3 ms·

> I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on That is a co

> I am not really interested in the legal application of the Geneva Accords, I am interested in the moral and ethical foundation they are based on That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. If everyone in the military decided how to exercise lethal force on the basis of their own personal morality as opposed to what their civilian government has decided the law is that would be complete chaos. Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. The military is doing its duty under the law to obey the directives of civilian authority. If you disagree with the law, then by all means object, but object to those who are responsible for making the law. The alternative is that the military decides the law for itself, which would be a military dictatorship, and I don't think you would advocate for that.

syshum 9y ago
>That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. Well I have to go Godwin on that... So you hold the soldiers that put then Jews in the oven blameless for their unethical and immoral actions because "they were just following orders" That defense never worked in Nuremberg. The idea that unethical actions should simply be dismissed because you were ordered by someone that claims higher authority to commit an unethical action is absurd to me. >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. The comment we are all replying to is not "someone in the military" but someone that has been discharged from the military and is continuing to support this unethical position. >the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. They may have decided they are legal, that is all. Legal and ethical are very very different >Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government Nope, I can blame everyone involved. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense IMO
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > That defense never worked in Nuremberg. In the Nuremberg trials only a handful of high political and military officials were charged and convicted. The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. Many mid-level Nazi officials who were certainly complicit were not charged at all and went on to form the post-war government. History is not as black-and-white or pleasant as you seem to believe it is. > Nope, I can blame everyone involved. In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this. So you are under the mythical belief that Taxation is voluntarily, when in reality taxation is involuntary theft if you refuse they will come and take it from you, if you resist their taking your property they will put you in a cage and if you resist them putting you in a cage they will kill you. Taxation is in no way a voluntary act >>The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. They should have been

syshum 9y ago

>That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. Well I have to go Godwin on that... So you hold the soldiers that put then Jews in the oven blameless for their unethical and immoral actions because "they were just following orders" That defense never worked in Nuremberg. The idea that unethical actions should simply be dismissed because you were ordered by someone that claims higher authority to commit an unethical action is absurd to me. >That is a completely fine and reasonable position as an individual, but that cannot be the position of someone in the military. The comment we are all replying to is not "someone in the military" but someone that has been discharged from the military and is continuing to support this unethical position. >the civilian government which has decided, in accordance with all its laws, that the things you object to are legal and right. They may have decided they are legal, that is all. Legal and ethical are very very different >Any blame here falls entirely on the civilian government Nope, I can blame everyone involved. "Just following orders" is not a valid defense IMO

saas_co_de 9y ago
> That defense never worked in Nuremberg. In the Nuremberg trials only a handful of high political and military officials were charged and convicted. The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. Many mid-level Nazi officials who were certainly complicit were not charged at all and went on to form the post-war government. History is not as black-and-white or pleasant as you seem to believe it is. > Nope, I can blame everyone involved. In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>In that case, also blame the tax payers, who are the ones who fund all of this. So you are under the mythical belief that Taxation is voluntarily, when in reality taxation is involuntary theft if you refuse they will come and take it from you, if you resist their taking your property they will put you in a cage and if you resist them putting you in a cage they will kill you. Taxation is in no way a voluntary act >>The individual soldiers who actually carried out atrocities on their orders were never charged. They should have been