Only children give out negative rep

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

LOL, wow. Man, I don't even know what to say to a person that can't differentiate between the soldier and the commander. Do youblame all Americans for what Bush ahs done?

No, I blame Bush and anyone that follows his orders.

Because there is a relatively small population of the people of America that voted for the current commander and chief. But from what you're saying, that doesn't even matter. Because soldiers don't get to vote for their superior officers.

Soldiers can choose to server or not serve. Even when they sign up, they can always choose to not serve, even though it means going to jail.

And the President can always choose to give orders or not to give orders.

Now granted, the President is more culpable for more, since he is responsible for all the deaths. Those that carry out his orders are really only responsible for the deaths of those they kill.

Seriously, I haven't the slightest clue how you can say the soldier could just disobey orders. That makes him a bad soldier. He could get court marshalled, jailed or worse.

You haven't the slightest idea how the soldier operates. Are there any military people in y our family or friends?

Yes, there are. And I find them to be pretty small minded people.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

What? You haven't given out negative rep so you're morally superior to us?

Why do you keep repeating this same tired line? It shows one of two things.

1. You can dish it out but you can't take it, or
2. You like to feel like you'e on a higher level then the rest of us

So which is it?

I think the problem was is that I was under the assumption that it mattered what your rep was. If it does not, then who cares eh?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I think the problem was is that I was under the assumption that it mattered what your rep was. If it does not, then who cares eh?

If it matters to you then it matters to you. By the creation of this thread I would say that it at least did matter to you.

Does it still?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

If it matters to you then it matters to you. By the creation of this thread I would say that it at least did matter to you.

Does it still?

Not really. I still will not leave negative rep, since I think it is immature to do so, but whatever.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Not really. I still will not leave negative rep, since I think it is immature to do so, but whatever.

Ok, if negative rep is immature then what is positive rep?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, I blame Bush and anyone that follows his orders.

Ok, this negates your ENTIRE argument. It's done.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Ok, if negative rep is immature then what is positive rep?

Obviously not immature, because it is not spiteful.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Obviously not immature, because it is not spiteful.

But it's still emotional. That's my point.

BTW, you have lost the debate about soliders being as responsible as the commanders.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No, it is not pointless. All of them are responsible for it. He ordered it, and they followed his orders. Now, if he never would have ordered it, then it would not have happened. But if the soldiers would not have followed his orders, then it would not have happened either.

Again, what difference does it make if he ordered it, he didn't actually make them do it. They acted according to their own free will.

[HughRuss]

Okay, so fill me in. Who believes soldiers are partially (if not just as) responsible for their actions as the superior officers? Who doesn't believe soldiers bear any responsibility?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Okay, so fill me in. Who believes soldiers are partially (if not just as) responsible for their actions as the superior officers? Who doesn't believe soldiers bear any responsibility?

Of course soldiers bear responsibility for the action of soldiering, but not the mission on which they are sent. This is why I supported the troops(through money and time) in Iraq even though I think it was a war of total choice.

Spidey was saying that the soldiers were as evil and oppressive as the commanders...except for Bush. that is where he lost his argument.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Of course soldiers bear responsibility for the action of soldiering, but not the mission on which they are sent. This is why I supported the troops(through money and time) in Iraq even though I think it was a war of total choice.

Spidey was saying that the soldiers were as evil and oppressive as the commanders...except for Bush. that is where he lost his argument.

Re-read what I said.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

But it's still emotional. That's my point.

OK, then instead of emotional, use spiteful.

BTW, you have lost the debate about soliders being as responsible as the commanders.

I said, "No, I blame Bush and anyone that follows his orders." I do not see how I was inconsistent with this statement as opposed to earlier statements.

I hold Bush and the troops culpable just like I hold Lincoln and his troops culpable.

[Swift]

My fault I misread what you said.

But you're still way off base and quitee frankly, diluded.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

My fault I misread what you said.

But you're still way off base and quitee frankly, diluded.

So, soldiers do not carry full responsibility for, say, the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, just because it may have been an order from the head office?

Everybody has a conscience, no matter how deluded or watered down it may be (from hard-pressed inculcation). "I was just following orders" is not a moral get out of jail free card, just like "Everybody else was snorting coke" isn't.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

So, soldiers do not carry full responsibility for, say, the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, just because it may have been an order from the head office?

Everybody has a conscience, no matter how deluded or watered down it may be (from hard-pressed inculcation). "I was just following orders" is not a moral get out of jail free card, just like "Everybody else was snorting coke" isn't.

Of course, things like shooting children dead and what not is obvious. I'm talking general soldiering under orders.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Again, what difference does it make if he ordered it, he didn't actually make them do it. They acted according to their own free will.

You are saying there is no responsibility on the soldier to make moral decisions?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Of course, things like shooting children dead and what not is obvious. I'm talking general soldiering under orders.

What about defenseless women? Or defenseless men? Or men defending their "nation"?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

What about defenseless women? Or defenseless men? Or men defending their "nation"?

If someone starts fighting a solider, what is the soldier supposed to do? Take it and die?

I'm talking about situation where soldiers are ordered to bomb places or destroy buildings. Something like that. One on one situations must be taken on a case by case basis.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

If someone starts fighting a solider, what is the soldier supposed to do? Take it and die?

I'm talking about situation where soldiers are ordered to bomb places or destroy buildings. Something like that. One on one situations must be taken on a case by case basis.

Not really. If the soldier crosses my property line, they crossed my property line. So quit tip-toeing around the questions and answer them.

The North invaded the South.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan.

The U.S. invaded Iraq.

If someone crosses into your property, when you have done nothing to harm them, and they shoot at you, and you shoot back and kill them, who was in the wrong?