Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 08, 2006, 02:00:51 PM
-
An officer assigned to the 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division stationed at Fort Lewis is refusing to go to an illegal war
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003046936_soldier08m.html
For me, Im leaning on a verdict of disgrace, but I want to see what others feel after reading his statement in the referenced article.
-
I'm on his side.
When he joined in 2003, he could not possibly have realized he might be sent to the front.
-
There was a very recent case of a RAF doctor (Flight Lieutenant, equivalent to USAF Captain) refusing to go to Iraq stating that it was an illegal war. He was jailed for 8 months, dismissed from service and must pay $36,847 (current exchange rate) in costs.
Full article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4905672.stm)
"Dr Kendall-Smith, who holds dual British and New Zealand citizenship, had served twice in Iraq before he refused to train for his deployment last year.
He decided the invasion was illegal after studying books and articles. "
-
You join the military to fight, not go to school for free or travel the world for free.What do people think when they join the military.....They are there for the fun of it???
-
Disgrace. He took an oath & he knew what he was volunteering for. If he had been drafted I may feel a little more sympathy for his plight, I feel none for this guy.
I would say execute him, but he didn't desert, he just refused to go, so I say courtmartial, dishonorably discharge, jail & fine him.
-
I say make him watch every Jane Fonda movie ever made..repeatedly.
-
Watada says he is not a conscientious objector, since he supports war, for instance in Afghanistan, that does not breach U.S. and international law. But after reading up on the Iraq war, he came to the conclusion this war was not legal.
That is all I need to hear.
He is a coward and a deserter and he should be in jail!
You don't join up in the middle of a war and then say "Nay I think I will skip this one".
-
He swore an oath to defend the US Constitution and follow legal orders. If he feels that the war in Iraq is illegal and/or unconstitutional he is duty bound vis-a-vis his oath to refuse those orders.
I wouldn't call him a hero, but I do think he is honourable.
-
He's ballsy to pull a stunt like this I guess, but I'm not sure its his place to pick which wars he would or wouldnt fight in when in the service.
Off to jail for him...
-
this fella says (at least i think he is saying) that preemptive wars are in violation of the Hauge Convention on Land Warfare.
it dosnt even mention the preemptive attacks. however, the Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities states the following (this is a direct quote that is not taken out of context).
"The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
there was indeed an ultimatum at the beginning of the Iraq War. that ultimatum made it clear that if the conditions were not met, war would result.
PS
you guys need to actually read the article. he states that he is in favor of the war in Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
He swore an oath to defend the US Constitution and follow legal orders. If he feels that the war in Iraq is illegal and/or unconstitutional he is duty bound vis-a-vis his oath to refuse those orders.
I wouldn't call him a hero, but I do think he is honourable.
Ditto.
-
Maybe this guy believed Bush when he said "major combat over in Iraq" back in 2003 (when he enlisted)
he's not a coward Mighty1...just bloody stupid to have believed Bush
(http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpg)
-
bust him to private, ship him to Afghanistan
-
Since when does soldier needs to think? He is told to fight – he fights, if he doesn’t, then there is a jail time. He’s lucky there is no firing squad for his arse.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
"The contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
there was indeed an ultimatum at the beginning of the Iraq War. that ultimatum made it clear that if the conditions were not met, war would result.
Congress didn't declare war.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Since when does soldier needs to think?
Nuremburg
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Congress didn't declare war.
in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
you guys need to learn to read.
-
So long as they can determine that he actually believes the war in Iraq is illegal, then by default his orders to serve there are illegal. You cant fault him for refusing to obey a illegal order. Ship him to Afghanistan and let him fight there. He's willing to fight, just unwilling to obey what he feels is improper orders.
Problem here for the President is, if he allows this soldier to disobey becuase he feels his orders are illegal, he opens the door to someone else saying the war truly IS illegal. That cannot be allowed. I'm not Bush bashing here, or second guessing the war. I'm just saying that we base alot of our authority in Iraq right now on the premise that what we are doing is right. Toppling Saddam, installing a new govt., supporting them until they have an army and police force ready to take over, etc. If our govt. allows one soldier to have that POV, legally they are admitting it is true. Or at least someone will argue that way. Now you will have families of dead soldiers suing the US, families of dead Iraqis suing the US ......................
What about the impact on Saddam's trial also? If someone can claim that the war is illegal, he can claim he was improperly removed from office, all sorts of ways that could mess up that trial. Nooooo, they cant allow that one. Unfortunately, this kid is going to prison, he'll be dishonorably discharged, and he'll be covered up as quickly as possible. Its a shame too, good family. I admire him for standing up for his beliefs, but they are going to earn him a deep dark hole with bars on the front.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuremburg
When there's LOAC, soldier doesn't need to think.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm :aok
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
in the form either of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
"VII. Those declarations are either conditional or absolute. A conditional declaration is that which is coupled with a demand of restitution or redress. Under the name of restitution, the FECIAL LAW of Rome, that is the LAW RESPECTING DECLARATIONS OF WAR, comprehended not only the claims, which OWNERSHIP established, but the prosecution Of EVERY right arising from criminal or civil causes."
http://constitution.org/gro/djbp_303.htm
Congress didn't declare war, coupled with demands of restitution or otherwise.
-
French fusier commando saying : "Thinking is already desobeing".:D
On a more seriously note, I believe illegal war is not his call. He has to go where is politicians send him. His say is on illegal orders, such has randomly executing a mother and her kid.
-
I dont blame him for not wanting to go. Three years in, and theres more IEDs than ever. I certainly wouldn't to ride around Baghdad in a metal box filled with ammunition and fuel. This is reminiscent of the 8th Airforce forcing B-17s to fly over Germany unescorted.
-
Thrawn, i was not talking about the US Constitution, because nothing in the article sugested that this fella said anything about that document. i was refuting his claim that preemptive attacks were in violation of the 1907 Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities.
i have not yet stated an opinion, only facts.
ALSO
the Iraq War is legal under the Constitution because it is classified as a police action, not a war. police actions do not need the approval of congress.
PS
Iraq did not sign the Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities, thus it does not apply to them.
-
but congress is providing the funding....several hundred billion so far.
If this guys oath gives him the room to weasel out of his commitment then fine, but I suspect he will be courts martialed and sent to military prison. We shall see.
-
He has every right to go to jail for his beliefs.
And yes, he should go to jail.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He has every right to go to jail for his beliefs.
And yes, he should go to jail.
I agree.
-
Send him to Afghanistan and put him on ordinance disposal duty.
-
He may be well-meaning, but he is seriously misguided.
His actions on this matter are disgraceful...to family, flag and country.
I tend to like Frenchy's thinking on this; He has a moral duty to flatly refuse an illegal order, like "go shoot those schoolchildren", and is a criminal if he does not.
OTOH, it is simply not a soldier's place to claim a personal right to determine whether or not the entire military action is legal or not. I do not believe we want to even consider the precedent of asking each and every sworn serviceman/woman whether or not they approve of their orders to deploy.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
....This is reminiscent of the 8th Airforce forcing B-17s to fly over Germany unescorted.
no it isnt.
its more like kg51 being sent to london
bush = hitler
rummy = goering
lyndie england = shultzie
-
chickenchit!!!
-
Well, my take is he signed a paper which gave his rights away and took an oath to obey orders he was given - but not those which are criminal and immoral. Well, getting deployed isn't criminal and immoral. If he was asked to cap a bunch of 6 year olds, then that would qualify.
Bottom line - he signed his rights away the day he signed up. Deal with it and be a man and do the duty you volunteered for.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Maybe this guy believed Bush when he said "major combat over in Iraq" back in 2003 (when he enlisted)
he's not a coward Mighty1...just bloody stupid to have believed Bush
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
OK maybe not the dumbest but it's close.
The comment that he had the duty to not go because he took an oath is up there too.
How some of you liberal idiots come up with this crap amazes me.
-
I'm just trying to guess whats in his head. He's a good kid, comes from a good family, he WANTED to join the military, and from all I've heard he planned on making it a career, not just a "in and out" thing. Of course until yesterday I hadn't heard of him either. Maybe the fact that I've met his father makes it different. When I heard it on the news and saw his father at a press conference, I was just like "Hey, I know that guy". I dunno. I suppose otherwise I'd be on the bandwagon shouting to string him up too. It shouldnt make a difference, but it does somehow.
-
his five minutes of pathetic fame.
-
just was thinking about something else this guy said... he stated that he didnt want to go to Iraq because he feels that the war is illegal... but he will go and fight in Afghanistan... why Afghanistan... does he feel that the war there is legal... if i can remember correctly OBL and his group of romper room rejects attacked us on 9-11 not the Taliban... but its ok to topple the government that didnt attack us directly? this guy is clearly scared of getting hurt and possibly killed in Iraq.. i dont see anything wrong with being scared what i do see wrong is this guy making sorry arse excuses to get out of doing his duty..
too many people only see the WMD issue as the cause of the war.. that is not the only reason why the war kicked off.. it seems that the media only talked about it all the time.. all the tree huggers, bush haters, and cindy sheehans rant and rave that the war was illegal because we have not found any WMD... we didnt invade Afghanistan because the Taliban told us to take a hike when we told them to turnover OBL.. we looked behind the scenes of the Taliban.. saw the tourture, murders, and all other criminal activity.. it piled up and we used it all together for justification.. now lets look at ole saddam.. he used chems on folks... ordered the murders of countless people, violated UN sanctions, violated no fly areas countless of times.. so they say the war is illegal... i dont think so, who else was going to do it.. the UN, Saudi, Jordan, France.. ha ha ha.. dont think so. Alot of folks wont agree with my point of view because its not them that is getting chemicals dumped on them, or getting shot in the head for no reason... all is fine and dandy until it happens in our back yards.
wow, i really went off subject here didnt I... ha ha ha... :huh
-
He took an oath to serve. A soldier does not get the option to decide where and when he will serve. A soldier also does not get to sit in judgement of the national policy. If this individual cannot stomach the responsibilities he took on he should be prepared to face the penalties for not doing so. It's in they UCMJ and I imagine he'll soon get an education in it.
-
Originally posted by 101ABN
we didnt invade Afghanistan because the Taliban told us to take a hike when we told them to turnover OBL.. we looked behind the scenes of the Taliban.. saw the tourture, murders, and all other criminal activity.. it piled up and we used it all together for justification.. B]
Nope. It was all about 911. Not about regime change or the poor tortured souls of Afghanistan. That's just revisionist hooey.
-
Originally posted by 101ABN
just was thinking about something else this guy said... he stated that he didnt want to go to Iraq because he feels that the war is illegal... but he will go and fight in Afghanistan... why Afghanistan... does he feel that the war there is legal... if i can remember correctly OBL and his group of romper room rejects attacked us on 9-11 not the Taliban... but its ok to topple the government that didnt attack us directly? this guy is clearly scared of getting hurt and possibly killed in Iraq.. i dont see anything wrong with being scared what i do see wrong is this guy making sorry arse excuses to get out of doing his duty..
too many people only see the WMD issue as the cause of the war.. that is not the only reason why the war kicked off.. it seems that the media only talked about it all the time.. all the tree huggers, bush haters, and cindy sheehans rant and rave that the war was illegal because we have not found any WMD... we didnt invade Afghanistan because the Taliban told us to take a hike when we told them to turnover OBL.. we looked behind the scenes of the Taliban.. saw the tourture, murders, and all other criminal activity.. it piled up and we used it all together for justification.. now lets look at ole saddam.. he used chems on folks... ordered the murders of countless people, violated UN sanctions, violated no fly areas countless of times.. so they say the war is illegal... i dont think so, who else was going to do it.. the UN, Saudi, Jordan, France.. ha ha ha.. dont think so. Alot of folks wont agree with my point of view because its not them that is getting chemicals dumped on them, or getting shot in the head for no reason... all is fine and dandy until it happens in our back yards.
wow, i really went off subject here didnt I... ha ha ha... :huh
You should get out a little more.
We attacked Afghanistan because thats where OBL was based. The Taliban hosted him for some time after the Saudis told him in no uncertain terms to get the F out. Not only was his main base of operations in Afghanistan, but the Taliban refused to give him or his allies up when we came after them. It had nothing to do with daily life under the Taliban, we needed no external justification for war there. The international community agreed and the world backed us up. Even Iran was happy to see those idiots go bye bye.
Saddam was a different story. You can justify things only so far with his "failure to comply" problems. Do I think he needed taking out? Heck yeah. Bush saw he had a flimsy excuse, he had troops in the area, he had momentum, and he used it. The court is still out on whether or not it was legal, but if we are successful at setting up this new govt. and kicking out the insurgents, and helping get the basic infrastructure repaired there, it will go a long way to helping our cause.
Those chemical attacks you keep on about were more than likely Iranian in origin, not Iraqi. Several times the CIA told Bush that it couldnt be determined reliably which country used the chemicals, but it looked better at the time to blame it on Saddam. The breakdown of the chemicals used points more toward an origin in Iran than Iraq though.
Did he kill Iraqis? Absolutely. Was he an egotistical maniac? Very probably. Am I happy to see him gone? Big YES there. But like I said, whether Bush had any legal right to do it or not is still up in the air. There are valid arguments on both sides.
Where does that apply here? I guess it doesnt. Putting all personal feelings aside, he should probably go to jail for refusing to obey orders, and be given a dishonorable discharge. Seems like some of those anti-war wackos have gotten into his head, and he listened. Kiss that career goodbye. But he has to take responsibility for his own actions. Just blaming them wont cut it.
-
coward
-
Sounds like a guy with morals and an uncertainty of the morality of our presence in Iraq, who's been sold a bill of goods by a college professor. I find it amusing that anyone can read that article and somehow "know" he's a coward. Especially considering he's serving at Ft. Lewis, and if he wanted to make like a coward, the Canuckian border is less than a four hour drive away. He made a choice, and stands ready to take his lumps. I suppose he could be a coward, but nothing in that article proves it, IMO. Hopefully it's not too late for him to work this out with his superiors and start packing for Iraq.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He has every right to go to jail for his beliefs.
And yes, he should go to jail.
I'm not used to doing this but...I agree with an MT post....hrmmmmm.
-
SOB,
After his news blurbs and the CD he is way to far gone to "patch things up". There some violations he will have to answer for.
-
Ah well, ya rolls tha dice, ya takes yer chances.
-
Soldiers always question and evaluate (gripe about) their orders. The chow. The weather. Tech Supply. The motorpool and the idiot Lt's duty roster.
Questioning Orders is a Soldiers Heritage.. we can guess what the spartans had to say about the greeks gettin a furlough at thermopylae.
Officers, OTOH.. hmmmmmmm. Nothin will fracture a troops ability to fight faster than a bookworm Lt with a moral crisis relative to combat.
The boy picked the wrong career, and I'm glad he spoke up before he got kids killed... or collected the wrong caliber slug in the back of his head first time outside the wire.
I suspect the Army will let him resign. I doubt they want a hoopla hollywood courts martial.
-
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
He is a coward looking for anyway out he can get.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Soldiers always question and evaluate (gripe about) their orders. The chow. The weather. Tech Supply. The motorpool and the idiot Lt's duty roster.
Questioning Orders is a Soldiers Heritage.. we can guess what the spartans had to say about the greeks gettin a furlough at thermopylae.
Officers, OTOH.. hmmmmmmm. Nothin will fracture a troops ability to fight faster than a bookworm Lt with a moral crisis relative to combat.
The boy picked the wrong career, and I'm glad he spoke up before he got kids killed... or collected the wrong caliber slug in the back of his head first time outside the wire.
I suspect the Army will let him resign. I doubt they want a hoopla hollywood courts martial.
You got it right Hang... except a courts-martial is all that more important. See... he signed on knowing the consequences too. B.S. like this spreads like wildfire right after the first get-out-of-jail-free card.
Tumor
-
If the Army is deploying officers that are dubious about their mission....
our troops are ****ed.
Drum 'em out... no media circus; just get 'em out.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If the Army is deploying officers that are dubious about their mission....
our troops are ****ed.
Drum 'em out... no media circus; just get 'em out.
Well, that's generally the result after a court-martial (and time in the can). I'm agreeing with you....
-
Oh.. sorry. minor failure to communicate. yah drum a man out by assigining him to tierra del fuego and putting him in charge of latrines and laundry. he resigns or gets to liking ****ing penguins.
yah don't give him a flashy court martial and a media feeding frenzy.
:aok
-
Why did he even join the army then?
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Why did he even join the army then?
GI-Bill :aok
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
French fusier commando saying : "Thinking is already desobeing".:D
On a more seriously note, I believe illegal war is not his call. He has to go where is politicians send him. His say is on illegal orders, such has randomly executing a mother and her kid.
You know, through all the stupid people, all the stupid things said, occasionally you'll find on this board something brilliant said.
But I guess that's like a million monkeys on a million typewriters...
-
Doesn't seem like a coward to me personally. If he is ready to basically ruin his life to make some kind of point regarding the legality of the war in Iraq then he has every right to do so.
I thought it had already been determined by the rest of the world that the war in Iraq was illegal anyway? Doesn't matter much to be honest, nobody would give much of a crap about Nazi war criminals if the Germans had won the war, and I imagine that other than for some ineffectual PC 'punishing' of US 'war criminals' (i.e. troops...) nobody will seriously try to put Americans on trial over Iraq.
-
he made a choice and went with it, and got away with not fighting.
i think he should either leave the army honourable discharge, or continue to serve and go fight.
punishment? dont you think his squaddies and most of the rest of the army will give him punihsment enough? well, the ones that make it back from iraq any how.
edit: then again, maybe he needs to be made an example of to limit any troops who support him, or are simply cowards, from attempting the same stunt.
-
Normally a Dishonorable discharge would essentially ruin one's life. But this guy will be hired for life by any of a dozen whacko groups out in the fringes. Hell, somebody somewhere is financing Cindy Sheehan was past her 15 minutes.
-
He is either a coward trying to evade hs duty and the associated risks or someone who is willing to go through an incredible ****storm to remain true to his principles.
Since noone on this board seems to know him personally and/or have insight into his personality I'm afraid we cannot pinpoint which scenario is true...
-
Originally posted by Thud
He is either a coward trying to evade hs duty and the associated risks or someone who is willing to go through an incredible ****storm to remain true to his principles.
Since noone on this board seems to know him personally and/or have insight into his personality I'm afraid we cannot pinpoint which scenario is true...
Let me explain why I think he is a coward.
He joined the military to get an education (his words not mine) but now he won't hold up his end of the agreement. He is afraid of how he may feel about himself if he goes to a war that he/some people feel isn't legal. (again his words not mine)
He already stated he was not against war he is just against the war he was going to have to participate in.
To me that is being not only a coward but a hypocrite.
-
GENERAL: "You have by your actions disgraced the uniform you wear. You signed a contract, swore an oath. You will not be permitted to evade your obligations of service to and for the United States Army. You will be assigined to a duty station as far under the largest rock in the most remote location BEUPERS can find, where you will rot untill your duty obligation is fulfilled. Then you will be re-assigned to clean and paint that rock till I see your resignation on my desk.
Dismissed."
-
He needs to get a life I was stop lost for 377 days after my ETS to go back to that watermelon hole to drive around and wait to get hit by a IED so he needs to grow a pair. O by the way a lot of use in 3ID were stoplost to go back I would not doubt he is some POG or RINP Mos and well never leave the FOB. My point is you joined the Army you no the deal so deal with it!:cry :cry
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Let me explain why I think he is a coward.
He joined the military to get an education (his words not mine) but now he won't hold up his end of the agreement. He is afraid of how he may feel about himself if he goes to a war that he/some people feel isn't legal. (again his words not mine)
He already stated he was not against war he is just against the war he was going to have to participate in.
To me that is being not only a coward but a hypocrite.
You're clear on the matter but we still don't know whether he would have gone to Afghanistan if his orders had sent him there.
Regardless of ones opinion on the matter it is clear that from the angle of justification for war Afghanistan does differ from Iraq.
I think him being deployed to Afghanistan would have represented the lithmus test on his motives, self-preservance or honest objections. Sadly we will never find out what he would've done in that case.
-
Originally posted by Thud
You're clear on the matter but we still don't know whether he would have gone to Afghanistan if his orders had sent him there.
Regardless of ones opinion on the matter it is clear that from the angle of justification for war Afghanistan does differ from Iraq.
I think him being deployed to Afghanistan would have represented the lithmus test on his motives, self-preservance or honest objections. Sadly we will never find out what he would've done in that case.
Don't put reasoning or intelligence in this thread our local expert have already closed the trial = he is a coward(*).
*I think btw he is a lot less than some who are posting on this thread and don't have a single clue of what war is.
btw Hangtime don't you have forgot the constitution is your sentence ?
...your obligations of service to and for the United States Army...
-
ike on eve of d-day invasion to troops::
ok, how many want to invade france and maybe die on the beach, all in favor raise your hands.
come on guys, it's for a good cause.
-
Pronunciation: 'mi-l&-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French militaire, from Latin militaris, from milit-, miles soldier
1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force
3 : of or relating to the army
......... Seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand to me.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Don't put reasoning or intelligence in this thread our local expert have already closed the trial = he is a coward(*).
All we have to go by is what we hear and read from the news and from what I heard him say on the news was enough for me to say he is a coward.
I don't need to hear from anyone else why he did what he did to form my own opinion. I didn't tell Thud his opinion was wrong I just stated why I felt the way I did.
I was raised to take responsibility for my actions and I expect everyone to do the same. So when I hear him say "Yes I signed up but I changed my mind when I found out I actually had to go to war." I don't feel one bit of sympathy for him.
You may feel different or need more info to decide but I see right and wrong more black and white then some.
It's like hearing about a child molester who raped an 8 year old. I don't need to hear about the rapist's childhood to decide he should be put behind bars for life.
Not saying anyone is wrong in their opinion I was just stating my own.
-
Originally posted by straffo
btw Hangtime don't you have forgot the constitution is your sentence ?
Nope.. he is constitutionaly obligated by his oath.. and I don't think that based on the Constitution that service in Iraq is 'illegal'. (my opinion) OTOH, he's ALSO obligated by his contract to The US Army for the term of service he enlisted for.. the Army spent about 1/2 a million training and educating him.. they require that he serves the minimum length of his enlistment as 'payment'... which is why his first request for discharge was refused.
Cheers!
-
I don't know how it work for the US army but had he been volunteer for Afghanistan it would have been better for him I guess.
Big oops on my end for the constitution Hang , I didn't thought it was implicit.
Still, I don't think he is a coward ,he made a pretty hard decision either he was psychologicaly weak and the Army shouldn't have recruited him or he know the probable outcome.
@Mighty1 my comment was general not directed to one or another person.
To conclude I know for sure that in some army obeying an order you think illegal make you a criminal.
But each country got his rules for example in Germany they are "citizen soldier" not solely professional soldier like in the US (I guess it's the result of WWII)
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
You don't join up in the middle of a war and then say "Nay I think I will skip this one".
to bad germany didnt have had more soldiers of his caliber
in ww2, the balls to say NO when you feel something is not right.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
to bad germany didnt have had more soldiers of his caliber
in ww2, the balls to say NO when you feel something is not right.
I had the same thought too!:aok
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't know how it work for the US army but had he been volunteer for Afghanistan it would have been better for him I guess.
Big oops on my end for the constitution Hang , I didn't thought it was implicit.
Still, I don't think he is a coward ,he made a pretty hard decision either he was psychologicaly weak and the Army shouldn't have recruited him or he know the probable outcome.
@Mighty1 my comment was general not directed to one or another person.
To conclude I know for sure that in some army obeying an order you think illegal make you a criminal.
But each country got his rules for example in Germany they are "citizen soldier" not solely professional soldier like in the US (I guess it's the result of WWII)
For one thing the soldier does not get to pick and choose the conflicts he will engage in. When he takes the oath of service he has to recognise that he is to go where the country and the Army (or any branch of the service) have need of his services. This individuals challenge to the the legality of the conflict is improper and should not have taken this route. He has abrogated his oath of office and using the claim of an "illegal conflict" is just a smokescreen. I would not want him in command of any troops, I wouldn't want him serving period with troops anywhere or in any capacity.
Unfortunately it is impossible to psychologically screen folks to make sure that no one who is not mature enough to realise what he is getting into does not get this far. I doubt the Army recruited him as they don't recruit Officers. They may have made material available to him but to get commissioned, outside of a battlefield commission, you have to apply for it and the training it requires. That training also included the rules of war and his responsibility to his oath.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
An officer assigned to the 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division stationed at Fort Lewis is refusing to go to an illegal war
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003046936_soldier08m.html
For me, Im leaning on a verdict of disgrace, but I want to see what others feel after reading his statement in the referenced article.
I volunteer to be on the firing squad that shoots this chicken spackle POS.
Or just send his punkass to the Afghan theatre and let his boys frag him... I have zero sympathy for folks who sign up to fight, for real.. not a joystick war, then wuss out.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuremburg
Bingo. Beat me to it.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Why did he even join the army then?
Most do it out of patriotism.
Rare for the recruiter to say to the undecided potential recruit: "Well you might find yourself in a place you don't want to be, in a War you don't want to fight, maybe dying for something you don't believe in."
Usually the "sell" is something along the lines of: "The great benefits, the travel, training, etc." to those on the fence of joining up.
-
Soldiers do not enlist to become "conflict-lawyers" deciding what war is "legal" or not. Thats the call of their superiors and governments.
As has been said, "illegal orders" ARE their pervue, but the Iraq war is not in that area.
He should never had enlisted. Its not a health club, there are very serious obligations when one agrees to serve in the armed forces.
I can respect his personal view of the war, thats fine, but he has no right to start making national policy as a junior officer.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
to bad germany didnt have had more soldiers of his caliber
in ww2, the balls to say NO when you feel something is not right.
Modern militaries are far less likely to execute soldiers for dereliction of duty, insubordination, cowardice and other such offenses (in a time of war).
Tumor
-
Were he a civilian, I would tend to look more favorably on the arguments for upholding his principles, sticking to his guns, making the hard moral call, etc...
The problem is, he is NOT a civilian. He is, however, a grown man with the capacity and obligation to understand the nature and consequences of his committment...regardless of the sell. He should have been thinking about the price to pay, not the free tuition, training and travel.
Voluntarily, and without coercion, he swore an oath , and subjected himself not only to that oath, but an entirely new legal system...the Uniform Code of Military Justice (in the US).
In doing so, he is no longer entitled to make a moral judgement about the "rightness" of the conflict. Hell, even the Pope has a hard time with this stuff! He retains the right and obligation of every soldier to question a blatantly illegal order, though.
The claim of "conscientious objector" is bunko; a) only valid for a draftee, involved perhaps against his will, not a volunteer professional, and b) he could request alternative, non-combat duty and suffer the consequences in silence. Instead, he made a spectacle, and refused to serve.
Coward, Stupid or both...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I say make him watch every Jane Fonda movie ever made..repeatedly.
Roger Ebert
Quick question: When Jane Fonda was on her "FTA" concert tour during the Vietnam era, who was in her audience? The quick answer from most people would probably be, "anti-war hippies, left-wingers and draft-dodgers." The correct answer would be: American troops on active duty, many of them in uniform.
"Sir! No Sir!" is a documentary that about an almost-forgotten fact of the Vietnam era: Anti-war sentiment among U.S. troops grew into a problem for the Pentagon. The film claims bombing was used toward the end of the war because the military leadership wondered, frankly, if some of their ground troops would obey orders to attack. It's also said there were a few Air Force B-52 crews that refused to bomb North Vietnam. And in San Diego, sailors on an aircraft carrier tried to promote a local vote on whether their ship should be allowed to sail for Vietnam. One of the disenchanted veterans, although he is never mentioned in the film, was John Kerry, who was first decorated for valor, and later became a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified before Congress.
After the turning point of the Tet offensive in 1968, troop morale ebbed lower, the war seemed lost, and a protest movement encompassed active duty troops, coffeehouses near bases in America, underground GI newspapers, and a modern "underground railway" that helped soldiers desert and move to Canada. According to Pentagon figures, there were some 500,000 desertions during the Vietnam years.
The film has been written and directed by David Zeiger, who worked in an anti-war coffee- house near Fort Hood, Texas. In a narration spoken by Troy Garity, the son of Fonda and Tom Hayden, his film says, "The memory has been changed." The GI anti-war movement has disappeared from common knowledge, and a famous factoid from the period claims returning wounded veterans were spit on by "hippies" as they landed at American airports. According to the film, that is an urban legend, publicized in the film "Rambo II: First Blood."
When we reviewed "Sir! No Sir!" on "Ebert & Roeper," we cited the film's questions about the spitting story. There is a book on the subject, The Spitting Image, by Jerry Lembcke, whose research failed to find a single documented instance of such an event occurring in real life. I received many e-mails, however, from those who claimed knowledge of such incidents. The story persists, and true or false is part of a general eagerness to blame our loss in Vietnam to domestic protesters, while ignoring the substantial anti-war sentiment among troops in the field.
Parallels with the war in Iraq are obvious. One big difference is that the Vietnam-era forces were largely supplied by the draft, while our Iraq troops are either career soldiers or National Guard troops, some of them on their second or third tours of duty. The Vietnam-era draft not only generated anti-war sentiment among those of draft age, but supplied the army with soldiers who did not go very cheerfully into uniform. The willingness of today's National Guardsmen to continue in combat is courageous and admirable, but cannot be expected to last indefinitely, and the political cost of returning to the draft system would be incalculable.
A group of recent documentaries has highlighted a conflict between information and "disinformation," that Orwellian term for attempts to rewrite history. The archetype of "Hanoi Jane" has been used to obscure the fact that Fonda appeared before about 60,000 GIs who apparently agreed with her. The Swift Boat Veterans incredibly tried to deny John Kerry's patriotism. The global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" is being attacked by a TV ad campaign, underwritten by energy companies, which extols the benefits of CO2.
No doubt "Sir! No Sir!" will inspire impassioned rebuttals. No doubt it is not an impartial film, not with Fonda's son as its narrator. What cannot be denied is the newsreel footage of uniformed troops in anti-war protests, of Fonda's uniformed audiences at "FTA" concerts, of headlines citing Pentagon concern about troop morale, the "fragging" of officers, the breakdown of discipline, and the unwillingness of increasing numbers of soldiers to fight a war they had started to believe was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Modern militaries are far less likely to execute soldiers for dereliction of duty, insubordination, cowardice and other such offenses (in a time of war).
Tumor
no need to execute, what is happening with him now is enough, dont you think?
To quote some poster here: "You are here to pull the trigger without any question.
sorry but this club would be nothing for me, even with all the fancy things around.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I dont blame him for not wanting to go. Three years in, and theres more IEDs than ever. I certainly wouldn't to ride around Baghdad in a metal box filled with ammunition and fuel. This is reminiscent of the 8th Airforce forcing B-17s to fly over Germany unescorted.
Really?
Do you have stats on how many or what percentage of losses we're suffering during "rides around Baghdad"?
Do you think 10% of the patrolling forces are lost?
On April 17, 1943, the Focke-Wulf plant at Bremen was attacked by a force of 115 Fortresses. The Luftwaffe came out in full strength that day, and 16 B-17s did not return, the heaviest loss rate to date. After that date, German fighter attacks began to become increasingly more effective and better coordinated, and bomber losses frequently were over ten percent of the attacking force, especially whenever the Fortresses went beyond the limited radius of their fighter escorts.
Did you really think you made an accurate historical comparison?
-
No, a more accurate comparison would be that of the most heavily booby-trapped areas in Vietnam.
And why did it take 3 years to finally get vehicles capable of clearing IEDs into Baghdad?
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Roger Ebert
Quick question: When Jane Fonda was on her "FTA" concert tour during the Vietnam era, who was in her audience?....
Primarily draftee's... apples and oranges. And she's still a traitorous *****.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
no need to execute, what is happening with him now is enough, dont you think?
To quote some poster here: "You are here to pull the trigger without any question.
sorry but this club would be nothing for me, even with all the fancy things around.
I think you missed my point.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
No, a more accurate comparison would be that of the most heavily booby-trapped areas in Vietnam.
And why did it take 3 years to finally get vehicles capable of clearing IEDs into Baghdad?
So your first comparison was totally bogus. Check.
Do you have any data to substantiate this latest comparison?
Why did it take three years?
Because it didn't?
LADSON, S.C.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Sept. 22, 2004–Force Protection, Inc. announced the official delivery of a series of its top-rated mine
and blast protected vehicles to the US Army and the US Marine Corps
The Buffalo was first deployed in 2003 with the Army’s Corps of Engineers; hardly three years unless you start counting in 2000.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
No, a more accurate comparison would be that of the most heavily booby-trapped areas in Vietnam.
And why did it take 3 years to finally get vehicles capable of clearing IEDs into Baghdad?
Can you explain what you meant here by "vehicles capable of clearing IEDs"?
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
According to Pentagon figures, there were some 500,000 desertions during the Vietnam years.
I don't believe that. I'm gonna look it up before calling bs on ya though.
BTW, draft dodger <> deserter
-
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014227.html
"In 1974, President Ford offered clemency to Vietnam draft resisters and deserters. Only 27,000 of 350,000 eligible applied. The offer expired on April 1, 1975. In 1977, President Carter pardoned those who dodged the war by not registering or fleeing the country."
I can't find a breakdown for the number of draft dodgers vs deserters but based on this article the combined total was much less than your 500,000.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So your first comparison was totally bogus. Check.
Do you have any data to substantiate this latest comparison?
Why did it take three years?
Because it didn't?
The Buffalo was first deployed in 2003 with the Army’s Corps of Engineers; hardly three years unless you start counting in 2000.
thats when they started planning the invasion:noid :noid :noid :t :t :O
bush = yamamoto
misspelled bush, lol
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Quick question: When Jane Fonda was on her "FTA" concert tour during the Vietnam era, who was in her audience? The quick answer from most people would probably be, "anti-war hippies, left-wingers and draft-dodgers." The correct answer would be: American troops on active duty, many of them in uniform.
"The Girls will say 'Yes' to Guys that say "NO!". An off duty troops entire existence off base is directed at getting LAID. Was the anit-war movements puppet masters manipulating the situation and camping out near bases with all the 'entertainments' an off duty troop would enjoy? You bet. You think a GI would give a damn what the underlying message is when the drinks are free and the grapefruit is easy? Not then, and not now.
I find it incredible that a society that sits on it's wide fat tulips and watches unmoved hate filled nutballs desecrate the funerals of servicemen.. and then entertain the thought that teams of venom spewing freaks didn't haunt airports and bus stations to shout hate speach, spit upon and denegrate GI's coming home from the Land of Bad Things.
I was there.. and it happened to me. Don't continue to insult our service with more lies or obfuscate the facts with PC rehtoric.. we served, it happened, and Jane was and remains a piece of ****, not symbolic; but in fact for her treason.
-
Maverick, there are some large trucks that have booms and heavy armor that can disable and detonate IEDs from a safe distance.
Toad, the figures are 18,500 wounded, 2,500 dead, with 30 to 40% of the casualities coming from IED attacks.
The specialty vehicles did not arrive in any numbers back in 2004.
-
So about 800 dead and 7000 wounded from IED's? Let's just accept your numbers. Now go ahead and compare those to your latest statement whiche, when we substitute the new "Vietnam" allegory for the "B-17's" basically says:;
"I certainly wouldn't to ride around Baghdad in a metal box filled with ammunition and fuel. This is reminiscent of the most heavily booby-trapped areas in Vietnam."
OK, how reminiscent? You're saying that 30-40% of all casualties in VietNam were due to booby traps? Got anything to back that up?
Now as to arrival of the Cougars and Buffalos.... are you now qualifying your previous statement? You admit you're simply wrong?
-
BTW, as for Watada, let him take his case before a Court Martial. If he can win it, good for him.
If not, jail for him.
-
If he is so honorable the least he could do is lead his men to a respectable war.
He doesnt make the litle "difference" now.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Maverick, there are some large trucks that have booms and heavy armor that can disable and detonate IEDs from a safe distance.
Toad, the figures are 18,500 wounded, 2,500 dead, with 30 to 40% of the casualities coming from IED attacks.
The specialty vehicles did not arrive in any numbers back in 2004.
Really. Perhaps you have some links and photos to indicate the vehicle.
FWIW the typical doctrinal response to an explosve device is to detonate it in place not try to pick up a vehicle or other object with a bomb of indeterminate size and construction then move it through an urban area to some allegedly safe place to detonate it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So about 800 dead and 7000 wounded from IED's? Let's just accept your numbers. Now go ahead and compare those to your latest statement whiche, when we substitute the new "Vietnam" allegory for the "B-17's" basically says:;
"I certainly wouldn't to ride around Baghdad in a metal box filled with ammunition and fuel. This is reminiscent of the most heavily booby-trapped areas in Vietnam."
OK, how reminiscent? You're saying that 30-40% of all casualties in VietNam were due to booby traps? Got anything to back that up?
Now as to arrival of the Cougars and Buffalos.... are you now qualifying your previous statement? You admit you're simply wrong?
As of June 2006, there are more than 130 Cougars and Buffalos in Afghanistan and Iraq. First vehicles were shipped on August 2005. A follow-on $50.8 million order for 79 additional vehicles was released by the US Navy on May 2nd, 2006 to be delivered within a year, by May 2007.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/cougar.htm
My source shows the cougars and buffalos were not shipped until late 2005.
As for the Vietnam War analogy, yes I do have figures to back it up. Total Americans killed in action as a result of combat during the Vietnam War is 38,432. Total combat deaths from mines and traps is 7,429. That comes out to 19%. So theres nearly twice the risk of mines and traps in Iraq than there was in Vietnam.
-
First:
Force Protection, Inc. Commemorates 9/11, Announces Vehicle Deployment During 'South Carolina Strikes Back’ Ceremony (http://www.swampfox.ws/index/force-protection-inc-commemorates-911-announces-vehicle-deployment-during-south-carolina-strikes-back-ceremony/)
Force Protection is the company that makes Buffalo and Cougar vehicles.
We are delighted to announce today that 14 of Force Protection’s Cougar vehicles will be deployed by Christmas to the Marines in Iraq
The Buffalo Becomes Part of the Pentagon's IED Team (http://www.forceprotection.net/news/news_article.html?id=10)
Force Protection Inc. shipped 19 Buffalo vehicles to the Army by Nov. 24, <2004> with an additional three due by the end of the year, said Jeff Child, a company spokesman. The base price per Buffalo is about $740,000, he said.
Buffalos in service in the two combat theaters sustained several hits from mines or roadside bombs. According to information posted on the manufacturer’s Web site, those hits caused no deaths and only a couple of minor injuries among troops in the vehicles.
In a March incident in Afghanistan, a Buffalo hit an anti-tank mine. The center axle and two tires were replaced, and the vehicle was back in operation the next week, Child said
Clearly, Cougars and Buffalo were deployed with US forces in 2004. There was a Buffalo in Afghanistan in March.
Basically, less than a year after the "invasion" part of Iraqi Freedom, there were Buffalo in the field.
Not bad for going from zero to deployed in ~ eleven months. I think, considering the US Pentagon procurement system, it's amazing.
As for VietNam booby traps vs Iraqi IED's, I think it's pretty clear the VC and NVA chose to fight a different war than the Iraqi terrorists (yeah, you blow up mosques and funeral processions, you're just plain old terrorists). In VietNam there was much more open combat; in Iraq it's almost all IED's.