|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
Canuckistan, I am in accord with you that one must consult one's conscience when serving in war. Yet, I do have a question. How many wars have soldiers where one doesn't see another soldier kill a civilian? It happens in every conflict. You might argue that the difference is that the U.S. government has ignored atrocities or war crimes by soldiers until CDs with photos come to surface. The military has covered up too many things. Also, the Iraq War violates the international law. However, it does not clearly violate the U.S. Constitution as Meegook stated. If this soldier was given the impression he would get a less than honourable discharge, and he has proof of that, then he should leave the U.S. and make Canada his home.
Half of Canadians do not want the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am sure some civilians have been killed by members of the NATO forces.
What if a Canadian soldier decides not to serve? Would you oppose his court-martial, even though the said soldier is not a pacifist per se? |
Well, I have served in the Canadian military. You confuse morality and pacifism. Sure, you could say I'm a pacifist, but I'd have no qualms killing an enemy combatant. Killing civilians would be out of the question.
You see, it was always stressed to us to ignore orders that we felt were immoral (I served shortly after the Somalia Inquiry). Orders that result in the death of civilians were always used to make that point come across. So, if a soldier has grounds to argue that serving in war is an immoral act because of rampant civilian deaths, I'd back him in his decision. Besides, it's estimated that there have been 500 000 Iraqui civilians that have died as a result of the war. Think about that. It isn't just a few civilians we are talking about here.
I think the American soldier has got international law on his side. According to the Geneva Convention, civilian deaths are never acceptable.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm |
Hollywood, I understand where you are coming from with this. However, there are people who are called pacifists who do not believe in killing.
Of course, a soldier can argue that there are too many indiscriminate deaths, and he opposes the war. The 500,000 number were not civilians killed by the U.S. per se. Thousands of those died from the insurgency and other causes, not only bombings and shootings by American soldiers.
We could argue for the sake of argument that 20% of the figure was directly related to U.S. actions which would be 100,000. How many German civilians were killed by the Allied Forces in World War II? You can refuse an illegal order. He is arguing that American actions are leading to civilian deaths. Some Israeli pilots argued the same when they refused to bomb Gaza. However, is there a war where only a civilians die?
I suppose Somalia. I don't think American troops killed many Somalis.
Someone was arguing that the war cannot be objected to by an American soldier since it is not illegal according to U.S. law. However, the U.S. is a signatory to the WTO, UN and part of a global community. A soldier can state that he supports international law and he will not serve in a war that violates international law. I don't believe that most American troops are out there killing Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. It does happen too often, perhaps, and the government was covering it up. I support the soldier based on it violating international law, the fact that Iraq never attacked the U.S., and many people thought they were sent there to defend
America not neo-conservative political goals. I wouldn't want to die for a neo-con, either, but rather the principals of "We hold these truths to be evident that all men were created equal". The war violates the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. It makes the U.S. troops look like the Red Coats. |
Not that it matters, but the US government knew that the insurgency was a risk before starting the war. Besides, no war, no insurgents...and who started the war again?
By the way, most soldiers don't fight for their government. Once they are in the battlefield, it's all about beating the enemy in order to minimize their own losses. It's about making sure their buddies go home in one piece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jazblanc77
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spliff wrote: |
I hope they shoot his ass in the back!  |
As opposed to shooting his ass in the front?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
