U.S. Soldier Refuses To Serve in 'Illegal Iraq War'!, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 16-5-2008 @ 12:29 PM by DimensionalDetective

U.S. Soldier Refuses To Serve in 'Illegal Iraq War'!


www.breitbart.com
Chiroux joined the US army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines and was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq," Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation... I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.

(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 12:29 PM by DimensionalDetective
Oh boy, this will be sure to cause explosive controversy.

I know the resident war-mongers here will be screaming "off with his head", and , "he's a coward!"

But to the rest of us who are absolutely SICK of these endless, illegal invasions and profiteering bloodbaths to fullfill the agendas of the Corporations, M.I.C., Private bankers, and the cesspool of politicians holding this nation and our men hostage as their pawns---THIS GUY IS A TRUE HERO!!!

May others follow your lead---AND END THESE ILLEGAL PROFITEERING WARS!!!

THIS IS WHAT IT WILL TAKE PEOPLE!!! SOLDIERS REFUSING TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT IN THESE ILLEGAL WARS AND INVASIONS!!

Officials take "hard facts and slice them into small pieces to make them presentable to the secretary of state or the president -- and all with the intent of furthering the occupation of Iraq," Goldsmith added.

Chiroux is one of thousands of US soldiers who have deserted since the Iraq war began in 2003, according to figures issued last year by the US army.

But while many seek refuge in Canada, the young soldier vowed to stay in the United States to fight "whatever charges the army levels at me."

The US army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for 30 days.

Chiroux stood fast in his resolve to not report for duty on June 15.

"I cannot deploy to Iraq, carry a weapon and not be part of the problem," he told AFP.






www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 12:42 PM by Hal9000
As I said in this other thread...

There have been many soldiers refusing to go to Iraq, the most well know was probably Lt. Watada, who's case is still pending. He was court-martialed, and it was declared a mis-trial, and is now pleading double jeopardy.

I think this is a good thing for this soldier to do, but I'm sure others will come by calling him a coward as they did before in this thread.

Army Officer Refuses To Go To War

I am more curious about this congressional hearing that he and the others testified in front of.

What's that all about?

(It's ok to have duplicate threads when one is in breaking news and the other in a regular forum.)


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 01:35 PM by budski
reply to post by COOL HAND


You stated that the war was illegal.

Are you now retracting that statement?


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 01:47 PM by vor78
reply to post by budski


Not to break up a good fight before it starts, but his use of quotations around 'illegal war' indicates that he's quoting someone else for that part and that it is not necessarily his own opinion that the war is illegal.

In this case, he's quoting the soldier, and questioning why the soldier would re-commit if he indeed believed that the war was illegal.


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:01 PM by budski
reply to post by vor78


Fight?
Me?

The headline used quotation marks, so I assumed he was agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the headline, in that the war is illegal according to the soldier the article is about.

I'm sure he needs no help in clarifying his position, and I'll be sure to ask him again.

Merely for clarification purposes of course, like the fact that he used inverted comma's rather than quotation marks.



[edit on 16/5/2008 by budski]


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:22 PM by MidnightDStroyer
It really is an illegal war...Congress has never actually declared the war & Bush has far outreached his timeaible (of 2 years) without the official declaration by Congress. Here's a link to a petition circulating in Washington D.C. right now...I do not ask anyone to sign it, but to at least read the points & questions written in the petition to use that as your leads for researching the facts that make the war illegal.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Do you want to fight in wars? Check Yes or no

Those questions are pretty much covered in the recruitment contract that asks whether or not you consider yourself to be a "conscientious objector."
If you check "yes" then they can't send you into a combat situation...And probably won't recruit you at all.

But to stay on topic, this soldier is only doing what has been done before...Even during the Viet Nam "Police Action" there were media & government coverups to hide how much this had been happening. You can get some more details from here.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
If he did not want to play in the "illegal war" then maybe he should have gotten out after his first tour came up?

So, do you know when he was assigned to another tour? Was that before or after he learned that the war is illegal & he started to refuse fighting it? A statement like yours can be dangerous if you don't stop long enough to consider the timing of events. If you have any evidence that supports the idea that he accepted a new tour after he learned the war's illegality, then your statement would be valid.

Originally posted by vor78
That's his choice and its one that I can respect, but on the flip side, he also voluntarily signed a committment with the US military and in return received numerous financial and possibly educational incentives from the taxpayers of this country for doing so.

True, but as a Vet myself, I know that it's justifiable to disobey illegal orders. After all, if a soldier comes to court martial for committing "war crimes" under direct orders to do so, then the alibi of "I was just following orders" won't defend him at all. So, in essence, since the war itself is illegal, then any orders to fight in it are also illegal orders...

[edit on 16-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:30 PM by greeneyedleo
reply to post by dariousg


Does he?

Then why did he choose to re-enlist? Nobody forced him to. He must not be too brilliant if he knew he would go to Iraq to fight in this "illegal war" and yet still choose to re-enlist. Not too bright.

The army is better off without him.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]


reply posted on 16-5-2008 @ 02:35 PM by deltaboy
reply to post by greeneyedleo


Its more like have to do with serving overseas too long than about going against the war. I understand his frustration on that. 15 months tour is too long. Troops now are serving three tours already.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^