|
|
|
|
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 10:02:51 AM | I would not have a problem if this guy signed up and pocketed the "bonus" with the sole intention of calling the legal question he has brought to bear with his actions just simply after reading the posts on this dating site.
There are posts here by those in service, under contract and oath that openly admit the current administration is criminal. That fully understand many domestic and international laws and principals in addition to human morals and values have been grossly violated.
After considering the profiteering of Haliburtin, KBR, Blackwater etc etc.. I could care less if this guy cashed the signing bonus and then called the question, even if he did it intentionally.
All you have to do is visit this site and see how intentional the crimes are all over Iraq for money: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155
This mans actions have promoted the debate that is integral to the credibility of the Nation. We should use the same rules that apply to this e-mail forum and debate the issue not the messenger.
Good on the many of you who have stuck to the Nuremburg principals, International law and the historic references while refraining from personal attacks in your commentary.
Cheers
Eihwaz | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 10:35:09 AM | msg. 51:
Besides, at this point, if he gets away with not going to Iraq with no prison sentence, The US might as well pull every single soldier out of Iraq, and put Bush on trial. Sounds good to me ... I like it!!!! When can we get started?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Like that's ever going to happen!  While I do applaud your intent to be funny about this ...
... I'd say we still stand a chance of this actually happening ... there's always hope ... sigh.
OT ...
The Lt. did not try to get out of "duty" ... he offered to go to Afghanistan.
What's the problem? He wants to serve ... just not in an "illegal war".
@msg. 54 (below)
I think the right thing to do, would have been to take the deskjob, resign after his tour was up, and then protest after he finished his duty. That sounds good on paper ... but what does it do to bring about awareness now of the need to consider the "illegality" of this war?
When the conscientious objectors during the Viet Nam War "objected" ... it got attention right then and there.
If all of those who were conscientiously objecting back then would have just marched off to war and then come home and publically stated their objection, how much press do you think that would have gotten as opposed to the press they got for actually conscientiously objecting to going in the first place?
| |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 10:44:46 AM | It's taken me a while to figure out where I stand on this. As an enlistedman, its important to me to have solid support from my management, both senior enlisted and officer... and this LT is failing me in this regard.
Here is the problem with letting him go to Afghanistan:
Supposing one hundred more officers decide they would rather serve in some other place. Perhaps twenty thousand elisted would like to also... Maybe we should just gather up the troops and let them all vote where to go?
From a moral standpoint, I can see where he is coming from. However, from an organizational standpoint... I don't agree with it. I think it creates a dangerous weakness in military discipline. We don't always know why we do the things we do, but sometimes its critical that we succeed. He is not being asked to rape, steal, or murder. He is not being asked to do something that's obviously illegal.
I think the right thing to do, would have been to take the deskjob, resign after his tour was up, and then protest after he finished his duty. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 10:48:57 AM | If he claims ignorance of legality of the war, his defense will be shot down. These questions should have been asked before he enlisted and took the enlistment oath.
In all fairness to Lt. Watada:
SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?
WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.
Given the polls, the number of people who initially supported the war, believed in the manufactured justifications for it by the Executive branch, and those now in opposition to the policy, I think his position has merit.
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
As far as any assertion that he volunteered for Afghanistan to get out of Iraq:
WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.
Regardless, the prosecution is very unlikely to allow him to introduce any evidence to support his claim that the war is illegal. He fully expects to be convicted on the counts of failure to deploy and conduct unbecoming. His reason for martyring himself is that he feels the American public in general simply doesn't care about this war, and he's trying to make them care by making them more aware.
It's difficult not to admire him once you read his words, whether you support this war or not. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:14:10 AM |
While I do applaud your intent to be funny about this ...
... I'd say we still stand a chance of this actually happening ... there's always hope ... sigh.
I would SO love to see that happen! I just think that if it ever came to trial, Bush has so many scapegoats under him, it'll never get back to haunt him. Considering the swift and decisive sentence on Hussein, it would be sweet, poetic justice to see Bush tried and convicted. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's difficult not to admire him once you read his words, whether you support this war or not.
I really do admire him. I really hope that something more positive happens other than him just being sent to jail. Hopefully his message spreads and I have hope that Bush and his cronies are called to account for setting this whole thing up. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:18:48 AM |
If his unit was slated to go, he should have gone. Sure, he may not believe in the cause. It's not his job to believe in the cause. It's his job to follow orders.
Yeah, right...
"Go stand on that hill and wave your arms around.... see if there's any enemy in the area."
"Go feed that guy a slug in the head!"
"Torch this village."
Would you follow these orders?
Nuremberg and many other war crimes trials have punished soldiers for doing EXACTLY what they were told.
Yes, we do have a job to believe or not to believe the cause is ethical. The policies of the US have said so MANY times.
It's like "DO WHAT I SAY!!! or Do what I said."
No. This argument doesn't make sense. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:19:06 AM | | I just want to say I'm against the war and I don't support court mashall for this soldier. My other reason for posting is that I was really impressed by Goodgenes' post but I can't get to message him due to my age . Goodgenes if u see my message email me cause I'd like to talk to u about some of the things you mentioned. Thanks. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:35:25 AM |
Yeah, right...
"Go stand on that hill and wave your arms around.... see if there's any enemy in the area."
"Go feed that guy a slug in the head!"
"Torch this village."
Would you follow these orders?
Its not that simple. Its easy to see that some things are illegal, and can be refused without reprecussions. However, it is not clear to everyone whether the Iraq war is illegal or not... officers refusing to fight in it creates a rift in the chain of command, hurts morale, creates a breakdown in discipline... all sorts of things that the military can't have.
Nuremberg and many other war crimes trials have punished soldiers for doing EXACTLY what they were told.
If you can demonstrate an example of an American soldier doing anything close who is not currently being prosecuted, lets hear it.
Yes, we do have a job to believe or not to believe the cause is ethical. The policies of the US have said so MANY times.
It's like "DO WHAT I SAY!!! or Do what I said."
No. This argument doesn't make sense.
I think you have to look at how things are connected in the military. I think you have to look at what the end result will be. You shouldn't just choose to not obey an order that can create such discord.
The LT is not just an individual, he is a leader in a specialized group, and his choices affect the whole group. This must be taken into consideration. There are right and wrong ways to do things. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:41:51 AM | let me jump into this one as well by first admitting that I did not go carefully back into all the posts (unfortunately the PoF forum outline does not promote specific discussion on a threaded format) and then by asking the following relevant question:
- Do you sign up your soul and morality at the military desk? If the Lt one day (for reasons that I don't care to question) decided that the Iraq War is immoral is he bounded by his signature to become immoral and whatever else the military will order him to become?
If the answer to the above question is no then Lt Watada is right and should be supported for his decision. The rest is legalities that can force an elephant to be a mouse if the contract says so, but this is not a legal question, this is a moral question.
If the answer to the above question is yes, I think the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials) precedent has made it very explicit that obeying orders (or contract clauses) is not an excuse to be a war criminal. Lt Watada obviously believes that serving the Iraq war machine will equate him to a war criminal, even on a desk job. Besides, there are not innocent jobs. Remember the desk jobs compiling lists for deportations?
So the bottom line is: he should only be punished for breaking a contract. I think the maximum 6 year sentence will just do that...
q.e.d? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:51:46 AM | Pansatryros - yes.
Even if we assume that the Iraqi war is just as immoral as the Nazi invasion of Europe (just to get that issue out of the way), note that many millions of German soliders - and hundreds of thousands of officers, including Generals - were not subject to the Nuremberg trials. Why? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:57:55 AM | Pansatryros - yes.
Even if we assume that the Iraqi war is just as immoral as the Nazi invasion of Europe (just to get that issue out of the way), note that many millions of German soliders - and hundreds of thousands of officers, including Generals - were not subject to the Nuremberg trials. Why?
The answer is obvious because all german people would have been found guilty and it would have been completely ridiculous to prosecute the whole of Wermacht officialdom in a time where officers and administrators had been needed to build germany. So only symbolic targets (the architects let's say) had been picked.
So just because Lt. Watada might get away with murder he should become a murderer. That's your brilliant defense of the Iraq War machine? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:59:37 AM | Strangebloom,
I've already dealt with this argument in an earlier post. Here it is again.
"...I completely accept the point that several of you have made, about the integrity of the chain of command and the importance of cohesion for military functioning. I also believe that the military needs to maintain this high level of cohesion, but not at all costs. From this perspective it is certainly unsettling to have an officer break from the ranks. But that isn't an argument against Watada. Many of the Nazi soldiers committed horrible atrocities because of this kind of military cohesion. They were afraid to break rank. And though I agree cohesion is a necessary thing, in this historical case it had horrible consequences. So we can't claim that cohesion trumps all else. Its been proven otherwise."
Again, this is the lesson from Nuremburg. And I also accept the fact that the U.S. Army has a vested interest in keeping the chain of command intact. All the things you folks worry about if we will allow soldiers to dissent willy nilly are bona fide fears. And it is in light of these very sorts of worries that the U.S. military will prosecute, without discretion, any soldier that disobeys a direct order. It has a vested interest in maintaining the optimal functioning of the military. This must be done out of these sorts of practical concerns. But practical concerns don't always trump moral and legal concerns. I won't get into a long discussion of why that is the case for those of you who don't see it as obvious. The point is that none of these practical concerns justify the U.S. army's prosecution of *everyone* who dissents. This must be taken on a case by case basis. The current issue is whether Watada is in fact an exception--that is, whether he actually has grounds for refusing to go into this particular war (i.e. whether the war was illegal and he would be committing an illegal act by agreeing to fight). | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:03:48 PM |
As a soldier, ESPECIALLY AN OFFICER, you take an oath to obey the commander-in-chief
Actually, you take an oath to defend the Constitution. When a soldier is ordered to do something that is unconstitutional he is obligated to disobey the order. The Americans opened up this can of worms with the Nuremberg Trials; they clearly established that there are times when you have to disobey direct orders. And I'm one of the few here that thinks now that you're in Iraq you have to reinstate the draft. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:09:22 PM | I think there's a fundamental disconnect between civilians viewpoints and us military guys.
I understand that the civilian sees this Lt as a courageous and noble martyr standing up for what he believes in. But what the civilian doesn't understand is that when we sign contracts with the military, our job, and right to become these outspoken citizens ends.
First point: Profiteering: Yes yes, dirty underhanded Haliburton for making a buck or two out of the war.
Look back sixty years and see how rich the United States came out of WWII. For 39-41 it sat on the sidelines and watched England and Canada nearly strangled to death by the Nazis. It had no qualms about keeping tabs on who owed what and how much. IN FACT: this past week the UK just paid its FINAL payment on wartime loans from the US.
No doubt the US made a TON of money off of WWII. But no one ever brings THAT up, because WWII was a GOOD and justified war unlike Iraq.
Point is, all wars have money involved.
Point two: This crap about choosing where to serve. That's like a police officer signing up and saying "Okay but I only want patrol the suburbs" or "I'll arrest drug dealers but I refuse to write speeding tickets because I don't agree with them." Not his choice to make.
If Watada chose to "put his trust in the leaders" well then this outcome is one of those risks. Perhaps he should have researched more carefully?
Point Three: I want to end this discussion about illegal war=illegal orders. This is a savage war being fought RELATIVELY well and morally by trained soldiers. It's not a clear cut case of the USA being completely wrong. It's a murky war without 100% support.
HOWEVER, US soldiers are not being ordered to do anything on the scale that Nazi German soldiers were. No where are they being asked to round up all Sunni's or Shiites and put them into concentration camps. No where are pilots being ordered to bomb and strafe civilians just for the target practice.
Anticon:
Yes actually you CAN be ordered to go wave your arms looking for the enemy. I doubt that order would ever happen, but as it says in a CF handbook that we Canadians have: "The Canadian Military is the ONLY profession in Canada in which you may be LAWFULLY ordered into harms way." Not even fire fighters have to go into the burning building if they don't want to.
That said, torch the village? No, because CF regulations state that deliberate attacks on civilians constitute an unlawful order and MUST be disobeyed.
Like I said, soldiers in Iraq may disagree with the war, but they are not being asked to commit acts of genocide.
Point FOUR:
Iraq's oil. Yeah, it's the Iraqis and it's theirs to do whatever they please with. Unfortunately, Saddam did not reflect the will of the majority of Iraqis and his actions prevented them from using it for their own benefit. That oil isn't just being stolen or siphoned off, it's being or will be sold to pay for things for Iraqis.
Pansatyros:
Let me make this clear: NO US SOLDIER IS A WAR CRIMINAL for carrying out their tasks. No one has been ordered to exterminate Shiites or Sunnis.
Even for German soldiers, invading Czechoslovakia did not make them war criminals. Nuremburg went after those who participated in the genocide of Jews. For you to apply the war criminal label to this war which is CLEARLY less horrific than the holocaust, makes the loss of 6 million jews during 40's seem trivial.
And in the military, yes you are bound by that signature. Just like how a doctor has to do his best to save a dying patient regardless of who the patient is. If you were a bank robber who was shot by police, would you want the surgeon saying "Screw this, I don't agree with saving this guys life"?
What happens if I as a soldier am morally opposed to intervening in Darfur or Rwanda which would be a "clear violation of national sovereignty and self determination"? Do I still get hailed as a hero for standing up for my beliefs? Or do they just have to be in line with the anti-war crowd?
Yes the scalpal is also bound to follow what the surgeon asks. It's bound to "do no harm" and try its best to help. But the question of "what is helping" is something that has to be left to the politicians. And I believe that President Bush HONESTLY believes hat he is pursuing the right course of action. He will be disagreed with as has always happened in History. For the most part, even his "questionable war" is being fought as a civilized nation would fight. He's not anywhere near as bad as some dictators have been in the past. So those saying he's a war criminal etc, REALLY do need to look at the other leaders around the world first. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:14:48 PM | Goodgenes,
Thanks for your reply.
Strangebloom,
I've already dealt with this argument in an earlier post. Here it is again.
"...I completely accept the point that several of you have made, about the integrity of the chain of command and the importance of cohesion for military functioning. I also believe that the military needs to maintain this high level of cohesion, but not at all costs. From this perspective it is certainly unsettling to have an officer break from the ranks. But that isn't an argument against Watada. Many of the Nazi soldiers committed horrible atrocities because of this kind of military cohesion. They were afraid to break rank. And though I agree cohesion is a necessary thing, in this historical case it had horrible consequences. So we can't claim that cohesion trumps all else. Its been proven otherwise."
The LT's choice doesn't stop the war. It also harms his subordinates. Committing a crime such as theft, is much more obviously illegal than this war, and easily refused. Refusing deployment is wrong, IMO. The war is too complex to fit neatly into an obviously wrong category.
Again, this is the lesson from Nuremburg. Regarding your other points. And I also accept the fact that the U.S. Army has a vested interest in keeping the chain of command intact. All the things you folks worry about if we will allow soldiers to dissent willy nilly are bona fide fears. And it is in light of these very sorts of worries, the U.S. military will prosecute, without discretion, any soldier that disobeys a direct order. It has a vested interest in maintaining the optimal functioning of the military. This must be done out of these sorts of practical concerns. But practical concerns don't always trump moral and legal concerns. I won't get into a long discussion of why that is the case for those of you who don't see it is obvious. The point is that none of these practical concerns justify the U.S. army's prosecution *everyone* who dissents. This must be taken on a case by case basis. The current issue is whether Watada is in fact an exception--that is, whether he actually has grounds for refusing to go into this particular war (i.e. whether the war was illegal and he would be committing an illegal act by agreeing to fight).
I have no problem with him having an opinion about it. But if he is to be my commander, possibly ordering me into a mission that will cost me my life, I expect better from him. Being in the military doesn't allow us the luxury to always follow our own moral code. At times, you need to do your job first. There are some lines that should not be crossed and many soldiers have been and are being procesuted for committing crimes in Iraq. But what the LT is doing, creates a terrible precident.
Right or wrong... he's still wrong because of the damage that he has caused. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:16:57 PM | Pansatyros... There is proper protocol to follow if you receive an order you don't agree with in the army. Follow it, then complain or ask why. Orders are given for reasons that are in many cases, unclear. However, they are called "orders" not suggestions. Sure he can choose not to follow orders but if he does, the consequences are drastically different than if a civilian fails to respond to what his boss tells him to do. A civilian could get fired, worst case scenario. A member of the military could get executed, worst case scenario.
This Lt. Wataka knows the consequences he may face for his actions. If he doesn't like what he signed up for, I don't feel sorry for him. I respect him all the same and wish the best for him as I do agree with him, but if he gets a court martial an prison time, he brought it on himself.
If he was drafted, I would feel sorry for him, but he signed whatever papers he did of his own accord.
I think it would be neat if every soldier involved in this war pulled a protest on the war. Mutiny if you will. Just sit down and refuse to work anymore. I'd LOVE to see that. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:31:29 PM |
NO US SOLDIER IS A WAR CRIMINAL for carrying out their tasks.
Apparently events have left you behind:
UK soldiers prosecution for war crimes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1532223,00.html
Abu-Ghraib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
Haditha killings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
Ishaqi incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaqi_incident
Hamadiya incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamadiya_incident
Mahmudiyah incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_incident
and specifically answering your:
Nowhere are pilots being ordered to bomb and strafe civilians just for the target practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Mukaradeeb_War_Crime
and most of all white phosphorus use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq
obviously US soldiers/officers are not Nazis but they don't need to be in order to be war criminals. This war is immoral and the Nuremberg Trials precedent allows them to refuse to serve at it, in fact that precedent demands of them to refuse to serve... | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:33:33 PM | A mutiny in ANY countries military where soldiers refuse to go to work would be absolutely disastrous for the citizens of that country.
Like I said in a previous post, it's like having your cars seatbelt suddenly decide it doesn't agree with the mission anymore, just as the car plows head on in a wall... If the military quits, you're all going for a very dangerous ride through the windshield. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:35:03 PM | SoL,
Even if the war is considered to be constitutional, it may be in violation of international law. Granted, the U.S. doesn't care much about international law, but that doesn't change anything.
Also, you're confusing the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Principles. I've already corrected this mistake earlier in my posts and given a list of the Nuremburg principles. And contrary to what you have said, YES, a soldier would be obligated to refuse to fight in a war that was in fact illegal. So yes it is up to him to use his good judgment to decide if he should participate. In other words, there are times when it is his decision--namely when he is being asked to engage in an illegal war. Not using this kind of judgment is what led to the execution of the Nazis that were on trial. Read the Nuremburg Principles and you'll see why this is the case. Now, I've already mentioned that the chances that it will be decided by some relevant authority that this war is in fact illegal are slim to none. But the reasons for this are political not factual. All I have said is that, IF the war was in fact illegal (as yet to be decided--but maybe never), Watada would be justified in refusing to go to Iraq. And this decision would be supported by international law at the very least.
And Jake German. You and Beep Beep are just plain wrong. This is exactly the sort of situation in which the Nuremburg principles apply. Read them and find out why.
Since I'm now repeating myself, I'll call this my last post. For those of you just joining, do yourself the favour of reading all the posts in the thread before weighing in on the discussion. Alot of the comments being added have been made or dealt with in earlier posts. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:42:31 PM | Yes you'll note that I said "carrying out their tasks"
What these men and women are being charged for at AbuGraib and the likes, they were not ordered to do. They went berzerk, or over the edge: they were not carrying out their countries intentions and as such, they will be punished as individuals who failed in their duties.
And in regards to the airstrike on civilians:
Where does it say that the commander said "Okay gentlemen, targets for today include any unarmed targets out in the open."
"The locals claim that on the previous day there had been a wedding party in the village. American military claimed that traditional celebratory gunfire was misinterpreted as an attack on American helicopters."
You have to be pretty freaking stupid to go out and start firing AK-47's up in the air on full automatic and NOT expect some sort of strike to come thundering down out of the sky. If I was a pilot who started taking fire from a mob on the ground armed with machine guns and rifles, yeah I'd probably fire back too.
And don't give me this cultural misunderstanding crap: bullets don't care if they're from a wedding party or not when they're flying up in the air.
So let me say AGAIN: NO WHERE HAVE SOLDIERS BEEN ORDERED TO COMMIT ACTS OF GENOCIDE OR WAR CRIMES. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:43:40 PM |
A mutiny in ANY countries military where soldiers refuse to go to work would be absolutely disastrous for the citizens of that country.
Like I said in a previous post, it's like having your cars seatbelt suddenly decide it doesn't agree with the mission anymore, just as the car plows head on in a wall... If the military quits, you're all going for a very dangerous ride through the windshield.
I couldn't agree with you more, beep beep. Having the army go on strike would not work. They have a heck of a job to do and if it doesn't get done, there's going to be even more trouble.
But just because I agree with you and I do see your point, it doesn't stop me from wanting the soldiers on all sides to throw down their arms and try helping each other instead of killing each other. I know that's not likely to happen but peace has to start somewhere right?
Maybe this Lt. is the start of something bigger. One can only hope. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:45:22 PM |
HOWEVER, US soldiers are not being ordered to do anything on the scale that Nazi German soldiers were. No where are they being asked to round up all Sunni's or Shiites and put them into concentration camps.
How about Guantanamo, where we KNOW innocent people were held for years without even being investigated. They've been convicted of nothing. Even the US supreme court has determined that.
How about Abu Ghraib?
... and what about the five torture camps outside the US that we don't even KNOW about where they are and the Bush administration won't even tell.
You assume much and it's more than obvious that much of what you assume is dead wrong.
No where are pilots being ordered to bomb and strafe civilians just for the target practice.
Pilots only have to be told where to drop their bombs. The initial "shock and Awe" strike was said to have hit a bagdad bedroom community. Accident or not, it's death... and when it happens over and over and over again; you're trying to tell me that's not immoral?
Why don't you move YOUR family over there?
We who are against the war are looking at a forest of wrongdoing. You're pointing at little branches here and there and saying "yes, but look at this!"
IF an individual believes the war's wrong.... every individual has a moral responsibility to do what they believe is right, regardless of who tells you to do it.
This "oath" you talk about that a soldier takes before he goes into the military: What's that but some disclaimer by the military?
What soldiers knows he's going to be killing civilians?
If a person believes the US military is moral, of course they're going to swear something like that, but that doesn't mean they're still bound to do what's WRONG even after they find out it's wrong.
What would you tell your kid if he told you he swore to his friend that he'd set a house on fire and he thought better of it, but he swore he'd do it, so he was oath bound????
.. and that's really what we're talking about here. Our president is a criminal. So is the vice president and all those who supported him while knowing he was lying. If someone tricks you into swearing to do something you find out is wrong, you have no responsibility to do it anyway. That's BS. That's crap.
duh... | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:49:45 PM | Good Genes,
Are you equating the "illegal" Iraq war, with the systematic, "conveyor belt" killings of over 6 million innocent Jews by Nazi Germans during WWII? Because like I said, being ordered to occupy a country run by a former brutal dictator, is DRASTICALLY different than being ordered to round up all women and children wearing little gold stars and put them behind barbed wire, or into gas ovens.
Which German officers were sentenced to death for leading troops in battle? Yes obviously every German invasion, of France, Czechoslovakia or Poland was illegal but that's not what they were on trial for.
They were on trial for the extermination of 6 million Jews. No soldier who fought against France was tried for war crimes. Only those who killed innocent people who had no effect on the war. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 1:00:37 PM |
officers refusing to fight in it creates a rift in the chain of command, hurts morale, creates a breakdown in discipline... all sorts of things that the military can't have.
Or perhaps, this can be a good thing.
A soldier's primary duty is the defense of his country (and secondarily, the defense of its' allies according to treaty). Many (but not all) enlist out of a sense of loyalty to their nation and a sense of duty to serve it.
When a government institutes a war and sends its' soldiers to die over a lie (or several) for a cause that has no bearing on the defense of the nation or an ally they betray that loyalty and duty. When it becomes clear that the primary cause behind that war is solely the personal ambitions of a small group within or controlling that government with the power to make war then they betray that loyalty and duty in a heinous manner.
In such a situation a little mutiny can be a good thing. It sends the message that the loyalty and duty should be inviolable. Under such circumstances a government may think twice before asking its' soldiers to die for their personal goals and ambitions.
Make no mistake about it, if the invasion of Iraq was not based on the personal goals and ambitions of a small group of politicians rather than a truly defensable cause, a clear case of national (or allied) defense or a truly moral cause there would have been no need to lie their way into it.
No government has the right to expect its' soldiers to die for a lie. No government has the right to expect its' soldiers to die for anyone's personal goals or ambitions. No soldier has a duty to die for those. Anything else is an abject betrayal of the loyalty and duty for which most enlist and all swear to. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
