by Trauma_Hound 128 Replies latest members politics
As for it being an illegal war.
There are moves still for them to put forward a UN motion to legitamise the war post event. Coupled with the fact that they were going for the second resolution in the first place shows that they know they need it, whether they are honest enough to admit this to the voting poplation or not.
You cannot pick and choose the internation law that suits you and only declare things 'law' then it supports what you want.
realist-
was it you or somebody else who said that the soldiers are sent without having a choice? how can you say that as an excuse in one thread and in the same moment condem this soldier?
yes, i said that when you join the military, you dont pick and choose which conflicts you take part in. how is that different from what ive said on this thread?
aa
In his speech on March 18 giving Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq, President Bush said:
war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
If following orders cannot be used as a defense, then surely soldiers are entitled, even required, to refuse orders that they think are morally wrong? If they can be punished for obeying, don't they have the right to disobey?
Which all goes to show that when nationalism walks through the front door, intelligence flies out of the window.
HS
The fact that the USA is encouraging Iraqi soldiers and commanders to surredner, disobay orders etc... surely proves that such things can be the right thing to do. If you deny this then are you saying that what the USA army is doing is wrong
Simon have I missed something here? I mean are you actually comparing an Iraqi soldier, that is about to be killed by an overwhelming armed force, to a slacker that after costing the US government tens of thousands of dollars in training who then thinks he should have to right to select which war he's in?
Surely USA soldiers should be just as capable and brave enough to do the right thing too ... or are they in more of a totalitarian regime?
The right thing for the Iraqi is to save his life. In the case of the US, which is not a totalitarian regime, (lovely) no officer expects his men to fight to the death. Of course if a US soldier was about to be overwhelmed they would be expected to surrender rather than die. Perhaps you've seen the capture of some personal already? They aren't going to face a firing squad for surrendering. As a sidenote they are expected to attempt to escape, if possible.
Simon with this logic of yours here it's getting harder and harder for me to think you aren't anti americian. Couple this response with many others you've made lately such as in the exotic places thread where you stated your feelings about travel in America? Well, it's getting obvious.
Simon at the very least, regardless of your personal feelings, don't you understand how little Americans appreciate outsiders telling us anything negative about our country? You do get that right? We bash our own country daily such as brothers fight in the family. But those brothers will jump on anyone outside of the family that says anything bad about his own brother. We feel the same way Simon.
thichi,
i am sorry but i will not constantly post information that is easily available and already known to everyone except you. this is the last time i do it...in the future do some reading before you post nonsense.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1568590.php
asia including japan, russia, the entire moslem world (except kuwait), south america and africa are against this war. the only countries were the majority of the people in favour of this war are the US and as of yesterday britain it seems (57% pro war).
Plus the issue is not how many support the war, but if the war is legal. And once more, you have nothing to back up this claim.....
i did not claim anything.
rem,
I don't think the legalities of war should be judged by popular vote.
i agree.
the point i wanted to make was that there is considerable debate going on about the legality of this war. most experts i have heard think the US is clearly violating international law and that this war is not justified.
Has the UN stated that this is an illegal war?
how could the UN state this with britain and the US blocking it? it would be as useful to bring such a resolution before the security council as it was the attempt to bring the last US resolution before the UN.
dubla,
sorry, i think i misunderstood you. i thought you used it as an excuse for the soldiers in the other thread.
derek,
well said!
Simon have I missed something here? I mean are you actually comparing an Iraqi soldier, that is about to be killed by an overwhelming armed force, to a slacker that after costing the US government tens of thousands of dollars in training who then thinks he should have to right to select which war he's in?
Well, you are assuming that anyone who refuses to do something on consciensious gorunds is a slacker and that it is never right to refuse to obey an order. I have shown quite clearly, using your own governments policy, that it can be the the right thing to do (which most people already knew anyway)
The right thing for the Iraqi is to save his life. In the case of the US, which is not a totalitarian regime, (lovely) no officer expects his men to fight to the death. Of course if a US soldier was about to be overwhelmed they would be expected to surrender rather than die. Perhaps you've seen the capture of some personal already? They aren't going to face a firing squad for surrendering. As a sidenote they are expected to attempt to escape, if possible.
What has this got to do with whether it's right to refuse to obey orders that you believe are immoral? You are just confusing the issue with irrelevant points. Of course soldiers don't want to die ... which normal person does?!
Simon with this logic of yours here it's getting harder and harder for me to think you aren't anti americian. Couple this response with many others you've made lately such as in the exotic places thread where you stated your feelings about travel in America? Well, it's getting obvious.
Ah ... here we go. When you can't argue the case, you revert to the old, tried and trusted "you are an America basher" which provides you with a convenient way of dismissing everything someone says. I am not an America basher. In that topic, if you read, you will see that I compared my experiences with USA and Canadian customs. I'm sure many other people would recognise the difference in approach and may have similar tales to tell. The USA border staff were rude, ignorant and humourless compared to the Canadians that were polite and friendly. Trying to blame me for this is shooting the messenger pal.
Simon at the very least, regardless of your personal feelings, don't you understand how little Americans appreciate outsiders telling us anything negative about our country? You do get that right? We bash our own country daily such as brothers fight in the family. But those brothers will jump on anyone outside of the family that says anything bad about his own brother. We feel the same way Simon.
So what? Am I supposed to keep my gob shut or something? Is that how democracy and free speech work?
I thought you said the USA was not a totalitarian regime? ... and yet now you are saying we are not allowed to criticise it. If fact, I am not even criticising it ... just supporting someone else's right to make a conscienscious stand! Maybe you find that kind of thing threatening for some reason? Maybe it's unAmerican ... you tell me.
simon-
I have shown quite clearly, using your own governments policy, that it can be the the right thing to do (which most people already knew anyway)
are you saying that it is the policy of the u.s. government to encourage soldiers to disobey orders simply if they feel the order is "immoral"? where does evidence of this policy exist?
i think youre getting feelings of immorality and breaking international law confused here. and adding "surrender" (which has nothing to do with disobeying orders) to the list was just a mistake on your part.
aa
The USA Military has made it very clear that it thinks "the right thing to do" for an Iraqi soldier is to disobey their orders and surrender.
Simple eh?!
Can disobeying orders be the right thing to do? Yes ... according to the USA Military unless they are lying.
If it can be the right thing for them to do, surely it can be the right thing for us to do?
Actuall, I can't believe I'm even bothering trying to argue the point ... then only people who believed it was right to follow orders no matter what were Nazis. No person with even half a grapefruit for a brain would even question that it coudl ever be the right thing to do IMHO
The USA Military has made it very clear that it thinks "the right thing to do" for an Iraqi soldier is to disobey their orders and surrender.Simple eh?!
i personally dont remember hearing saddam place the order that no soldier was to surrender under any circumstances, so im guessing your just speculating here when you say they are "disobeying" orders. i think its logical that a madman like saddam would want them to fight to the death, but like i said, i havent heard that order. maybe you could find me a link on it. but you right in saying that the u.s. is encouraging them to save their lives rather than waste them on a dying regimes last breath.
... then only people who believed it was right to follow orders no matter what were Nazis
ah, more false implications. i havent seen any poster say that it is "right to follow orders no matter what". thats just the implication you are making, thus trying to make posters sound like nazis. its a neat trick, but transparent. again, youre combining the two issues (feelings that an act is immoral, or knowing they are breaking international law).
aa
