"In following Jesus' example, I could not have fired my weapon at another human being, even if he were shooting at me"

[DeadPoolX 9]

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Philosophically that's true. Practically however, when a country is part of a broad international community bound by treaty agreements, terms like "Just" and "legal" sure have a place in the argument...

I'm sure they do. But if the enemy is firing on you, it's psychotic to demand that impending actions wait until the qualifications for a "just war" have been met. Furthermore, I have an extremely difficult time believing that any government body can legislate something as intangible and subjective as what "just" means.

For instance, if someone breaks into my home, I may find it "just" to shoot and kill him. My neighbor, however, may feel that my actions weren't "just" and that I should have detained the criminal or scared him off -- that those actions would've been "just" instead. So how can someone or some group say "this is what 'just' means for everyone, all over the world, no matter what you may think."

"Just" in the broader context is used interchangeably with "legal" and again ties together with international treaty organisations. "Just" is a subjective term certainly, but as far as international law goes - there are certain terms of reference for what is deemed legal and appropriate.

Are you referring to the soldier with that "psychotic" comment, or the Iraq war in general?

I was referring to the individual soldier. On a greater scale, I might go so far as to include increasingly larger-sized units as well. But I didn't mean the whole Iraq War. I may be very pro-military, but I'm not particularly enamored with the war, such as it is.

[SteveLaura 0]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

Was this off the cuff, or are you trying to draw a parallel where that justifies this because you see it as 'worse'?

Off the cuff - I'm too busy today to get into any great discussion. Just wondered whether those who are berating this man for being in an occupation that don't 'jive' with his religion are also similarly vocal against others in comparable positions.

In this instance, it seems that the bloke wanted to do the right thing - to his God and his profession. He didn't ask for the military to change their policy for him. He realised he would have to leave. I would suggest that others in similar instances should be reasonably expected to do the same (if no other position at your job is viable) - whether it be quitting the pharmacy because you believe E.C is akin to abortion, or quitting your local supermarket because you Muslim views forbid you to handle pork products.

[Caladan 19]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

Was this off the cuff, or are you trying to draw a parallel where that justifies this because you see it as 'worse'?

Off the cuff - I'm too busy today to get into any great discussion. Just wondered whether those who are berating this man for being in an occupation that don't 'jive' with his religion are also similarly vocal against others in comparable positions.

In this instance, it seems that the bloke wanted to do the right thing - to his God and his profession. He didn't ask for the military to change their policy for him. He realised he would have to leave. I would suggest that others in similar instances should be reasonably expected to do the same (if no other position at your job is viable) - whether it be quitting the pharmacy because you believe E.C is akin to abortion, or quitting your local supermarket because you Muslim views forbid you to handle pork products.

And he sought to do so in the manner proscribed by the military, and received an honorable discharge.

[Caladan 19]

Religious people also believe in just wars and following your conscience. Iraq is not a just war, according to religiously-developed just war theory. If he believed he'd be liberating Iraqis and instead sees Abu Ghraib and hired mercenaries, he might wonder whether a Christian could serve in an institution engaged in an unjust conflict.

How can someone claim "this war is just; that war is not just" as if it's a factual statement? It seems to me it's based on opinion and on a wider scale, culture, norms, values, etc. What we each think is "just" or "right" may differ (sometimes dramatically so) depending on who we are, where we are and what we're doing at the time.

For anyone to claim there's such a thing as only one type of "just war" is ludicrous.

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

So... what is this example supposed to show us? The German soldier made a dumb move. If the enemy has you in his sights, the very last thing you want to do is make a move that may be interpreted as a "hostile gesture." I'd say the German soldier was lucky the GI didn't shoot him.

Educate yourself. Just war theory is a pretty well-establish legal (and moral) practice, and it has its origins in religious teachings. It's basically a list of a set of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for a war to be just. And oddly enough, it is broad enough to cover variations in culture and circumstance. The argument from personal incredulity doesn't really help you here.

Excuse me? "Educate myself? I happen to be extremely well versed in nearly all aspects of military history (both foreign and domestic), so please... don't tell me to "educate myself" when it comes to topics in this particular domain.

Now then, as far as "just war theory" goes, I have never heard of it used as a motivating principle or singular factor in which a country decides if war is necessary. I'm sure it'd be nice if war could be neat and tidy, with it all fitting into these lovely theories. However, real life doesn't work that way.

What's specified in the boardroom and before the battle can be (and often is) quite different from what occurs during the battle. Human nature, being what it is, changes the situation and armies must adapt on the fly. They cannot sit there, pondering the philosophical merits and debate whether or not their next actions may be "just" according to some group's moral and religious principles.

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do, actually. That's why there's international law. That's why Bush and company made a big show of having 'evidence' of their 'right' to invade Iraq before the UN. (So much for 'the real world doesn't have time and I've never heard of it' argument.)

Just war theory also applies to how you conduct yourself in combat. This pretty much gives rise to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S.'s own internal laws of warfare (i.e., we don't say, 'anything goes, rape as many women as you want, soldier') and prisoner treatment. There are distinctions between wars of choice (Iraq), wars of defense, and a whole new area of this is how to deal with international terrorist organizations because right now, it's not an area that is well-worked out under the law.

It's not just an academic argument as it has informed both law and policy. And the Iraq War unfortunately doesn't meet the just war standard, in the leadup to war or the execution of war or the aftermath.

I'm surprised that a self-described military history buff doesn't think there's a difference between being the Nazis and being England.

[Caladan 19]

And, of course, the question was whether a religious person might think that serving in Iraq was participating in an unjust war, so even if there was no such thing as internal U.S. military rules or international law, one could still think that there were some wars a Christian could not fight.

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

I'm surprised that a self-described military history buff doesn't think there's a difference between being the Nazis and being England.

in what context are you using it?

[Caladan 19]

I'm surprised that a self-described military history buff doesn't think there's a difference between being the Nazis and being England.

in what context are you using it?

Hey, if war is neverjust, then England wasn't right to defend herself.

Wait, there's a distinction between being the aggressor and being the defender? That's the very first baby step of understanding a just war. If you want to throw all that out, then you have no way to talk about whose fault the war was.

We recognize this all over the place. Pearl Harbor was not a 'day that will live in infamy' just because of the lives lost, but because it was a surprise attack. Japan didn't declare war first. One of the conditions for having a just war is that, basically, your enemy knows your intentions. (The idea being that if they know you're planning to war, they can have time to resolve it peacefully. That's also why we made a big deal out of letting the UN inspections in Iraq finish.) You can make the same argument for why 9/11 was wrong (though international terrorism just throws a monkey wrench into everything). It's not just that the attack killed civilians, but that even say (just) attacking the Pentagon was wrong because it wasn't preceded by a declaration of hostilities.

The point of all the conditions is just to reduce death and harm to civilians. That's why the U.S. has rules of conduct for soldiers, too. That's why we think terrorism is a wrong way to go about warring. That's why the guy that halted the My Lai massacre did a noble thing.

And the real world doesn't always operate in a way that makes a war just. No one's going to deny that. But the question is whether someone who is following his conscience and religion, who believes that he should follows laws (or even wars) insofar as they are just, would have a reason for doubting that the Iraq war was just. There's a separate question as to whether his oath should make him continue to serve.

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

I'm surprised that a self-described military history buff doesn't think there's a difference between being the Nazis and being England.

in what context are you using it?

Hey, if war is neverjust, then England wasn't right to defend herself.

Wait, there's a distinction between being the aggressor and being the defender? That's the very first baby step of understanding a just war. If you want to throw all that out, then you have no way to talk about whose fault the war was.

We recognize this all over the place. Pearl Harbor was not a 'day that will live in infamy' just because of the lives lost, but because it was a surprise attack. Japan didn't declare war first. One of the conditions for having a just war is that, basically, your enemy knows your intentions. (The idea being that if they know you're planning to war, they can have time to resolve it peacefully. That's also why we made a big deal out of letting the UN inspections in Iraq finish.) You can make the same argument for why 9/11 was wrong (though international terrorism just throws a monkey wrench into everything). It's not just that the attack killed civilians, but that even say (just) attacking the Pentagon was wrong because it wasn't preceded by a declaration of hostilities.

The point of all the conditions is just to reduce death and harm to civilians. That's why the U.S. has rules of conduct for soldiers, too. That's why we think terrorism is a wrong way to go about warring. That's why the guy that halted the My Lai massacre did a noble thing.

And the real world doesn't always operate in a way that makes a war just. No one's going to deny that. But the question is whether someone who is following his conscience and religion, who believes that he should follows laws (or even wars) insofar as they are just, would have a reason for doubting that the Iraq war was just. There's a separate question as to whether his oath should make him continue to serve.

that part regarding a surprise attack - that is a significant advantage and i don't think many countries will give up the element of surprise - same for a pre-emptive nuclear strike . plus i've seen some info that indicates it really wasn't much of a surprise. while one could argue the merits of morality and ethics in this, the end result is for the country to win, isn't it?

[Caladan 19]

If we're arguing whether someone can be a conscientious objector, then the morality and ethics do come into it. If we're arguing whether most wars are just, I'll readily concede that they're not. If we're arguing that being unjust makes it easier to win your war, I'll concede that in a lot of cases it's easier to win if you're not just. If we commit genocide in Iraq, then we probably win. But I think if we do that, we have to give up the claim to being the 'good guys.' Same with a pre-emptive nuclear holocaust. We could do it and maybe we'd win, but we'd have a hard time claiming the white hats.

And I don't think you believe that morality and ethics are unimportant, having been a soldier yourself. How often have you said something here to the effect of 'that was an unlawful order and they shouldn't have followed it'? It's the same thing, except pretend an immoral order is lawful. If the U.S. changed its laws to allow multiple rape of children as a pacification/anti-morale tactic, would a Christian be right in refusing to rape Iraqi children? I think the Christian would be right. (I think ANYONE would be right, but we were talking religious objections.)

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

If we're arguing whether someone can be a conscientious objector, then the morality and ethics do come into it. If we're arguing whether most wars are just, I'll readily concede that they're not. If we're arguing that being unjust makes it easier to win your war, I'll concede that in a lot of cases it's easier to win if you're not just. If we commit genocide in Iraq, then we probably win. But I think if we do that, we have to give up the claim to being the 'good guys.' Same with a pre-emptive nuclear holocaust. We could do it and maybe we'd win, but we'd have a hard time claiming the white hats.

And I don't think you believe that morality and ethics are unimportant, having been a soldier yourself. How often have you said something here to the effect of 'that was an unlawful order and they shouldn't have followed it'? It's the same thing, except pretend an immoral order is lawful. If the U.S. changed its laws to allow multiple rape of children as a pacification/anti-morale tactic, would a Christian be right in refusing to rape Iraqi children? I think the Christian would be right. (I think ANYONE would be right, but we were talking religious objections.)

my previous post covered only the topic of a surprise attack, nothing else. japan really had little choice in the matter as the usa had superiority in many ways over them. they gambled and they lost. had they gone thru the declare war prior to hostilities they'd had their azz handed to them on a silver platter.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Religious people also believe in just wars and following your conscience. Iraq is not a just war, according to religiously-developed just war theory. If he believed he'd be liberating Iraqis and instead sees Abu Ghraib and hired mercenaries, he might wonder whether a Christian could serve in an institution engaged in an unjust conflict.

How can someone claim "this war is just; that war is not just" as if it's a factual statement? It seems to me it's based on opinion and on a wider scale, culture, norms, values, etc. What we each think is "just" or "right" may differ (sometimes dramatically so) depending on who we are, where we are and what we're doing at the time.

For anyone to claim there's such a thing as only one type of "just war" is ludicrous.

Just because Jesus said love your enemy, that doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. Religous people people would have to agree that Life is the greatest gift from god (which ever one). So wouldn't He/She want you to protect it?

I think there's a difference between defending your life and shooting at a designated enemy.

In the recent Ken Burns documentary, an WW2 veteran described going into a building they had just bombed to find a German soldier injured on the floor, but sitting up. The German was speaking to the GI in German and raising his hand out to him...then he began to reach into his coat pocket. The GI instinctively struck the wounded German with the butt of his rifle, causing the arm of German to fling into the air along with some photos. The German soldier was going to show the GI pictures of his wife and family.

So... what is this example supposed to show us? The German soldier made a dumb move. If the enemy has you in his sights, the very last thing you want to do is make a move that may be interpreted as a "hostile gesture." I'd say the German soldier was lucky the GI didn't shoot him.

Educate yourself. Just war theory is a pretty well-establish legal (and moral) practice, and it has its origins in religious teachings. It's basically a list of a set of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for a war to be just. And oddly enough, it is broad enough to cover variations in culture and circumstance. The argument from personal incredulity doesn't really help you here.

Excuse me? "Educate myself? I happen to be extremely well versed in nearly all aspects of military history (both foreign and domestic), so please... don't tell me to "educate myself" when it comes to topics in this particular domain.

Now then, as far as "just war theory" goes, I have never heard of it used as a motivating principle or singular factor in which a country decides if war is necessary. I'm sure it'd be nice if war could be neat and tidy, with it all fitting into these lovely theories. However, real life doesn't work that way.

What's specified in the boardroom and before the battle can be (and often is) quite different from what occurs during the battle. Human nature, being what it is, changes the situation and armies must adapt on the fly. They cannot sit there, pondering the philosophical merits and debate whether or not their next actions may be "just" according to some group's moral and religious principles.

The bottom line? War, in of itself, is not just. I don't care who set these conditions down. The real world does not sit and wait for certain conditions to be met before acting. That is a handicap that no side can afford to give itself.

Yes, they can, and yes, they do, actually. That's why there's international law. That's why Bush and company made a big show of having 'evidence' of their 'right' to invade Iraq before the UN. (So much for 'the real world doesn't have time and I've never heard of it' argument.)

Just war theory also applies to how you conduct yourself in combat. This pretty much gives rise to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S.'s own internal laws of warfare (i.e., we don't say, 'anything goes, rape as many women as you want, soldier') and prisoner treatment. There are distinctions between wars of choice (Iraq), wars of defense, and a whole new area of this is how to deal with international terrorist organizations because right now, it's not an area that is well-worked out under the law.

It's not just an academic argument as it has informed both law and policy. And the Iraq War unfortunately doesn't meet the just war standard, in the leadup to war or the execution of war or the aftermath.

I'm surprised that a self-described military history buff doesn't think there's a difference between being the Nazis and being England.

Yes, there's a difference between how the Nazis acted and how England behaved. Of course, it should be noted that the Wehrmacht was not the same as the Nazi Party. Most German soldiers -- whether they were in the Heer, Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine -- had little-to-no political obligations. They may have liked and enjoyed the rise in power that the Nazis gave Germany (and honestly, given the treatment Germany faced at the hands of the winners after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, it's no wonder; German currency was virtually worthless!), but most were merely fighting for their home and families; not for a political ideology.

Now then... "do I think there's a difference between the Nazis and the England?" That's actually a very unfair question. You're presenting a political party (which, granted, grew to become a dominating force in Germany and much of Europe) against an entire country. Not everyone in Germany agreed with the Nazis. Many didn't have a choice, though. If they spoke out openly, they'd probably end up in the same concentration camps as other "undesirables."

I believe a better question would be "was there a difference between Germany and England" or "was there a difference between the Wehrmacht and the British Armed Forces" during that time period? Those would be on more equal footing.

Let me just say this though. Every military -- in every branch -- of every country has committed atrocities. It's inevitable. That doesn't mean it's a good thing or something that we should applaud or reward. But it happens and probably more often than we'd like or realize. When your primary job description is "kill the other poor ####### before he kills you" (to heavily paraphrase Patton) in a combat zone while under fire, you're bound to make a mistake or two somewhere along the line and unfortunately, those types of mistakes can sometimes cost people -- innocent people on both sides -- their lives.

[Fandango 1,440]

Or becoming a pharmacist and saying, you know, I don't want to hand out emergency contraception...

Was this off the cuff, or are you trying to draw a parallel where that justifies this because you see it as 'worse'?

Off the cuff - I'm too busy today to get into any great discussion. Just wondered whether those who are berating this man for being in an occupation that don't 'jive' with his religion are also similarly vocal against others in comparable positions.

In this instance, it seems that the bloke wanted to do the right thing - to his God and his profession. He didn't ask for the military to change their policy for him. He realised he would have to leave. I would suggest that others in similar instances should be reasonably expected to do the same (if no other position at your job is viable) - whether it be quitting the pharmacy because you believe E.C is akin to abortion, or quitting your local supermarket because you Muslim views forbid you to handle pork products.

A pharmacist has no relevance here.

But if we're drawing parallels, the pharmacy didn't pay for the pharmacist to get his credentials....

I agree if you can't do the job, you shouldn't do the job....but in this instance, there's the question of the oath he took...it shouldn't be so easy as screaming 'uncle' then you get an hon discharge after OUR tax dollars have funded your education & total upkeep. No sir, different kettle of fish altogether.

He should be made to fully reimburse the gov't WITH INTEREST. End of.

[Ban Hammer 14,573]

He should be made to fully reimburse the gov't WITH INTEREST. End of.

that is usually the case, although rarely publicized. the individual has a contract with the government and bet on the government getting their money back outta him.

eta: i don't think they charge the interest though.

Edited October 18, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Fandango 1,440]

He should be made to fully reimburse the gov't WITH INTEREST. End of.

that is usually the case, although rarely publicized. the individual has a contract with the government and bet on the government getting their money back outta him.

eta: i don't think they charge the interest though.

Well damn, that's a pretty sweet deal then!