[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
[/quote]
Nothing. It is his mission to go to Iraq and prevent the car bombers and other terrorists from killing innocents.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…
I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.
What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?
The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.
He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.
It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
What is immoral about refusing to fight a war that he believes is based on lies(WMD’s,9/11 connection, spreading democacy)?[/quote]
This guy has become the Cindy Sheehan of the military. He is speaking at Vets for Peace rallies, and just might be basking in the spotlight. These people now have someone to further their cause. Do you think for a second he isn’t being coached by these groups? Come on, he’s a star. He will have his 15 minutes of fame and maybe some time in jail, where he belongs, as well.
His father went to the draft board during the Viet-Nam war and asked to be placed in the Peace Corp instead of going to Nam. He supports him. What a shocker. That’s what this schmuck should have done. I would have no problem with that. He was a killer in 2003, but changed his mind on who should be killed in 2005 with all of the events going on around the world.
Let the courts decide. Again, I doubt they are going to allow a precident to be set that you just don’t go if you change your mind. He has morals, he’s only willing to kill arabs that had WMDs. BS. The other ones that want to kill us and did on 9/11 I guess are getting a pass in his eyes.
Didn’t John Wayne star in “The Fighting Hawaiian 69th”?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
Nothing. It is his mission to go to Iraq and prevent the car bombers and other terrorists from killing innocents.
[/quote]
He doesn’t believe your premise and that is the problem!
[quote]olderguy wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…
I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.
What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?
The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.
He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.
It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
What is immoral about refusing to fight a war that he believes is based on lies(WMD’s,9/11 connection, spreading democacy)?
This guy has become the Cindy Sheehan of the military. He is speaking at Vets for Peace rallies, and just might be basking in the spotlight. These people now have someone to further their cause. Do you think for a second he isn’t being coached by these groups? Come on, he’s a star. He will have his 15 minutes of fame and maybe some time in jail, where he belongs, as well.
His father went to the draft board during the Viet-Nam war and asked to be placed in the Peace Corp instead of going to Nam. He supports him. What a shocker. That’s what this schmuck should have done. I would have no problem with that. He was a killer in 2003, but changed his mind on who should be killed in 2005 with all of the events going on around the world.
Let the courts decide. Again, I doubt they are going to allow a precident to be set that you just don’t go if you change your mind. He has morals, he’s only willing to kill arabs that had WMDs. BS. The other ones that want to kill us and did on 9/11 I guess are getting a pass in his eyes.
Didn’t John Wayne star in “The Fighting Hawaiian 69th”?[/quote]
How do you know he is “basking in the spotlight”. Maybe he really believes this is an immoral war and to not speak out against it is just another crime.
Maybe in 2003 he believed the hpye about this war but has changed his mind due to the circumstances around him. It happened plenty of times in Vietnam and other wars. Why is this so different?
The guy said he was willing to be sent to Afghanistan. Just not Iraq because he felt it was an illegal war. So he wasn’t deserting the army–just standing up for what he believes in.
[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]
EXCATLY!!!
I don’t understand these people that join the army and then realize one day that, “I actually may be put in harms way. I’m sorry I don’t want to be in the army when this happens”.
Everyone wants get the goddies without the sacrifice.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
olderguy wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…
I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.
What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?
The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.
He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.
It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
What is immoral about refusing to fight a war that he believes is based on lies(WMD’s,9/11 connection, spreading democacy)?
This guy has become the Cindy Sheehan of the military. He is speaking at Vets for Peace rallies, and just might be basking in the spotlight. These people now have someone to further their cause. Do you think for a second he isn’t being coached by these groups? Come on, he’s a star. He will have his 15 minutes of fame and maybe some time in jail, where he belongs, as well.
His father went to the draft board during the Viet-Nam war and asked to be placed in the Peace Corp instead of going to Nam. He supports him. What a shocker. That’s what this schmuck should have done. I would have no problem with that. He was a killer in 2003, but changed his mind on who should be killed in 2005 with all of the events going on around the world.
Let the courts decide. Again, I doubt they are going to allow a precident to be set that you just don’t go if you change your mind. He has morals, he’s only willing to kill arabs that had WMDs. BS. The other ones that want to kill us and did on 9/11 I guess are getting a pass in his eyes.
Didn’t John Wayne star in “The Fighting Hawaiian 69th”?
How do you know he is “basking in the spotlight”. Maybe he really believes this is an immoral war and to not speak out against it is just another crime.
Maybe in 2003 he believed the hpye about this war but has changed his mind due to the circumstances around him. It happened plenty of times in Vietnam and other wars. Why is this so different?[/quote]
What changed after 9/11? Isn’t it really about the fact the Islamist radicals want us dead? Sorry the government didn’t tell every Private First Class what their intentions were. AGAIN YOU FUCKIN RETARD, HE WAS WILLING TO KILL IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT NOT IN IRAQ, WHERE THEY ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS AND WAGING WAR AGAINST US. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? HE WILL ONLY KILL CERTAIN ARABS. SPARE ME. THOSE CRAZY MOTHER FUCKERS ATTACKED US. I SAW IT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL BOTH TIMES AT WTC. WHY DOESN’T EVERYONE JUST QUIT AND COME HOME? THERE ARE WOMEN OVER THERE WITH MORE BALLS THAN HIM, AND I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, HE LIKES THE FACT THAT ALL OF THESE PEACE GROUPS ARE ASKING HIM TO SPEAK AND TELLING HIM WHAT A BRAVE THING IT IS HE IS DOING. I HOPE THE POOR FUCK THAT HAD TO GO IN HIS PLACE DIDN’T GET KILLED. HE SHOULD HAVE JOINED THE PEACE CORP LIKE HIS FATHER. AND DON’T THINK ANYONE THOUGHT TO HIGHLY OF THOSE WHO OPTED TO NOT SERVE, AFTER INLISTING, IN OTHER WARS.
[quote]olderguy wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
olderguy wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
…
I think his refusal to deploy is the right thing to do based on moral law. If he believes the war is truly unjust he has the moral obligation to refuse to go.
What is immoral about fighting terrorists in Iraq?
The whole thing is ludicrous. He thinks deposing Saddam was morally incorrect. Fine. That is done. He is not going there to depose Saddam.
He is going there to try to protect civilians from car bombs in markets.
It is kind of too late to protest the invasion. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that he can unring that bell.
What is moral about killing many innocent people?
What is immoral about refusing to fight a war that he believes is based on lies(WMD’s,9/11 connection, spreading democacy)?
This guy has become the Cindy Sheehan of the military. He is speaking at Vets for Peace rallies, and just might be basking in the spotlight. These people now have someone to further their cause. Do you think for a second he isn’t being coached by these groups? Come on, he’s a star. He will have his 15 minutes of fame and maybe some time in jail, where he belongs, as well.
His father went to the draft board during the Viet-Nam war and asked to be placed in the Peace Corp instead of going to Nam. He supports him. What a shocker. That’s what this schmuck should have done. I would have no problem with that. He was a killer in 2003, but changed his mind on who should be killed in 2005 with all of the events going on around the world.
Let the courts decide. Again, I doubt they are going to allow a precident to be set that you just don’t go if you change your mind. He has morals, he’s only willing to kill arabs that had WMDs. BS. The other ones that want to kill us and did on 9/11 I guess are getting a pass in his eyes.
Didn’t John Wayne star in “The Fighting Hawaiian 69th”?
How do you know he is “basking in the spotlight”. Maybe he really believes this is an immoral war and to not speak out against it is just another crime.
Maybe in 2003 he believed the hpye about this war but has changed his mind due to the circumstances around him. It happened plenty of times in Vietnam and other wars. Why is this so different?
What changed after 9/11? Isn’t it really about the fact the Islamist radicals want us dead? Sorry the government didn’t tell every Private First Class what their intentions were. AGAIN YOU FUCKIN RETARD, HE WAS WILLING TO KILL IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT NOT IN IRAQ, WHERE THEY ARE KILLING OUR TROOPS AND WAGING WAR AGAINST US. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? HE WILL ONLY KILL CERTAIN ARABS. SPARE ME. THOSE CRAZY MOTHER FUCKERS ATTACKED US. I SAW IT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL BOTH TIMES AT WTC. WHY DOESN’T EVERYONE JUST QUIT AND COME HOME? THERE ARE WOMEN OVER THERE WITH MORE BALLS THAN HIM, AND I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, HE LIKES THE FACT THAT ALL OF THESE PEACE GROUPS ARE ASKING HIM TO SPEAK AND TELLING HIM WHAT A BRAVE THING IT IS HE IS DOING. I HOPE THE POOR FUCK THAT HAD TO GO IN HIS PLACE DIDN’T GET KILLED. HE SHOULD HAVE JOINED THE PEACE CORP LIKE HIS FATHER. AND DON’T THINK ANYONE THOUGHT TO HIGHLY OF THOSE WHO OPTED TO NOT SERVE, AFTER INLISTING, IN OTHER WARS.
[/quote]
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so why should he go over there and fight? So honestly, what are you talking about?
Why are our troops being killed in Iraq? Well I’ll tell you… because we invaded another country. Just like if someone invaded us we’d be killing their troops.
Yes he is willing to seek out those who were responsible for 9/11 but not those Arabs who had nothing to do with it. But I can see your penchent for mass killing prevents you from figuring that out. It’s attitudes like yours that keep hatred for this country alive.
It would be nice if they never found a replacement for him and the rest of the troops rebelled.
He is speaking out against the military actions of this country. I think it is a brave thing to do just like they did during the Vietnam debacle. And alot of other soldiers think it is the right thing to do as well.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml
Apparently his “trial” consists of him being found guilty without him making to much trouble…
Hedo might be interested how these men of courage and honor prance around the subject of a Nuremberg defense…
Aaaa, politicians in uniform…
Probably the worst kind…
edit: " Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."
There are Army regulations?
Oyvey…
[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml
Apparently his “trial” consists of him being found guilty without him making to much trouble…
Hedo might be interested how these men of courage and honor prance around the subject of a Nuremberg defense…
Aaaa, politicians in uniform…
Probably the worst kind…
edit: " Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."
There are Army regulations?
Oyvey…[/quote]
Your zest for Nazi nostaglia runs deep I see. You must miss the good old days.
Besides what would you know of either politicians or those in the military. I am sure you’ve not served in either capacity.
An Army where the soldiers choose to follow orders or not would only work in la la land or maybe Europe. Not where fighting men depend on one another in wartime.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Your zest for Nazi nostaglia runs deep I see. You must miss the good old days.
Besides what would you know of either politicians or those in the military. I am sure you’ve not served in either capacity.
An Army where the soldiers choose to follow orders or not would only work in la la land or maybe Europe. Not where fighting men depend on one another in wartime.
[/quote]
You do know that serving in the military is mandatory in Austria, right?
He also refused to go before he endangered anyone.
I`m just saying that it seems now that according to Army rules it is at least debatable if this war is legal or not, he refuses to fight in it, the tribunal refuses to even consider the main question.
Since you are adamant that a combat situation is not the right place to raise such questions, I am asking you:
When would the right time and place be?
Because the US insisted in Nuremberg that a soldier must ask himself these questions…
[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
Your zest for Nazi nostaglia runs deep I see. You must miss the good old days.
Besides what would you know of either politicians or those in the military. I am sure you’ve not served in either capacity.
An Army where the soldiers choose to follow orders or not would only work in la la land or maybe Europe. Not where fighting men depend on one another in wartime.
You do know that serving in the military is mandatory in Austria, right?
He also refused to go before he endangered anyone.
I`m just saying that it seems now that according to Army rules it is at least debatable if this war is legal or not, he refuses to fight in it, the tribunal refuses to even consider the main question.
Since you are adamant that a combat situation is not the right place to raise such questions, I am asking you:
When would the right time and place be?
Because the US insisted in Nuremberg that a soldier must ask himself these questions… [/quote]
You do realize that serving in the military in the US is voluntary right?
The time to ask was before he joined.
Under US Army rules it is not debatable if the war is legal or not. Not even close. Not even up for discussion. In fact under US law the war is legal.
This man’s legal team is trying an interesting legal defense but it is doomed to failure.
You do realize this silly Nuremberg analogy is not relevant don’t you. The ALLIES didn’t prosecute individual German soldiers for reporting for duty. It prosecuted mainly it’s leadership for war crimes committed against civilians. Further when it did proesecute individual soldiers who made the claim they were following orders, it had to do with individual acts they committed during the war. Your analogy is silly and you have already been schooled in that fact. Try something else with greater relevance if you are trying to make a point.
[quote]orion wrote:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml
Apparently his “trial” consists of him being found guilty without him making to much trouble…
[b]As he shouldn’t[b]
Hedo might be interested how these men of courage and honor prance around the subject of a Nuremberg defense…
Aaaa, politicians in uniform…
Probably the worst kind…
edit: " Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter."
There are Army regulations?
Oyvey…[/quote]
This isn’t that hard to understand. He’s OK killing those he thought to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In 2003, when he enlisted, he thought that included Iraq. 4 years later we have pretty solid evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now this soldier feels he was lied to and does not have any futher intention of fighting this war.
Yes, he’ll be found guilty. Yes, he deserves a dishonorable discharge. No, he’s not a pussy or a coward. He’s someone whose willing to follow his convictions even at great personal cost.