|
|
|
|
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 1:03:03 PM | Anticon,
Show me gas ovens, modern day Einsatzgruppens, and I'll start to believe you.
Guantanamo is a rough prison, but the people there were not simply part of some mass roundup in which entire neighborhoods were emptied. Some don't deserve to be there but it's a drag net problem: Do you want to be on a the safe side and make sure you catch all terrorists while also catching some innocent, or do you want to make sure you don't detain ANY innocent people but at the cost of letting some terrorists go free? Tough choice to make but they're doing the best they can. Yes I agree they'll have to do it better but it's still nowhere near as bad as Nuremburg was punishing people for.
Pilots and their fighter jets use precision guided munitions for a reason, Anticon: to AVOID collateral (or yes, killing innocent children) not to specifically target them better. If I'm told to attack a house with a GBU or JADAM, yes then I have to trust that intelligence or the troops on the ground that they know it has something of value in it. If I get an order saying "hey drop everything you have on that market place" then yes, I'll respond with "Sorry Sir, can't do that."
Accidents happen... over and over again. However they are accidents, not intentional targeting of inoccent people as war crimes are meant to define.
With our Oath, we're not vowing to set fire or do anything immoral. We're promising to carry out the will of the political leadership and the people behind it: the voters. If you "think better of it," you carry out your contract then quit.
Next time you see news about the latest act of Genocide in Darfur remember this: Intervention is illegal and immoral because it "violates Darfurs national sovereignty and right to self determination."
Bleeding heart morality cuts both ways buddy. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 1:13:06 PM | Oh yes, they said the killing of 2 million civilians in and around Viet Nam was an "accident" also... but that didn't raise them up.
Whose fault is it?
Their own?
You don't get a do over, Mr. Bomb someone else's country.
There's responsibility for what happens and it's on the US military because we did it.
What your argument is based on is that war is acceptable and should be tolerated. Humankind is challenging that notion, and rightly so.
We don't believe Bush or the US government is closer to God than us. They just control the money. Throughout history, people like George Washington, Ben Franklin and many others have violated oaths they swore in order to achieve a greater good.
I put war resisters in this elevated moral class.
conversely, bush violated the nuclear arms treaty. What about HIS oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the US?
What moral authority does he have outside of being the biggest SOB in the valley?.. and furthermore, WTF do we owe him, anyway?
We were born here?
We had to be born someplace, didn't we?
Can you show me a place on earth that isn't ruled by a small group of individuals who are wealthier than the rest who live there?
Does that mean we are forever to be subservient to their values and their beliefs, even if we find out they're wrong?
Is this the common person's curse? and we carry it around like it's another "orginal sin" or something?
I don't... and I'm glad. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 1:57:52 PM | First, I wish to thank and salute the men and women that read this post that had the courage to live up to their agreement with the US Military and have served this country with pride and dignity without concern for their own personal inconveniences. I have yet to see a war or disagreement for that matter where all thought it was a great thing. Wars are tough and they are not clearly defined in the how to manual but if one signs on to serve that is what they need to do, SERVE. Thank You all and God Bless You all.
Second, why is it so many Canadians seem to think they have all the answers on this. To many Canadians are very quick to jump on the Anti-US bandwagon but I'll tell you what in spite of it the US will still save your backsides when you need our help as that's just the kind of people we are.
Third, I am not in favor of everything that has been done or is being done in Iraq, but I am not in favor of all that is done in Washington, DC or Madison, WI either. I do however realize that I am one person with an opinion and everyone else is entitled theirs also. That is what we call democracy and the majority of persons that give a hoot and vote (about 35% of us) choose representatives to make legal and political decisions for us. I have to believe that those decision makers are better informed and less propagandized than the general public that is busy making a living and finding out who won the last ball game.
With this said, this guy reminds me of the old Private Benjamin film where she says this is not the army I signed up for, I signed on to the Army with all the perks and no work. When you sign on with the US Military you fore go your rights as a private citizen and essentially become property of the US Military. If you play by the rules that you agreed to you will be treated rather well, if not then you are breaching your contract agreement and must suffer the consequences. Personally, I have trouble understanding how a wuss like this guy got his rank in the first place, he is definitely not on the same page as his employer who is me and my fellow Americans. Imagine if every soldier went to battle with a different idea and goal and was dedicated only to their agenda. Can you say Chaos. I am not for imprisoning him as that just supports his cowardly tail but would strip him of anything he has gained at the expense of the US citizens and give him a ticket to Canada or some other country that would feel sorry for the bum and take him in. He certainly does not deserve to live out his life here and continue to take advantage of the benefits of a country he does not believe in. There are times my employer asks me to do things that I don't really think are the best for all involved but I am the worker and when I am the manager or owner then I can make those decisions until then I do my job or find a different one to do. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 2:11:27 PM | So let me say AGAIN: NO WHERE HAVE SOLDIERS BEEN ORDERED TO COMMIT ACTS OF GENOCIDE OR WAR CRIMES.
and let me say it again that even though the US General Command might not have issued orders like these it does not mean that US soldiers/officers are not guilty of committing war crimes in Iraq as the incidents above (that you conveniently didn't comment on) clearly indicate.
...so bottom line still remains: Lt. Watada has a right and obligation by the Nurember Trial precedent to refuse to serve the war machine that produces war criminals. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 2:47:21 PM | So basically you feel that invading another country and fighting it in a conventional and relatively humane way, deserves the same terminology as the mass killings of WWII? If so, then your definitions and perspectives need serious reworking... to equate Iraq to the Holocaust is to either inflate and exaggerate the current war, or to say that the Holocaust really wasn't all that bad. Hey, if 6 million dead jews and 20 million dead Russians are just as bad as Iraq...
And yes I did comment on the above mentioned incidents. As with the wedding, like I said don't fire rifles in the air and expect flowers to come floating down from heaven.
Yes some soldiers have gone overboard and committed war crimes. That does not reflect the goals of the US Army anymore than some thug robbing a little old lady reflects YOUR views. They will both be dealt with as individuals.
But to group all soldiers as collectively committing war crimes (as if they've been ordered to) is wrong, it is stereotyping, unfairly labelling and misleading.
That said, with you arguments premise this follows: The wellfare system produces the occassional crack-addict playing the system for money, or bum who never actually intends to get a job... therefore I have an OBLIGATION to not pay my taxes which support this corrupt system that produces losers and drug junkies?
Lt Watada's "right to refuse to serve a war machine" ended the day he signed his contract. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 3:21:59 PM | Well no offense Cotter, but you've probably never set foot outside of a nice safe, civilized nation. :) You get all your news from CNN, anti-war blogs and a few newspapers. Sunny Florida is a very lovely, safe place to live. I take most of my vacations and holidays there.
Again, look at Rwanda. Clinton stood by and let 800,000 Tutsi's die. But wait, he didn't actually DO anything so therefore he couldn't be a murderous war monger? How bout murderous peace-monger/pacifist?
To argue a point that Bush woke up one morning and said "how can I lie, get us into a war and kill as many young American boys and Iraqi people as possible?" is just ludicrous. He himself was an Air National Guard Fighter Pilot (the only reason he didn't see action was because the aircraft he was trained on was deemed obsolete for use in Vietnam) so he has a pretty good idea of how the military runs and what lifeis like in it.
Are you one of those people who believe in the Michael Moore depiction of pre-war Iraq with children flying kites, flowers blooming, people sipping tea and everyone holding hands and singing happy-go-lucky songs?
And so since you dispute my point about oil then answer this: How WERE the Iraqis going to use THEIR oil under Saddam? Or were they just planning on keeping it under ground and letting no one use it? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 3:43:35 PM |
So basically you feel that invading another country and fighting it in a conventional and relatively humane way, deserves the same terminology as the mass killings of WWII?
That is what the Nuremberg Trials and the Geneva Convention were all about, you don't have to build extermination camps to be a war criminal anymore. So I never had or did equate the Iraq occupation with WWII war crimes.
That does not reflect the goals of the US Army anymore than some thug robbing a little old lady reflects YOUR views. They will both be dealt with as individuals.
This is not true, in the second siege of Fallujah for example, there were direct orders to use white phosphorus when it was known that civilians will be the most affected by it. That is in direct violation of the Geneva convention article about warfare in urban territory. And this is only one of the documented cases.
I'm not interested in arguing with you about the obvious and will not repeat myself for very long, but here it goes:
- The reaction of the iraqi people to the US occupation shows how "humanitarian" the US forces have been in iraq, or how well they observe the Geneva convention rules. Period.
- The iraqi people should be the last judges and not you or me and according to them the occupation forces have been savage barbarians since day one. Period.
- According to the few documented incidents (nobody knows the full extend) this savagery called iraq war categorizes as a war crime. Period.
- If you participate in that war machine you are becoming a direct or indirect war criminal. Period.
That said, with you arguments premise this follows: The wellfare system produces the occassional crack-addict playing the system for money, or bum who never actually intends to get a job... therefore I have an OBLIGATION to not pay my taxes which support this corrupt system that produces losers and drug junkies?
Here comes the tortured analogy time since obviously you can't hold on for too long in the iraq war line of reasoning let's change the context...
No, the illegal occupation and plundering going on in iraq is not anything remotely close to a welfare state analogy. Lt. Watada figured out (a bit delayed) that what is going on in iraq is illegal and immoral and does not want to participate in it anymore, actively or passively. Period.
Lt Watada's "right to refuse to serve a war machine" ended the day he signed his contract.
going back in circles, no? Let's go to message 60 and start singing along... | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 3:44:26 PM | I know this wasn't directed at me.... but
Oh yes, they said the killing of 2 million civilians in and around Viet Nam was an "accident" also... but that didn't raise them up.
Whose fault is it?
Their own?
You don't get a do over, Mr. Bomb someone else's country.
There's responsibility for what happens and it's on the US military because we did it.
Agreed.
What your argument is based on is that war is acceptable and should be tolerated. Humankind is challenging that notion, and rightly so.
I don't agree that such a large inclusive group as 'humankind' is doing this... But I hope for it.
We don't believe Bush or the US government is closer to God than us. They just control the money. Throughout history, people like George Washington, Ben Franklin and many others have violated oaths they swore in order to achieve a greater good.
I put war resisters in this elevated moral class.
Right, but what does the LT have to do with all of this? His act doesn't stop the war. His act doesn't save any lives. He says he wants to raise awareness, I say BS. The more I think about it, the less I believe this guy. He joined the army late enough, that there was already controversy. He got his training, he got his college paid for, he got paid an allowance while attending school. (E-5 pay, to attend school... same as what I get to work full time) Then when he 'became' a conscencious objector, he was offered a deskjob... still in Iraq, but a freakin' deskjob. And even that wasn't good enough. So, he... O-3 LT, wanted to dictate terms to the military, on what was acceptable to him, after they already bent over backwards to accomidate him.
No, this man is no hero.
conversely, bush violated the nuclear arms treaty. What about HIS oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the US?
This has nothing to do with the LT, does it?
What moral authority does he have outside of being the biggest SOB in the valley?.. and furthermore, WTF do we owe him, anyway?
You owe him nothing. But I am in the Navy, and whether I like him or not, he is my Commander in Chief.
We were born here?
We had to be born someplace, didn't we?
Citizens have responsibilities to their nations... sometimes, its not what we want, but we do have them.
Can you show me a place on earth that isn't ruled by a small group of individuals who are wealthier than the rest who live there?
No.
Does that mean we are forever to be subservient to their values and their beliefs, even if we find out they're wrong?
Is this the common person's curse? and we carry it around like it's another "orginal sin" or something?
I don't... and I'm glad.
Feel free to impeach Bush. Feel free to vote more Republicans out of office. Feel free to continue to **** and moan about how sucky the administration is or whatever you want... however, none of that is related at all to why LT missed his deployment. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 3:51:01 PM | After Hitler invaded France and pushed the British off the shores of Dunkirk, Winston Churchill remarked what a failure appeasement had been and how he wished he and allies had acted sooner.
After horribly graphic images of the Rwandan genocide surfaced around the world, former President Clinton offered an appology to the people of Rwanda for not acting sooner and helping them when we, a nation that had so much, could have come to the aid of a people who had so little.
It's really easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to go to war. What's really funny is that I would hypothesize (and please, everyone who is whining about the war being illegal is also hypothesizing and what-iffing too, so deal with mine) that if we never did invade Iraq, there would likely have been another attrocity committed by saddam by now, and at the very least another STRING of broken UN aggreements by Iraq, and it would be about this time that the very people who are decrying the war would be calling for it and criticizing the Bush administration for not moving fast enough and stopping a dictator from killing his population earlier, much the same way Clinton was criticized for not doing anything about Rwanda.
Secondly, it is absolutely impossible to call the war in iraq an illegal war. You can all argue morality all you want, but the fact is, like it or not, law and morality are not always in synchronization. Congress voted for the war, and have yet to ammend its decision. Congress MAKES law. What congress says, barring judicial review from the supreme court, IS lawful and is the DEFINITION of legal. Welcome back to 9th grade civics.
Soldiers have the right and obligation to disobey illegal orders because it is possible to issue illegal orders because they come from an individual or small group. Congress, however, ultimately declared war on Iraq and issued the order and congress, with the trust that the american people have endowed it, is unable to issue an unlawful order. Orders issued by congress are open to interpretation by the supreme court and the supreme court only, not by a lowly lieutenant who got a reality check and decided he doesn't want to get shot at.
And please, I'm a bit of a stickler for the small things, and there is quite a difference between a COMMISSION and ENLISTMENT. They are not interchangeable, and the difference is relevant to the discussion, as the oaths taken and the duties to be performed do vary. Mixing them up just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 4:06:08 PM |
We were born here?
We had to be born someplace, didn't we?
************************************************************
Citizens have responsibilities to their nations... sometimes, its not what we want, but we do have them.
Why?
Because they say so?
Every nation on earth demands that, but for what? and why? because they appointed themselves lords and masters over everyone else and have the weapons and enough other individuals to force us to treat them that way.
Well, sometimes because of the way laws and societies are.... like here in the US, they don't have enough power to make that threat work and I think it's good they don't... and I see this guy standing up not just for himself, but for all of us...
I respect anyone that's in the military. If they believe in what they're doing, that's wonderful and I hope someday they bring peace on earth... but we all don't think it's right to keep killing innocent people; and that's really what we're doing. It's not about "freedom". That's for dam sure. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 4:15:18 PM | USMA_2006:
Well said Sir, WELL SAID!
Powerful and straight to the point unlike my ramblings and analogies!
War is in itself a crime... we all agree on that so arguing about "illegal" war is stupid.
If you ask me, the US is carrying out UN resolution 1441 that said "Comply/co-operate or face serious consequences". But we all know these days that when Genocide occurs in Darfur/Rwanda that the UN convenes with the US demanding intervention or action, and after months of intense negotiations with China, Russia and every other power in the world, the UN finally announces to the world: "After months of discussion we have come to the unanimous conclusion that: World Peace would be a nice thing."
Your example about Fallujah still does not hold up.
White Phosphorous is used for smoke... that's a whole argument in itself. Practically anything used by any army in the world short of spears and stones can be (and is often) attacked by the left as being chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction. If White Phosphorous is the worst "chemical" or "illegal" weapon being used then life's not too bad. Saddam used Nerve Gas to gas 80,000 Kurds and left thousands more with disgusting disfigurations and you're calling some WP illegal?
In that campaign there is an objective: Find and destroy insurgents.
Situation: Insurgents are hiding in the town
Option A: Try and find insurgents and engage them in the town which will no doubt cause casualties to civilians.
Option B: Kill or remove all civilians which will also mean the removal of all insurgents.
Option A is the legal and ethical option where as option B is far more effective but obviously immoral and illegal.
Hitler chose option B in all his campaigns as did Saddam. The US chooses option A.
Remember that riddle: All zips are zaps, but not all zaps are zips?
Anyways the point is that the intended targets were not civilians. If anything, the war crime lays on the Fallujah insurgents who took up defensive positions using the civilian population as human shields. "War crimes" then are being committed by both sides. You just choose to target the US because there is a receptive audience here.
Now, when Sunnis target Shiites in sectarian violence, is that a war crime? I think it is, because they are targeting each other based on religious views.
The US invasion may have taken the cork out of an explosive bottle of champagne. The real savagery of the war now, is Muslims bombing Muslims.
Sorry for the analogies. But when you join the military, you don't get to choose which battles you fight. Guardsmen didn't get the choice to say "no I don't want to help out in New Orleans because look at that, they're all just looters anyway."
So, when my unit gets ordered to go to Darfur and try and stop the genocide there, will you support me when I realize that violating another countries sovereignty and right to self determination is illegal? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 4:15:47 PM | I am so sick of the it's all about oil crowd and that Bush and his dad are making a killing off of it. As Satellite said show me those numbers.
Now, about oil, Take oil out of transportation, industry, national defense of any or all the industrialized nations and tell me what you have. Total world wide economic and military collapse and world wide anarchy, that's what you would have. If you think too many people are dying now just stop and think a minute about what would happen if all the world governments collapsed simultaneously. Unfortunately we Americans and that includes you Canadians and those South of the US border as well have built our whole world on fossil fuel while the much safer cleaner and renewable fuels were ignored. We are not alone in this on this side of the world our European, African and Asian friends are guilty of it as well. Why is this? Let me tell you why, until just recently it was much cheaper to pump transport and refine the crude oil. We all took the cheapest way to the quickest return $$$$$$. At this point if the oil is in the wrong hands it is great power and extremely dangerous. Now take the egomaniac madman Saddam had become and not even to mention his successors to be who we all saw the video footage of that regimes evil acts that they viewed for pleasure. The best thing that could happen in this world is a huge price increase in crude oil that would continue to fuel the research and development of alternative fuels.
As of today we (The World) can not afford to have a significant portion of the worlds crude oil in the hands of a Dictator that has shown repeatedly his zeal for the destruction and pillaging of others, remember Kuwait, and all those in Iraq that opposed his regime. I can get you links to the mass grave pics if you forgot about them. Whether you are a Democrat a Republican a liberal or conservative surely you must be able to see past your hate for the opposite party and what is best for everyone is to keep crude oil and it's power in the right hands for the time being and replace much of it with alternatives ASAP. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 4:57:31 PM | | Chameleontat, I don't get your post. You start off by saying your sick of the 'all about oil' crowd, but then you say we went over there to take away contol of oil from a dictator. So it sounds like your saying oil is the reason why we are over there. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 6:02:35 PM |
And please, I'm a bit of a stickler for the small things, and there is quite a difference between a COMMISSION and ENLISTMENT. They are not interchangeable, and the difference is relevant to the discussion, as the oaths taken and the duties to be performed do vary. Mixing them up just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
While there is difference in their specific use regarding rank and when used in the forms "enlisted" and "commissioned" the term "enlistment", in the general use, refers to "enrollment in the armed forces", a condition which applies to both O and E ranks.
If you fail (or had failed as the case applies) out of the Point (or any of the other academies) your enrollment obligation does not cease. Your enrollment obligation allows the Army to retain you at a lower rank. The same applies to any other training program for which the Army pays (like OCS or an ROTC scholarship). Before you accuse others of "not knowing what they are talking about" you should first be certain of what, exactly, it is that they are talking about.
But, I suppose, if you want to feel superior then perhaps you should go down to the Starbucks with your graduation ring, your "butter bar" and $5.00 and see which one gets you that cup of coffee. I'm willing to bet Watada's subordinates have more respect for him than you are likely to see with that attitude. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 6:11:24 PM |
If you fail (or had failed as the case applies) out of the Point (or any of the other academies) your enrollment obligation does not cease. Your enrollment obligation allows the Army to retain you at a lower rank. The same applies to any other training program for which the Army pays (like OCS or an ROTC scholarship). Before you accuse others of "not knowing what they are talking about" you should first be certain of what, exactly, it is that they are talking about.
which is why no one takes an oath of office and a COMMISSION until AFTER graduation.
So your point was..... ??? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 6:32:52 PM | "Chameleontat, I don't get your post. You start off by saying your sick of the 'all about oil' crowd, but then you say we went over there to take away control of oil from a dictator. So it sounds like your saying oil is the reason why we are over there."
I'm saying that I don't know that it is or is not the reason for going in, I don't believe it was the sole reason I don't have access to the CIA files and only hear what is told to the public. I do not believe it was a Bush for profit decision. We do now know that oil $$$ was being turned to many things that were forbidden under the oil for food agreement and right under the watch of the greedy and corrupt UN management. Whether our government knew this before and needed to prove it I don't know. I don't think it is a Bush family get richer thing the way the Bush bashers are attempting to paint it but I certainly have no problem with having oil out of Saddam's hands and do care that it does not fall into the hands of another terrorist regime. If that means babysitting Iraq and fighting terrorist that would like to take control of Iraq and it's oil wealth on Iraqi soil till they prove themselves able to do so themselves. Then I would rather that than the alternative. How long did it take to turn Japan around after WW2 and what were the stakes there in comparison. Japan a tiny Asian Island country has become one of the biggest players in this world and a strong Alli it seems there was plenty of opposition by some of our own people to occupation then too in spite of there being no opposition from the Japanese. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 6:59:11 PM | | Here is the problem with people politising the war . My SISTER has been to IRAQ twice this war would be over if it wasn't for Countries like Iran , Syria and Saudi Arabia sending in people to fight with the terrorists ( notice I didn't say insurgents ) . My sisters job in Iraq was to guard female terrorists from Iran . This was never an misalocation of troops it was continueing the war on terror . Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers in Isreal also terrorists were training in northern Iraq . So stop believing it fat Micheal Moore and Al Gore and have a nice day . | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 7:18:19 PM | USMA - I cant believe you can type this stuff with a straight face.... of course I can't see your face so maybe you aren't.
After Hitler invaded France and pushed the British off the shores of Dunkirk, Winston Churchill remarked what a failure appeasement had been and how he wished he and allies had acted sooner.
Relevance? I suspect you are setting up an arguement that works to justify the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine. I would have to suggest you are so off base your gonna need a map and a compass to find yourself.
Some have even suggested the forces behind the pre-emptive doctrine are similiar to those behind the invasion of France.
After horribly graphic images of the Rwandan genocide surfaced around the world, former President Clinton offered an appology to the people of Rwanda for not acting sooner and helping them when we, a nation that had so much, could have come to the aid of a people who had so little.
That the people of Rwanda have so little has little if anything to do with the genocide that was a result of the warmongering perpetuated by "peacekeepers" largely from Belgium who stirred things up enough to create a hornets nest just in time to bail and leave a Canadian general in a lurch. They left the UN their with no capacity to douse the flames of discontent amongst the local tribes and EVERYONE turned a blind eye, so much so, that 8,000,000 people were slain in 100 days and nobody did anything to stop it.
It's really easy to monday morning quarterback the decision to go to war.
Actually it is not. It is not even remotely easy to watch the carnage and the tyranny run rampant in your name and with your tax dollars. Nobody voted for this and experiencing it, even from the comfy distant of our living rooms, is no picnic.
What's really funny is that I would hypothesize (and please, everyone who is whining about the war being illegal is also hypothesizing and what-iffing too, so deal with mine) that if we never did invade Iraq, there would likely have been another attrocity committed by saddam by now, and at the very least another STRING of broken UN aggreements by Iraq, and it would be about this time that the very people who are decrying the war would be calling for it and criticizing the Bush administration for not moving fast enough and stopping a dictator from killing his population earlier, much the same way Clinton was criticized for not doing anything about Rwanda.
First of all, if you are still unaware of the history of Iraq and Sadam H watch this brief video. It is simple and to the point. http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
It outlines the fact that much of what you are condeming SH for and justifying waging war with was condoned by your Goverment for decades prior to "shock and Awe."
Second, that you compare Rwanda and Iraq truly goes some way in explaining the reasoning behind much of what you post here and certainly is a fine commentary on the grasp you have on the reality of contemporary geographical politics.
Secondly, it is absolutely impossible to call the war in iraq an illegal war.
No it is not, in fact, it is probably accurate.
You can all argue morality all you want, but the fact is, like it or not, law and morality are not always in synchronization.
That point is abundantly clear!
Congress voted for the war, and have yet to ammend its decision. Congress MAKES law. What congress says, barring judicial review from the supreme court, IS lawful and is the DEFINITION of legal. Welcome back to 9th grade civics.
Such patronizing and childish chastising does little to support your outlandish postioning and reflects poorly on your professionalism.
Soldiers have the right and obligation to disobey illegal orders because it is possible to issue illegal orders because they come from an individual or small group. Congress, however, ultimately declared war on Iraq and issued the order and congress, with the trust that the american people have endowed it, is unable to issue an unlawful order. Orders issued by congress are open to interpretation by the supreme court and the supreme court only, not by a lowly lieutenant who got a reality check and decided he doesn't want to get shot at.
Once again, it is not necessary to lecture law 101 to the commentators on a dating site. That Congress did something certainly does not make that something lawful. I agree it does it make it law but certainly not lawful.
And please, I'm a bit of a stickler for the small things, and there is quite a difference between a COMMISSION and ENLISTMENT. They are not interchangeable, and the difference is relevant to the discussion, as the oaths taken and the duties to be performed do vary.
Pointing out the nuances of various innaccuracies spread throughout this commentary by observers of your profession does not make your opinion any stronger or more respected. In fact.........
Mixing them up just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
...could not have said it better myself.
Cheers
Eihwaz | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 7:55:25 PM |
To argue a point that Bush woke up one morning and said "how can I lie, get us into a war and kill as many young American boys and Iraqi people as possible?" is just ludicrous.
I would say your point of view is ludicrous on the basis that you can't even comprehend what's been staring you in the face for the last 3 years.
He had the invasion of Iraq planned since the beginning of his administration, even before 911. His own treasury secretary said as much.
Why?
for oil.
He got elected on oil money and was planning out how Iraq's oil would be divided by the west even before 911 happened. Look you guys know about this. Let's stop playing games and admit the truth:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 2:12 AM EST (0712 GMT)
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.
Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.
Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.
"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.
O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.
One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.
Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.
"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."
A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.
"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."
Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.
"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.
"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."
Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.
"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."
Why do you keep pretending you don't know this?
Is it because you, like Bush, can't admit defeat, and will allow american soldiers to keep getting killed as long as you're in office so you don't have to have a "1" in the loss column? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 8:38:54 PM | Dude,
You still haven't gotten over that Kerry lost to Bush? You gotta move on...
And wow, quotes from CNN, or as we call them at work, the Commie News Network.
I flipped on CNN 5 minutes after Saddam was hung to see what kind of liberal, anti-American spin they would put on it. As soon as he was hung they started questioning wether or not he got a fair trial! That was followed by another commentator wondering why they couldn't wait till he was tried for all the other crimes "and then see what happens". I wonder what that reporter wanted to happen?
Meanwhile, back at the forum...
I would have thought that this soldier understood he signed a contract to follow orders and not question authority, The Army is not the place to question your boss.
USMA and Spuds, thanks for defending my country. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 8:48:12 PM | A common argument I've seen here is that the officer is required to follow the rules of his government. What you have not taken into account is that his government is required to follow the rules of the UN. It was for the UN to decide if there should be a war on Iraq, not the US government. The UN decided not to at that time, and told the US government not to go to war. The Bush administration did so anyways. The UN has declared the war is illegal. The officer has the right to refuse illegal orders.
And there you have it. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 4 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
