Should I refuse to serve in the settlements?

[Commodore]

And here's where the trouble lies. How does a soldier determine which orders or assignments are lawful?

Ah, I see. The soldier doesn't determine which orders or assignments are lawful.

Which kind of undermines your premise of "as long as they are lawful".

Let's be plain; and just call a soldier a zombie, then?

But maybe I'm being unfair here. To be exact you've said that a soldier doesn't determine the definition of a lawful order. This would seem more reasonable. So are soldiers issued with a check list (the rules of engagement?) of what constitutes lawful action?

Are they issued with clear rules on what constitutes insane order-issuing behaviour on the part of their superior officers and exact procedures for mutiny putting said officer(s) under restraint?

Yes soldiers are given a manual (at least in the US Army) clearly explaining what is and is not a lawful action or order in combat. It is called "The Law of Land Warfare". This manual draws from the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties, as well as United States federal law to explain how soldiers should conduct themselves on the battlefield and how to properly refuse unlawful orders and relieve the commanding officer who issued the order of his/her command.

But it is clearly stated when you join the Army, that only orders that fit that manual's definition of an unlawful order can be refused. If any other order is refused, at best the soldier will be given a general discharge and at worst they will serve prison time with a dishonorable discharge after completion of their prison term. I agree with such harsh punishment, because if you allow soldiers to start questioning completely lawful orders simply because it conflicts with their personal morality, then that army becomes completely ineffective on the battlefield. In combat, when a commander issues orders to his/her soldiers, they need to be obeyed immediately and with out question to ensure success. If the commander has to take time to explain themselves, that could give the enemy the precious seconds they need to react or defend themselves, thus putting the objective and soldiers' lives in even greater danger.

 

[NovaKart]

I was talking to an old, retired soldier the other day. And though his service was long; and, apparently, by his own account, distinguished, he did maintain that he'd enlisted without any real knowledge of what it entailed; and he was vehement that he wouldn't have enlisted if he had known.

Most soldiers are very young, especially when they start. Just how equipped can they be to make rational choices?

(I should add, perhaps, that his main complaint was about the political reasons behind where he'd been deployed, rather than the actual action he'd seen.)

That's still pretty different from someone who had no choice at all.

 

[Agent327]

Half of all Israelis go through this. It's not like I'm specifically requesting to go to the West Bank.

It seems to me if you are (voluntarily) enlisting you declare your willingness to go where the military is sent. Apart from the fact that (if you are not being enlisted) it is a voluntary decision, it is also a personal question that only you can answer.

I'm not entirely sure why you are asking CFC members what you should do. Personally I'm glad you can at least talk rationally about a matter pertaining to your nationality.

 

[CavLancer]

You should do what you're told to do until such time as you are told to do something obviously immoral and you are personally willing to face the consequences. That is to say shooting an innocent or some such. You will be in the service in a state whose survival, and therefore your survival, is at stake. Your back will be to the sea at every moment. Just sayin... Israel needs all of its sons.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why do they "need all their sons", as well as all their women, given that they are not facing any major threats? And they haven't for 40 years now?

 

[Kozmos]

It's a smart choice regardless of hostile surroundings or even the state itself. A populace trained in guerilla warfare and warfare in general is always more preferable to civilians who can buy nothing with their death but the outrage of the UN and pity of journalists. It was a great mistake of men in history to make women powerless or non-combatants.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only if you desire even more authoritarians than we already have. The world has finally progressed to the stage where we really no longer have to fear world wars. I think most people consider this to be a "good thing".

 

[Kozmos]

Only if you desire even more authoritarians than we already have. The world has finally progressed to the stage where we really no longer have to fear world wars. I think most people consider this to be a "good thing".

Conflict takes many forms. Border conflicts, state oppression, ideology, resources...war is what made us civilized. I'm all for for small states and self-determination, but people need smarter ways of resisting which includes information and other kinds of warfare. Soon enough crowd-control tech will be advanced enough to make gathering in masses in the streets a kind of lemming suicide.

I've seen what irregular forces who are really just roving armed bandits do when they stroll into a defenceless village and all cries for sanity fall on deaf ears and protection of police and state forces is practically non-existent. While we can hope one day for philosophy and wisdom to keep men honest, rule of law and threat of force will have to do in the mean time.

 

[CavLancer]

Why do they "need all their sons", as well as all their women, given that they are not facing any major threats? And they haven't for 40 years now?

Its the law of the land. The reason that they don't face major threats is that their fathers defeated them and made laws that might allow their legacy to continue. Everyone has to carry their weight. If one does not then the others must carry more.

 

[Kyriakos]

Its the law of the land. The reason that they don't face major threats is that their fathers defeated them and made laws that might allow their legacy to continue. Everyone has to carry their weight. If one does not then the others must carry more.

And surely this is a big part of the problem?

I doubt most european/american/other western people would put up with being made to serve in the military in an actual warzone.

Those regular israelis are victims as well. Of some of their greedy politicians and the usual armchair hegemony.

 

[Tahuti]

Only if you desire even more authoritarians than we already have. The world has finally progressed to the stage where we really no longer have to fear world wars. I think most people consider this to be a "good thing".

You are a turkey.

 

[CavLancer]

And surely this is a big part of the problem?

I doubt most european/american/other western people would put up with being made to serve in the military in an actual warzone.

Those regular israelis are victims as well. Of some of their greedy politicians and the usual armchair hegemony.

Victims my ass. Their forefathers came from places where they were victims. A victim does not have an ability to defend themselves as was the case for Jews in Germany, Russia and any nation where the Jews were persecuted. Btw its Israelis with a capital I. Now they have a choice to be victims or to stand up and f i g h t rather than just walk into the slavery or worse.

This thread is about a guy deciding whether to be victim or accept the choice his forefathers bought for him with their blood and sweat. Really, it depends on the man, and whether he has the strength to accept his gift, and carry his weight or deny it all and set his load on broader shoulders already burdened.

 

[Kyriakos]

Victims my ass. Their forefathers came from places where they were victims. A victim does not have an ability to defend themselves as was the case for Jews in Germany, Russia and any nation where the Jews were persecuted. Btw its Israelis with a capital I. Now they have a choice to be victims or to stand up and f i g h t rather than just walk into the slavery or worse.

This thread is about a guy deciding whether to be victim or accept the choice his forefathers bought for him with their blood and sweat. Really, it depends on the man, and whether he has the strength to accept his gift, and carry his weight or deny it all and set his load on broader shoulders already burdened.

Hm.

I still prefer the 300 movie

 

[CavLancer]

There were 50 guys in my platoon and I out shot them all. I kinda like that, because its real. Besides, those pretty boys in the 300, well, Greeks, you know.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, in ancient Greece beauty was clearly one of the healthy values, also for males, going by Hyacynthos, Adonis, Narcissos, and Apollo, the god of Logic, Light, and Beauty

But i heavily doubt that anyone would agree to defend a land they were not in for the past 2000 years, and it meant they would have to fight foverer and ever. It is one thing to fight a campaign, a war, or some wars, and quite another to live each day in war and have the need to hate the other people in the region due to the horror that they will kill you- and so kill them even more in return, this leading to them hating you even more, and so on.
That is not a life. It is just another freakish state.

 

[Mouthwash]

Hm.

I still prefer the 300 movie

Persians are cast as decadent apes.

But i heavily doubt that anyone would agree to defend a land they were not in for the past 2000 years, and it meant they would have to fight foverer and ever. It is one thing to fight a campaign, a war, or some wars, and quite another to live each day in war and have the need to hate the other people in the region due to the horror that they will kill you- and so kill them even more in return, this leading to them hating you even more, and so on.
That is not a life. It is just another freakish state.

Agree here, but I'm not sure what country you're referencing, or universe you're reporting from.

 

[Borachio]

Which country has been, apparently, vacated by the majority of its, allegedly original, inhabitants for the past ~2000 years and recently reclaimed?

And has been in a state of almost constant conflict with its neighbours since its modern inception; with no end in sight?

Hmm. I agree. That's a bit of a puzzler.

I doubt most european/american/other western people would put up with being made to serve in the military in an actual warzone.

I think most people would be more than willing - provided they thought the cause was just. (And, possibly, that the term would be limited. Though whether this last is necessary or not, is debatable, imo.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Conflict takes many forms. Border conflicts, state oppression, ideology, resources...war is what made us civilized. I'm all for for small states and self-determination, but people need smarter ways of resisting which includes information and other kinds of warfare. Soon enough crowd-control tech will be advanced enough to make gathering in masses in the streets a kind of lemming suicide.

Only it seems to me that making the world even more militarized and authoritarian, instead of less so, is what is propelling this supposed "lemming suicide". For the most part the very same people who think we should be engaged in military actions around the globe are those who find protest so disgusting. And many of them seem to be ex-military.

I've seen what irregular forces who are really just roving armed bandits do when they stroll into a defenceless village and all cries for sanity fall on deaf ears and protection of police and state forces is practically non-existent. While we can hope one day for philosophy and wisdom to keep men honest, rule of law and threat of force will have to do in the mean time.

When was the last time this occurred in a modern country? Why should we all act like we live in Afghanistan or Iraq? What were you apparently doing there in the first place? And why should everybody be prepared to do so when we only need a relative handful who are capable of doing so on rare occasion?

Modern life isn't a bad remake of Starship Troopers where only soldiers are given citizenship. We only need a very limited number of people trained to kill others in the most effective means imaginable for our actual defense. Society in general would be far better off if those "talents" were left to a few highly screened professionals instead of everybody.

Just look at the countries which have mandatory military service (red) and those which do not:

I think I would prefer living in the ones which do not. YMMV.

You are a turkey.

The truth hurts when you apparently blatantly ignore it. Doesn't it?

 

[Mouthwash]

Which country has been, apparently, vacated by the majority of its, allegedly original, inhabitants for the past ~2000 years and recently reclaimed?

None that I know of. I'd think you were talking about Israel except that I've never heard a claim that Jews were the very first inhabitants of the land.

And has been in a state of almost constant conflict with its neighbours since its modern inception; with no end in sight?

Not what he said:

It is one thing to fight a campaign, a war, or some wars, and quite another to live each day in war and have the need to hate the other people in the region due to the horror that they will kill you- and so kill them even more in return, this leading to them hating you even more, and so on.
That is not a life. It is just another freakish state.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. OK. Well, with the original inhabitants bit I was struggling to find an appropriate description there without actually spelling it out.

As for your embolded quote, that does kind of go with the territory of permanent conflict: demonizing your opponent and all that, doesn't it?

I can't think of a conflict, any conflict, not just a long-term one, where that doesn't happen.