# Lt. Refuses to deploy to Iraq.



## Jason (Jul 23, 2006)

> SEATTLE (July 23) -- When First Lt. Ehren K. Watada of the Army shipped out for a tour of duty in South Korea two years ago, he was a promising young officer rated among the best by his superiors. Like many young men after Sept. 11, he had volunteered &#8220;out of a desire to protect our country,&#8221; he said, even paying $800 for a medical test to prove he qualified despite childhood asthma.
> 
> Now Lieutenant Watada, 28, is working behind a desk at Fort Lewis just south of Seattle, one of only a handful of Army officers who have refused to serve in Iraq, an Army spokesman said, and apparently the first facing the prospect of a court-martial for doing so.
> 
> ...



http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_...g/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

What are your opinions?


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 23, 2006)

Tell you what I think... the guys a fucking pussy. Hear me out... I'm not saying I would want to go to Iraq cause I surely wouldn't. Hell, I don't agree with the state of the Iraq war either. I say he's a pussy cause the guy joined the military after 9/11 with a desire to defend his country. He even went so far as to take a test to prove his childhood asthma wasn't a threat. Now he's acting like there is no chain of command and that he has the right to "decide" on his own that he simply won't go. Well... that's not how the military works. It's a chain of command. Every single soldier doesn't get to go disputing the decisions of the command. The military would never work that way. He shouldn't have joined if he wasn't prepared to follow orders. Everyone that joins knows the positive and negative aspects of being in the military. So I think this guy is an ass. If you want to talk about sad situations let's talk about all the German military officers under Hitler that didn't want to follow the sick and insane orders given to them but had to lest they be executed or thrown in a prison camp.


Rev.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jul 23, 2006)

Although I agree that he should have realised that he might be put into this situation when he signed up, kudos to him for standing by his principles.


----------



## Chris (Jul 23, 2006)

Re-opened. Keep this civil.


----------



## Mastodon (Jul 23, 2006)

Well, while legally he has no right to do it as he has promised his service to the millitary.

I hold no hard feelings against him for doing so.



Do you want someone fighting for you who really DOSN'T want to be fighting for you in the first place?

If someone is angry that someone else will not fight for them, they should go out there and fight themselves.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 23, 2006)

Chris said:


> Re-opened. Keep this civil.



^ I could care less about this particular debate, but dude, you da man. I'm proud to see your ACLU card is fresh and shiney, bro. 


 Nice job, Chris. (Although if you keep this shit up, Mr. Test might come looking for your ass.)



Back to our regularly scheduled debate.


----------



## zimbloth (Jul 23, 2006)

I don't have much of an opinion on this, but all I know is, you get one chance at life on this Earth (that I know of), and I'm not going to put my life on the line for a cause I don't believe in. It's that simple.


----------



## David (Jul 23, 2006)

lesson learned, read before you jump into things. Learn what it is you are fighting for, who you're fighting, and why you are fighting. Not just what they tell you, but what it actually is about.


----------



## Ken (Jul 23, 2006)

Okay, here are my opinions.

1. I believe it is his god-given right to choose not to go.
2. I believe it is his god-given right to pay the consequences for that choice.
3. I think he's an idiot for allowing books and second-hand information to form his opinion of what's going on over there.
4. I hope that when he gets out of the brig and decides to go to work for McDonalds that he does his research first. It'd be an awful shame to refuse to serve Quarter Pounders With Cheese because cows are lead to slaughter, but be okay serving Filet O'Fish because they just happen into the net... 
5. I don't think this version of armchair quarterback is any easier than Football's version.


----------



## Cancer (Jul 23, 2006)

This guy is a hero, straight up. Before I read the article I pre-judged him a coward, now, I maintain that he may, arguably, be braver for standing his ground.

This guy paid to get into service, offered to go Afghanistan, and now because of information he diligently researched and discovered on his own, has decided that he will not pawn for interest that are basically un-American, for a war that will every passing has people asking "why are we over here again"?

I'll tell you what I find the most interesting, is that the Army originally was like "ok fine, you don't have to fight here's a desk job serving the war, how's that"? And then after he turns that down, because it still serves the war, only now is he facing court-marshall. Why wasn't he facing a court martial originally? This reeks of damage control, 'cause you know if this goes down, that other officiers are going to follow suit, the potential domino effect for this huge. HUGE......

Who was it that said that "wars will cease when men refuse to fight"????


----------



## Mastodon (Jul 23, 2006)

Very good point psyphere.


----------



## Jason (Jul 23, 2006)

My views on the military are, If you wanna go good for you more power to ya BUT me I ain't getting blown up or killed for anybody. Call me a coward or un-american but I'm not going get killed for some cause i don't support.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> 3. I think he's an idiot for allowing books and second-hand information to form his opinion of what's going on over there.



The article didnt say WHAt he was reading did it? 
I mean, he could've been reading documents none of us have access to. 

I think the dude's badass for doing it. Just as badass as any of the dudes who go over and give up their lives. There's a difference between "Defending his country" like he signed up to do and "promoting a 'war' you dont believe in.


----------



## Shannon (Jul 24, 2006)

As a former military member for 7 years, I have mix feelings on it. On one hand, it's cool to stand for what you believe in. On the other hand, as a military member, he took a solumn oath to SERVE in the military. There is a chain of command & orders must be followed. The moment he took that oath, he waved bye-bye to individualism. 

I didn't like everything I had to do in the military, but I did it anyway. Why? Because from 1995-2002, it was my job! So, why did I leave the military. I knew the Iraq "thing" was coming & I didn't believe we were justified in going over there. If I believed it was justified, I may have stayed in for another term. 

Bottom line, the guy is clearly not ready for the military & his actions are embarrassing. If you go into the military, you follow orders without question. That tried-and-true foundation is what made the US Military become the most kickass outfit in the world.


----------



## Jason (Jul 24, 2006)

I pretty much agree with Shannon.


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> The article didnt say WHAt he was reading did it?
> I mean, he could've been reading documents none of us have access to.
> I think the dude's badass for doing it. Just as badass as any of the dudes who go over and give up their lives. There's a difference between "Defending his country" like he signed up to do and "promoting a 'war' you dont believe in.



Actually, the article did list 2 of the books he read. Can't remember what they were.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. He's not a badass, IMO, and I hope someone who is serving over there reads your words. I'm sure they'll get all warm and fuzzy reading how he's just a brave as they are.

The truth of the matter is, he signed up to serve his country in whatever capacity it wanted. He wrote Uncle Sam a blank check for his time and effort, and now he's refusing to pay it. The man has no credibility in my eyes, and he's a disgrace to all the brave men and women who are in Iraq against their wishes, yet honoring their commitment.

Oh, but by all means, he's asking for an honorable discharge and all those neat benefits, I'm sure...


----------



## bostjan (Jul 24, 2006)

I never joined up. Everyone I know personally who went through the military ended up with serious issues with it. The military has done some awful things that I can neither stand for, nor would want to be the brunt of.

I respect anyone willing to develop the discipline needed to join the armed forces and risk their lives.

I still think this guy has some balls doing what he is doing. I'm surprised he isn't nose-deep in shit right now, though. Or at least as of the publication of that article. You certainly don't want to fuck with the military. Why? What does the military do? They blow up things and kill people.

Now, don't take me saying he has balls is like being brave. Bravery is altruistic heroism- ssacrificing part of yourself for the sake of others. Having balls is doing something highly risky, often because you are defiant and stupid.


----------



## Shannon (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> The truth of the matter is, he signed up to serve his country in whatever capacity it wanted. He wrote Uncle Sam a blank check for his time and effort, and now he's refusing to pay it. The man has no credibility in my eyes, and he's a disgrace to all the brave men and women who are in Iraq against their wishes, yet honoring their commitment.


THANK YOU!


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 24, 2006)

Hey, there are pretty clearly and obviously two sides to this story, both very legitimate. Why does it have to be absolutely one way or the other? 

Personally, I find it a bit shortsighted to come up with moral absolutes and then defend them dogmatically from either position. *Swiss mode ON*


----------



## Scott (Jul 24, 2006)

I say good for him. I'd do the same thing if I didn't believe in what I was fighting for. After 9/11, yeah I can see why many men and women joined the military. To defend their country. But since then, there have been, like mentioned before, many questions as to if the war in iraq right now is justified. Some think so, others obviously, do not.

I agree, that it's his job, like it or not. But everyone in America has the right to refuse work. Sure their are consequences... get fired, or in this case, potential court-marshall. But really, when your president, on an almost daily basis talks about this war being about defending freedom, how can you say that he sold his individuality and has no choice in the matter?


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Hey, there are pretty clearly and obviously two sides to this story, both very legitimate. Why does it have to be absolutely one way or the other?
> Personally, I find it a bit shortsighted to come up with moral absolutes and then defend them dogmatically from either position. *Swiss mode ON*



I don't know anything about Swiss Mode.

 A la mode ON 

It's not a question of morals, when you get right down to it. It's contractual. It is an absolute because he signed on the dotted line that he would serve his country. The Commander-in-chief has told him what his country requires of him, and he's expected to obey. Period.

The morals are merely to support the legality of the written commitment he entered into, rather than a dogmatic defense of right vs. wrong  He's isn't merely morally bankrupt. He's broken a contract with the USA.






 Mmaaaann! All this talk about war is gettin me sssoooo Hot! Come on, Satan, let's get bbbuuusssssyyyy.


----------



## Mastodon (Jul 24, 2006)

From what I understand...the training you go through in the millitary is supposed to rip you down to the core and recondition you to be loyal to them.

Not to be confused with brainwashing however.


Either someone screwed up his training or this guy has a really strong iron will.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 24, 2006)

See ^ ? (Ken's post... dammit, Mast, ya messed me up  ) Absolutism. Ken, I hate to say it, and I'm not drawing a direct parallel between the US and WW2-era Germany, but the basic premise of your argument could be used to defend Nazi soldiers. And it _was_ their argument afterwords - We are soldiers. We do what we are commanded. Shaky ground, but legitmate argument. Hmm... hard to see truth, it is. Rush to judgement you must not. 

Me, I see your point. But I see the other guy's point, too. It's far too... convoluted, especially considering the whole Iraq scenario, to staunchly declare one position right or wrong. My opinones, senor.

Swiss, as in Switzerland, notoriously ambiguous.


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

The Dark Wolf said:


> See ^ ? (Ken's post... dammit, Mast, ya messed me up  ) Absolutism. Ken, I hate to say it, and I'm not drawing a direct parallel between the US and WW2-era Germany, but the basic premise of your argument could be used to defend Nazi soldiers. And it _was_ their argument afterwords - We are soldiers. We do what we are commanded. Shaky ground, but legitmate argument. Hmm... hard to see truth, it is. Rush to judgement you must not.
> Me, I see your point. But I see the other guy's point, too. It's far too... convoluted, especially considering the whole Iraq scenario, to staunchly declare one position right or wrong. My opinones, senor.
> Swiss, as in Switzerland, notoriously ambiguous.



That's dangerous ground, friend.  

You're drawing parallels, and even indirect ones such as that may send this thread into a tail-spin.

I understand the guy's dilemma. I wouldn't want to go either, but I would follow orders because my moral obligation to my word is very strong. Please remember that this was his CHOICE. He chose to enter the military, and everything that comes with it. It would be different if he were drafted, IMO.

Can you imagine the chaos if every enlisted personnel were allowed to accept or deny assignments based on opinions or moral convictions? *shudder*.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Jul 24, 2006)

I agree completely. But! Sorry, the parallels, as I said, are still obvious. Just because they're dangerous doesn't make them go away. What, we can draw conclusions from historical precedent? I admitted it's not exactly the same, but there are similarities.

To dismiss the validity of his position as a moral failing is a mistake, I think. I feel the real danger is to adhere to one side of the dilemma only, an error I think you're making, Ken. Me, hey, I could come down on either side. Regardless, he'll have to pay for his decision. Standing on your principles isn't guaranteed to be easy - look at Gandhi, look at MLK. But to say he's making a moral mistake because he is disobeying, when his disobedience is on moral grounds to begin with, is rather disingenuous.

My opinion. That doesn't mean I disagree with you, personally. I agree. But I just happen to agree with the other guy, too. 

Thoreau Shares His Thoughts On Civil Ethics

I'll yield the floor to you, Good Sir, as my idears I think are elucidated quite clearly, and I don't really have strong feelings, except to avoid bias, either way. *bow*


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

My stand here is that he signed a contract to serve the USA, and the terms of that contract are non-negotiable once the ink is dry. If he can bow out of his commitments, then the government can too. They have the right to take away his retirement, his medical insurance, tax ALL of his income, make him pay sales tax on his purchases, etc.

This certainly isn't personal for me either, just stimulating debate. Unfortunately, this is a battle on 2 fronts, and that's never a good thing.

The morality side of it is completely subjective. The contractual side is not.

Whether its morally right or wrong is irrelevant as those factors should be considered BEFORE joining the military. A hearty *bow* to you as well.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> My stand here is that he signed a contract to serve the USA, and the terms of that contract are non-negotiable once the ink is dry.



Thats pretty much the 'end of' factor right there...morally I agree with the man not to go to war but 'buy the ticket, take the ride...'


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> Actually, the article did list 2 of the books he read. Can't remember what they were.
> I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. He's not a badass, IMO, and I hope someone who is serving over there reads your words. I'm sure they'll get all warm and fuzzy reading how he's just a brave as they are.
> The truth of the matter is, he signed up to serve his country in whatever capacity it wanted. He wrote Uncle Sam a blank check for his time and effort, and now he's refusing to pay it. The man has no credibility in my eyes, and he's a disgrace to all the brave men and women who are in Iraq against their wishes, yet honoring their commitment.
> Oh, but by all means, he's asking for an honorable discharge and all those neat benefits, I'm sure...



I stand by my 'badass' statement. Signing a contract doesnt make your morals and ethical obligations null and void.


----------



## Lankles (Jul 24, 2006)

There is no way of morally judging this unless you can see into his mind.

Is he running from the bullets or risking his freedom to make a statement?

Legally he's really stuffed up though.


----------



## SevenatoR (Jul 24, 2006)

Upon entering the military and in the first weeks of training, you are informed, in NO uncertain terms regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This takes precedence over any rights you had as a regular citizen. You can be charged with destruction of government property for getting a tattoo. It's not a matter of breaking you down and building you up or brainwashing. You're told these things in no uncertain terms. 

But there's more than one SNAFU in all this. In the swearing in process, the person swears to uphold and protect the country and the constitution "against all enemies, both foreign and domestic". Yeah...run with that one....Also, the distinguishing of "illegal orders" is often left individuals who have no concept of "illegal orders" and who have been trained to do only one thing: follow orders without question. In such situations, redress should be provided via the UCMJ. The officer giving the illegal order can be held accountable for giving the order as well as the actions of those under their command. But that's where things get dicey (see "A Few Good Men"), because those who carry out the illegal order can also be held accountable for their actions, even though they were "just following orders". More than a little bit messy.

As for the leiutenant in question, he enlisted after September 11th. And why? "To protect the country". Unfortunately, once you join the military, you are subject to those in command. You don't get to pick and choose the battles you fight, and even your job is subject to "the needs of the military". They can put you where they want, when they want and they tell you that right up front. You're basically an indentured servant until your enlistment time ends.

I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on. I also don't think he should have joined the military on a knee-jerk reaction, but a lot of people did after Sept. 11th. The sentiment is admirable enough, but that's really not enough for the long haul.

Having said all this, he went about it the right way, I think. Choosing to resign his commission rather than taking on Concientious Objector Status is a way better move, but the fact of the matter is that until that resignation is accepted (or rejected), you're still a member of the military and obligated to perform as such.


----------



## DelfinoPie (Jul 24, 2006)

SevenatoR said:


> Upon entering the military and in the first weeks of training, you are informed, in NO uncertain terms regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This takes precedence over any rights you had as a regular citizen. You can be charged with destruction of government property for getting a tattoo.



I remember reading about some guy who had his tongue split as a form of body modification but then was asked/told to have it sown back up by which ever of the armed forces he was in.

Kind of irrelevant I know, but I found it interesting when I found it all those years ago lol.


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> He's isn't merely morally bankrupt. He's broken a contract with the USA.




A soldier's job, ultimately, is to defend the freedom of the United States, to defend the homeland, or to secure peace where deployed. One could argue, very effective I might add, that the USA broke his contract with him.

This guy could have taken a job behind a desk, served the war, and we would have heard nothing about this, now he faces not only a dishonorable discharge, but possibly jail time, for doing what ordinary citizens SHOULD have been doing months and years ago, not supporting the "war".

He is hardly morally bankrupt.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 24, 2006)

Is a firm opponent to the war in Iraq, you would think that I would side with this guy. But what he is doing is pretty stupid. I've seen what the military does to accused deserters. In fact, once accused, you could have your own discharge papers at your house, but if they pick you up at work, you will never get a chance to go get them. You will be thrown in a dungeon-esque prison and beaten by the MPs, then when a relative shows up with your papers, they will let you go, but offer no apology nor consolation.

With the military run in this way, I would never join, not even for World War II.

But still, the guy is trying to argue his point to an unbending, irrational, and apathetic, yet very powerful opponent. He will no doubt be eaten alive. By the time this is over I bet he will be wishing he kept his mouth shut and did as he was told, even if it meant he would be in grave danger.


----------



## Mastodon (Jul 24, 2006)

On Dateline a couple weeks ago they had a story of a soldier who went AWOL during Vietnam.

I forget all the particulars behind the story, I'll try to find an article on it. But basically it was something like he met a girl who he fell in love with and came to the conclusion that the war was wrong then deserted his unit to start a life in Vietnam or something like that. His wife ended up dieing and he fled to Japan and lived there as a farmer for some 30 years.

He finally returned to America after recieving word that his mother was sick.

She was like...92...and he was like 70.

They gave him a month in jail if I remember correctly.

Edit: While searching I found this article about how over 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the war in Iraq started. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/15/1453256

This is the actual article discussed in the first link: http://www.harpers.org/AWOLInAmerica.html


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

psyphre said:


> now he faces not only a dishonorable discharge, but possibly jail time, for doing what ordinary citizens SHOULD have been doing months and years ago, not supporting the "war".
> He is hardly morally bankrupt.



He's hardly an "ordinary citizen". I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, so if you think there's honor and moral highground in what he's doing, I'll just agree to disagree with you and everyone else on that side of the fence.


----------



## eaeolian (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> I respect your opinion, but I don't agree. He's not a badass, IMO, and I hope someone who is serving over there reads your words. I'm sure they'll get all warm and fuzzy reading how he's just a brave as they are.



I wouldn't be so sure that people who have served over there would be as harsh on him as you imagine. The military members I've spoken at length with about this (including a SEAL who's been sent there three times that I know of) have very, very mixed feelings about both the execution and the instigation of this war. It will be interesting to see what my friends' takes on this are...


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> He's hardly an "ordinary citizen". I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again, so if you think there's honor and moral highground in what he's doing, I'll just agree to disagree with you and everyone else on that side of the fence.



By "ordinary citizens" I was referring to civilians, not soldiers. The American people should have impeached Bush by now, should have demanded an end to the war by now, and should have demanded an end to the insanity by now.

Thank god we have soldiers that not only defend our country, but also attempt to defend our honor.


----------



## evil (Jul 24, 2006)

Disclaimer: I'm an opinionated asshole and I never try to find middle ground on these sorts of issues.

A soldier in the UK did the same shit last year, and ended up up shit's creek.

Plain and simple, you cannot make people do things they find outright morally objectionable. If he finds going to Iraq to "fight" with "insurgents" (if by fight you mean get killed by and by insurgents you mean the general Arab population) reprehensible or whatever, he ain't gonna fuggin do it. Other people who do not have ethical or moral problems with it will go and do their duties, but if your "duty" is to defy your deeply held beliefs, you won't do it.

Bostjan, this guy knows what he is doing. I have no doubt that he has played out the consequences through his head. He made a choice. He will pay the consequences, but he may set an example for other soldiers.

Ken, if all of the soldiers refused to fight over there, the war effort will fail, and the military will fall apart. If they do exactly as they are told, then what? The war continues and more people die. The government wants to invade a sovereign nation to overthrow its government that we installed decades ago for no good reason. We want to capture the people of this nation and try them illegally in a makeshift court system. If I was being sent to Iraq, I would fucking refuse as well. This whole war is a complete lie.

I'm sorry if my opinion frustrates any (or all) of you. I have tried to keep from chiming in about this, but I feel very strongly about this.

You may all begin the flaming now, I don't mind it a bit. Leave me negative rep, I don't care to be involved in a popularity contest or anything. I'm just stating what's truly percieved by my mind on the internet. I can do this knowing none of you guys will likely come to my house or my work to punch me in the face.

But if you want to ro-sham-bo over the debate, I'll go first.


----------



## noodles (Jul 24, 2006)

Guys, he did not enlist. Officers do not enlist, they recieve commissions. Becoming commissioned means you offer up your services to the military for LIFE.

This is how retired officers keep getting called up to serve whenever a war comes around: they get a phone call, and back in they go. This is not even close to a new concept. Major Dick Winters (of band of brothers fame) was called back up to serve in Korea.

Whenever you resign your commission, you are severing all ties with the military. All your benefits are gone. This is why no one does it, unless they absolutely want to never be called back up again. If you owe the military service--they give you a full ROTC ride, for example, then you owe them four years--or it is in the middle of an armed conflict, then you CANNOT do it.

However, there is that fuzzy gray area about it being your duty to not follow illegal orders. There is plenty of illegal stuff going on over there, and it is really an ugly situtation to be in: disobey, and you're court martialed. Good luck proving you're right. Follow the orders, and you're at risk in the future. While some of the Abu Ghraib prison guards were pretty sick fuckers, I'm sure several of them were guys just doing what they were ordered to do, and in return got hung out to dry by high command.

Taking the oath is a commitment and a responsability, but there is an equal commitment and responsability from the chain of command to not take advantage of that by issuing illegal/immoral orders, misusing the military for personal gain, and snowing the American people to get them to back a war that we should have never fought.

The military is going to hang this guy out to dry, because they don't want to give anyone else ideas. One guy does it, then the next thing you know they'll have to draft people to fight their silly war, since people will be deserting left and right. They've been at the point of not letting generals retire for a while now. Seems someone didn't read this part of the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I commend this guy for standing up for what he believes in, even if it appears to be a fool's game to many of you. Some guys named George, Thomas, Patrick, James, George, and Ben stood up for themselves about 250 years ago. 

I bet I know what is going to happen when the next president steps into office. This dude is going to get pardoned.

I was talking with a Vietnam vet a couple of weeks back, a wonderfully salty black dude. His exact words on the subject were, "Yeah, I got my black ass shot at for stupid rich crackers who thought that dumb war was a good idea. History proved me right, but no one wanted to listen to me then. Kinda like those poor boys are getting shot at for the latest batch of stupid rich crackers who think this dumb war is a good idea. History will prove them right, too, although no one wants to listen to them, either. I think every American should join the military, just so they stop being so stupid. Getting shot at has a way of bringing shit into focus."


----------



## Jason (Jul 24, 2006)

noodles said:


> His exact words on the subject were, "Yeah, I got my black ass shot at for stupid rich crackers who thought that dumb war was a good idea."




 best quote i haveheard in a long time.


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

psyphre said:


> By "ordinary citizens" I was referring to civilians, not soldiers. The American people should have impeached Bush by now, should have demanded an end to the war by now, and should have demanded an end to the insanity by now.
> Thank god we have soldiers that not only defend our country, but also attempt to defend our honor.



Oh, puh-lease. I don't agree with everything Bush does, and I certainly think it's past time our troops came home, but those aren't the topic of this thread.
I don't criticize Bush because if I were elected I don't think I could do a better job. If you could, more power to you.



evil said:


> Ken, if all of the soldiers refused to fight over there, the war effort will fail, and the military will fall apart. If they do exactly as they are told, then what? The war continues and more people die. The government wants to invade a sovereign nation to overthrow its government that we installed decades ago for no good reason. We want to capture the people of this nation and try them illegally in a makeshift court system. If I was being sent to Iraq, I would fucking refuse as well. This whole war is a complete lie.



Oh yes, I would much rather have our military fall apart and be defenseless than continue to fight a war I think has gone on WAY too long.


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

Ken Burtch said:


> Oh, puh-lease. I don't agree with everything Bush does, and I certainly think it's past time our troops came home, but those aren't the topic of this thread.



I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "ordinary", unless I wasn't clear earlier.


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2006)

psyphre said:


> I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "ordinary", unless I wasn't clear earlier.



I got it, now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## ajdehoogh (Jul 24, 2006)

Here on my thoughts on this matter.

I have deployed 3 times in support of OIF. Volunteering this most recent time because my shop needed the help. I feel he doesn't deserve to be on officer. They should be above reproach. While I feel we were right with this war there are of course better ways of handling this war. And precisely what those mistakes are...only history can judge that. He had a choice to sign the contract or not. He chose to sign the contract. He has to live up to his obligations. He also has a choice every day to continue to follow orders. He chose not to. He should and will be punished. I can only speak about the Marine Corps but if we feel an illegal order has been given it is our legal and moral right to disagree with the order but there is a process. It doesn't involve going to the media at all. Anyway I hope that made some sense.  

My  ! Later


----------



## Shannon (Jul 24, 2006)

Scott said:


> I agree, that it's his job, like it or not. But everyone in America has the right to refuse work. Sure their are consequences... get fired, or in this case, potential court-marshall. But really, when your president, on an almost daily basis talks about this war being about defending freedom, how can you say that he sold his individuality and has no choice in the matter?


Most jobs don't make you take an oath do to your job, regardless of your personal feelings. By taking that oath, you've committed yourself to do what the military wants you to do. To me, that's like promising someone something & then backing out of the deal. Where's the "honor" in that? He wants an honorable discharge. How ironic is that? And let's not forget all the money the military spent to teach him his job. And to top it all off, he wants full retirement benefits. The fucker didn't earn any of it.

So yes, it's quite a bit different that a civilian job.


----------



## ajdehoogh (Jul 24, 2006)

^ Good point flyboy!


----------



## Shannon (Jul 24, 2006)

^ I'd knew you'd understand. 
I hope everything's going OK for you over in Iraq.


----------



## Mastodon (Jul 24, 2006)

While I don't mind him wanting to pull out.

Wanting full benefits and an honorable discharge?

That's crap.

Opinion of him = -1 now.


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

Mastodon said:


> While I don't mind him wanting to pull out.
> Wanting full benefits and an honorable discharge?
> That's crap.
> Opinion of him = -1 now.




Where does it say that in the article? The only thing I could find was:

_Please allow me to leave the Army with honor and dignity, he concluded._

Read that anyway you want, but I don't see any mention of benefits.


----------



## Scott (Jul 24, 2006)

Shannon said:


> He wants an honorable discharge. How ironic is that? And to top it all off, he wants full retirement benefits.




Where does it say this? I may have just passed over it, but I didn't see in the article anywhere that it said this.

Personally I don't think he should get those benifits if he is after them. But if he wants out, that's his decision. All im objecting to is that the military basically "owns" a soldier as soon as they sign up.

Hell, if I was suppose to be shipped out with him, i'd be glad he wasn't coming. Because if someone doesn't agree with being there, they probably won't be the first person to have your back in a firefight IMO.


----------



## ajdehoogh (Jul 24, 2006)

Shannon said:


> ^ I'd knew you'd understand.
> I hope everything's going OK for you over in Iraq.


 
So far so good. Only little while to go. 



Scott said:


> Hell, if I was suppose to be shipped out with him, i'd be glad he wasn't coming. Because if someone doesn't agree with being there, they probably won't be the first person to have your back in a firefight IMO.


Nice! Even if you are Canadian and do everything backward!


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

_Memorial Day for all soldiers is embodied in the words of the oath that you first take when you enlist into the service of the country:

*I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD*._

I like that line.... "DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES".....

See, in my mind, if my government LIES to me, and then expects me to risk death for that lie, then my government IS my enemy....

If I'm a soldier, who do I fight then? How do I fight then?


----------



## noodles (Jul 24, 2006)

^ 

The president took an oath, too. I don't think lying to the American people, fabricating excuses to fight a war against a nation that never attacked us, and sending soldiers to die so defense contractor buddies can rake in millions of dollars is pretty much breaking that oath.

So, who is holding him accountable? Who is going to take him to trial? Impeachment is a joke, since it relies on Congress to be the jury, which basicly comes down to a popularity contest. 

So, refusing to fight a lie for a crooked president is a crime? Holding this officer accountable is as laughable as the National Guard arresting people in New Orleans for "looting" grocery stores.

Maybe some of you forgot that GW Bush went AWOL from the National Guard, where he already ran off to avoid Vietnam. When I was in the military, I was taught to lead by example. I wish every single soldier would stage a walk out right now. What will they do if the troops refuse to serve? When our leaders have no honor, that oath of service becomes worthless and empty.


----------



## Shannon (Jul 24, 2006)

psyphre said:


> Where does it say that in the article? The only thing I could find was:
> _Please allow me to leave the Army with honor and dignity, he concluded._
> Read that anyway you want, but I don't see any mention of benefits.


Considering he's at Ft. Lewis (less than 10 minutes from me), I've read and seen more coverage than you guys have. That's what he's asking for.


----------



## David (Jul 24, 2006)

psyphre said:


> _Memorial Day for all soldiers is embodied in the words of the oath that you first take when you enlist into the service of the country:
> *I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD*._
> I like that line.... "DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES".....
> See, in my mind, if my government LIES to me, and then expects me to risk death for that lie, then my government IS my enemy....
> If I'm a soldier, who do I fight then? How do I fight then?


 

Also, fuck the so help me god thing.


----------



## Cancer (Jul 24, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Considering he's at Ft. Lewis (less than 10 minutes from me), I've read and seen more coverage than you guys have. That's what he's asking for.



If he is, well, then I think he should accept the concept that those benefits will be lost to him. To see this thing through properly, he shouldn't even want them, if he feels that strongly.



noodles said:


> ^
> The president took an oath, too. I don't think lying to the American people, fabricating excuses to fight a war against a nation that never attacked us, and sending soldiers to die so defense contractor buddies can rake in millions of dollars is pretty much breaking that oath.
> So, who is holding him accountable? Who is going to take him to trial? Impeachment is a joke, since it relies on Congress to be the jury, which basicly comes down to a popularity contest.
> So, refusing to fight a lie for a crooked president is a crime? Holding this officer accountable is as laughable as the National Guard arresting people in New Orleans for "looting" grocery stores.
> Maybe some of you forgot that GW Bush went AWOL from the National Guard, where he already ran off to avoid Vietnam. When I was in the military, I was taught to lead by example. I wish every single soldier would stage a walk out right now. What will they do if the troops refuse to serve? When our leaders have no honor, that oath of service becomes worthless and empty.




Hahahha, its the RAGE OF THE BALD METAL GUITARISTS.....Duh duh duhhhhhhhh...

Perhaps we should stage a hairless coup.  

Sorry, jus trying to lighten the mood.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 25, 2006)

First of all, this guy is by no means a coward. He joined the military and has achieved an officer's rank BUT HE IS IN THE MILITARY!! And since there is no draft he did it voluntarily. I sympathise with him however. I would not want to go over there either and put myself in harms way over what basically ammounts to a Presidential Vendetta. He has been paid and trained and it is time to go and fight. This is not like it was in the 60's and 70's when men were getting drafted, thrown into bootcamp and shipped to the jungle. Him doing this sets a horrible precident for all future soldiers (especially Reservists) The government should come down on him like the Hammer of the Gods. This war is bullshit but the one in Afghanistan isn't and there will be others that arent as well. If you sign up it means more than just getting a education on the GI Bill and getting a low interest rate on your mortgage on a VA Loan. It means you represent the will of our Government. And while said Government has their collective heads up their asses, they are still our government. He is on the payroll, and it is time to go and fight.


----------



## noodles (Jul 25, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> I sympathise with him however. I would not want to go over there either and put myself in harms way over what basically ammounts to a Presidential Vendetta. He has been paid and trained and it is time to go and fight. This is not like it was in the 60's and 70's when men were getting drafted, thrown into bootcamp and shipped to the jungle. Him doing this sets a horrible precident for all future soldiers (especially Reservists) The government should come down on him like the Hammer of the Gods. This war is bullshit but the one in Afghanistan isn't and there will be others that arent as well.



So, the government is wrong, but he should just blindly go along with it because he signed up to fight?  

He signed up to defend his country. Tell me how this war fits into that. He's one guy, so he's wrong. However, if he was hundreds, or even thousands of guys, then you can't simply sweep it under the rug.

This is a clear cut case of might makes right. The government has the might, so everyone thinks it's right. Bullshit.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 26, 2006)

noodles said:


> He signed up to defend his country. Tell me how this war fits into that.




thats what i'm preachin'. Always bothered me when people mention "The Troops who are over in iraq defending our freedom!" I'm always like "How the hell is that defending our freedom?"


----------



## rogue (Jul 26, 2006)

Mastodon said:


> Do you want someone fighting for you who really DOSN'T want to be fighting for you in the first place?
> QUOTE]
> 
> its better than no-one fighting for you


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2006)

Real quick before I call it a night (early day at work tomorrow)-
While I do recognize the fact that he's an officer in the American military and has an obligation to go where he's ordered, at the same time in the prison abuse scandal in Iraq the soldiers' defense, which was promptly shot to holes, was "we were just following orders." This has probably been hit upon before, but obviously the "soldiers must follow orders" isn't as open and shut as it sounds at a glance. 
That said, should he be court-marshalled? Well, rather, should he be convicted? Probably. On one hand, I'd like to be able to give the guy the option to serve his country elsewhere - Afghanistan comes to mind - but that starts a precident of allowing sodiers to choose where they'll be deployed. Obviously a problem. Obviously not going to fly. 
By my feelings are, if I had enlisted after watching family members die in 9/11 (and let's be honest, had my brother been in one of those planes I'd have given it serious consideration) or something, and had then subsequently decided that there was no moral ground to defend an invasion of Iraq, a country with no Al-Quada connections that out government justified invading by a cosmic game of bait-and-switch, I'd do exactly what he did- I'd refuse to fight. If I was in a situation where I was ordered to fight and could not do so without sinning against my very conception of both myself as a person and my understanding of humanity's role in the universe, then I'd welcome the court-marshall as the lesser of two evils. 
My two cents - I think the guy's an idiot for putting himself into the situation in the first place (though, admittedly, if you'd told anyone onthe 12th that 5 years down the road we'd be fighting rebels in Iraq in retribution knowing full well we knew there was no connection, they probably would not believe you), but if he honestly and truely believes it's wrong to fight, and if he's prepared to takle the court-marshall for that, well, you have to on some level admire him for being willing to pay for his mistakes and sacrifice himself, rather than sinning against his personal ethos.


rogue said:


> Mastodon said:
> 
> 
> > Do you want someone fighting for you who really DOSN'T want to be fighting for you in the first place?
> ...


Highly debatable - most "friendly fire" deaths are alledgedly not so accidental.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2006)

Who exactly are we fighting for over there?


----------



## Drew (Jul 27, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Who exactly are we fighting for over there?



A true American would never question the aims of his democratically-elected government, Bostjan. Questioning breeds doubt, and doubt breeds sedition, and sedition breeds terror, and we are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. Are you a terrorist? Do you question your government's right to declare war on terrorists wherever they may be found? You're either with us or against us, Bostjan. We are fighting to force the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government at gunpoint in Iraq, and if you're not with Democracy and with the United States of America and the red, white, and blue, then you're against us, and if you're against us, you're a terrorist. Are you a terrorist? If you're not, then don't question us, because only terrorists ask questions.


----------



## eaeolian (Jul 27, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> thats what i'm preachin'. Always bothered me when people mention "The Troops who are over in iraq defending our freedom!" I'm always like "How the hell is that defending our freedom?"



The really sad thing is, a lot of the troops seem to feel the same way.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 27, 2006)

noodles said:


> So, the government is wrong, but he should just blindly go along with it because he signed up to fight?
> He signed up to defend his country. Tell me how this war fits into that. He's one guy, so he's wrong. However, if he was hundreds, or even thousands of guys, then you can't simply sweep it under the rug.
> This is a clear cut case of might makes right. The government has the might, so everyone thinks it's right. Bullshit.



But the bottom line is..he is a soldier. I agree with you man, might should not make right. But in this case it does. This is the will of the government, not necessarily the people, but the Prez is the commander in chief and when it comes to the military, with some exceptions, what he says goes. I don't like it. I think it sucks. But like I said before...he wasn't drafted...he enlisted and he was called on to fight. He has accepted the paychecks and now it is time to go and do his job. He wasn't called on for his opinion. Again, let me say I think the whole think absolutely sucks but when there is room for opinion in the military, it opens up a huge hole for people not doing what they have been called to do, knowing they can get away with it. Remember...there were people opposed to going into Europe for WWII and that war saved the world. I know this is not on the same scale but the way things are going, who knows what is next.


----------



## Drew (Jul 27, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Remember...there were people opposed to going into Europe for WWII and that war saved the world. I know this is not on the same scale but the way things are going, who knows what is next.



"Saved the world" is a little strong - saving Europe from a German empire, sure, and saving the Jewish people from decimation in Europe, probably, but I'm pretty sure the world itself would have survived the war, had Hitler won. 

Anyway, WWII from an American perspective wasn't about saving the Jews any more than the Civil War was about freeing the slaves - we tried to stay neutral, and entered the war only after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, making a stance of neutrality a little tough to hold onto. I'm a little fuzzy on the timeline, but we didn't declare war on Germany and Italy until a few weeks later, and my sense was largely that it was because we figured it would be kind of tough to fight one but not all three. 

IT was only AFTER Germany was losing and we started coming across concentration camps in and around germany that Germany's attempted (and damn-near sucessfull) genocide against the Jewish people. Sure, that's what WWII is remembered for today, but our initial reasons for entering the war, and our reasons for declaring war on Germany, had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 27, 2006)

Drew said:


> A true American would never question the aims of his democratically-elected government, Bostjan. Questioning breeds doubt, and doubt breeds sedition, and sedition breeds terror, and we are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. Are you a terrorist? Do you question your government's right to declare war on terrorists wherever they may be found? You're either with us or against us, Bostjan. We are fighting to force the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government at gunpoint in Iraq, and if you're not with Democracy and with the United States of America and the red, white, and blue, then you're against us, and if you're against us, you're a terrorist. Are you a terrorist? If you're not, then don't question us, because only terrorists ask questions.




or you could just cut the explaination... "You know what 'bostjan' spelled backwards is? TRRRRIST!"


As far as the world war II thing.. there's something a _little_ bit different about us invading a country for no reason that stopping a power mad dictator from ruling all of europe and japan perhaps continuing to assault our western interests. We had no threat from Iraq. Hitler's scheme affected the very fabric of how the western world would be run.


----------



## noodles (Jul 27, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> This is the will of the government, not necessarily the people, but the Prez is the commander in chief and when it comes to the military, with some exceptions, what he says goes.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 27, 2006)

noodles said:


>



Yeah, i thought we had a system of checks and balances for that?


----------



## noodles (Jul 27, 2006)

Metal Ken said:


> Yeah, i thought we had a system of checks and balances for that?



Well, we did until The Decider came along.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 27, 2006)

Staaaand by for decider, Salvation is his task! /priest.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 27, 2006)

Drew..I never even brought up the Jewish issue in WWII. That was definately not the reason we went over. The US couldn't have cared less at the time about their plight and most people didn't know about it. They had heard about "Crystal Night" but that was about it. And do you seriously think the Allies didn't save the world? Hitler would not have stopped until he ruled everything. Ease off the liberal idealology for a second and think about it. You are one of the most inteligent people on this board, I know you can do it. 
Again let me say that I think the war is an attrocity and am completely agtainst it (In Iraq). BUT there is just no getting around that the Prez calls the shots millitarily speaking. If I'm not mistaken, the President can send troops anywhere he pleases without Congressional approval but to officiall "Go to war" and make a declaration, it requires Congress to vote. That is why we have had so many "Police Actions" through the years. Again to you guy who put the poop on my comments...I don't like what I said either but that is the way it works.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2006)

Overthrowing a sovereign government is anything but a police action. Sorry.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 27, 2006)

No..Iraq is an actual war unless I am mistaken..I was refering to Vietnam and Korea..Both Police actions.


----------



## noodles (Jul 27, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Again to you guy who put the poop on my comments...I don't like what I said either but that is the way it works.



I don't buy that "way the world works" bullshit. I vote, I write my Congressman and Senator, and I do what I can to get my opinion heard. If more people would have said no to the Bush BS, then he wouldn't be in office right now.

Fuck acceptance. I prefer getting pissed off.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 27, 2006)

I hear you Noodles. I think the same way. I never said things couldn't change. If enough people care about something and make their voices heard en masse then things can and sometimes do change. Just look at the Dubai Ports deal. For the record, I have my political representatives email addresses in outlook. But there is no denying the way things do, in fact, work. I am not saying they can't change. My parents were hippie protestors. They changed things. Honestly I have great doubt that our generation is well informed enough or cares enough to instill change. Ofcourse, until now, we have had no unifying moment...so things could change.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 27, 2006)

If no one supports the president and all the troops, and the rest of the government protests, what the hell is he gonna do? 




Dive-Baum said:


> No..Iraq is an actual war unless I am mistaken..I was refering to Vietnam and Korea..Both Police actions.




If i recall, there's a senate vote authorizing use of military force, but not a true 'declaration of war'. Veitnam had a congressional act authorizing use of military force and Harry Truman invaded Korea under some United Nations laws.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 27, 2006)

Update:
There's only been FIVE true declarations of war in american history:
War Of 1812
Mexican-American War (1846)
Spanish-American War (1898)
World War I (1917)
World War II (1941)

Here's another difference between the war in iraq and world war II, since we were discussing it:
ONly *ONE* House Member disagreed with the declaration of war Against japan.. the senate was 82-0. 
Every other action in world war II was completely unanimous, 100% agreement from both the house and senate.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Overthrowing a sovereign government is anything but a police action. Sorry.



^ As I said.

I'm sorry, but every war the US has been involved in on that list was a mistake, except World War II. World War I was about the end of imperialism, and we simply had nothing to do with that. The sinking of the Lusitania was all propaganda. The ship was full of weapons we were supplying to England, which we shouldn't have been doing.

I know it was a horrible war, and I have sympathy for all of the people who lost loved one or their homes in the war, but the USA really shouldn't have gotten involved in that one, and all of the stuff about the US saving everyone's butts in that war is crap, too. The Central Powers were already starting to cave in when we rushed in.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 28, 2006)

Well when you get right down to it...the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald was a bit of propaganda as well.

Caving in?? Are we talking about the same WWII? I think the Third Reich was doing pretty well for itself by D Day.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 28, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> Caving in?? Are we talking about the same WWII? I think the Third Reich was doing pretty well for itself by D Day.



He was talking about WWI. the Lusitania sunk in 1915.


----------



## Drew (Jul 28, 2006)

noodles said:


> Fuck acceptance. I prefer getting pissed off.



I want that on a t-shirt. E-rep for you, sir. 

Dive-Baum, in principle I agree - I doubt Hitler would have gone after the states anytime soon simply because of the logistics involved, and he pretty clearly tried and failed to take over Russia so eventually there would have been a boundary there. Again, it might not have stuck, but I agree that without US invention Europe would have been a German empire by the end of WWII. 

But, at the same time, that's basically how the modern european borders formed anyway. It's not like the world would have ended if Hitler had sucessfully taken over Europe - it'd be a far different one, sure, and one that I personally feel was worth fighting against (and I'm pretty solidly anti-war in most cases), but what he was doing was really fundamentally no different than what the Russians did after WWII, and we sort of sat there and let them do it (which is admittedly about the single greatest understatement ever applied to the Cold War, but you get the picture). 

Sure, I'm glad he didn't suceed (cosmic understatement #2 of this post), but it's not like Hitler controlling Europe would have triggered the Apocalypse - we went in becase we didn't like the political implications of a giant German empire in europe and because we were attacked by the Japanese, not out of any fear for the world being destroyed. It takes rather a lot to take out a planet, you know? 

Now, would I agree that WWII saved the French nation and a large chunk of the Jewish race? Definitely.


----------



## noodles (Jul 28, 2006)

Drew said:


> Dive-Baum, in principle I agree - I doubt Hitler would have gone after the states anytime soon simply because of the logistics involved, and he pretty clearly tried and failed to take over Russia so eventually there would have been a boundary there. Again, it might not have stuck, but I agree that without US invention Europe would have been a German empire by the end of WWII.



I could argue that point. Hitler's second book, written in prison but never published, clearly outlined his intention to conquor America. The development of bombers capable of making bombing runs from Europe to the east coast of the US (dubbed the America Bomber), huge super battleships, and rocket technology helped cement this fact. Hitler's main aim was to create a super race, and to that he needed food to feed them all and places for them to live. America was the logical choice to him. He needed to take care of his back (Russia) first. Attacking Russia when he did is the stupidest mistake he ever made.

Would he have won? Nope. There are just too many people in America for him to have a hope of winning. Establishing a foothold and holding it, when your supply lines run across thousands of miles of water would also be problamatic. Would he have caused lots of damage. You bet. New York, Boston, DC, Baltimore, and Norfolk (all the naval vessels of the Atlantic fleet were built here) would have suffered massive amounts of damage.

It is really much better the way we did it. The loss of American life pales in comparison to what it would have been if Hitler took over Europe and turned his sites on us. Pearl Harbor was Japan's biggest mistake of the war, and Hitler should have been furious at Japan for it. If they had left "the sleeping giant" alone until Hitler had Europe under control, and Japan had the south Pacific locked down, things would have gone much worse for us. Well, they would have gone much worse for Russia first, more than likely. How long would we have sat still while they took over half the planet? What would it have been like if Japan took out Pearl Harbor much later, and much more completely, so they could use it as the forward base to attack the west coast? Thinking about suffering multiple attacks to opposite coasts at the same time is a pretty ugly thought.


----------



## Drew (Jul 28, 2006)

noodles said:


> intelligent stuff



Agreed on virtually all points - Hitler's decision to invade Russia may have been more of a deciding factor on the war than America's involvement, and he WOULD have eventually taken a shot at the states, but probably couldn't have pulled it off for more or less the reasons you specify. 

I just think he wouldn't have done it until he had Europe pretty much under wraps. It also would have involved a tactical change on his end - the German "Blitzkrieg" strategy of striking fast, hard, and fast and trying to win wars in days and not months or years (admittedly, by the end of the war it clearly wasn't exactly possible) works brilliantly when you're invading, say, France. However, the complications of a surprise lightning strike on a nation with which you share no common borders and are seperated by a couple thousand miles of open water are a little more involved. 

Eh, it makes for interesting speculation, anyway... How do you think he'd have done it? The German navy was in pretty rough shape by the time we entered the war, and they didn't really have anything that allow them to land a couple thousand tanks, which were arguably at the core of their ground-based military strategy...


----------



## Dive-Baum (Jul 28, 2006)

Hitler made the mistake of thinking that Russia could be taken by force. Napolean couldn't do it, he couldn't do it. It can't be done. 

I didn't mean the 7th seal would be broken kind of end of the world (although you never know..LOL) I meant the end as we know it. The end to freedom..that kind of thing. Also..we aren't a race..we are a religion.


----------



## Shannon (Jul 28, 2006)

Jeez, this got waaaaay off-topic. Suprising? No.
You suck at moderating, Drew.


----------



## noodles (Jul 28, 2006)

Well, this is certainly the more entertaining and civil conversation, don't you think?

Drew still sucks, though.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 28, 2006)

I guess I could have been clearer, but the Central Powers were WWI, not WWII. WWII was the axis of evil.

At any rate, my point is, that the USA should not get involved in these shitty little wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again).

We have lost every single one. Think about it.
In Korea, did we stop the spread of communism? How about in Vietnam? The main problem is that the people wanted communism, and it was none of our fucking business. In Iraq part I, did we stop Saddam? No, you may say that we did in part II, but our purpose in part II, for those of you who remember, was to take away Saddam's WMD, but oops, uh oh, no WMD were there. In Afghanistan, we were supposed to take out Bin Laden. Where is Bin Laden? Apparently no one gives a shit anymore.

We suck at winning wars. Why? Because we pick the stupidest wars to fight in. I'm surprised we aren't fighting in Darfor and in Lebanon right now. I still think it's coming, though. We can never mind our own business.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jul 28, 2006)

bostjan said:


> I guess I could have been clearer, but the Central Powers were WWI, not WWII. WWII was the axis of evil.




Minor correction Axis Powers = WWII, Axis Of Evil = GWB's Name for The terrorist nations


----------



## Drew (Jul 31, 2006)

bostjan said:


> The main problem is that the people wanted communism, and it was none of our fucking business.



That's debatable. The people in Vietnam and Korea wanted family members to stop dying and regular meals on the table. If the communists seemed to be able to provide that better than the capitalists so be it, but the vast majority of the Vietnamese and Korean citizens weren't out there discussing the merits of Marx vs Lenin in the trenches, you know? I agree with your premis that it's not our place to say, but it strikes me as more about quality of life than ecxonomic theory.



> In Iraq part I, did we stop Saddam?



Actually, yes. Before the international coalition invaded, Saddam controlled Kuwait and had the 4th largest army in the world. When they pulled out all but a residual force, Saddam's army had been decimated, his sphere of influence was limited to his country, and Kuwait was free. They completely neutralized him. They left him in power because 1.) the cost of fighting street-by-street in Bagdhad was deemed too high, and 2.) because a government headed by a neutralized Saddam was likely to be more stable than one headed by an American puppet. Bush the first said more or less the same in his memoir. Funny how that played out. 



> [n Afghanistan, we were supposed to take out Bin Laden. Where is Bin Laden?



Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan because America hemmed and hawwed very publically about invading the nation for 6 months, and then finally did so with a wholly inadequate force, to test out Rumsfield's theory that smallt actical strike forces would be the wave of the future. In short, the execution was botched in a way that has little to do with the way the execution was botched in Iraq. 

I'm not saying we don't get into some pretty stupid wars, but you don't exactly back up your thesis, bro. 




noodles said:


> Drew still sucks, though.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jul 31, 2006)

bostjan said:


> We can never mind our own business.



Amen to that. Funny though, cause people hate us for getting invloved with other countries affairs yet they also hate us when we don't get involved (eq. supplying aid).


Rev.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 31, 2006)

Drew said:


> That's debatable. The people in Vietnam and Korea wanted family members to stop dying and regular meals on the table. If the communists seemed to be able to provide that better than the capitalists so be it, but the vast majority of the Vietnamese and Korean citizens weren't out there discussing the merits of Marx vs Lenin in the trenches, you know? I agree with your premis that it's not our place to say, but it strikes me as more about quality of life than ecxonomic theory.



But still, what I said stands. For whatever reason, it doesn't matter, because I didn't get into why. But the majority of the people wanted communism. The reason? It was powerful enough to wipe out the current government and appeared to them that it would end serfdom. Did it do so? No, but that has nothing to do with my point.




> Actually, yes. Before the international coalition invaded, Saddam controlled Kuwait and had the 4th largest army in the world. When they pulled out all but a residual force, Saddam's army had been decimated, his sphere of influence was limited to his country, and Kuwait was free. They completely neutralized him. They left him in power because 1.) the cost of fighting street-by-street in Bagdhad was deemed too high, and 2.) because a government headed by a neutralized Saddam was likely to be more stable than one headed by an American puppet. Bush the first said more or less the same in his memoir. Funny how that played out.


Yet he continued to threaten Isreal and the Kurds well afterwards. Maybe "stop" is not the best word, but yet again, I didn't say anything about kicking him out of Kuwait, that was just one aspect of out main objective of stabilizing the middle east by removing the threat. The threat stayed, so the objective was failed. My point still stands.




> Bin Laden wasn't in Afghanistan because America hemmed and hawwed very publically about invading the nation for 6 months, and then finally did so with a wholly inadequate force, to test out Rumsfield's theory that smallt actical strike forces would be the wave of the future. In short, the execution was botched in a way that has little to do with the way the execution was botched in Iraq.



Again, I don't care how we failed, but we failed. You are actually making good points to support my original thesis, thanks. There's nothing you are saying here that is in disagreement with my theory. 



> I'm not saying we don't get into some pretty stupid wars, but you don't exactly back up your thesis, bro.



Well, you did a fine job of making my argument for me. Thanks. 

I honestly don't see what we are disagreeing about.


----------



## Drew (Jul 31, 2006)

You're completely missing most of my points, dude. 

1.) TYhe Veitnamese and Korean citizens might have supported communist rebels, but saying they "wanted communism" misses the point - they didn't want communism, they just wanted to follow whoever was most likely to feed them and not kill people. Sure, we shouldn't have been there, but that's because it wasn't our war,n ot because everyone was comunists. They weren't - they were just hungry.

2.) Completely off base. The intent of the First Gulf War _wasn't_ to remove Saddam and replace him with a pro-US puppet state, because it was decided that wasn't necessary. Rather, the point was to weaken Iraq as a military threat and return Kuwait to the Kuwaitis. On both of these grounds it was a complete sucess - Iraq was a minor international player at best before we decided Saddam harbored terrorists. We completed the original objective of the war.

3.) Again, you missed my point. Had we gone in there on day one and launched a powerful, well supported surprise attack, Bin Laden would have most likely been dead today, assuming our evidence that he was there was any good. We didnt "not get him" because it was a stupid war that we shouldn't have been in - we "didn't get him" because we butchered the execution and gave him 6 months to find somewhere else to hide before we attacked. 

Seriously, there's no common thread between any of these. The first was basically supporting your thesis, that it was a war we shouldnt have been in (communism discussion was merely a tangent). The second was an operational sucess, and the only reason Iraq is such a mess today is because we went back in three years ago. The third was a failure not because it was a war we shouldn't have fought, but because we gave the guy six months' notice. Three completely unrelated scenarios, and one of 'em wasn't even a loss.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 1, 2006)

1) Which was communism. We had nothing to offer the peasants, since we were trying to keep any change from happening. Agreed? So they wanted communism. They saw it as the solution to their problems. My point was not focused on the communism or not communism anyway, just that we failed at what we set out to do.

2) Well, whatever the case, the fact that years later, we are still at war with said country over the struggle for power kind of makes the point a lot stronger than I can say in so few words. If we kicked their asses and imposed our will, why would we be back over there struggling and paying such a huge cost? Seriously? We failed, dude. I mean, such short-lived victory is not truly a victory, right?

3) Coulda shoulda woulda? My point had nothing to do with any sort of "if&#8230;then" speculations, agreed? I was merely stating that we fucked up. This is my point, exactly. How we fucked up is a whole different discussion. I never claimed to be a military strategist, only that we seem to be picking all of the losing wars and never accomplish any long-term goals. Nothing has gone our way in the last fifty years of warfare.

If we won, we wouldn't still be fighting. A win implies game over. So I do disagree that operation Desert Strom/Desert Shield was a success. It was a failure for the administration and a highly unpopular war to begin with. We're still fighting the "insurgency," which is really just trained soldiers from the former Iraqi army bolstered by some outsiders whom they have trained. My original point was that we need to stay out of crap like this, and I can't see how any of these examples do not support this. Anyone who thinks that the USA's immense sacrifice in human life and huge sums of money in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan was worth the result had better have something to back it up. None of these regions have fell to US influence. My point is still undaunted by your argument, even though you speak the truth, the original statement has not been countered. Name one war we've been involved in, from the last fifty years, in which we have positively asserted out influence. Bosnia? Somalia? Come on, there are plenty of other examples you could argue. I happen to know quite a bit about Bosnia, since many of my friends and family have been there. Somalia is run by pirates and the mob. What other wars have we been involved in? Any of them turn out the way we hoped? Or even close?


----------



## Drew (Aug 1, 2006)

bostjan, we're not fighting the Saddam regime. We neutralized them, and the fact we had a pretty easy time mowing them down in the early days of the Second Gulf War just shows how much of a sucess it was. Initial casualties were incredibly low for a unilateral assault of that scale. What happened next was exactly why we left Saddam in power the first time around - guerilla resistance groups started flocking to the area trying to drive out the white devils who were trying to impose their government on the Iraqis. By removing Saddam, we completely destabilized the country. It's the same battlefield, but it's a different conflict and a different enemy. War #1 was a perfect sucess by all operational standpoints I can think of, it was the second war that butchered things (and in the second war, I agree, it was a stupid war we shouldn't have gotten involved in)

For Afghanistan, your point was that we shouldn't fight wars that aren't our business, right? You then pointed to Afghanistan as an example of a war where we failed to complete our objective as proof of why we shouldn't fight wars that weren't our business. All I did was point out that the reason we didn't take down Osama was completely unrelated - it wasn't that we shouldn't have been there (if anything, that was the one war we SHOULD have fought, in retribution for the 9/11 attacks), but rather that we took too long to make our minds up and gave him time to escape. The fact we didn't get Bin Laden doesn't prove that we shouldn't have attacked in the first place, and by arguing we probably would have had we not dragged our heels and then brought in too small a force I'm saying that if the campaign had been planned intelligently, Afghanistan would have been an example of a campaign that proved your thesis wrong.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 1, 2006)

As I said before, I'm not talking about what if's, I'm talking about what happened. My thesis is not proven wrong, because Afghanistan was a total disappointment. As far aas Bin Laden not being in Afghanistan since we invaded, that is definately debateable anyway, so your "what if" argument is kind of unclear anyway.

As far as Iraq is concerned, Saddam did continue to be a threat. Perhaps you forgot about the aftermath of the Persian Gulf crisis, but the region was still very unstable as we left. I fail to see how Operation Desert Storm was anything short of a big mess that resulted in further deterioration of the region.

The theory that we fail the wars we wage is not directly related to my opinion that we shouldn't stick our noses in other countries' business. One is a theory (supported by the evidence I have stated) and the other is an opinion. I'm not saying that we should fight in wars that are none of our business that we have a good chance of winning, I'm saying two separate things here.

As far as retribution for 9/11? What retribution? The people who attacked us are dead. Exactly how many of them were from Afghanistan? Hmm&#8230;if I recall correctly, they were mostly Saudi, with some others from Yemen or Oman, or thereabouts. I know we sure as hell are not going to invade Saudi Arabia to overthrow the regime there, who are long-time friends of the Bush family. These last two wars have not even had a logical premise.

So tell me how we won in Afghanistan. Not how we could have won, but how we accomplished anything.


----------

