Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Officer refuses to go to Iraq
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 41 (327816)
06-30-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
06-25-2006 8:08 PM


More than a year and counting...
And I repeat, this is only what has been declassified. There is more to come.
quote:
Its all still classified for safety reasons, but I assure you you'll hear about them later.
-Tal, 5/6/05

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 06-25-2006 8:08 PM Tal has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 32 of 41 (328411)
07-03-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by TheNewGuy03
06-30-2006 2:26 PM


Re: Black Gold
Though I don't believe in the Iraq war conceptually, or even in war itself, it doesn't mean that I have the right to refuse a deployment.
Oh yes it does. You may be a peon in the military, but you still have every right to make decisions about your own life. Yes, they will have consequences (court-martial, serving time...), but I would rather face time behind bars than spend the rest of my life in front of a mirror despising myself or futilely trying to justify what I had done.
Every soldier has the same inherent independence of thought and individual conscience as every other human being on this planet. No one has to just "follow orders."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-30-2006 2:26 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 4:42 AM Jaderis has replied

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 41 (328414)
07-03-2006 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jaderis
07-03-2006 4:13 AM


Re: Black Gold
What do you think the Army is?
This is what I'm trying to say.
No one drafted the 1LT into the Army. It was his choice to do it. Once you've joined the military, you've pledged to fight the nation's wars. It's in the contract. It doesn't say that you can pick what war you want to fight in.
What I'm saying is that he could have picketed the war all he wanted outside of the military. He joined in 2003; it's not like he didn't know. So it's his fault.
My point is that you don't willfully join a warfighting institution without the inherent consequences included with it (aka war).
As I said earlier, there have been many wars fought by this nation, all of which were not justifiable. Though there were people drafted in some of these wars, the ones who volunteered understood what they got into, and followed accordingly.
All I know is that the 1LT is wasting the commission. I would LOVE to be an officer right now. The guy's just being a dumbass. Screwing himself, but to no avail.
His "sacrifice" only means that he's gonna be looked down on in the military. Some civilians think he's a hero, but you have to look at the big picture.
I'm not arguing rights; I'm looking at his actions, and what the outcome will be like. He signed the papers, held up his right hand, and got commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army.
So...what do you make of it? It's like a job. You sign on for a job, and you follow accordingly. The rules are put before you, and if there is something unlawful in it, then you are free to object.
However, there just are things with which you don't argue. There are plenty of things that you may not believe in in any job; the Armed Forces are no exception.
I just want you to understand the entire situation. He SIGNED the contract to fight the nation's wars. No one made him.
You're right. No one has to follow orders. It's always your choice. However, the consequences of that choice are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 4:13 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 5:00 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 34 of 41 (328417)
07-03-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheNewGuy03
07-03-2006 4:42 AM


Re: Black Gold
Yes he chose knowing what he was getting into, but his rights as a human being include the right to change his mind. He is like anyone else who may have believed wholeheartedly that the Iraq war was justified, but he obviously changed his mind and decided that the motives for the war did not justify what he was being asked to do.
I understand that military culture is different from the reality that most people understand, but that is all the more reason to believe Watada and those like him when they say that they cannot do the job asked of them. They are told to follow orders believing in an ideal and many do not ever question, so when someone does they more than likely have a reason for "screwing" theselves. Whether it is they do not want to die or they do want want to kill others it does not matter. All that matters is that they made a choice for their own destiny. Soldiers make decisions based on their own personal sense of morality, their love for their families and friends and for the same reasons that anyone else does. I would rather see a man/woman decide to back out of a contract than try to justify bombing a group of women and children and/or having to regret that for the rest of their lives. That is the "avail" of which you speak. Fuck career or reputation.
Soldiers are not robots devoid of emotion and reason no matter how hard the military culture tries to make them so.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 4:42 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 5:14 AM Jaderis has replied

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 41 (328421)
07-03-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jaderis
07-03-2006 5:00 AM


Re: Black Gold
Well, if you don't want to or would not kill a human being, then don't join the military. It's that simple.
I don't want to die or kill anyone. But if I really have to to prevent other innocent people from dying, I will. That's my prerogative; I have no idea how you feel.
I don't get off on seeing people die. It's not a good thing. If this world didn't have people killing other people, then it would be a good world. Unfortunately for me, and those getting killed, it's not.
I have very strong emotions. You may not believe this, but the military has not changed how I feel about the value of human life. While humans are, as a whole, pointless, their lives are still precious.
And every soldier doesn't have to bomb groups of women and children. It's only when a child is strapped to a bomb and has been brainwashed to kill groups of Soldiers (doesn't the principle work both ways???) that a situation like that happens. I'm sure most Soldiers (or Marines, or Sailors, or Airmen) don't relish the thought of having to blast some kid to bits, but just think of what would happen if they didn't?
We aren't some crazy murderous bastards hell-bent on killing entire families. You have exceptions to that rule, but most are just doing their jobs.
I'm sure 1LT Ehren Watada changed his mind; in fact, I'm positive. All I'm saying is that it was a dumb freakin' move on his part.
Also, about me: I'm an idealist. Just thought you should know
The moral of this story is: the 1LT didn't do his job, and he's screwing himself. Yeah, it was his choice, and it was his personal moral obligation. However, there are no justifications outside of that. It's just him. Him and the Army.
I hope that cleared some things up about Soldiering and all it entails. It's not randomly blowing the hell out of things; you do what you're assigned, and within the rules given. Anything else is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 5:00 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 6:01 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 36 of 41 (328436)
07-03-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TheNewGuy03
07-03-2006 5:14 AM


Re: Black Gold
I agree that any given soldier volunteering in the military accepts killing or being killed as a requisite, but my posts pointed out that there are times when the reasons given are not justified in the soldier's mind and that is when s/he might step down. That is the point I am trying to drive home. That one can be accepting of war for the "right" reasons, but not of every war. No matter what someone accepts at the beginning, their viewpoint is always open to change. Are you saying that if you volunteered in an army to defend your country and then found out that you were really being asked to exterminate an entire race of people (just giving an example BTW) that you would say "well I signed up for this, might as well follow orders" rather than question the motives of the country/government you gave your oath to and damn the consequences?
Some people (including myself) are willing to die and kill for certain ideals, but once one realizes that those ideals are not what the killing and dying is all about, that will to die and kill disappears.
I know it is not that easy, but that is why I commend those who object. Because they would sacrifice their career and reputation in order not to kill or die for something they did not believe in. It doesn't matter if their reasons are deemed correct by others or by history. They lived according to their conscience and decided that the barbarity of war was not justified by the reasons either given to them or developed from other sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 5:14 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 6:29 AM Jaderis has replied

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 41 (328442)
07-03-2006 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Jaderis
07-03-2006 6:01 AM


Re: Black Gold
In an extreme case like that, yes, I would be forced to deny orders and accept punishment.
It's just that this case is an exception, because he joined during the war on terrorism, and he actually knew about it. I'm sure our commander-in-chief's motives have changed slightly over these 2 years due to the lack of WMDs, but the only problem is this: you've deployed 150,000+ troops to a foreign nation to fight a war on terror. I'm sure even many that are deployed don't believe in our president's order, but they've already started the mission. What's the point of backing out of a mission that's been started and that 2500+ Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors have died for already?
Our mission, especially now that the new government has been installed already, is to ensure the security of this new government. To me, it's about cleaning up a mess that's been made already. That, and the fact that so many other people will die if we don't finish the job is reason enough to fight. The terrorist ring will see us retreating as a sign of weakness, and attempt to use it to their advantage.
While it isn't humanly possible to kill every last terrorist, it is possible to eliminate any imminent threat to our nation and/or its troops; in this case, to aid the troops that are already deployed there and assist them so that they can all get out of there soon.
I hope you understand that I'm actually agreeing with you on the idealistic level, but I just want to make sure that you understand what it means to be a Soldier, and to, literally, sign your life to the government.
The 1LT made his choice, and I'm quite sure that it doesn't matter to him whether or not his comrades-in-arms approve. That isn't the big issue. I'm only questioning the choice itself, and its relevance to our society, and to the military.
After all, we're in the same service.
The guy's got balls, but he's still a dumbass, regardless. Choices, man...it's what makes life what it is.
For reference's sake, a prime example of damning the consequences is the late CWO Thompson. He defied his own comrades in order to stop the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. These Soldiers were killing unarmed civilians, and that's not cool.
He took all the criticisms from the military for years, but for a completely legitimate reason. The government finally recognized this, and things changed for him.
Edited by TheNewGuy03, : additional information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 6:01 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 7:10 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 38 of 41 (328454)
07-03-2006 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheNewGuy03
07-03-2006 6:29 AM


Re: Black Gold
I can see we are agreeing on the fundamentals of this issue, like you said, but I am going to swerve a little bit off topic and just say this:
You mentioned retreating as a sign of weakness, but the way I see it is that the reason there are resistance fighters in Iraq is that we are there for them to resist. Yes, now there are many who are fighting ideological battles with their countrymen and killing Iraqi civilians, but a foreign presence only exacerbates this problem. These ideological differences existed in somewhat stunted form before we invaded but have been allowed to flourish because of the atmosphere of war and uncertainty in the country. How do we pick sides in a battle of Islamic theology now that those battle lines have been drawn and fought? We are not peacekeepers, but a conquering army and whichever side we choose (and there is bound to be a "side" because the Iraqi government like all governments speak to/for a specific "side") will become a target for the others to fight. "Retreating" will be a signal to the Iraqis that they can and should find their own space in the free countries of the world and all sides may see that we are not pulling puppet strings and controlling their country's destiny from afar (although I also see that laughable because we hold many strings).
Resistance fighters are always seen as terrorists by the superior power (history is written by the conquerors). I am not lauding atrocious actions by any means, but you should really stop and ask if the guys planting that roadside bomb would be influenced to do so if there were no American/British/Australian/Coalition of the Willing soldiers to bomb.
My original point still stands. Watada was well aware of what the war entailed, but he may have realized over time that this war did not fall under his definition of "what I am willing to kill and die for."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 6:29 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 7:23 AM Jaderis has replied

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 41 (328458)
07-03-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jaderis
07-03-2006 7:10 AM


Re: Black Gold
I guess it's sort of inevitable that we're still gonna be holding some strings even after a troop pullout.
It's also impossible to win a war against fundamentalist Islam, considering how the rules are laid out. It's sorta like spawn points in a video game. No matter how many you kill, mutilate, dismember, or anything like it, there will always be insurgents.
But you've made your point, and I've made mine.
It's still pointless to pull out troops, now that a government has been put in place and due to the countless American troops that are helping to train Iraqi men to defend their own country.
We're writing history right now. While we retain the "conqueror" status right now, eventually a nation even more powerful will ostensibly take our spot as the #1 superpower.
And for the guys planting IEDs (improvised explosive devices) all over Iraq's and Afghanistan's roads...they'd find someone to bomb; probably the guys we've been training to protect their own nation.
Also, some more facts about 1LT Watada:
1) He's an infantry officer, as symbolized by the two crossed muskets on his collar.
2) He mentioned that he would fight in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Why do you think that's the case...?
Just something for you to ponder...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 7:10 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 7:54 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 40 of 41 (328465)
07-03-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheNewGuy03
07-03-2006 7:23 AM


Re: Black Gold
2) He mentioned that he would fight in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Why do you think that's the case...?
Well, I can 't speak for him, but I would assume that is because Afghanistan was actually harboring terrorists and bin Laden was believed to be hiding there. That was retaliation for 9/11 pure and simple.
Al-Qaeda and its ilk had no protection in Iraq and Hussein and bin Laden had an open dislike for one another because of bin Laden's disdain (to put it lightly) for Saddam's largely secular government, featured in his domestic policies and his past war against the fundamentalist Iran. The terrorists were not in Iraq then, but they sure are now. I am not a Saddam apolegetic, but the "war on terror" should not have extended to Iraq. If we wanted to topple Saddam that should have been the stated pretext for war and not the pile of lies that spewed from Bush and Co. I assume that Watada was fed the same falsehoods as the rest of us and made up his mind that this war was not not worth fighting once he realized the call of duty did not extend to toppling a dictator who had nothing to do with the original war on terror. The "Axis of Evil" came up during the hyped up war fever of 9/11 and Afghanistan and we all bought it hook line and sinker, including Watada.
I hope that answers that question.
As for the rest of your post, I don't think it requires a response. Just a nod of agreement, for now. I need some breakfast

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 7:23 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TheNewGuy03, posted 07-03-2006 8:07 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 41 (328470)
07-03-2006 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jaderis
07-03-2006 7:54 AM


Re: Black Gold
Yeah, I agree.
The terrorists are basically bouncing from country to country because they can never find a safe spot, and it's a better opportunity to do what terrorists do: kill Americans.
Also add that to the fact that since Saddam Hussein is toppled, bin Laden doesn't have to worry about him.
I also believe that our commander-in-chief should have specified the details of his plans before spewing a bucket of falsehoods to the American people, who, especially after 9/11, he knew would buy it all.
I don't think that President Bush is a bad person, but he's certainly not the best decision maker, and that's all that matters, really.
I can only assume that now, given the situation at hand, the "war on terror" can only extend farther, now that I look at the big picture. That's an entirely different story.
For now, I can only hope that 1LT Watada gets a deployment to Afghanistan instead, but that's up to his unit (2nd Infantry Division) and whoever else may be involved. From what I know, 2ID doesn't have Soldiers in Afghanistan at this present moment, but I can't confirm that. And if that is the case, this 1LT can't deploy by himself.
Until then, peace.
EDIT: I read one of your earlier posts. Since he is an O-2 in the U.S. Army, he's almost guaranteed to be in a leadership position. But if he objects that strongly to the war in Iraq, then he shouldn't be in charge of the activities of other Soldiers.
Edited by TheNewGuy03, : additional information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jaderis, posted 07-03-2006 7:54 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024