Ed Showing disrespect for her own son?

[Sabrina]

Being "lawful" is not the same as being "proper."

Consider the following case; the Drkitten Armaments Firm outright bribes a number of MPs to declare war on Ruritania. The resulting war would be "lawful" in the sense that soldiers would be compelled to obey deployment orders.

Should the MPs be subject to charges for accepting these bribes?

Yes, because they would no longer be soldiers; they would be mercenary deserters.

Bribing a number of soldiers to "go to war" on a country makes them mercenaries; the only thing "compelling" them to obey deployment orders would be the big fat paycheck you are presumably paying them, which makes them mercenaries at best, deserters at worst. Soldiers, on the other hand, are only required to obey the lawful orders of those superior in rank to them within their normal chain of command, which includes the President, as he is the Commander in Chief of the military. Lawful orders are defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice; if a person superior in rank to you orders you to perform an action that violates one of those articles, or even violates a federal or state law for that matter, then you may legally refuse to obey said order. Since we can presume, in your scenario, that the "Drkitten Armaments Firm" is not a part of the Department of Defense and is therefore not in a soldier's LAWFUL chain of command, then if any soldiers WERE to accept your pay to "go to war" on Ruritania, they would no longer be considered part of the United States Military, because they were not ordered to war by a lawfully elected or appointed member of their chain of command. I'm not certain, but I would imagine it is the same way in Britain, or at least reasonably close.

I am also confused by your initial statement, that being "lawful" is not the same as "proper". What does being "proper" have to do with the situation? Soldiers, when they enter the military, swear an oath to obey the lawful orders of their superiors; the oath says nothing about "proper" orders. If you are arguing the validity of the reasons we went into Iraq, please say so; but Alareth is in fact correct in saying that the war is a lawful one; as in, Congress declared war with the (then) majority support of the population. The fact that the reasons have now been found to perhaps not be as valid as it was thought they were then has little to do with the lawfulness of the war, at least as I understand it. And again, while I am not certain of the laws in Britain, I would imagine they have similar criteria for sending their soldiers into battle.


Now, as to the OP; this soldier's mother who is referred to in the article IS, in my opinion, disregarding her son's legal choice to join the military and is disparaging his service. I would be loath to say she's "pissing on his grave", but she is showing how little she supports her son. I am sorry for her loss; the same way I am sorry for Cindy Sheehan's loss, but these men CHOSE, with full knowledge that they might be sent into battle, to join their respective militaries. The same way I chose to do so as well, and I would quite happily lay down my life if I felt it was the right thing to do to maintain the freedoms of this country. I don't want to die, mind you, but if it comes down to me or the freedoms and beliefs of millions of citizens, I'd like to think I'd choose the hard right over the easy wrong. We can argue the validity of the war all day and all night, but the fact remains that anyone who joins the military, in whatever country, does so with the full knowledge that there may be a time when they will have to put their life on the line for their countrymen and women. To then turn around and say they died for "nothing" or whatever basically says that the person saying such a thing doesn't believe the person who died did so for a good reason. But they did; ultimately they fulfilled their oath, the one that says "I will die for my country if need be" or words to such effect. They were willing to swear to such a thing; who the hell are we to say that it's a BS reason to die? For some people, that oath actually means something, you know. I would hope that my family, were I ever to die in combat, would honor my service, because they should know I went into the military with the full knowledge that I might be asked to put my life on the line for their freedoms and ideals, and that I would be proud to do so. THAT, my friends, is why we should honor anyone who is willing to put their life on the line for others, be it military, firemen, policemen, first responders, or even just some random Joe on the street who runs into a burning building to save another person.

My two cents.

 

[Brainster]

Personally, I think she pissed her pants.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, because they would no longer be soldiers; they would be mercenary deserters.

I believe you misread the scenario.

He isn't bribing soldiers to attack a country outside of orders.

He is bribing politicians to declare a war.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Delighted.

Right, except that doesn't say anything about Tony Blair, sanctions or war crimes, so shall we try again with a little less fail?

Here's a clue. I was stating that it does not matter if the war is just or not that it is STILL an overreaction when soldiers die to start calling it a shocking tragedy.

I wasn't stating that Tony and George can ride off into the sunset free of any guilt, but that guess what? Soldiers die in wars, and complaining about it is monumentally stupid.

 

[MikeSun5]

In what sense did her son "die for his country"?

In the sense that he chose to fight for it.

Nobody MADE the boy join the military. He wasn't a conscript.

 

[Mason]

Servicemembers take the job with the understanding that their superiors might send them to war. Thet's the deal. You get full medical care for any injury or condition that is revealed during your contract. You get full dental coverage, you get a paycheck, a housing allowance and extra money for being married or having dependants, you get free college up to a point. After you get out, you get a sweet check every month that you attend college, not for a specific purpose, just for cash in your pocket. If you do the reserves/national guard, you get a college tuition waiver and that sweet check every month you attend college.

You get all these benefits and more, under the condition that if the government enters into a war, you have to attend.

So, where's the ****ing outcry when your little darling is reaping the benefits of war? You get to brag about how your baby is a soldier, how he's doing something with his life, how he's not a deadbeat like those naughty boys down the street who deal drugs or rob houses for cash. Your child is earning a living, has a nice car with insurance and is fully paid off. He has a college investment waiting for him when he gets out after 4 years, he's learning a trade that he can use to earn even more cash on the side to put towards his education, or even the downpayment on his house.

Now he's off to war, he's going to be a hero fighting for freedom, you, and apple pie. He's doing well, and the future looks great for Momma's little hero.

Where's the ****ing outcry? Why didn't these mothers have anything to say when the previous 3000 soldiers died? Wasn't it worth the risk when she was proudly bragging about her little hero to the bridge club every wednesday? Why didn't she talk her baby out of joining when he came home with that gleam in his eye and a recruiting pamphlet in his hand? Was it okay back then, when the government was shoveling out the cash and benefits to her precious little angel, while he casually awaited his turn in the sandbox?

Blame yourself for not trying hard enough to change your child's mind about joining because it wasn't that important to you back then to keep him out of the war. Blame your baby for making the decision, because it was more important to him to go to war than take your advise and hang up on the recruiter. Blame the rest of the family for creating and encouraging an environment that would one day lead to that decision. Blame his 3rd grade math teacher for ruining his lust for numbers so he'd never get that scholarship he so obviously deserves.

But don't blame the guy that said "Here's a job. You might die in a war that you don't agree with, but the paycheck is steady and you'll eat regularly" after said employer has already fulfilled his end of the contract while you stood by and enjoyed showing everybody his basic training graduation photo and proudly said "That's my baby! He's a soldier!" and everybody treated you a little differently because of the hardships you endure. It was fine when you got the sympathy and attention of everyone around you while you milked sweetheart's career for your own pride and ego.

Mourn him with the people who mattered to him. Remember him for what he believed he was doing. Seek therapy for those times when you just can't cope any more. But for ****'s sake, stop walking all over his memory just to get more attention for yourself.

/rant

 

[Travis]

Dear parent/guardian, please check mark which types of military actions your son/daughter may participate in:

__Commando raids
__Humanitarian missions or disaster relief
__Commerce security
__Peacekeeping missions under UN supervision
__Care Bears genocide and Cabbage Patch Dolls extermination campaigns
__Peacekeeping missions under NATO supervision
__Peacekeeping missions under national supervision
__Deposing murderous tyrants with WMD's
__Deposing murderous tyrants with no WMD's
__Defense of the nation from outside invasion by other nations
__Kahn!!!!!!!
__Defense of the nation from outside non-national attacks
__Hippy suppression​

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Having served in the AF from 2000 through 2006, here's my take on the whole thing:

Those who joined up prior to and in the initial few years after 9/11 signed up to fight for/defend what was believed to be a patriotic duty - to defend their country. In the more recent years, it has come to light that the intelligence behind Bush's push to invade Iraq was quite faulty.

The enlistments of those who joined before that was, relatively, common knowledge honestly believed they were defending their country - and in this, they should be, at a minimum, cut quite a bit of slack if not commended.

However, those who have enlisted in the past 2-3 years have no right to claim they are defending their country by serving in Iraq.

When my enlistment ended, I opted not to reup for many reasons - the revelation of the faulty intelligence concerning the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq played no small part in that decision.


I would like to note that many soldiers have reupped in the previous years because they feel the need to fight alongside their friends, not to defend their country - but that is really a different discussion.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Dear parent/guardian, please check mark which types of military actions your son/daughter may participate in:

__Kahn!!!!!!!
​

Who wouldn't let their son/daughter do this?

 

[Dragoonster]

Wow. Well I don't know this mother personally, but unless you're privy to facts I'm ignorant of some of you certainly seem to be strawmanning the hell out of her. You're assuming she didn't disagree with the war from the outset, or protest against it, or try like hell to dissaude her son from joining the army, etc. You even assume she's "shocked" at her son's death. You seem to be reading quite a lot into her motivations and personal feelings from all that was quoted from her in the article, which was merely: "I lost my son and he was only 18, and I blame Tony Blair." The kid's uncle had the vast majority of comments in that link--if you're going to judge who can blame people and when, at least judge the correct person. Unless "I blame Tony Blair" is enough for this outrage at her.

And some seem to be absolving all blame from war leaders because being a soldier is like a job and the soldier should know he may be called into combat. Problem is the employer can seriously screw up. If a coal miner dies as a result of a legal but stupid decision by the mining company, a parent has the right to blame the company. At least I hope you'd agree with that, and not call her stupid because parents of coal miners should realize a lot of coal miners die, and that coal miners willingly signed up.

And the legal/illegal red herring. There are NO checks beyond treaties for who we (US at least) goes to war with. As long as Congress declares, or currently the President does, we can go to war legally with anyone. We don't need any affirmation or polls from the electorate or obviously the soldiers. Could declare war on Canada tomorrow and it would be legal and dandy, aside from treaties. It would obviously be an extremely stupid decision, and any soldier who died in the war would've died because their leaders made an extremely stupid declaration of war. Any parent of a soldier who died would be absolutely right in criticizing the declarer of the useless war their kid died in.

Soldiers aren't automatically heroes. Soldiers routinely die in wars. Nothing in the article indicates that the mother (or uncle) believes either of this to be untrue, despite the strawmanning of her position. From what I can tell her point is that the war was unnecessary, and she blames Tony Blair for using shady motivations as a reason for going to war. There's nothing wrong with this kind of criticism, and keep in mind it may be absolutely correct.

Finally, some seem to be confusing media profiles with level of respect we should give to grieving parents. Why is this woman given airtime to voice her charge and not the mother of a kid who died in any other profession? Why is it unlikely that we'd have heard of her even if she'd been saying the same things but her son hadn't yet died? It wouldn't be a media draw. It's not her fault the war is widely seen as a mistake and her position dovetails with that, it's not her fault that parents of dead soldiers are given inordinate amount of media time. She's stating her feelings and that's it, unless I missed something she's never implied that she has more of a right to be angry at causes of her kid's death than any other parent of any other dead kid who died from any other bad (or good) decision.

 

[Squid]

Just wanted to throw this out there...

Didn't Saddam shoot down an American fighter jet that was patrolling the No Fly zone over northern Iraq before the Gulf War? And isn't shooting down a jet acting under the United Nations' orders an act of war?

If both of these questions are true, we didn't need any justification at all to go to war with Saddam... we already had it.

Regardless of whether anyone feels the war was justified, we have become sensitized to the cost of war. Most Americans seem to feel that any death in war is too high a cost... but it's war, and people die. We're not throwing flowers at each other.

Yes, we should try to minimize casualities as best we can, and we should only resort to war as a last resort... but we should always remember that there is a price to be paid, and if we go to war, we should be willing to pay it.

Squid

 

[soylent]

While some may argue against the ethics and reasons for the war in Iraq, it is lawful.

Lawful being defined by the very perpetrators and other interests vested in not rocking the boat.

It's a pitty no one assasinates the really bad presidents and prime ministers.

Regardless of whether anyone feels the war was justified, we have become sensitized to the cost of war.

What do you mean regardless of whether people feel the war is justified? The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are both tragedies of a far greater magnitude than the 9/11 attacks; in a just world the people who initiated them should face a firing squad. The 9/11 attacks cost millions and caused billions in damages and a few thousand dead; that's a lever of 1000 to 1. The so-called response to 9/11 cost trillions(much of it in unfunded liabilities to injured vets that may or may not be fulfilled eventually) and countless Iraqi and Afghani lives; these cretins delivered a 1 million to 1 lever right into the hands of Osama with which he could move the world.

 

[LashL]

It's a pitty no one assasinates the really bad presidents and prime ministers.

Who are these presidents and prime ministers that you wish to see assassinated?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Just wanted to throw this out there...

Didn't Saddam shoot down an American fighter jet that was patrolling the No Fly zone over northern Iraq before the Gulf War? And isn't shooting down a jet acting under the United Nations' orders an act of war?

Nope

Wiki says:

In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq.

If both of these questions are true, we didn't need any justification at all to go to war with Saddam... we already had it.

Regardless of whether anyone feels the war was justified, we have become sensitized to the cost of war. Most Americans seem to feel that any death in war is too high a cost... but it's war, and people die. We're not throwing flowers at each other.

Yes, we should try to minimize casualities as best we can, and we should only resort to war as a last resort... but we should always remember that there is a price to be paid, and if we go to war, we should be willing to pay it.

Squid

I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be no deaths in war. What's being argued is that if we're going to suffer the deaths caused by war, then that war should be fought for a worthwhile and above reproach reason.

That is the exact point behind my previous post in this thread. When I enlisted, it was prior to the terror attacks and I thus served following 9/11. Many people enlisted immediately following 9/11 to defend their country, not a bad reason to join by any means because we, as a nation, were led to believe Iraq was involved in the attacks.

However, at the point where the intelligence Bush II acted on was found to be contrived/faulty, the game changed. No longer is the Iraq war a matter of defending our country, it was/is a (nearly) unilateral power move by Bush II. As such, anyone joining the military at this point in time does so knowing that he/she will very likely be called on to fight in a war that was started for the personal gain of a relatively few people (whether that gain be ego, monetary, other, or all of the above).

 

[MikeSun5]

Wow. Well I don't know this mother personally, but unless you're privy to facts I'm ignorant of some of you certainly seem to be strawmanning the hell out of her.

Not so much. Her son volunteered for military service and succumbed to one of the risks of that profession. Now she's mad and wants someone to pay.

Her emotion = okay. Her grief = okay. Her reaction = irrational.

And some seem to be absolving all blame from war leaders because being a soldier is like a job and the soldier should know he may be called into combat. Problem is the employer can seriously screw up. If a coal miner dies as a result of a legal but stupid decision by the mining company, a parent has the right to blame the company. At least I hope you'd agree with that, and not call her stupid because parents of coal miners should realize a lot of coal miners die, and that coal miners willingly signed up.

Not absolving all blame. It is true, employers screw up. It's also true that a parent could blame a company for a death that results from a "legal but stupid decision." Unfortunately for that parent, and the mom of the soldier, the fact that the word "legal" was included is enough to make her (and the uncle's) reaction and comments, well... stupid. Grieve for your child - fine. Grieve for a fallen soldier who was defending his friends - fine. But to attempt to prosecute Tony Blair for lying to parliament because your son viewed death as an acceptable job risk?

Soldiers aren't automatically heroes.

Says you.

She's stating her feelings and that's it, unless I missed something she's never implied that she has more of a right to be angry at causes of her kid's death than any other parent of any other dead kid who died from any other bad (or good) decision.

Feelings? The fact that she was only quoted in one sentence doesn't mean that the people who admittedly spoke on her behalf weren't echoing her "feelings." Quotes from the family:

"Mr Blair should be taken to task by the UK judicial system for lying in parliament."

"The protection of the oil fields could have been done by the UN and this could have saved 179 British personnel, numerous United States personnel and countless Iraqi civilians"

So the family is totally cool with 179 United Nations soldiers dying, but just not one of their relatives. Got it.

It's a pitty no one assasinates the really bad presidents and prime ministers....
...The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan are both tragedies of a far greater magnitude than the 9/11 attacks; in a just world the people who initiated them should face a firing squad...

WTF? Who's firing squad? Yours? Who decides which presidents and prime ministers are bad? You? And how, pray tell, do you go about measuring the magnitude of a tragedy?

these cretins delivered a 1 million to 1 lever right into the hands of Osama with which he could move the world.

Then why hasn't he? Is he waiting for 2012? Take that CT nonsense elsewhere.

 

[MikeSun5]

We're not throwing flowers at each other.

I am.

 

[Sabrina]

I believe you misread the scenario.

He isn't bribing soldiers to attack a country outside of orders.

He is bribing politicians to declare a war.

No, he said he would bribe MPs. MPs are Military Police. If he had meant politicians, he should have said so.

 

[Travis]

I don't think anyone's arguing that there should be no deaths in war. What's being argued is that if we're going to suffer the deaths caused by war, then that war should be fought for a worthwhile and above reproach reason.

That is the exact point behind my previous post in this thread. When I enlisted, it was prior to the terror attacks and I thus served following 9/11. Many people enlisted immediately following 9/11 to defend their country, not a bad reason to join by any means because we, as a nation, were led to believe Iraq was involved in the attacks.

However, at the point where the intelligence Bush II acted on was found to be contrived/faulty, the game changed. No longer is the Iraq war a matter of defending our country, it was/is a (nearly) unilateral power move by Bush II. As such, anyone joining the military at this point in time does so knowing that he/she will very likely be called on to fight in a war that was started for the personal gain of a relatively few people (whether that gain be ego, monetary, other, or all of the above).

So defeating and removing murderous tyrants is one of the things you don't think soldiers should be doing. Fine. Some of us are glad that it was done, however.....and do you really think it was just about someone's personal gain?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, he said he would bribe MPs. MPs are Military Police. If he had meant politicians, he should have said so.

Umm, isn't JJ British?

MP's are Members of Parliament.

Politicians.

 

[oldhat]

So defeating and removing murderous tyrants is one of the things you don't think soldiers should be doing. Fine. Some of us are glad that it was done, however.....and do you really think it was just about someone's personal gain?