27 Israeli pilots to refuse missions in West Bank, Gaza

The signatories of the letter, circulated first in the press, and then handed over to Halutz, said that they refused to "continue to harm innocent civilians," and other "immoral and illegal," operations that are part and parcel of the occupation

Also very encouraging

the chagrin of the IAF the hemorrhaging continued. Sources close to the refusing pilots reported that since the Wednesday announcement as many as seven additional pilots signed the letter, one of them a colonel.


Good to see these principled airmen acknowlege what has been pretty obvious to many.

One can hope that our pilots in the USAF will eventually get to this point in their moral development.

As Khan said, I thought Germany and Nurenberg fianlized the principle that you just can't be "a good soldier" and "follow orders" when these acts are ordered.

 

Their refusal to fight the enemies of Israel is not bravery, it is cowardice. I guess it doesn't bother them that attacks on innocent women and children come from the "Palestinian" towns.

The whole point of military discipline is to make sure that good order is maintained, for when you tell someone they need to do something, it gets done. If any of our USAF pilots are that stupid, they need a date with a court martial and a Big Chicken Dinner, which would destroy their ability to ever get a job except flipping burgers in the civilian world.

 

Macbeth, if it is true you don't post much in Israeli Palestinian theads, I must warn you of certain ground rules if you intend to post from other than the Israelis are always right point of view..

Don't let some of the folks initmidate you into not posting. I wouldn't be too concerned for posters who always self proclaim themselves unbiased and moderate and claim to lose respect for you. Don't be surprised if you are accused of anti-semticism, or "antI-Israel" which they at times substitute at the drop of the hat.

 

duplicate deleted...

 

Wow, dude -- you just blew my little mind.

Excellent point.

 

Talk about a moral superiority complex. Its damn slanderous ( assuming your opinion about Israeli policies toward the 'occupied territories' are correct - by no means a fact) to equate USAF policy with Israeli policy. Its more than stepping over the line to equate a US soldier with a Nazi, particularly considering the rhetoric insinuates US policy is somehow comparable to the execution of the holocaust. I find these statements completely repugnant.

 

How about ground rule 1: don't speak out of pure ignorance.

 

Hayes, I know that you feel strongly that little Iraq and numerous other small countries are a mortal danger to the huge US, just like the Russians of your youth. You feel that this danger justifies a huge amount of premptive killing on our part.

Perhaps you are even like Bama and believe that the military code of honor is the pinnacle of human moral codes. Maybe you feel like Mao that "all pwer grows out of the barrel of a gun" and there is no such thing as morality in international relations, just military power. I don't know, but you are advocating moral positions, too.

The principles established at Nurenberg are a legal concept that is not only applicable to Nazi Germany. Perhaps you fail to understand this and that is why you say I am equating the USAF with the Nazis.

Nurenberg established that it is not ok to just follow orders. The right to conscientious objector's status is well established. It is also well estblished that you have a duty to disobey what you consider illegal orders.

You certainly must be aware that most of the world's religious authorities and international law experts viewed the war you so enthusiastically backed against Iraq as wrong and illegal.

I guess I could accuse you of having a moral superiority complex in taking the position that it was morally right and legal.

 

Take out the ( possibly understandable) personal shot angles to this post, and this is among the better response posts to sweeping rhetorical accusations that I have ever read in here, glynch.

 

Thanks, Macbeth. I must say that I wish I could write as well as you do.

 

'wrong'

Still amusing to me that the far-left spoke out so vehemently against the overthrow of a ruthless dictator (when did the far-left elevate all national sovereignty concerns over basic human rights? ).

It probably isn't 'wrong' for a people that will no longer be subjected to the whims of a ruthless leader...for a people that will now have freedom and democracy.

 

I can address your incorrect assumptions if you really want me to, but how is this relevant to THIS discussion?

Interesting that you would attempt to slander me as well and compare me to Mao. It goes to the weakness of your analysis, in my book. I could easily have pointed out that your bias is self serving since you dodged the draft and military service yourself, and that it more than likely boosts your own self image when you see others taking similar action. If it weren't so offensive it might be amusing that you protest that some call you and those of like opinion 'anti-semetic' illogically and then you turn around and compare the US military to the Nazis.

NureMberg. I am familiar with it, thank you. Are you denying you are equating the USAF with Nazis? Let's take a look. You imply the Israelis that are NOT protesting a 'just following orders' and acting immorally, correct? You equate their actions with Nazi action, correct? Otherwise what is the point of using the Nuremberg reference? Certainly FD Khan and GreenVegan took it that way, so its not just me (look at their posts and see what inference they took from your statements). Then you say 'one can only hope the USAF can reach this point in their moral development.' What does that mean? Its pretty clear it means they currently act as the majority of the Israeli armed forces that you find analogous with Nazis who committed atrocities like the holocaust under the guise of 'just following orders.' THAT sort of comparison is so far off base as to demand a reply, which I've given. In addition, I find it contemptable that you would make the analogy, and then act as if you hadn't when it becomes untenable. If you're going to allude to it then at least defend it so people can understand how far to one side your bias goes.

I am aware that intervention to stop a genocidal regime is well within the bounds of international law, although it is a recent development. Removing a totalitarian regime is without a doubt a moral action (in my opinion), and I have no problem defending that position. However, even IF you were correct, there is NO comparison between the atrocities committed by the Nazis and the US intervention in Iraq. Not is scope or principle.

Feel free. If I were you I'd keep trying to get MacBeth involved. You don't do too well on your own.

 

HayesStreet,

Always enjoyable reading your posts.

Your logic may be lost on some, but don't let that stop you...

 

Well, lets test that theory. Below I've taken out the personal shots, and this is what we're left with...

Not sure how this supports the equivalency of Nazis and the USAF. There is no indication anyone in the USAF has followed 'illegal' orders, any more than it was illegal to try and stop Serbian genocide against Bosnians. There is no indication the USAF has engaged in genocide, nor that they have purposely targeted civilians on orders from superiors (or otherwise). Contrary to your belief, Iraqis have by a large majority endorsed the removal of Saddam Hussein, which I find MOST INCOMPARABLE to the Nazi extermination of the Jews and others.

And thanks, Cohen.

 

Hayes, you always seem to come out that your wars are just.

Can you give me an example of a war in this century where the US was unnecessarily involved?

This is because you always do a dishonest analysis at the stage of "harm to be prevented is greater than the harm created by the war. " You always posit that the harm to be prevented is the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot's genocide or other infamous genocides involving hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths. Thus you can always come out with the conclusion your war is just.

It is good to see that you admit to making moral judgements yourself.

I do believe that it would be good if USAF pilots would refuse to bomb civilians or targets where huge number of civilian casualties would result --like these brave Israelis. . If you think this is so beyond the pale. So be it.

 

The only unjust, ridiculous wars I can think of where the U.S. had no business being in were:
Vietnam- Domino theory was a pile of horse dung and what interests of ours would've been threatened if the Vietnamese went communist? None. We can't save everybody and to try to was naivete at its finest

the Balkans- What a waste of resources. We lost several aircraft (including a F-117 attack aircraft, the infamous Stealth "fighter") and expended millions of dollars of expensive PGM's to rearrange some dirt and blow up some plywood decoys. Why were we there? Who cares if those groups hate each other and fight? We had no prevailing national interest there (just like Vietnam) and will be there forever, unless we want the fighting to resume, which it would if we left.

Somalia- I don't want to go into detail, but what a waste. All of those poor Rangers died for a two-bit Third World hellhole that meant nothing to our security or national interests. People dying in some Third World sh*thole are not worth American dead when we have no interest in the country.

Haiti- That country is still a wreck after our useless, bloodless "invasion." Our forces hung around there and did absolutely nothing of good. Now that we've left, Haiti is the same way it was, messed up.

And Glynch, obviously you haven't served in the armed forces, because you swear an oath to obey the orders of those appointed above you. You don't have the luxury to pick and choose, you just do what you're told. If you knew anything about the U.S. military, we go to outrageous lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Same thing with the Israelis, otherwise they'd simply level the entire town to kill one guy. Why'd they expend all of those expensive (and rare) PGM's if they wanted purposely kill civilians? There's nothing brave about betraying the nation you swore to protect and that's exactly what those Israeli traitors are doing.

 

Ironic that you would accuse me of continuous bias. I've not seen you take any positive stance toward a US intervention. I would not have posted at all about any of this if you hadn't taken the discussion to the new depth of equating the morality of the USAF with the morality of the NAZIS.

Well, I often will argue that I understand WHY a particular intervention took place, although I also am willing to admit that the assumptions at the time later turned out to be wrong. Vietnam is probably the best example of this. US policy makers didnt really seem to understand the difference between the Soviets and the Chinese, and the Chinese and the Vietnamese. There can be no doubt that the Soviets were bent on spreading their totalitarian brand of communism around the globe. The Chinese were less so, and there existed a conflict between the Vietnamese and Chinese that we were seemingly unaware of. On its face it looked like it was in fact an example of the domino theory, when it really wasn't.

I take offense at you calling me dishonest. I am nothing if not straightforward, and you'd be hard pressed to find an example of me contradicting myself or a statement of my position. I do often look at the big picture. It is a necessity when considering which policies to pursue or endorse, imo. Was it better to intervene in Bosnia without the UN or to let the slaughter continue? I think the former and you the latter.

You would claim that their action in Iraq is immoral, and hence they are immoral. You would equate them with Nazis. I do believe that it is this sentiment that led many of your generation to spit on Vietnam vets and call them 'baby killers.' I do not agree with that assessment. In fact I protest this sentiment vehemently.

 

The entire principle of Nuremberg was to distinguish between 'legal' and 'morally right', so I'm not sure what 'legal orders' have to do with anything.

My take on glynch's response was that there are degrees of comparison between any two factors, and that it is not necessary to make a case for equivalency in order to apply the lessons learned by one issue to another.

In this case the position glynch was defending was that the issue first learned/propogated because of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis is that individuals are held to a higher standard in light of increasingly globalized moral standards. As such the previous automatic out that " I was following orders" is no longer a viable defense if in so doing you are acting contrary to percieved morality. It is only fair, in that event, to allow individuals the right to opt out of following orders they deem immoral. It may not be the optimum situation practically, but if we A) hold those who follw orders responsible for the relative morailty of those orders, and B) condem soldiers who do not follow orders because it breaks the sytem, we are putting those soldiers in an impossible situation.

The fact that we held Nazi soldiers to this standard...being, as it was, contrary to every lesson soldiers had ever been told in the past...in the past without the benefit of the precedent Nuremberg established would seem to suggest that those following will be at least held to the same.


And no soldier follwing orders allowed or perpetuated genocide, especially in the beginning. It was a series of soldiers following smaller, 'legal' orders about redistributing Jews, carrying out the sentences of judges against ( it was presumed) convicted enemies of the state, etc. which gradually allowed the Holocaust. As such, a soldier confronted with an order he feels is immoral is not bound to ask himself whether or not this order is part of a series of immoral orders being issued to soldiers all across his nation's area of influence. Indeed, for the most part he would be remiss to do so, even were it possible. Each 'immoral order' should and must be dealt with on an individual basis. Surely someone who advocates pragmatism as often as you do can see this much.

So, if this is the case, whether or not we are practicing genocide is irrelevent to the discussion that Nuremberg taught us that following immoral orders is no defense, and that as such soldiers need to be given the realistic opportunity to make that distinction.

I find it funny that many in here who are the most broad and full of moral outrage about atrocities such as acted out bu the Nazis, USSR, Saddam Hussein, etc. are also the quickest to call soldiers, be they foreign troops, as in this case, or our troops in Iraq,who speak out against what they believe to be immoral actions 'traitors', 'repugnant', etc. I am not necessarily speaking to you about this, Hayes, but all you need do is take a look at some of the responses in here to the many statements against the war from soldiers to see what I'm saying.

We are firm in our condemnation of the outcome of tyranny in here, but many advocate the same kind of measures ( opposition=treason, etc.) which allowed them.


I don't get your point about popular support in Iraq ( which is a qualified statement, in that the latest poll shows that while 2/3rds of Iraqis believe that they eventually will be better off without Saddam Hussein, 85% say that right now they are much worse off than when he was in power,but I'll concede it for the point of argument) as it relates to the Holocaust...Hitler had more support within Germany than we have in Iraq no matter what poll you listen to. Maybe I missed what you were saying here.

 

Bama, I must admit that you surprised me by finding some of the above wars not real necessary.

You are right. I refused to serve in Vietnam and I'm proud that I didn't since I thought it was wrong. I applied for conscientious objector's status, but never really got beyond my first appeal as the draft ended, a few days before what I thought was my final hearing. I've never been in the US military and am now I assume, too old.

One always has the duty to disobey illegal orders. Is that not correct? You better be correct in your analysis or you will wind up in prison. Perhaps even if you are "right". As always with civil disobedience you have to pay the price if you break the law.

Last night I watched a Vietnam movie with Sean Penn, Casualties of War" In the movie Michael J. Fox's character refused the Penns' character order to rape a Vietnamese woman. Others in the patrol follow orders, in at least case very reluctantly. When Fox insists despite threats from up and down the chain of command in bringing charges, all of the rest go to prison.

The Israelis, I believe, have a concept of "black flag" or somesuch that requries them to not follow illegal orders that violate human rights or some standard.

 

Hayes, don't you see the harm that results when you say well we had some misperceptions, sorry that several million Vietnamese died? When you add Cambodia which was destabilized in the Vietnam War, with it "Killing Fields" the whole thing actually probably killed as many or more than were killed in the Holocaust.

You advocate premeptive wars yet downplay the role of misperceptions or cooked or faulty intelligence such as we just saw with Iraq. Millions can die due to misperceptions like you cited with respect to Vietnam. There is a reason why traditional moral anaysis does not condone preemptive wars.

In Iraq we had some misperceptions about wmd, I know, sorry tens of thousands of Iraqis have died to this point, with hundreds more per week, assuming it doesn't escalate.. Note Iraqi soldiers are included in this figure. I am aware that you say you don't really care about the whole wmd thing as you feel we were preventing another world class genocide and Sadam was an evil dictator.. However, wmd were the reason there was the support there was for that war.

I really didn't call you dishonest. I said your just war analysis was dishonest when you always assume ,as many neocons do that they are always fighting Stalin, Mao or Hitler when it is really just poor little Iraq or Panama or whomever.