Officer refuses to go to Iraq

The claim was that Saddam had an active WMD program, not that he had leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war. To say that old and sometimes empty chemical shells constituted a threat to the US and thus justified an invasion is a load of bullshit.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I'm not sure if you caught the drift of my post. I agree with the war, just not for the reasons the gov't said we were going in for. To find current WMD's? A better thing would have been to say--we're going in to stop him from ever usingthem again, regardless of whether he has them.Of course, I'm much, much more for the defensive style, instead of pre-emptive war. I know you're going to say that we can't wait to have our asses handed to us, but we've done it plenty of times, and we survived. WWII we waited and waited, and by the time we finally started it was almost too late--and we won.Had Iraq attacked someone, then I think there would be much more support for the war, both at home and internationally. As it is, we are looking like bullies. Good for us at home, but it's really screwing things up abroad.Here's a question for you--we went to war with Afghanistan. They harbor/ed terrorists. It was the home of a few of the 9-11 hijackers. Iraq harborred terrorists most likely. Not officially anymore. None of the hijackers were from Iraq. And we went to war with them, one of the reasons being a supposed link to al-Queda. Saudi Arabia harbors/ed terrorists, and most of the hijackers were Saudi. WHy haven't we gone to war with them? After all, they have more oil than Afghanistan, and provide a bigger threat to us than Afghanistan.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

quote:

---

Only an idiot would argue that, in 2003, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction...But only a bigger idiot would argue that the weapons items found by U.S. intelligence since 2003 are the same WMD whose existence the Bush administration used to justify the later war.

---

your source

Yes, that is the writers opinion. His opinion doesn't hold up against the facts though.One of the primary obligations for the cease fire from Sandbox One included the disclosure and destruction of all WMDs possessed by Iraq. After the ex-regime fired numerous SCUD missles at non-coalition nations during Sandbox One, the US wanted to make sure no calculated petulance by the ex-regime could spin the entire region out of control. The fact is he didn't disclose these 500 some chemical weapons. Period.As I said earlier, when you get your ass kicked in a military action, sign on the dotted line to cease getting your ass kicked, then balk at complying with the terms above that dotted line, your ass is subject to getting kicked without warning at any time. Saddam didn't let us or anyone know he had these, and the inspectors now have egg on their face.And I repeat, this is only what has been declassified. There is more to come.

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

How's that? By holding Iraq to the standards that the UN would not? As far as screwing things up abroad, I offer Libya as a counter-point. We went after the Taliban, and used many Afghan forces to do it. UBL specifically chose Saudi nationals to strain the relationship between the US and Suadi. Remember UBL is just as upset with Saudi as he is with the US. How does Saudi pose a bigger threat than the Taliban who harbored Al Queda? And forget oil. If that's all that mattered then yes, we would have simply rolled into Saudi or Venezuala and taken over the oil fields....oh wait that was Saddam.

---

People don't kill people
Cartoons kill people

Is this not a bit too simplistic? Taking limited action to eliminate a risk of destabilising oil supplies (Saddam) is something which is politically possible. Others may huff and puff about it and be a little pissed at the US getting the jump in terms of regional influence..Taking over the worlds oil supply is a different matter altogether. Politically and militarily it would be suicide.

Glad your not our national security advisor.Saudi Arabia, if they do not now, has harbored terrorists. That is enough of a threat on it's own, considering our business interests there. And then there is the oil issue. It is very important--ever hear of OPEC? ever hear of the oil shortages in the 70s? Did you know that Saudi Arabia is major player in OPEC?. Hmm, let's see now--they can put the sqeeze on the economic lifeblood of our country. Without oil, as we have no alternative right now, our economy's fucked. And Saudi Arabia, if they get mad at us, can decide to cut production of oil, raise the price of oil, whatever. Because OPEC controls most of the world's oil. The other major places we get our oil from aren't that secure either--they tend to not like us, or are idealogically opposed to us. They all present a bigger threat to our security than the Taliban did. The threat they pose--the ability to seriously affect (in a very detrimental way, I might add) our economy, is a very serious threat. The only reason we went there was to get Osama, and we still haven't found him. The reason we haven't gone to war with Saudi Arabie--business interests. Only reason we haven't gone to war with Venezuela--business interests (which may soon change, due to their attempt at nationalization of the oil industry)(that is, our business inteests there vanishing).We went to war with Iraq for maybe two reasons--oil, and an attempt to stabilize the region. Going after WMD's--publicity stunt that failed miserably. Link to al-Queda--misinformation--now al-Queda is there, but not sponsored by the gov't, which was what we were accusing Saddam of.As to screwing up things abroad--it helps for the international community to have a good opinion of us--it allows us to do more things, like pass sanctions and whatnot in that diseased organization known as the UN. It allows us more leverage in diplomacy. As it stands, too many distrust us, and for good reason--we don't have a trackrecord of being honest. You don't deal with crooks, and we are slowly, in the world's opinion, taking on an image as bad as that of a crook--a dirty, cheating, filthy liar.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I'll let those who are already discussing the WMD continue...I just couldn;t let this one get lost in the fray. It would be nice if that were completely true. While the Iraqis do retain control over all 17 oil fields already in operation, there are many undiscovered/untapped oil fields that are fair game to foreign oil groups thanks to Article 126 in the new Iraq Constitution ("Existing laws shall remain in force, unless annulled or amended in accordance with the provisions of this constitution"). You might say "Well the Iraqi people voted for this," when in reality copies of the constitution were distributed only 5 days before the vote and they only printed a third of the copies needed to give every eligible voter a copy. This article includes orders enacted by L. Paul Bremer, the former administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. These include the privatization of most of the state owned companies (after firing all the workers including doctors, teachers, engineers, etc), an order stating that foreign corporations doing business in Iraq are not obligated to hire Iraqis for the work (so all those former gov't workers are now unemployed and being passed over in favor of cheaper foreign labor), tax free profits for the foreign companies doing business in Iraq with no obligation to invest in the country or communities they are in, suspension of "tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges forgoods entering or leaving Iraq," immunity for foreign contractors to Iraqi laws (instead the injured party/parties must be brought to U.S. courts under U.S. laws. All of these and more were enacted under Bremer's authority and effectively included in the constitution under Article 126 making them extremely difficult to repeal.Basically these orders made Iraq a multinational corporation's wet dream.So, yes, Iraq technically has control over their oil for now, but as soon as ExxonMobil or Shell or whatever strike a new field it is theirs and theirs alone with little or no taxes. And it is estimated that the 17 oil fields now in existence in Iraq represent only about 35 percent of the oil under the sand. LA Times article - this is a reprint. The original is 2 years old and no longer available on the LATimes website Harper's articleFull Text of the Iraqi ConstitutionCoalition Provisional Authority webpage with all Orders and Regulations listed

I agree with you, JM, when you say that the people attacking Watada and other "deserters" are going about it the wrong way. I don't know if Watada could be convinced that this war is for the good of the Iraqi people and, since it is his belief that this war is unlawful and unjust, he should not fight. I do not agree with this war, but if I did I sure as hell would not want an officer who did not believe he was doing the right thing in charge of other soldiers.I believe that the conscientious objector ststus only applies to those opposed to all wars, but I think it should apply to those who object to individual wars as well for the above reason and for those who object to the reason for going to war. I would have no problem fighting in a war to defend my country from a clear threat , but not for letting corporations get their mitts on a new market (in this case I read democracy as "free-market paradise"). We went about this the wrong way all around and with all the lies compounding and all the shady business recently exposed I'm not surprised at all that some soldiers are understanding that this war and the way the "reconstruction" is being handled is illegal and immoral. They should not have to put their lives on the line for something/someone they do not believe in.And, for the record, I come from a military family with a few still serving and many of those who have served agree with me. My father especially, who was psychologically crippled by another unjust war and my mother (also a vet) who had to watch her husband crumble before her very eyes and my siblings who are witness to the damage as well.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that these are hardly WMDs (not all illegal weapons are of mass destruction and its really stupid that the two concepts have almost become synonymous), and they are certainly not the WMDs the war was principally sold to the world on.

Here's my point of view, since I'm in the Army.Granted, the cause remains unknown as to why we're still in Iraq. However, it's in the contract to heed the call of duty, and given the situation, and the time he decided to become an officer, he should have been more aware. EVERYONE goes to Iraq, and everyone that does go to Iraq doesn't always support the cause gung-ho.If I was that 1LT, I'd just go and get it done. But, being a nice guy, I'd just deploy him to Afghanistan or something, instead of just sending him to jail.Still...he's sorta a dumbass.

Do you guys still get training that includes the concept that you are not to obey an unlawful order?And just for information sake, do they tell you folk about Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added link to relevant topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's a different situation from that of CWO Thompson.Do you know how the Vietnam War started? And do you know that most people didn't like the war to start out with?1LT Watada's situation involved him being deployed into a combat zone, one which he had moral objections to.Because of this, he refused. Though I understand his reasoning, there are so many others that went before him, and because of that silver bar on his collar, it means he exemplifies leadership. 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. It's only gonna end up in yourself getting screwed. In the military, you're under a different code, and if you don't follow it, then no matter how much civilians rally to his/her cause, this person is going to receive whatever punishment is deemed worthy of his offense.I would have done the same thing if I was in CWO Thompson's situation, because it's just wrong to kill innocent people, and there is no order that can rectify that.Hope that cleared up something.

If you believe an order is illegal, what is your duty?I don't think he ever expected to "get away with it" and I imagine he was very aware of what this would mean as far as his military career was concerned.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, he actually did know that it would screw him.But in an institution such as the Army, "beliefs" don't apply when it comes to deployment orders.There are some things that you can object to, but deployment isn't one of them. Don't ask me why, or what the Army defines as "duty"; it just is what it is. Trust me, if I could just complain about something and it gets fixed, then, by all means, I'd do it. But this is a lose-lose situation.He isn't helping or hurting the situation; he's just screwing himself. That's it.The Army will continue to do as it does as long as the current commander-in-chief is in charge.Again, I don't approve of the Iraq war or war in itself, but I have no say in that.