at some point. The USA has been cashing in those credits for well over a decade now. Europeans (also the Dutch) are helping you guys out this time, in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not our conflict... but we're still there to help out, because we're allies. But don't give me the "we helped you in WWII, so you're forever in our debt" kind of talk. That may have worked with my grandparents, but it's too long ago now. That debt has been repaid, both financially and morally.

 

But, if I did that, then you would have nothing to bitch about.

I disapprove of your choice of words.

I tried to clearly explain why I used the words I used, and I provided multiple links to back up my claim. To call that "bitching" is uncalled for.

[rigney]

"Would you consider Israel as being a puppet government of the US, or anyone else? Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time.. Israel is a friend of ours, not a crazed bunch of lunitics wanting to assail everyone outside their borders."

 

A quick look at Wiki tells me that "42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[25] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud#Scud_attacks

 

I heard, but can't verify, that the net death rate in Israel at the time of the scud attacks actually fell.

Because people didn't want to go out during a missile attack, they stayed home and so the number of road accidents fell.

This more than offset the number of deaths due to the scud missiles.

Saddam's attack was ethically inexcusable, but not actually very effective. That's how "powerful" he was.

 

Do you remember who put Saddam in power? Anyway, Israel is not part of the US.

 

Also, you seem to be going on about Gulf war 1 which was relatively well morally based as a counter to Saddam's attack on another state which was a signatory to the UN and so on. I'm going to keep asking about the second Gulf war.

 

Yes, the USA propped this bastard up, pursuing his oil. After all, we developed it for him. Now, does it really matter how many people were killed in Israel by scud missile attacks during Saddams reign? Hell no! The fact that this maneiac had an immoral attitude against anyone, including his own people and the Kurds, shows you what a piece of crap this despot was. "Off with his head". Get real, John boy. Edited April 5, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

I'm real enough to see that the difference between Saddam and , for example, Mugabe is not that one is a nicer guy than the other, but that one lives in a country with lots of oil and the other doesn't. That difference may be pragmatic and so the choice to invade Iraq rather than Zimbabwe may have been sensible, but it's not a moral stance, it's an economic one.

(and, as you may note, I never introduced the question of how many scuds hit Israel. That was Justin W's contribution. He's the one who thinks that Saddam was scudding the area "wholesale" for 10 years, of which he spent 9 in captivity or dead)

[rigney]

I'm real enough to see that the difference between Saddam and , for example, Mugabe is not that one is a nicer guy than the other, but that one lives in a country with lots of oil and the other doesn't. That difference may be pragmatic and so the choice to invade Iraq rather than Zimbabwe may have been sensible, but it's not a moral stance, it's an economic one.

(and, as you may note, I never introduced the question of how many scuds hit Israel. That was Justin W's contribution. He's the one who thinks that Saddam was scudding the area "wholesale" for 10 years, of which he spent 9 in captivity or dead)

 

#29Yesterday, 08:34 AM John Cuthber, Chemistry Expert

 

"Would you consider Israel as being a puppet government of the US, or anyone else? Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time.. Israel is a friend of ours, not a crazed bunch of lunitics wanting to assail everyone outside their borders."

 

A quick look at Wiki tells me that "42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[25] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. "

http://en.wikipedia....ud#Scud_attacks

 

rigney: You went on to explain why so few were killed was the fact that most stayed insid their homes. Isn't that a damned pity? They had to stay inside their homes! The Kurds weren't so lucky. "Gas" doesn't give a damn where you are.

[John Cuthber]

You missed my point. If the missile actually hits you you will die. It doesn't matter much if you are in a building, in a car or out in the open.

The reason they didn't kill many people was that scuds are crap missiles. they have poor accuracy so they generally miss. Citing them as "wholesale" use of weapons is silly when there were only 42. Claiming that they are evidence of his "power" when they only actually killed 2 people shows rather a lack of understanding of just how little "power" he had. He was, essentially, only a threat to his own people. That's bad but it's not rare.

 

I'm not disputing the fact that Saddam was a bastard of the first order. Personally I'd sooner have seen him rot in jail than be hanged and perceived by some as a martyr, but that's a totally different issue.

The fact remains that the US (abetted by the UK) illegally invaded another sovereign state. They should have acted through the UN, but they didn't. They told lies about WMD and prevented the inspectors looking for weapons finding the truth (i.e. that there were no WMD). (I know that he used to have them- we sold them to him- but they were destroyed after gulf war 1)

That's not particularly moral.

 

Now I accept that I may have got muddled about exactly who said what about Saddam's rockets but it doesn't matter much.

I still maintain that the only way that Saddam and his government could get a missile to the US or UK was to send it by UPS or something.

He wasn't much of a threat to Israel who showed commendable restraint by not bombing him into the stone age. His best efforts killed two people.

They really could have hit back rather hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Budget

He wasn't a threat to the UK or US.

 

There was no basis for the invasion except the oil.

 

It was certainly Justin who asked me "And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?"

and the answer remains not many, he was stuck in jail or dead.

and I think it was you who said "Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time"

42 isn't very "wholesale": 2 dead isn't a display of much power.

[rigney]

You missed my point. If the missile actually hits you you will die. It doesn't matter much if you are in a building, in a car or out in the open.

The reason they didn't kill many people was that scuds are crap missiles. they have poor accuracy so they generally miss. Citing them as "wholesale" use of weapons is silly when there were only 42. Claiming that they are evidence of his "power" when they only actually killed 2 people shows rather a lack of understanding of just how little "power" he had. He was, essentially, only a threat to his own people. That's bad but it's not rare.

 

I'm not disputing the fact that Saddam was a bastard of the first order. Personally I'd sooner have seen him rot in jail than be hanged and perceived by some as a martyr, but that's a totally different issue.

The fact remains that the US (abetted by the UK) illegally invaded another sovereign state. They should have acted through the UN, but they didn't. They told lies about WMD and prevented the inspectors looking for weapons finding the truth (i.e. that there were no WMD). (I know that he used to have them- we sold them to him- but they were destroyed after gulf war 1)

That's not particularly moral.

 

Now I accept that I may have got muddled about exactly who said what about Saddam's rockets but it doesn't matter much.

I still maintain that the only way that Saddam and his government could get a missile to the US or UK was to send it by UPS or something.

He wasn't much of a threat to Israel who showed commendable restraint by not bombing him into the stone age. His best efforts killed two people.

They really could have hit back rather hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Budget

He wasn't a threat to the UK or US.

 

There was no basis for the invasion except the oil.

 

It was certainly Justin who asked me "And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?"

and the answer remains not many, he was stuck in jail or dead.

and I think it was you who said "Saddam was pumping Scud Missiles into that country "wholesale', as a trecherous reminder of just how powerful he was at the time"

42 isn't very "wholesale": 2 dead isn't a display of much power.

 

Wholesale is as wholesale means to the individual. If a person point a pistol at me, they best be prepared to use it. Morally and ethically, to me; the act is a wholesale onslaught. Edited April 5, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define+wholesale

[Phi for All]

The Kurds weren't so lucky. "Gas" doesn't give a damn where you are.

I get tired of Hussein's attacks using gas against the Kurds being held up as proof he was a monster. The Kurds in question were near the Iranian border, they were overrun by Iranian forces at the time, and the gas that was used was for area denial, meant to flush out the Iranians who were entrenched in the city. When the enemy runs out coughing, you shoot them with bullets.

 

It can be argued that Hussein's troops didn't know if the Kurds were aiding the Iranians or not. It can be argued that if the Kurds had fled their homes when the gas was lobbed in that they would've been recognized as non-combatants by their lack of Iranian uniforms. The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it.

 

Hussein had no love for the Kurds, it's true, but the stories about him using a deadly gas (which most people confuse with some kind of Hollywood "one whiff and you're dead" type of substance) to kill the Kurds is media spin at it's finest. Hussein was a dictatorial strongman and I'm certainly not unhappy he's no longer in power, but he is dwarfed by some of the African monsters who are allowed to ethnically cleanse their non-oil-rich countries using machetes with clearly immoral, blatantly premeditated intent.

[John Cuthber]

"The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it." Failing to continue to breathe has much the same effect.

The guy was a shit anyway: there's no dispute about that.

However there's no way he was a threat to the US so there was no justification for the invasion.

That was a simple oil-grab.

Not a moral decision, but a financial one.

 

Incidentally, the Kurds got the bad end of the deal twice. Hussain didn't do them any favours and they sided with the rest of the world, against him during the liberation of Kuwait. But we then left him in charge in Iraq so he had an opportunity to retaliate against them for their actions; we failed to protect them

[rigney]

I get tired of Hussein's attacks using gas against the Kurds being held up as proof he was a monster. The Kurds in question were near the Iranian border, they were overrun by Iranian forces at the time, and the gas that was used was for area denial, meant to flush out the Iranians who were entrenched in the city. When the enemy runs out coughing, you shoot them with bullets.

 

It can be argued that Hussein's troops didn't know if the Kurds were aiding the Iranians or not. It can be argued that if the Kurds had fled their homes when the gas was lobbed in that they would've been recognized as non-combatants by their lack of Iranian uniforms. The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it.

 

Hussein had no love for the Kurds, it's true, but the stories about him using a deadly gas (which most people confuse with some kind of Hollywood "one whiff and you're dead" type of substance) to kill the Kurds is media spin at it's finest. Hussein was a dictatorial strongman and I'm certainly not unhappy he's no longer in power, but he is dwarfed by some of the African monsters who are allowed to ethnically cleanse their non-oil-rich countries using machetes with clearly immoral, blatantly premeditated intent.

 

I really think we should get back to my original intent. How are morals and ethics engendered to our next generations unless we move in that direction? I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives. And that has nothing to do with religion!

[Phi for All]

"The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it." Failing to continue to breathe has much the same effect.

The guy was a shit anyway: there's no dispute about that.

However there's no way he was a threat to the US so there was no justification for the invasion.

That was a simple oil-grab.

Not a moral decision, but a financial one.

 

Incidentally, the Kurds got the bad end of the deal twice. Hussain didn't do them any favours and they sided with the rest of the world, against him during the liberation of Kuwait. But we then left him in charge in Iraq so he had an opportunity to retaliate against them for their actions; we failed to protect them

I never said he wasn't a bad guy. But if you call him a monster to justify invading his country, then we should've expected invasions when the US did virtually the same thing to Native Americans at Wounded Knee. Who were the monsters then, and where were the military ethics?

[John Cuthber]

I really think we should get back to my original intent. How are morals and ethics engendered to our next generations unless we move in that direction? I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives. And that has nothing to do with religion!

I'm still not sure what your original intent was.

I don't know how we teach morals to our kids but I'm pretty sure I don't want the military doing it. Not least because there aren't really enough of them. Also, their view of morality seems to differ from mine.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see what "I honestly believe our military is a Godsend in reviving views in many lives." means