Soldiers: Turn your backs on this President, don't kill or die for him.

[Philosoraptor]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0616-31.htm

Do it for America, but don't do it for him. He doesn't give a damn about you or your families or your futures. He's incapable of it, turn your backs on him, lay down your arms in his service. Serve your country and stop fighting for these mad men.

Your nation wants you safe and at home where you belong. Bush lied to you, from the get go, stop serving him and his oil men. Do the right thing. Do the patriotic thing, take away Bush's power and turn your backs on him.

------------------------------

Published on Friday, June 16, 2006 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Soldier's Duty: Say No to Illegal War
by Michael Honey

Lost in the media frenzy over the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, First Lt. Ehren Watada, of Fort Lewis, opened another front in the conflict over President Bush's war of choice in Iraq. At a news conference in Tacoma a few hours before al-Zarqawi's death, Watada announced his refusal of orders to deploy to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal as well as immoral.

"An order to take part in an illegal war is illegal in itself," he said. "I felt it was my obligation as a leader to speak out against the willful misconduct at the highest level of the chain of command."

--------

"I refuse to be silent any longer," he told reporters in Tacoma. "I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the president tells us to 'stay the course.' I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home."

Not surprising, some condemn Watada as a coward or derelict in his duty as a soldier or even as guilty of sedition and treason and deserving of execution. Despite threats of court martial and prison, Bush's war of choice forced him, as he put it, to "choose the hard right over the easy wrong (and) to have the strength and the courage to do what is right for America."

[Sailor for Warner]

1. I took an oath.

The entire Navy will not just up and not go. As long as there is one diehard freeper under my command who wants to go and die for President Bush, it is my job as a military officer to go with him. To do otherwise is not only irresponsible, it is immoral and a gross dereliction of duty.

[Philosoraptor]

2. So did your president.

[Sailor for Warner]

3. Whether or not he has broken his oath

does not allow me to break mine.

[shadowknows69]

112. Your oath, correct me if i'm wrong, is to defend the constitution

from all enemies foreign or domestic. Your enemy is domestic. It is in fact your commander in chief. He has pissed all over that sacred document and he is asking you and yours to keep dying so he can complete his dictatorship.

[Philosoraptor]

118. from all enemies foreign or domestic---DING DING DING

precisely, our enemy is domestic, the CIC.

[KansDem]

127. Let's see how George W. Bush feels about the Consitution, shall we?

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

“It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"

[snappyturtle]

284. Great link....thanks! nt

[KansDem]

131. self deleted

[BrklynLiberal]

319. Self delete..keyboard hiccup.

[BrklynLiberal]

320. Absolutely. The oath is to the Constitution and to this country. NOT TO

ONE MAN, or even the office of the President.

[BrklynLiberal]

321. Self Delete dupe

[flyarm]

154. AND JUST WHAT IS YOUR OATH?? TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION

IS IT NOT??????????????????????????????????????????

FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC enemies............IS IT NOT??????????????

SO BRING IT ON!! WHAT WAS YOUR OATH??

if anyone in this administration or any other administration told you to break the constitution ..is it not your oath and responsibility to stand up and protect the constitution???????????????

so tell us ..if * gave you orders to go kill 1 million Americans..would you follow those orders??

you scare me sir!!

sir, you are abdicating your responsibility to the constitution and to your oath by following illegal orders!

fly

[Sailor for Warner]

158. Nice screaming really gets your point across

What illegal orders have I been given. I am not beholden to the UN charter, I have followed the orders of my CIC who has the right to deploy soldiers as he sees fit. Let me know what laws I have been ordered to break and I will let you know on a line by line basis.

"so tell us ..if * gave you orders to go kill 1 million Americans..would you follow those orders??"
No that is not a lawful order for the US military to be used to kill US citizens.

[wtmusic]

259. It's not a lawful order to kill Iraqis either

for many, many reasons.

If you're going to use the word "lawful" you need to do some homework, specifically about why the invasion was entirely illegal in the first place. Then you might start to see how obeying orders to report to Iraq is tantamount to firing on US civilians.

[Sailor for Warner]

272. Please enlighten me, I have been talked down to like some sort of rube

Ever since I joined DU, why should it stop now.

[wtmusic]

279. I apologize

if I've taken that tone.

Article IV of the Constitution states that "all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

In the wake of a war that killed an estimated 60 million people (WWII), the purpose of the new United Nations was clearly stated in its Charter: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". It is a treaty signed by 7 representatives of the US and requires that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

How can a nation defend itself under the terms of the Charter? They thought of that--Article 51 specifies that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

The key phrase is if an armed attack occurs. Thus the US has no legal right to attack Iraq--unless Iraq attacks it, or an ally, first. This is a fundamental moral precept, the origins of which go back 400 years to the Treaty at Westphalia.

You can regard these commitments as arcane legal distinctions, or you can view them in the light in which it was created: as international law which would, if followed, prevent the horrors of war altogether. As a nation our commitment is to international law first and foremost. The predicament created by the Bush administration is one that forces brave servicemembers, who have put their lives on the line for their country, to break one law by following another.

It's worthwhile to note that regardless of the rhetoric about "terrorism" and an "insurgency" coming out of DC, Iraqis are doing exactly what you would do if the US were attacked--defending their nation from a foreign invasion.

[Hosnon]

381. Not entirely accurate. Constitutionally, a treaty cannot be signed that,

in effect, amends the Constitution. There is a process for that and it cannot be done by merely the Senate and the President. Treaties are supreme to the extent that they do not conflict with the Constitution. For example, a Treaty that alters how long a legislator's term is to be would be invalid.

Bush's argument is that he has the authority to do what he is doing pursuant to his powers granted under Article II. If that is accurate (I don't think it is) then the invasion would be entirely Constitutional and legal.

[wtmusic]

395. The scope of international law trumps the Constitution

unless Bush is vain enough to think he is ruler of the world. So it would be the other way around--international treaties dealing with the interaction of sovereign nations take precedence over the Constitution.

[Hosnon]

397. In some moral sense perhaps. But the courts of the U.S. do not agree with

you.

[wtmusic]

399. Yeah, well the courts in Mississippi didn't agree with the Supreme Court

on civil rights, but that was too f*cking bad, wasn't it?

[Hosnon]

402. Of course. The decisions of the Supreme Court trump those of the State

Courts because of the way our legal system is set up.

The World Court's opinions do not trump those of the U.S. Supreme Court or any U.S. court for that matter.

[wtmusic]

406. What is the "World Court"?

If you're referring to the International Court of Justice we haven't signed on, and you're correct.

We are, however, bound by our obligations to the UN and these obligations do indeed trump those of the US Supreme Court and the legal institutions of every other member state.

"As the existence of a state presupposes control and jurisdiction over territory, international law deals with the acquisition of territory, state immunity and the legal responsibility of states in their conduct with each other."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

In practice, does it always work that way? Of course not. But when it doesn't, as it hasn't regarding Iraq, it sets the peace process back decades.

[Hosnon]

415. Yes, the ICJ is commonly referred to as the World Court. It was created by

the United Nations Charter and we are a signatory to that charter. However, I believe that, in each case, the parties must agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the decision to be binding. And of course, we don't do that often.

The obligations to the U.N. do not trump those of the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to our legal system. Whatever is in a treaty is only legally valid in the U.S. to the extent it does not conflict with the Constitution, and in some circumstances, federal law.

There is not complete agreement as to what "inherent right" in Article 51 refers. The right to self-defense has existed in its present form since at least Daniel Webster. Webster noted that a country does not have to wait until an army is crossing the border to act to defend itself. This principle is a part of customary international law. The U.N. Charter is believed to preserve that inherent right, as is.

The question is how far the doctrine extends. The Bush administration has stretched it to its limits. However, if you believe that the need to act regarding Iraq was "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," then the invasion was legal under International law. I don't believe it was but the argument is certainly valid.

The invasion may be illegal under International law but the enforcement of that law has always been one of its more difficult aspects to work out. Furthermore, if Bush is acting under his Article II authority, then the U.N. Charter can not limit what he can legally (with reference to the U.S. legal system) do. Again, I do not believe he is.

[wtmusic]

416. "This principle is a part of customary international law"

and "The UN Charter is believed to preserve that inherent right". What inherent right? To launch pre-emptive wars? Judge Robert Jackson at Nuremburg would disagree with you. He was able to hang 11 Nazis by their necks for doing just that.

Your statements are simply not true. Article 51 is crystal-clear: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

The language is specific for a good reason.

"Preemptive self defense, however, is clearly unlawful under international law. Armed action in self-defense is permitted only against armed attack. Some scholars have argued over the years that preemptive self-defense should be considered lawful, but the United States as a government has consistently supported the prohibition on such preemptive use of force. The United States has taken this position for compelling reasons of national security and in light of its national values. It is joined in this position by the vast majority of the international community. Thus, the reality is that the United States has no right to use force to prevent possible, as distinct from actual, armed attacks. The further reality is that the United States does not advance its security or its moral standing in the world by doing so."

The Myth of Pre-emptive Self-Defense

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

[ComerPerro]

191. and yet there are still people here who think that

the US Military wouldn't turn on US Citizens if ordered to

[Sailor for Warner]

194. I know I would not

It is not even close to a lawful order

[ComerPerro]

199. But, like you said, you took an oath. I honestly think a lot of them would

[Laurab]

293. But it could become one under this pResident

What then? He is, after all, your CIC. He makes his own laws, as he did with this war. If just one freeper under your command insisted on following his orders, you would be obligated to follow them, as well, according to your initial post.

I know a few people in the military who don't think about the politics of what they're doing, they just go and do their jobs. Some think about the politics, and go and do their jobs, anyway. They don't want to do it, but they do it. My nephew would be one of them. He has no desire to be involved in this war, but there he is, in Iraq, because it's his job. A lot of people don't have the intelligence, or the support system, or the courage to say "NO".

My question is: when does it stop being a "lawful order"? If the CIC says it's a lawful order, it is? Where would you draw the line, and what makes an illegal war a "lawful order"?

It's just a little frightening because this is an administration that makes their own laws.

[Sailor for Warner]

300. the prez does not make the laws

therefore he does not say when it is a lawful order or not. Its not simple algebra, more like calculus.

[Laurab]

311. This one does. N/T

[timtom]

339. What about Kent State?

Did the National Guard not turn their weapons on U.S. Citizens? Or are they exempt from the Posse Comitatus constraint?

[Toots]

351. You say that but by your tone I doubt you

When I was in the service it was during the Vietnam era and there were numerous times the military was called upon to aid the police in riot control at universities across the nation Kent State being only one of such. I think you would have been up front and center.

[greiner3]

417. I think it will happen this way;

There will be numerous attacks across the US. Blame will be assigned and alleged to terrorist organizations. The president will order martial law, first in the hard hit areas and then in an ever widening spheres until the whole US is under martial law. This will be done for the protection of the country. Many individuals and groups will be sheparded into make shift holding pits such as secure green areas and stadiums. The general populace will become restless, however the freepers who have most of the guns will avow full support for the president's policies. Soon the 300 million of us make sounds of rioting and the president announces that anyone with an up to date NRA membership have a de facto role as a sheriff's deputy. That's when the fun begins.

[KansDem]

197. Kent State taught us otherwise...

At least the National Guard will, if ordered to do so. One could believe this happening at the national level as well...

[enid602]

30. Iran

Will you still feel the same if called on to attack Iran?

[Sailor for Warner]

33. I will feel the same as long as I am an

Officer on active duty in the US Navy.

[wuushew]

38. you're making excuses for being a slave to war and violence

In times past like minded individuals were able to agree to fight together for common causes. Was this not way things worked in the American War of Independence and other conflicts? Hierarchical obedience makes for a better death machine though not a more enlightened one.

The human brain's morality center did not die with the advent of large scale mechanized warfare and nuclear weapons. I wish more people would question why they are fighting since in my opinion most of the wars this country has fought have been completely unjustified. Independent thought should always be encouraged since the members of this country's armed forces are trapped in what I view as a giant Milligram experiment.

The tragedy of the IWR is that is gave the appearance of Congressional support for violating the U.N. Charter on preemptive war. Since a President fighting a war without Congressional approval is blatantly unconstitutional what reasons would you have to defer to the POTUS's viewpoint? Doing so strengthens his hand and under minds efforts to retard his aggression. Historical precedent and original intent was to have the POTUS execute the will of Congress, not the other way around. Being the President's loyal slave is not the best way of honoring that document.

[Sailor for Warner]

42. The Congress makes the laws

Which govern my refusal to criticize the president, until they see fit to change the UCMJ I will follow the laws under which I serve. When I am a civilian, I will feel free to say what I wish. I would appreciate you repecting my choice to serve and follow just laws which have governed the military for many years. I am a slave to no man, I make the choice willingly and with no reservation and I am exceedingly offended by any implication to the contrary.

[shadowknows69]

114. Doesn't the UCMJ have provisions

for disobeying immoral orders? How can you at all justify contiuned agression against a people who didn't attack us.

[Philosoraptor]

120. Even a Robot is programmed not to kill humans for no reason.

Of course, that's science fiction.

[me b zola]

140. Under the UCMJ you are duty bound to refuse an illegal order

We saw this play out with the Abu Ghraib atrocities--well kind of. Low level personel were punished for following illegal orders, but those who gave the orders were never brought to justice.

I would not want to serve under that officer. He seems more than willing to accept illegal orders and then order those in his command to carry them out. It would be doubtful that he would have to pay the consequences, but those in his command sure would.

[Sailor for Warner]

147. Noone in Abu G. could prove that they were given any such orders

that is why noone was punished.

[me b zola]

184. It's not as if officers issue orders to enlisted personel

via written communication.

The height of cowardice. Too worried about their careers to stand up to their chain of command when given illegal orders to be passed down to the enlisted, too cowardly to come forward when the enlisted are facing courts martial. :thumbsdown:

[nadinbrzezinski]

372. The Commander of the USS Greenville

took full responsibitly and the USN LOST a good officer willing to take responsibity... those who gave the orders at Abu Ghraib followed those given by Lt Gen Miller, and Lt Gen Miller was prevented from takng the stand, since the court martial did not WANT to do that.

Look, this might be nice for you... but fact remains, ilegal orders were issued, and those who issued them, Sanches (who aws also ahem prevented from testifying or rather progtected) issued those orders. It will be history that will judge the current officer corp, and history shan't be kind... again read about Nuremberg... and why that was done.

Maybe then you will realize that YOU DO HAVE A RIGHT AND A DUTY to disobey and question ilegal orders. You can kiss your carrer good bye, but there you have it.

[haele]

209. Yet if you find you cannot in conscience follow the order -

Is it not better for your unit and your leadership that "trusts" you to do your duty that you raise this issue and not risk your life and your unit cohesion?

I have seen - and had been taught (by some of the "River Rats" who worked incountry Vietnam at my first command)- what happens when a leader is stuck in a position he (or she) doesn't believe in. More often than not, it's better to risk courts martial than expose your men to that situation. It's also better to risk courts martial than to risk being fragged if your men feel you don't have their best interests always at the forefront.

On a ship, it's not so bad to have that situation in leadership. On the ground, "incountry" - it's deadly.

Because you are a human being and not an automaton, even with all your "willing choices" to follow orders and be with your men, you may still be faced with orders you cannot follow without breaking something inside you - especially in a situation like Iraq, where there's no "black" or "white".

I would hope you have the courage to consider what willingly breaking yourself will do to your duty to the constitution and to the soldiers and sailors in your command and possibly make just as difficult a choice, possibly facing courts martial.

Courage has many faces, and sometimes a retreat or not following an order that is casually immoral will win more at the end than blindly charging ahead whenever you are told to.

Haele

[katinmn]

340. And the pResident nullifies them thru signing statements

Among the laws Bush has directly challenged through 750 signing statements are a ban on torturing prisonerss, oversight provisions in the Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections, and protection from government interferance in taxpayer-funded research.

Do you offer allegiance to the new King George or to the Consitution of the United States?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/16/senators_renew_call_for_hearings_on_signing_statements/
Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said on May 2 that he planned to hold a hearing in June. At the time, he denounced Bush's use of signing statements as ``a very blatant encroachment" on Congress's constitutional power to write the law. But with June half over, Specter has yet to schedule the hearing.

Bush has challenged more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, more than all presidents combined. At the same time, he has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments.

Among the laws he has challenged are

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sailor for Warner]

159. Refer to my positing above

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

371. Read about Numbermberg

and then come back to me

Then consider ilegal orders, then come back to me

[aikoaiko]

60. Thanks for serving.

:patriot:

[Sailor for Warner]

65. Thank you

I toast you
:toast:

[Joe Fields]

322. How long have you been in the service, sailor?

[Sailor for Warner]

330. About 7 years

n/t

[haele]

187. To lead your men to do something you don't believe in -

Indeed, you find repugnant, is even more irresponsible and dangerous and a gross dereliction of duty to them than to leave them to the command of another equally trained junior officer who will follow orders and not show that he or she does not respect the leadership or the job.

The lack of leadership present during operations leads far more to the breakdown in unit morale than does the departure of one of any amount of junior officers that are kicking around.

I'm a retired Chief that still works with military contracts. I've seen what happens when leadership loses it's stomach, whatever the reason.
Better for his men that he make his point and not deploy than deploy and risk either creating a hostile attitude within his unit (risking fragging) or creates doubt within his unit when they're actually out and doing their job (risking apathy and inter-unit conflict).

When senior officers have "moral or ethical" issues concerning their "Commander in Chief" or a deployment or operation, they do their duty and request transfers or - as in the case when Rumsfeld took over and started fishing for opinions, they get transferred or "retired". They may not make a big media statement about it, but this has been a pattern I've observed over the past 24 years I've been in or worked for the DoD.

And though you may not like to hear it, historically, Junior officers can always be easily replaced. No matter what service they are in. Through attrition, or through dismissal, there's always another one that can be brought in and up to speed with the unit within a week.

Haele
(USN 1977 - 1998)

[Jade Fox]

210. Nothing really changes until someone bucks the system....

and acts on their own judgment outside the rules and guidelines of that system, in this case the Military.

I understand that those aren't your values, and I respect you for your faithfulness to your oath.

I also respect the Officer who is refusing to be part of the invasion of Iraq. Whether or not one considers him a coward, he will be put to an almost unimaginable test for the rest of his life for the action he's taken. If he doesn't have courage now, he better get it.

[rucky]

326. You are not obligated to obey an illegal order.

And the point of the OP is that this is an illegal war.

If your freeper c.o. said "put electrodes on this prisoner's testicles," what would you do?

[nadinbrzezinski]

370. You r oath is to the Constitution NOT THE PRESIDENT

your duty is to your troops. It might be difficult to do this, but not obeying an ilegal order, though not the popular or easy path to take, might be YOUR DUTY and those apointed over you...

But hey what would I know? I have walked in thsoe shoes actually

[ogomezmontes]

418. Sailor for Wagner

I agree with you Sailor. You took an oath and as such you must comply. Not like what his name First LT. Watman or so that after joining the Armed Forces for the veterans benefits now does not what to serve because he has to go to Iraq. Lower home loans, educational benefits, VA Hospitals are great perks but to get them you must comply with your oath, in peace or at war. The yellow streak of this so-called man is too wide for him to be able to comply with his duty.

[Sailor for Warner]

4. Watada is a coward

Not a hero, now his men will be led into combat by someone who has not trained with them and could get killed due to that lack of familiarity. Under the UCMJ he is indeed guilty of dereliction of duty and this being a time of war, these things are very serious. Whether you agree with the war or not, his men are going to die anyway, but their commander will be sitting pretty in a jail cell here in the US while his men fight and fight because they arent leaving anytime soon.

[KingFlorez]

136. He's not a coward

You do not fight for something you don't believe, especially an immoral war.

[flyarm]

160. there is a big difference here sir..this is not a war..this was never

declared a war sir..did you know that?? did you???

this is an excersize of aggression..this was never ever declared a war!!

this is an occupation against a soveriegn nation that never did a damn thing wrong to us..ever!!

EVER!!

and was not a threat to us in any way!

THAT SIR IS AN ILLEGAL AGRESSION AGAINST A FOREIGN NATION..

may i suggest you read the constitution you are supposed to be protecting??

article 1 section 10...read it damn it!

fly

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[michreject]

264. WITH

full congressional approval, you might add.

[Biernuts]

301. Congress has the power to declar war - but where does

the constitution say that the only authorized use of force is declared war? It doesn't. Further, recommend you read the 1973 war powers act, passed by Democratically-controlled house & senate. http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

The last declared was was WWII. Under YOUR misguided interpretation, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton, and all the repugs, are all war criminals.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tlsmith1963]

255. No...

...he is a hero in my book. If your country is doing something wrong, you should stand up & say so. Maybe if more Germans had stood against Hitler, all those Jewish people wouldn't have died. Get my point?

Tammy

[Sailor for Warner]

270. Yes that is you duty of you are a civilian

It is quite different if you are in the military

[datasuspect]

356. IF you are in the military

and a very big if here in internet land where there is no want of keyboard commandos.

[wtmusic]

260. Curious how you know he is afraid to go back

Have you talked to him? Maybe he really believes that the war is wrong. Maybe he is showing even more courage by honoring his conscience, when his commitment has been derailed to serve ignoble purposes.

Something to consider.

[Sailor for Warner]

273. I never said he was afraid to go back

Coward was a bad word to use (I said it in another post) and I retract that term. However whatever his purpose, I think he has failed his soldiers and is in dereliction of duty.

[roody]

263. All his underlings should be as brave and honorable as he

is and also refuse unlawful orders. Imagine if the German soldiers had done so before WW2.

[brentspeak]

388. Congratulations: You have won the Stupid Post Of The Month

Comparing our troops to Hitler's troops sets a new standard for idiocy. (Not to mention "blame America first"-ism)

[Laurab]

302. No he's not a coward

He's a hero. He took a stand against something he found illegal and immoral, despite the consequences, which will not be pretty for him. The military has a lot of "chiefs" to watch over the "indians". "His men are going to die anyway"? And it's going to be his fault? That's ludicrous.

From what I've read, the soldiers are well-trained, and there is always someone there to step in, in the event that their commander is injured, or even killed. The fact that he's not there is NOT going to get his men killed, and maybe he will give others the incentive to do what he has done. I, for one, hope so.

[Sailor for Warner]

5. Ask any person who has distinguished themselves in battle

They will tell you that at the end of the day they did not do it for America or the president but for the buddies and comrades in arms standing next to them. I beat myself up every time I deploy and am not in the Arabian Gulf backing up my friends in Iraq. Or on the ground helping out. Because thats what its all about. I dont know if you were ever in the military, but if you were that point seems to have been lost on you.

[Philosoraptor]

6. If you're just fighting for your comrades, & not for America, that sucks

No I wasn't in the military, but war is not for protecting your buddy, war is for other things. If fighing for your buddys is what it's all about, then it's all wrong.

[Sailor for Warner]

7. No its not wrong.

We are in war to complete the mission but our ultimate responsibility as officers and NCO's on the ground is to our men and keeping them alive and doing our best to be in the fight with them and not waste our lives. The military is that way for a reason, when we do things, we accomplish the mission so we can all get back together and alive and have one less enemy position to worry about. Why do you think that rescue missions are so popular, when the mission is saving a fellow soldier or even foreign civilians, there is no greater objective.

[sweetheart]

174. Your oath to the constitution

Regarding the oath to defend the constitution, defending your buddies in the
professional army and its ethics sounds distinctly prussian, and was the whole
reason professional armies have been escchewed since WW1 for fear of the professional
army going to war for its own inertial.

I respect your military code, for the identity chasm between protection one's
fellow soldiers in arms, and protecting what you're actually fighting for, that
seems so abstract, it could only possibly mean ringing the bell for another food
pellet.

If you decided tomorrow, that defending the constitution was not participating,
and did not move a muscle for them, even after they yell at you, insult your
dignity, call you a coward, "shirking your duty" and whatever insults on the way
to the brig, would it would hurt your career? indeed! Why should you hurt your career
when it is so promising, and when another lemming will just jump in to take your place.

The power of peer-group pressure and the brainwashing of battle creates a groupthink
that is impenetrable. To uphold a constitution, i've to oblige a chain of
command that is criminal by someone who subverted the constitution to get elected
and has been pursuiong ongoing subversion since in office, including ALL the wars.

Then is it worth risking ones' career? That's the point, yes, nobody is willing
to risk thier career, but they're willing to die for what they believe? Talk
about the irony of it all...

[Karenina]

262. What's the "mission?"

:shrug:

To deplete old inventory by dropping it on the heads of Iraqis on the basis of blatant falsehoods?
To destroy their civil society, infrastructure and our common heritage?
To install an infrastructure to steal their resources?
To KILL and SICKEN as many as possible, never mind what "side" they're on?
To enable a *corp cabal full of really sick control freaks to tighten their grip by destroying, shredding, eviscerating the Constitution while raking in so much dough there's NONE LEFT for the common good?

Just wondering. :shrug:

[titoresque]

175. Disgusting!

You really do believe that you will "complete" the mission?!
Seriously I don't know whether to feel bad for the amount of brainwashing you have endured or to be completely disgusted at what you have become......assuming you didn't start out this way.

The mission will NEVER be accomplished. NEVER.
You were to taught to follow, not lead. I'm sorry for you. And for all the innocent people you and your comrades kill.
And I am angry, VERY ANGRY that I am not set apart from people like you. I am just put into a catagory. "American" and that I am hated around the world because you and your comrades choose to take orders from Seriel killers who don't give one shit about you or your safety, or mine, or the Iraqis!
You endanger us all EVERY TIME YOU DEPLOY. YOU PUT ME AND MY FAMILY AT GREATER RISK!

I do not support this!!! And I do not support you, with your sickening mentality of "stay the course"

[Sailor for Warner]

193. Do a search and tell me where in my post I said

Stay the course,
No I said that I will not criticize or badmouth the president while I am an officer on active duty and will follow my lawful orders until a duly elected civilian authority takes its place.

[titoresque]

206. So you'll "stay the course"

right?

[Sailor for Warner]

208. Once again my point being it is not my job to write policy

There is a reason that the military does not get invilved in the writing of policy.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sailor for Warner]

215. Once again

I never said I was a hero and dont know where you are getting off thinking that I see myself that way. I am a military officer that is all.

[sweetheart]

258. Your responsibility is more complex

You answer to the people of the nation, and you draw your remit to use and support
the use of force from the people, "we" people... who've paid the taxes that buy the
fancy gear and military salaries. You draw your salary from the people.

You serve "the people" and the CIC is not the people. You want a career with the
brainwash, but don't glorify it that you serve the people, just a criminal, and you
are become an accomplace to murder and aggressive war.

The military uniform does not erase the crime. If you serve the people,
then i look forward to it. You serve a felon, during a robbery, and he
may indeed be the hyjakker in charge. You don't need to be a hero to put
down your boxcutter and sit on the floor refusing to take part in the hyjakking
or in supporting your men in the hyjakking.

The military is not there to die to defend the constitution, not at all, it is there
to advance its careers on the backs of whatever excuse serves. The mental hopscotch
that it takes to deny any responsibility, is satan's voice.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sailor for Warner]

213. I never said I was brave

I said Watada is not a hero. And if I am a traitor it is your duty to shoot me. I would give you my head if you would like.

[titoresque]

218. I would'nt shoot you

because peace will never be accomplished through the barrell of a gun.
I will however speak out against people with your mentality on this subject regardless if you are active military. I do not and will not support the killing of innocent people. And the occupation of Iraq.
You have a choice. There are resources for you to take advantage of to avoid killing more innocent people. You say you want to protect your buddies. At the cost of innocent lives?! If you truly wanted to help your buddies you would speak out against this. You would help bring an end to this occupation. You would refuse to kill another innocent soul.

[druidity33]

271. NO...

you said he was a coward... that's a huge fucking difference from making a principled stand.

Sounds to me like you're grinding axes over there...

Watada pinch a nerve?

[Sailor for Warner]

274. Refer to post #273

n/t

[druidity33]

343. ok...

so you've retracted coward...
but now he's a failure and derelict? seems just as big a difference between that and PRINCIPLED STAND.

"I think he has failed his soldiers and is in dereliction of duty."

Thank you though for making it clear that this is your opinion by including "i think" at the start of that sentence.

As for me, I don't think Watanda is a hero, but i do think it takes a TREMENDOUS amount of courage to stand up and do what so many other soldiers would like to do, but feel they cannot. We all know what happens to whistleblowers and truthtellers in this B* administration.

How many current AWOLS are there? How does that percentage compare to other conflicts?
How many soldiers have been on extended+ tours, 3 or 4x? How does that compare to other conflicts?
Loss of limb(s), PTSD, DU poisoning... did you know about the birth defects of children born to Iraq war vets? People that have had normal children otherwise? How mani innocent Iraqi families have been destroyed?
What the B* administration is doing to our armed forces is criminal.
What they are doing in Iraq is CRIMINAL... and they are using our Armed Forces to do it.


How easy it would have been for Watanda (a native of Hawaii) to skip to a smaller island in the Pacific somewhere and lay low for a year or two until the MPs stopped looking... but he stands up and does this instead. Major juevos.

btw, n/t is used to designate that there is no text in the dialogue box. As such it should be used in the header only.

Peace and goodwill to you

[Kerrytravelers]

404. I realize you've quoted military code in regards to criticizing shrubby

while still in uniform. However, this is DU, a progressive, liberal message board. We're not exactly fans of the chimpster. If you're here, just your mere presence alone is expressing your disagreement with "our leader." And, it's very possibly to be anonymous here. Don't post your picture or any telling information and you're completely anonymous. You can say how you really feel... and if it follows DU rules, it won't get deleted.

I happen to be a military brat of a Vietnam Veteran. He recalls many stories where enlisted men spoke freely about their feelings on Vietnam- it's just important to know who you're speaking to. My godson's father is in the Navy. He was very clear that he was voting for Kerry (and how unbelievably stupid "little boots" is.)

You didn't mind saying that shrub deserved the stockade in another thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1450611

[Ferretherder]

344. Let me ask you a question, sir.

You say that the point of it all is to protect your 'buddies' and for everyone to 'get back together and alive'. OK, I'll buy that.

Now, ask yourself a question - 'WHY are you and your 'buddies' having to protect each other from getting killed in the first place?'

Also, do you consider the 'insurgents' wrong for just wanting to protect THEIR 'buddies' from getting killed? WHO is on the 'right side' of this conflict?

[michreject]

35. When you have your ass in the grass

Or down in the trenches, your soldiers in arms is all you have.

[shadowknows69]

135. Call me crazy but

I feel the best way to keep our soldiers safe is TO GET THEM BACK FROM THIS ILLEGAL FUCKING WAR. Sorry for yelling.

[shadowknows69]

115. That's what it is to most of them now

It's the officers that have to resist. Of course the enlisted grunt (no disrespect intended) is going to do his job dutifully and without question. Most of the soldiers I'm meeting aren't real thrilled about going off for their third tour. As you said Sailor they go to defend their buddies. They need to be trained to defend the constitution again.

[VLC98]

11. Do you think the Germans were fighting for their buddies? nt

[Sailor for Warner]

14. Yes they were

Watch Band Of Brothers, there is a scene in there where a Nazi Commander is debriefing his troops before they are taken as POW's. He tells them how proud he is of them and how valiantly they fought. They were fighting for Germany yes, but more importantly they were fighting for each other. Sorry your smart ass remark wasnt as clever as you anticipated.

[VLC98]

20. Smart ass remark?

I was simply pointing out the stupidity of war. However, I contend that anyone who enlisted after this war started is not fighting for their buddies, as you claim.

[Sailor for Warner]

21. Alot of stupid 18 year olds out there

n/t

[VLC98]

23. I know, I married one of them.

He was lucky and served his 20 without having to go into combat.

[IndyOp]

72. Have you NO decency? That you are fighting for your buddies,

that the Germans were fighting for the buddies MAKES IT ALL OKAY? You are brothers in arms with the soldiers who fought for the lies the Nazis told?

The consequence of your fighting & killing does not matter?

You have illustrated the COMPLETE VACANCY OF MORALITY that haunts our nation, our world today.

Killing? Sure. For my buddies.

[Sailor for Warner]

75. I am not a moralist, I dont have such luxuries

but thank you Dali Lama, when I retire I will don the robes and atone for my sins in my own way. Until then reserve thine judgement if you will.

[IndyOp]

94. "I am not a moralist" = "I have no commitment to any morals"

"I have no commitment to any morals" sounds pretty typically Amurkan.

:patriot:

We live by the Geneva Conventions only when we don't need to torture people.

:patriot:

We allow the Bill of Rights only when we aren't 'under attack' by dark forces.

:patriot:

We don't engage in pre-emptive attacks like the evil Nazis and that Saddam Hussein, unless we want to.

:patriot:

Remember what the Commander in Chief says (the one to whom you took the oath):
"The Constitution is just a piece of paper."

:patriot:

The military illustrates well the complete moral bankruptcy of this nation.

[Sailor for Warner]

97. one thing because I have to "cut and run"

"Remember what the Commander in Chief says (the one to whom you took the oath):
"The Constitution is just a piece of paper.""

I took no oath to the president, ONLY to the consitution.

[IndyOp]

117. I wish you the best. I wish us all - Iraqi's included - the best. (nt)

[shadowknows69]

144. And the Germans should have defied their commanders too.

To obey and illegal order is illegal. Period.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. He has more guts than I had in a similar situation. He's a true hero.

In 1965 I was a few months from getting my discharge. The war in Vietnam was heating up and they asked me to extend my enlistment to go and kill people in Vietnam. I was already against the war and refused in rather colorful terms which landed me on mess-duty for 30 days. I consider it one of the best things I ever did in my life, but hardly worthy of acclamation for bravery.

A few months after I got out, the Marine Corps stopped asking the poor sods if they would extend, they were extended. I asked myself if I would have had the courage to refuse to do or deserted. Alas, my answer was no. Facing a stretch in a federal prison was beyond my courage. Although later, as a "draft counselor" I did some things that could have carried me off to the tender mercies of the courts. But, it was a relatively small threat.

My hats off to true military heroes like Lt. Watada.

[Sailor for Warner]

34. Were you an officer with

Men under you command whose lives you were responsible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. An officer? No, I was working class cannon-fodder.

The officers were the enemy when I was in. The guys who had the power to order you to kill people or risk your neck for the machinations of politicians. The strutting yes-men who kissed the bosses asses and vied for position. The ones who either bullied or patronized the common herd.

[Sailor for Warner]

46. I neither bully nor patronize

I like to think that, while my people do not like me they respect me. That point aside, the officers, particularly the Junior Officers like CAPT Watada have a very important responsiblity for the welfare of their enlisted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. And, Watada, is doing the best thing he can for the troops.

He's standing up for them by refusing to serve in an illegal and immoral war against the people of Iraq.

Not patronizing? "my people"? "their enlisted?" Your words betray you. I'm sure your "people" enjoy having a drink with you in the Officer's Club. And, no doubt, they just love saluting you and calling you Sir.

[Sailor for Warner]

56. I saluted my share of officers

When I was enlisted, and I saluted those who I respected and those who I did not that is the way it goes. It is a two way courtesy, the junior person just initates it. If they do not like calling people "sir" then they shouldnt join the military. EVERYONE has to call someone "sir" or "maam". I dont drink with them in the officers club or any bar. I will buy them a round or two but will not drink with them because it is not appropriate.

I dont see how my tone in patronizing. It is the same as saying "my employees" or "my shift" if I were a civilian shift manager. I say "people" becasue I have women as well as men under my command so I was trying to be gender sensetive. I have people under my command who I am responsible for. I work hard to earn their trust and respect so that they know if I do order them into a situation where their lives will be at risk they know that I do not risk it needlessly. The use of "my" and "their" denote responsiblity not ownership or degredation.

And how is staying at home in a safe prison cell standing up for you people who STILL have to go to Iraq and fight.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. That;'s the rub. They "still have to go to Iraq and fight".

Change the emphasis. "still HAVE to go to Iraq and fight." For what? Watada dared to ask that question of himself and the guys that want to send him there.

The military can't function with underlings who ask questions like Why? Obedience, which the military calls "discipline" is geared to stifle that all important question for the individual human beings who inhabit it. That's why they use fear to instill it into them.

A courtesy? What happens to the poor sod who refuses to salute? Or, mutter "Sir" to the bigshots? Are they "courteously" allowed to follow their own inclinations?

"..if I do order them into a situation where their lives will be at risk they know that I do not risk it needlessly."

And, the "need" is?

[Sailor for Warner]

74. Once again

In an all volunteer Military you sign away large chunks of your individuality when you take that oath and submit to the UCMJ.

Obedience and discipline is CRUCIAL to a properly functioning military unit, there is no other way that military missions can be accomplished. If such things bother the prospective candidate, he does not have to join.

The "need" is to complete whatever mission is assigned. If there is a mission to kill OBL, then they will know that it is necessary to risk their lives. If it is a mission to blow up a falafel stand I will do everything to not get anyone killed including making the call on the feasablity of the mission. These a choices a good field commander is able to make.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Unfortunately, the "candidate" can't quit when he disagrees.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that, at least, a few of your beloved troops would just as soon do something other than shoot up Iraq or show up for the weekend parade when they're hungover and would leap at the chance to un-volunteer.

[Sailor for Warner]

79. Indeed I am sure they would

Ive had such thoughts myself, but I knew what I was getting into and so did they.

[Schema Thing]

84. Oh cut the "officer" shit. That's ego, not honor.

I appreciate your service, and I believe you may be a courageous person and a patriot. But Wes Clark could campaign for John Kerry precisely because there ARE two sides to this debate, and America (not your buddies, something even more important) is only kept safe when good men stand up.

Watada stood up. I don't think you doubt his bravery one bit, my friend.

[Sailor for Warner]

89. Iadmit the use of coward was a bit harsh

as for his bravery, I dont know his real motivations so I will reserve judgement there

[Schema Thing]

104. Thank you. It seemed over the top...

"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark

[flyarm]

162. sorry sir..that is not in your orders!! that is not in your oath..n/t

[Sailor for Warner]

8. Id like to see if any other combat vets in here

concur with my assesment, I could be WAY off base.

[Philosoraptor]

9. How do you feel about Watada's reasons for turning his back?

You personally, how do you perceive Bush's war?

[Sailor for Warner]

10. Unlike LT Watada

As an active duty military officer I decline to critisize the president as commander in chief. I do my best not to critisize my commanders either. Its the rules and I follow them.

[Philosoraptor]

12. So you just can't find anything to criticize about W.

Follow the rules my friend, but don't lose your soul.

[Sailor for Warner]

15. I disagree with him plenty,

On domestic issues, and diplomatic as well. Just not on his performance as commander in chief. My freedom of speech is limited under the UCMJ in that respect. Its part of the deal.

[Philosoraptor]

17. I respect you.

And I value your opinion. I can't respect him of course, and I feel he doesn't respect any of you, but sees you as money in his and his buddy's pockets.

[flyarm]

166. seems funny to me the military had plenty to say about Clinton when he was

COMMANDER IN CHIEF... but this guy who has started an illegal occupation is off limits??

wow the hypocracy boggles mind.

fly

[Sailor for Warner]

172. Anyone who said anything about Clinton

While on active duty was in violation of the UCMJ was violating the UCMJ and should be punished accordingly.

[Tactical Progressive]

238. Can active duty military officers praise the president

as commander in chief even though they can't criticize him?

If so, and I'm guessing that's true, then you have a built-in systemic condition where military support for a war can always be manufactured at the grass-roots level.

That's what I was thinking when they showed Bush in Iraq for a few hours with cheering, supportive officers around him while those that aren't supportive aren't invited, aren't shown or are only shown as neutral. Leading to a situation where even a small contingent of even just a few percent could make a show for supporting a war while even a vast majority of dissenting views remain unseen and unheard.

To me military integrity and honor can only be served by the same policy regardless of personal inclination, but if what I've asked here is true, then the military can ONLY be used to politically support warmakers and through them warmaking. That's where I find a huge moral inequity in military policy, and the Republicans are using it to play the armed services as props for war.

And for the record, if this whole debacle - from the lies to get into the war to the many failures in running it, like lack of vehicle and body armor - were being done by a Democrat, I have a strong feeling that we'd be hearing all kinds of ugly things out of active duty military people without repercussion. IOW not only is the policy of praise but not criticize unfair on its face, but I don't believe it would be fair in its political implications except to favor Republicans. A rigged game from every angle inotherwords.

[Sailor for Warner]

245. Negative

If you note during a state of the union speech the Joint Chiefs remain seated and do not clap save for the beginning and the end. The military must be politically neutral. We may thank the president and show him the respect given to the office of Commander in Chief and our generals may advocate war based on military necessity but thay may not go blathering to the press about it. There are strict rules regarding this. I saw the taped speech from Baghdad. The only time they cheered was when the president mentioned getting Zarqauwi, a notable reason for tired and harrassed troops to cheer.

[Tactical Progressive]

253. Well then that's fair enough

Thanks for the correction.

on edit: Thinking back though, I seem to recall rousing cheers for Bush when he was talking his 'stay the course/finish the job' part of his speech, which is pretty political. And we all remember the hand-picked group of pro-Bush questioners at last years question and answer session.

To be fair, the more open session where Rumsfeld was asked some pointed questions by an officer seemed reasonable.

But hand-picked crowds of apparent Bush supporters would seem to cross the 'politically neutral' line.

[DocSavage]

13. Unit Cohesion

is very important. You train together, live together in the field and you depend on your officers and senior NCO's for leadership. EVERYONE THERE is a volunteer. He knew what he was getting into when he joined the Army. It is not up to him to decide if this war is illegal or not. It is up to him to do what he signed up to do, took an oath to do, and essentially promised his troops what he would do.

If he disagrees with the war, OK, get out when your time is up. When your are out, make your political statements.

[Sailor for Warner]

16. Exactly

Like Kerry did.

[flyarm]

171. so how do you explain it when this dod sends troops to Iraq

the army.. with navy and all mixed up.,.when soldiers have trained together are then thrown in at different jobs of which they never trained or were prepared for with units that were never theirs nor their own service requirements???????

please explain that cohesiveness??

this is all bullshit!

fly

[wtmusic]

294. Wrong

"It is not up to him to decide if this war is illegal or not."

Where do you draw the line? What if his CO orders him to do a "Haditha" on some civilians? He's obligated to obey?

There is international law and a fundamental moral code which, as a human being, he is obligated to follow. The moral code is what was used to give legal justification for hanging 11 Nazis at Nuremburg. There was no applicable written international law at the time.

[Roy]

324. "If he disagrees with the war, OK, get out when your time is up."

And if they won't let you out when your time is up????? What then????

Just keep endlessly deplying till yo're dead??????

[michreject]

40. Your initial assessment is correct

A soldiers first duty is to himself and his comrades in arms. Because of his action of cowardice in the face of duty, one would hope that he will be sent to Leavenworth for a long time.

[wuushew]

44. What an absolutist statement

Is is possible that a soldier's "first duty" could be many things to many people? Who defines this truth and what is the mechanism for changing it?

[Sailor for Warner]

47. When you join the military at any rank

But particulaly as an officer, your first duty IS TO YOUR SOLDIERS/SAILORS/MARINES. If it is not, your priority is misplaced with the values and goals of the larger organization.

[flyarm]

173. wrong!!!!!!!!! you first duty is to the constitution of the UNITED STATES!

do you take an oath to defend your fellow soldiers or to the Constitution of the UNITED STATES????????????????????

fly

[michreject]

53. You are correct

What an absolutist statement

Within a combat unit, the cohesiveness of that unit is dependant on each member performing his/her duty. When one part fails, the whole unit is in peril. When the failure is at the command level, this endangers not only the individual but the mission.

There is a steep price to be paid for dereliction of duty.

[IndyOp]

66. I would ask that you refuse and ALL US military refuse to serve.

If you were a German soldier in World War II - would you go back to your duties and your buddies?

German soldiers sworth an oath, too -- to the German constitution and to Hitler.

German soldiers believed they were defending their families and their nation. The Nazis lied to them about pre-emptive attacks on other nations, about needing to kill Jews because Jews threatened the safety of Germans.

By Ben Ferencz (Nuremberg lawyer): "The principal defendant, General Dr. Otto Ohlendorf, patiently explained why his unit had killed about 90,000 Jews. Killing all Jews and Gypsies was necessary, he said, as a matter of self-defense. According to Ohlendorf, it was known that the Soviets planned total war against Germany. A German pre-emptive strike was better than waiting to be attacked. It was also known that Jews supported the Bolsheviks; therefore, all Jews had to be eliminated. But why did he, the father of five children, kill the little babes, thousands of them? The bland reply was that if the children learned that their parents had been eliminated, they would grow up to be enemies of Germany: long-range security was the goal. Ohlendorf lacked facts sufficient to challenge Hitler's conclusions. According to him, it was all very logical."

YOU. ARE. BEING. LIED. TO.

Stop the killing.

Stop supporting the people who do the killing - by working as an information communication specialist, or in any role that supports soldiers who kill because of lies. Stop.

I would ask that you refuse and ALL US military refuse to serve.

Watada is a hero. Soldiers who refuse to serve keep us safe.

US soldiers who go to Iraq and kill do not keep us safe they put us all in danger.

911 was blowback from decades of CIA and military intervention in the Middle East -- what will be the blowback from the killing in Iraq?

US soldiers have followed orders and now After 15 Years War, Sanctions 1,000,000 Iraqis Dead.

911 was blowback from decades of CIA and military intervention in the Middle East -- what will be the blowback from the killing of 1,000,000 people in Iraq?

Sir! No, Sir!

[Sailor for Warner]

70. Re My post below about parallel's to WW2

N/T

[midnight]

18. Thats right!!!!!

Bring them home Now!!!!!!! Watada we are hoping that you can stay strong. This is not an easy message to give or for those making money off this war to hear. Congress voted against troop withdraw yesterday. I guess mission was not accomplished after all.

[Sailor for Warner]

19. Once again there is nothing strong

about what he is doing. He is letting down those who depend on him the most. His soldiers.

[cali]

22. Thank you

I'm not sure I agree with you, but I admire your resolve, and your dedication. I am curious though; can you foresee a circumstance in which you would feel compelled to take a stand against the CIC?

[Sailor for Warner]

25. Not until I am out

Or if the US Government collapses and officially declares the Constitution defunct. My oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the CIC

[Philosoraptor]

26. They HAVE declared the constitution Defunct.

Again, your CIC also swore to defend it, but pissed on it instead.

[michreject]

41. They HAVE declared the constitution Defunct.

:shrug: ????????

When did this happen? I must have missed it.

[lonestarnot]

96. Defunct is mild. Bushitler said "It's just a Goddamned piece of paper!"

[Gin]

28. stand by...........looks like things are going in that direction..

"Or if the US Government collapses and officially declares the Constitution defunct. My oath is to protect and defend the Constitution, not the CIC"

prepare yourself!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

24. I hope when you reach my age, you don't have to look back

and say, these men, these friends, died at the folly of unscrupulous politicians whose only motive was money and power. And I didn't stand up against them with those few brave men who did.

[Sailor for Warner]

29. I will look back with intense regret

Anytime a friend dies (which plenty already have) in a foreign war. But taking a stand while my men still must go over and die is not being part of the few brave men. Watada will go to jail and I hope he does. His men will go to Iraq and die without him. I hope he finds his cell comfortable where he can write his book about being a "brave dissenter". I also hope he recieves notification of every man in his unti who dies or is injured over there. That is my sentence if I judged the case.

[flyarm]

182. ya know what?? he will be alive...and how many of our troops have to die

for a lie??
and what a disgrace for anyone with our uniform on to take anyones kids to an illegal war..of aggression and occupation and their superiors never stood up!!

never had the guts to stand up..for the very constitution they say they defend!

hitlers offiers followed orders too..and they were not immune to war crimes..and they had to live with the knowledge they kill millions of innocents for a raging crazy man!

i hope time is kinder to you, than it was to those murderers!!

because you are murdering for another crazy man!

fly

[otherlander]

64. I can understand seeing it as your duty to those serving under you...

and so you would never refuse to serve. But are there any circumstances under which you would refuse to follow orders while serving?

[Sailor for Warner]

76. One must do what they can to prevent the lives of theirmen from

being risked needlessly.

[otherlander]

81. I understand that. But what comes to mind is Rumsfeld

blaming things of "low-level bad apples". Which I don't believe. It's much more likely that they were following orders. Then the "low-level bad apples" got in trouble, but the higher-ups continued to give the same orders.

[lonestarnot]

101. Please reread this entire thread.

I've read through most of the posts, and I see it smacking of nationalist loyalty, not loyalty to one's country. Loyalty to the poison head of state. It is very sad indeed. You are there, and it sure would take a bunch of guts to stand up to them in your position. You'd have a bunch of trouble on your hands. It's easier just to serve your time and get out. As a sailor you're relatively safe in the current war aren't you?

[Sailor for Warner]

148. Ive been on the sand twice now.

Noone is safe now. The navy is taking the sack for the army now. We are all in. And as the FIREBOLT incident proved, the navy is no safer.

[lonestarnot]

226. Well all the more reason to have some balls and defy the bushitler.

[flyarm]

183. then do your job..stand down! n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

87. So, the fuck, what

I'm getting sick of this macho military bullshit. "His" soldiers? Gimme a break. Lieutenants, like everyone else in the military, are expendable. Have to be. Watada doesn't go, someone else does. Different guy, same training, same job. I just don't fucking buy that anyone is in grave danger as a result of one lieutenant not being at the front. What if he got tetanus or something? There hasn't been anyone irreplaceable in any military since, like, Achilles.

You are not a "warrior," you are a tool of the corporate state brainwashed into thinking you belong on some honor roll of valor that goes back through all of time. Give it up

With all due respect, "sir"

[Sailor for Warner]

92. With all due respect

Im going to ignore this statement because it it below the level of reasoned debate.

[Jed Dilligan]

93. Oh really?

Or are you ignoring it because your whole dereliction of duty argument is a bunch of hogwash?

[Sailor for Warner]

100. No I dont have the time nor the inclination to respond to every

angry person who comes in with a chip on their shoulder about my choice to follow the law.

[Jed Dilligan]

105. When the law demands you do evil

Your choice is the wrong one, and no amount of codes and regulations will ever change that.

[Sailor for Warner]

129. I will let Hashem make that determination

Not you

[Jed Dilligan]

134. Oh I see

well, smite away, Bible Warrior

[Sailor for Warner]

146. Thank you for your permission

Now I can go into war with a clear heart knowing Jed Dilligan has let me go.

[Jed Dilligan]

Ta-ta

The lowest form of human is a blind follower who thinks he's better than others because he follows blindly.

I'll see you on the battlefield when the real war starts.

[Sailor for Warner]

150. Is that a threat?

n/t,

[Jed Dilligan]

152. A promise.

[Sailor for Warner]

161. Awww you are too sweet to me

Nothing like a little civil war advocacy on a shabbat afternoon.

[Jed Dilligan]

168. I don't keep your sabbat

But I hope when there's a real threat to America we can stand together in battle.

Of course, your way of thinking throughout this thread indicates that may not come to pass.

[LoZoccolo]

220. See you in November.

[flyarm]

185. the law is article 1 section 10 of the constitution and you sir are

breaking the law of this land by following the orders of an illegal act of agression!!

you are a law breaker..you are not defending the constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...you are following the orders of crazy men who want a new world order of PNAC...

you sir are in deriliction of your duty to your fellow soldiers by following this illegal act of aggression and occupation!

live with it if you must..but do not insult us any further with ignorance or blind trust!

it doesn't wash with those of us with military families who have followed and fought for the very constitution this administration shits on!

and you are obviously ignorant of

fly

[BlueCollar]

186. Did I miss something?

Has this "war" been declared illegalby the congress or a court?

[Sailor for Warner]

189. Article 1 Section 10 is the powers of the states

Are you sure thats what you are referring to 'o constitutional scholar.

[Ariana Celeste]

198. what's with the hostility?

We have a President and his Administration, Congress, and the Senate to blame. Not our military.

[Zhade]

257. Except that you're not following the law, you're BREAKING it.

Fact: this (undeclared) war is illegal.

Fact: the orders stemming from it are thus illegal.

Fact: soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders, under both the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention, to which you are bound by the fact that treaties are the law of the land, per the Constitution and our laws.

By supporting the fighting, by engaging in it, you are breaking your oath and the law.

(And since officers DO swear an oath to both the Constitution and the CiC, but you state that you did not take an oath to the current Commander-in-Thief, it's a fact that I don't believe you're a soldier at all, or you'd know that.)

[stepnw1f]

266. BINGO! Good Night to that Argument (nt)

[michreject]

268. Fact: this (undeclared) war is illegal

What fact is that?

[Sailor for Warner]

277. Explain how an undeclared war is illegal according to

the US Constitution?

[Zhade]

306. Oh, for the love of...

I learned this when I was a KID, for fuck's sake.

Treaties are the law of the land, including the Geneva Conventions, per our Constitution and laws.

Aggressive war against a nonthreatening country like Iraq is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

We engaged in that same act. Thus we violated the GC and thus our laws and Constitution.

This is grade school stuff. I know you can't possibly NOT know this if you're a soldier.

[Sailor for Warner]

333. I learned this when I was a kid too

Keep in mind that I am presenting an argument here and this is by no measure my opinion or that of the US Armed Forces:

President Clinton authorized aggressive force against Iraq all through the 90's to enforce UN resolutions. Our planes were lit up by fire control radars numerous times (an act of WAR). As far as many of us in the military are concerned (ad granted we are all apparently a bunch of backwoods rubes) the legal standing of the war is not a terrible sticking point. Now morally and ethically that is a different story. Whether or not it is worth being there is a different story.


BTW I am a sailor not a soldier.

[Zhade]

373. Um, keep in mind that the "no-fly zones" were NEVER sanctioned by the UN.

So that's STILL not a justification for war.

(Pardon my error in terms, btw. I'm from a military family that includes sailors, you'd think I wouldn't make that mistake!)

[Karenina]

265. Those "depending" on him

(and the training he has received) the MO$T do not give a flippin' rat'$ a$$ about him OR his soldiers or YOU or your crew or ANY OF US. The ACTIONS of those passing down the orders show them to be corrupt. They DEPEND on your service to extend their rot.

Have you not ever read Smedley Butler? :shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Watada is a hero. Unfortunately, there will be no monuments to him.

The most proficient killers of their fellow humans get the statues and parades.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. OK. What DID you sign up for? What is your job?

When I was in, our job was to kill the "enemy" whoever the politicians designated the "enemy" to be that week.

At the time, it was the "commies", Fidel Castro, the Russians, the Chinese, and finally the people of SE Asia.

Unless the glorious military has changed a lot since I happily departed it, soldiers are trained to kill very proficiently. They don't give you a gun as a fashion statement.

What will you do if some bigshot tells you to order your men to shoot up a house full of "suspected terrorists"? Are you going to say, "No Sir. I refuse because the intelligence might be wrong and it might be the wrong house."

"Watada should not have signed up for an eliete army unit if he has some sort of compunction about being a "preficient killer" of fellow humans."

You're right! He shouldn't have, just as I shouldn't have. I changed my mind about killing when the full impact of the reality of doing so hit me one fine Autumn day on the rifle range. Apparantly, it hit Lt. Watada sooner than it did me.
And, unlike me, he told the bosses to shove it sooner than I did and faced a lot more risk than I did.

[Sailor for Warner]

37. Ive done several jobs in my time

From Weapons/Ordinance Officer, Damage Control, Navigation and combat zone administration. As well as Visit, Board, Search and Seizure operations. So I've done a bit of gun pointing. Not that it is any of your business.

[Sailor for Warner]

39. I will follow my orders because I do

In general trust military intelligence because it is not as wrong as everyone seems to think. If you question every order based on intelligence you will never accomplish anything. No I will not refuse to blow up the "suspected terrorist" I havent in the past and wont stop now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Thank you for your "service". You are a good soldier.

The bosses appreciate your loyalty and your "honor". They will pat you on the head on give you some tinware to hang on chest for killing people you don't know and following orders.

[Sailor for Warner]

51. I dont owe you any kind of justification

I will perform my duty as I chose to do and I will take my "tinware" if someone feels it necessary to give it to me. I am very sorry your experience was so horrid in '65, but that is honestly not my problem. I am sorry you feel the need to lash out at my choices on how I serve my nation and my respect for the nations laws. The disobedience of those above me does not justify my own.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. And, Watada owes you none.

He's doing his duty as he chooses. My experience in '65 was no more horrid than most of the other members of the cannon-fodder class. A good number of us just saw through the charade.

[Sailor for Warner]

58. You know Junior Officers get shot at too

so your use of Cannon Fodder class is somethind of a misnomer

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Cannon-fodder with bars.

Obligated to follow the same senseless orders as the lesser cannon-foddeer sans bars.

[Sailor for Warner]

78. At least youve eliminated the distinctions

O8)

[LoZoccolo]

54. "The most proficient killers of their fellow humans..."

Like Fidel Castro?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well, Fidel isn't lacking in monuments, is he?

[High Plains]

366. Huh?

[DocSavage]

201. Watada a hero?

Watada is a criminal. He freely joined the miltary, entered combat arms, I am sure that the hostilites in Iraq did not come as a suprise to him, he willingly violated numerous army regulations and articles of the UCMJ. I hope he stands tall for about 20 years in NE Kansas.

The most profecient killers? Are your referring to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Hussain or Kim? They are the wholesale killers of recent history. Comparing american military personnel to any of these folks is either ignorance or blatent disrespect for everyone in uniform including your Mr. Watada. I would still have to salute him, respecting his rank not him as a person.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

229. Well, all those guys didn't lack for monuments.

Nor do our "heroes" who were very proficient killers. Lee, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Patton, LeMay, Westmoreland, Abrams, and many more.

I violated a few articles of the UCMJ and so did most of my comrades when I was in. Not for nearly as good a reason as Watada did.

About the only time we liked showing our "respect" for the exalted officer class with a salute was when they were emerging from the PX with a double armful of groceries. Amazing how saluting becomes an almost involuntary reaction.

I'd much rather see the bosses, political and military, that started and run the "conflict" in Iraq standing tall in the dock in The Hague displaying their "heroism".

[dogday]

45. My Son is home from Iraq for 2 weeks

and it is bittersweet reunion.. He loves being home, but dreads going back....

[Sailor for Warner]

49. We all do

But thank you for being strong with him. The best you can do is support him as best you can. Let him know you believe in him and that you are confident in his and his units ability to come back alive. That really is the best you can do.

[dogday]

52. I can't do anything, it is his decision

And he was raised to honor his commitments.. He will not run away from his duties and his buddies...

[IndyOp]

59. I would ask that you tell your son that you want him to refuse to serve.

US soldiers have followed orders and now After 15 Years War, Sanctions 1,000,000 Iraqis Dead.

If you were the parent of a German soldier in World War II - would you tell him to go back to his duties and his buddies.

I see no difference between German invasion and occupation of European nations and what is happening in Iraq.

[dogday]

62. I don't either

I have told him my feelings on this and he has told me his.. Since he is the one that has to endure it, he ultimately has to make the decision...

[IndyOp]

68. You have done what you can do. Thank you.

My compassion, I hope, embraces everyone damaged by this nightmare.

We all must continue to do what we can do.

[Jed Dilligan]

98. I don't see it that way

The Iraqi people are the ones who will have to endure his presence in Iraq.

[dogday]

107. He is going through a lot and as his Mother

all I can do is comfort him... I understand what you are saying, but he does not have a choice in the matter either... The Iraqis are having to endure a US presence in Iraq, but that does not take away from what my Son is going through as well....

[Jed Dilligan]

108. We always have a choice

There is no such thing as no choice. Even when the gun is to your head you can choose to die with dignity or without it.

The "just following orders" argument doesn't wash with me.

Of course, I never once in my life considered obeying any person or any law I didn't like, so maybe that makes me evil from a strictly formalist perspective.

[dogday]

119. See Reply #91

He is NOT doing this to save his ass from Iraq. He is probably facing rape and worse in military prison. I would go to the sandbox any day before I would go to jail.

My Son is not willing to go to jail. It is so easy to pass judgments from afar, but when it is tossed in your lap, it becomes reality and is dealt with differently.

[Jed Dilligan]

122. My statement in 91 is one of moral weakness

If it were just a matter of personal safety, I would take the sandbox over any prison, especially a military one.

I would like to think I would make the right choice and go to prison before going to do evil on behalf of evil men.

I have compassion for your son, I just feel a lot more compassion for the Iraqis who didn't ask for this.

[dogday]

124. My Son joined the Guard

and at the time there was no war, now he has no choice either... He is stuck like chuck.. I feel this on both sides of the issue.. All of the dead people for a lie.. It makes me so angry I could spit nails...

[Jed Dilligan]

133. The military is a corrupt, people-eating, death machine

It needs to be shrunken and reined in if we are ever to have our country back.

I regret your son wasn't educated enough to realize this when he chose to join it, rather than fight it.

We sold our soul to the devil when we built a war machine to match Tojo's. Since World War II we have had a giant military looking for wars to fight.

If your son is intelligent he will quickly realize what a farce and a horror he has gotten himself into. And he may find himself in a stronger position than the rest of us to do something about it.

[dogday]

143. Like many young men of his Age, he

volunteered after 9-11... What can you do? The spirit of patriotism rang so loud it was deafening. It was the Guard, so you know we think, one weekend out of the month, two weeks a year, no big deal... Well all of that changed, you know?

Who really benefits here? It isn't The Iraqis, they hate us, it isn't the soldiers, they hate being there.. So who is benefiting from all this death and destruction? Why can't we change this, and what do we need to do?

Could my Son be the Soldier that leads the freedom march out of Iraq? I would Love to see that, but that is not who he is.. That is who I am and that is who you are..

[Jed Dilligan]

I rode a plane with some of those recruits right after 9/11

They all had new digital watches and they couldn't figure out how to reset them for the new time zone. I had to help them out.

Too bad we have spent all the money that could be spent on education on... guess what?

[dogday]

157. It's a good thing you were there to help them

Condescension is an art to some...

[Jed Dilligan]

169. They asked me for help

I'm not saying they were stupid, just too uneducated to operate simple machines. The army was the only thing there for them. It was sad.

[Sailor for Warner]

61. I wish I could give you comfort

I know that I could never understand my mother and wifes pain and fear when I am in harms way. But your son is an honorable man, I know it would be little confort if something happens, but it is honestly the best that can be given.

[Breeze54]

365. I'm glad to hear that he's home with you dogday!

What a relief, however temporary it is for two weeks!
That means he's halfway home for good!
Hang in there! :hug: to you and yours!

"He will not run away from his duties and his buddies..."
My son said basically the same thing, dogday.
It was his buddies that he didn't want to desert.
If they were going, then he was going with them and he did.

I hope you are all having a great time together!
Take lots of pictures!

Peace,
Breeze

[Sailor for Warner]

63. There seems to be widespread paralleling

of this war to that of Vietnam and German Soldiers in WW2 in terms of refusal to serve, etc.

I would ask that posters keep in mind that both of those military services were compulsory either through draft or national indoctrination. The US military is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE.

[Laurab]

310. All volunteer....except for

the multiple deployments, the Reserves and the Guard being full-time military, sent on multiple deployments. That's more like a back-door draft. You keep repeating how the military is "All Volunteer", but I don't think anyone in the military, OR the Guard, OR the reserve, expected this. You do your tour, and go home, if you're lucky enough. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Aside from the needless death and destruction we're causing over there, many of the people who come back are going to be totally fucked-up.

This "All-Volunteer" military isn't exactly what you keep saying it is.

[Sailor for Warner]

331. You really should get a hold

Of the contracts that the National Guard and eserve forces sign. I will bet you some cabbage that there is no clause in there that say they can only be deployed a little bit.

[Laurab]

364. Oh I don't need to

I'm sure it's "legal", however unprecedented multiple tours may be. Legal, yes, unprecedented and unexpected? Yes, again.

This pResident has used, and I'd say, abused, our military in a way no CIC before him has done. It beats reinstating the draft, except for the poor souls who signed up, who could not have imagined what they were going to be in for under this administration. It SHOULD be illegal, but I'm quite sure they've got that covered.

[Tsiyu]

71. Kicking and Rec'ing

:kick:

When the President is a lawless, warmongering individual who spits on the Constitution, soldiers have to choose between their CIC and the Constitution.

Since ** is a temporary fixture in DC, whereas the Constitution was handed down as our legacy to us as Americans FOREVER, the truly moral, law-abiding military member will choose to uphold the Constitution. There IS no other moral choice.

Any jarhead who wants to tell you that "you have to be a mindless slave and perform all manner of evil for your Dear Fuhr...I mean...President" is an immoral, mindless piece of scum who HATES THE CONSTITUTION.

Listen to your heart. Don't listen to the heartless bastards who love death and destruction, murder and pillaging. These types have no souls. Do not kill for the greedy fucks who care nothing about the soldier. DO not fight for the beasts who have created their oligarchy. Just say to hell with theirbloodlust and gluttony.

And you will be modern day heroes worthy of the utmost respect. :patriot:

[Sailor for Warner]

83. nice

"you have to be a mindless slave and perform all manner of evil for your Dear Fuhr...I mean...President" is an immoral, mindless piece of scum who HATES THE CONSTITUTION."

I love the constitution more than you could ever know, I have a booklet with the Const, Dec of Ind, and the Bill of rights in my fron pocket with me always. I wont pretend to know your history but I will tell you that those of us who remain, do not hate the constitution and to call me immoral is BEYOND reprehsible.

[Tsiyu]

86. Let me tell you this,

My ancestors were here when the ships landed. Some of them were in the ships. I carry the DNA of those who fought in the Revolutionary war, the Civil War, WW I, II, Korea, Viet Nam and my own child served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one had DARE tell me I have no right to speak on this issue. This is MY COUNTRY and I refuse to allow warmongering, hate-filled, immoral, bloodthirsty scum to take it over. Of course, with help from idiots, they already have taken it over.

But MY TAX dollars are going to kill innocent Iraqi children. MY TAX DOLLARS are going to support Halliburton while our troops don't even have the bare essentials to fight this criminal war. The way our troops have been exploited and neglected IS CRIMINAL IN AND OF ITSELF.

I hav e had enough of the Bloody apologists, the fascists who do whatever their evil master bids them. I listened to the lies about being "greeted with rose betals" and then faced the reality that my sone HAD TO PICK UP CHUNKS OF HIS BUDDIES IN IRAQ rather than flower petals. For what? For freedom? BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




FOR GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. MONEY. OIL .OIL .OIL .OIL .OIL . OIL.



There is not one goddamned moral thing about this war, from the way lies prompted it to the way it has been conducted, the scrapping of the Geneva Conventions, the torture done by our own. NOTHING MORAL or CONSTITUTIONAL.

And anyone who says otherwise is a bloodthirsty scumsucking pig, in my humble opinion.

[Sailor for Warner]

95. So by the logic of your last post you son is lumped up in that group too

because he followed orders, how is that logical. It is not my job to question the war, that is your job. If you had a son who fought it the war than where do you get off calling me a scum sucking bush ball licker. Im not going to play the "I lost this person so I have greater moral authority" game, because everyone looses when they do that. Oppose the war all you want, I am not an apologist for the war OR CAN YOU NOT READ?


btw
your opinion is far from humble.

[Tsiyu]

109. Make things all about YOU much?

Did I call you anything directly? No. Actually, you bore me to tears, no offense.

But you keep on in this thread. Okay. you've made your nice little happy talk about rules and order.

How about those Geneva Conventions? Just silly old rules.

How about we have a Constitution that says you can't use the Pentagon to produce propaganda for Repukes? Silly little rules!'

How about we were lied to - NOT ABOUT A BLOWJOB - but about WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - BY A PRESIDENT.. THE PRESIDENT LIED!!! Oh, wait. Misleading the American public and its military, no problem. No rule against that, apparently, is there?

Face it, the schmuck in charge has no regard for rules or laws. HE sets the tone. And I say, given that the CIC has no moral or legal obligation to play by the rules, no military person does either, ESPECIALLY when they know that that Commander in Chief is going to force them to torture, kill innocents and protect Halliburton CEOS and truckdrivers.


GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED. GREED.

Greed is what it's all about. And a psychotic need to kill by our administration. Greedy murderers is all they are and will every be. Go ahead and wave your prissy "rulebook' around. No one is playing by those honorable rules anymore, Captain. So give up the "honorable" bullshit.

THERE IS NOTHING HONORABLE IN KILLING CIVILIANS FOR OIL AND GREED. NOTHING.

[Sailor for Warner]

142. Repeating things over and over in capital letters

Does not make your statements any less boring or repetitious. I am not here to impress you.

[flyarm]

195. thank you..buddyhollysghost..thank you for your morals..and your love of

the very laws we used to live by..the Constitution of the UNITED STATES...the rest is all bullshit..seems to me the very people who are suposed to be protecting our constitution are the most ignorant of the very laws it has served us with for 200+ years!

and yes that silly thing bush hates the most,the Constitution , says we must stand by the conventions and laws we sign..like the Geneva conventions!!

but low be it for any officer to know what the Constitution says!

my husband , brothers, father , grand father and all my ancestors fought for that constitution..too bad todays military only fights for a mad man in this white house!

and ignores the very laws they took an oath to defend!

fly

[Tsiyu]

200. thank you too

Blind faith in anything will get you killed, misled, made part of the guilt.

The time for blind faith is past. Anyone with a conscience can see what this war is about. There is a reason the American public is against the war in an overwhelming majority. Most Americans are intelligent. Most Americans do not support killing for greed's sake.

It is the diehard Royalists who do their King George's bidding who will have a rude awakening some day. Those laws aren't going to be there to protect any of them, either.

This is equal opportunity Fascism. Repukes will suffer more than anyone, because they will be the angriest when they realize that they elected the fools who destroyed their way of life.

:hug:

[Karenina]

267. I'm paraphrasing...

If you can be convinced to believe absurdities, you can also be convinced to commit atrocities.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flyarm]

225. ahh it actually has everything to do with going to war..and remember this

was never ever declared a war!!

THIS LITTLE LORD PISSY PANTS WAS SUPPOSED TO GO BACK TO CONGRESS AFTER A SET TIME OF THE CONGRESS'S APPROVAL TO GO TO THE U.N. ..HE DID NOT..SO HE VIRTUALLY STARTED THIS CONFLICT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!

article 1 section 10 CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES..

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

SO DO TELL US...

were we ever invaded by Iraq??

where are those pesky wmd..and the mushorrom clouds?? or the paper and duct tape drones Saddam had ..or the weather balloon trucks..Britian sold saddam??

SO WHERE WAS THE IMMINENT THREAT????????????????????????????????

THERE WAS NONE!! NOT THEN NOT EVER..NOT SINCE 1991!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FLY

[Sailor for Warner]

235. Once again your show your total lack of knowledge of the constitution

Article 1 Section 10 does not apply because no one state went to war without authorization. Furthermore the congress has the power to declare war but precedent has been established many times over now that the CIC has the power in that capacity to initiate military action without a formal declaration (Korea, 'Nam, Desert Storm)

[Imajika]

73. Watada is no hero...

He can whine illegal war if he wishes, but it's utter bunk. Trying to claim that it is illegal because it is a "crime against peace" is nonsense. If that is the standard, anyone in the US military could claim at anytime they don't want to deploy because they find something the US military is doing a "crime against peace" in a given theater of operations. So Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia, etc, etc could all be considered by some subset of the US military as a "crime against peace". You simply can not have a functioning military if its personnel get to decide on a case by case basis whether they will abide by their deployment orders.

Watada answers to the United States Government, not to the opinion and desires of the UN or any other nation. It is completely legal for the President of the United States to deploy US armed forces to Iraq. The US congress has approved this action, and Bush is pursing that mandate.

We all may oppose Bush's Iraq policy for all variety of reasons, but it is not an illegal war as far as the United States executive, legislative or judicial branches are concerned. Americans are first US citizens, one can chose to call themselves a world citizen if they wish - but it is US laws that govern the actions of the American armed forces. The Iraq deployment is NOT illegal under American law. Period.

I consider Watada misguided and flat wrong. I hope he is court martialed, jailed and dishonorably discharged.

Let's say a Democrat wins in 08' and needs to commit a significant number of US troops to a longterm dangerous peacekeeping operation somewhere in the world (perhaps Israel/Palestinian territories as part of some comprehensive peace plan). Lots of conservatives hate peacekeeping operations. Lots of conservatives might even feel we are favoring the wrong side (as some did in Kosovo). So does that mean any conservative type in the US military (and there are lots of them) who doesn't believe in the mission gets to refuse to go? Gets to call the media and make a big production about how they feel the mission is wrong? Gets to claim the US deployment constitutes a "crime against peace"? Gets to point out where some soldiers in the peacekeeping operations have broken the rules and military law by killing civilians, therefore to deploy to that theater of operations would somehow constitute a "crime against peace" so they can't go? No, if they do that they should also be court martialed, jailed and dishonorably discharged.

It's a volunteer army folks. Think your gonna have a problem following military rules. Don't join.

I don't consider Watada a coward either. The word "coward" gets thrown around too lightly. The stand he is taking may well result in a very tough road for him. It would probably have been easiser for him just to follow his orders. So no, I wouldn't say he is a coward.

He's just misguided and wrong. Watada's no hero. His actions won't help anyone. He has let down any soldiers under his command and put them in a weaker position. Watada needs to be court martialed, jailed and dishonorably discharged. I hope they make a major example of him so other members of the US armed forces think twice before pulling a stunt like this.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Being a "volunteer" doesn't negate the individual's responsibility to humanity.

[Imajika]

85. The military has rules..

..if you don't like them, don't volunteer. Period.

The only way to keep a functioning military is for its personnel to follow the chain of command and do as they are ordered to do.

Because a service member doesn't like his deployment order, for whatever reason, does not make it okay for said service member not to go.

Everyone has their own view of what "responsibility to humanity" is. That simply is not the point. You would have one idea of what they meant, I might have another, and everyone on this thread may have a different notion of what it means.

The military is about structure, order and discipline. It only functions properly and effectively because of those things. Individual members of the armed forces answer to only the US government, not some higher notion of "responsibility to humanity".

Don't like the rules, don't join. It's really that simple.

Arrest, courtmartial, jail and dishonorably discharge Watada is what should, and no doubt will, happen. Do the crime, do the time.

[Jed Dilligan]

91. That's part of the point

Being jailed is an important part of civil disobedience.

I know it seems paradoxical to call this civil disobedience but IMO our military does not deserve the name of a military after what Bush has done to it. He's turned it into a world police force and I think we should judge the people in it, morally, as citizens, just as we do with police.

Yes, he should get the deal he signed up for BLAH BLAH BLAH.

That's not the point.

He is NOT doing this to save his ass from Iraq. He is probably facing rape and worse in military prison. I would go to the sandbox any day before I would go to jail.

He is doing this because the war is WRONG. And he would rather be punished and possibly killed than help to prosecute it.

That is courage. Following orders is not.

[Imajika]

110. I actually agree...

...with some of what you say here.

"He is NOT doing this to save his ass from Iraq. He is probably facing rape and worse in military prison."

Yup. And you'll notice that in a previous post I made a point of saying I did not view him as a coward. Infact, I did say it was probably harder for him to follow this course of action than it would have been for him to have just accepted his deployment orders.

I just don't believe this is the way to go about opposing the war. I believe it is vital that the US military remain cohesive and effective. The military follows the command of the Commander in Chief. We don't like him or his policies now, but eventually there will be a Commander in Chief back in office that we do like. Some President we do like will also need an effective, disciplined military. We can not have a situation where say a Commander in Chief we happen to like, maybe a President Kerry, needs to send the US military to do a mission, and a bunch of officers who disagree with Kerry's philosphy make a big show of refusing to go. You just can't have a functioning military that way.

The US military should not be dragged into these debates. That is precisely what Watada is doing. It is not the place for it.

He really just needs to be made an example of so that members of the US military going forward don't take such a misguided approach.

Watada's just not a hero to me. I consider him misguided and irresponsible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

192. Obviously his idea of humanity and his differ.

As does your's and mine.

But,you have nailed the problem. "

"Individual members of the armed forces answer to only the US government, not some higher notion of "responsibility to humanity".

Because they are coerced to do so.

Apparently Watada refuses to be coerced into doing something he considers inhumane. A brave man.

[Imajika]

222. No...

"Apparently Watada refuses to be coerced into doing something he considers inhumane. A brave man."

....not because they are coerced to do so. They volunteered for it. VOLUNTEER. Watada VOLUNTEERED for the US military. He made a voluntary decision to join the all volunteer US military. Once you volunteer for something, your not a hero if you don't do the very things you VOLUNTEERED for. No, when a person fails to live up to the very things they volunteered to do that is called being irresponsible.

That's why we call it a VOLUNTEER military. You volunteer to join it, and when you do volunteer and sign on the dotted line voluntarily you accept the rules that come with your voluntary act of joining the volunteer military.

Volunteer....volunteer. It's a pretty critical word in this debate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

230. Well, OK, let the ones who don't want to kill, unvolunteer.

Then you'll have a real "volunteer" military, though, I would think, greatly diminished.

Spare me the glorious UCMJ. How many "volunteers" are even aware of it when they sign on the dotted line?

When I was a plane-captain I had more than a few of the hotshot officer pilots beg me and others to "down" their planes (easily done with a handy screwdriver) because they were too drunk or hungover to fly. Bribery was not uncommon and acceptable to the peasant class. The heroic, dutiful, officers seemed to forget the niceties of the UCMJ, as did we, in those business transactions.

[Karenina]

269. Some make it sound like

being part of the military borgs one's citizenship. Ehren is the verb "to honour" auf Deutsch. He is taking responsibility for his citizenship by speaking out. He's GORGEOUS! C'mon kids! Let's get a WwAaVvEe going here!

WHAT IF THEY GAVE A WAR AND NOBODY CAME?

[Sailor for Warner]

278. To a certain degree you do forefeit many of your rights

When you enter into military service.

[Karenina]

283. But there IS a line in the sand.

It's an individual thang.

[Tsiyu]

82. A coward supports this administration

Only a coward could.

Killing innocents? Since when has that been the American Dream?

Killing for OIL and GREED? Explain to me where our Constitution says that Americans must kill and die for corporations?

What kind of heartless, immoral people would support this illegal military action?

Watada is more a hero than a thousand yes-men who kill no matter the cause or circumstance.

The honorable man lays down his weapon and chooses human life over blind allegiance and obedience to evil masters.

Watada fits that bill perfectly. You may want to curse him for not involving himself any further in the bloodshed. I believe in the sanctity of ALL lives, not just the sanctity of white wealthy Repukes and I believe Watada is ten times the hero you are, following as you are in lockstep with the thugs in power.

JEFFERSON is proud of Watada. RFK is proud of Watada. MLK is proud of Watada. Whether or not some Reich-Wing Nazi Repuke who licks bush's balls every day thinks he's a hero is immaterial. The Bush Ball-licker HAS absolitely no morals, so he or she has NO ROOM to speak about honor or morality.

[Sailor for Warner]

88. Bush-ball licker?

Is that me?

"I believe Watada is ten times the hero you are, following as you are in lockstep with the thugs in power."
I never said I was a hero, so 10 times of zero is still zero

"I believe in the sanctity of ALL lives, not just the sanctity of white wealthy Repukes"
And that is why you should not join the military and if watada feels the same, he should not have joined.

"thousand yes-men who kill no matter the cause or circumstance."
Hmmmmmm guess you have a low opinion of anyone above the rank of Sgt.


"JEFFERSON is proud of Watada"
Jefferson sent troops to die in a foreign war in Muslim lands because he was pressured to stop paying tribute to a cadre of foreign pirates. He did it without congressional declaration as well. I wonder what he would have done if Commodore Preble or LT Decatur had refused to sail.

"RFK is proud of Watada. MLK is proud of Watada"
RFK and MLK supported objectors to a war in which there was a draft, not a volunteer officer who refused to go to war while his men went off to die without him.

[Tsiyu]

90. Dude, why are you stalking me in this thread?

As far as I know, I responded to the OP and another poster, yet you keep pursuing me. Why?


I'll give you some advice here:

IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.

[Sailor for Warner]

102. Sorry didnt see that

look at where your post are and see how I could misunderstand.

[Jed Dilligan]

103. I don't think there's really any argument here

It's people talking to machines, might as well argue with your computer

[Vogt]

167. Go ahead sailor...

I'm completely anti-war, but I do like your sense of history. You make well-reasoned points and I hope you stay safe out there. I like the navy. My grandfather served in WWII and survived a kamikaze attack in the Pacific in late 1944. You all are good guys.

I agree too that people who join up should know what they are getting themselves into. Any person who joins the service - for whatever reason - should always expect to go to war. That's what I was always told. So Watada should not desert his post. I myself almost joined the effort as I'm a Arabic linguist. I was finishing my studies right around the time of 9/11 and was ready to go. However, when the Iraq thing started to emerge I turned my back, and thank God, because I probably would've been in Abu Ghraib. Live with your decisions I guess; stick with your choices. Everybody has to finish what they start. Good luck man.

[Imajika]

99. Your hate filled screed is silly...

"Killing innocents? Since when has that been the American Dream?"

Sorry sport, but the killing of innocents has been part of every war this nation, and most others, have fought. Innocents die in war. It's a dirty business. That is why we shouldn't go to war unless absolutely necessary. That is one reason most of us here don't support the policy in Iraq. That DOES NOT mean individual US military personnel get to defy orders or pick and chose their deployments based on what they personally consider just causes.

"Killing for OIL and GREED? Explain to me where our Constitution says that Americans must kill and die for corporations?"

These are your personal views on the conflict, many people don't agree that that is what this war is all about. I don't agree with that, and many who don't support the policy in Iraq are not opposed based on your personal view of it. I don't think the war is about Oil, Greed or Corporations. I think Bush actually believes he can impose some sort of "democracy" on a society and culture that is probably not ready for such a thing. A stable democracy that we would recognize is something that normally results via the consent of the people and an agreement of some certain set of basic principles - protection of minority opinion and rights being one of the most important. I don't think we can impose it because I don't think Iraqi's would agree on any set of basic principles. I also have my doubts that a majority Islamic society, as that religion is generally observed now, is really compatible with any democracy that we would understand.

"What kind of heartless, immoral people would support this illegal military action?"

Lot's. And it is not an illegal action in the eyes of the United States executive, legislative or judicial branches. Under US law, this is not an illegal action. The US military answers to US law, not buddyhollysghost's law, UN law, etc, etc. For this US military, this is NOT an illegal action.

"I believe in the sanctity of ALL lives, not just the sanctity of white wealthy Repukes and I believe Watada is ten times the hero you are, following as you are in lockstep with the thugs in power."

This blather is not relevent to the debate. The question is, should US military personnel get to chose what deployment orders they will agree to? The answer is no. All this "sanctity of wealthy Repukes" drivel is immaterial to the heart of the arguement.

"Whether or not some Reich-Wing Nazi Repuke who licks bush's balls every day thinks he's a hero is immaterial. The Bush Ball-licker HAS absolitely no morals, so he or she has NO ROOM to speak about honor or morality."

I guess this is some kind of misguided personal attack? I'd suggest you'd be better off keeping your silly attacks to yourself and instead focus on the actual debate. Is it okay for members of the US armed forces, a military comprised of volunteers, to pick and chose which deployment orders they are willing to follow? What happens when a President you do like orders the military somewhere, and soldiers with differing opinions than yours refuse to follow said orders for their own personal reasons? Maybe some conservative soldiers would consider you and the type of military action you'd approve of to be pro-marxist in nature? Do they get to make a big show of refusing? They'd be hero's on the right no doubt. Would that really be good for the cohesiveness of the US military?

Keep the politics OUT of the military. Join the military, follow the rules. Pretty simple really.

Watada is no hero. Arrest, courtmartial, jail and dishonorable discharge him.

[Jed Dilligan]

113. Okay, well, no. Sorry. Not buying it.

BHG is a little worked up and you're tearing into his emotional statements as if they were reasoned arguments.

Here's my reasoned argument: I could give a rat's ass about the "cohesiveness" of the military. I was against every action Clinton took overseas and I'm against everything Bush is doing. The military seems to have nothing to do with my personal safety. The cholos down the street with their AK's are more likely to be the ones defending my neighborhood if there is an actual invasion. The military has been turned into a world police force imposing global corporate power on any part of the world that balks at it in any way.

I don't think the military should be "used" AT ALL, except in REALLY OBVIOUS situations: that is, there's an army opposing us, and we need to meet it with our army.

The only reason to "use" the military is that it is big, expensive, and just sits around.

I understand that authoritarianism provides a cozy moral universe for all of us to nest in, but the results have not been stellar and common soldiers have done the bulk of the damage. I wouldn't release them from the moral responsibility of killing any more than I would a common civilian murderer.

[Imajika]

126. Okay, then your basically...

...anti-military.

You have a minority view amongst Americans in regards to the US military, but I can respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Problem is, if you feel that way - don't join. You probably didn't. Watada didn't have to either.

Watada voluntarily joined a VOLUNTEER military. He accepted the rules that comes with it. Now he is violating those rules, and he should be punished severely for it to serve as an example of what not to do.

If you don't like the way the US military is organized and the kind of missions it performs - DON'T JOIN IT.

What's worse, Watada wasn't some person who happened to be in the military long before the Iraq War began and opposed it from minute one, this guy appears to have joined in March 2003. That means he joined either just days before or perhaps even AFTER the Iraq War had begun. Therefore, he chose to join while the US was gearing up for or actively enganged in the current Iraqi policy. It wouldn't be an excuse for him either way. You join the military, you follow orders. The fact that he actually joined in March 2003 just takes an excuse away from him. He doesn't get to do some reading later and decide he didn't like the operation the military is engaged in and refuse orders - he gave up the right to do that when he joined.

Someone with views like yours simply shouldn't join the US military. I don't begrudge you that. But it really has nothing to do with Watada's situation.

[Jed Dilligan]

139. I'm sure Watada joined supporting the war

Then saw what it was really about (Abu Ghraib, etc.) the same way many of us did, and changed his mind.

He realized he was about to be part of a great evil, and chose a dreadful prospect over a safer, but in his view, immoral one. That to me is real courage. Cowardice, in my view, is equal to blindly following orders and obeying accepted authorities. There is no real courage other than transgressive courage, and there is no real cowardice other than obedient cowardice.

I am not just anti-military, I am anti-authoritarian. I believe that anyone who follows orders without questioning them is morally repugnant, regardless of the situation.

[Imajika]

176. Right, so were agreed...

..your not right for the US military, and the US military is not a good fit for you.

You didn't volunteer, and that is a good thing.

We certainly wouldn't want a person with your views trying to defend the country - or hell, even a little embassy somewhere. Sergeant tells you to gaurd a gate, and your busy arguing with him/her over whether that is really necessary or how unfair it is that you should have to be the one to shoot the mob trying to get over it. Maybe you argue that you understand why the mob is unhappy with the geo-political situation in this particular part of the world and suggest you be pointman in organizing a town hall to discuss their feelings about current US policy. Meanwhile, embassy is overrun and everyone inside is held hostage or killed. Mob laughs at inability of US armed forces to defend said embassy. Other potential advisaries see weakness and hope all US military personnel are also so anti-authoritarian that they can't follow simple orders.

Example aside, that doesn't however mean that an anti-military, anti-authoritarian person doesn't bring something useful to the table for the nation as a whole. Someone like yourself could make a company or government agency more responsive to the ideas of its workers. Your just not a good fit for any military anywhere in the world.

As I said, I don't begrudge you that.

I also said I don't consider Watada a coward. Said it several times I believe.

Still, all of that is still immaterial to the actual debate at hand. The question remains, should a member of the US armed forces, who has joined a VOLUNTEER miliary, get to pick and what deployment orders he/she will follow? What happens when a progressive US President tries to order the US military on some peacekeeping mission and a right leaning officer corp decides to refuse?

Watada is just irresponsible and wrong in my view. Join the military, follow the rules. Don't join, and you won't have those troublesome rules to adhere to. A simple concept I think.

[Jed Dilligan]

178. Well, maybe he is a bad soldier

Which makes him better than any good soldier in the long run.

So, I take it you're pro-military? Think Defense gets its fair share of the budget and no more? Your country right or left?

[Imajika]

204. Jed...

I'm really not sure what your trying to get at. I've read what you have to say, and you make some interesting points, but I don't see where most of it is relevent to the Watada issue. But I will play along...

We would probably agree that a military is an organized killing machine. The US military, the French military, the Australian military - hell, even insurgent cells in Iraq organize for precisely the same reason. When your endeavor is defending or attacking something, regardless of what that thing is, it is more effective to go about it in an organized way. That is why a military, militia, terrorist group, etc, etc have commanders, lieutenant's. foot soldiers, etc, etc.

Any organized killing machine is probably going to decimate an unorganized one every single time.

If you accept human nature for what it is, there are always going to be folks that either want something that you have or oppose your point of view. There is no utopia. Right down to common criminals roaming a neighborhood or street gangs who try to control particular sections of a city. When society wishes to combat crooks or gangs, we develop an organized police force to go about it. That police force also has a chain of command - much the same way as a military does. The military just operates under the assumption that it will be in particulary nasty environs where large scale killing is to be expected. That's what war is, and that is what a military trains to do. That is why it is more strict and discipled than a police force or some corporate environment. It has it's own separate rules and level of discipline because its mission is particularly deadly.

We shouldn't play partisan games with the military. Leave the politics out of the armed forces as much as humanly possible. A guy like Watada does no one any real good. He sets a very bad example. I've seen lots of posts here wishing that the US military would rebel against the Bush administration. I wonder if people have really stopped to think what that would mean. The minute service personnel break from the chain of command and start pursing their own agenda, the minute the officer corp no longer respond to civilian leadership - well, that's the day democracy in the United States could truly die... What stops the military from deciding on its own, despite the fact that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US government disagree, that some future progressive US President is acting illegally so they refuse to follow orders? What if say, a President Dean, felt compelled to order US forces to protect a progressive President in some South American country? There are lots of conservatives in the US military officer corp that might have a serious problem with that. Can said officers refuse to follow orders and make a big show of slamming the president for ordering them? What next? Where does it end?

"So, I take it you're pro-military?"

Absolutely.

"Think Defense gets its fair share of the budget and no more?"

I have all sorts of disagreements about how we spend our defense budget dollars. My priorities would be different which would reduce the amount we had to spend. But is that relevent to this debate?

"Your country right or left?"

Not sure what this means.

[Jed Dilligan]

231. I guess our disagreement is here

I don't see the US military serving or representing me in any way. I say take the military out of politics, not vice versa. The military and law enforcement have grown into their own interest groups influencing politics, and that's what's destroyed our democracy. Bottom line for me. If you kill an Iraqi in Iraq you are as guilty in my view as if you kill a rival gangster in Oakland.

[Tsiyu]

116. The hatred for the Iraqis is not silly, on the other hand. Silly could not

hurt this badly. Silly would not be so ashamed.

So basically you have a nice well laid out little war talking page here. How kind of you to think of the Iraqis and of our soldiers.

Did your son pick up chunks of his buddies off the road in Iraq?

No. my guess is you haven't sacrificed diddly shit. So you can keep a cool little head about it all.

Hve you watched Control Room? Where they show all the babies we maimed "spreading democracy?'

I understand that many, many people have not allowed themselves to see the carnage their tax dollars create. But I have made myself see those wailing mothers and fathers, the babies with their heads and arms and legs blown off, the terrified children who have seen their parents tortured and locked away and killed for nothing.

We have created HELL in Iraq. We have spread nothing but blood and death and destruction. Maybe that does not haunt you. Maybe that's fine with you because they are not white Christians. IT IS NOT FINE WITH ME.

You can sleep nicely on your little pillow of denial, that the babies you kill are not really worthy of thought. But EVERY DAY I think of them and our soldiers and the hell they are in YES FOR OIL AND NOTHING MORE and I am ashamed to be American. And I will encourage any and every military member to just say no.

I my friend, have a conscience. Not some blind allegiance to an AWOL chickenhawk, chickenshit piece of trash you call the Commander in Chief.

[Imajika]

153. It is kinda sad...

...because again, instead of arguing about the actual issue surrounding Watada, you've degenerated into quasi-personal attacks and a bunch of moaning that is immaterial to the debate.

I can try one more time if you want.

Civilians ALWAYS die in war. We turned Japan and Germany into living hell. We slaughtered millions of innocent civilians - ON PURPOSE I might add, as a means of breaking the will of the enemies people.

The carnage after a Hamburg or Tokyo firebombing raid was on a scale far, far worse than anything we see in Iraq.

Civilians died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam, raids over Libya, Panama, the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and this War in Iraq.

That is why many of us OPPOSE going to war lightly. I don't oppose war. I think the very notion of "peace at all costs" is flat out naive and foolish, but I OPPOSE going to war for objectives that are probably unattainable and perhaps even undesirable.

Your arguments are simply immaterial to the debate. The question, again, is it okay for American service pesonnel whom have joined a VOLUNTEER military to pick and chose what deployment orders they will accept? If it is okay, what happens when a President or policy you, or progressives in general, support is opposed by conservatives in the US military? There are a lot of right of center folks in the US military you know - you do know that right? Is it okay for right leaning military personnel to reject the orders from say a Commander in Chief Howard Dean at some point in the future? Would it be herioic is they got out in front of the camera and made a big production of refusing the orders of a left of center President because they don't like the policy or consider it immoral? Do we really want members of the US military to do their own thing rather than collectively answer to a civilian Commander in Chief? Where does it end precisely? What if a conservative officer corp decided they couldn't follow the orders of, say, a President Hillary Clinton? What if they decided on their own that she was pursing an "illegal war" - even though the judicial, executive and legislative branches disagreed? Could they take one step further and remove a President Hillary Clinton from office because of their feelings of her acting "illegally".

Do you see where this is going?

We have a volunteer military. Join it and follow the rules. Period. Violating deployment orders doesn't make one a hero - it makes a person irresponsible and foolish.

I'll say it again. Watada should be arrested, court martialed, jailed and dishonorably discharged.

[Tsiyu]

179. To quote an esteemed member of the military:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the beenfit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

"I believe in adequate defense of the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

"It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."


Since we don't have actual "homes" anymore, and the Bill of Rights is worthless as well, what's left to fight for?

Nothing. But let's just quaintly follow orders because well, that's traditional you know, and gosh golly, if soldiers pulled out of this immoral war, they might think twice about going into other wars. To YOU, it might be terrible for the soldier to show such restraint, such a thoughtful, reasoned approach to war. You appear to believe that no matter how corrupt the leader, the grunt must follow or all hell will break loose.

I think, on the other hand, in a most rational and peace-loving way, that if our soldiers reach the point of questioning every silly war their leaders wish to wage, it would be a good thing.

Like Smedley Butler quoted above, if the cops bust in my door without knocking, despite the Supremes telling me they own my home, I will no doubt shoot the first and perhaps second guy who comes through the door. Why? It's my fucking home, no matter what you or Alito have to say about it. And I believe in violence for self-defense' sake.

But I do not believe in violence for greed. I never will. And I would be proud of each and every soldier who recognized the distinction and served accordingly.

[Imajika]

216. Nothing in your post..

..addresses any of the points I've made.

Apparently, you can't adequately speak to the arguments I've made, so you keep posting thoughts that are simply immaterial to the debate.

I have no idea of what your Alito point is. Are you talking about Kelo? You realize that neither Alito nor myself had anything to do with that decision. You realize it was the liberal block of justices on the Supreme Court, joined by Anthony Kennedy, who actually backed the notion that governments can seize your home to foster new private economic development? Liberal justices I generally agree with (though certainly not on this particulary case), but liberals none the less. Conservative justices actually opposed it. I'd guess Alito would have as well.

So if your talking about Kelo, your not pointing your finger of blame at the right folks. Judge Alito had absolutely nothing to do with it.

For the most part, your arguing a bunch of emotion instead of thinking logically and addressing specific points. I'm afraid your simply not persuasive at all. I would not want you on my debate team.

[Tsiyu]

227. Dude...stop playing the "emotion" card. It's beneath you, no?

You asked in a quite long-winded way, what would happen if ALL troops in the future chose to disobey orders, did you not? Shall I pull out all YOUR words from that post?

You wondered what would happen if the troops didn't support a progressive, for example, and you tried to make the point that soldiers must obey no matter what, that it would set a bad precedent if troops refused to deploy.

Did I read that wrong? What else were you asking?

So i gave you my opinion - as well as a military person's opinion - as to what constituted a rationale for war and stated quite clearly that IF FUTURE SOLDIERS REFUSE TO DEPLOY I would find that a good thing. What else do you want me to say to seem as if I am addressing your particular argument?

Your posts have stated that there are rules, that an officer is bound by duty to deploy and that you feel it would set a bad example if soldiers were to do this. I have obviously comprehended quite well your line of reasoning.

Your obtuse responses to my posts, coupled with your need to pejorativelly claim I am "emotional" do absolutely nothing to show that YOU have any reading comprehension. Try rereading, eh?

[Imajika]

232. So, to get this straight...

"IF FUTURE SOLDIERS REFUSE TO DEPLOY I would find that a good thing."

...you are also okay if US military personnel, following the example set by Watada of disobeying deployment orders issues by the CIC, refused orders from a progressive President? You'd be okay with a Democratic President ordering US forces to accomplish some peacekeeping mission, and for the officer corp to just refuse? So lets say some future Democratic President, working with the UN, decides to deploy forces in Africa somewhere to both provide humanitarian assistance and protect a left of center government from a violent insurgency, your cool with the many right of center elements in the US military officer corp flat our refusing? You think that would a good thing? Do you realize what an utterly silly thing that is to say? Do you realize what a monumental joke ANY US President would be if they couldn't even control their own nations military? Do you understand what an invitation it would be to any adversaries abroad to take advantage of such weakness?

Why even have a military then? Or is it, perhaps, that you really don't like the US military to begin with? Are you actually anti-military? It strikes me that you have no real concept of discipline and how such organizations operate effectively. So maybe you just one of these people that don't like the military and seeing it in any state of disarray pleases you?

So if your still thinking it would be just peachy for US military personnel to disobey a direct order by a progressive President (or any President you might generally approve of), what else would you be fine with? If the military can refuse civilian orders issued by the President of the United States, what stops them from taking other actions on their own? Some on DU have hoped the military would rebel against Bush - some kind of revolution dream they have I think. If members of the US military are free to ignore the civilian command, what stops them from doing whatever the hell they want?

"What else do you want me to say to seem as if I am addressing your particular argument?"

I suppose I had hoped for something reasonable?

Are you so sure your okay with the military disobeying the President? I mean, are you really sure of that, or are you just so emotional about Iraq that you haven't really thought it through?

Do you really think it would be a good idea for US military personnel to be in a habit of ignoring the civilian command structure?

From your previous post:

"...I think, on the other hand, in a most rational and peace-loving way, that if our soldiers reach the point of questioning every silly war their leaders wish to wage, it would be a good thing.
...."

You say this seriously and wonder why I suggest your speaking emotionally? Come on now? In a rational "peace-loving" way? "Peace-loving" way? Militaries are designed to kill people efficiently. That is what they do. These guys do not go through boot camp, advanced training, officer training, etc, etc to dwell on doing things in a "peace-loving" way. And thank God they dont, considering human nature has not demonstrated itself to be "peace-loving". The military is designed to deal with people we don't feel we can handle in a "peace-loving" way.

You think Watada's example is good and think it's ok for US armed forces personnel to defy direct orders from a civilian President elected by the American people. Why on God's green earth would you assume, once this sort of dangerous precident is set, that the military won't chose to defy other orders that they don't feel are cool with them? Or were you counting on them acting in the same "peace-loving" manner you believe Watada is?

We should avoid politicizing the military as much as possible. Keep the Iraq War debate amongst our civilian leaders and the American public. Keep the military out of it. The military follows civilian command. If the left can't win the debate - too bad. You don't go politicizing the military cause' you can't get your way. Eventually, the pendulum will swing, the left will be running the show and it will be a Democratic President in command of the military - and the military at that time should be expected to execute the commander in chiefs orders. Period.

[Tsiyu]

239. Straight, not narrow

"IF FUTURE SOLDIERS REFUSE TO DEPLOY I would find that a good thing."

...you are also okay if US military personnel, following the example set by Watada of disobeying deployment orders issues by the CIC, refused orders from a progressive President? You'd be okay with a Democratic President ordering US forces to accomplish some peacekeeping mission, and for the officer corp to just refuse? So lets say some future Democratic President, working with the UN, decides to deploy forces in Africa somewhere to both provide humanitarian assistance and protect a left of center government from a violent insurgency, your cool with the many right of center elements in the US military officer corp flat our refusing? You think that would a good thing? Do you realize what an utterly silly thing that is to say? Do you realize what a monumental joke ANY US President would be if they couldn't even control their own nations military? Do you understand what an invitation it would be to any adversaries abroad to take advantage of such weakness?

Yes, I would be okay with that. If a soldier had a valid reason to not be part of a mission, based on his or her peronal beliefs, I would support that. The present system is not working and you and I both know it. It. Is. Not. Working. Not morale-wise, mission-wise, Constitution-wise. And you must have a very low opinion of our military if you believe that most of them would stand down on a humanitarian issue. That is a bad reflection on you, my friend. Most of the military I know would gladly serve on any such mission.

But there is a distinction between a humanitarian mission and the blood and oil bath in Iraq. You believe the president is "spreading democracy." Fine. I am holding back the bile, but I will tell you there is no such thing as democracy in Iraq today. there is blood, blood and more blood. If you cannot see the difference between a humanitarian mission and the quagmire in Iraq, YOU are the one blinded by something....

Why even have a military then? Or is it, perhaps, that you really don't like the US military to begin with? Are you actually anti-military? It strikes me that you have no real concept of discipline and how such organizations operate effectively. So maybe you just one of these people that don't like the military and seeing it in any state of disarray pleases you?

Sure. That's why I drove my kids to Civil Air Patrol meetings and events for three or four years; that's why I worked locally putting together packages for soldiers, that's why I raised a Ranger with the 3/75th, and why that Ranger called me and asked me to pray that his leg would heal so he could join his buddies in Afghanistan. That was back when I had a smidge of faith. "Your prayers always work," he said. I had to tell him that was a hard thing to pray for. But it healed and he went.

Once again, you seem to have trouble making a distinction between someone who opposes an illegal occupation of a foreign country, and someone who dislikes the military. Wow. Two for two.

So if your still thinking it would be just peachy for US military personnel to disobey a direct order by a progressive President (or any President you might generally approve of), what else would you be fine with? If the military can refuse civilian orders issued by the President of the United States, what stops them from taking other actions on their own? Some on DU have hoped the military would rebel against Bush - some kind of revolution dream they have I think. If members of the US military are free to ignore the civilian command, what stops them from doing whatever the hell they want

One of my good friends - who is also my son's business partner - is a vet. Just out, served at Guantanamo. He assures me the troops would fire on this administration before they would fire on any civilian. You are implying that troops saying no to this war would cause a major upheaval in all the military, that it would lead to breakdown in command.

But look at what waging this war has caused???? The very thing you say you fear!!!!!! We have had a severe breakdown in command uner this very administration, from intelligence to torture to Haditha. Give me a break! Did you ever stop to reason that it is the waging of ILLEGAL WAR that causes a breakdown in integrity, rather than refusing to help wage that illegal war?

And, continuing in your losing streak at three for three, you are unable to deiscern the actual danger to our troops is using them illegally, not the troops themselves standing down on illegal action.


I will ignore your attempt to discredit me with the emotion thing, but really. Don't you have ANYTHING better than that? :eyes:

You say this seriously and wonder why I suggest your speaking emotionally? Come on now? In a rational "peace-loving" way? "Peace-loving" way? Militaries are designed to kill people efficiently. That is what they do. These guys do not go through boot camp, advanced training, officer training, etc, etc to dwell on doing things in a "peace-loving" way. And thank God they dont, considering human nature has not demonstrated itself to be "peace-loving". The military is designed to deal with people we don't feel we can handle in a "peace-loving" way.

That kinda makes your whole "what about humanitarian missions" argument moot. But whatever :rofl:

You think Watada's example is good and think it's ok for US armed forces personnel to defy direct orders from a civilian President elected by the American people. Why on God's green earth would you assume, once this sort of dangerous precident is set, that the military won't chose to defy other orders that they don't feel are cool with them? Or were you counting on them acting in the same "peace-loving" manner you believe Watada is?

Once again, it is not I who has a disregard for our miltary, but YOU. The military folks I know would ONLY stand down an order they knew to be illegal. They are ordered BY THE CONSTITUTION to do so. What you are implying is that soldiers and other military should be free to pick and choose the sections of the Constitution they choose to defend. But the Law of our land states: THEY MUST NOT OBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS!!! You are suggesting they should ignore that order. YOU are the one encouraging the troops to be criminals!

We should avoid politicizing the military as much as possible. Keep the Iraq War debate amongst our civilian leaders and the American public. Keep the military out of it. The military follows civilian command. If the left can't win the debate - too bad. You don't go politicizing the military cause' you can't get your way. Eventually, the pendulum will swing, the left will be running the show and it will be a Democratic President in command of the military - and the military at that time should be expected to execute the commander in chiefs orders. Period.

Well. gee. I live in America. Which country do you live in? You may think that our military are just toys to be used at the whim of whoever's in charge, but I see it differently. If the soldier's wishes are not to be accommodated. why do we have every manner of chaplain serving the troops? Cuz they aren't allowed to have beliefs? Tell me, does the military accommodate religious dietary requirements? Religious worship? NO? or YES?

The members of our military have the same rights as everyone else. They are not slaves. They may have volunteered to DEFEND THEIR NATION. None signed a form saying he or she had to defend Halliburton. Ot to murder or torture civilians for Republican greed. None signed a form saying they submitted to that.

And if one of them wants to challenge a warmoingering Dem president (there have been a few) I will say, More Power to you.

Illegal wars can't be taken back. You may view them lightly. I do not.

[wtmusic]

383. Under US law, the invasion of Iraq IS illegal

I'm amazed at how many people are ignorant on this issue.

[Zorro]

111. Admirably stated

A member of the military who abdicates his sworn alliegance and responsibilities dishonors himself.

IMHO Watada's actions are not commendable, although everyone that reads this website can understand the powerful, emotional reasons behind them. But a breakdown in military discipline s not an action to be applauded or encouraged, no matter what one's political persuasion might be. The military is not a democracy, and you voluntarily surrender many personal rights when you are a member. Watada's actions are his attempt to politicize the military, and that is a bad, bad thing.

This is identical to issues raised during the Viet Nam era, and just as in that time, there are a lot of military personnel that don't personally like the orders they have been given but nevertheless carry them out to the best of their ability. And once they get out, they can then exercise their right to express their disagreements with policy, just as Kerry and countless other veterans did.

You want to change policy, then change the civilian policy makers at the voting booth.

[Karenina]

281. If CURRENT soldiers

refuse to re-deploy, YES, I would consider that a GOOD THING.

"You want to change policy, then change the civilian policy makers at the voting booth."

That is no longer possible as the long tentacles of those profiteering from a war economy reach into those new-fangled 'lectronic thingies and done SUCK da democracy right out! (Do you remember that Star Trek episode where the beautiful/morphed girl sucks salt out of her victims)?

Y'all need to get over yourselves. THE POLAR ICE IS MELTING. The U.S. *MIC is SEVERELY exacerbating the situation while testing "new and improved" ways of sowing death and destruction. Anybody got the *dauphin's quote? Something about the four corners of the earth. Mission Accomplished?

What annoys me is that were we able to channel all this techno shit coöperatively statt competitively...

You know what else would be a GOOD THING?

If Retired from high up on the food chain covered the backs of Watada, Benderman... ah, YES there are growing numbers :bounce: THEY simply have to repeat what they said in the first place. LOUDLY. AGAIN.

This BULLSHIT needs a FULL STOP sign.

[motocicleta]

315. "The military is not a democracy"

which probably explains why a fair amount of tax-paying Americans on this board would like to see it stop going to war, killing innocents, and wasting our tax dollars.

"You want to change policy, then change the civilian policy makers at the voting booth."
Umm, have you been following the voting issues question in this country? Apparently, we can't change things at the voting booth anymore.

I am not trying to be inflammatory. The fact is, however, that the lalaland, fantasy world, the US military only does good, crap that we were raised to believe is gone, and gone forever. The US on the one hand want to act like the big economic powerhouse, Vegas-style, everything goes, all is free, globalization, free trade, yada yada, yet on the other hand want to act like big brother, world policeman style. The two do not go together, and cannot go together. Acting like a big policeman simply goes with highly non-free social systems. We had a nice run combining the two, but it's over now.

So argue all you want for a good military code of ethics. Our country is deep into determining whether we need a military or not. I understand you and yours will attack me for being out of the mainstream. I like to think of it as ahead of the curve, and I'm used to it. Someday you'll look back on this and think, 'jeez, that nutjob was right.' So there.

[michreject]

275. Fianlly...someone who understands

I salute you sir.

[Zhade]

276. You couldn't BE more wrong.

b*s* never went back to Congress. War was never declared. Under both our and international laws, this war is illegal.

[Sailor for Warner]

280. If its not a war than it does not have tp be declared.

There is plently of legal precedent. Such as every military action since WW2.

[Zhade]

307. Oh, so this ISN'T a war?

:rofl:

Ok, "soldier". Tell that to the guys fighting in the war in Iraq.

[Sailor for Warner]

338. From a legal standpoint it is not

It is a military action, just like Vietnam was not technically a war.

[Philosoraptor]

106. What soldier would follow Bush's orders to fire on US?

Let's say we raised hell and demanded Bush vacate the white house, which is our right and duty, and he ordered us fired upon, Napoleon style?

That's what it might come to, soldiers deciding not to follow the orders of a madman.

[BlueCollar]

123. Ordering the Military to fire on US citizens

would not be a lawful Order

[Philosoraptor]

128. I'm curous: Would firing upon unarmed people also be unlawful?

I was not in the military, and am just curious.

[shadowknows69]

137. as long as they're brown and we've invaded their country sure

Madness.

[Sailor for Warner]

155. Once again we resort to the Military Racist argument

Very highbrow, nice

No orders to shoot unarmed personnel are legal. Some are shot, either as collateral damage, or because there are plenty of women and children even carrying bombs under their clothes or in their cars. We has this problem in Vietnam as well.

[BlueCollar]

145. The decision to fire upon anyone

is a decision that has to be made at the moment by the person who commits the action based upon the existing "Rules of Engagement".

The question does not provide specifics.

I believe in a perfect world the answer would be yes but we do not live in a perfect world.

[flyarm]

212. neither is pissing on the Geneva conventions or the Constitution of the

USA..so what has stopped these fucking mad men in our white house so far???????????

so what law to they hold of value??

none!!

so do not even attempt to believe they would not order our soldiers to shoot...hell they brought in mercenaries into new orleans! to shoot at americans!

wake the hell up!

fly

[BlueCollar]

249. you obviously have no understanding of the law

directing the role of the armed forces...or do not wish to engage in rational discourse...pity really since this is what the Repubs want.

[shadowknows69]

355. IMO rationality has taken a vacation from this nation

We're in the twilight zone here. A bad science fiction movie. A "taut" political thriller if you will, and the bad guys are winning.

[BlueCollar]

121. When I enlisted in the Navy

I took an oath to obey all lawful orders and tried to live by the Sailor's Creed.

Lawful orders are those which have not been judged to be illegal.

This congress has skirted the issue of whether or not the war in Iraq is illegal and there has been no civilian court decision on the war in regard to its legality.

As a second-class Petty Officer I had the priviledge of serving under mostly competent and ethical Officers and senior enlisted men and carried out any orders given to me to the best of my abilities. I also expected those Sailors under my direction to do the same.

On rare occasions my sailors and I were given orders with which we disagreed but we carried them out immediately. Following accomplishment of those orders I was always able to discuss my reservations privately with either my Command Master Chief or appropriate Branch Officer and my concerns were always treated with respect.

I disagree with First Lt. Watada's decision but it is his decision to make. He will face a court-martial where he can make his case as to the legality of this war. Perhaps he will prevail although I think it is unlikely.

Personally, I hope that a civilian court will find this war illegal,but until that happens I have no doubt that the vast majority of the combined military officer and enlisted corps will execute orders handed down ethically and promptly.




For information purposes:

The Sailors Creed

I am a United States Sailor.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and those appointed over me.

I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.

I proudly serve my Navy's combat team with honor,courage and commitment.

I am commited to excellence and fair treatment of all

[Philosoraptor]

125. The Constitution of the U.S DEFINITELY needs defending.

[BlueCollar]

132. Civilians will have to defend it in Court

The military is beholden to civilian authority. The day the military takes on the role of interpreting the law is the day the Constitution becomes irrelevant.

History is replete with examples of what will go wrong in a country run by the armed forces.

[shadowknows69]

138. Well this civilian is requesting that you fight the tyrant

you call the CIC. Am I inciting the US military to mutiny? Nope, just suggesting it. Fuck you agent mike.

[BlueCollar]

151. No longer on active duty

But I intend to fight him at the ballot box.

[Jed Dilligan]

233. Bull shit

The military owns the fucking government, they take money out of my paycheck every month. That they serve us is a myth. We work to keep them blowing things up for no good reason at all unless you're a war profiteer.

[Sailor for Warner]

237. I dont recall having "no knock" access

to the Capitol or the White House

O8)

[Jed Dilligan]

240. You're practically a grunt

Why would I think you had any decision-making power?

The government is controlled by a tightly interlocking complex of military commanders and corporate officers whose companies supply the military and rebuild the areas it damages.

This is not a conspiracy theory or a big secret. It's right out in the open. Since you are an officer, you must have gone to college. Because you are not utterly ignorant, I hold you more accountable than most of the people in the military for your choice to join in an act of mass murder and base piracy.

Your god means absolutely nothing to me. What I claim is based on fact and more universal standards of morality than Judaism.

[Sailor for Warner]

241. I didnt realize that we were insulting my religion now

Nice

[Jed Dilligan]

242. Only insulting

if you think you have the One True Religion and don't acknowledge other beliefs in the world. That there are some universal moral standards that Judaism holds and some specific moral standards that other people don't hold to. If you think those other people are "wrong," you are a bigot. Don't throw it back on me.

[Sailor for Warner]

243. I never realized I said anything about my faith being the true faith

Thats not my style and does not sound like anything I would say. I only said that Hashem is the only one who has the right to judge me personally. And I will throw whatever I like at you, if you say it it is fair game.

O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin:

Cant we all just get along

:grouphug:

[Jed Dilligan]

246. No we can't

Because you claim to be in Iraq defending ME, representing ME, serving ME, and you simply do none of the above. Until you own up to that, there's no way we can get along.

[Sailor for Warner]

247. Once again

Where did I make that statement, I mustbe getting old and typing in my sleep.

[Jed Dilligan]

248. You pretty much say it here:

"The Congress makes the laws which govern my refusal to criticize the president, until they see fit to change the UCMJ I will follow the laws under which I serve. When I am a civilian, I will feel free to say what I wish. I would appreciate you repecting my choice to serve and follow just laws which have governed the military for many years. I am a slave to no man, I make the choice willingly and with no reservation and I am exceedingly offended by any implication to the contrary."

That basically says "we" (the people) sent you to war and so you're absolved of responsibility for whatever acts you commit over there. I will never "respect your choice." I find the use of the word "serve" offensive because it implies you are serving me. You are doing nothing of the sort. I have neither respect nor sympathy to offer you.

[Sailor for Warner]

250. I never say anywhere in there

The you or the people sent me on this mission or on any deployments that I have been on, that is the governemnts job. But talking to you is like talking to tree so I wouldnt expect a tree to be able to read properly. I serve the nation, that is my job, I serve at the pleasure of the president and congress who serve at the pleasure of the people. And just so many others on here I could give a rats ass if you find my service offensive. Soldiers in vietnam were spit on coming home from a terrible war, so I am not suprised to find the same in this day and age. I dont ask for you to respect me, just my choice to follow MY conscience and MY G-d. Which is far more important to me than the opinion of a sad little net-pundit

[Puglover]

282. Right there you give yourself up pal.

"Soldiers in vietnam were spit on coming home from a terrible war" That one of the oldest and biggest right wing bullshit talking points from Vietnam. There isn't ONE documented example of a soldier coming home from Vietnam and being spat on.
Jesus. :eyes:

Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Did_protesters_spit_050803.htm

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you spout this crap.

[Sailor for Warner]

289. Are you f**ing kiding me?

Both of my wifes uncles and one of my cousins were spit on and had a few rocks thrown at them as well when they came back. And two of them are Dems and one is a Green, so dont even try to tell me that it is right wing hooey.

[Puglover]

350. That my newbie friend

is pure and simple bullshit. You know it and I know it. Just like the majority of your other posts in this thread.

[datasuspect]

342. they got it from John Rambo in "First Blood"

"they spit on us and called us baby killers . . . "

[Jed Dilligan]

285. I'll be back to answer this later

[Jed Dilligan]

316. So I'm sad and stupid as a tree

Personal attacks duly noted.

I say if you kill people you are a murderer, and your military code of justice as well as your Torah mean less to me than the paper I use to wipe my ass with. And it is my business because the government steals my money to pay your salary as well as for the munitions you use to murder people.

As for being a pundit, I hardly intend that. I mostly come here to let people I would never talk to in person know how I feel about them and their beliefs. As a result of my posting here, some of my anger can reach people more instrumental than you in making me angry. And I have no other way to express my anger, at least no other way that seems as effective as a form of expression.

A woman cannot say in court that she was raped unless she at some point during the process of being raped says "no." This is where I express my non-consent.

I respect nothing about you, especially not your smug religious faith, and I hope that your way home is slick with saliva.

[Sailor for Warner]

336. My faith is smug now?

geez...
Express your non-consent all you want, I am not begrudging you that. Clearly you havent read too much Torah if you think killing is not justified in it but that is a matter for another time. Once again, how does the government steal something from your pocket to fund something allowed by the Constitution to be maintained by the congress full of people elected by the people.

And I have no clue how you could even pretend that you have not been attacking me and my service all day.

[Jed Dilligan]

352. Of course your religion justifies killing,

like all religions, for reasons other than actual self-defense.

My problem with the way you think, which is what I've been attacking all day, is that you stand on pieces of paper (your law books and holy books) to get around an extraordinarily uncomplicated matter of right or wrong. You go to someone else's country for no good reason and kill them indiscriminately using enormous weapons that they don't have. I'm sure war profiteers from King David right on down to Bush have produced shit-loads of papyrus written by armies of lawyers to prove that this isn't wrong in certain circumstances. It doesn't change the way I feel about this war, or any other war fought by the United States since World War II.

If I found myself a soldier of any rank in it, and of course I would die before I would let that happen--but supposing I had made the terrible mistake of joining the military when I was younger, before Bush, and I was there--I would hope to have the courage of Lt. Watada. What I know I wouldn't do is consult the code of military justice and some religious writings, think it out and decide it was a fine thing to be doing. That, I find reprehensible.

Now if your feelings are hurt by anything I said, sorry, but I just don't care very much about you. You are someone I will never meet, you will never figure in my real life. For all I know nothing you write here is true. People on the internet lie about their gender, religion, and military status all the time. If you wanted to know anything about me personally, I would lie, because I don't want you to know anything about me. I'm not saying you are a liar, but I'm saying I am not concerned with the person on the other side of the computer because they are and will remain unknown to me.

I have only attacked what you stand for in your writing and the figures you yourself have presented: Lt. You as supposed good guy and Lt. Watada as supposed bad guy. I called this out because Watada is one of the few public figures I can admire right now.

edit for typo

[dogday]

130. Thank you for your service

:hi:

[BlueCollar]

149. I should have clarified my earlier post

I served from 79-83.I'm no longer on active duty. But I thank you and pray that your son will be safe.

[shadowknows69]

141. I notice the Constitution is listed before "those appointed over me"

I'd say that spells out your priorities pretty clearly.

[BlueCollar]

165. I defended the Constitution and am proud of it

Like many veterans we have serious doubts about this war in Iraq but ultimately, WE THE PEOPLE are responsible for it.

We civilians will have to end it by electing a civilian government that will order the withdrawl of US armed forces from the conflict...an order that I'm sure will be executed swiftly.

[Sailor for Warner]

170. Thank you and this was the discussion

I had with Philo earlier how it is not my place to criticize the prez, it is yours as civilians.

[BlueCollar]

180. You are welcome Sir

I think those who have not had the priviledge of serving in the armed forces truly find it difficult to understand the dilemma facing the military today.

I'm sure that the vast majority disagree with the decision to wage this "war" but until it is determined by civilians or a civilian court to be illegal,the orders will be executed.

[shadowknows69]

188. Yeah, we tried

it was probably stolen.

[BlueCollar]

196. It's not over yet

We have to keep going...ultimately we will prevail?

[shadowknows69]

207. The question mark on the end of that

is very appropriate. Who says good must conquer evil? It's been losing for some time now.

[flyarm]

217. why don't we start first with the court martial of the commander

in cheif..he was so busy putting cocaine up his nostrils to be bothered during the vietnam war to take his flight physical...

the fucking hypocrisy here is nauseating...

put little lord pissy pants in prison first where he belongs..then start with others..this is just putrid!

fly

[rucky]

327. I understand the oath and all, but personally:

What is a higher obligation - A lawful act, or a just act?

ok, in the military, it's all about the law. But as a private citizen, it should be all about justice. The law should reflect what is just - not the other way around. In the civil rights era, there were plenty of LAWS that restricted the freedoms of black people, and it took acts of civil disobedience to change that. If the laws and culture responsible for atrocities reside in the military, why is civil disobedience within the ranks such an unspeakable act? They are the ones with guns in their hands. They can pull the trigger or they can put down the weapons. They have the power to stop this war by refusing to fight. Yeah, it's not going to happen, but this oath is an artificial barrier to what is truly, deeply right and just.

It's our sense of justice that makes all of us civilians ask how on earth can soldiers participate in an unjustified war? I know it's an unfair question to ask those who enlisted before Bush took office, but it must be asked so we NEVER accept the atrocities that are happening.

[Sailor for Warner]

177. Checking out

I am glad that this topic has brought out such a great debate. I think it is important to look at the soldiers role in this conflict. Thanks to Philosoraptor for posting such a thought provoking topic. Shabbat Shalom.

[BlueCollar]

181. Fair seas..Following winds

[Imagevision]

203. Sailor> this war is your bread and butter correct? this is your job

your livlihood correct? - Without Bush's war what do you have going for yourself? If you were to end your term in the military what exactly do you have to look "forward" to??

Point I'm trying to make is the percentage of the rent a soldier for war types see Iraq as a way out of another crisis!

[Sailor for Warner]

219. I have plenty of things I could do and can get out at any time.

I serve because I have chosen to. I could be doing what I will do when I get out, teaching history. And eventually I will run for office, but that is in the future. Today this is my job.

[shadowknows69]

221. Well hopefully sir

If you do ever run and win you remember your experiences when making decisions to send men to war. I don't agree with your view really but I respect them and I sincerely thank you for your service.

[Sailor for Warner]

224. And thank you for engaging in a resonable debate with

me. It is invigorating. Shabbat Shalom

[DocSavage]

223. What?

Do you think the US Military is a paid mercenary force or somthing? I did 25 years in the Navy. During that time there were combat actions in Panama, Hati, Kosovo, the Gulf War, the cold war for most of it, and guess what. When I retired I did not have a crisis to walk into. I served 5 seperate Presidents, Dem and Repub. I re-enlisted more than once, knowing what I was doing. It seems that you consider someone that believes in the military and the rules that we live by to be stupid or just unable to function outside of the military. I just do not understand that.

This thread is about an officer of the United States Army failing to live up to his committment to his troops, the Army and his country. For that failure he needs to be punished harshly. He joined freely, so I guess hes "Bread and Butter is war" as you said was going to be his job, and he was also looking for a way out of a "Crisis". Too bad that he elected to put himself in a whole lot bigger crisis now.

I hope all of your support for him last the 20 years he deserves in Levenworth. Then he will need your support.

[Tsiyu]

228. He has mine

it is time to clean house, both politically and militarily.

if it takes every soldier, marine and sailor to stand down, and we get our nation back, Leavenworth will have been worth it.

Unlike most of the apologists, cowards to a fault, I would die for my country, to defend my Constitution.

It should be a man's choice whether or not to die for a corporation and for a corrupt commander in chief. This is a nation of individuals, not goddamn Nazi Germany.

[Sailor for Warner]

236. So im still confused

Is your son some sort of coward because he refused to "stand down" in this unjust war in Iraq? I dont mean to go there but I am very confused as to your reasoning.

[Tsiyu]

244. No. He was an idiot and believed his commanders

I was an idiot and believed his commanders.

I am hoping he has not been back there in a long time.

And if he and I were to discuss it today, I would say, do not go. I wish I knew then what I know now or I would have said it then.

Some of us admit when we are wrong. Some of us never learn right from wrong.....

[Karenina]

287. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a man to understand something

that his SALARY depends on his not understanding.

[Tsiyu]

290. yes, and in a post 911 world it was easy

to convince him that the mission was about WMDs and a threat to his country. I was in the same boat, too blind to listen to people who spoke the truth, too manipulated by what I did not know. I wish I had found DU back then.

I was too frightened for his life and had not discovered the alternative media. What I putz I was. Really.

I am more ashamed at my ignorance at that time than about anything else ever done in this life.

[Tsiyu]

251. And I'm also confused

thought you were leaving around noonish?

Where exactly are you stationed that you have so much time to post on a forum? Perhaps i missed that part up above

[Sailor for Warner]

254. Im on a Naval Base currently

Standing a duty day on a ship. As if it is any of your business.

[Tsiyu]

256. Baby, you made it everybody's business

A little defensive, aren't you? For someone bragging about his deployed status and posting repeatedly in this thread using the rationale that you are qualified to post here cuz uhuh "you know the military?" You want street cred on faith?

Sorry. Dems don't give that. That's a Swiftboat, Karl ROve sort of behavior. We like a little proof mixed in with the pudding.

[Sailor for Warner]

297. I am also a active duty naval officer

Skirting the edge of what is allowed in the UCMJ. Just because I am safely at home now (thank G-d) does not disqualify me from having an informed opinion. So I am sure you could understand my hesitancy to just right on in and give you my life story. I am sorry about your son and I wish him the best, but it is no reason so attack me or my service.

I only get defensive when again and again someone who knows nothing about me makes insinuations about my character because I choose to stay with my unit and deploy as ordered.

And I hate pudding, too fattening.

[Tsiyu]

304. i attacked neither you nor your service

I have never understood this phenomenon : that some people view a question or another's opinion as an "attack." What's up with that?

Note to You: World does not revolve around thou.

[BlueCollar]

323. based on your posts

you atack us all

[Tsiyu]

341. I do?

Wow. That's pretty interesting.


Who are you? Haven't seen you around before.

Please give me an example of how I attacked you personally. I'll be waiting...

[datasuspect]

349. it's the same line of reasoning

when people who support bush call any criticism of him (no matter how reasoned or informed "bashing."


it is an inherently conservative error.

[datasuspect]

348. i'm always leery of those who shout from the rooftops about their service

many former military types and active military types that i know have a sort of quiet pride about their service.

[Biernuts]

296. Thanks - I appreciate your service, no strings attached

[Sailor for Warner]

299. Hey, Have a good one

I have to do my night rounds, make sure the ship is locked up tight, nighty night everyone


:patriot:

[ComerPerro]

190. I gotta say, that's close to sedition. I agree in principle, but, damn

[Jed Dilligan]

234. There were lots of mutinies in the 'Nam

Not very widely spoken of... But whole companies thumbsed-down whole missions, and there wasn't much the military could do without starting an internal civil war.

[BlueCollar]

205. I'm glad we had this debate

Hopefully,it will continue in my absence...World Cup games are on...

[tlsmith1963]

252. Every Time...

...I go past the military recruitment places in our town, I think about how sad it is that they have to fight for the fascist neocons. It says that they have to fight all enemies, foreign *and* domestic. I think the neocons qualify as a domestic enemy, since they constantly break the laws of this country.

Tammy

[Philosoraptor]

261. Democracy turned upside down, our enemy is our president.

[Biernuts]

286. Sure, open the door to having soldiers, sailors, airmen and

marines pick and choose the orders and presidents they feel like obeying. But you should vacate the White House, because you are just one step away from a coup.

This asshole is no hero.
:nuke:

[Karenina]

288. Where's my flyswatter?

[Tsiyu]

291. The buzzing is rather thick in this thread, no?

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No sweat. I've got all week to swat at will :)

[wtmusic]

292. Watada didn't open that door

Bush opened it by asking servicemembers to participate in an illegal invasion. That's only not 'OK', that's criminal. And yes, we are just one step away from a coup, for that very reason.

[Biernuts]

295. I recall an AUMF vote in accordance with the war powers act

It's illegal when the courts strike the vote down and are upheld on appeal, or when the UN Security Council holds that it is.

It ain't about likes, or what you or I would do differently. Calling it illegal doesn't make it so.

[wtmusic]

298. I recall the UN Charter forbids us from using military force

unless we are under "armed attack". Has nothing to do with what I would do. Under Article IV of the Constitution it's the "law of the land".

By the way, the AUMF of 10/16/2002 is predicated wholly on Iraq's developing WMDs and their involvement in 9/11.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001541----000-notes.html

[Biernuts]

308. You insist on an armed attack? Fine, Iraq fired on ONW and OSW

aircraft on a daily basis. Happy now?

And no, it wasn't predicated wholly on WMD and 9-11, that's the shit we fling around here stirring up passion and try to revise history. Below are some of the reasons it REALLY gave other than al-qaeda and WMD (in said al-qauda was in Iraq, not that Iraq was part of 9-11 or that the al-qaeda in Iraq was part of 9-11) Read it for yourself:
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107>

"continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region"

"by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait"

"attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush"

"firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council"

"continues to aid and harbor other <"other" meaning non-Al Qaeda - the previous para, not cited, spoke about Al Qaeda> international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens"

"the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime" (yes, President Clinton signed this law)

Gee, at least six things not in any way, shape or form conncted to Al Qaeda, WMD or 9-11. So now you can stop believing it when anyone tells you that's all it was.

[wtmusic]

312. Interesting you bring up ONW and OSW

American aircraft were operating under the authorization of a UN mandate, not a US military one. On March 19th 2003 Iraq was in 100% COMPLIANCE with all UNSC resolutions. Iraq not only never attacked the US, they never threatened the US. So no, I'm not happy now.

The US has killed, by most estimates, 100,000 Iraqis whose only crime was defending their own country from a foreign invasion. That's 30 times the number of people killed on 9/11. You proud of that fact?

[Sailor for Warner]

303. Night night guys

I really need to go this time (its hard to stay away I know this now) I have to do the nightly walk through. Everyone have a good night, thanks again for the post Philosoraptor I hope to have many more good debates with you in the future.

[wtmusic]

305. 'night nt

[Biernuts]

309. nite nt

[Corgigal]

313. I just read this complete 300 plus thread count

and no one brought up the blow back that American citizens will have to face one day for this "war".
I am a veteran and understand both issues but the actions by the active duty military can get us killed in hometown USA. Not that extremist couldn't find some other issue but I for one believe we will end up paying for this war one way or another. We, all will look back at this point in history then and understand our folly. This war is different then Nam or even WW2. The extremist are planing to kick us back, at home in our weaknesses. Our treatment of Iraq citizens and criminals are being used to fuel hate. It's going to happen and it will be too damn late to change what happened in Iraq yesterday (or last week).

[wtmusic]

314. Well stated

and thank you for your service. :patriot:

[Jed Dilligan]

317. That's why we need to communicate

our NON-CONSENT to the whole world, and I include the troops themselves in this responsibility.

[Philosoraptor]

328. Remember when we all asked, 'why do they hate us"? Now we know

And when we are attacked again, we'll know why this time.

[lpbk2713]

419. I concur that this war will echo on and harm us in the future.

But in a slightly different sense. I know some of the young men and women we send over there will become detached from reality due to the horrors of what they are exposed to. They will come back home as ticking time bombs with Delayed Stress syndrome and will snap maybe years after thet returned. It happened with the Viet Nam vets and it will happen with these vets because of the ugliness of both wars.

[noamnety]

318. I was at the Peace Has No Borders Festival today

http://peacehasnoborders.org/

It's very surreal to go from listening to combat vets who resisted and served time, to listening to combat vets who are currently AWOL in Canada, to combat vets who talk about how they considered resisting and didn't have the courage ... to a thread like this.

The Canadian war resister's movement has a decent support system set up for those who opt out of both Iraq and federal prison, btw.

[Sailor for Warner]

335. Unfortunately

Canada is starting to refuse papers to CO's because they have ruled in some instances, I believe, that there can be no CO's from an all-volunteer military.

[annabanana]

337. On looking over this thread.. You still have not addressed

your Oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution. The disdain that this administration has for our founding document is clear and unambiguous.

[noamnety]

345. Having JUST gotten back from Canada yesterday

and hearing the war resisters themselves speak, as well as their lawyer, I will say that there are two issues. One is the legal challenge which is working its way through the system currently. The other is whether or not they are being taken care of now, and the answer to that is yes.

[Cleita]

325. The sad think about that is that it should be the generals who

refuse to fight in this illegal war. They really don't have to take orders from an unelected fraud of a commander-in-chief IMHO. It should start with the joint chiefs of staff all the way down the ranks. Without the military, the Bush administration has no power.

[Philosoraptor]

329. Exactly, the top guns, not the underlings.

This gang uses the military as if it were just a lawn mower, a means to their ends.

[Karenina]

334. what an image...

The top brass KNOW this entire "exercise" is B.S. I sure do wish they'd come to the aid of their country en masse.

[wtmusic]

368. They are

They are retiring in droves. Always a Bushbot ready to take their place.

[cynatnite]

332. I would never ask a soldier to break his or her oath...

No matter that I hate this war and this president. They took an oath to serve our country and to expect them to break that pledge is wrong.

In any war, there are those who will refuse to go to war based on personal belief. They are called conscientious objectors.

The person who wrote this has no concept or understanding of the men and women serving in the military.

[noamnety]

346. CO status is being rejected by the military

on a regular basis right now. And it only covers those who oppose all war. There are no provisions for those who believe the actions of the US in Iraq constitute genocide, and refuse to take part on those grounds. There are no provisions for troops who believe their orders are illegal, and thus are required - by law - to refuse to obey them.

At some point, when the ethics of a contractual obligation conflict with your personal ethics, there is a decision to make. Some will go against their personal ethics. Some won't.

"The person who wrote this has no concept or understanding of the men and women serving in the military." <-- Short memories we have, when we can't remember that so many of those Vietnam War protesters were veterans, and the supporters in this particular case include combat vets from Iraq, as well as other veterans.

If you have a chance, please go listen to the IVAW speakers next time they're in your area.

[cynatnite]

347. I've read that CO status is much harder to get now...

No surprise there at all.

The oath military personel take isn't just a contractual obligation. It's an oath to our country which goes far beyond that. When I enlisted and took the oath, there was a group of us...about 20 or so. We all took it very seriously and took it to heart.

The oath is a pledge to serve and defend the United States. This is taken to heart by majority of those in the military. Considering that there is a chance they could go to war and die...it's not something anyone should take lightly.

And the vets who protest...they'll tell you how seriously they take it as well.

When it comes to something like this, each individual soldier has to look within their own heart, but no one should be surprised when the majority of those on active duty will continue to serve their country even though they may not agree with the policies of the administration.

When they leave the military, they are free to protest as they see fit. As you have mentioned, many do just that.

[noamnety]

354. And also they are free to refuse orders

when those orders are illegal. Not only free to do so, but required by law and international treaty to do so. No military oath relieves them of that responsibility.

Refusing an illegal order in no way conflicts with an oath to serve and defend the United States.

You imply that you in some way took your oath more seriously than the war resisters. If that's what you meant to imply, it's incorrect. You simply interpreted your oath in a more "my country right or wrong" kind of way than the resisters did. That doesn't make you a better citizen or a better member of the military.

[cynatnite]

357. How do I imply that I took my oath more seriously?

I'm stating what the majority of the mentality is in the military not just by when I took my oath, but also by the many people I knew in the army. Anyone who joins the military should never take the oath they are swearing to lightly...most especially when it's your life you are giving to your country.

You're reading something that just isn't there.

What is considered an illegal order and what is not will never be anything that all can agree on. Keep in mind, the military does not dictate policy nor are they political. Most aren't lawyers, either. You're arguing on the legality of the war and most will tell you that it is not their place to determine that.

In the end, the military must follow the dictates of the President. None of us have to agree or even like how they are used, but the founding fathers wrote that little bit into the constitution for a reason.

You may feel your reasoning is sound, but it's only a pipe dream to expect the military to suddenly stop listening to the president and their superiors. As much as I hate the war, I do not want a military to suddenly start making policy decisions like that.

The policies are what has to be changed and that can only be done politically...not militarily.

[noamnety]

358. Why did you write this

except to imply that you think YOU took the oath seriously, and to imply that while the majority also did, you feel a minority did not? Who is this minority who didn't take it seriously? Apparently you feel SOMEBODY took the oath lightly, or you wouldn't bring it up as a talking point.

"We all took it very seriously and took it to heart. The oath is a pledge to serve and defend the United States. This is taken to heart by majority of those in the military. Considering that there is a chance they could go to war and die...it's not something anyone should take lightly."

"In the end, the military must follow the dictates of the President." <-- this is incorrect, unless you include the qualifiers.

Those in the military are required by law to make judgments as to the legality of their orders. Reference: Nuremberg defense.

[cynatnite]

359. It's true...

A person swears an oath to serve and defend the United States. They are giving the government their lives for a certain amount of time and in that time they may be called to a war in which they may die in. No one should ever take that lightly...and I never met anyone who did take it lightly. Considering how large the military is, there are probably a few who didn't take it all that seriously. There are all kinds of people in the military who handle it all in different ways.

This isn't just another job.

Comparing the United States military to Nazis is really pathetic. It is so grossly apples and oranges it's hard to know where to start.

Are you saying that every soldier who is active duty in Iraq should be compared to the Nazis that murdered over 6 million Jews? Keep in mind, some of those German soldiers in WWII were never near any camps. They fought for their country on the front lines and never were subject to the trials at Nuremberg.

I'm a little surprised at the straws you're grabbing at in order to show how right you think you are. It's obvious you have no comprehension of the mindset of those who are in the military and have served in the past. Perhaps, swearing an oath to serve and defend the U.S. and putting on a uniform would change your assumptions.

[noamnety]

360. straw man

comparing legal defenses is not the same as equating US troops to Nazis. Please find a different argument.

"Perhaps, swearing an oath to serve and defend the U.S. and putting on a uniform would change your assumptions."

Funny you should mention that. Putting on a uniform did indeed change my assumptions.

Cheers.

[cynatnite]

361. Apples and oranges still

There is no comparing two different armies, from two different countries, in two different eras that are subjected to different laws.

Maybe you forgot what the mindset of many of those in the military are.

[wtmusic]

367. Curious where you draw the line

If your CO gives you an order to kill civilians in cold blood, do you do that "for your country" as well? You make it sound as though you would follow orders, no matter how grossly immoral or unethical they are. And the moment you bring up law, your argument is lost.

[cynatnite]

369. Maybe this will help clear up what an illegal order is...

A military order must have a military connection and must not contravene existing law, such as the Constitution, treaties, and statutes. An illegal order is just that - illegal, and does not require that it be obeyed. As the law either has no valid military purpose or contravenes existing law, obeying the order may expose the person to prosecution.

http://experts.about.com/q/Military-Law-927/illegal-military-order.htm

When it comes to government policy, the military does not dictate that. Your example is what an illegal order is...it's not about government policy.

[wtmusic]

377. "must not contravene existing law, such as...TREATIES"

Treaties like the UN Charter, which requires that any nation must be attacked first before it can attack another militarily? Anyone who participates in attacking Iraq in any way, shape, or form is following an illegal order. Does that help clear things up?

Like I said: bring up law, and you have lost.

[cynatnite]

382. Big difference between illegal order and policy decisions...

You flat out don't understand that an individual in the military does not determine policy no matter how illegal you view it to be. You'll find just as many people who will say that the US is well withhin its rights and had the legal authority to invade Iraq.

Also, if you read the oath of the enlisted soldier you will see they swear to follow the orders of the president.

Please, get educated on this.

[wtmusic]

384. Policy Schmolicy

You are way in a corner. "How illegal you view it to be". What about killing civilians at Haditha? Weren't they obligated to shoot young children in the back of the head no matter "how illegal they viewed it to be"?

"You'll find just as many people who say that the US is well within its rights". Zat so? Who are these people? Do they know a fucking thing about international law, or are we to let a vote among Joe Sixpacks define our foreign policy? (the Secretary-General of the UN said it was illegal, and he might know a thing or two about our obligations under the charter).

Get educated yourself. It is ignorant, America-centric attitudes like yours that got us into this mess. :eyes:

[cynatnite]

385. Can you not tell the difference between policy and illegal orders...

given by officers?

That we know of, the killings at Haditha were not ordered by anyone. If they were, it would have been done by an officer on the ground. Orders given by an officer can be determined whether to be legal or illegal by those involved. That's within the chain of command.

Those orders given to the military to fulfill policy objectives by the civilian leadership falls into an entirely different catagory.

Look into the WH and the RW politicians who support the war and they'll give you a list of why they see this as a legal war that is within the rights of the US.

Perhaps, they are no more versed in international law than you or I are.

Keep in mind, I'm not arguing the war is legal at all. I'm only explaining how it works within the military. How you think it should work and how it works in reality are two completely different things.

[wtmusic]

392. All I'm saying

is that FL Watada has realized that the entire war--from the ground up--is an illegal action and has refused to be a part of it. He doesn't accept that there's a real distinction between disobeying an illegal order at Haditha and disobeying an illegal order to attack another nation outside of international law, and I agree with him. The people are dead either way.

From the beginning, how it worked "in reality" is two huge money-making machines--the petrochemical industry and the military-industrial complex--had a huge opportunity to profit from starting a war in Iraq, and they happened to be very tight with the Bush administration. With all the supporting evidence, it appears we have killed around 100,000 innocent people for the sole reason of making certain wealthy people in the US wealthier. It's a disgrace which will haunt the US forever. Watada is calling bullshit and should be commended for it.

[cynatnite]

396. I do commend Watada for his convictions...

and I am glad to see anyone stand up to this, but we must keep in mind that majority of troops will not do the same.

When you look into those that supply the military with their guns, bombs, tanks and so on, you'll find bush supporting civilians who give huge amounts of money in order to stay in business. Chances are most of them are chickenhawks like those who are running this country.

You are so right about the costs and how some have gotten richer off this horrid war. It is a disgrace and I agree that we will forever be haunted by this nightmare.

[DemoVet]

353. Sailor for Warner, I'm with you here

Lt. Watada should resign his commission or wait until he's separated from service before criticizing the policies that led to his deployments. His first duty is to his men, who may not all agree with his opposition to the war, and any personal considerations on his part are secondary to that. Whatever he (or we) feel about bush's war he's still the CIC, for better or worse, and the strength of our system is an un-politicized military, also for better (mostly) or worse (right now). And that's part and parcel of the constitution, just as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and habeus corpus are. If we don't like junior violating those rights then we've got no right to expect our military to act outside the constitution as well. Personally, I don't want to live in Argentina.

And I'm saying that as a former infantryman who fought in Vietnam. Say what you want about that war, I fought honorably and professionally and am not in the least ashamed of it. Nor should anyone say that I should be.

[wtmusic]

362. So if your CO told you to do a "Haditha" on a group of civilians

you'd "owe it to your men" to obey the order? Where do you draw the line?

:shrug:

[DemoVet]

374. That would be an unlawful order and I wouldn't obey it.

Neither would probably 90% or more of our military. Just because I'd understand and accept my constitutional role as a member of the military doesn't mean that I'd follow any order that violated the law. And our military are trained to know the laws they're obligated to follow. Why do you think we know about Abu Ghraib and a bunch of other incidents (as well as Haditha)? It's because the vast majority of service members are honorable, decent, and professional. That question shows that you neither understood my post or the nature of military service in this country.

[wtmusic]

379. Participating in the invasion of Iraq is following an unlawful order

so you draw the line at laws that you know about? You're clearly not trained in any kind of international law and our obligations under the UN Charter, which becomes US law thanks to Article IV of the Constitution.

As for the vast majority of service members being honorable, decent, and professional--maybe so. But why did the Pentagon try to sweep Haditha under the rug for 6 months? What do they have to hide? Possibly a policy which is very permissive of this type of thing? A policy which doesn't allow torture, then gives torturers a slap on the wrist and backs out of the Geneva Conventions?

The military, as an organization, STINKS. It smells like a rancid, rotting carcass that needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom and taught a lesson about torture, about murder, about human rights, about international law. Any soldier with any self-respect should be ashamed, and refuse to be a part of it until they clean up their act.

Bravo, Lt. Watada. :patriot:

[brentspeak]

386. Last I looked, troops go through boot camp -- not law school

I almost snarfed my coffee after reading this ridiculous sentence:

"You're clearly not trained in any kind of international law and our obligations under the UN Charter, which becomes US law thanks to Article IV of the Constitution."

No kidding he's not trained in international law -- he's trained to be a sailor, not an assistant for Kofe Annan.

The poster you responded to is not answerable to the actions of the Pentagon. It doesn't sound like you know a whole lot about the military.

[wtmusic]

394. So if you don't know something's illegal

it's OK to do it then. Got it.

You're right, I don't know a lot about the military. I didn't know that soldiers were obligated to follow illegal orders. I didn't know that they are required to be ignorant of international law (Lt Watada apparently doesn't either). Keep snarfing your coffee, and teach me some more.

[DemoVet]

398. No, I'm not trained in International Law

and neither are our service members, but they're expected to know right from wrong and most of them do and act accordingly, no "maybe" about it. Invading Iraq was a political decision, supported by the majority of the elected officials in congress, and expecting servicemembers to decide on that level if it was lawful or unlawful is not realistic and doesn't reflect how the military operates in our democracy.

The uniformed military isn't the problem and scapegoating them won't fix things. What stinks is the civilian leadership and a few compliant officers, and there's no better illustration of this than the ongoing criticism by many retired admiral and general-level officers of that leadership, including a call for Rumsfeld to be fired. Some of them have even left the service in order to make that criticism, and it's plain that their views reflect that of many still serving who are unable to voice their own misgivings in public.

And unless a servicemember has participated in some sort of atrocity or other illegal act while serving in Iraq they've got nothing to be ashamed about.

[cynatnite]

400. Well said!

Thank You!

[wtmusic]

403. I agree that expecting servicemembers

to know int'l law isn't realistic, and that their view of that the war is tightly controlled. An effective military can't have individuals debating every order as to political implications, and I don't think I've scapegoated anyone.

On the other hand, when someone DOES come forward, like LT Watada, I'm amazed by those here who expect him to report and shut up. In many ways, the situation is analogous to that of Rosa Parks. If she would have just moved to the back of the bus...

[cynatnite]

405. Views of the war isn't tightly controlled...

Being active duty means they can't speak out publicly.

And where has anyone said that Lt. Watada should shut up?

I compare much of what has been said in this thread to the rhetoric that was thrown at veterans coming home from Vietnam.

Both sides have done their fair share of denigrating military service. The right did it with Kerry and Murtha. The left does it when the majority in the military doesn't do what they think they should do.

Active duty and vets are caught in the middle. As a vet, it's crap like this that makes me feel like there isn't a place for us on the political spectrum at times.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

408. Well I Respect The Hell Out Of Our Veterans And Active Duty Military

Reading Sailor for Warner's posts in this thread has opened my mind a great deal and I respect the absolute hell out of him, his demeanor and his service, and I respect the hell out of you as well.

Don't sweat those that disrespect you Cynatnite. Our country couldn't exist without the bravery of you and the rest.

[DemoVet]

410. Sure gives the freeper trolls some fodder too, doesn't it?

I remember sitting next to some knob back in a college class who snarked something like "well, how much brains does it take to be a trigger-puller anyway?" "Enough to get into Virginia and have to sit next to you" was what he got back. It's the smug contempt that I can't stand, as though I'm something less because I served, and a chump because it was in Vietnam. And I'm sitting next to him with one leg gone (he didn't know that I was a vet, though). I sure hope that the same thing doesn't happen to returning Iraq vets.

[wtmusic]

411. I have the ultimate in respect for vets

I always have. I would never fault anyone for fulfilling the terms of their military service, which in the past, has usually meant doing what is honorable and risking your life for your country.

When that system breaks down I'm also not going to fault anyone for refusing to kill for what they know is an unjust cause.

[DemoVet]

412. Believe it or not

the fact that our servicemembers deploy to Iraq regardless of misgivings about the war is a strength of our system, not a weakness. The only breakdown has been in the civilian "leadership", if it can be called that. We need for our military leaders and personnel to leave politics to the politicians and to do their jobs in a professional and honorable manner. In addition to the retired generals and admirals I've mentioned we also have our "fighting Dems" who've returned from Iraq, left the service, and are now trying to defeat the war party (and unless I'm wrong there are more Iraq vets running as Dems than as republicans). The majority here feel that this war wasn't worth getting into, and that the administration wasn't honest about why we invaded. The system is working pretty well despite corrupt elections and a supine media. And despite themselves, with all the things going against the republicans, especially Iraq, the Democrats might just back into a majority in one or both houses of Congress in November (and will certainly do so if they find their voices and grow some spine).

It doesn't serve our purposes to alienate active duty personnel by telling them that they should be ashamed of their participation in this war on the one hand and on the other hand exalting people like Watada. They're not stupid, you know, a lot of them know the score but don't feel that the left respects them for the sacrifices they make, even the ones who disagree with bush's war. We need to change that, and that will begin with a realistic understanding of and respect for the role our military plays in our democracy.

[wtmusic]

414. One of the unspoken casualties of this war

is the future of military service in this country. Few are signing up. Is the reason that few trust the government to only enter wars as a last resort? That few truly believe that when they leave their pregnant wife behind, possibly never to return, that they are fighting for their country anymore?

I get furious when I think of the criminality of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et al, abusing the trust of those in uniform. With any kind of justice in this world, they will do time--and afterwards hopefully they will rot in hell.

Thank you for your service. :patriot:

[DemoVet]

407. Rosa Parks didn't have people's lives depending on her being there

Her situation was very different from Watada's. I do expect him to report, do his duty, take care of his peeps, get his discharge, and scorch junior, shooter, and rumsfailed. For better or worse, that's how it works.

And for my part, I'll do my best over here to kick out the war party, get some oversight over rummy et al, and try to bring he and his troops back home safe and sound.

[wtmusic]

409. I guess if you're not black in the deep South of the 50's

you might think that.

What happens if taking care of his peeps includes "taking care" of some Iraqis defending their country from a foreign invasion? A conflict arises! Lt. Watada has made the correct choice and decided that unjustified killing is not justified by the need to aid his comrades.

[Jed Dilligan]

363. Un-politicized military is irrelevant

when the military-industrial complex rules the country.

Wakada is a hero, people who kill in an unjust war are not heroes.

[DemoVet]

375. No, an un-politicized military is very relevant to democracy

No matter who runs the country. If that ever changes then there will be not even the semblance of a democracy.

Btw, none of the people serving in Iraq or any other war are trying to be heroes, they're just trying to bring themselves and their buddies home alive, so the comparison with LT. Wakada is unfair.

[Jed Dilligan]

376. Unfair? Why?

It's an extreme situation, but I would take prison over killing someone who didn't attack me. People always have a choice, the choices just aren't usually very pleasant. And sometimes they downright suck.

[DemoVet]

380. If you think Watanada's a hero then fine

but don't disparage the servicemembers who choose to perform their duty, in the main professionally and honorably, by saying that "people who kill in an unjust war aren't heroes". As I said, they're not trying to be and the implication that they're over there to kill for some kind of personal glory is unfair.

[Jed Dilligan]

387. Fair enough

But here's a quick note on the military and politics... In May 1968 students and workers took over Paris, DeGaulle ordered his generals in. The generals said fine, but we can't guarantee what side our soldiers will be on when they get in... I used to hope that the American military would act the same way when it came down to it, but from the way most military and pro-military people in this thread seem to think, I'm less hopeful now.

[brentspeak]

389. This is not France (thank goodness)

I have no problem with our troops.

[Jed Dilligan]

390. That doesn't address my point

If Bush ordered the military into one of our cities for political reasons, would they take it like they took Falluja (again and again and again...)?

[brentspeak]

391. That's, er, kind of a big "if" there

[Jed Dilligan]

393. Eh, just double the number of immigrants

at the last round of protests, and make it last a couple of days, and it'd at least be "talked about."

[stepnw1f]

378. This Illegal War Never Had Support

because it never should have support. It's illegal and Bush and his administration are International criminals.

[SammyWinstonJack]

401. I have read this thread.............. I don't believe we can ask those who

volunteered to lay down their arms and walk away. They signed on. I think we would be more effective if we discouraged further enlistment at this point. I think that is the key to discouraging further illegal military occupation and wars. I feel sorry for those who were duped, we all were, however, they did realize when they signed on the dotted line, that they might be called up to "defend". It's the price they pay. They can't pick and chose what "wars" they will participate in. Just my .$02. :shrug:

[Cleita]

413. So how do you feel about this if they bring back the draft?

I'm not being petulant. I really want to know if this would change your opinion?