A few in military refuse to fight 'wrong war' (page 9)

Trauma_Hound

Ok Dubla, let me explain it for you, you said ". By yesterday families with children were lining roads near the southern city of Basra, waving and cheering at U.S. and British forces as they rumbled north. " So how can families be lining up in Basra, if Basra is now a "military" target? I certaintly wouldn't be going up and greeting people, if I was now considered a militray target. Do you always believe everything your told?

Trauma_Hound

Tony Blair is the Bush Regimes poodle. And Bush is the Military/Industrial complex's poodle.

William Penwell

All the TV news coverage I have seen they have commented about that it wasn't what they expected. Outside of one 20 second video clip I have not seen the an over enthusiastic crowd on the TV coverage. I am sure if it happened the American propaganda news network, CNN would be using it. Also what would you do if you were being invaded by 300,000 armed personal? Again you don't get it, Muslim countries look at the west as invading infidels. They don't trust us and can you blame them? For hundreds of years all we have done is to suppress them and take out of the their countries what we want.

Will

rem

Simon,

I certainly never said that objecting and refusing to fight is never the 'right' thing. The issue is whether the person objecting should pay back to the government what they've benefited from when they've breached their contract. You see, the American military is voluntary. The Iraqi military is not.

Your argument that the US says that Iraqi soldiers disobeying orders is 'right' is a red herring.

rem

dubla

th-

thanks for the explanation. now let me clear up your confusion for you.

So how can families be lining up in Basra, if Basra is now a "military" target?

gee, maybe it would help if you actually read the links i posted...ya think? that particular article i quoted was from sunday, which would mean the cheering for the troops wouldve been taking place on saturday. now, you posted an article from this morning, which clearly states:

The British military has had to rethink its strategy

hmm....why would they rethink the strategy? maybe there is sudden pockets of resistance emerging from the vicinity that werent there before...and they probably werent experiencing this resistance, say, saturday? t h, think before you post, itll prevent further embarrassment.

aa

dubla

rem-

You see, the American military is voluntary. The Iraqi military is not.
Your argument that the US says that Iraqi soldiers disobeying orders is 'right' is a red herring.

excellent points.

aa

Simon

yes, much clearer, and youve proven what i was saying all along, as firing chemical/biological weapons on us would be more than just the wrong "thing to do", it would be illegal.

The USA has worse weapons ... is firing those illegal? How about if you have lots of smaller weapons ... is that illegal? Is it only illegal if they fire at 'us' but we can fire as much ordinance at them?

Is killing 100,000 by explosives and bullets Ok but 100 by biological weapons Ok?

How about Nuclear weapons ... are they all illegal? Could we fire those but not anyone else?

rem

Also, regarding the legality of the war, there is no question this is legal. The reason for the US, UK, and Spain tried to pass the last resolution was not for legality sake, but to help the UK gain the support of the people. There is no doubt that there are countries that will claim this violates International law. That doesn't mean they are right. According to the cease fire agreements, Saddam has failed to hold up to his obligations. You see, with a cease fire agreement, the fire only ceases as long as the obligations are upheld. They have not been. Some, like myself, would say that the US has shown great restraint for the past 12 years, but that policy has not been successful.

rem

dubla

Is it only illegal if they fire at 'us' but we can fire as much ordinance at them?

i dont think anyone claimed that iraqi soldiers firing on us in defense was illegal. maybe im not smart enough about international law, but i dont believe this to be illegal.

Is killing 100,000 by explosives and bullets Ok but 100 by biological weapons (not) Ok?

technically speaking, as an iraqi soldier, you are absolutely correct. whether or not it makes sense to you personally isnt the issue.

How about Nuclear weapons ... are they all illegal? Could we fire those but not anyone else?

oh brother. we all know its not legal for iraq to have those types of weapons. again, it may not make sense to you personally, but in the context of this particular topic (following orders), thats how it is. i didnt write the laws, and youre just trying to cloud the issue.

aa

rem

Simon,

Of course the US has nuclear weapons. So do many other countries. Yes they are legal to use in certain circumstances by certain countries. Chemical/Biological weapons are illegal (I think there actually are some circumstances where they can be used legally by some countries, but I'm not sure about that). Conventional weapons are not illegal, but they can be used in an illegal way. This is all basic stuff.

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread? This thread has to do with a voluntary military and the price one should expect to pay for choosing his battles as a soldier. Obviously a soldier in a compulsurary military never had a choice to join in the first place.

rem

A few in military refuse to fight 'wrong war'

Share this