Soldier Jailed for Avoiding Iraq War, page 18

privacy

Pages: << 15 16 17 18 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 09:29 AM by infinite

The army is not a democracy. You join, you obey orders and you fight. Politics of a conflict should not be allowed to cloud judgement, a British soliders thought the Iraq war was about oil but he still served his duty. Heck, my Dad and others he served with didn't really argee with British policy in Northern Ireland but he still served cause it was his job to go where the government sent him.

I know some members may be surprised by my comments expressed here, but you cannot refuse to obey orders. Again, the military is not a democracy. Mutiny is not something I admire or even promote. It is illegal in most countries.

Refusing to obey military orders is no different from us breaking T&C at ATS. You break military rules, you get punished. Simple.

Don't like it, leave the army.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by infinite]

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 09:38 AM by WishI

reply to post by infinite

your logic is flawwed, you bring up points about some guy in your family doing his job cuz the government said so... and you also said stuff about not letting ....what was it? The state of the world and morals effect your judgement to work for some unjust rule? WHAT? i understand that it may have a point in the don't act on what you don't know department.... but talking of not questioning and working blindly....

i don't like you..

btw.... I think of this as a semi decent point

Almost every country is a mix of unjust laws.. some just laws... and pure flavour.
If you don't see it...
If you don't understand what flavour is in a wrap your mind around it kind of way
If you don't see government standards of men with short hair and suit and tie mentality as a flavour

than as an american, born into american ways.
you probably DO see the muslim world and their "towell heads" as a personal flavour? ehh...?
all these countries and all their stupid ways and personal "flavours" that have nothing to do with righteous law and governing, rightly, the people of their nation

[edit on 14-3-2008 by WishI]

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 09:52 AM by infinite

reply to post by WishI

my logic is not flawwed. If you don't want to fight, don't sign up or leave the army. Disobying orders is not the right solution. Why join the military if you are going to refuse to do certain tasks? If you are a front line solider it is your role to fight in wars.

As much as I wished we lived in a utopian world based on the teachings Marx (google him if you have no idea who he is), it is not going to happen. This is nothing about being "blind" or "sheepish" to the world.

Don't like me? Not bothered. You are not the first new member to start ranting at members who don't agree with them

Plus, I admire a lot of our new blood at ATS. Some have contributed with great posts to ATS, sadly you are not one of them by reverting to personal attacks

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 10:00 AM by WishI

reply to post by infinite

though, you may be right about my posts being crappy. (im too optimistic

)

I never attacked you... though, you seem like an ok person .....ahhh... uhhhh....
on another point...
I notice.. ..that it may be people like you who make ATS and the FCC so uptight... rock on man!

**edit**

heh... I do sound a bit like I am "attacking" ....I suppose you pegged me there, ...Its my flavour though, ....I like to "attack" ....tooo point out... the insidess.. err I am getting a bit weird... but to be honest, from a guy who likes to diss others.. it just feels better to say, "hey effe you re tart!" than "I disagree good chap (WHO I COMPLETELY HATE AND AM DISGUSTED BY) errr...now I'm ranting..... but to sum that up, that wasnt about anyone in particular... as the disgust usually fades for some reason or another..... But, I enjoy saying such things, and the talk that It brings... as long as you continue intelligent conversation along with it....which....errr.... I seem to be.. not ..pulling off

eh...

I forgot if there was anything important to the thread I wanted to add.... I'll have to come back and edit (darn thread is too long so ATS doesnt show the recent posts or the one I hit reply too)

[edit on 14-3-2008 by WishI]

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 10:23 AM by DancedWithWolves

One of the fundamental issues I have with this war is the supposed immunity of our government in the case of war crimes. Crimes will only be charged against individuals.

Legality of the Iraq War

The U.S. government claims that the invasion was fully legal because it was authorized by the United Nations Security Council[8] [9]. International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy have denounced both of these rationales.[10][11][12]

Only individuals may commit crimes under international law, nations may not, so even if illegalities were to be established these would be against individuals and not nations, technically the invasion itself cannot be found to be illegal but the actions of individuals related to it could be.[13]

Because it is the individual that bears the risk of being accused of a war crime and the administration is protected from prosecution, the responsibility falls on the individual to remove him or herself from a war he feels is unjust and actions which he/she feels would constitute a crime. This rationale would not qualify in my opinion under the conscientious deserter status. This leaves the individual ordered to "shoot" in a no-win situation. Orders will not protect you from criminal conviction so how can following orders be a given in the military? This is a corner from which there is no escape for a soldier or sailor. The co-existence of these two opposing principles makes following orders subjective unless the administration assumes the responsibility for crimes committed by the individuals under their command.

reply posted on 14-3-2008 @ 12:46 PM by ShatteredSkies

Let me ask you something, if you win a war, are you the one who has to go through war crimes trials?

As Curtis LeMay said "...If we had lost the war, we would all have been tried as war criminals." (Or something along those lines)

I can't believe there is still an argument...

What is there to be discussed other than a guy was in the military, he signed up, knew the rules and the law, broke the law, and then suffered the consequences?

Why are we arguing this? There is no more truth to the fact that, if you join the military, you MUST obey all orders and follow the law or suffer retribution for your transgressions. It's just like telling your boss "No, I don't feel like doing the work you assign to me because I don't think it's right." Your boss doesn't care what you think, he pays you for a service and you either do it, or get the hell out of his/her company. Same thing with the military, only the consequences are worse because they include prison time.

It's a legal binding contract and you must follow it till the end of your term or until they discharge you for any other reason. It is not only your moral obligation, but your duty as a soldier. That's the end of it, point made. This is fact, not opinion, you follow the rules.

Shattered OUT...

Pages: << 15 16 17 18 >> ^^TOP^^