NationStates Jolt Archive

Active-duty soldiers, sailors, and Marines speak out against the conflict in Iraq.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

Guess what? Won't happen unless the President calls them home. Congress will not do a damn thing.

BTW: fix the link.

Guess what? Won't happen unless the President calls them home. Congress will not do a damn thing.

BTW: fix the link.
Link works just fine......

And yes it will happen......hopefully sooner then later. Bush is acting like a spoiled brat trying to hold on to his toys.......the IT'S MINE mentality. Sad really!!

Link works just fine......

And yes it will happen......hopefully sooner then later. Bush is acting like a spoiled brat trying to hold on to his toys.......the IT'S MINE mentality. Sad really!!

Oh we'll leave sooner or later but it will most certainly be later than people think. They won't cut funding for the politicians know that if they did, there will be such a backlash against it that they'll be swept right out of power and the one thing politicians want is to be re-elected and cutting funding to the troops over in Iraq will sweep them right back out.

Oh we'll leave sooner or later but it will most certainly be later than people think. They won't cut funding for the politicians know that if they did, there will be such a backlash against it that they'll be swept right out of power and the one thing politicians want is to be re-elected and cutting funding to the troops over in Iraq will sweep them right back out.
Ummmmm I thought most of them got elected to actually bring the troops home??

Ummmmm I thought most of them got elected to actually bring the troops home??

Sorry but there were alot of republican scandels that hurt the party not to mention comments by several people that cost them the election. Let us not include shoddy campaigning as well.

More things went into the mid-term elections than just the Iraq War. Scandels being among the top.

Ummmmm I thought most of them got elected to actually bring the troops home??

Yes, but cutting funding woun't do that it will just mean that they have worse equipment, which considering how badly that has been flubbed in this conflict is saying something. I mean do you honnestly believe that Bush will recall the troops just because he suddenly doesn't have the money to equip them properly? I mean what has he done to make anyone have that much faith in him. So while the people do want the troops home, thye don't want them to be getting killed do to lack of funds, which is exactly how the Bush administration will spin it.

Yes, but cutting funding woun't do that it will just mean that they have worse equipment, which considering how badly that has been flubbed in this conflict is saying something. I mean do you honnestly believe that Bush will recall the troops just because he suddenly doesn't have the money to equip them properly? I mean what has he done to make anyone have that much faith in him. So while the people do want the troops home, thye don't want them to be getting killed do to lack of funds, which is exactly how the Bush administration will spin it.

Actually the Republican National Committee will spin it that way and they'll be right in doing so and it will chalk up the main reason why the military votes republican.

Actually the Republican National Committee will spin it that way and they'll be right in doing so and it will chalk up the main reason why the military votes republican.

And unfortunately this is exactly what is happening. The Air Force is cutting thousands of personnel to raise money for equipment, which is causing all sorts of other issues. Don't even get me started. And on top of all this, we're being asked to fill Army billets, because the Army lacks the manpower. So we're filling far more jobs than we actually have the people to accomplish. Tell me how that works. Not as many military vote Republican as you think, and I would not be shocked at all to see a Democrat as the next president. (And yes, I've actually heard some of my co-workers openly back Hilary, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

Actually the Republican National Committee will spin it that way and they'll be right in doing so and it will chalk up the main reason why the military votes republican.Which is why I don't wan't them to cut funds, it just plays into the Republicans hands.

Which is why I don't wan't them to cut funds, it just plays into the Republicans hands.

I don't want funding cut period, regardless of hands it plays into. The Military should not be a political tool but unfortunately, it is.

I don't want funding cut period, regardless of hands it plays into. The Military should not be a political tool but unfortunately, it is.
Your Bush-ke-bob made the military his political toy as I alluded to earlier. He should do the right thing and bring them home!! Pronto!!

And unfortunately this is exactly what is happening. The Air Force is cutting thousands of personnel to raise money for equipment, which is causing all sorts of other issues. Don't even get me started. And on top of all this, we're being asked to fill Army billets, because the Army lacks the manpower. So we're filling far more jobs than we actually have the people to accomplish. Tell me how that works. Not as many military vote Republican as you think, and I would not be shocked at all to see a Democrat as the next president. (And yes, I've actually heard some of my co-workers openly back Hilary, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

Except those cuts are mandated by Congressional limits on end strength and have little to do with raising money. The proposed budget cuts only save an estimated $1.8 billion, which isn't a lot when F-22s run about $200 million each. Not to mention that all the services had been planning to down size as part of Rumsfield's emphasis on more agile and deployable forces, though the Army and Marines may end up increasing, which is good. Besides the Air Force would save more far more money if it close smaller bases and retire some of its older aircraft, but Congress won't of it because that costs their districts jobs and money and that's one thing they won't do. If you want to assign blame for budget problems, look to Congress.

AF cuts (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83524,00.html)

Another article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx/id/14926389/wid/6448213/)

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

While I'm not in the least a fan of the war, I disagree with the implicit statement of "the soldiers are against the war, bring them home". Under no circumstances should national policy ever be effected by the desires of the military. To do so would erode the principle of civil control over the military even more than it already is.

edit: To clarify, there are lots of reasons to bring them home, but their opinion on the war isn't one of them.

Your Bush-ke-bob made the military his political toy as I alluded to earlier. He should do the right thing and bring them home!! Pronto!!

Bush is not the only one that turned the military into their political toy.

Oh we'll leave sooner or later but it will most certainly be later than people think. They won't cut funding for the politicians know that if they did, there will be such a backlash against it that they'll be swept right out of power and the one thing politicians want is to be re-elected and cutting funding to the troops over in Iraq will sweep them right back out.

You are aware they could bring your troops back without cutting funding, right?

You are aware they could bring your troops back without cutting funding, right?

There's always the flibuster card which will probably be played in the situation you are refering to. That would be an even worse decision for Congress for the same reason as trying to cut funding.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

These soldiers don't support the troops, and it's a plot by the liberal media.

If these soldiers hate America and the troops so much why don't they go and see how much they like living in Iraq?

There's always the flibuster card which will probably be played in the situation you are refering to. That would be an even worse decision for Congress for the same reason as trying to cut funding.

I can't see a politician getting re-elected after he/she filibustered an attempt to bring the troops home. It's just too easy to spin against them, it's be political suicide.

I can't see a politician getting re-elected after he/she filibustered an attempt to bring the troops home. It's just too easy to spin against them, it's be political suicide.

Its political suicide regardless if its voted for or filibustered. Why do you think they passed NON-BINDING resolutions? Because they know that if they made binding ones, they'd be swept out of office.

These soldiers don't support the troops, and it's a plot by the liberal media.

If these soldiers hate America and the troops so much why don't they go and see how much they like living in Iraq?

This is sarcasm right?

Ummmmm I thought most of them got elected to actually bring the troops home??

If the House and Senate do try to recall the troops, then we'll doubtlessly have the President challenging the War Powers Act in the courts. If that happens, then we're faced with a genuine Constitutional quandry, and that's not fun, there. Is it precious?

If the House and Senate do try to recall the troops, then we'll doubtlessly have the President challenging the War Powers Act in the courts. If that happens, then we're faced with a genuine Constitutional quandry, and that's not fun, there. Is it precious?
Perhaps the problem is making someone a "Commander in Chief" just because they win an election??? I honestly believe that Bush would lose badly at a simple game of chess.....he certainly has failed at eveything else in life.

Where are the "checks and balances" in the system?

Perhaps the problem is making someone a "Commander in Chief" just because they win an election??? I honestly believe that Bush would lose badly at a simple game of chess.....he certainly has failed at eveything else in life.

Where are the "checks and balances" in the system?

Its called the Constitution of the United States:

]The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respected Offices and he shall have Power to Grant reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

If you have a problem with it CH, take it up with the Founding Fathers when you meet them.

Bush's going bye bye soon. Those elected say they'll bring them out but who realli believes that?

If the House and Senate do try to recall the troops, then we'll doubtlessly have the President challenging the War Powers Act in the courts. If that happens, then we're faced with a genuine Constitutional quandry, and that's not fun, there. Is it precious?

A challenge to the war powers act would lead to a very entertaining visit to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, and 14, (and possibly 16, as the NG is involved) of the constitution. SCOTUS has never ruled on the vaugueries between declaring and making war. I suspect (and hope) they would come down on the strict constitutional side and force congress to take back powers they have unconstitutionally (IMO) ceeded to the executive. It would be nice to have the checks and balances more, well, balanced! :cool:

While I'm not in the least a fan of the war, I disagree with the implicit statement of "the soldiers are against the war, bring them home". Under no circumstances should national policy ever be effected by the desires of the military. To do so would erode the principle of civil control over the military even more than it already is.

edit: To clarify, there are lots of reasons to bring them home, but their opinion on the war isn't one of them.

I'll have to say that's a fine line, and I think your position is just slightly on the wrong side of it. If it were simply "we don't want to go to war - period", then yes, I'd agree. But my understanding of the rising objections within the military are more along the lines of "this 'war' is unwinnable, and there are more imortant concerns out there." (I couldn't get CH's link up either, but am familiar with the rising objections in general.)

Certainly the civilian leadership must make the ultimate decision, but completely disregarding the opinion of the military on matters of strategy to the point of functionally firing generals who simply raise objections is just as bad as, or possibly worse than, slavishly following it.

A challenge to the war powers act would lead to a very entertaining visit to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, and 14, (and possibly 16, as the NG is involved) of the constitution.

And Article 2 Section 2 clause 1 as well.

Its called the Constitution of the United States:

Yes indeed. And the portion I quoted above specifically gives the power to declare war to congress, which has illegally ceeded it to the presidency, as far as I can tell.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respected Offices and he shall have Power to Grant reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That merely allows the president to direct the operations of warfare. It certainly does not grant the president the power to declare war. Congresses control over going to war has been eroded over time, and I would be happy to see this matter settled in favor of congress (even if they don't want it) by a strict constructionist SCOTUS. Those powers are as much about obligation as they are about freedoms.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

You can always find an unhappy soldier. Hell, some of my early letters from Desert Shield would have sounded much the same. Leave it to 60 Minutes to only show that minority.

And Article 2 Section 2 clause 1 as well.

I do believe you missed my point. See my post addressing that which should be immediately above.

Yes indeed. And the portion I quoted above specifically gives the power to declare war to congress, which has illegally ceeded it to the presidency, as far as I can tell.

You are right that Congress has to declare war but in retrospect, and a case can be made, that they did that when they gave the President permission to use force against Iraq.

That merely allows the president to direct the operations of warfare.

And to move forces about the world.

It certainly does not grant the president the power to declare war. Congresses control over going to war has been eroded over time, and I would be happy to see this matter settled in favor of congress (even if they don't want it) by a strict constructionist SCOTUS. Those powers are as much about obligation as they are about freedoms.

I agree.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

Speaking as a soldier who has been there, while I may not want to be there and may not want any of my fellow soldiers there. For every soldier that is shown on that 60 min program you can probably find one maybe two that think "while we do not want to be there, we do want to finish the job before we leave and leave the Iraqis with their chance at living their own lives".
As always I wonder why the media will always show one side but they will not show the other, like the good things we do over there, the soldiers who think that what they are doing makes a difference. Why is it they only show one side of the issue?

Speaking as a soldier who has been there, while I may not want to be there and may not want any of my fellow soldiers there. For every soldier that is shown on that 60 min program you can probably find one maybe two that think "while we do not want to be there, we do want to finish the job before we leave and leave the Iraqis with their chance at living their own lives".
As always I wonder why the media will always show one side but they will not show the other, like the good things we do over there, the soldiers who think that what they are doing makes a difference. Why is it they only show one side of the issue?

Because the Media wants ratings and to post both sides will not give them the ratings that they want even though showing both sides is proper journalism.

You can always find an unhappy soldier. Hell, some of my early letters from Desert Shield would have sounded much the same. Leave it to 60 Minutes to only show that minority.

Speaking as a soldier who has been there, while I may not want to be there and may not want any of my fellow soldiers there. For every soldier that is shown on that 60 min program you can probably find one maybe two that think "while we do not want to be there, we do want to finish the job before we leave and leave the Iraqis with their chance at living their own lives".
As always I wonder why the media will always show one side but they will not show the other, like the good things we do over there, the soldiers who think that what they are doing makes a difference. Why is it they only show one side of the issue?

Indeed, indeed, although I have a distinct impression the feeling is actually tipping, it is for sure the "god given right" of every US military man to bitch and moan. :D And the media does grab ahold and run with it well beyond the exageration zone. The combination does give a somewhat false impression.

While I'm not in the least a fan of the war, I disagree with the implicit statement of "the soldiers are against the war, bring them home". Under no circumstances should national policy ever be effected by the desires of the military. To do so would erode the principle of civil control over the military even more than it already is.

edit: To clarify, there are lots of reasons to bring them home, but their opinion on the war isn't one of them.

well said my friend.

Because the Media wants ratings and to post both sides will not give them the ratings that they want even though showing both sides is proper journalism.

Too true and so very sad.

You are right that Congress has to declare war but in retrospect, and a case can be made, that they did that when they gave the President permission to use force against Iraq.

The case may indeed be made, but a proper declaration of war was certainly not made.

I find it funny/odd that there's even an argument that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional for restricting the presidents power, when it clearly ceeds congressional power to the executive. The Constitution is, to my understanding, very clear that the president must have congresses approval to decalre war. The War Powers Act at it's very essence gives the executive full power to declare war which congress must then give approval for.

I see that, congresses "approval" of the Iraq war without a proper declaration of war, and the current pursuit of said war without a declaration of war as being strictly unconstitutitonal.

Except those cuts are mandated by Congressional limits on end strength and have little to do with raising money. The proposed budget cuts only save an estimated $1.8 billion, which isn't a lot when F-22s run about $200 million each. Not to mention that all the services had been planning to down size as part of Rumsfield's emphasis on more agile and deployable forces, though the Army and Marines may end up increasing, which is good. Besides the Air Force would save more far more money if it close smaller bases and retire some of its older aircraft, but Congress won't of it because that costs their districts jobs and money and that's one thing they won't do. If you want to assign blame for budget problems, look to Congress.

AF cuts (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83524,00.html)

Another article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx/id/14926389/wid/6448213/)

I'm not trying to blame senior leadership for money problems. It's because of Congressional budget cuts that all this is happening. Yes, reduction in force strength and all that, but a large driving internal force for the massive RIF hitting the officer ranks now is to save money for better toys. And it's affecting morale. The unfortunate fact is that there's nothing we can really do about it. Just from the position and exposure I've had I can see half a dozen ways to save money as opposed to cutting the numbers we're looking at cutting, but the problem lies higher than even a 4 star decision.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,468740,00.html
Casualties of Conscience

As criticism of the Iraq war grows at home, some US soldiers abroad are rejecting Bush's mission. On military bases across Germany, many are now seeking a way out through desertion or early discharge.

Interesting story there.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,468740,00.html


Interesting story there.
I second that.

(Aw man - I read that this afternoon and then the browser crashed and I forgot posting it... Glad you did!)

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

If only the world has some sense...

Yes, but cutting funding woun't do that it will just mean that they have worse equipment, which considering how badly that has been flubbed in this conflict is saying something.

I can't believe how bad the media has gotten that one wrong. There has to be some journalistic standard against outright lying. Our equipment is top of the line. Our inteceptor body armor can stop a 7.62 just fine. Believe me. When i was in iraq i had the great fortune to take one in my upper right abdomen. It hurt like nothing i had ever felt before and i was bed ridden for a few days but I was able to go on patrol a week later. A few pogue's said that they didn't have enough armor and the media went crazy. So we ended up getting more armor than we cared to wear. Our gear was heavy as it was. Especially for an 6 hour foot patrol. You can't move w/ the extra plates that we got.

Speaking as a soldier who has been there, while I may not want to be there and may not want any of my fellow soldiers there. For every soldier that is shown on that 60 min program you can probably find one maybe two that think "while we do not want to be there, we do want to finish the job before we leave and leave the Iraqis with their chance at living their own lives".
As always I wonder why the media will always show one side but they will not show the other, like the good things we do over there, the soldiers who think that what they are doing makes a difference. Why is it they only show one side of the issue?

QFT

Ummmmm I thought most of them got elected to actually bring the troops home??

Since when do politicians keep their promises? The rat bastards will say anything to get elected.

Speaking as a soldier who has been there, while I may not want to be there and may not want any of my fellow soldiers there. For every soldier that is shown on that 60 min program you can probably find one maybe two that think "while we do not want to be there, we do want to finish the job before we leave and leave the Iraqis with their chance at living their own lives".
As always I wonder why the media will always show one side but they will not show the other, like the good things we do over there, the soldiers who think that what they are doing makes a difference. Why is it they only show one side of the issue?

Our very presence is the catalyst of most of the bloodshed. There will never be peace in Iraq as long as we're there.

Our very presence is the catalyst of most of the bloodshed. There will never be peace in Iraq as long as we're there.

Most of the violence is iraq on iraqi. IDK but i've never heard an iraqi say, "you know if these damn americans would leave then i wouldn't have to kill my neighbor who has no connection to them." or "you know if these americans weren't here i wouldn't have to kidnap that person and demand a ransom." Your logic fails completely.

Most of the violence is iraq on iraqi. IDK but i've never heard an iraqi say, "you know if these damn americans would leave then i wouldn't have to kill my neighbor who has no connection to them." or "you know if these americans weren't here i wouldn't have to kidnap that person and demand a ransom." Your logic fails completely.

Logic says that they wern't killing each other in huge numbers before you arrived. Wheres your logic now?

Logic says that they wern't killing each other in huge numbers before you arrived. Wheres your logic now?

Well, they could have been kept in line by the iron fist of a sadistic, dictatorial madman, but don't let that get in the way of your America-bashing.

Logic says that they wern't killing each other in huge numbers before you arrived. Wheres your logic now?

My logic would be that
1) Yes they were. The killing was just monopolized by the gov't.

and

2) Us leaving will not end the violence but actually will do the opposite.

Us leaving will not end the violence but actually will do the opposite.

The opposite, you say - what, so leaving will start the peace?

Sounds good to me.

Get the fuck outta there, awreddy!

The opposite, you say - what, so leaving will start the peace?

Sounds good to me.

Get the fuck outta there, awreddy!

The opposite of stop the fighting is not start the peace at all. That is a double negative but in the end its just semantics. Overall poor effort. D-.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!


America.......KEEP THEM THERE!

My logic would be that
1) Yes they were. The killing was just monopolized by the gov't.

and

2) Us leaving will not end the violence but actually will do the opposite.



QUOTED FOR MOTHERFUCKING TRUTH!

The opposite of stop the fighting is not start the peace at all. That is a double negative but in the end its just semantics. Overall poor effort. D-.

Didn't seem worth more of an effort than I put into my response. Mitigating factor, D- upgraded to C+. Which incidentally is a tasty, if cloying, beverage.

Didn't seem worth more of an effort than I put into my response. Mitigating factor, D- upgraded to C+. Which incidentally is a tasty, if cloying, beverage.

I want to disagree with you but who can say no to that.:D

Sorry but there were alot of republican scandels that hurt the party not to mention comments by several people that cost them the election. Let us not include shoddy campaigning as well.

More things went into the mid-term elections than just the Iraq War. Scandels being among the top.

You spelt scandal wrong.

You spelt scandal wrong.

you spelled spelled wrong.

you spelled spelled wrong.

Spelt is acceptable.

Soldiers speak out (http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407)

America......bring them home!!

Aye

Well, I dont really care about the who's, why's, or hows. The fact is, America isnt going to win in Iraq. The insurgency is already so far out of control that its approaching the power of the Vietcong. Plainly, the US military isnt good enought to beat guerrilas. No standing army is. No matter how much the NeoCons bitch and yell about how we need to stay the course, it doesnt matter. Wether we pull out today, or in 100 years the story will be the same. America is going to lose this war. Thats the simple fact of it. Suck it up cuz thats the way it is. Go-ahead, keep railing on about how 'Merica has to force our way of life on Iraq- And then in 70 years watch how your GREAT GRANDSONS are going off to the same bloody battlefield. The guerrilas greatest aset is time. Thier time is infinate- they can fight us forever. FOREVER. The west, our time is in terms of days and hours. We can fight awesomely and kick ass- but we're too out of shape for a long fight, and theres no going back now. Go Home GI-

How are you, GI Joe? It seems to me that most of you are poorly informed about the going of the war, to say nothing about a correct explanation of your presence over here. Nothing is more confused than to be ordered into a war to die or to be maimed for life without the faintest idea of what's going on. - Hanoi Hanna.

A challenge to the war powers act would lead to a very entertaining visit to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, and 14, (and possibly 16, as the NG is involved) of the constitution. SCOTUS has never ruled on the vaugueries between declaring and making war. I suspect (and hope) they would come down on the strict constitutional side and force congress to take back powers they have unconstitutionally (IMO) ceeded to the executive. It would be nice to have the checks and balances more, well, balanced! :cool:
Better balanced indeed!! :)

I'll have to say that's a fine line, and I think your position is just slightly on the wrong side of it. If it were simply "we don't want to go to war - period", then yes, I'd agree. But my understanding of the rising objections within the military are more along the lines of "this 'war' is unwinnable, and there are more imortant concerns out there." (I couldn't get CH's link up either, but am familiar with the rising objections in general.)
I agree.

The link seems to still be working:

http://www.yahoo.com/s/517407

Certainly the civilian leadership must make the ultimate decision, but completely disregarding the opinion of the military on matters of strategy to the point of functionally firing generals who simply raise objections is just as bad as, or possibly worse than, slavishly following it.
Certainment monsieur!!

If only the world has some sense...
Yes this world does need some sense and Iraq has been non sense from the moment Bush declared war on Iraq. Iraq has been a huge blunder for the US and it continues to get worse the longer US troops stay.

Well, they could have been kept in line by the iron fist of a sadistic, dictatorial madman, but don't let that get in the way of your America-bashing.
Yeah, it is far better for the US to create a war that leads to the deaths of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands by other sources) innocent Iraqis :rolleyes: and for what purpose??????

BTW, it is Bush bashing, not America bashing!!

QUOTED FOR MOTHERFUCKING TRUTH!
Easy to see why you named your nation UnHoly Smite. :p

Yeah, it is far better for the US to create a war that leads to the deaths of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands by other sources) innocent Iraqis :rolleyes: and for what purpose??????

BTW, it is Bush bashing, not America bashing!!

QFT, especially the bolded part.

Wait, I thought it was wrong for the military to speak out against the President, or his policies...

Am I wrong?

Well, I dont really care about the who's, why's, or hows. The fact is, America isnt going to win in Iraq. The insurgency is already so far out of control that its approaching the power of the Vietcong. Plainly, the US military isnt good enought to beat guerrilas. No standing army is. No matter how much the NeoCons bitch and yell about how we need to stay the course, it doesnt matter. Wether we pull out today, or in 100 years the story will be the same. America is going to lose this war. Thats the simple fact of it. Suck it up cuz thats the way it is. Go-ahead, keep railing on about how 'Merica has to force our way of life on Iraq- And then in 70 years watch how your GREAT GRANDSONS are going off to the same bloody battlefield. The guerrilas greatest aset is time. Thier time is infinate- they can fight us forever. FOREVER. The west, our time is in terms of days and hours. We can fight awesomely and kick ass- but we're too out of shape for a long fight, and theres no going back now. Go Home GI-

How are you, GI Joe? It seems to me that most of you are poorly informed about the going of the war, to say nothing about a correct explanation of your presence over here. Nothing is more confused than to be ordered into a war to die or to be maimed for life without the faintest idea of what's going on. - Hanoi Hanna.

Spoken like someone who's knowledge of military history is somewhat lacking. By the end of the Vietnam War the VC had virtually ceased to exist as a credible fighting force, Tet was a military catastrophe for them that nearly completely exhausted their fighting ability. The NVA carried the brunt of the fighting from then on and was aided by political and diplomatic concerns that kept the US from really hurting them. Fear of Soviet intervention kept the US from bombing both Hanoi harbor and the major supply lines coming out of the city. The Soviet supplies flowing through Hanoi kept the NVA and VC in the field the entire war. It doesn't matter how strong your will to fight is, if your supply lines are cut you lose.

Also there are several instances of regular armies defeating guerillas. Read up on El Salvador, any of India's COIN operations, and in more modern times the Nepalese Army forcing Maoist rebels into peace talks.

Spoken like someone who's knowledge of military history is somewhat lacking. By the end of the Vietnam War the VC had virtually ceased to exist as a credible fighting force, Tet was a military catastrophe for them that nearly completely exhausted their fighting ability. The NVA carried the brunt of the fighting from then on and was aided by political and diplomatic concerns that kept the US from really hurting them. Fear of Soviet intervention kept the US from bombing both Hanoi harbor and the major supply lines coming out of the city. The Soviet supplies flowing through Hanoi kept the NVA and VC in the field the entire war. It doesn't matter how strong your will to fight is, if your supply lines are cut you lose.

Also there are several instances of regular armies defeating guerillas. Read up on El Salvador, any of India's COIN operations, and in more modern times the Nepalese Army forcing Maoist rebels into peace talks.


No, no, no. Your knowlege of military history is lacking my freind. First of all, the VC ceased to exsist after 68!?!?! wow, you certainly know nothing of Vietnam. Sure they took one hell of a beating during tet, but they were able to resurge- Infact they had a second 'tet" type offensive being planned in 71, and has just as much supplies and resources together for another one, however a luck US search and destroy mission succsesful destroyed tons of VC supplies and the offensive was cancelled. And if the VC were so effectivley defeated? how was my boss at work shot TWICE by VC in 1972, he was a marine in the Quang Tri province and he encountered many VC and NVA there. And dont take me as such a fool or him, he knows the difference between the 2.

Now, you are CLOSE about the supply lines, however even if we were able to cut them from the north, they would've simply established supply routes elswere and would continue to recive supplies other than through the harbour. YOU CANT WIN A WAR JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUPERIOR FIRE POWER!

Obviously, I know sheer will, cannot win you the war. However, when you combine that will to fight forever, with guerrilla tactics, *with support of the populace*- that is the key winner for the guerrila, and with a supplier ( what! Iran, Syria! yeah, thats right- try to close that border.) and god knows who else like Al-Queda and other organizations. You cant beat it. The US will not beat the Iraqi Insurgency. Come give me a visit in oh lets say 10 years after America has lost the war and I will show you how and why.

QFT

Who were you with and when? I was assigned to 2nd MarDiv for 5 months in 2005 and 1stMarDiv for a month. based out of Combat Outpost on the north side of Ramadi in Al-Anbar province.

Our very presence is the catalyst of most of the bloodshed. There will never be peace in Iraq as long as we're there.

If that is what you beleive then you are mistaken, but that is your right. When you have been to Iraq and worked with and talked to the people first hand then come back to me and I will listen to your opinion with more acceptance. I worked with Kurds and Shias in the Balad Area, Sunnis in the Tikrit Area and Sunnis in Al-Anbar province. The majority of people want us ther and thank us for helping and for giving them a chance to decide their own fate. Those who push the bloodshed are outsiders mostly who fear a free and string Iraq in the middle east. There are too many other muslim countries in the Middle east afraid to lose the power they now have to a stable Iraq and so they are more then willing to send and or encourage their own violent radicals to go there and cause trouble. The thing is even with us gone they will continue to cause the trouble until you see the most powerful of antagonists in the Middle east either in control of all of Iraq or a portion.....Iran and Syria would love to split the country between them.

So until you come back to me and talk from first hand knowledge I can not listen to your opinion in good conscience. I have seen too much good preformed over there to beleive the propganda and lies you repeat like they were gospel.

Logic says that they wern't killing each other in huge numbers before you arrived. Wheres your logic now?

Right those 5000 kurds in one village killed with Mustard gas did it to themselves right? The sunnis under Saddam were killing Shias and Kurds and sunnis who did not agree left and right all the time. I have some videos of Saddams execution methods that you might just find atrocious duct taping a hand grenade to a mans chest and pulling the pin is barbaric. But hey that does not fit with your logic does it?

Spelt is acceptable.

No it is not, if you are correcting other peoples spelling make sure your spelling and grammer are both correct.

No, no, no. Your knowlege of military history is lacking my freind. First of all, the VC ceased to exsist after 68!?!?! wow, you certainly know nothing of Vietnam. Sure they took one hell of a beating during tet, but they were able to resurge- Infact they had a second 'tet" type offensive being planned in 71, and has just as much supplies and resources together for another one, however a luck US search and destroy mission succsesful destroyed tons of VC supplies and the offensive was cancelled. And if the VC were so effectivley defeated? how was my boss at work shot TWICE by VC in 1972, he was a marine in the Quang Tri province and he encountered many VC and NVA there. And dont take me as such a fool or him, he knows the difference between the 2.

Now, you are CLOSE about the supply lines, however even if we were able to cut them from the north, they would've simply established supply routes elswere and would continue to recive supplies other than through the harbour. YOU CANT WIN A WAR JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUPERIOR FIRE POWER!

Obviously, I know sheer will, cannot win you the war. However, when you combine that will to fight forever, with guerrilla tactics, *with support of the populace*- that is the key winner for the guerrila, and with a supplier ( what! Iran, Syria! yeah, thats right- try to close that border.) and god knows who else like Al-Queda and other organizations. You cant beat it. The US will not beat the Iraqi Insurgency. Come give me a visit in oh lets say 10 years after America has lost the war and I will show you how and why.

First all try reading my damn post before spouting off. I said "the VC had virtually ceased to exist as a credible fighting force" not that they didn't exist, there's a big difference there. You can can never kill any military force completely off (well I guess nukes could) but you can render them militarily ineffective. The VC were still around but the bulk of the fighting in the end stage of the war was by NVA units operating either as conventional forces (in which case they were usually decimated or as guerilla units).

Second, closing Hanoi Harbor effectively stops ALL supplies from flowing from the Soviets. Because their own infastructure had been so effectively mauled by operation Linebacker they were completely dependent on Soviet supplies.

Third, Iran and Syria are nothing compared to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were a true global superpower. Iran and Syria are aren't even true regional powers and the amount of support they give the Iraqi insurgency is just a drop compared to what the Soviets sent to Vietnam.

Finally, you don't seem to understand what the Iraqi Insurgency even is. There is no monolithic movement with a common goal and ideology like the VC was. This is dozens, if not hundreds, of loosely aligned factions temporarily united in opposition to the US. They've attacked each other before and they will continue to do so. What's your definition of insurgent "victory"? The Sunni militias, which re the most anti-American, want either a return to Ba'athism or a Sunni theocracy, neither of those will happen since Sunnis are less than 19% of Iraq's population. Saddam held power by ruthlessly exercising force, with mechanisms now destroyed Sunni rule is over. The US could leave tomorrow and allow a Shia/Kurd alliance to level the Anbar Province and the insurgency would pretty much die right there. The US has committed itself to establishing some form of democracy in Iraq and may very well succeed, but that option is always available should the US choose to exercise it.

So, I have a question for those of you who support staying in this god-forsaken war. What is your ultimate idea? really? you say we have to continue to stay but to do what? what are you trying to accomplish? do you really think the Insurgency is going to be defeated? Because its not going to be. Its going to go on forever, or as long as you are there. What is your goal? To prevent an Iraqi civil war that is inevitable? You know that the US military does not have the power to turn everything to good in that nation. The US does not have the power to the above things. If we did it would've been done already. Its been 4 years, does it have to go on for another 6 like Nam before we realise we arent going to win? I know its a shitty thing to do but we should leave- because staying there is only draining our own resources and lives, and its only delaying the inevitable. As soon as we leave that New Iraqi Army is going to end up just like the ARVN at the hands of the NVA. Eventually the nation is going to split up, or a dictator, or a theocratic government will take power and it will all be for nothing.

If that is what you beleive then you are mistaken, but that is your right. When you have been to Iraq...

I'll be honest, I have never been to Iraq.

First all try reading my damn post before spouting off. I said "the VC had virtually ceased to exist as a credible fighting force" not that they didn't exist, there's a big difference there. You can can never kill any military force completely off (well I guess nukes could) but you can render them militarily ineffective. The VC were still around but the bulk of the fighting in the end stage of the war was by NVA units operating either as conventional forces (in which case they were usually decimated or as guerilla units).

Second, closing Hanoi Harbor effectively stops ALL supplies from flowing from the Soviets. Because their own infastructure had been so effectively mauled by operation Linebacker they were completely dependent on Soviet supplies.

Third, Iran and Syria are nothing compared to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were a true global superpower. Iran and Syria are aren't even true regional powers and the amount of support they give the Iraqi insurgency is just a drop compared to what the Soviets sent to Vietnam.

Finally, you don't seem to understand what the Iraqi Insurgency even is. There is no monolithic movement with a common goal and ideology like the VC was. This is dozens, if not hundreds, of loosely aligned factions temporarily united in opposition to the US. They've attacked each other before and they will continue to do so. What's your definition of insurgent "victory"? The Sunni militias, which re the most anti-American, want either a return to Ba'athism or a Sunni theocracy, neither of those will happen since Sunnis are less than 19% of Iraq's population. Saddam held power by ruthlessly exercising force, with mechanisms now destroyed Sunni rule is over. The US could leave tomorrow and allow a Shia/Kurd alliance to level the Anbar Province and the insurgency would pretty much die right there. The US has committed itself to establishing some form of democracy in Iraq and may very well succeed, but that option is always available should the US choose to exercise it.

uh huh- Well you are definetly right about the part I embolded- Now about North vietnam, yeah, ok so you bomb the harbor- big fucking deal. China is strait to the north pouring in supplies as well, and the soviets could still send supplies through here. If you dissagree then explain to me how several hundred PLA were killed during the war?

True the Iraqi Insurgency isnt as powerful as the VC. this is obvious. The VC killed way way more US soldiers than the Iraqis have. And they could conduct and co-ordinate much more resources and soldiers and better attacks. BUT- there are some bad parrells to vietnam here. The Iraqi Insurgency is out of US military control- it does have some outside support, and it does have local support in many places. It has been divided but from what I've read its been getting better organized and several groups have been uniting. And the US has been unable to secure Baghdad for quite some time now. The pending civil war is also not going to be stopped. Its going to happen regardless of insurgents, US forces or New Iraqi Army. Bassically Iraq is too much a shit hole to be fixed by the US- and the US military cannot defeat the Insurgency. And their will to fight it out for a long time far exceeds ours.

uh huh- Well you are definetly right about the part I embolded- Now about North vietnam, yeah, ok so you bomb the harbor- big fucking deal. China is strait to the north pouring in supplies as well, and the soviets could still send supplies through here. If you dissagree then explain to me how several hundred PLA were killed during the war?

True the Iraqi Insurgency isnt as powerful as the VC. this is obvious. The VC killed way way more US soldiers than the Iraqis have. And they could conduct and co-ordinate much more resources and soldiers and better attacks. BUT- there are some bad parrells to vietnam here. The Iraqi Insurgency is out of US military control- it does have some outside support, and it does have local support in many places. It has been divided but from what I've read its been getting better organized and several groups have been uniting. And the US has been unable to secure Baghdad for quite some time now. The pending civil war is also not going to be stopped. Its going to happen regardless of insurgents, US forces or New Iraqi Army. Bassically Iraq is too much a shit hole to be fixed by the US- and the US military cannot defeat the Insurgency. And their will to fight it out for a long time far exceeds ours.

Actually the Soviets did bring supplies in through China but trucks are much less effective than ships in carrying bulk supplies. Shut down the shipping and cut the flow of supplies dramatically. Also, the Chinese didn't provide much in the way of supplies, their industrial base paled to that of the Soviets. Most Chinese aid was in the form of engineers to try and repair road damage from US bomb attacks, and not in directly aiding the NVA. Had the US invaded North Vietnam, nothing short of direct Soviet intervention would have saved Hanoi.

I see you still don't understand the Iraqi insurgancy in the slightest.Iraq has been in a state of civil war ever since Saddam fell and the insurgents took up arms against the new government, that's a civil war. The danger now is full blown sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shia (and Kurds but they're mostly isolated and welcome US troops in their areas). If that happens the Shia will win, they simply outnumber the Sunni. Of course Iran exerts a great deal of influence on Iraqi Shia, but many are largely pro-US. The worst case scenario is that the Shia and Kurds join forces to stamp out the Sunni militants by using means far more ruthless than those employed by the US. Of course the unfortunate side effect of this is massive Sunni civillian casualties and the increase of Iranian influence in Iraq, but there will be no return to Ba'athism, which is what most Sunni insurgents want.

Actually the Soviets did bring supplies in through China but trucks are much less effective than ships in carrying bulk supplies. Shut down the shipping and cut the flow of supplies dramatically. Also, the Chinese didn't provide much in the way of supplies, their industrial base paled to that of the Soviets. Most Chinese aid was in the form of engineers to try and repair road damage from US bomb attacks, and not in directly aiding the NVA. Had the US invaded North Vietnam, nothing short of direct Soviet intervention would have saved Hanoi.

I see you still don't understand the Iraqi insurgancy in the slightest.Iraq has been in a state of civil war ever since Saddam fell and the insurgents took up arms against the new government, that's a civil war. The danger now is full blown sectarian fighting between Sunni and Shia (and Kurds but they're mostly isolated and welcome US troops in their areas). If that happens the Shia will win, they simply outnumber the Sunni. Of course Iran exerts a great deal of influence on Iraqi Shia, but many are largely pro-US. The worst case scenario is that the Shia and Kurds join forces to stamp out the Sunni militants by using means far more ruthless than those employed by the US. Of course the unfortunate side effect of this is massive Sunni civillian casualties and the increase of Iranian influence in Iraq, but there will be no return to Ba'athism, which is what most Sunni insurgents want.



Anyways, this argument got nice and detailed, but bassically, it all comes down to the fact that the US is not going to win. We've failed already. In the end theres not going to be a democratic Iraq, and were going to be regretting this for long to come. And the fact is, originally as I said, everyone over there fighting is willing to do so until judgement day. The US and the West is not. So, I gladly invite you over in a few years when the end looks allot like crazed civilians running towards the US embassy with the last chopper out of Baghdad.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,468740,00.html


Interesting story there.

A very interesting story. I hope that catch those deserters.

Since when do politicians keep their promises? The rat bastards will say anything to get elected.

QFT!

My logic would be that
1) Yes they were. The killing was just monopolized by the gov't.

and

2) Us leaving will not end the violence but actually will do the opposite.

QFT 2!!!

Well said USMC Leathernecks.

Wait, I thought it was wrong for the military to speak out against the President, or his policies...

Am I wrong?

No you are not wrong. They cannot criticize the President direct but if their names are not mentioned in the paper......

If that is what you beleive then you are mistaken, but that is your right. When you have been to Iraq and worked with and talked to the people first hand then come back to me and I will listen to your opinion with more acceptance. I worked with Kurds and Shias in the Balad Area, Sunnis in the Tikrit Area and Sunnis in Al-Anbar province. The majority of people want us ther and thank us for helping and for giving them a chance to decide their own fate. Those who push the bloodshed are outsiders mostly who fear a free and string Iraq in the middle east. There are too many other muslim countries in the Middle east afraid to lose the power they now have to a stable Iraq and so they are more then willing to send and or encourage their own violent radicals to go there and cause trouble. The thing is even with us gone they will continue to cause the trouble until you see the most powerful of antagonists in the Middle east either in control of all of Iraq or a portion.....Iran and Syria would love to split the country between them.

So until you come back to me and talk from first hand knowledge I can not listen to your opinion in good conscience. I have seen too much good preformed over there to beleive the propganda and lies you repeat like they were gospel.

*applauds madly*

No you are not wrong. They cannot criticize the President direct but if their names are not mentioned in the paper......

Although I think it's dumb that the military can't criticize the president... it's one thing not trash talking your boss at most jobs, but at most jobs your boss can't exactly tell you to do stuff that could get you killed either.

Although I think it's dumb that the military can't criticize the president... it's one thing not trash talking your boss at most jobs, but at most jobs your boss can't exactly tell you to do stuff that could get you killed either.

Welcome to the life of a military soldiers where you cannot speak out openly against your boss and most definitely NOT in uniform.

A very interesting story. I hope that catch those deserters.

Welcome to the life of a military soldiers where you cannot speak out openly against your boss and most definitely NOT in uniform.
So you believe that the following doesn't carry any merit?

"Vital decisions for the future of the nation are at stake. History will indict these commanders of blood guilt if, in the light of their professional and political knowledge, they do not obey the dictates of their conscience. A soldier's duty to obey ends when his knowledge, his conscience, and his sense of responsibility forbid him to carry out a certain order."

In Germany, today, soldiers are considered citizens in uniform and thus share the same rights (and obligations) that civilians have.
(There are restrictions concerning conduct in uniform, but you do not forfeit your rights like you apparently do in the warmachine of the "land of the 'fraid, home of the save".)

"I was simply following orders" is not a valid excuse - especially not when the war in Iraq fulfills the same counts of indictment that the United States of America themselves deemed worthy of death by hanging:

1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? Check!
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? Check!
3) War crimes? Check!
4) Crimes against humanity? Check!

Or is it "it's not fascism when we do it"?

Who were you with and when? I was assigned to 2nd MarDiv for 5 months in 2005 and 1stMarDiv for a month. based out of Combat Outpost on the north side of Ramadi in Al-Anbar province.

I was with 2/3 3rd division in haditha but was offered to come home and cross train as an 0203. It was a pretty difficult decision to leave my boys behind but then i got deployed back into the fray pretty soon after.

So you believe that the following doesn't carry any merit?

"Vital decisions for the future of the nation are at stake. History will indict these commanders of blood guilt if, in the light of their professional and political knowledge, they do not obey the dictates of their conscience. A soldier's duty to obey ends when his knowledge, his conscience, and his sense of responsibility forbid him to carry out a certain order."

I don't think that it carries merit in the sense that you think that it does. Especially the bit about conscience. Killing goes against everybodies conscience but if you are to win or even survive it is necessary when others are trying to do it. I think i much more acceptable thing to say would be that a soldiers duty to obey ends when he has the knowledge that his direct actions are illegal by any international law.

In Germany, today, soldiers are considered citizens in uniform and thus share the same rights (and obligations) that civilians have.
(There are restrictions concerning conduct in uniform, but you do not forfeit your rights like you apparently do in the warmachine of the "land of the 'fraid, home of the save".)

And one of those obligations is to follow the law. Your logic amazes me. Using the same logic, i could say that i can't let somebody live and keep a good conscience. That would allow me to break the law b/c my duty to follow it ends when i don't feel like it. Now do you see how if your logic was applied there would be no more law?

So you believe that the following doesn't carry any merit?

"Vital decisions for the future of the nation are at stake. History will indict these commanders of blood guilt if, in the light of their professional and political knowledge, they do not obey the dictates of their conscience. A soldier's duty to obey ends when his knowledge, his conscience, and his sense of responsibility forbid him to carry out a certain order."

When you receive your orders, you follow them if they are legal orders. Failure to do so results in court martial and punishment.

In Germany, today, soldiers are considered citizens in uniform and thus share the same rights (and obligations) that civilians have.
(There are restrictions concerning conduct in uniform, but you do not forfeit your rights like you apparently do in the warmachine of the "land of the 'fraid, home of the save".)

We have rules regarding our military that they must "follow all lawful orders from the President" You disobey such orders, you get burned by J.A.G.

"I was simply following orders" is not a valid excuse - especially not when the war in Iraq fulfills the same counts of indictment that the United States of America themselves deemed worthy of death by hanging:

When dealing with war crimes, you are correct. That is why a soldier is obligated to disobey illegal orders. Following those make u guilty as does those that gave the order.

1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? Check!

According to whom? The orders came from the President with the consent of Congress thus making it legal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? Check!

Again according to whom?

3) War crimes? Check!

Being prosecuted as we speak by J.A.G.

4) Crimes against humanity? Check!

Being prosecuted as we speak by J.A.G.

Or is it "it's not fascism when we do it"?

:rolleyes:

According to whom? The orders came from the President with the consent of Congress thus making it legal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Which is absolutely irrelevant. The Wehrmacht's orders in question were legal under German law, but that didn't prevent two otherwise innocent guys from getting strung up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_peace

The only thing one could say would be that Saddam violated the various previous agreements, and that an argument could be made that it therefore wasn't a crime against peace. But whether it was Bush or some redneck in the Alabama swamp that gave the order is irrelevant.

When you receive your orders, you follow them if they are legal orders. Failure to do so results in court martial and punishment.
We have rules regarding our military that they must "follow all lawful orders from the President" You disobey such orders, you get burned by J.A.G.
Lawful according to what? U.S. law? International law?

Sounds a lot like "I will make it legal!".

Don't forget which perspective I have on this: Most things that German troops did - as despicable and horrendous as they were - were deemed "legal" by the German government and were supported by the German justice system.
When dealing with war crimes, you are correct. That is why a soldier is obligated to disobey illegal orders. Following those make u guilty as does those that gave the order.
Then how come one never hears about their commanding officers or those in charge also get into trouble for not supervising their troops who committed the crimes? You either are in charge of your troops and carry responsibility for them at all times - or you aren't and don't, which is a lot more frightening.
Being prosecuted as we speak by J.A.G.
J.A.G. does not prosecute the C.I.A., nor the military personnel "serving their country" in the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay or in the secret facilities around the world.
According to whom? The orders came from the President with the consent of Congress thus making it legal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Again according to whom?
According to the standards that the United States established at the Nuremburg Trials and applied to try the German war criminals and later adopted by United Nations Charter.

Either those standards apply to everyone, everywhere - or it does boil down to "might makes right" and "it's something completely different when the United States do it". Some might even go as far as calling that "victor's justice".
Which is pretty sad for a country with alleged high ideals concerning human rights, freedom, liberty, and justice for all*.

Besides, the United States' continued rejection of the International Criminal Court and things like ASPA don't help changing the perception of the United States in the rest of the world and especially among their friends and allies.

*offer may vary?

Lawful according to what? U.S. law? International law?

Sounds a lot like "I will make it legal!".

Don't forget which perspective I have on this: Most things that German troops did - as despicable and horrendous as they were - were deemed "legal" by the German government and were supported by the German justice system.

Then how come one never hears about their commanding officers or those in charge also get into trouble for not supervising their troops who committed the crimes? You either are in charge of your troops and carry responsibility for them at all times - or you aren't and don't, which is a lot more frightening.

J.A.G. does not prosecute the C.I.A., nor the military personnel "serving their country" in the concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay or in the secret facilities around the world.

According to the standards that the United States established at the Nuremburg Trials and applied to try the German war criminals and later adopted by United Nations Charter.

Either those standards apply to everyone, everywhere - or it does boil down to "might makes right" and "it's something completely different when the United States do it". Some might even go as far as calling that "victor's justice".
Which is pretty sad for a country with alleged high ideals concerning human rights, freedom, liberty, and justice for all*.

Besides, the United States' continued rejection of the International Criminal Court and things like ASPA don't help changing the perception of the United States in the rest of the world and especially among their friends and allies.

*offer may vary?

Nice argument. (http://iraq.war.justgotowned.com)

So you believe that the following doesn't carry any merit?

"Vital decisions for the future of the nation are at stake. History will indict these commanders of blood guilt if, in the light of their professional and political knowledge, they do not obey the dictates of their conscience. A soldier's duty to obey ends when his knowledge, his conscience, and his sense of responsibility forbid him to carry out a certain order."

In Germany, today, soldiers are considered citizens in uniform and thus share the same rights (and obligations) that civilians have.
(There are restrictions concerning conduct in uniform, but you do not forfeit your rights like you apparently do in the warmachine of the "land of the 'fraid, home of the save".)

"I was simply following orders" is not a valid excuse - especially not when the war in Iraq fulfills the same counts of indictment that the United States of America themselves deemed worthy of death by hanging:

1) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? Check!
2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? Check!
3) War crimes? Check!
4) Crimes against humanity? Check!

Or is it "it's not fascism when we do it"?

EXACTLY! way to go!!!! ESSPECIALY IN THE US- Soldiers are NOT supposed to be simple mindless drones. They are not supposed to be blindly patriotic like the SS.

And when it comes to lawful orders of the President, the President is obeidient to Constitution, just like everyone else, he has no supreme authority, if the president has violated the constitution or gives an order that is not constitutional, then soldiers SHOULD NOT under their very own oath follow such an order, and should in fact directly go against the president. Remmeber, the oath of Service begins with I will protect and Defend THE CONSTITUTION, before anything else. That is the soldiers ultimate role. If the president defy's the constitution, then the soldiers MUST fight to the death to defend it from the president, and if they don't, they are the ones commiting real treason.

I don't think that it carries merit in the sense that you think that it does. Especially the bit about conscience. Killing goes against everybodies conscience but if you are to win or even survive it is necessary when others are trying to do it.
Not so sure about that one...
And there is a big difference if you chose to endanger yourself (I consider joining the armed forces to apply) or whether you are truly defending yourself and your country.
I think i much more acceptable thing to say would be that a soldiers duty to obey ends when he has the knowledge that his direct actions are illegal by any international law.
Bingo!
Partaking in an illegal war of aggression does apply - yet that soldier who did not want to fight in Iraq but rather volunteered to fight in Afghanistan is facing charges of not following his orders... (He's from Hawaii IIRC?)
And one of those obligations is to follow the law. Your logic amazes me. Using the same logic, i could say that i can't let somebody live and keep a good conscience. That would allow me to break the law b/c my duty to follow it ends when i don't feel like it. Now do you see how if your logic was applied there would be no more law?
Following which law? That which applies when you're in the U.S. military? That which applies for U.S. citizens?
Or maybe even International Law?

Not so sure about that one...
And there is a big difference if you chose to endanger yourself (I consider joining the armed forces to apply) or whether you are truly defending yourself and your country

He made the choice to sign up to defend the constitution and to obey lawful orders. It is my understanding that

Bingo!
Partaking in an illegal war of aggression does apply - yet that soldier who did not want to fight in Iraq but rather volunteered to fight in Afghanistan is facing charges of not following his orders... (He's from Hawaii IIRC?)

He made the choice to sign up to defend the constitution and to obey lawful orders. It is my understanding that to follow an order given during an illegal war is a legal order. It is only when the specific order would have the person do something illegal. This means that soldiers in Nazi germany who were ordered to defend a city would not be war criminals if they followed those orders. However if those soldiers were ordered to kill POW's and they followed them then they would be war criminals. If i am wrong i would greatly apreciate you clearing that up for me.

He made the choice to sign up to defend the constitution and to obey lawful orders. It is my understanding that to follow an order given during an illegal war is a legal order. It is only when the specific order would have the person do something illegal.
I'm not sure I can follow you.

You join the military and swear an oath to defend the constitution. Okay.

Then you are given an order to partake in an illegal war of agression - which should make you refuse to follow that order if you deem it unconstitunional or illegal.

It doesn't matter if your specific orders are guard duty or patrols (all within the legal limits) because the reason you are in that foreign country is based on illegality and subsequently, everything that follows is illegal and should make you question or disobey your orders.

I guess, again, it comes down to where you place the emphasis, meaning, whether you believe that you have an obligation not only to the constitution but also to International Law. Why would you have to follow orders given to you by people who do not follow the wording of the Constitution?
This means that soldiers in Nazi germany who were ordered to defend a city would not be war criminals if they followed those orders. However if those soldiers were ordered to kill POW's and they followed them then they would be war criminals. If i am wrong i would greatly apreciate you clearing that up for me.
Thing is, though, German soldiers did not swear an oath to uphold the constitution:

"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath )

You guys, however, did:

"I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience )

And by defending I meant defending after being attacked first (e.g. US/NATO in Afghanistan after 9/11), not defending after things turned bad (Germany vs. Allies).

I'm not sure I can follow you.

You join the military and swear an oath to defend the constitution. Okay.

Then you are given an order to partake in an illegal war of agression - which should make you refuse to follow that order if you deem it unconstitunional or illegal.

It doesn't matter if your specific orders are guard duty or patrols (all within the legal limits) because the reason you are in that foreign country is based on illegality and subsequently, everything that follows is illegal and should make you question or disobey your orders.

First of all your assertion that the invasion was illegal is highly dubious. Secondly he is not participating in any invasion of a soviergn nation. He is participating in operations in a country that permits us to be there. Nothing illegal about that at any level.


I guess, again, it comes down to where you place the emphasis, meaning, whether you believe that you have an obligation not only to the constitution but also to International Law. Why would you have to follow orders given to you by people who do not follow the wording of the Constitution?

Thing is, though, German soldiers did not swear an oath to uphold the constitution:

"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_oath )

You guys, however, did:

"I, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Military_Oath_of_Allegience )

And by defending I meant defending after being attacked first (e.g. US/NATO in Afghanistan after 9/11), not defending after things turned bad (Germany vs. Allies).

The analogy still works if you go by international law.

First of all your assertion that the invasion was illegal is highly dubious. Secondly he is not participating in any invasion of a soviergn nation.
It is when you take International Law and the United Nations Charter into consideration.
The attack was an illegal act of agression, why shouldn't the continued occupation, which is a direct result of the invasion, become legal all of the sudden?
He is participating in operations in a country that permits us to be there. Nothing illegal about that at any level.
The "country" doesn't permit you to be there, its government does - installed by those who invaded the country illegaly in the first place. (Nevermind that there's been elections - I highly doubt that it's been what I'd consider free elections.)
The analogy still works if you go by international law.
Which didn't exist back then and I might say is a direct result of WW2.

How about this analogy?

If you break into a house that isn't yours, you commit a crime.
If you then drive out the residents and let your friends live there, who subsequently allow you to crash on the couch and empty the fridge, it won't really change a thing: You've still broken into the house and everything that follows happens based on a crime. And while the original residents might even have invited you over for dinner and shared some of their food with you, it's not for your friends or for you to decide over what isn't theirs or yours.

Edit: I'm off to bed now but I would like to continue this debate tomorrow, so I'll be back. ;)

It is when you take International Law and the United Nations Charter into consideration.
The attack was an illegal act of agression, why shouldn't the continued occupation, which is a direct result of the invasion, become legal all of the sudden?

The "country" doesn't permit you to be there, its government does - installed by those who invaded the country illegaly in the first place. (Nevermind that there's been elections - I highly doubt that it's been what I'd consider free elections.)

Which didn't exist back then and I might say is a direct result of WW2.

Then would our intervention in the balkans be an illegal war also. The gov't certainly didn't want us to stop them from committing genocide there.

How about this analogy?

If you break into a house, that was being held hostage by gunmen who had already executed hostages, that isn't yours, you are the police.
If you then disarm the residents and let your hostages live , who subsequently allow you to protect them from the few gunmen who fled upstairs and attack frequently and try to restore order to the house, it won't really change a thing: You've still tried to help the house and everything that follows happens based on a rescue attempt. And while the original residents might even have invited you over for dinner and shared some of their food with you, it's not for your rescued hostages or for you to decide over what isn't theirs or yours.




I edited the analogy to add some accuracy.:D It's not like the new gov't is not iraqis. It is elected iraqis governing iraqis. I don't see the illegitamacy of it.

I was with 2/3 3rd division in haditha but was offered to come home and cross train as an 0203. It was a pretty difficult decision to leave my boys behind but then i got deployed back into the fray pretty soon after.

I passed through the Haditha Area. I was with a seperate company, Army. You guys do 9 month tours so, go over a little more often then we do on our 12 month tours, but the time seems to average out. Kind of like the AF guys who are on 4 month tours but rotate through more then the marines it seems. I worked with #rd Marines when I was stationed in Korea though many of them rotated through for 3 months at a time to work with us there.

I passed through the Haditha Area. I was with a seperate company, Army. You guys do 9 month tours so, go over a little more often then we do on our 12 month tours, but the time seems to average out. Kind of like the AF guys who are on 4 month tours but rotate through more then the marines it seems. I worked with #rd Marines when I was stationed in Korea though many of them rotated through for 3 months at a time to work with us there.

My dad was in the AF and he had 90 day rotations.

EXACTLY! way to go!!!! ESSPECIALY IN THE US- Soldiers are NOT supposed to be simple mindless drones. They are not supposed to be blindly patriotic like the SS.

And when it comes to lawful orders of the President, the President is obeidient to Constitution, just like everyone else, he has no supreme authority, if the president has violated the constitution or gives an order that is not constitutional, then soldiers SHOULD NOT under their very own oath follow such an order, and should in fact directly go against the president. Remmeber, the oath of Service begins with I will protect and Defend THE CONSTITUTION, before anything else. That is the soldiers ultimate role. If the president defy's the constitution, then the soldiers MUST fight to the death to defend it from the president, and if they don't, they are the ones commiting real treason.

Then we get to the real point. Guess what though the orders were legal and constitutional that sent the troops to Iraq. So there is nothing for disobeying that order.

Then we get to the real point. Guess what though the orders were legal and constitutional that sent the troops to Iraq. So there is nothing for disobeying that order.

These people do not understand that. Because they believe that the Iraq War was illegal, they believe all orders dealing with it are illegal as well which is 100% false.

My dad was in the AF and he had 90 day rotations.

True, but the average I understand from the AF guys I talked to over there is 4 months. I met some when I was working a checkpoint in Tikrit who were on 6 month tours. I gleen from what they all tell me it really depends on what your job is.

True, but the average I understand from the AF guys I talked to over there is 4 months. I met some when I was working a checkpoint in Tikrit who were on 6 month tours. I gleen from what they all tell me it really depends on what your job is.

That I will agree with.

These people do not understand that. Because they believe that the Iraq War was illegal, they believe all orders dealing with it are illegal as well which is 100% false.

Sadly you are right. They have this view point they get from reading biased newspapers or watching biased news shows and probably the majority have never been over there to know anything first hand about what they are trying to talk down about.

In America 95% of the people are protected by 5% of the people and too many of those protected look down upon the other 5%, and they usually talk from out of their hind end , because they speak about that which they have no clue to what those few go through or what they think as a whole. They will grab onto anything that goes their way and make it seem like it is the norm instead of maybe just being the exception. And itis just amazing no matter how bad they are treated the troops continue protecting those who treat them like crap and who fight to give them the right to voice their opinion even if it is against those same troops.

Then would our intervention in the balkans be an illegal war also. The gov't certainly didn't want us to stop them from committing genocide there.
I thought that the U.N. backed up the intervention in the Balkans, thus rendering it legit?
Anyway, I consider the interventions in the Balkan regions and the one in Afghanistan justified, whereas I don't believe the same applies to the war in Iraq where the reasons and goals changed almost weekly.
(And please don't get me wrong, I held no sympathy for Saddam's regime.)
I edited the analogy to add some accuracy.:D It's not like the new gov't is not iraqis. It is elected iraqis governing iraqis. I don't see the illegitamacy of it.
Hehe, you do realize that you've just described the U.S. as the police, right?
If you stay with that picture, there's rules on how the police has to act - and the way I see it, they pretty much tore down the house, ruined the furniture, and blew up the bathroom while heading straight for the fridge instead of looking for the hostages. ;)

Are you on home leave right now? Hope you enjoy yourself and find some time to relax. :p

I'll have to say that's a fine line, and I think your position is just slightly on the wrong side of it. If it were simply "we don't want to go to war - period", then yes, I'd agree. But my understanding of the rising objections within the military are more along the lines of "this 'war' is unwinnable, and there are more imortant concerns out there." (I couldn't get CH's link up either, but am familiar with the rising objections in general.)

Certainly the civilian leadership must make the ultimate decision, but completely disregarding the opinion of the military on matters of strategy to the point of functionally firing generals who simply raise objections is just as bad as, or possibly worse than, slavishly following it.

I agree that it's a very fine line. I also didn't really specify what I was talking about when I spoke of military opinions. I agree that the civil leadership should certainly confer with the military leadership. When I was talking about military opinions I was talking about those who jobs do not involve liaising with the civil leadership. In the big scheme of things the popular opinion within the military should be of absolutely no consequence. I say this as a veteran of the Iraq war (3dACR OIF1). I'm extremely leery of anything that could weaken the American tradition of military subservience to the civil authority. The way much of the American populace fellates the military every day erodes this far too much as it is.

Wait, I thought it was wrong for the military to speak out against the President, or his policies...

Only if they're in uniform or do it in such a way that they'll be identified as being in the military. Just as it's the military's job to protect the civilian populace against foreign threats the civilian populace has a duty to protect the military populace from our elected officials.

I agree that it's a very fine line. I also didn't really specify what I was talking about when I spoke of military opinions. I agree that the civil leadership should certainly confer with the military leadership. When I was talking about military opinions I was talking about those who jobs do not involve liaising with the civil leadership. In the big scheme of things the popular opinion within the military should be of absolutely no consequence. I say this as a veteran of the Iraq war (3dACR OIF1). I'm extremely leery of anything that could weaken the American tradition of military subservience to the civil authority. The way much of the American populace fellates the military every day erodes this far too much as it is.



Only if they're in uniform or do it in such a way that they'll be identified as being in the military. Just as it's the military's job to protect the civilian populace against foreign threats the civilian populace has a duty to protect the military populace from our elected officials.

QFT

Sadly you are right. They have this view point they get from reading biased newspapers or watching biased news shows and probably the majority have never been over there to know anything first hand about what they are trying to talk down about.

In America 95% of the people are protected by 5% of the people and too many of those protected look down upon the other 5%, and they usually talk from out of their hind end , because they speak about that which they have no clue to what those few go through or what they think as a whole. They will grab onto anything that goes their way and make it seem like it is the norm instead of maybe just being the exception. And itis just amazing no matter how bad they are treated the troops continue protecting those who treat them like crap and who fight to give them the right to voice their opinion even if it is against those same troops.


Fuck the troops.

I thought that the U.N. backed up the intervention in the Balkans, thus rendering it legit?
Anyway, I consider the interventions in the Balkan regions and the one in Afghanistan justified, whereas I don't believe the same applies to the war in Iraq where the reasons and goals changed almost weekly.
(And please don't get me wrong, I held no sympathy for Saddam's regime.)

Oh, so b/c some arbitrary organization decides so a country loses its sovereignty?

Hehe, you do realize that you've just described the U.S. as the police, right?
If you stay with that picture, there's rules on how the police has to act - and the way I see it, they pretty much tore down the house, ruined the furniture, and blew up the bathroom while heading straight for the fridge instead of looking for the hostages. ;)

1) If we went to the fridge then wouldn't we have gained something?

2) Ruined the furniture- always avoided but it happens

3) The house is still very much standing

Fuck the troops.

Fuck the fat asses who don't realize what the real world is like. The fat asses who don't know what sacrafice is. Who go to the mall while we try to get a country on its feet with a democratically run gov't. The people who will never know if they made a difference in the world.

Fuck the fat asses who don't realize what the real world is like. The fat asses who don't know what sacrafice is. Who go to the mall while we try to get a country on its feet with a democratically run gov't. The people who will never know if they made a difference in the world.

Your words fall on deaf ears my brother.