Sand Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056 Here is a man and soldier standing up against the Bush Administration and their illegal war in Iraq. President George W. Bush commit our troops invade Iraq on false pretenses of WMDs and false ties to Al Qaeda, and when these falsehoods no soldier said no to the Blunder In Chief till now. I commend this man's courage. Not only is it a duty of a soldier to protect this country, but also set an example to his peers and do what is right. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturm Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sigh, and people used to think that the Russians were war mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) Isn't it obvious that the Bush Administration are a group of lying crooks? Edited January 4, 2007 by The Architect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sigh, and people used to think that the Russians were war mongering. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Their new weapon of choice is gas. Does this guy have much of a chance in court? Surely he'd actually have to be ordered to do something that amounted to a war-crime before he could refuse legally. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 Invading another country on false pretenses that has caused the death of tens of thousands isn't a war crime? Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigranes Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Apparently not. Let's Play: Icewind Dale Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Icewind Dale II Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Divinity II (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG1 (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG2 (In Progress) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Invading another country on false pretenses that has caused the death of tens of thousands isn't a war crime? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A war crime has to do with things like killing people when they've got the surrender flag up, or when you use the surrender flag just to trick the enemy into a false sense of sucurity only to attack them, or mistreating POWs or civilians, stuff like that. There is a crime for a War of Agression, but that isn't in the oficial list of war crimes I don't think. It's an internation law however. I'm not sure if this war can be classified as a war of aggression, but I know you probably do Hades. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Invading another country on false pretenses that has caused the death of tens of thousands isn't a war crime?What, a war in which people actually die? Are you kidding me? *shock* - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) If you don't want to fight, don't join the military. That is it's sole purpose. And you do have to chose to join, there is no draft and no one is compelled to do so. Whatever the people here might think of the war, whatever HE thinks of the war does not make a bit of difference. He agreed to take the governments money and wear it's uniform so that means he gets the whole package and if that means fighting, so be it. He can have a year in Iraq or six years in Levanworth. That is also a choice. As for Sturm's little quip about the Russians, if this guy had been in the Soviet Army and refused to go to Afghanistan he would have gotten a bullet in the head and no newspaper or anyone else would have ever heard about it. So there is a difference. Edited January 4, 2007 by Guard Dog "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The US hasn't signed up to the relevant treaty, so much so that its troops are subject to War Crimes trials, by definition. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The army is the wrong place for political conviction. Yes, the war in Iraq was illegal in the sense that it was a breach of the UN charter which the US is a signitary to, but the big boys break the UN charter all the time, nothing ever comes of it. In any case national law trumphs international law. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamond Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Sigh, and people used to think that the Russians were war mongering. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 She's referring to USSR How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I don't see why he should get jail time. A simple discharge would be sufficient and would shut him up. The media won't go running after his comments very long if he's out of the army. Unless he's gay. " http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Kitty Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 If you don't want to fight, don't join the military.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The issue isn't that he doesn't want to fight, in fact he seemed quite happy to fight when he thought the war just. The issue is that he believes the war to be illegal. If you thought your boss was involved in illegal activities that could damage the company and it's employees, would you do nothing with the reasoning that you take your paycheck so it doesn't matter whether you think it's illegal or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) If you don't want to fight, don't join the military.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The issue isn't that he doesn't want to fight, in fact he seemed quite happy to fight when he thought the war just. The issue is that he believes the war to be illegal. If you thought your boss was involved in illegal activities that could damage the company and it's employees, would you do nothing with the reasoning that you take your paycheck so it doesn't matter whether you think it's illegal or not? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to work for a QA company owned and run by French men(from France, not Canada). When I found out that they were frauding my country(the Gov was helping with salaries and they were exploiting the system) and most of our clients(mostly by overcharging for labor) for millions I simply quit. I would've brought them to justice but I never had any hard proof, just glimpse of papers, words from phone conversations and the like. I had some very nice contacts in the industry too so it was hard for me to leave. Edited January 4, 2007 by astr0creep http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guard Dog Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 If you don't want to fight, don't join the military.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> The issue isn't that he doesn't want to fight, in fact he seemed quite happy to fight when he thought the war just. The issue is that he believes the war to be illegal. If you thought your boss was involved in illegal activities that could damage the company and it's employees, would you do nothing with the reasoning that you take your paycheck so it doesn't matter whether you think it's illegal or not? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry Kitty, it does not work that way in the military. The day he swore his oath and put on his uniform he gave up the right to make moral distinctions. He swore to uphold and defend the constitution of the US and bear true faith and service to the same. He also swore to obey the orders of the President and his superior officers. The war, you can argue might be morally wrong but it is authorized by congress so it is nothing if not legal. therfore he is compelled to go if ordered to do so. It has long been held and upheld that a member of the US armed forces cannot be ordered to do something that violates the UCMJ (military law). So if his CO orders him to shoot an unarmed prisoner and he refuses then he is morally and legally correct and will not, in the long run, suffer any legal consequences. But in this case the order to go to Iraq is legal and he can obey or go to prison. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 It's a tough decision - but I would have to agree with you GD .. Since there's nothing illegal about this war he can't refuse - if soldiers were allowed to make descisions based on their own morals - in wether or not to follow an order, which is legal, the military would fall apart. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 questions of the legality of the iraq war have always amused me. the US is not bound by any "international law" that says who we may or may not start a war with. furthermore, the concept of an "illegal" war is rather silly anyway. war is nothing more than one country being mad at another. japan felt justified in their attack on the US during WWII (based on a variety of slights) and the US response was likewise justifiable to the US. the simple act of saddam ordering his forces to fire on US planes is an "act of war" defined by the treaties he signed after the first invasion, so what constitutes a "legal" response? war. to think that war can be regulated in any fashion is naive at best. does a vote by a body of unelected officials somehow make a war "legal" in any way? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You took the words out of my PC, taks. The solider (who will probably end up on the talk-show and thence onto the lecture circuits as the liberals take up his splash of fame as a cause-c OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 exactly. when concerning matters of war, like it or not, personal beliefs regarding justifiability are immaterial. people such as sand/visceris/nomdujour hate all war, which is understandable, but then use such personal beliefs to find any reason to call any war "illegal" without any real basis in reality. war is bad, nasty and undesirable, but as long as there are a variety of diverse cultures and societies in the world, it will exist. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) Oh well, in times where there was no Internet, Radio or TV, soldiers would just go into battle and die proudly for country and supreme commander. But now in the information era, everyone's mind gets so easily boggled when they hear gruesome news on TV that they would rather refuse to go to war, instead of obeying their warlords. Better telecommunications, more moral awareness. Not that Bush & Co. were right with the decision to go to Iraq, but then again, they're not the first ones who made wrong decisions.... It's just that everybody whines about it, because they are informed to the last detail. Edited January 4, 2007 by Morgoth Rain makes everything better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 that's for sure. hopefully, once such "awareness" spreads to remote corners of the world, such whining will no longer be necessary. unfortunately, this won't happen till we have a much more homegeneous world, which will take quite some time (i'm thinking centuries). taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Not that Bush & Co. were right with the decision to go to Iraq, but then again, they're not the first ones who made wrong decisions.... It's just that everybody whines about it, because they are informed to the last detail. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And how wonderful that they do .. I think it's great that the American public is fed up with war - and since the President rule only by popular demand, he can't afford to go against them for very long.. (although Bush probably doesn't care right about now, since he won't be elected anyway) .. but imagine everyone hating the idea of armed conflict.. it would be a little more peaceful in this world.. not much though, but that's better than nothing.. I don't think we'll ever get rid of war, but at least we can minimize it. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Saddam Hussein didn't exactly handle the situation well. If he'd been willing to work with the UN, there would not have been a war. He gave the US a great opportunity to attack, and they took it. Why hasn't the US invaded Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea? It's not because they don't want to, and they've got WMD's (Iran is close), it's because those countries maintain some semblance of diplomacy and make some effort to appease the UN. Iraq didn't work with the UN, and the US took advantage. Also, the US isn't trying to take over Iraq. They just want an Iraqi leadership that they can get along with. I think trying to force democracy upon the population is misguided, but it's not inherently evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts