|
|
|
|
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 8:55:25 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?
1) you're trying to change the subject because the side you support is unsupportable. Nobody brought up Kerry but you. I could bring Nixon up, who extended the Viet Nam war by four years by lying to the North Vietnamese when Johnson was trying to end it.
2) You just wrote a bunch of stuff about Saddam hanging that's a bunch of garbage and doesn't mean anything. If you're going to contribute, at least say something with a point.
3) You call CNN a "commie network", which is an outright misstatement of fact.
If CNN is communist, NAME ONE COMMUNIST ON CNN.
if you can't then it's a lie. Just like it was when Mc Carthy said he could name communists in the US government. You're so desperate for an argument, you even reiterate that failed garbage now.
If you're insulting news agencies, CNN is nowhere near the worst.
CNN is alot more reliable than Fox.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
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.
the army is the most important place to challenge your boss because armies kill more than any other institutions in the world.
USMA and Spuds, thanks for defending my country.
We who oppose the war thank them also. You're not the only one who's a US citizen, BUT in a democratic society, we reserve the right to oppose illegal, immoral wars and dictators. That's got nothing to do with respecting solders. That's just doing the right thing. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:02:02 PM | | Thanks - as a mom who has a son over in Iraq--I would SO PROUD if this were my son standing up for the truth, and what he believes in. I don't think anyone signed up in the first place knowing they would be sent to fight a war for Emporer bush, and for revenge for 9/11? The pres couldn't even figure out which country was responsible--with Cheney, Halliburton and Bush all glommed on together, this is about profiteering, not good versus evil--and it's time Iraqi people stopped having to die because they live within the boundaries of Iraq. I would be proud to be friends or family with Lt. Ehren Watada, and hope with the rest of the country that Democrats can and will help us get out of this mess. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:11:30 PM |
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.
The problem with that arguement is this; who decided that the United States is unilaterally responsible for deciding who's allowed to possess the resources of a nation? To many outside of the US, and even many within it's borders, the Bush administration is a terroristic regime. So if you look at it from that point of view, then I'm afraid the oil has fallen into the hands of a terroristic regime.
I understand the contempt fellow officers feel for this deserter. This lieutenant's motivations may be suspect. However, this individual is not alone. I have seen other members of different divisions of the armed forces who have expressed their concerns about the war. Whether it's because they see no way out, no way of winning it, no reason to continue it... it's becoming more and more common. As a member of the armed forces, one is not supposed to question orders. However, I don't see why it is wrong for those of us who are afforded the freedom of speech that these wars apparently provide us with to denounce a war that the soldiers are not allowed to speak out against as a result of oaths taken. It's not that anyone is questioning the service of those who are fighting, it's the motives of those who are ordering you to fight that are in question. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:19:34 PM |
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?
It's the way lil Willy Peter got used that's a crime, based on one serviceman's report in a military magazine.
From US Army's "Field Artillery Magazine":
9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (…) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (…)
THE FIGHT FOR FALLUJAH - TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah By Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context
=viewArticle&code=20051110&articleId=1228
and...
Shake 'n' bake
Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.
Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."
Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.
"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.
"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.
The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.
- Ibid
Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.
Map showing Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Falluja
"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm
The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus against civilian - but not military - targets. The US did not sign the treaty and has continued to use white phosphorus and an updated version of napalm, called Mark 77 firebombs, which use kerosene rather than petrol. A senior US commander previously has confirmed that 510lb napalm bombs had been used in Iraq and said that, "the generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
John Pike, director of the Washington-based military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said the smoke caused by the bombs could confuse or blind the enemy or mark a target. "If it hits your clothes it will burn your clothes and if it hits your skin it will just keep on burning," he said.
Experts said that, if not removed, white phosphorus - known as Willy Pete - can burn to the bone. The fumes from phosphorus cause severe eye irritation.
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3401
Clearly, WP was used as a weapon, not for smoke cover. Firing such a round into a civilian area means that you are going to possibly hit civilians, by definition. I remember reading some stories about the fire bombings of Dresden in WW2, and it's gruesome effects.
Effects on humans
White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into soft tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke and by being ingested. Extensive exposure in any way can be fatal.
Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by "The Guardian", "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries" .
Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke. Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.
WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes. (By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/white-phosphorus
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.
So, if I understand you correctly, the insurgents should all line up outside somewhere in the desert and yell "Bring it on !" 
The insurgency would last approximately as long as it would take to roll in and drop a few dozen clusterbombs. If one accepts the premise that people have a right to resist what they see as an occupation against a vastly superior force (technologically) the insurgents must (by simple rule of survival) use IED's and "hiding amongst the population".
Anything else means they die in five minutes....or less. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:25:46 PM | Magnificentlady,
I remember when I joined the Canadian Air Force, my mother cautioned me to think very carefully before joining, for once in it was no longer my right or responsibility to make decisions about which war I felt was right.
Not all soldiers agree with the war; that's a fact and no one will hold it against them. But your son is not a politician and in certain circumstances, "standing up for the truth... against emperor Bush" is simply desertion or abandoning a job others trusted you to do.
When the next Hurrican Katrina hits and you and your family are stranded, if people in the military suddenly disagree with being used to help bring in aid, will you still agree with "standing up for what you believe in?"
Standing up for beliefs is one thing, abandoning your job when others trusted you to perform it is another.
Agree with the war or not, every serviceman who deserts, leaves or is difficult only puts more strain and stress on his buddies.
So the UN is the final word on everything moral and legal I assume? How about Rwanda? How about Darfur where after years they've finally agreed that "something bad MIGHT be happening over there." Or how about North Korea where unanimously the UN says "Nuclear weapons are a bad thing."
Practically anything the UN comes to an agreement on, is in language a 3rd grader could spit out. "Iran must stop its nuclear weapons program." "Iraq must comply or face serious consequences." "It would be nice if someone stopped all the bad things that might be happening in Darfur." Give me a break. The only conclusion the UN is capable of is "World Peace would be a nice thing." Same as any miss America pagent winner.
As a sidenote, if Canada decides that it's going to take matters into its own hands and intervene in Darfur to stop the killing, since the UN hasn't "authorized" it does that make intervention in a clear case of genocide, an illegal war?
So no, just because the UN says something is illegal does not make it so.
The UN promised in 1441 "Sever consequences" for Iraq. What does "Severe" in the UN mean? Preceding "please" with "Pretty?" | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:42:34 PM |
Practically anything the UN comes to an agreement on, is in language a 3rd grader could spit out. "Iran must stop its nuclear weapons program." "Iraq must comply or face serious consequences." "It would be nice if someone stopped all the bad things that might be happening in Darfur." Give me a break. The only conclusion the UN is capable of is "World Peace would be a nice thing." Same as any miss America pagent winner.
Regardless of your feelings about the UN, it is still the authority on this matter.
So no, just because the UN says something is illegal does not make it so.
Actually, yes it does. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:54:06 PM |
So no, just because the UN says something is illegal does not make it so.
The UN promised in 1441 "Sever consequences" for Iraq. What does "Severe" in the UN mean? Preceding "please" with "Pretty?"
It didn't mean war.
That's why the US tried to pass another resolution, but gave up when they saw it would not get the support to pass.
If the first resolution gave the authority to attack, the second one was a waste of time.
Compare that to the resolution that DID authorize the use of force, the one that lead to Desert Storm, when Saddam refused to withdraw from Kuwait.
While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660, passed on Aug. 2, 1990, demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.)
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal
course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise
the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a
resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has conduced that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
ATTORNEY GENERAL - Memo to British Prime Minster Tony Blair
Annex A
7 March 2003
Without international law, and overview, anyone can invade any nation they want at any time. They don't even have to be right about what they claim. That's the danger here.
The only two clear reasons permitted under international law to attack another country are by UN authorization, or in a very serious case of clear self-defense. You better be right about the threat too. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:58:23 PM | hockeyr said:
And wow, quotes from CNN, or as we call them at work, the Commie News Network.
How is anybody supposed to argue with logic and reason like that....? 
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.
Patently false. Soldiers not only have a right, but an obligation to "question authority" and not follow illegal orders. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 10:20:17 PM |
When the next Hurrican Katrina hits and you and your family are stranded, if people in the military suddenly disagree with being used to help bring in aid, will you still agree with "standing up for what you believe in?"
False logic, the two situations are not comparable as they contain no true commonalities.
if Canada decides that it's going to take matters into its own hands and intervene in Darfur to stop the killing, since the UN hasn't "authorized" it does that make intervention in a clear case of genocide, an illegal war?
This is a much more apt comparison. Of course it depends on what you mean by intervening in Darfur.
Are you talking about directly guarding the non-muslims and relief supplies and only shooting if the soldiers or their charges are shot at? Of course this would not be an illegal war because no war is being waged and yet the genocide is stopped.
Or are you talking about instituting "regime change" in Khartoum by direct force of arms (you know bombing their capital and infrastructure, attacking them without ever having been attacked, that kind of thing). This, by the standards of the charter (quoted below), would be an illegal war and yet the genocide is stopped.
The UN Charter does not allow states to attack another. The only exceptions are if the Security Council specifically authorises military action, or if a nation acts in self-defence. Article 51 of the Charter defines "self-defence" very narrowly, stating that a country has the right of self-defence only "if an armed attack occurs". Except - and only - in case of an imminent attack the UN charter does not include anticipatory self-defence or pre-emption.
Notice the common characteristic to both approaches, "and yet the genocide is stopped". One involves actively attacking another (the illegal) while the other involves the active defense of another (the legal one) and they both, presumably, have the same outcome.
Of course we know which option was taken in Iraq and how it relates to legitimacy. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 11:41:38 PM |
as a mom who has a son over in Iraq--I would SO PROUD if this were my son standing up for the truth, and what he believes in.
Magnificentlady, warmest good thoughts for your son's safety and a quick return back home.
~Boots~ | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 1:07:26 AM | This butter bar is scared to go fight. He's trying to use the media to get out of trouble for it.
I don't blame him and I don't care what happens to him.
All these arguments are useless. No matter what the politicians say on the news they all vote to keep the war going. Nothing is going to change that.
Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan not Iraq.
The war sucks there's no two ways about it. You're intitled to feel about it how ever you want to. Burn flags or whatever you want, that's what we're fighting for is your freedom, sometimes to act like an idiot. It doesn't matter if you want help fighting for your freedom or not.
March on Washington this weekend but remember when you go home, we'll still be marching in Iraq. Probly for at least fifty years or so. Hopefully not but....
The media in our country is basically the psychological operations wing of al queda now. You guys want us to get killed and lose so your guy can win an election. Hope it was worth it.
Don't bother arguing with me because I don't care what you think and won't be looking at this again. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 2:13:08 AM | This butter bar is scared to go fight. He's trying to use the media to get out of trouble for it.
Nope, he asked to fight in Afghanistan, ...no Disneyland itself.
It doesn't matter if you want help fighting for your freedom or not.
Look at the numbers of human beings dying, look at who's paying the trillions to foot the bill, and observe the very few making a lot of money off of the whole shebang. Just as you feel that you are fighting for others freedom, an honourable pursuit... Others are vocally opposed to the foreign policies of those who have put you in harms way in the first place for what looks like promoting corporate hegemony, ...also an honourable pursuit.
In any honest analysis, ...neither negates the other.
I have nothing but gratitude for those who serve, but I also don't expect them to commit crimes, if THAT'S what their own research has told their conscience that following orders would result in.
The Army should have granted his request to fight in Afghanistan, it was them who politisized this.
Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Maybe they should have granted Lt. Ehren Watada's request to fight in Afghanistan, where he didn't feel he would be complicit in an invasion/occupation policy founded on fabricated and cooked intel.
He WANTED to fight in Afghanistan, where he felt he could serve with honour, ...he didn't feel he could serve with honour in Iraq where he, as many do, see the situation as a debacle of a flawed and illegal foreign policy agenda. Where most of the movers and shakers in the administration are clearly duplicitous.
The media in our country is basically the psychological operations wing of al queda now.
Before, after, ....they always seem to be serving an agenda other than the truth.
You guys want us to get killed and lose so your guy can win an election.
I have yet to hear a single soul express this, nor have I heard a reasonable argument that ties the critique of a flawed foreign policy with a lack of support for those who serve.
Hope it was worth it.
You should ask this of the POTUS and his administration. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 3:17:53 AM | I have read all five pages of this and I think that there are some things that are not being dealt with in this thread.
First of all, can we all agree that the UN as a whole is basically useless? That they committed bigger war crimes than Bush in the way that they handled the whole oil for food thing? We aren't required to follow their rules. Not that anyone does anyway. Think about this people, this is the same organization that has the President of Libya in the seat as the head of the Humanitrian oversight committee.
Second, Congress did vote to go to war. That means that this war is legal according to U.S. Constitution. We as the American public are not privy to all the intelligence information that they are. I personally wouldn't want to be. There are just some things that I don't want to know. Yes, I have my reasons for feeling that way.
Third, I don't think that anyone will disagree that we are fed mainstream media and that is where most of us get our information. Some of us have inside sources in family members that are there and occasionally will say something that makes us wonder just how the media is saying what they are saying.
Fourth, someone else posted that we ( the U.S.) sold Saddam WMDs some time back, where are they? They aren't there? So where did they go? Saddam was allowing terriorists of all sorts to use that country as a training ground. Women were being beheaded and children under the age of 6 were being jailed because they wouldn't sign ( I don't know many 6 year olds that can sign anything) a party card. We were asked by some Iraqians themselves to please help. Should we just ignore all pleas for help? Because to turn one down means that we should turn them all down.
What has all this got to do with this LT? He signed on to do a job, he was explained the risks and the benefits upfront. He was told that his personal beliefs were just that his. That he was becoming United States Military property and his only job was to follow the orders given to him to the best of his ability. To me, his refusal to deploy was breach of contract, and if I were his employer, after I spent thousands of dollars on him, you bet I would have his happy ass in court and he would suffer the full extent of what I could do.
He made the decision to get over his personal thoughts the minute he put ink to paper and signed that contract. End of Story. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 3:38:14 AM | First of all, can we all agree that the UN as a whole is basically useless?
Nope
Second, Congress did vote to go to war. That means that this war is legal according to U.S. Constitution. We as the American public are not privy to all the intelligence information that they are. I personally wouldn't want to be. There are just some things that I don't want to know. Yes, I have my reasons for feeling that way.
See this thread for what has come to light concerning what they were told, there's already a thread on the "lies" in question:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/6267942datingPostpage3.aspx
Third, I don't think that anyone will disagree that we are fed mainstream media and that is where most of us get our information. Some of us have inside sources in family members that are there and occasionally will say something that makes us wonder just how the media is saying what they are saying.
Some of us dig deeper.
Fourth, someone else posted that we ( the U.S.) sold Saddam WMDs some time back, where are they?
In the past - see the above link, for a few hints. Also:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s
What has all this got to do with this LT?
He learned that the country he had sworn to protect had been sold down the river, and had been lied to.
He signed on to do a job, he was explained the risks and the benefits upfront. He was told that his personal beliefs were just that his.
He wsn't afraid to fight, and even requested deployment to Afghanistan, as an officer he realized that he now knew that his CIC was a fraud.
Imagine of more officers would have clued into what the third Reich was up to, ...oh yeah, those were the ones not hung at Nuremburg.
That he was becoming United States Military property and his only job was to follow the orders given to him to the best of his ability.
See Nuremburg, ...if he believed that going to Iraq was a war crime it was his duty as a human being to request a transfer to Afghanistan (which he did), or refuse.
To me, his refusal to deploy was breach of contract, and if I were his employer, after I spent thousands of dollars on him, you bet I would have his happy ass in court and he would suffer the full extent of what I could do.
I would have sent him to Afghanistan where he could have served with honour and killed with a clear conscience
He made the decision to get over his personal thoughts the minute he put ink to paper and signed that contract. End of Story.
Apparently not, ...though I doubt we'll get to hear his side of things in detail. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 6:33:34 AM |
However, I don't see why it is wrong for those of us who are afforded the freedom of speech that these wars apparently provide us with to denounce a war that the soldiers are not allowed to speak out against as a result of oaths taken. It's not that anyone is questioning the service of those who are fighting, it's the motives of those who are ordering you to fight that are in question.
Well said. I commend you for being so tactful in your response, especially noting that "soldiers are not allowed to speak out against [the war] as a result of oaths taken."
I have no problem with people DEBATING the decisions of those making policy, but I vehemently oppose anyone trying to make this guy out to be some kind of hero for being a coward. And yes, as I've already said before, he is a coward. He volunteered for service in Afghanistan instead of Iraq at a time when Afghanistan was on the news once a week and Iraq was on the news 24/7 with roadside bombs, VBIED's, and sectarian violence. I'm not saying that it is now less dangerous or less important to be in Afghanistan, but I am saying that that perception existed at the time of his dissent.
Some people on here say that soldiers should be able to "vote" where they go, and some of these people claim to know a lot about the military. I almost didn't even want to respond to this because this idea is so idiotic I thought it would be obvious, but then I've read some other things that have been written on here, and now I wouldn't put it past some of the people on here. I wonder what that ballot would look like: Iraq, Afghanistan, or Stay home and continue to collect your paycheck while training for war (which none of you will ever vote for, so why bother). Whoever came up with the idea of a vote (I'm too lazy to read back again to see who), you're quite genius. Why don't you run for congress on that platform and see if you can accomplish any change (Man, I wish POF had a sarcasm font).
Once again, this person is no hero, as the headline on this thread tries to make it seem, so don't treat him as such. If anything, I thought more would be angered at the amount of YOUR money he has wasted in his education and training so that he could do nothing. The military is a profession, and one of the tenets of a profession is that it self-polices and in doing so makes it more trustworthy since it doesn't need outside help to police within its ranks. Let US, the military, judge this person, since we need to police our own ranks. He is not of your concern to judge. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 8:58:18 AM |
If anything, I thought more would be angered at the amount of YOUR money he has wasted in his education and training so that he could do nothing.
He was willing to go to Afghanistan. I doubt that you actually think the soldiers in Afghanistan are doing nothing. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 9:41:39 AM |
Who the phack make these rules that if a soldier didn't deploy for legitimate reasons, he be punished and put in jail for six years?
Ummm... are you serious?? He signed a contract and took an oath. Last time I checked, you could be fined and/or jailed for breaching any sort of contract. It is actually expected to be penalized in some way for a breach in a contract. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 9:49:01 AM | 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.
We enjoy the benefits of our nation... things like education, roads, safety, ... all sorts of things we wouldn't have without a national organization. Since we take these benefits from the group, we owe the group something in return. These are our responsibilities as citizens of the nation. Make more sense now?
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...
No. He is standing up for himself. Because his stance is opposed to the war, and because of his stature as an officer, some antiwar people are making him out to be their champion... and thats a mistake.
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.
I know. I agree with much of what you write. I also agree with you that this war is wrong. I just don't agree that the LT is truly a champion for the antiwar movement or such. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 9:51:42 AM | As for this Lt Watada willing to go to Aphganistan instead of Iraq... The whole thing with the terrorists and Al Quaida... there's enough controversy over what exactly happened on 9/11 that the whole "War on Terror" could quite possibly be just as illegal as the war in Iraq. The whole premise to getting into Iraq in the first place was Hussein's "ties to Al Quaida" and all of his weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. It didn't matter that sources independant from Bush and his cronies knew these were incorrect, all that mattered was Bush's assertion that there was a connection and "He's got 'em" in regard to Hussein's WMD's. Then the mission changed to capturing Hussein for war crimes and nothing at all to do with terrorism, which was why the war started in the first place.
People are saying, "show me the numbers" as an argument to say that Bush and his cronies aren't profitting from this war.
What was with all the funny Wall street trading just prior to 9/11? What was up with the insurance policies concerning the Twin Towers? What's with all these private companies that bush is tied to financially going in and getting all the jobs for "rebuilding" Iraq or "managing" the oil?
There's HUGE profits in wars for the people that know how to run them "properly". For everyone else, there's just loss.
OK, so Bush ended up pulling one dictator down, only to assume the seat himself. Fat lot of good that's doing to the people in Iraq now.
As for the soldiers being barbarians over there in Iraq, what else did we expect? I heard so much talk in the general public that Bush should just drop a nuke on Bagdhad and Aphganistan and be done with the whole lot of them. Soldiers were treating their missions like video games with hard rock music blasting in their earphones as they shot at people. The news headlines kept looking like score boards, Iraqis 250, US 95.
This whole war seems to have been ill planned, poorly exucuted, no clear agendas, much cover up, and seemed to accomplish nothing really more than killing and scaring lots of innocent people.
Aside from the fact that I admire Lt. Watada's determination to stay out of this war, he should be punished for refusing to serve in the manner he signed up to do. I hope that his actions inspire others to find better solutions to the problems that are going on in the world today. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 10:14:52 AM |
Ummm... are you serious?? He signed a contract and took an oath. Last time I checked, you could be fined and/or jailed for breaching any sort of contract. It is actually expected to be penalized in some way for a breach in a contract.
What about all the contracts breached by the Bush administration, including the one with the armed forces? | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 10:19:12 AM |
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?
LOL! Yes, and atomic weapons are used for audio/visual effects. Apparently nobody showed you the civilian corpses out of Fallujah with chemical burns from white phosphorus...oooooooohhh wait they are called "collateral damage", not a war crime at all, just bad luck!
Anyway, as I said earlier I made my point and am not interested arguing about the obvious. I have had my share of forum battling with anonymous profiles from Canada arguing pro US foreign policy points...
..at least you are not insulting intelligence so much, just torturing analogies out of their wits and using the usual rhetorical tricks they teach wholesale I guess nowdays for political forum participation... | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 10:20:15 AM |
Ummm... are you serious?? He signed a contract and took an oath. Last time I checked, you could be fined and/or jailed for breaching any sort of contract.
Ummm.... no. Breach of contract is a civil offence not a criminal offence. You can be sued and either compelled to perform or pay damages but breach of contract itself is not a 'jailable' or 'fine-able' offence. Even the UCMJ does not have a true "breach of contract" provision. The closest is article 139, but even this does not cover "breach of contract" in the real sense.
The military does not charge for "breach of contract" but rather the actual offence (even though it may in some way constitute a breach of contract in the literal sense).
I am sure Watada fully expects he will probably be charged under one or more of articles 87, 88, 90, 92, 133 and 134 (and maybe a couple of others I have forgotten). I don't see him avoiding the consequences of his decision, if he were doing that he would have deserted and gone into hiding rather than reporting and refusing. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 10:38:10 AM |
Ummm... are you serious?? He signed a contract and took an oath. Last time I checked, you could be fined and/or jailed for breaching any sort of contract. It is actually expected to be penalized in some way for a breach in a contract.
What about all the contracts breached by the Bush administration, including the one with the armed forces?
Its irrelevant because He was still willing to serve the Bush administration... he just wanted to do it in a safer place. Afghanistan may be dangerous... but so is downtown Los Angeles after dark. The LT doesn't have any issue with the war outside of his personal safety.
Regardless of what he says... he signed after it started and AFTER it was already controversal. He didn't say anything bad about it until he was given orders to deploy there.
However, I am sure he was happy to allow the Army to pay for his college, to pay him while attending college, and to give him additional training after college. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/5/2007 11:03:15 AM | ^^ Good posts, last two replies.
Lets get down to a central question of the LTs objections to the reasons supplied by the administration for invasion and attack. In two countries: Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why would the LT agree to serve in Afghanistan?
We need to delve a bit into the much less politicized war in Afghanistan.
The officially-stated purpose of the invasion was to destroy al-Queda and deny them sanctuary and freedom of movement within Afghanistan and to remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and haven to al-Qaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan
How is the rationale for US occupation of Afghanistan less objectionable, on the basis of than that of the ones supplied for invasion and occupation of Iraq?
According to an Australian TV report, the United States applied psychological pressure to force enemy Taliban fighters out into the open. The report stated that members of the 173d Airborne Brigade burned Taliban bodies for hygienic reasons.
A psychological operations soldier, Sgt. Jim Baker was recorded reading out a message to the Taliban:
"Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."
Another soldier reportedly broadcast statements such as:
"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."
According to a Japan Today report, U. S. authorities are investigating the incident to determine whether the troops' efforts may have contravened the Geneva convention.
The Dasht-i-Leili massacre allegedly occurred in December, 2001, when a number (disputed to be between 250 and 3,000) of Taliban prisoners were shot or suffocated to death in metal truck containers while being transferred by U.S. and Northern Alliance soldiers from Kunduz to Sheberghan prison in northern Afghanistan. [33] These claims are disputed by journalist Robert Young Pelton, who was present at the time of the incident. [34]
There are allegations that coalition soldiers tortured prisoners in interrogations; many complaints center on the U.S. prison camp at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Abdul Wali died on June 21, 2003, at a base near Asadabad. He was allegedly beaten by former Army Ranger and CIA contractor David Passaro, who was arrested on June 17, 2004, on four counts of assault. His trial is set for the summer of 2006.
In 2004, the U.S.-based human rights group Human Rights Watch released a report entitled 'Enduring Freedom - Abuses by US Forces in Afghanistan', containing multiple allegations of abuse by American forces.
In February 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union released documents they had obtained from the United States Army which showed that, following the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Army in Afghanistan had destroyed photographs which documented the abuse of prisoners in their custody. Pictures were taken in the area of fire base Tycze, and around the villages of Gurjay and Sukhagen. The pictures were alleged to have shown soldiers posing with hooded and bound detainees during mock executions.
See also: Bagram torture and prisoner abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
On September 24, 2006, the LA Times published their results of a co-investigation with non-profit organization Crimes of War Project, proposing that 10 members of ODA 2021 of the Alabama National Guard during the last month of their tour in early 2003 at a base in Gardez had tortured a peasant and an 18 year-old recruit of the Afghan National Army, the latter to death. They allegedly coordinated possible testimonies in case of investigation.
Is this behavior against the opposing forces any less reprehensible than that reported in Iraq?
So what if there is an international coalition. The reasons we attacked are not substantially different, save the questions of WMDs
But WAIT! Terrorists in Afghanistan had WMDs too!!
And it was one of the reasons that the UN sanctioned international coalition for invasion!
Al-Qaeda’s WMD Strategy Prior to the U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan Part I
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369800
Now read this carefully:
With the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, al-Qaeda could no longer maintain its WMD programs in that country. In the post-intervention period, there have been several developments which spotlight a changing strategy; moving from in-house production of WMD, to outsourcing.
This was the basis for US, UK and a few other support countries operative reports from within the international intelligence community.
The prime target for their suspicions?
Iraq. And that fear was underscored by planned terrorist bombings (actual and thwarted attempts) in the US and elsewhere.
Now read the second part to this saga:
Al-Qaeda’s WMD Strategy Prior to the U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan Part II
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369811
Do you understand the repercussions of the war in Afghanistan? Like the war in Iraq, it drove terrorists into global encampments, and made the targets much more diffuse and difficult to counter in their subversive violence.
And brothers and sisters, there was no question of WMDs not being present in either country. They were simply relocated to more distant secret camps.
-------------------
If and when the Lt is asked why he feels that the war in Afghanistan is less morally objectionable than that of Iraq, I wonder how he will answer. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
