So. Do we execute THESE kinda guys for desertion?

[shropshire 0]

I agree with you about the war but not about this officer. He must have known what he was doing at the time that he signed up. If he's officer class he can no way plead ignorance of the purvading political situation in his country.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rehmwa 2]

The poor little ROTC-boy. He made about himself and tries to cloak it in a political position as an excuse. As a leader, he has to be about the men under his charge. He's totally failed in learning that lesson.

1 - bust him to enlisted (he CANNOT be trusted to a leadership position as an officer or a non-com or a lead enlisted rate)

2 - send him to Iraq for his tour as an enlisted and see if he learns how badly he let down those people he would have been responsible for

either that or dishonorable discharge

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Lt. Watada showed some balls. It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe in.

I am sure he knew he would be called many names and might serve time in jail. I fully agree with what he is doing.

I have no issue in fighting to protect the US, but not an unjust war like this one.

Your position might have a little traction if he joined up prior to the Iraq war. But from what I read here he joined up in 2003, after the war had started. So certainly he knew, or should have known, that it was entirely possible, if not probable, that he'd be posted there. And that's what I think the fatal flaw is in his position.

I did not know that, and agree with you now that i do.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[shropshire 0]

That's pretty much what I was saying.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[nanook 1]

Quote

Some of the most respected people who we now view as heroes were viewed as traitors at one point or another. They had the vision and the courage to stand up for what they believe is right

This is way too early to consider him a hero. Heroism takes History. This quote doesn't work if the "vision and courage" side loses . If the U. S. failed at the Revolution, we would have been branded as traitors, not heroes. If the Confederate won and seceded, they would have been Heroes, not pink-flamingo dotted trailer park dwellers.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[niu 0]

Quote

Where do you draw that conclusion from?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

[nanook 1]

The Nuremberg trials dealt with the International Military Tribunal, not the UN

Quote

Since any invasion or war of aggression that is not UN sanctioned is considered a no-no since at least 1945,he is right to protest.

But he wasn't allowed to. He doesn't have a right to protest

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[niu 0]

Quote

The Nuremberg trials dealt with the International Military Tribunal, not the UN

Quote

Since any invasion or war of aggression that is not UN sanctioned is considered a no-no since at least 1945,he is right to protest.

But he wasn't allowed to. He doesn't have a right to protest

Did you read it,all of it?As an example:This quote is the prosecutions definition of "agression":"I suggest that an "aggressor" is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

(1) Declaration of war upon another state;
(2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another state;

(3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; and

(4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection."
Thus no president,emperor,king or whatever can or should do any of it.
The security council,however,is not a nation.


Any illegal order can and should be disobeyed,but he should simply have left the armed forces on the day of the invasion since he regarded it as illegal.

[nanook 1]

Just to be on the right page, you are referring to the USSR proposal of the Possibility and Desirability of a Definition of Aggression of 378B of 17 nov 1950?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[niu 0]

Quote

Just to be on the right page, you are referring to the USSR proposal of the Possibility and Desirability of a Definition of Aggression of 378B of 17 nov 1950?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jackson.html
Nope,it`s on this page.

[nanook 1]

The UN is not a governing body. Its rules are what is considered for what is required to be a member. The International Court will not try any government body or head of state for the purpose of politics. There are stipulations that protect our leaders from that

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nanook 1]

This is the actual trial of the International Military Tribune. What you have quoted was a definition of "agression" that will be used for the purpose of the Trial. This Trial was before some of the proposals to define "Agression" in which USSR contributed. It would change as time went.

Quote

Any illegal order can and should be disobeyed,but he should simply have left the armed forces on the day of the invasion since he regarded it as illegal.

An order has to be proven illegal against a legal document. The war is not illegal because some dot-org or some website/blog says it is.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[ROK 0]

If the Confederate won and seceded, they would have been Heroes, not pink-flamingo dotted trailer park dwellers.

[ROK 0]

Quote

Lt. Watada showed some balls. It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe in. The guy that walks into a grocery store with a can of gas and sets the building on fire has balls too, but it doesn't make his actions right.

I am sure he knew he would be called many names and might serve time in jail. I fully agree with what he is doing. Then I suggest you never take an oath. Especially one where people depend on you to stay strong for them regardless of your own personal beliefs. Beliefs that when voiced, may send your fellow soldiers to their deaths. Beliefs that may have a psychological impact on someone who looked up to you, causing them to lose that one second edge when in combat because of a nagging doubt.

I have no issue in fighting to protect the US, but not an unjust war like this one. As it's been said many times, when you raise your hand, you wave your right to decide what is "just", or "not just". You follow your orders, and complete your mission.

Some of the most respected people who we now view as heroes were viewed as traitors at one point or another. They had the vision and the courage to stand up for what they believe is right. Very true, but you can't apply in hindsight what we know today. In other words, because Nathan Hale regretted only having one life to give for his country, doesn't mean that anyone whom ever opposes a cause is right, or heroic

No matter what a contract says you have to be able to be at peace with what you do. There is nothing more valuable then that, Nothing.Never sign a contract, unless your at peace with what you are signing for. With this, I agree, but after you sign that contract, you're obligated to fulfill your end of the bargain, and live with it. If not, all contracts would be worthless.

I understand where each of you are coming from and there are some valid points, but everyone needs to understand that as a soldier you are obligated to do a job. A very important job. You don't have the luxury to pick and choose. You understand this when you volunteer to protect this Country. You don't get to change your mind half way through. If we let democracy into the military, we'll be less effective than a hundred waring little villages. Our strength as a Nation will be compromised. Dissidents in the ranks is a cancer that cannot be tolerated.

• Quote

[bch7773 0]

Quote

As it's been said many times, when you raise your hand, you wave your right to decide what is "just", or "not just". You follow your orders, and complete your mission.

Dissidents in the ranks is a cancer that cannot be tolerated

I know I will get flamed for this but....

I agree with you that the military should follow orders. But what you are saying here sounds like what german soldiers in WW2 were told as they commited war crimes. Military personal should never just blindly follow orders without thinking, because what if one day they are ordered to execute civilians, or some other war crime?

MB 3528, RB 1182

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As it's been said many times, when you raise your hand, you wave your right to decide what is "just", or "not just". You follow your orders, and complete your mission.

Dissidents in the ranks is a cancer that cannot be tolerated

I know I will get flamed for this but....

I agree with you that the military should follow orders. But what you are saying here sounds like what german soldiers in WW2 were told as they commited war crimes. Military personal should never just blindly follow orders without thinking, because what if one day they are ordered to execute civilians, or some other war crime?

Illegal orders are illegal orders, regardless of the circumstance, and soldiers have (rightly) refused to follow them.

Outside of illegal orders, however, soldiers are expected to obey the orders given them... such as reporting for movement.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[niu 0]

Quote

Just to be on the right page, you are referring to the USSR proposal of the Possibility and Desirability of a Definition of Aggression of 378B of 17 nov 1950?

The most recent definition I found was from 1974,and it still looks pretty much the same:http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement

[mnealtx 0]

Still incorrect - we don't have to say "Mother, may I?" to the UN.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nanook 1]

Yup, you're right. It hasn't changed much. I take back what I've said about it "changing through time".

But, that Resolution is for the purpose of adopting the definiton of "Agression" not determinig legalization of wars. The puropse of that Resolution was to make Capter 7, articles 39 to 51 make sense. Those articles define what actions or assistance they will provide for/against aggressive nations, not determine legality. No legality/Illegality exists between nations. There's no Super-Sovreignity. Laws exists only inside borders of nations. If the U.N. is strong enough, it may sanction against undesirable behaviors.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln