Conscientious objectors the real heroes?

[GonzoStyles]

whats funny Nutter is you once again Ignore the Irish Factor, How "Legal" is that by international community standards eh? How many Paras killed how many civi's on Bloody Sunday? for Christ's sakes according to all the records of the time the Paras were not even supposed to be carrying live rounds? The Investigation into the shootings was the biggest botched piece of propaganda I have ever read! And by the way you guys STILL haven't worked out the issues with Ireland and the warring factions . And last I checked we didnt have SF patrolling the Immigrant rallys here in the "ultra-violent" US now did we nutter? and like I have stated before......

they are right next door

they are a pittance compared to the might of the UK forces

you speak a common language

and according to your assesment nut the UK has the premier SF in the world

so according to this there should'nt BE ANY ARMED INSURRECTION in Ireland
but there is. seems like you should mind your own back yard and we'll mind ours 'K?

And as for Abu Ghraib, how many Innocent Irishmen were held in British prisons for "several long days" (YEARS) not as real suspects but as family members of suspects in attempts to coerce them into testifying against innocent relatives?

And here is a fine example of British troops bravery in Iraq

http://www.break.com/index/britishiraq12.html

the narrator seems like he is enjoying this um a little TOO much?
for christs sake you'd think he was getting laid!!!!!


Sgt. York was a conscienscous objector at first, and yet he did a world of good against the Gerry's in WW1.

A Marine corp legend, the honorable Smedley Butler, became one of the greatest spokesman for peace ever, only after years of witnessing the use of troops to enforce economic policys in places like Haiti. I beleive it should be mandatory that every American read "War is a Racket" By Smedley Butler.

this is just another Butter attempt to start shit, never acknowledging the same actions and problems in his native country, just flinging dirt at the US because Brittania cant rule anymore, I guess he just is pinein' for the days of the East India tea company..........

[nutter]

Irish factor is neither here nor there mate, this topic applies equally to British and US troops.

[Tom Yum]

It's a bit materialistic to say that a soldier's duty dictated by his paycheck is greater than his moral duty as a citizen of the world innit.

So how does one exactly become a citizen of the world? This is even less tangible than citizenship in one country. You can't go about trying to please everyone in the entire world. That's impossible, impractical and self-defeating.

[nutter]

A good philosophical question mate but a better one is whether someone's inability to conceptualise the full extent of their moral obligations exempts them from the requirement to abide by them. Tom Yum: "Your honour, there was nothing wrong with me murdering that person because I don't know the full extent of my moral obligations".

[Tom Yum]

A good philosophical question mate but a better one is whether someone's inability to conceptualise the full extent of their moral obligations exempts them from the requirement to abide by them. Tom Yum: "Your honour, there was nothing wrong with me murdering that person because I don't know the full extent of my moral obligations".

You're talking about the law, not moral obligations.

Murder itself is a criminal act that is against the law.

[nutter]

You're trying to evade the obvious right, clouding the issue with a shifting frame of reference. Let's get back on subject right mate. Do YOU think that soldiers should follow orders unquestioningly even when they consider the actions they are ordered to do to be immoral?

[Dim Wit Moc]

A true Conscientious Objector does not pick his wars and circumstances like food at a smorgasbord. He or she does not believe that killing is justified under any circumstances. I can respect that position, but do not agree with it. If someone is willing to kill in a "good" war, but not a "bad" war then they are not a true CO. I have been told that there are some studies that say that a very large percentage of soldiers shoot to miss the enemy, even at the risk of their own life. The willingness to kills seems to lie with the minority. I am not a true CO because there are circumstances when I would kill.

[knifethrower]

So how does one exactly become a citizen of the world?

Ooooooooh! Ooooh! Oh! Can I be one! Along with the membership comes that cool, secret decoder ring right?

The war in Iraq was declared illegal by the UN right.

No matter how hard I try, I’m still can’t muster up the energy to give a fuk.

[bigred389]

You're trying to evade the obvious right, clouding the issue with a shifting frame of reference. Let's get back on subject right mate. Do YOU think that soldiers should follow orders unquestioningly even when they consider the actions they are ordered to do to be immoral?

No, you're the only one doing a shifty little dance. The fact is, this isn't what your original question asked. You knew that one was going nowhere, and now you're just looking to stir the pot.

Pussy.

[cam427]

A true concientious objector would not be in the military as they would object to all forms of violence to solve conflict.

Disliking the war you have to fight is not the same as being a CO.

In fact one of my pet hates is the guys who whine about having to fight when they have been living it up as soldiers or sailors for the last ten years. What the hell did they think they were signing up for?

[Garland]

If you object to that: Do Not Join. I'm sure Air Force pilots didn't have dropping the A Bomb on Hiroshima in mind when they swore to follow orders either. I'm sure there are some Brit soldiers out there who had real moral issues with killing Irishmen, too. I've known a few, and they told me as much. I'm sure that there are soldiers in every country and from every walk of life who found some kind of personal conflict with the things they were asked to do. But we do them, because it is the job we choose for ourselves, burdens and all.

The fact is, if they have no moral issues with accepting their bonuses, their tuition assistance, and all the other benefits provided them and their families by these warmaking organizations, then they haven't got any reason to object solely because it's their turn to go and fight.

An interesting point, the person who flew the anola gay and dropped the bomb on hiroshima KNEW what he was doing, and he rationalized in his mind what he did to be the right thing, and to THIS day believes it to be the right action. Whether or not the action was the right one to take is irrelevant ethicly, because to him, it was, and quite frankly, it is because of that within that particular individual that made him the right person for the job.

When talking ethics and morality, from a philisophical standpoint, you have several schools of thought to deal with, that are often in opposition with each other, even one's that developed simulatneously in Western societies. There are even schools of thought that nullify the importance of choice, citing that choice itself is illusory and therefore, anything we do is predetermined based upon our character, temperment and a priori inclinations we have from being us, coupled with how we were brought up and what values and morals were imposed upon us through the institutions within our lives. (our following those values and morals depends upon our temperment and our generalized "a priori" (already existing from BIRTH) inclinations and arguebly more transcient factors and variables such as mood and passing whims.)

I guess a good ones to support being against consciencious objectors to a war (soldiers already enlisted, not drafted civi's) are Ross's occupational/relational values...which state you do something as part of a job or a relationship prima facie...an opposing point could be Kant's categorical imperative, which states amongst other things to use people as an ends and not mearly as a means.

You could split Mill's utiliarianism either way, depending on how you argue it...which is just sophistry. That's a word to remember, Sophistry...those in command of a good, articulate arguement, can justify anything and it would be the "right thing" to do. Not necessarilly a pleasent idea, as you could say Hitler, Paul Pot, and all the other douchebags were RIGHT based on their powers of persuausion, argument, and their command of personal charisma.

Now...all that matters in this subject, truly, is subjective opinion. Somebody may have signed on for being a soldier, and then be asked to participate in a war that they disagree with. Their not choosing to participate based on personal reasons should mean, they SHOULD not fight. They are a burden on the rest of the group. IF enough people don't want to fight, that the ranks can't be filled...then the question comes up as to whether that particular war SHOULD in fact be fought.