FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/should-u-s-military-muslims-be-forced-to-fight-other-muslims/

Whaddaya think?

It is a volunteer military.

I think all the comments to the blog say it: It's now a volunteer military, inductees take the oath to serve the US, the Constitution, and to protect it from ALL enemies. One may be called on to fight others of the same faith, and have done so in the past wars and conflicts (be they Catholic, Protestant, Moslem, whatever).

Can't face that possibility? Don't enlist.

Some of the online replies reflect things I would say about this myself. Yes, the US military is voluntary, I even voluntarily enlisted myself in 1969, when most entrants were being drafted most unwillingly. But once you take the oath, you surrender your choice during the term of your duty. That is what you are agreeing to do, not just to put on a uniform and march around all snappy like and get paid for it.

If that were not the case, and not enforced, then the military would collapse into chaos. Soldiers don't get to pick which orders or policies they'll obey. The only exception to that, taken at great personal risk, is to disobey an order that is clearly illegal. Illegal as defined by the laws of the US, not of Islam.

If you don't like those terms, then you don't join in the first place. If Muslims don't want to fight other Muslims, don't join the US military. If Christians don't want to fight other Christians at any point, then don't join the US military.

Interesting, however, that this prohibition against killing other Muslims doesn't apply to terrorists, and insurgents, and jihadists, and countless categories of Muslims who do it every day. I guess it's only when you wear a US uniform that it becomes a big deal. But then there's frequently little logic in evidence when dealing with those who appeal to their religious beliefs to explain their extreme actions.

In short yes, and this is why I think it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are anti war, as they may kill another brother on the other side in combat.

Yes.
And males shouldn't be forced to fight other males, only women.

One of my best friends I served with is Muslim. He saw it as fighting against men who distort the faith to justify the evil actions they do. He didn't see them as true Muslims.. As these evil men also kill other Muslims, and keep them in fear.

The only Muslims that would have a problem, would be the ones who share the same evil beliefs as the ones we are fighting.

He constantly speaks out against Islamic fascist, as does the rest of his family. Nobody twisted his arm to join the military either.

When you join the military, you agree to subsume your own ethics and morality to the ones of this military. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't join.

Should christian soldiers fight against other christian soldiers?

Gay men, against other gay men?

Yes to all the above

Historically Muslims haven't been shy about fighting each other, e.g., the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s with 800,000 casualties.

Yes!

Better yet, if you have a green card or you are picked up as an illegal, you automatically get to serve in the army.

I'm afraid that most 'Americans' are going to have trouble NOT having your stated qualifications...LOL!

If you're in the military, your duty is to serve. The men & women in the uniform don't choose the enemy or the battle, but it's their duty to follow orders.

I know quite a few muslim soldiers, mostly from african decent, and they have a view of it being them fighting against those who distort their faith.

Even if they did have an issue with it, I don't pity them. We all took an oath to defend the US from enemies both foreign and domestic. If they couldn't handle it, then they shouldn't have enlisted.

It sounds cold, but thats simply the nature of it. If we went to war with africa, I couldn't cry and say its not fair I have to shoot other black people.

lugubrious said

BiGymGuy saidBetter yet, if you have a green card or you are picked up as an illegal, you automatically get to serve in the army.

That's the problem with our military today: recruiting the worst possible people just to "make numbers" when efforts should be focused on getting the best people possible.

"You have three felonies, didn't graduate high school, and currently owe $32,452 to creditors...hmm, we'll get you a waiver for the felonies and perhaps we'll just pretend you graduated high school!"

That was pretty close to my situation. I had two felonies on my name. I had only completed the 10th grade and got my G.E.D. while in jail. A situation with a roommate left me in debt. And you know what? I do my job good, because I wasn't forced to do it. I chose to do it. I had to fight in order to even enlist because my waiver process extended my joining by 6 months. I was told that the guy in charge was known for having a "high moral standard" and had been purposely casting cases like mine aside, because he felt we didn't deserve to be in the army. I had to do my research and eventually had to go over his head to his chain of command and complain about it.

And I think back even on my days in basic training when I met the people I would be training with. No prior records, clean spotless history, but they were all trash. Despite their associate degrees, they were rude, careless and had no respect for themselves or their cadre. They would sneak and fuck during lights out setting off the alarms and getting us smoked all night. And they didn't care. And I remember being dissapointed because I was treated like shit during my joining process, and these supposed best of the best were the kind of people that were going to eventually get someone killed.

I agree that the army needs to choose more wisely, but don't be so quick to assume that such general ways of categorizing people i.e. felon, is an efficient way of segregating the willing and capable, from the reckless and careless.

I think all wars should be settled by turkish oil wrestling matches!

Would that be domestic oil washing up on the beaches of Florida, Texas, and Alaska or Middle Eastern crude!

lugubrious said

BiGymGuy saidI'm afraid that most 'Americans' are going to have trouble NOT having your stated qualifications...LOL!

Shut your old ass up, homewrecker.

...chuckle.

BiGymGuy saidWould that be domestic oil washing up on the beaches of Florida, Texas, and Alaska or Middle Eastern crude!

Baby oil of course.. from freshly squeezed fetus's

I'm not a proponent of any sort of eye for an eye crap, but...as long as we have a system for this...

It's moderates fighting violent extremists. Specific religion should be irrelevant.

Would a moderate christian prison official conduct the lethal injection of a radical abortion bomber? I think so.

Lapinblanc said

BiGymGuy saidWould that be domestic oil washing up on the beaches of Florida, Texas, and Alaska or Middle Eastern crude!

Baby oil of course.. from freshly squeezed fetus's

Oh, the Republicans would love to sink their teeth into THAT one...and they probably do led by Tom Delay.

First of all, the question seems to imply that it is okay for muslims to kill christians, jews, hindus, bhudists, shinto, etc. It also seems to imply that the only moral dilema for muslims is killing other muslims. Perhaps that's how muslims think, I honestly don't know. However, given the fact that Sunni and Shia muslims have killed each other for centuries, that Arab and Persian muslims have killed each other for centuries, it seems rather delusional for any muslim to pretend that muslims don't fight or kill other muslims--even without the US being involved.

Let's take religion out of the question because it doesn't belong there in the first place since the United States has a secular goverment and secular military. What the question should be is: "should the good guys (i.e. us... with the notable exception of senior members of the Bush43 administration) fight the bad guys (i.e. violent extremists)."

Quite simply, yes.