quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

I have no issue with your poicy point of view...and I can and do disagree....it's the "Worth American Lives" part , it is just beyond my comprehension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

How come there was no mention in the OP of Margaret Thatcher, who started the conflict with Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b

How come there was no mention in the OP of Margaret Thatcher, who started the conflict with Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Your ignorance of history is showing again. Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN authorised his removal. Dozens of nations sent troops to take part.

By your logic, we started WW2 because Hitler invaded Poland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

That wont wash Stella, Your claim was Thatcher started it. She didnt.

You could also do with reading the long history of Kuwait. It existed long before WW1.

I hope you are not suggesting Britain sacrificed Poland. Our army was too small at the time to halt Germany, as shown by the thousands of lives lost by the BEF, in trying to do so.

quote:

"The Ottoman-British Agreement of 1913 recognizes Kuwait as a District under the jurisdiction of the Province of Basra. Since sovereignty over Basra has been transferred from the Ottoman state to the Iraqi state, that sovereignty has to include Kuwait under the terms of the 1913 Agreement. Iraq has not recognized any change in the status of Kuwait." (quoted in [1])

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

I have no issue with your poicy point of view...and I can and do disagree....it's the "Worth American Lives" part , it is just beyond my comprehension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

I have a moral obligation to disobey an illegal order.  The specifics of what an illegal order is have been laid out for a long time.  One thing that is understood by most people is that the employee himself does not get to decide for themselves what is illegal.  If he chooses to do so, then he pays the consequences...either being fired or, in the case of the military, brought to trial.  As for the morality, if the "soldier" has a problem with the morality of war...and believe, I get the idea that it can be argued that NO war is moral...then he probably should not have signed up for a job with a "company" whose primary job, whose training...even in the supportive groups...revolves around war.

The oath that one takes upon entry into the military is to protect the U.S. against all enemies both foriegn and domestic.  If the thing being done does not conform to that contract then the contract is null and void irrespective of what the military codifies as an illegal order.

quote:

quote:

And as I noted above, the employee does not get to dictate the terms of his employment.  He can choose to do so and then, if he has the guts to back his decision, he will face military trial.  Funny how many of those soldiers that you've read about...as have I...chose the coward's way...they ran.  Where was the conviction behind their moral stand?

That some individuals chose not to subject themselves to a court martial and the resulting penalities somehow compels you to call them cowards.  Why is a man a coward who does what he feels is right?

quote:

quote:

If I felt the order was illegal, then I would have followed the chain of command.  If the chain of command was in compliance with the order, then yes, I would have faced the consequences of deciding to disobey.  I've done that my entire life...hasn't made it easy but it's been worth it.

That is you...why do you expect everyone else to act as you would?

quote:

quote:

How many people that were not in the photograph were necessary for that to occure?  I am sure you are aware of the term "chain of command".  That did not occure in a vaccum.

 

quote:

Well aware.  As I am sure you are aware, that particular chain was investigated and the soldiers responsible for the actions as well as those above them responsible for their actions were brought to trial.

Really???perhaps you would be willing to post a list of who went to prison besides a few low ranking enlisted personel.

quote:

quote:

By the way, where are all those photographs of the soldiers...the vast majority...doing things right?  I guess those got lost somewhere, eh?

 
Not at all.  They are on the six o'clock news with the rest of the propaganda that the administration is using to pimp this war.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

I have a moral obligation to disobey an illegal order.  The specifics of what an illegal order is have been laid out for a long time.  One thing that is understood by most people is that the employee himself does not get to decide for themselves what is illegal.  If he chooses to do so, then he pays the consequences...either being fired or, in the case of the military, brought to trial.  As for the morality, if the "soldier" has a problem with the morality of war...and believe, I get the idea that it can be argued that NO war is moral...then he probably should not have signed up for a job with a "company" whose primary job, whose training...even in the supportive groups...revolves around war.

The oath that one takes upon entry into the military is to protect the U.S. against all enemies both foriegn and domestic.  If the thing being done does not conform to that contract then the contract is null and void irrespective of what the military codifies as an illegal order.

 
And...thank God...the individual soldier does not get to decide whether or not something the military higher-ups decide to do conforms to his idea of what the contract is.  And that oath says a lot more than that.  I should know, I took it.  It also says a lot more about what you are signing on for in the contract that you sign. 

 

quote:

Maybe because they thought they had the balls to join the military in the first place?

quote:

Sorry...but no.  What happened to the higher-ranking soldiers involved in the incident is well-documented AND has been gone over in past threads.  If you really wish to know, then look it up.  As for the soldiers who went to prison, not all of the lower-ranking ones accused DID go to prison.  Like anything else in our legal system, the sentences handed down varied according to the degree of involvement.

quote:

I already have clarity in regards to your views.  The left, at the very least...somewhere even more to the left of the "moderate" left if you truly believe that all the networks have been pimps for the war, the administration or G. Bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

I have a moral obligation to disobey an illegal order.  The specifics of what an illegal order is have been laid out for a long time.  One thing that is understood by most people is that the employee himself does not get to decide for themselves what is illegal.  If he chooses to do so, then he pays the consequences...either being fired or, in the case of the military, brought to trial.  As for the morality, if the "soldier" has a problem with the morality of war...and believe, I get the idea that it can be argued that NO war is moral...then he probably should not have signed up for a job with a "company" whose primary job, whose training...even in the supportive groups...revolves around war.

The oath that one takes upon entry into the military is to protect the U.S. against all enemies both foriegn and domestic.  If the thing being done does not conform to that contract then the contract is null and void irrespective of what the military codifies as an illegal order.

 
And...thank God...the individual soldier does not get to decide whether or not something the military higher-ups decide to do conforms to his idea of what the contract is.  And that oath says a lot more than that.  I should know, I took it.  It also says a lot more about what you are signing on for in the contract that you sign. 

You are going to have to make up your mind...here you have contradicted yourself.  First you say you have the moral obligation to disobey an unlawful order.  Next you say that the individual soldier does not get to decide...
If you are going to argue against yourself then I will just stand down and watch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

I already have clarity in regards to your views.  The left, at the very least...somewhere even more to the left of the "moderate" left if you truly believe that all the networks have been pimps for the war, the administration or G. Bush.

The truth has no political bias left or right. 
Please remember that the left voted for this war of aggression and aggrandizement just like the right did.
 
H.

quote:

Ahhhhhhhhhh but you see, Hunter...I am not contradicting myself.  The UCMJ...as already noted by one writer and ignored by you...states clearly what sorts of orders are considered to be illegal. 
No it does not.  It is you and not me who has ignored the post by CL.
ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
The UCMJ does not list what is not a lawful order.  Please do your homework


Being ordered to do the job you signed up for is not one of them, even if you decide it is. 
Wrong:  You sign up to protect the U.S. from all enemies both foriegn and domestic.  You do not sign up to make the world more profitable for Exxon/Moble,United Fruit or Chase Manhattan.



The individual soldier gets to make his decison based on what the UCMJ says, not what he thinks it should say nor what he thinks the military should be doing with him instead of what they are doing now.
Before you try to teach me about the UCMJ don't you think it prudent to learn what it says and does not say?

quote:

And who has the truth, Hunter?  You?  Every man, within himself

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

That wont wash Stella, Your claim was Thatcher started it. She didnt.

You could also do with reading the long history of Kuwait. It existed long before WW1.

I hope you are not suggesting Britain sacrificed Poland. Our army was too small at the time to halt Germany, as shown by the thousands of lives lost by the BEF, in trying to do so.

It is not as if Britain was taken by suprise in 1939...for six years Britain had watched the progress of Hitler's plan.  It was exactly what Britain,France and the U.S. wanted.  What they were not expecting was Russias ability to destroy Hitler's supermen.  Roosevelt's only fear was that Russia would conquor Germany before we could get into it so we could enjoy the "spoils of war"

quote:

"The Ottoman-British Agreement of 1913 recognizes Kuwait as a District under the jurisdiction of the Province of Basra. Since sovereignty over Basra has been transferred from the Ottoman state to the Iraqi state, that sovereignty has to include Kuwait under the terms of the 1913 Agreement. Iraq has not recognized any change in the status of Kuwait." (quoted in [1])

 

The complete article is here
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

And who has the truth, Hunter?  You?  Every man, within himself?  That's a unproveable premise and you know it.  Believe me, I remember that the left voted for this war.  I also know that now they would like to disavow it and state that they were led down a path by a someone craftier on the right.  Hmmmmmmmmm...all these great minds on the left were all fooled?  No, at the time they voted for the war, it was politically expedient to do so.