What a Pussy!

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army’s 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of “missing troop movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

[quote]KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you’re refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You’ve taken an oath, received training but now you won’t fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent ? that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of
Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq. [/quote]

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

2

Pussy?

3

Well, I admire his courage but he volunteered and part of the deal is to follow orders. If all he wanted was a job, he should have gone to Wal-Mart.

4

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army’s 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of “missing troop movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.
[/quote]

“Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman”?

This is the most BS offense ever, especially since it is gender specific. What do female officers get charged with?

Missing a troop movement is just as bad as desertion and in a “time of war” is considered the same offense–in old times an officer could shoot an enlisted person for these offenses.

5

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, I admire his courage but he volunteered and part of the deal is to follow orders. If all he wanted was a job, he should have gone to Wal-Mart.[/quote]

Exactly, he will most likely be tried, found guilty, and discharged out with the dishonorable discharge that he deserves.

I don’t however believe that he is a pussy just for standing up for his belief. No doubt he knew the consequences of his actions and proceeded anyway.

I can’t fault a man for having integrity.

6

As long as the guy knows the punishment for his actions and accepts them as such I see no big deal. So he changed his mind about supporting the war, ok.

More power to him.

7

[quote]ssn0 wrote:
If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

[/quote]

As bad as the Army needs bodies, I’d be surprised if he serves any time in prison.

The guy is standing up for what he believes in, which is admirable. I just hope he doesn’t plan on being in the Army very long because his career is basically over.

Dustin

8

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, I admire his courage but he volunteered and part of the deal is to follow orders. If all he wanted was a job, he should have gone to Wal-Mart.[/quote]

Courage? When one volunteers, signs on the dotted line and takes the oath there are no options as to which battles one would like to fight or which orders one is going to follow.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE knows when they sign up that ANYTHING is possible.

His failure to answer his call to duty that he VOLUNTEERED for is cowardice not courage.

If he wanted to make his positions known he should have become a politician and left the defense of our country to soldiers.

This piece of shit hasn’t failed his country down as much as he failed the soldiers he was supposed to be leading.

9

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
…

This piece of shit hasn’t failed his country down as much as he failed the soldiers he was supposed to be leading.
[/quote]

Exactly. He was supposed to lead his men and try to keep them alive in a war zone.

I hope he gets some serious jail time.

A dishonorable discharge is too light. He would walk out of the Army, sell his story to Hollywood and never have to work again. He wil be the darling of the anti-war crowd.

10

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Well, I admire his courage but he volunteered and part of the deal is to follow orders. If all he wanted was a job, he should have gone to Wal-Mart.

Courage? When one volunteers, signs on the dotted line and takes the oath there are no options as to which battles one would like to fight or which orders one is going to follow.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE knows when they sign up that ANYTHING is possible.

His failure to answer his call to duty that he VOLUNTEERED for is cowardice not courage.

If he wanted to make his positions known he should have become a politician and left the defense of our country to soldiers.

This piece of shit hasn’t failed his country down as much as he failed the soldiers he was supposed to be leading.
[/quote]

And yet the US of A argued at the Nuremberg trial that the excuse “I was just following orders” is not enough because it is up to each soldier to know when an order is criminal.

Since a war of aggression is a war crime and the war against Iraq could well be illegal according to international treaties the US has signed, maybe this American officer is actually doing exactly what the US excpected from German soldiers.

An no, I am not comparing Iraq with concentration camps, but with the invasion of Poland and the SU.

So are you against the WWII USA, your greatest generation, sniff, or against the current USA, oh unpatriotic treehugger?

11

[quote]orion wrote:
…
And yet the US of A argued at the Nuremberg trial that the excuse “I was just following orders” is not enough because it is up to each soldier to know when an order is criminal.

… [/quote]

Bogus argument unless you think every soldier in Iraq is a war criminal.

12

[quote]orion wrote:

So are you against the WWII USA, your greatest generation, sniff, or against the current USA, oh unpatriotic treehugger? [/quote]

This doesn’t fit with the rest of your post, but if your definition of unpatriotic treehugger is defined as a veteran of the US military and current Federal employee, then yes I am.

13

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
orion wrote:

So are you against the WWII USA, your greatest generation, sniff, or against the current USA, oh unpatriotic treehugger?

This doesn’t fit with the rest of your post, but if your definition of unpatriotic treehugger is defined as a veteran of the US military and current Federal employee, then yes I am.

[/quote]

The whole idea was that you are contradicting the official US position no matter what you do.

He can hardly be wrong by doing what the USA have told German soldiers they should have done.

Or is the official position that every soldier should question orders anywhere unless of course said orders are issued by the US of A?

Where does the US Army stand on this issue?

Where is the point an American soldier is supposed to “just say NO!” ?

There is a point, somewhere, when an American soldier should stop following orders, right?

14

[quote]orion wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Well, I admire his courage but he volunteered and part of the deal is to follow orders. If all he wanted was a job, he should have gone to Wal-Mart.

Courage? When one volunteers, signs on the dotted line and takes the oath there are no options as to which battles one would like to fight or which orders one is going to follow.

EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE knows when they sign up that ANYTHING is possible.

His failure to answer his call to duty that he VOLUNTEERED for is cowardice not courage.

If he wanted to make his positions known he should have become a politician and left the defense of our country to soldiers.

This piece of shit hasn’t failed his country down as much as he failed the soldiers he was supposed to be leading.

And yet the US of A argued at the Nuremberg trial that the excuse “I was just following orders” is not enough because it is up to each soldier to know when an order is criminal.

Since a war of aggression is a war crime and the war against Iraq could well be illegal according to international treaties the US has signed, maybe this American officer is actually doing exactly what the US excpected from German soldiers.

An no, I am not comparing Iraq with concentration camps, but with the invasion of Poland and the SU.

So are you against the WWII USA, your greatest generation, sniff, or against the current USA, oh unpatriotic treehugger? [/quote]

You ancestors were tried by the “Allies” not by the US alone.

Your greatest generation (haha) was tried for crimes against humanity.

I guess a lot of this was glossed over in your PC history books.

Are the Germans allowed to fight yet or do they just make fun with human skulls in Afganistan?

15

[quote]orion wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
orion wrote:

So are you against the WWII USA, your greatest generation, sniff, or against the current USA, oh unpatriotic treehugger?

This doesn’t fit with the rest of your post, but if your definition of unpatriotic treehugger is defined as a veteran of the US military and current Federal employee, then yes I am.

The whole idea was that you are contradicting the official US position no matter what you do.

He can hardly be wrong by doing what the USA have told German soldiers they should have done.

Or is the official position that every soldier should question orders anywhere unless of course said orders are issued by the US of A?

Where does the US Army stand on this issue?

Where is the point an American soldier is supposed to “just say NO!” ?

There is a point, somewhere, when an American soldier should stop following orders, right? [/quote]

Interesting but feeble attempt to frame an argument. How silly.

A soldier can decline to carry out an illegal order, as defined by the UCMJ. He cannot choose to follow his choice of popular opinion. It’s not a European Army for crying out loud. A lawful order, must be carried out. The soldier doesn’t decide if it’s lawful or not based on his feelings but by the law.

16

[quote]hedo wrote:

A soldier can decline to carry out an illegal order, as defined by the UCMJ. He cannot choose to follow his choice of popular opinion. It’s not a European Army for crying out loud. A lawful order, must be carried out. The soldier doesn’t decide if it’s lawful or not based on his feelings but by the law.

[/quote]

So in real live how does he find out if not by not obeing orders and wait for a court to decide.

And then I have these weird feeling that government officials often very much interpret laws in a way that seems to support their most popular opinion.

17

[quote]hedo wrote:

You ancestors were tried by the “Allies” not by the US alone.

Your greatest generation (haha) was tried for crimes against humanity.

I guess a lot of this was glossed over in your PC history books.

Are the Germans allowed to fight yet or do they just make fun with human skulls in Afganistan?
[/quote]

My ancestors were not tried by anyone.

Hardly our greatest generation.

If you knew Germany or Austria you would know that none of this is missing in our school books.

You might get their Tornadoes especially for surveillance missions, but if you honestly believe the Germans are following Bush?s lead anywhere…

18

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

You ancestors were tried by the “Allies” not by the US alone.

Your greatest generation (haha) was tried for crimes against humanity.

I guess a lot of this was glossed over in your PC history books.

Are the Germans allowed to fight yet or do they just make fun with human skulls in Afganistan?

My ancestors were not tried by anyone.

Hardly our greatest generation.

If you knew Germany or Austria you would know that none of this is missing in our school books.

You might get their Tornadoes especially for surveillance missions, but if you honestly believe the Germans are following Bush?s lead anywhere…

[/quote]

Well we’ll never know will we. Suffer the collective shame then.

You paint with a broad brush, your ego shouldn’t bruise so easily when I smack you with the paint bucket.

If your textbooks were so honest and true then how do you account for the statement you made that was so innacurate…were you a poor student? How many allies were represented on the tribunal…you can look it up? Also look up how many individual German Combat soldiers were tried…as opposed to national leaders?

Your Bush derangement syndrome aside…the problem is your military is a jobs program rather then a fighting force. I’m quiet sure we can do without your airplanes. Some German ground troops had their shit together if I remember. Unfortuantely the leaders are cowards.

How amusing. Guess they are only good for buidling bunkers and selling “production parts” to the Iraqi’s and Iranians. Perhaps they’ll give you favorable terms some day.

19

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

A soldier can decline to carry out an illegal order, as defined by the UCMJ. He cannot choose to follow his choice of popular opinion. It’s not a European Army for crying out loud. A lawful order, must be carried out. The soldier doesn’t decide if it’s lawful or not based on his feelings but by the law.

So in real live how does he find out if not by not obeing orders and wait for a court to decide.

And then I have these weird feeling that government officials often very much interpret laws in a way that seems to support their most popular opinion.

[/quote]

It’s rather apparent to a combat soldier and it’s very clear in numerous military manuals.

20

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:

A soldier can decline to carry out an illegal order, as defined by the UCMJ. He cannot choose to follow his choice of popular opinion. It’s not a European Army for crying out loud. A lawful order, must be carried out. The soldier doesn’t decide if it’s lawful or not based on his feelings but by the law.

So in real live how does he find out if not by not obeing orders and wait for a court to decide.

And then I have these weird feeling that government officials often very much interpret laws in a way that seems to support their most popular opinion.

It’s rather apparent to a combat soldier and it’s very clear in numerous military manuals.

[/quote]

Those manuals are issued by a party that has no vested interest in how that question is answered right?

If you think you can answer that question of what exactly a soldier is to do in such a situation with some glorified government brochures and indoctrination by a government agency if the very question are the limits of governments powers, well why not…