Then, as a vet, you should understand that your obligation is to follow your orders of those appointed above you, and if the orders are illegal based on law, then you can refuse. Again, a soldier has the job of imposing the will of the body politic using force. It may not be right, but then the politicians need to be accountable. Also, every situation will depend on the framework it is built on, there are many arguments one way or the other. Force is generally not the most effective way to bring about a political settlement, and it is against Objectivist principles to do violence on others.

You do not say that "people join the military because they are losers, anyone who joins the military is lazy" Period.He espoused no truth but of his own ignorance, lack of experience, sheltered life and total inability to research a subject before lambasting people to a captive audience.

While I try to be evolved. I am at heart an animal and when someone pushes my buttons I act like what I am. It is first the best that he and I will never meet. The best for his health and the best for my freedom.

Of course I wouldn't actually do what I fantasize about doing to someone such as this but it does feel good to say.

So your response to something you don't like is violence, that real objective.

And he was correct. Facts, what facts are you relying on? Can you refute anything he claimed?

You blame the teacher with no regard of the trash he is mandated to teach. Have you done anything about it or is it just easier to shoot the messenger?

You declare he is a piece of crap, compared to what? Is it based on the actual truth he espoused or is it based on a difference of your perception that has caused the emotional response?

Really, so how do you tell the difference? Emotions over logic?

I'm a Vietnam veteran, not something I'm really proud of. How can one be proud going to a foreign country killing the indigent people because some elitist don't like them. The people of Vietnam didn't do anything to us.

After much research I discovered it was government that was at fault and without the order followers. government was powerless.

If this nation wants to go to war, then the first 435 combatants should be congress led by the executive. When a nation has but 21 years out of the 242 years of existence needs to be questioned.

What thinkers are in the military? Are you wrongly associating sociopaths and psychopaths as thinkers?

By it's very nature, one who trade in life is violence at the drop of a hat is not a thinker but order follower.

A college degree does not make one a thinker. In fact it is just the opposite.

"Order followers are the people that keep slavery in place. Following orders means doing what you are told to do, without judging for yourself whether or not the action your are being ordered to carry out is right or wrong. If an individual is following orders, that individual can not be exercising conscience, since by definition, exercising conscience means that one is willfully choosing for themselves right action over wrong action.

"I was just following orders" is never a valid excuse or "justification" for immoral, criminal behavior, and this lame attempt to abdicate personal responsibility should never be accepted as a valid excuse for such behavior." - Mark Passio

So whom is morally culpable, the order giver or the order follower?

Again I will turn to Mark Passio for an answer:

"The order-follower always bears more moral culpability than the order-giver, because the order-follower is the one who actually performed the action, and in taking such action, actually brought the resultant harm into physical manifestation. Order-following is the pathway to every form of evil and chaos in our world. It should never be seen as a "virtue" by anyone who considers themselves a moral human being. Order-followers have ultimately been personally responsible and morally culpable for every form of slavery and every single totalitarian regime that has ever existed upon the face of the earth."

Has application of military force been morally handled in the last 200 years? No, in a lot of circumstances, but you seem to miss the military's primary purpose: To enforce political will of a nation, by force if necessary. In that case the political will and the politicians sending them are the real culprits, not the people serving. Place the blame where it belongs.

Interesting how this thing came back to life...

I would have to ask what your military background is?

Disagree, this idiot launched into a tirade calling military losers, feeloader, and dirtbags, when it is the government freeloader, and those in education indoctrinating the young with their politics, that are both violating their duty to teach facts, as well as trying to program the young. This guy was a piece of crap. No need for such scum in education. The unthinking snowflake machine is well ahead of goals in production.

Along those lines read "Flyboys" about a group of WW2 aviators who were shot down over one of the small Iwo Jima islands and were killed as prisoners, along with some ritual cannibalism. The book shows a causal relationship between the Asian response to the U.S. and the slaughter imposed on the Philippines in the 20's by the U.S. military. It also shows the fact the U.S. covered it all up for 40 years. Although having spent 20 years in the Navy, and having 2 sons in the Army, I can say there are a lot of "thinkers" in the military, and a disproportionate amount of the "non-thinkers" have college degrees and the common sense of a goat.

Amen!!!

Truth, what is truth? Is it that which fits neatly into preconceived concepts?

People complain about the indoctrination system more popularly called education which is a fallacy in and of itself. But then judge another when he presents something that is contrary to the system they oppose.

Now you have a teacher, in a moment contrary to career, actually states his own convictions and is attacked by the crowds at large. Even when what he states is historically correct.

And then wonder why this country is in the mess that is manifested reality.

As a teacher of history, perhaps he knows the truth. A trait that is not very popular today.

As a lifelong student of history, philosophy, psychology, law and many other disciplines I can emphatically state that one is in the history books is but the victors story of what they want to portray as truth. Nothing could be further from the actual truth.

Today's military are but a bunch of non-thinkers that are in love with playing with their little toys of destruction.

This country is now 242 years old of which only a scant 21 years have been without some war or another. The military are not for protection but for destruction, the destruction of those not towing the line of a bunch of self proclaimed elitist.

I promise you that there would be NOTHING Civil about the discussion.

What ignorance was he "displaying"? Where is anyone protecting "this" country?

What I find disgusting are those in favor of freedom so long as it is forced upon others.

Within the concept of a free man there is some validity to that statement.

That would be great civil discourse.

I agree with the teacher one of the few brave enough to actually speak the truth. The military is in large part responsible for what has been manifesting in this country for more than a century.

James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Patrick Henry: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

https://www.fff.org/2013/03/04/gun-co...

"Order followers are the people that keep slavery in place. Following orders means doing what you are told to do, without judging for yourself whether or not the action your are being ordered to carry out is right or wrong. If an individual is following orders, that individual can not be exercising conscience, since by definition, exercising conscience means that one is willfully choosing for themselves right action over wrong action.

"I was just following orders" is never a valid excuse or "justification" for immoral, criminal behavior, and this lame attempt to abdicate personal responsibility should never be accepted as a valid excuse for such behavior." - Mark Passio

"Ayn Rand opposed the military draft as a violation of individual rights. There is some argument to be made for granting the government broad, exceptional powers in genuine emergency situations, but these are much, much rarer than commonly supposed. A war that a country's citizens do not volunteer to take part in is a war that deserves to be abandoned, and to coerce innocent people to risk or lose their lives is a profound violation of the purpose of government. A volunteer military, always and by all means." - https://atlassociety.org/commentary/c...

Ayn Rand's childhood was spent during the period of the communist takeover of Russia and then her escape to this country to see it was going in the same direction but still she remained a statist. Such was the fallacy of Rand's philosophy.

I meant to post this. Good news. Too bad it took so much external pressure.

If firing seems harsh to you for this teacher, then I suggest you re-evaluate how you view yourself and others There is nothing lower or less true than this unless it's backed up by coercion. Check your premises.

Indeed, exactly.