NationStates Jolt Archive

Not always on the side of light from the start, not always the most eloquent
but braver than many in this world and definitely more courageous than
all armchair patriots.

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

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=17229&s2=28

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=372602006

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/03/15/874/76232

You are wrong, these are examples of cowardice and should not be commended as heroic. I feel this way even though I am personally against the war.

"the side of light"


I lol'd.

"the side of light"


I lol'd.
As did I, but I like the sentiment.
Those men have my respect.

Because of the social stigma attached to what they are doing, at least in the US anyway, refusing to go to Iraq is much braver than going.

As did I, but I like the sentiment.
Those men have my respect.

Because of the social stigma attached to what they are doing, at least in the US anyway, refusing to go to Iraq is much braver than going.

And much smarter. Jail tends to be safer than a warzone.

As did I, but I like the sentiment.
Those men have my respect.

Because of the social stigma attached to what they are doing, at least in the US anyway, refusing to go to Iraq is much braver than going.

A social stigma doesn't kill you, thus they are better off here in their cowardly minds, than in the dangerous streets of Iraq.

As did I, but I like the sentiment.
Those men have my respect.

Because of the social stigma attached to what they are doing, at least in the US anyway, refusing to go to Iraq is much braver than going.

I wouldnt go that far. It's likely braver than anything the armchair patriots have done recently though, as the OP said.

A social stigma doesn't kill you, thus they are better off here in their cowardly minds, than in the dangerous streets of Iraq.

So what? You have no proof that their motive was cowardice.

And if it was, again, so what? There was no good reason for them to place their lives in harm's way, so their refusal to do so is perfectly justified.

You are wrong, these are examples of cowardice and should not be commended as heroic. I feel this way even though I am personally against the war.
If your country was illegally invaded, your cities bombed, and your friends and relatives killed, would you consider those who chose not to invade your country and kill your family as cowards? Would the ones who invaded be regarded as heroes to you?

I wouldnt go that far.
I would. While what the troops are doing in Iraq may be brave, they are consoled with the fact that they will most probably be lauded for it the rest of their lives. I'm not saying that's why they do it, but it doesn't hurt.

You are wrong, these are examples of cowardice and should not be commended as heroic. I feel this way even though I am personally against the war.

Soldiers aren't supposed to question orders, but Mejia knew he couldn't live with himself if he continued fighting a war he believed to be unjust. That realization was partially motivated by an order to shoot at Iraqi protestors who, in Mejia's judgment, were too far away to harm troops.

"It was the first time I had fired at a human being," Mejia recalled. "I guess you could say it was my initiation at killing a human being. ... It was part of a general feeling that we had no right to be there, and every killing, whether provoked or not provoked, was unjustified because we had no right to be there."

Really, Buristan? Camilo Mejia wouldn't agree with you, apparently. Nor do I. You need to work out just what side of the fence you're on.

Not always on the side of light from the start, not always the most eloquent
but braver than many in this world and definitely more courageous than
all armchair patriots.


Like yourself? ;)

So we have 4 "heros" and the other 160000 or so are what?; Nazi SS drones?

So what? You have no proof that their motive was cowardice.

What would you do call it...patriotism?

And if it was, again, so what? There was no good reason for them to place their lives in harm's way, so their refusal to do so is perfectly justified.

It is their job, they signed up for it, that is the point of a volenteer army they choose to do the job.

If they were conscripts I could sympathise...but they are volunteers...

Really, Buristan? Camilo Mejia wouldn't agree with you, apparently. Nor do I. You need to work out just what side of the fence you're on.

I was against going into the war, but now that we are in this mess, we need to fix it.

If your country was illegally invaded, your cities bombed, and your friends and relatives killed, would you consider those who chose not to invade your country and kill your family as cowards? Would the ones who invaded be regarded as heroes to you?

Damn those cowardly german conscientious objectors in WW2 is the often heard cry.
Held with contempt by Nazis and Allies alike, germans who would not fight.

Of course there are cowards who would wangle their way out of
both just and unjust wars.
Some might flee their home country some might volunteer to protect texas skies.

But not everyone who refuses to serve is a coward nor is everyone who goes
brave.

If our army was in drafting mode, i could understand this. But everyone there volunteered. If you volunteer, for whatever reason you do it, you are in the army and it is your job to go do what they tell you and die if Necessary.

If your country was illegally invaded, your cities bombed, and your friends and relatives killed, would you consider those who chose not to invade your country and kill your family as cowards? Would the ones who invaded be regarded as heroes to you?

I would consider the ones who tried to help(US & UK) the heros while I would view the villans as those who harm us (Mahdi Army, Al-Queda in Iraq, et al.)

If they were conscripts I could sympathise...but they are volunteers...

Really?

Their papers said I sign up to fight an illegal war in some middle eastern
country our president can't find on a map and whose name he cannot spell?

I was against going into the war, but now that we are in this mess, we need to fix it.

BY leaving.

Or do you think rapists make the situation better by hanging around?
Maybe inviting more of their friends over to help keep their victims under control?

I would. While what the troops are doing in Iraq may be brave, they are consoled with the fact that they will most probably be lauded for it the rest of their lives. I'm not saying that's why they do it, but it doesn't hurt.

That is offset by the fact that they are going to be shot at daily for two years and watch their brothers in arms go six feet under. I am not saying that these dissenters are cowards, but their dissent is in breach of a contract they signed. They have their consolations and they will be lauded as heroes by certain groups. Taking it up the wazoo from "Bill" in prison doesnt come close to being in an area where you know that the most peaceful looking man on any street corner could suddenly just up and blow up the entire block. I dont approve of this war, but these smug little mini-protests in no way compare to the sacrifices of people who actually spend their time in a third world war-zone. Every soldier over there is braver than these men, and so is every Iraqi that is trying to piece together the broken shards of a country destroyed by rows of dictators and a fumbled invasion.

It is their job, they signed up for it, that is the point of a volenteer army they choose to do the job.
They sign up for the kind of education we should all be able to receive for free anyway. They sign up to defend their country. They don’t sign up to shoot at the civilians of a shattered nation that they helped shatter.

If our army was in drafting mode, i could understand this. But everyone there volunteered. If you volunteer, for whatever reason you do it, you are in the army and it is your job to go do what they tell you and die if Necessary.

The western world ruled on this in the Nuremberg trials.

Just following orders was something they specifically ruled out as any kind
of excuse whatsoever. And these were the judges appointed by people
who knew darn well what war was like.

What would you do call it...patriotism?

I attach to it a far more complimentary label - morality.

It is their job, they signed up for it, that is the point of a volenteer army they choose to do the job.

They are under no (moral) obligation to participate in an immoral war. No one is ever under obligation to participate in immorality.

Damn those cowardly german conscientious objectors in WW2 is the often heard cry.
Held with contempt by Nazis and Allies alike, germans who would not fight.

Of course there are cowards who would wangle their way out of
both just and unjust wars.
Some might flee their home country some might volunteer to protect texas skies.

But not everyone who refuses to serve is a coward nor is everyone who goes
brave.
Exactly my sentiments.

Really?

Their papers said I sign up to fight an illegal war in some middle eastern
country our president can't find on a map and whose name he cannot spell?


YES. They swore an oath and signed the document. That they now choose not to serve shows them to be honourless oathbreakers, worthless scum deserving only of imprisonment and derision.

What would you do call it...patriotism?

I'd say its balls of steel to think for yourself and make your own decisions

It is their job, they signed up for it, that is the point of a volenteer army they choose to do the job.

and as such they get a prison sentence for breaching a legal contract hardly discredits them

I would consider the ones who tried to help(US & UK) the heros while I would view the villans as those who harm us (Mahdi Army, Al-Queda in Iraq, et al.)

You’ve been trained quite well haven’t you

If Bush said “terrorism is in your house” would you burn it down?

I would consider the ones who tried to help(US & UK) the heros while I would view the villans as those who harm us (Mahdi Army, Al-Queda in Iraq, et al.)
I don't know where you live, but would you have preferred more buildings coming down in the US?

That they now choose not to serve shows them to be honourless oathbreakers, worthless scum deserving only of imprisonment and derision.

To put obedience to an oath over non-participation in evil is far more unacceptable.

That is offset by the fact that they are going to be shot at daily for two years and watch their brothers in arms go six feet under.


Foolish men and women with courage but less sense

I am not saying that these dissenters are cowards, but their dissent is in breach of a contract they signed.

Some signed up to get out of the poverty they had no other way out of.
They and others may also have signed up to defend their country.
If they signed up to allow the oil companies to get control of middle eastern oil then there was nothing noble about that.

They have their consolations and they will be lauded as heroes by certain groups. Taking it up the wazoo from "Bill" in prison doesnt come close to being in an area ...
Where their comrades are raping young girls and boys and slaughtering them
and their families to cover it up.


... where you know that the most peaceful looking man on any street corner could suddenly just up and blow up the entire block. I dont approve of this war, but these smug little mini-protests in no way compare to the sacrifices of people who actually spend their time in a third world war-zone. Every soldier over there is braver than these men, and so is every Iraqi that is trying to piece together the broken shards of a country destroyed by rows of dictators and a fumbled invasion.

Every Iraqi child is braver than anyone else there.
Trying to live to grow up when their country is less safe than at any point in
the last 20 years thanks to an illegal and immoral grasp for control of their
countries only real asset. aided by every idiot and every numbskull who took
their president and his administration at their word. Despite every indication that they were lying.

Every soldier over there is braver than these men

I wouldn't say that

honourless oathbreakers, worthless scum deserving only of imprisonment and derision.

Hmmm…I must of fell through time and emerged in the feudal era, that bloody washing machine!

To label the war in Iraq "evil" and to compare it to the atrocities of Nazi Germany devalues the terminology. The United States had a perfectly valid casus belli against Iraq. No illegal orders have been given, either according to the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If a soldier opposes an action, that is his right. But once he takes oath to serve, then he must obey any legal order.

These people are not heroes. They are cowards.

Really?

Their papers said I sign up to fight an illegal war in some middle eastern
country our president can't find on a map and whose name he cannot spell?

They signed up to fight for their country, and that is exactly what they did.

BY leaving.

Or do you think rapists make the situation better by hanging around?
Maybe inviting more of their friends over to help keep their victims under control?

Yes, and leave a power vacuum, so that a bigger and badder dictator can come to power in Iraq. I don't think so. Also, just because one soldier raped a woman doesn't make them all rapists. That would be the same logic as saying that we should kill every single Iraqi man, woman and child because a large number of them have attacked our soldiers. Get your logic correct. And I wrote a essay on how we can get out, I think that you ought to read it before you judge me.


A Change In Course?

On November 8, 2006, the engineer of the Iraq War, and creator of the pro-war slogan “stay the course”, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned. All day, political pundits proclaimed that the exit of the “SecDef” will usher in a change in strategy that will allow for United States troops to leave Iraq, claiming that this exit would be soon, and would leave Iraq as a somewhat stable state, a nation with a hope for the future. This exit will only occur, however, if a series of drastic reforms are taken, not only in the military strategy in Iraq, but in U.S. foreign policy for the region.

Throughout Iraq, sectarian violence runs rampant. The Shiite majority and the Sunni minority fight a constant tit-for-tat battle in the volatile neighborhoods of the urban centers of Iraq. Though the bloodbath rages relentlessly, the American soldiers stand on the sidelines, in the outskirts of the major cities, far away from the fighting. This sectarian violence will never come to an end without a greater military presence inside the centers of resistance. Rather than the large military strongholds on the outskirts of the larges cities of Iraq, the coalition forces need to decentralize into smaller, more compact bases within the most explosive city boroughs; acting as a police force, by regularly patrolling these hotbeds. The American casualties would inevitably go up thanks to the greater visibility of the troops, nevertheless, the sectarian violence tearing the Iraqi people apart would decline, allowing the United States a greater chance of leaving Iraq in the near future. Although U.S. troops are not the police force of the country, they will have to step into the role until the Iraqi government can clean their own police forces of the very insurgents that they are supposed to be fighting.

In the early days of the war, the strength of the Iraqi police forces were viewed as the benchmark for when our troops could exit the country, however, the milestones have came and gone, but in Iraq we remain. The Iraqi security forces are at best crooked. According to and article for the Washington Post by writer Amit R. Paley “…seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army.” This corruption is unacceptable. While Sunni blood runs red in the streets of Baghdad, the Shiite cops supposedly preventing such monstrosities stand by allowing the slaughterers to continue on with their morbid business; while some honorable officers openly join in the butchery. Such horrors must end. If we ever want our young men to come home, we must crack down upon this corruption, perhaps by scrapping the current security force and starting from the ground up if necessary. Though a gloomy prescription, it is vital for any hope of a stable, peaceful Iraq.

The Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, run by the radical Islamist Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, strikes fear into the hearts of all Sunnis and moderate Shiites throughout Iraq. The militia’s influence becomes greater by the day, its ranks larger by the day, and its soldiers smarter by the day. On al-Sadr, President Bush sticks to his Texas sheriff “no negotiations with terrorists” catchphrase. This policy is irresponsible. If we ever want to piece together any variety of stable nation in Iraq, al-Sadr must play a part. We need to swallow our pride and negotiate. Al-Sadr is a charismatic leader who some Iraqis see as their version of Ataturk, the answer to the Western encroachments on Iraqi liberty. His followers are violent, and fiercely loyal; thus we must concede to some of his demands--for the sake of Iraq--damned be our pride. Before we can obtain concessions from al-Sadr however, we must negotiate him out of his supplies and training, by coming to the table with Iran.

Of all the nations in the world, none support extremist Islam to the extent of Iran and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For years, the Iranians stood against the United States, waging a virtual cold war against us. Since the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981, the States have cut off almost all negotiations with the Theocracy, the nation that not only holds the keys to a victorious ending in Iraq, but also stands on the brink of nuclear capability. The current U.S administration has refused time and time again to cut a deal with the Islamic Republic, however, such an approach to Iran is no longer an option. We must come to the table, without conditions, and come to an agreement on Iranian involvement in the new Iraq and Iran’s nuclear future. We must concede to them on some matters, such as allowing them to possess peaceful, civilian nuclear power, though we cannot allow ourselves the liberty of leniency on matters such as nuclear weaponry. If anywhere holds key to a U.S. success in Iraq, it rests on a bargaining table in Tehran.

This is merely a list of suggestions. Take it with a grain of salt. All of these may be enacted, and Iraq may still be the “catch-22” it is as I write, none of these may be taken, and it may turn into a somewhat stable nation. But if we want to have any hope of changing the current way of the country, something’s gotta change.

Really?

Their papers said I sign up to fight an illegal war in some middle eastern
country our president can't find on a map and whose name he cannot spell?



Really.

They sign up for the kind of education we should all be able to receive for free anyway. They sign up to defend their country. They don’t sign up to shoot at the civilians of a shattered nation that they helped shatter.

Yes, if you call civilians people who shoot at them.

-snip- Your post was at least 90% conjecture, and possibly more, but I suppose mine came across the same way. My post was actually a culmination of many different arguments with many different people and really wasnt constructve in a debate where such points as I adressed have not been touched yet.

That said, I can already see the direction of this thread and I am going to duck out of it before it gets going into warmer territory.

And I wrote a essay on how we can get out, I think that you ought to read it before you judge me.
...


I'm sorry dude but the criminals don't get to make the argument that they
should stay to fix what they've broken and continued to break over the last
3 years.

Even you must realise that at a point right near the beginning of all this
the US made themselves the principle problem.

What has been broken cannot even begin to be fixed until the principle cause
has been removed.

If every nation involved were considered to be children.

The US would be the first sent to their room by any sensible adult.

To label the war in Iraq "evil"

Slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people for the most unacceptable of motives is most definitely evil.

The United States had a perfectly valid casus belli against Iraq.

No, it didn't. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, and no urgent humanitarian catastrophe demanding intervention.

No illegal orders have been given, either according to the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If a soldier opposes an action, that is his right. But once he takes oath to serve, then he must obey any legal order.

I don't care what the law says. The law does not and never has determined morality.

Hmmm…I must of fell through time and emerged in the feudal era, that bloody washing machine!
Further evidence for my theory that washing machines are powered by mini-black holes
To label the war in Iraq "evil" and to compare it to the atrocities of Nazi Germany devalues the terminology. The United States had a perfectly valid casus belli against Iraq. No illegal orders have been given, either according to the Geneva Conventions or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If a soldier opposes an action, that is his right. But once he takes oath to serve, then he must obey any legal order.

These people are not heroes. They are cowards.

Wanting more oil is a valid casus belli? Strange.

...
Hmmm…I must of fell through time and emerged in the feudal era, that bloody washing machine!

Cripes

What model washing machine DO you have?

Not always on the side of light from the start, not always the most eloquent
but braver than many in this world and definitely more courageous than
all armchair patriots.

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

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=17229&s2=28

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=372602006

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/03/15/874/76232

I cant figure out what you mean.The sentence you wrote at the top,I cant make any sense of it.:confused:Please clarify.Also the "side of light":p

Yes, if you call civilians people who shoot at them.
Wouldn't you shoot at Iraqis if they invaded and destroyed the stability of your country.

I'm sorry dude but the criminals don't get to make the argument that they
should stay to fix what they've broken and continued to break over the last
3 years.

Even you must realise that at a point right near the beginning of all this
the US made themselves the principle problem.

What has been broken cannot even begin to be fixed until the principle cause
has been removed.

If every nation involved were considered to be children.

The US would be the first sent to their room by any sensible adult.
So we are calling Bush a crimnal now. And I am sure that many more countries would be sent to there rooms first.

See:

Almost all of Africa(especially Somalia)
North Korea
Iran
Iraq
etc.

I was against going into the war, but now that we are in this mess, we need to fix it.

Not by shooting at protesters I think, which according to this fellow, was what made him do as he did.

No, it didn't. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, and no urgent humanitarian catastrophe demanding intervention.


The US and Iraq signed an agreement ending the first Gulf War. Iraq did not live up to it's obligations under that agreement. Casus Belli.


I don't care what the law says. The law does not and never has determined morality.

Thankfully, neither has subjective morality ever truly determined the law.

I don't care what the law says. The law does not and never has determined morality.

Then according to you, people should bomb abortion clinics left and right.

So we are calling Bush a crimnal now. And I am sure that many more countries would be sent to there rooms first.

See:

Almost all of Africa(especially Somalia)
North Korea
Iran
Iraq
etc.

This is the famous
there are other nasty regimes so it doesn't matter that ours is just as bad.

Not the strongest of arguments but ever popular with the wilfully deluded.

The law does not and never has determined morality.

And "morality" should not be the supreme definition of action. War is immoral and yet sometimes it's valid to declare a war on another people.

An army defining morality would be rather scary.

Then according to you, people should bomb abortion clinics left and right.

No. That would be immoral.

No. That would be immoral.

Not to the extreme right-to-lifers.

YES. They swore an oath and signed the document. That they now choose not to serve shows them to be honourless oathbreakers, worthless scum deserving only of imprisonment and derision.

So what if they signed that document...and were promptly ordered to operate large scale furnaces which whole villages would be placed for no other reason than ethnicity?

Would they be worthless scum if they refused? Or would you laud them if they obeyed?

War crimes doesn't allow you to make the excuse of "just following orders"

You are wrong, these are examples of cowardice and should not be commended as heroic. I feel this way even though I am personally against the war.

If your country was illegally invaded, your cities bombed, and your friends and relatives killed, would you consider those who chose not to invade your country and kill your family as cowards? Would the ones who invaded be regarded as heroes to you?

I would consider the ones who tried to help(US & UK) the heros while I would view the villans as those who harm us (Mahdi Army, Al-Queda in Iraq, et al.)

I don't know where you live, but would you have preferred more buildings coming down in the US?
I see you are evading my questions sport. I can understand why. :D

Not to the extreme right-to-lifers.

Exactly.

Whose "Morality" is correct!

The US and Iraq signed an agreement ending the first Gulf War. Iraq did not live up to it's obligations under that agreement. Casus Belli.

The first gulf war was brought to us by its sponsor the UN
it was up to the UN to decide whether obligations were lived up to or not
AND what response was appropriate.


Thankfully, neither has subjective morality ever truly determined the law.

Thankfully?
Seperate but Equal.
The right of husbands to beat their wives.
The rights of more ancient civilisations that allowed parents to kill their own children.
The laws hitler brought in to deprive Jews of their property, prospects and ultimately their lives?

Your thankful that morality did not determine what the laws should be?

Interesting

I'm sorry dude but the criminals don't get to make the argument that they
should stay to fix what they've broken and continued to break over the last
3 years.



So who should fix it?


Slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people for the most unacceptable of motives is most definitely evil.


We haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The United States has killed 25,000 civilians. Civilians are rarely intentionally targeted, but the reality is it is a war zone, and it sucks to live there. Civilians have been killed in ever war zone. Its a terrible, terrible reality.

And much smarter. Jail tends to be safer than a warzone.unless those inmates have friends and relatives serving in Iraq... then they may be treated better than pedos... but not by much.

I don't call them Heroes. They volunteered to join a profession that states, "you go where you're ordered to go." and when they're ordered, they refuse.

jail them? nah. Dishonerable Discharge... Yes. Get em out, fast and quietly. and like any employee that's fired from their job... all benefits stop at that point.

but calling them Heroes? nah.

they shouldn't be jailed for it, (well no more than the normal punnishment for disobeying an order or going awol.)

And "morality" should not be the supreme definition of action. War is immoral and yet sometimes it's valid to declare a war on another people.

Perhaps, but only if there is a compelling moral reason - such as self-defense, or the preservation of innocent life. That would justify an otherwise immoral action, and would still involve morality being the supreme definition of action.

Thankfully, neither has subjective morality ever truly determined the law.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

after WW2 many axis soldiers were put on trial for criminal acts, the defense for many was "I was following orders, saying no was not an option"....they were told they're defense was unacceptable and executed for following orders and not their conscience....now we have the same situation where soldiers are following their conscience and refusing to take part in what they see as a criminal act and they are accused of being cowards.....now they are facing imprisonment and even death for refusing to take part....

I see you are evading my questions sport. I can understand why. :D

I see you have not read my essay, as have any of you, what is wrong? Can you not read anything longer than a five sentence paragraph?:D

....
We haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The United States has killed 25,000 civilians. Civilians are rarely intentionally targeted, but the reality is it is a war zone, and it sucks to live there. Civilians have been killed in ever war zone. Its a terrible, terrible reality.

And the responsibility for the terrible terrible reality lies with those who waged
aggressive war.

I don't have any idea where you get your 25,000 figure from but it is horribly
horribly wrong.

after WW2 many axis soldiers were put on trial for criminal acts, the defense for many was "I was following orders, saying no was not an option"....they were told they're defense was unacceptable and executed for following orders and not their conscience....now we have the same situation where soldiers are following their conscience and refusing to take part in what they see as a criminal act and they are accused of being cowards.....now they are facing imprisonment and even death for refusing to take part....

there is a difference, they commited war crimes.

Not to the extreme right-to-lifers.

So? They are wrong.

Whose "Morality" is correct!

The one that best fits our moral intuitions.

We haven't slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The United States has killed 25,000 civilians.

I believe that's the US Government's figure, yes. The US Government is a lying sack of shit.

I trust independent studies using well-tested methodologies a whole lot more, thanks.

If nobody here is aware... if this were any country other than a western power(such as south-american, asia major, africa, and the middle east) this soldier would be executed on the spot.

He is a terrible soldier and even more terrible because he is supposed to demonstrate strict military procedure because of his rank. Soldiers fight the war, politicians decide the war. He is not the latter.

after WW2 many axis soldiers were put on trial for criminal acts, the defense for many was "I was following orders, saying no was not an option"....they were told they're defense was unacceptable and executed for following orders and not their conscience....now we have the same situation where soldiers are following their conscience and refusing to take part in what they see as a criminal act and they are accused of being cowards.....now they are facing imprisonment and even death for refusing to take part....

Said Axis soldiers tended to be involved in the purposeful killing of POWs, civilians, Jews, Gypsies.....

there is a difference, they commited war crimes.

According to the Nuremberg Trials the greatest war crime was committing
aggressive war as it contained all others within it.

Anyone participating therefore in an aggressive war
is party to any and all crimes committed within it.

According to the Nuremberg Trials the greatest war crime was committing
aggressive war as it contained all others within it.

Anyone participating therefore in an aggressive war
is party to any and all crimes committed within it.

Then why wasn't every soldier put on trial? Too many.

You could have tried the whole command structure and yet they didn't.....

there is a difference, they commited war crimes.
Funny how only the loser ever commit war crimes, eh?

So what if they signed that document...and were promptly ordered to operate large scale furnaces which whole villages would be placed for no other reason than ethnicity?

Would they be worthless scum if they refused? Or would you laud them if they obeyed?

War crimes doesn't allow you to make the excuse of "just following orders"

By our own UCMJ, a soldier MAY refuse an order if it is illegal. And in the examples you've given, I would expect (and hope) they would do just that.

But these people you're lauding haven't been asked to commit any atrocities or war crimes. They're hiding from serving in an occupation, and they don't get that call. The military MUST obey it's civilian masters - anything else is mere anarchy.

The one that best fits our moral intuitions.


And whose moral institutions are correct?

So? They are wrong.



The one that best fits our moral intuitions.



I believe that's the US Government's figure, yes. The US Government is a lying sack of shit.

I trust independent studies using well-tested methodologies a whole lot more, thanks.
Sometimes Soheran, you pwn.

So we are calling Bush a crimnal now. And I am sure that many more countries would be sent to there rooms first.

See:

Almost all of Africa(especially Somalia)
North Korea
Iran
Iraq
etc.
Is there some kind of point you're trying to make here?
Then according to you, people should bomb abortion clinics left and right.
What?
unless those inmates have friends and relatives serving in Iraq... then they may be treated better than pedos... but not by much.

I don't call them Heroes. They volunteered to join a profession that states, "you go where you're ordered to go." and when they're ordered, they refuse.

jail them? nah. Dishonerable Discharge... Yes. Get em out, fast and quietly. and like any employee that's fired from their job... all benefits stop at that point.

but calling them Heroes? nah.

they shouldn't be jailed for it, (well no more than the normal punnishment for disobeying an order or going awol.)
Well people in prisons tend not to have guns and explosives. And prisons are usually full of prison guards, and chances are not all of them would be ok with letting a prisoner get his ass kicked because he was dishonourable or other such nonsense.

Funny how only the loser ever commit war crimes, eh?

I can see that this is going nowhere, as you guys simply want a thread to bash on America, so I am leaving.

I don't have any idea where you get your 25,000 figure from but it is horribly
horribly wrong.

The Iraq Body Count. The rest have been caused by insurgents and crime. Well, up to june 2005. So its 6 months.

I can see that this is going nowhere, as you guys simply want a thread to bash on America, so I am leaving.

For Iraq, oh brave and noble one?

I believe that's the US Government's figure, yes. The US Government is a lying sack of shit.

I trust independent studies using well-tested methodologies a whole lot more, thanks.

Actully, the US has it higher than the IBC, an independent group.

The Iraq Body Count. The rest have been caused by insurgents and crime. Well, up to 2005. So its year old.

If it is from IBC even they do say that their figures are a bare MINIMUM.
That the actual numbers of dead would be much higher.

They don't agree with the study published in the Lancet
although for no obvious logical reason.

People particularly those criminally involved with the war love to quote
the IBC figures as if it is a factual total as it is so much lower than the likely
reality.
Even more so if out of date.

The first gulf war was brought to us by its sponsor the UN
it was up to the UN to decide whether obligations were lived up to or not
AND what response was appropriate.



Thankfully?
Seperate but Equal.
The right of husbands to beat their wives.
The rights of more ancient civilisations that allowed parents to kill their own children.
The laws hitler brought in to deprive Jews of their property, prospects and ultimately their lives?

Your thankful that morality did not determine what the laws should be?

Interesting

Yes. Because morality is subject to swift change and reinterpretation. Most of what you cite as problems were moral laws - it was considered morally right to separate the races, for husbands to beat their wives, even to kill jews.

In the modern era, we are, slowly, coming to embrace universal law - one not based on morality, but on individual sanctity. A far better and less harmful idea.

If nobody here is aware... if this were any country other than a western power(such as south-american, asia major, africa, and the middle east) this soldier would be executed on the spot.

He is a terrible soldier and even more terrible because he is supposed to demonstrate strict military procedure because of his rank. Soldiers fight the war, politicians decide the war. He is not the latter.
Capital punishment for breach of contract? And you see this is a good thing? Wow, people are getting crazier all the time.

Well people in prisons tend not to have guns and explosives. And prisons are usually full of prison guards, and chances are not all of them would be ok with letting a prisoner get his ass kicked because he was dishonourable or other such nonsense.

Aren't many of those guilty of prison abuses in Iraq, people with experience
of working in prisons in the states?

And whose moral institutions are correct?

Human beings are actually pretty consistent in that regard; it is in moving from them to coherent moral theories where we encounter trouble.

But, to answer your question: no one's. "Correct" is not a word that can be applied to moral intuitions.

If you wish to know whose I use to determine which is moral, the answer is my own, of course.

For Iraq, oh brave and noble one?

Actually, I am a considering running at West Point, after which time I will be heading off for a career in the military, which will most likely take me to Iraq.

It is their job, they signed up for it, that is the point of a volenteer army they choose to do the job.

They signed up to defend the United States, not to fight a war that we had no reason to start.

Aren't many of those guilty of prison abuses in Iraq, people with experience of working in prisons in the states?
I have no idea.
Actually, I am a considering running at West Point, after which time I will be heading off for a career in the military, which will most likely take me to Iraq.

Why?

Actually, I am a considering running at West Point, after which time I will be heading off for a career in the military, which will most likely take me to Iraq.

Well I hope you see sense before you hurt others or your family suffers
from you being hurt or taken from them.

If it is from IBC even they do say that their figures are a bare MINIMUM.
That the actual numbers of dead would be much higher.

They don't agree with the study published in the Lancet
although for no obvious logical reason.

People particularly those criminally involved with the war love to quote
the IBC figures as if it is a factual total as it is so much lower than the likely
reality.
Even more so if out of date.

Ok fine, lets take the highest estimate, and assume the US killed everyone single one of them. Still not a hundred thousand. The person who i was quoting claimed it was hundreds of thousands, and i thought that to be misleading.

By our own UCMJ, a soldier MAY refuse an order if it is illegal. And in the examples you've given, I would expect (and hope) they would do just that.

But these people you're lauding haven't been asked to commit any atrocities or war crimes. They're hiding from serving in an occupation, and they don't get that call. The military MUST obey it's civilian masters - anything else is mere anarchy.

The Black Forrest; Said Axis soldiers tended to be involved in the purposeful killing of POWs, civilians, Jews, Gypsies.....

apparently neither of you bothered to read the links, refusing to be part of torturing prisoners and shooting civilians seems to be illegitimate reasons for refusal,....

They signed up to defend the United States, not to fight a war that we had no reason to start.

Actually, their Oath is to defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic. Their papers, however, include an agreement to obey any lawful order.

Yes. Because morality is subject to swift change and reinterpretation. Most of what you cite as problems were moral laws - it was considered morally right to separate the races, for husbands to beat their wives, even to kill jews.

In the modern era, we are, slowly, coming to embrace universal law - one not based on morality, but on individual sanctity. A far better and less harmful idea.

There should not of course be laws to enforce morals.
Our morals should however guide us to ensure that our laws are not harmful.

Actully, the US has it higher than the IBC, an independent group.

Have you actually ever read their website? The IBC's number is twice the number you gave.

apparently neither of you bothered to read the links, refusing to be part of torturing prisoners and shooting civilians seems to be illegitimate reasons for refusal,....

I glanced at the links - they all seemed to be refusing to go over there. If they received orders to shoot unarmed civilians or torture anyone, then I'd expect them to refuse.
That does not seem to be the case.

Ok fine, lets take the highest estimate, and assume the US killed everyone single one of them. Still not a hundred thousand. The person who i was quoting claimed it was hundreds of thousands, and i thought that to be misleading.

Hundreds of thousands would be accurate even just for how many US forces killed.

Many hundreds of thousands is however still correct as they are people killed
by forces the US invasion brought into being.
IE deaths that would not have happened otherwise.

And this is not including US implementation of UN sanctions that they were
happy to accept would kill half a million Iraqi children.
Considering the price to be worth it

Ok fine, lets take the highest estimate, and assume the US killed everyone single one of them.

Then we are assuming that the US has killed well over a million Iraqis.

See the latest Lancet study.

Well people in prisons tend not to have guns and explosives. And prisons are usually full of prison guards, and chances are not all of them would be ok with letting a prisoner get his ass kicked because he was dishonourable or other such nonsense.
unfortunately, Guns and Explosives are not the only factors in defining how dangerous a place can be.

and if a military officer can refuse an order and thus neglect his duty, why can't a prision guard (who most likely served in the military him/herself) also be affected by what crime the prisoner is in for, their also human.

then again, the guards can't be everywhere... and equiptment can be down for maintenance...

The point I'm making is that the situation is still the same. In Iraq, you have your squadmates and other soldiers watching out for you. in prision, it's whomever you befriend and you better hope they're on the up and up. In Iraq, you have guns, rifles, explosives, and armor. in prision, it's what you can make and what you can keep hidden. In Iraq, you can turn your back to your buddies and you know they will protect you to the best of their ability as you will protect them to the best of yours, in prison... well, you can keep your back to the wall, but not all the time...

but then, being jailed for DoD or AWOL or Disobediance is done in a military prison, not civilian.

Have you actually ever read their website? The IBC's number is twice the number you gave.

Thats total killed. The US isn't car bombing markets every day. And i already finished this in in a post above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12166065&postcount=84)

Ok fine, lets take the highest estimate, and assume the US killed everyone single one of them. Still not a hundred thousand. The person who i was quoting claimed it was hundreds of thousands, and i thought that to be misleading.

The death toll by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health was estimated 600,000 violent deaths since the invasion in march '03.

The death toll by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health was estimated 600,000 violent deaths since the invasion in march '03.

and they estimated 31% were due to direct US action.

US bears moral culpability for all
as these are deaths over and above the pre invasion figures

Thats total killed. The US isn't car bombing markets every day.

All of the deaths were caused by the invasion.

unfortunately, Guns and Explosives are not the only factors in defining how dangerous a place can be.

and if a military officer can refuse an order and thus neglect his duty, why can't a prision guard (who most likely served in the military him/herself) also be affected by what crime the prisoner is in for, their also human.

then again, the guards can't be everywhere... and equiptment can be down for maintenance...

The point I'm making is that the situation is still the same. In Iraq, you have your squadmates and other soldiers watching out for you. in prision, it's whomever you befriend and you better hope they're on the up and up. In Iraq, you have guns, rifles, explosives, and armor. in prision, it's what you can make and what you can keep hidden. In Iraq, you can turn your back to your buddies and you know they will protect you to the best of their ability as you will protect them to the best of yours, in prison... well, you can keep your back to the wall, but not all the time...

but then, being jailed for DoD or AWOL or Disobediance is done in a military prison, not civilian.

Ah. These guys are being charged with breach of contract and conduct unbecoming, I think.

I glanced at the links - they all seemed to be refusing to go over there. If they received orders to shoot unarmed civilians or torture anyone, then I'd expect them to refuse.
That does not seem to be the case.

try again, here is what one soldier had said about shooting protesters...

Soldiers aren't supposed to question orders, but Mejia knew he couldn't live with himself if he continued fighting a war he believed to be unjust. That realization was partially motivated by an order to shoot at Iraqi protestors who, in Mejia's judgment, were too far away to harm troops.

"It was the first time I had fired at a human being," Mejia recalled. "I guess you could say it was my initiation at killing a human being. ... It was part of a general feeling that we had no right to be there, and every killing, whether provoked or not provoked, was unjustified because we had no right to be there."

All of the deaths were caused by the invasion.

Are you goin to blame the Kurdish deaths by gassing on the invasion too?:mad:

Are you goin to blame the Kurdish deaths by gassing on the invasion too?:mad:

Stop being disingenuous.

Deaths resulting from death squads and terrorist groups empowered by the invasion are just as much caused by the invasion as deaths resulting directly from the violence of the US military.

So what? You have no proof that their motive was cowardice.

And if it was, again, so what? There was no good reason for them to place their lives in harm's way, so their refusal to do so is perfectly justified.

Actually there was a good reason for them to do it they took a job swore an oath to do that job and accepted pay to do that job. I guess if you want to just let them off....they can repay all monies they accepted as well as any money spent on training them and money used to clote and feed them during their time of employment.....as well as heavey fines for breach of contract for failure to live up to their word and for taking a job under false pretenses.

Are you goin to blame the Kurdish deaths by gassing on the invasion too?:mad:

Well he isn't is he cos were talking about deaths since the invasion


He would probably blame the deaths by gassing on whoever was responsible
for 1 ordering it
and 2 providing the helicopters and weapons

Of course there will be no trial to determine who was responsible but most
people accept that it was 1 Saddam Hussein and 2 the US administration

Actually there was a good reason for them to do it they took a job swore an oath to do that job and accepted pay to do that job. I guess if you want to just let them off....they can repay all monies they accepted as well as any money spent on training them and money used to clote and feed them during their time of employment.....as well as heavey fines for breach of contract for failure to live up to their word and for taking a job under false pretenses.

I think we should give them medals instead.

People who avoid participation in immoral wars should not be punished. Period. Even if it involved oath-breaking. Not participating in mass slaughter trumps keeping oaths.

Not participating in mass slaughter trumps keeping oaths.

Every time.

*high-fives Soheran*

try again, here is what one soldier had said about shooting protesters...

Soldiers aren't supposed to question orders, but Mejia knew he couldn't live with himself if he continued fighting a war he believed to be unjust. That realization was partially motivated by an order to shoot at Iraqi protestors who, in Mejia's judgment, were too far away to harm troops.

"It was the first time I had fired at a human being," Mejia recalled. "I guess you could say it was my initiation at killing a human being. ... It was part of a general feeling that we had no right to be there, and every killing, whether provoked or not provoked, was unjustified because we had no right to be there."

Okay, I took a few minutes and read the links in depth. The SAS guy who resigned still has my respect - he did the right thing, he did his job and then resigned, as was his right.

But this Mejia guy is the worst of the lot. He goes on and on about the incident you cite above - but did he protest it at the time? Did he refuse it as an illegal order? He did not. Nor did he, as at least the other two did, state his position and accept whatever punishment was coming to him. He deserted.

They signed up to defend the United States, not to fight a war that we had no reason to start.

Actually many signed up for the benefits (GI bill, etc), escape from a crappy home.....

It's a tiny few that say "hey wait a minute....."

My friends and relatives that have been over there a couple times, that they don't particularly like it but they knew this could happen when they signed on.

Ah. These guys are being charged with breach of contract and conduct unbecoming, I think.
and as long as the punnishment fits the crime, I have no problem.

apparently neither of you bothered to read the links, refusing to be part of torturing prisoners and shooting civilians seems to be illegitimate reasons for refusal,....

The comparison to Nazi's and Nuremberg is ludicrous at best.

Actually many signed up for the benefits (GI bill, etc), escape from a crappy home.....

It's a tiny few that say "hey wait a minute....."

My friends and relatives that have been over there a couple times, that they don't particularly like it but they knew this could happen when they signed on.

I once told my friend that i would sign up for the Navy just to be stationed in Japan.



:D Well that and to be able to shop at the exchange and commisary... man I LOVE those prices, and our military personnel totally deserve to get those perks because they do what I do not have the courage to do myself.


Oh, and Arthais101, the Department of Defense was once called the WAR DEPARTMENT. our boys in uniform are not just for defense. They are to fight our enemies.

As strongly as I support our Troops, I must say that I hope that if they are convicted in the court marshalls that they'll recieve the maximum sentence by law. It's complete cowardice and defiant. Our Military not only is supposed to defend their country but to attack our enemies and also they are trained to obey orders. Soldiers do not give their superiors the orders. The military isn't set up to do as you please. There are many dirty jobs that need to be done. Nobody forced you to sign up, it's 100% Volunteer Army soon the Draft will be in place but as of now, it isn't no excuses and if they are found to be guilty I really hope they get the maximum sentence and that dishonoury discharge will hang with them for their entire pathetic lives.

As for this war being "illegal" I have yet seen any proof. Fact is, the USA is doing what the UN should have done many years ago when Saddam was thumbing his nose at the resolutions and sanctions even with the UN declaring "the right to use force if necessary" or maybe the UN thought to give Saddam another 10 years to change his ways and to comply. Maybe another 10 yrs on top of the first the UN just might be able to persuade Saddam to comply.

To all those who declare this to be an illegal war. I ask, Just when did the UN plan on backing up these so called resolutions and sanctions? When did they plan on to use the force necessary to put Iraq in compliance? Saddam already had more than a decade of telling the UN to f*** Off. 20yrs, maybe, or 30 years perhaps, how about 50 years, better yet why at all? :rolleyes:

As strongly as I support our Troops, I must say that I hope that if they are convicted in the court marshalls that they'll recieve the maximum sentence by law. It's complete cowardice and defiant. Our Military not only is supposed to defend their country but to attack our enemies and also they are trained to obey orders. Soldiers do not give their superiors the orders. The military isn't set up to do as you please. There are many dirty jobs that need to be done. Nobody forced you to sign up, it's 100% Volunteer Army soon the Draft will be in place but as of now, it isn't no excuses and if they are found to be guilty I really hope they get the maximum sentence and that dishonoury discharge will hang with them for their entire pathetic lives.

As for this war being "illegal" I have yet seen any proof. Fact is, the USA is doing what the UN should have done many years ago when Saddam was thumbing his nose at the resolutions and sanctions even with the UN declaring "the right to use force if necessary" or maybe the UN thought to give Saddam another 10 years to change his ways and to comply. Maybe another 10 yrs on top of the first the UN just might be able to persuade Saddam to comply.

To all those who declare this to be an illegal war. I ask, Just when did the UN plan on backing up these so called resolutions and sanctions? When did they plan on to use the force necessary to put Iraq in compliance? Saddam already had more than a decade of telling the UN to f*** Off. 20yrs, maybe, or 30 years perhaps, how about 50 years, better yet why at all? :rolleyes:

As strongly as I support our Troops, I must say that I hope that if they are convicted in the court marshalls that they'll recieve the maximum sentence by law. It's complete cowardice and defiant. Our Military not only is supposed to defend their country but to attack our enemies and also they are trained to obey orders. Soldiers do not give their superiors the orders. The military isn't set up to do as you please. There are many dirty jobs that need to be done. Nobody forced you to sign up, it's 100% Volunteer Army soon the Draft will be in place but as of now, it isn't no excuses and if they are found to be guilty I really hope they get the maximum sentence and that dishonoury discharge will hang with them for their entire pathetic lives.

As for this war being "illegal" I have yet seen any proof. Fact is, the USA is doing what the UN should have done many years ago when Saddam was thumbing his nose at the resolutions and sanctions even with the UN declaring "the right to use force if necessary" or maybe the UN thought to give Saddam another 10 years to change his ways and to comply. Maybe another 10 yrs on top of the first the UN just might be able to persuade Saddam to comply.

To all those who declare this to be an illegal war. I ask, Just when did the UN plan on backing up these so called resolutions and sanctions? When did they plan on to use the force necessary to put Iraq in compliance? Saddam already had more than a decade of telling the UN to f*** Off. 20yrs, maybe, or 30 years perhaps, how about 50 years, better yet why at all? :rolleyes:


No one who has not fought in the Iraq war, or being shipped there now, has any right to call these soldiers cowards. They signed up because they believed they would be defending the country from terrorists, not fighting a stupid and immoral war. You say that soldiers must obey orders. If you were at war in a country and your military commander ordered you to raze a village and kill every man, women, and child, would you? I wouldnt. And the soldiers who refused would be heroes and the ones that obeyed would be cowards (I am NOT calling the soldiers in Iraq cowards because the majority are not intentionally killing children). Basically what you are saying is "They didnt do what theyre told! They dare to think for themselves! The bastards!" Go off and fight if you truly think that they are cowards for refusing to do so.

No one who has not fought in the Iraq war, or being shipped there now, has any right to call these soldiers cowards. They signed up because they believed they would be defending the country from terrorists, not fighting a stupid and immoral war. You say that soldiers must obey orders. If you were at war in a country and your military commander ordered you to raze a village and kill every man, women, and child, would you? I wouldnt. And the soldiers who refused would be heroes and the ones that obeyed would be cowards (I am NOT calling the soldiers in Iraq cowards because the majority are not intentionally killing children). Basically what you are saying is "They didnt do what theyre told! They dare to think for themselves! The bastards!" Go off and fight if you truly think that they are cowards for refusing to do so.

Slythros, read the damn thread. These people are NOT being asked anything like the absurd hyperbole you've put forward.

As for thinking for themselves - guess what? YOU DON'T GET THAT OPTION IN THE MILITARY. Not on deployment orders, anyway. You don't get to choose who, where or how you fight. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE MILITARY, as it always has been, as it always will be.

I served two terms in the USMC. I was never called upon to go to war. If I had, I would have gone, as my oath and my word would have required of me. Anyone who refuses a deployment order to go to war is a coward and an oathbreaker.

Wrong. Its called people who don't want to go to war, and find any excuse not to. Mostly comprised of young people who joined up with their friends coaxing them on saying "C'mon! It'll be fun! And you'll probably never even have to fight!"

Wrong. Its called people who don't want to go to war, and find any excuse not to. Mostly comprised of young people who joined up with their friends coaxing them on saying "C'mon! It'll be fun! And you'll probably never even have to fight!"

Well, you do have a point. And I should remember the old maxim that one should never assume malice when stupidity is equally likely. But to call these people "heroes" is an insult to all of the people who have stood by their words and done their duty throughout human history.

It's a hard call. Can we truly be certain of their motives? On one hand, it's entirely possible that these soldiers feel the war is immoral and refuse to fight on that basis. It's also entirely possible that they're shitting themselves with fear of dying.

I don't any of us have the knowledge necessary to understand these people for who they really are. Do you know them personally?

Going against the grain, especially for a soldier, has got to take more courage than you're even giving them credit for. Are you in the military?

I'm not for or against these people. They're doing what they think they have to, whatever their motivation may be. Either way, they're being especially brave because they understand the consequences of refusing orders.

The comparison to Nazi's and Nuremberg is ludicrous at best.

what is ludicrous is the moment there is any criticism of the US military you put on your red white and blue sunglasses and deny the USA is capable of war crimes......torture, rape, murder, war's of aggression are all illegal, the numbers killed are irrelevant(though 600,000 estimated dead as a result of an illegal war is considerable)

To all those who declare this to be an illegal war. I ask, Just when did the UN plan on backing up these so called resolutions and sanctions? When did they plan on to use the force necessary to put Iraq in compliance? Saddam already had more than a decade of telling the UN to f*** Off. 20yrs, maybe, or 30 years perhaps, how about 50 years, better yet why at all?)-can we expect a US invasion of Israel anytime soon? how long has it been since the UN passed a resolution for Israel to leave the Occupied territories? 40 years.....

I don't think anyone would call the SAS officer a coward or oathbreaker, but to call him a hero may be a bit of a stretch. He probably does not feel like one. He probably feels pretty crappy about having to refuse an order.

But I've never talked to him. The British military did. This is what they said:

Instead, he was discharged with a testimonial describing him as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions".

Last night Patrick Mercer, the shadow minister for homeland security, said: "Trooper Griffin is a highly experienced soldier. This makes his decision particularly disturbing and his views and opinions must be listened to by the Government."
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/12/nsas12.xml

After reading the interview with Lt. Watada, I think I could say the same about him. He has not gone AWOL, nor has he deserted. He has expressed his feelings openly, and is willing to face the consequences of his actions.

Unfortunately, the US military seems intent on prohibiting or proscribing Lt. Watada's right to free speech by subpoenaing the journalist who recorded his opinions.
In her words:
It seems clear that the US Army is attempting to redefine the parameters of acceptable speech and to classify dissent as a punishable offense. Subpoenaing journalists in this case unequivocally sends the message that dissent is neither tolerated nor permitted. Utilize your constitutionally guaranteed speech rights and go to prison. What rational soldier would agree to speak with me or any other member of the media if jail was a likely result?
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Olson04.htm

Malcolm Kendall Smith is also an Iraq veteran who refused to return after lengthy legal consultation. Here are his words:
"I have been convicted and sentenced, a very distressing experience. But I still believe I was right to make the stand that I did and refuse to follow orders to deploy to Iraq - orders I believe were illegal. I am resigned to what may happen to me in the next few months. I shall remain resilient and true to my beliefs which, I believe, are shared by so many others.
Iraq was the only reason I could not follow the order to deploy. As a commissioned officer, I am required to consider every order given to me. Further, I am required to consider the legality of such an order not only as to its effect on domestic but also international law. I was subjected, as was the entire population, to propaganda depicting force against Iraq to be lawful. I have studied in very great depth the various commentaries and briefing notes, including one prepared by the Attorney General, and in particular the main note to the PM dated 7 March 2003. I have satisfied myself that the actions of the armed forces with the deployment of troops were an illegal act - as indeed was the conflict. To comply with an order that I believe unlawful places me in breach of domestic and international law, something I am not prepared to do.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a campaign of imperial military conquest and falls into the category of criminal acts. I would have had criminal responsibility vicariously if I had gone to Iraq. I still have two great loves in life - medicine and the RAF. To take the decision that I did caused great sadness, but I had no other choice."

He may not be a hero, but he is no coward.

And that leaves poor Mejia: I am undecided about him.
here is an interview with him, and commentary by his commanding officer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/29/60II/main609216.shtml

what is ludicrous is the moment there is any criticism of the US military you put on your red white and blue sunglasses and deny the USA is capable of war crimes......torture, rape, murder, war's of aggression are all illegal, the numbers killed are irrelevant(though 600,000 estimated dead as a result of an illegal war is considerable)

)-can we expect a US invasion of Israel anytime soon? how long has it been since the UN passed a resolution for Israel to leave the Occupied territories? 40 years.....

This war is not illegal. It is ill-considered, badly led, badly conceived and being run by a moron, but it is not illegal.

The US had a valid casus belli. They had an enforceable UN resolution authorizing the action, which the UN did not rescind. The reasons given the American people for it were manifestly false, but this could not have been proved prior to entry - and does not invalidate the congressional agreement.

There are very many things to criticize about this war. It's legality, however, is not one of them.