Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[Ted Striker]

That's nice, so I disagree with her about Afghanistan.

But, if you had bothered to put her views in the COMPLETE context, you'll notice she is criticizing the US for setting up these situations (Taliban and Al-Queda) by us meddling in the Middle East in the first place.

After all, we did train Bin Laden to do all the stuff he's so good at.

Though I do question the honesty of that author when he says things like:

That Sheehan urges the extermination of the Jewish state

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by GePap


The weak,spinless, and gutless idiots in Congress gave the President a blank slate for Iraq.

He told Congress what Congress wanted to hear.

Which is why most of them should have been booted in '04 as well.

And it is up to the voters to punish them for their complicity as well, but it doesn't change that lies were told to Congress to get their compliance in the first place.

[Berzerker]

Gepap

Wars are a policy decision by states. Soldiers are agents of the state, and in the United States they volunterred to serve the Federal Government. Soldiers must follow all legal orders given to them, even if the orders are blatant lies.

The key phrase being "legal orders". They took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not do what the President tells them. The reason Bush should be impeached is because he got us into a war by lying to us. That certainly qualifies for impeachment and conviction, I can think of no greater offense in the minds of those who wrote the document...

The way to deal with politicians who carry out policies whose support amongst the population was built by half-truths, outright lies, and lies of ommission is to boot them out of power.

And Cindy Sheehan is holding their feet to the fire.

[Agathon]

Man this is great. The whole right wing thing is developing into a huge train wreck. It's slowly getting bigger every day. The basic problem the right face is that none of the facts are on their side. Creative interpretation will only go so far. Defenders of the war are on a par with the Intelligent Design fanatics.

If you want to LYAO go back in the archive and read some of the old WOMD and Iraq threads... priceless. The left were generally correct: the right were wrong.... case closed...

You can't fool all of the people all of the time.....

[Az]

All battlefields are not created by lies. This one was...

Lies, or unpure causes. Afghanistan was just the same. If you're telling me that Afghanistan was invaded and siezed just because of 9/11, you're deluding yourself. There certainly were much bigger concerns.

You just contradicted yourself. But your argument seems to be: all politicians lie, therefore we are morally obligated to fight for their lies.

I would love it if you pointed out the contradiction, but it seems that you've missed my point entirely - We cannot and shouldn't judge the justness of wars because of their motives. That doesn't mean that "we are morally obligated to fight for their lies", but that we are morally obligated to fight for good, and if it entails going to war over the commands of lying politicians, so be it.

It isn't meaningless, if you sign up to defend your country and the politicians are sending you to invade other countries based on lies, you no longer have any moral obligation to fulfill that contract.

I think we've covered it. "Signing up to defend your country" isn't in the contract. One can't also claim to be fooled by the US military's media messages and propoganda in this matter, because those never limited the goal of the US military to the defence of the US, but also have always implied that the US military is a force for good in the entire world. Thus, there isn't any fraud in the moral contract.

Yeah, I had a problem with this too.

Afghanistan = just war based on defense

Iraq 2 = unjust war based on a lie

What made Afghanistan just? It certainly had little to do with the purity of US intentions, because there was no such purity.

As to US presenting itself as a force for good over the past century, well, that one is hit or miss. I think we're batting about 50/50 on that one.

Are you referring t the actual consequences of US actions? this is almost completely irrelevant in our current discussion. I was referring to whether a recruit in to the US military has the perception that they're only going to fight to defend the US from invasion, or protect US nationals abroad. This is obviously false, as evidenced by almost every war the US had since, well, ever, and especially in the last 100 years. A person signing to service in the US military, thinking his job will be limited to these roles is delusional and shouldn't be enlisted, anyway.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Why?

we really didn't need to invade and bring down the entire goverment to get 1 or 2 guys (which we didn't even do). We killed everyone except who we orginally set out to kill. Not that most of of the guys we killed were saints or anything.

The U.S. lacks tact if you ask me. If we actually had an intelligence agency worth a damn, we could find out where OBL and his cronies are. Bomb them to kingdom come and be done with it. No need to demolish the entire country.

But sadly our spy network is substandard. We need to have hot babes who can speak foreign languages with no accent like the russians had. . Yeah you say those muslim guys don't like women (who aren't helpless teenage virgins). We know they are full of ****. They'd hit it.

[Az]

Off-topic: I've wasted two hours of my life yesterday.

My god, who's the director of that "Stealth" POS?!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Az
Off-topic: I've wasted two hours of my life yesterday.

My god, who's the director of that "Stealth" POS?!

you deserve it for actually thinking it would be a good movie. Didn't you see the previews or trailors?

I watched the previews during batman begins. All I needed to hear was: plane gets hit by lightning and goes bezerk.

[Mr. Harley]

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows (bold face added by me):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Please note - support and defend come first. THEN comes obey the orders of the President. The Army IS a defensive force, it's primary duty is to the constitution of the United States, and to support and defend it. Defend is the only thing clearly and explicitly stated - though I am quite sure those for Bush will try to claim "support" means offensive, agreesive empire-building measures.

[Az]

I knew it was going to be a bad movie. The trailer had 'POS' written all over it. Reviews hated it. Sadly, I've seen all other movies that were playing. Even 'The Island' - I enjoyed it very much, btw. So we entered the cinema in the hope of a good movie. Me and a friend of mine were the only two people in the theatre!

[Az]

Please note - support and defend come first. THEN comes obey the orders of the President. The Army IS a defensive force, it's primary duty is to the constitution of the United States, and to support and defend it. Defend is the only thing clearly and explicitly stated - though I am quite sure those for Bush will try to claim "support" means offensive, agreesive empire-building measures.

Man, THIS is your basis for the "moral contract"? You know that's ****ing thin.

Let me see this straight: You're claiming that this enlistment pledge contains NO obligation to follow orders like invading other countries on command of government, because it appears further down the list than something else?

Hell, even if one would be able to say that placement on that list has any meaning in terms of the importance of the obligation the recruit takes, this still wouldn't mean that he lied to, and/or had no obligation to serve in Iraq, or that the war in Iraq was a breach of a moral contract, or whatever.

[Mr. Harley]

Az - it's not just a contract - it's an Oath before God. That takes precedence. It does not absolve the recruit from fighting in a war that has been duly debated and declared by the Congress of the United States in support of the Constitution, and then obeying the orders of the President as the CIC. It's not thin, it is both explicit and clear.

The fact that the President committed impeachable offenses - which are actually a faily low standard FYI - that definitely exceed the last time Articles of Impeachment were voted, definitely implies the implicit contract has been broken. What the other posters have stated make that very clear. That is why any soldier who chooses should be permitted the choice to go to Afghanistan versus Iraq (and casualties have INCREASED in Afghanistan this last year) and why soldiers in the Isreali Defense Forces should be permitted to opt out of deployments on the West Bank, and instead be posted at border crossing - which again are more dangerous from what I have seen reference casualties.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Post of the thread.

What exactly are you saying? Do you mean:

1. Nobody - including GWB - has any "authority" to speak on a war, or
2. Everybody - including Cindy Sheehan - has an equal "authority" to speak on the war, or
3. GWB has much more "authority" to speak on this war than Cindy Sheehan?

[Az]

The fact that the President committed impeachable offenses - which are actually a faily low standard FYI - that definitely exceed the last time Articles of Impeachment were voted, definitely implies the implicit contract has been broken.

So, your point is that since the oath is to protect the constitution, and the president made unconstitutional moves, troops are being cheated in their moral contract.
However, the breach of the constitution is not for you, me, or Cindy's son MHRIP to decide. It's a decision of the US parliamentary system. Again, this is a classical question of democracy, of personal morality vs. law, but this is solidly in the place of the law taking the driver's seat.

and why soldiers in the Isreali Defense Forces should be permitted to opt out of deployments on the West Bank, and instead be posted at border crossing - which again are more dangerous from what I have seen reference casualties.

Let's not bring the IDF into this because we have a completely different social structure in that regard. It will just further sidetrack the already sidetracked debate about the Iraq war.

[Mr. Harley]

Couldn't resist the IDF comment though - and there have been those cases concerning refusal to serve in the Occupied Territories.

As - as I commented before, looking at how you, versus Berz and I are approaching this - you state that since the government has the law on it's side, that it has the right to determine a moral issue. It's an Oath for God's sake - literally. Berz and I see the individual's responsibility to this - I was simply obeying the law, or following orders is never an excuse. Think about it, I'm surprised you don't agree on that one!