British soldier refused access to hotel cause hes a soldier., page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 03:34 PM by manicmark
reply to post by NuclearPaul



I think ur comment reflects my feeling perfectly.* from me.


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 03:39 PM by CaptGizmo
Originally posted by manicmark
reply to
post by capgrup



Man u guys just dont get it. STAY HOME AND STOP FIGHTING.

If the so called INFADELS come to your home state I will be the first to support you and stand by your side in a war. But if two planes are flown into 2 big building in your home town, and your not REALLY SURE who did it. I think you shoud not goto afganastan and start killing.

Here is a question for ya, Do you think more military have been hurt in the current conflict? or innocent young children?





I would love to see you info to back up that question. Do you think more children have been hurt by coalition forces or by fanatics that have taken whole families including children into the street in the middle of the night and executed each of them because they thought they were coalition sympathizers?






[edit on 9/5/2008 by CaptGizmo]

[edit on 9/5/2008 by CaptGizmo]



reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 04:47 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the "anti-war" argument goes, first - it's not some clerk's job or right to express his personal political opinions by refusing someone service... anyone who does that should be fired, period.


If i were his boss that's very probably what i would do unless i told him to send servicemen elsewhere.

Also, as Budski pointed out, it's probably illegal in the UK (and probably in the US as well) - another reason the guy should lose his job: if he's exposing his employer to lawsuits or criminal prosecution, he's a lousy employee.


Agreed.

Next - IMO blaming soldiers for the wars they are sent to fight is like blaming forest fires on "all those damn trees" - it's that silly.


IMO not holding soldiers responsible for enabling our leaders to stage illegal wars on third world countries will not help us to see our world changed for the better. Wars don't start themselves and last time i checked the vast majority of forest fires are started by lightning.

Soldiers give up their freedom to some extent when they sign up, and they certainly do not have any clearly defined right to refuse to participate in a war they don't believe in - if they do that, they go to jail as deserters.


Soldiers do not give up any of their freedoms or any of their rights and they can at any time refuse to carry out a order ( including fighting a war) when they believe it to be either immoral or an illegal order. Basically these soldiers should have refused their assignment orders the moment they received them as the United States congress never declared war on Iraq.

Soldiers do not get to pick the wars they fight in.


Yes they do and that's why they do not have to fight an illegal war. Soldiers in Nazi Germany may not have had much of a choice ( thousands were executed and many more locked up) but the citizens of the United States of America and Britain have given their soldiers a legal framework in which they may refuse to fight wars they believe to be against international agreements and thus illegal.

If you don't like the war, blame the politicians who started it, not the soldiers. They have no real choice but to go where they are ordered.


Yeah and it really helped the French to write letters to Hitler. Is it really so impossible for you to understand that military aggression is military aggression whether German or American?

Soldiers are not lawyers, they are not qualified to judge the technical legality of the wars they fight. To expect them to be is absurd.


Soldiers are human beings and hopefully normally of the variety who have high school educations and can thus read at something approaching junior high level. Provided that the US armed forces isn't recruiting the mentally handicapped ( and as i understand they are accepting more and more people with questionable 'abilities' ; no not everyone or many) these people can read and should be able to figure out if the few wars that they are sent to fight is in fact LEGAL according to international law. In fact if they don't really know they can at least wait for congress to declare a war? What about morality? Why go to war with a country that never attacked you or threatened to do so?

The right of a soldier to refuse an illegal order is intended to allow soldiers to reject orders which are clearly and unambiguously illegal, IE:
"Corporal, go shoot all those women and children over there."
"No sir, I cannot obey an illegal order" - not very ambiguous.


You mean US soldiers would normally do that if they didn't have the recourse of the UCMJ? Do you really believe that American soldiers would need advice as to what to do when receiving such IMMORAL orders? Where does international law even come into a matter that can clearly be decided by ANY mentally balanced human being?

Does not require years of study in international law to realize it's an illegal order.

See the difference?


Morally challenged people may have a hard time figuring out that it's wrong to invade other countries and i suppose that's pretty much what they select for when they attempt to find new recruits to bribe into becoming a mercenary for big business and imperialism in general.

Stellar


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 05:16 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by lyndonl
I feel its a low down dirty shame to turn away a soldier in his own country.


If the version dave provided is accurate then this is just one helluva big misunderstanding. In fact i am sure most hotels/inns and the like takes in far shadier personalities with far fewer potential redeeming qualities so this was always probably always going to be a 'odd' event as things go.

No matter what the argument may be. A soldier is a soldier simple as that, and lets face it when people join the military as a normal run of the mill grunt / infantrymen they are just ordinary people.


Ordinary happy people with economic options do NOT join the military. It's a bad 'job' with little benefits and few skills that are readily transferable to the civilian economy. People who join the army freely ( not talking about drafts) may be ordinary people but then you don't have to be extraordinary to get involved the commission of war crimes such as defending yourself in combat and causing 'collataral' damage.

They are not a willing part in some global conspiracy to take over the world for the new corporate empire ( if you go for all that stuff )


And the sad thing is that you do not have to be a knowing participant to serve the interest of those who commission and profit from conspiracies. The vast majority of people who actually build 'the empire' are just 'doing their jobs' and going home to raise their kids while paying down the mortgage. Once people can being to understand that you do not have to be in many or any ways 'evil' to create a devastatingly evil outcome we are half way to preventing these few powerful men from being as successful as they are.

Now maybe some guy in the top levels of military intelligence, you might have issues with that, but not a soldier.


You mean like the guys who told us that they were WOMD in IRaq based on all that 'solid' 'intelligence'? How quickly some forget uncomfortable realities...

Even if you don't believe the military puts their butts on the line daily to try to keep you safe at home, never forget that's what a lot of them believe.


I don't require them to 'put their butt's on the line' until i ask them do so by national referendum where i may get my say. Until governments starts to let their citizens vote on these matters men in uniform should protect the borders of their countries and no more. I do not doubt that many soldiers in fact beliefs that but then many fully grown men believe in various gods and are willing to beat each other bloody over which happens to be 'true' one in their opinion. Having a personal belief is very different from objective reality and that's why armies are not allowed to invade countries based on their own decisions.

Im sure you could get into many an argument about soldiers being indoctrinated by the governments they serve etc. etc. but that's a totally different topic.


Soldiers are indoctrinated in the homes,schools and churches of their various countries and the army merely whips them into shape and imbues them with the self control and knowledge that combat demands.

You learn a whole lot in the army but who to hate, how to reason and to obey authority isn't normally part of it.

Stellar


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 05:49 PM by jerico65
Originally posted by StellarX
Soldiers do not give up any of their freedoms or any of their rights and they can at any time refuse to carry out a order ( including fighting a war) when they believe it to be either immoral or an illegal order. Basically these soldiers should have refused their assignment orders the moment they received them as the United States congress never declared war on Iraq.


Wrong. The "refusing an illegal order" is for things like shooting kids, your own troops, etc. You can't say, "I don't want to fight this war because it's illegal."

And refusing the deployment order is called, "Missed movement". You go to jail.

And before you bring up Conscientious Objector status, there are alot of things that you have to do prior. You can be in the military as a CO, but you have to have that applied to you PRIOR to deploying. You just can't file for it the afternoon you get an order to deploy.

"Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."

www.sss.gov...

And in 1971, the Supreme Court said you can't apply for CO status simply because you were against a specific war.


Originally posted by StellarX
You mean US soldiers would normally do that if they didn't have the recourse of the UCMJ? Do you really believe that American soldiers would need advice as to what to do when receiving such IMMORAL orders? Where does international law even come into a matter that can clearly be decided by ANY mentally balanced human being?


It's not needed for advice, but CYA. That way, the soldier can't be punished for failure to follow the order.


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 06:03 PM by wytworm
reply to post by CaptGizmo



I would love to see you info to back up that question. Do you think more children have been hurt by coalition forces or by fanatics that have taken whole families including children into the street in the middle of the night and executed each of them because they thought they were coalition sympathizers?


This is a false dichotomy. Both tallies go on the coalition.


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 06:08 PM by wytworm
reply to post by CaptGizmo



Well in this case he supplied a military id card, yeah? Does your radical Muslim have an ID he is flashing as well?


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 06:09 PM by Hypntick
reply to post by dave420



Despite the argument going on in this thread, I think that this is more than likely the case. I do find it sad that he was denied a room though and as budski pointed out, more than likely illegal. At the very least a public apology should happen.


reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 06:17 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by budski
Again, restating my earler position, we shouldn't be blaming people who are basically doing the job they get paid for - despite my opposition to the war.


Their 'job' ( in theory at least) is to protect the citizens of their nation from attacks upon it. This is not what British or American soldiers are doing in Iraq and if your job involves violence you should make very sure that you are in fact doing what your countrymen wants.

I have respect for soldoers who stand up and speak out against the war, but I also respect those who go and fight.Their perception is that they are helping their country, even if it is a misguided perception


Since this war is illegal according to international law and both US and American law one may sympathize with how soldiers get into these situations as long as one can remember that their actions can never be justified.

There is a case to say that they are pawns like many others, and as such, my belief is that little or no blame can be attached to them, providing they are not committing an illegal act themselves.


Their presence in Iraq is a 'crime' in itself but logically it can lead to the commission or participation in far more direct and worse crimes. It would have been one thing if the casualties were limited to Iraqi's but it's not and this war is not only fiscally destroying the United States but disabling hundreds of thousands of American men and women. It you do not wish to admit that this wrong is morally or legally wrong at least think of the tens of thousands of seriously wounded American soldiers and the million or more Iraqi's who have died as result of this war.

wiredispatch.com...

If they are following lawfull orders, they are not committing an illegal act, and as much as we say the war is illegal, it is a bit of a grey area.


There is no grey area here. The united states congress never even declared war so how can this even begin to be a legal one when neither the UN or any other international agency considers it such?

Stellar
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 4 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags