On Feb 25 2007 4:11 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Feb 24 2007 10:22 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25 2007 5:07 AM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 24, 8:53 pm, Nick Wool <43079...@recpoker.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As much as I dislike Bush, I think these un-named generals are way of
> line.
> > > > The military has no right to dictate policy. As soon as you put on an
> > > > uniform,
> > > > you job is to obey orders, unless those orders are so blatantly illegal.
> > > >
> > > > Can
> > > > you imagine it if this right to quit if you don't agree with a war, or
> > > > certain
> > > > aspects of war, catches on with the rank and file on the battlefield?
> > > >
> > > > It is not up the military to decide whether attacking a certain country
> is
> > > > right
> > > > or wrong, but the politicians.
> > >
> > >
> > > And that is why resignation would be the proper course of action if
> > > they can no longer abide by such orders.
> >
> > So you think that it would be proper for a soldier to lay down his/her arms
> and
> > quit because he/she disagrees with a war? Even in the middle of a battle?
>
> No, that is desertion, and that is a crime.
>
> > Surely freely enlisted soldiers give up that right as soon as they put on
> that
> > uniform? 

> So they cease being human beings? You, Nick, should stick to debating
> things that you have some modicum of an idea about.
>

So after you've freely enlisted, you can pick and choose which orders you want to follow?  In that case, sign me up...I'll take all the free training and the decent salary, but as soon as there is a hint of a war, I can refuse to fight and resign because I think the war is 'reckless'

> > The role of the miltary is to follow orders. The expection being if
> > an action is so blatantly illegal that following the order will result in a
> > greater crime than disobeying that order.
>
> Refusing to follow an illegal order has nothing to do with hierarchies of
> crime.

What is an illegal order?  Would the bombing of civilian targets be an illegal order?  Or something on the borderline, such a power station?

In these days of total war, what consititues as legitimate targets?  And who makes these decisions?  Can you really allow soldiers to pick and choose which orders they wish to follow?  That's why I said 'blatantly illegal'.

> > We are on a dangerous road indeed if we let generals decide what is and what
> is
> > not a 'right' war to fight. These decisions must be left with the
> politicians.
> > While it is proper for generals to give their advice in private to the
> > politicians, it most certainly is not proper for generals to try and exert
> > influences on policy-making by leaking to the media.
>
> You are assuming that these generals are the ones leaking the story to the
> media. If they did do that, on purpose, you could make a case that the
> generals are being insubordinate. A far more likely scenario is that the
> generals followed the chain of command, wrote a memo to the pentagon
> informing them of their reservations about the war expanding to Iran, and
> some staffer leaking it to the press.

Ar...so its ok after all...can you cite something to back this up? 

> Fell
> --
> If the world was run by rgp we would all be sleeping with our cousins,
> living on diets of cheesewhizz and self treating serious medical
> complaints with a xanax and a bottle of good scotch. - Necron99, Feb 1 http://nickspokerblog.myblog.com/

_______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com