Officer Refused to Deploy to Iraq

[Roxie]

Fresh Air from WHYY (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13), January 25, 2007 · Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada is the first American officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that he thinks the war is illegal. He is joined by one of his lawyers, Eric Seitz, a civillian. Watada is now being court-martialed for his refusal, and for statements he made opposing the war and the Bush administration's leadership.

Listen Here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7017446)

Wow, he's even got a wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada)!

[Decade]

I dunno how I feel about this yet.

He joined the army AFTER the war in Iraq began (per the wiki entry, so who knows if thats 100% accurate) and is now refusing to go.

While I can understand nobody actually wanting to go to war themselves, he did sign up for this.

I'm too confused to really make a firm opinion on this :gloomy:

[haterllnation]

I read this about a month or so ago. Hmm, I am split on this. I think he has the right to think the way he does. He is probably not alone over there. However, when you sign that line you sign your life to the government. Your thoughts and actions are theirs to do as they see fit. Even if you signed up with passion after September 11th, that has ALWAYS been the case.

I do think they should have at least stationed him in Afghanistan. It's one case and I don't think it would have mattered much. In that same argument, one could say that him having a choice means other soldiers may follow suit. That would destroy Bush's troop count in Iraq (not going to happen). Fact of the matter is, when you go into the armed services, you basically give up those freedoms. It's a war you signed up for and you have to roll with it. He should have just taken the desk job in Iraq.

The thing that stood out (shouldn't have) is the Japanese-American Vets that are against him. He is being dishonorable by taking a stand instead of bucking up and fighting the fight. Sometimes we have to do things we don't agree with in war. It's been that way way before the WWI. I commend that he stood up, against a court martial, for his beliefs. However, I think people should know that when they sign the line to enlist, you sign your life to them.

[Roxie]

If you click the first link, you can hear his story in his own words.

[Jetsetlemming]

and for statements he made opposing the war and the Bush administration's leadership.
Bullshit! Maybe he's had an extra charge added on for talking back to a superior officer, but there is no way in HELL he's getting courtmartialed for "opposing the war and the Bush administration".

[Roxie]

Bullshit! Maybe he's had an extra charge added on for talking back to a superior officer, but there is no way in HELL he's getting courtmartialed for "opposing the war and the Bush administration".
Dude, check out the links.

In response to Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, the U.S. Army has leveled a number of charges against him:

conduct unbecoming an officer
missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22)
contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush))On Nov. 9, 2006, the U.S. Army announced the decision of Fort Lewis commander Lt. Gen. James Dubik that Lt. Watada would face a court martial. Without the "contempt for officials" charges, he will face up to six years confinement as well as dismissal if convicted of all charges.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada#_note-seattletimes1) The court-martial is to begin on February 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_5), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada#_note-starbulletin)

[Jetsetlemming]

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" and "contempt towards officials" is far from court martialling him for his political beliefs, which is how that particular statement is spun. It's horribly biased, and that should be obvious to you. It's an undisguised attack at the army officials to make it seem like they're trying to silence his protest and free speech, rather than legitimately punishing him for refusing orders.

[haterllnation]

You can get a court martial for simply running from a fight, if commanding officer feels the need to. Actually, they can kill you in combat. Do they? No. Could they? Yes. I have read the links as well as the other articles on other forums about it and I still stick to what I've said.

[Mechs]

They should demote this guy back down to private before they kick him to the curb.

[Y.T.]

That's true.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be equally just that the people who through their arrogance, stupidity, and recklessness caused the deaths of 3000 soldiers and countless Iraqis get tarred, feathered and ultimately hanged from streetlights in Washington DC ?
Though stuffing their mouths full of dollar bills until they suffocate would be a more fitting punishment.

The Iraq war is not going to be a success. Was never gonna be, the way they planned it.

... and they'll all go on to enjoy life, write their memoirs or in case of the Shrub have them written, some living very comfortably off money that you all paid in taxes and which went to war profiteers.

[Roxie]

"Conduct unbecoming an officer" and "contempt towards officials" is far from court martialling him for his political beliefs, which is how that particular statement is spun. It's horribly biased, and that should be obvious to you. It's an undisguised attack at the army officials to make it seem like they're trying to silence his protest and free speech, rather than legitimately punishing him for refusing orders.
Then what do you think it is?

[Jetsetlemming]

I think it's insubordination, and I think that his court-martial is 100% legit. He joined the army. He knew what he was getting into. Once you sign up, what you think doesn't matter anymore. You aren't a free individual anymore. You're completely under the control of the state until you're discharged. That's it, no ifs ands or buts made because you just so happen to disagree with your orders.

[Baroness]

Why would be bother signing up if he didn't plan on going?

o_O

[geesehoward4life]

That's true.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be equally just that the people who through their arrogance, stupidity, and recklessness caused the deaths of 3000 soldiers and countless Iraqis get tarred, feathered and ultimately hanged from streetlights in Washington DC ?
Though stuffing their mouths full of dollar bills until they suffocate would be a more fitting punishment.

The Iraq war is not going to be a success. Was never gonna be, the way they planned it.

... and they'll all go on to enjoy life, write their memoirs or in case of the Shrub have them written, some living very comfortably off money that you all paid in taxes and which went to war profiteers.

Agree 100%! I find it funny that when Saddam hung, no one who helped him stay in power prior to the first Gulf War has been questioned, criticized or anything. As for this dude, I will say what I was faced with when I DID NOT JOIN! You have to take a military career seriously, whether you are National Guard, Reserve or not.

You really give up a lot of your rights when you sign up and you have to be really honest about that and the fact that your job is to kill or be killed in many instances. Most people who sign-up without thinking it through don't really understand that the military is controlled by the politicians. If the politicians deploy you for the wrong reasons... you're SCREWED. I haven't heard from my sworn brother in a few days and I'm starting to get a little antsy.

I don't wanna call his wife in Germany, but he usually logs on in the morning over in Baghdad just to let me know he's still breathing :gloomy: This entire fiasco has really put a damper on enlistment, I just can't stand the fact that people don't take this situation seriously enough and move to at least threaten impeachment against Emperor Bush. This his two terms in office will affect our country for the next few decades at the very least.
:frypan:

[ruaidhri]

There’s no doubt in my mind that war should always be the very last thing we want. I definitely have a problem with the war in Iraq. We never should have started it and we shouldn’t wait before thousands more of our young men and women are killed before we leave Iraq.

Still, as a former member of the military (U.S. Coast Guard – 1962-66), I must say that an individual’s freedoms are somewhat restricted while in uniform. While you can refuse an illegal order, for example, you may refuse to deliberately harm defenseless civilians, the military does have the right to order you to indiscriminately drop bombs, shells and fire on areas that include defenseless civilians.

Perhaps the most basic of all the functions of government is to protect its citizens from harm from both within and outside its borders. These police and military functions are necessary to preserve and protect the “rights” of all citizens, including the protestors.

It’s important to note that each one of us is not a government onto ourselves. The United States is a Republic where the citizens democratically elect individuals to represent them in the legislative and executive branches of our federal government. We can not choose which laws we obey and which, we don’t. Those that disobey face fines and imprisonment. For the government to do otherwise would destroy the rule of law. The government would collapse.

The military could not complete its mission if every decision, every order and every action would be subject to the individual soldier’s approval. But, certainly, the individual soldier can question any decision, refuse any order and not participate in any action. He or she must then be prepared to bear the consequences.

[Roxie]

Well, he says he won't fight b/c the war is an Illegal one.

Upon discovering that he would be going to Iraq, Watada began conducting research on the war. After reading about international law, the history of Iraq, articles by scholars as well as governmental and non-governmental agencies,[6] and speaking with veterans returning from Iraq,[5] he ceased to believe in the legality and morality of the war. In January 2006 he submitted a resignation request, declaring that he would not serve in Iraq. Based on this research, Watada claimed, the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit", as well as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself does not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country. For all of these reasons, says Watada, he cannot morally participate in the war.[7]

According to Watada (and this can be heard in the NPR link I posted) the information on WMDs was falsfied to fit the agenda.

Coursse, he's not the first to say that.

[Decade]

God you kick ass Ruaidhri :innocent:

[Pierrot le Fou]

It is foolish to sign over your rights and then do the research afterwards. He has only himself to blame for that. He was a college-educated officer, and should have known very well what he was signing up for. He has very few excuses for shirking his duty and acting against the rules he agreed to live by.

Volunteering for an experimental medical procedure and then protesting against being used as a guinea-pig is along the same lines. It's just stupid.

[erbiumfiber]

I would totally trade 6 years in prison in place of going to Iraq. He'll be convicted and then pardoned by the next (democratic) President. Or not pardoned. But he'll be alive and have a clean conscience.

This from someone who spent 3 years on an ROTC scholarship and then shirked (long story) duty. Ended up working for the federal government for 7 years so the US got its money back in the long run...

[Pierrot le Fou]

Accepting the consequences is fine. I take little issue in that. Signing up, knowing the consequences and likely results of signing up, only to change your mind and fight as if you aren't screwing over the agreement you signed, that's something I regard as foolish.

[Decade]

Or not pardoned. But he'll be alive and have a clean conscience.
Alive? Probably.

Clean conscience? Not guranteed.

[Kass]

Well, he says he won't fight b/c the war is an Illegal one.



According to Watada (and this can be heard in the NPR link I posted) the information on WMDs was falsfied to fit the agenda.

Coursse, he's not the first to say that.

He might have a point if WMDs were the only reason the president gave for going to war with Iraq. If you go back and research, there were about eight or nine reasons including Iraq's support of terrorists and Hussein's repeated attempts at genocide, but WMDs are the only ones anyone cares to remember. doesn't make the war any more competently run, but the premise that the existence of WMDs is the only reason for going to war is a false premise.

Watada is getting what he deserves for disobeying orders. He knew what he was getting into when he voluntarily enlisted AFTER the war had already began. Did he think he was special and wouldn't have to serve in combat like any other soldier? Did he honestly expect to join the service during a time of war and NOT be called upon to go into combat? Should he be allowed to take this stance? absolutely, but he had darn well be prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. Every action has consequences, even moral ones.

Joining the Army, then refusing to obey orders and deploy with his fellow soldiers who depended on him to have their backs is a shitty thing to do to his fellow soldiers. Every soldier in a unit has a unique role and is necessary for the unit to function effectively and safely. Leaving his buddies without someone to do his job is heinous and IS conduct unbecoming.

He should never have enlisted if he objects to the war. At least then he would have not let anyone down. It's pretty convenient that he had this sudden bout of morality and conscience AFTER he was assigned to combat. I have the utmost respect for most people who protest the war and refuse to join the military because of that, but I have no respect for people who come to those conclusions to conveniently protect themselves from harm at the expense of others.

[Trump]

The act of sending him over to Iraq is not illegal, regardless of the "legality" of the "war". Right now, we have troops on foreign soil, and the sovereign government of that soil has no problem with our troops being there. So his claims are completely baseless.

If he had been commanded to fire the first shots from a helicopter during the war, he might have an argument, but not now.

[c-rex]

Normally the military would let an officer quietly resign or transfer them over to some bullshit job if the officer felt he was unable to carry out his duties and lead his unit in combat. I think that Watada might have been able to swing a transfer to some State side noncombat job had he kept his mouth shut. But now that he's going public the military pretty much has to have this guy's ass to avoid setting a very visible precedent for the next guy that doesn't want to fight.

So long as he is willing to accept the consquences of what the military will do him, it is his right to martyr himself into jail.

As for his claims on how the war is illegal, this war is not illegal no matter how you cut it. The commander and chief of the military ordered the military to invade and occupy Iraq, Congress approved these actions and has not rescinded that approval. Until Congress basses legislation ordering the President to leave Iraq the war is legal. Morality of said war is questionable, but the letter of American law was obeyed. As other have pointed out he also should not have joined the military post illegal acts of war.

[jindojim]

They should demote this guy back down to private before they kick him to the curb.
He never rose from the ranks of enlisted men...he's a commissioned officer. I'm not sure how serious you are about that statement, but it's not likely he can be demoted to a private when he never even served as a private in the 1st place.

If you're going to serve in the Army, you should probably know that...

As for Lt. Watada, it's clear that he knew about the likelihood of deployment and is now taking the coward's way out. When I did time in Army ROTC, I was told from the first training camp that I went through that this country is in a war and that most of us will see combat. This is something that my fellow cadets and I were told. However, I'm sure most of us hoped somewhere that the war would be over by the time we became 2nd Lieutenants. Luckily, I dropped out (before I signed the contract) because I didn't want to fight a war that seemed to serve no purpose. But, even though I was never under a contract during my military experience, I still felt that my ass belonged to the government. I knew that, if I had joined, I would have had to obey the ranks above me, all the way up to the President. And this is made clear to you from the beginning.

Lt. Watada knew that combat was imminent. However, he apparently remained in denial that somehow he would be exempt from time in Iraq, and now, when faced with reality, he's trying to get out (in as big a bang as possible furthermore). It's a disgrace for an officer to act that way, since it sets a bad example not only for himself but for the enlisted men who are still going off into the conflict, and he deserves the full penalty for his actions.

[Roxie]

As for his claims on how the war is illegal, this war is not illegal no matter how you cut it. The commander and chief of the military ordered the military to invade and occupy Iraq, Congress approved these actions and has not rescinded that approval. Until Congress basses legislation ordering the President to leave Iraq the war is legal. Morality of said war is questionable, but the letter of American law was obeyed.
Well, to be true, Congress never officially declared war, they just went along with the president's initiative.

Secondly, he's not citing plain ol' American law, but Nuremburg and U.N. laws...I think I quoted it.

[Decade]

That's the biggest problem this is gonna bring though

He can cite any law he wants, but the fact of the matter is that he's trying to get out of his duties for less than honorable means, regardless of the wording he uses.

But, why this is REALLY gonna be a problem is how democrats and liberals will go after this (I'm just waitin for Cindy Sheehan to show up).

Somewhere, Michael Moore is tryin to have a fart war with this guy in a public bathroom.

[c-rex]

Well, to be true, Congress never officially declared war, they just went along with the president's initiative.

Secondly, he's not citing plain ol' American law, but Nuremburg and U.N. laws...I think I quoted it.
Congress authorized the use of force. They may not have used the word war, but there is no way you can claim sending the military to a country where our elected officials have approved the use of force is illegal, espcially given that there has never even been a serious attempt by Congress to rescind that approval or call the troops home it seems like it stands.

As for UN and Nuremburg Law, well its cute and all that he tries to bring them in, but he's being tried in an American court for breaches of American laws. Nuremburg comes from the trial of foreign soldiers by Allied courts and is traditional considered to be a kangaroo court by most legal historians. We'd just fought a long and bloody war and wanted to rubber stamp the executions of the Germans leadership that surrendered to us, as opposed to being like the Soviets and sending them off to die in Siberia. As for the UN it has long been a belief of the American military that we are not bound by UN law (ie the refusal to allow UN courts to try American military personnel for war cimes). I'm betting the judge will simply declare citations of such laws to be meaningless and proceed with the court martial. Military judges have a lot more power than civillian ones in such matters.

Edit:
Decade: This guy's mom is already working with Cindy Sheehan as per this guy's wiki.

[setrict]

Somewhere, Michael Moore is tryin to have a fart war with this guy in a public bathroom.

You forgot to cite references: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX6_SI32S9s

[Pierrot le Fou]

As for UN and Nuremburg Law, well its cute and all that he tries to bring them in, but he's being tried in an American court for breaches of American laws. Nuremburg comes from the trial of foreign soldiers by Allied courts and is traditional considered to be a kangaroo court by most legal historians. We'd just fought a long and bloody war and wanted to rubber stamp the executions of the Germans leadership that surrendered to us, as opposed to being like the Soviets and sending them off to die in Siberia. As for the UN it has long been a belief of the American military that we are not bound by UN law (ie the refusal to allow UN courts to try American military personnel for war cimes). I'm betting the judge will simply declare citations of such laws to be meaningless and proceed with the court martial. Military judges have a lot more power than civillian ones in such matters.
No n-n-no-no! He will be tried in a MILITARY court for breaches of MILITARY laws. Very VERY different.

[c-rex]

No n-n-no-no! He will be tried in a MILITARY court for breaches of MILITARY laws. Very VERY different.
I know. If you read down the post I did point the different between domestic and military courts. I could have typed American military court to be more clear I suppose.

[Decade]

You forgot to cite references: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX6_SI32S9s

Sorry :box:

Decade: This guy's mom is already working with Cindy Sheehan as per this guy's wiki.

GRRRRAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Pierrot le Fou]

I know. If you read down the post I did point the different between domestic and military courts. I could have typed American military court to be more clear I suppose.
It struck me as rather ambiguous, but I'll take your word for it.

[Plekto]

Yeah, he's B0rked. He signed up to be their whore and it's not a police action(Central America, whatnot) but an officially sanctioned by Congress(tm) war. He has no choice but to go if he signed up. And as an official war, all of the rules apply, including being shot for desertion. He should be glad he's only getting a courtmartial and not being sent off to Guantanimo as an example.

BTW.
Section 27b right after your signature is this line in 2 point type.
"By signing this document you agree to be our piece of meat for the duration of your contract." ;)

It seems as if a lot of soldiers miss this clause. (grin) Joining the military and being in jail are remarkably the same in terms of how many of your rights and freedoms are rescinded or just not at the same level as a normal civilian. Of course, he knew this as an officer going in. He wasn't some 90IQ idiot some recruiter found and suckered into joining. I feel for him, but it's like feeling sorry for someone who got hurt driving his sportbike 140mph.

He has three options.
1: Do the time in jail and survive, just like many people did who protested Vietnam, btw. He might very well get a pardon. Then again, that reporter in San Fransisco has been in jail for nearly a year for simmilar ethical reasons, so it's not like he's unique, either.

2:Apply to go to another location, say, Afganistan. Lots of real terrorists and bad guys to fight there. Few ethical problems with it, either.

3:Give up and redeploy to Iraq if they'll let him.

Of course, he's made them mad and peed in their bed, so options 2 and 3 are off the table, barring congress getting convolved or something. Looks like he'll have to suck it up for the next 23 months until the next President is elected. And hope it's a Democrat.

[Roxie]

2:Apply to go to another location, say, Afganistan. Lots of real terrorists and bad guys to fight there. Few ethical problems with it, either.

tsk, tsk, tsk!
Plekto didn't listen to the interview or read the wiki~~

[Kass]

It seems as if a lot of soldiers miss this clause. (grin) Joining the military and being in jail are remarkably the same in terms of how many of your rights and freedoms are rescinded or just not at the same level as a normal civilian.

You give up no freedoms other than the ability to publicly run for office or serve in a political campaign. You can still advertise for politicians on your car or in your front yard and can still vote however you want. Running for office isn't even a universal constitutional guarantee. Relevant to that restriction, only the rights to vote and free speech are.

What you do is sign a contract agreeing to follow additional regulations and obey orders for the duration of your contract, breach of which is a criminal offense. Like moving to another state, you agree to abide by the laws of that state. By joining the military, you agree to abide by the UCMJ. Of course, only in the military do they tell you up front exactly that the laws change. When you move from Texas to Virginia, no one tells you up front that living together as an unmarried couple is legal in Texas, but considered adultery and is a felony in Virginia.

Your fundamental protections under the Bill of Rights cannot be abridged by any law.



He has three options.
1: Do the time in jail and survive, just like many people did who protested Vietnam, btw. He might very well get a pardon. Then again, that reporter in San Fransisco has been in jail for nearly a year for simmilar ethical reasons, so it's not like he's unique, either.

2:Apply to go to another location, say, Afganistan. Lots of real terrorists and bad guys to fight there. Few ethical problems with it, either.

3:Give up and redeploy to Iraq if they'll let him.


Actually, once he refused a lawful order, he had no options other than to stand court martial. He broke the law. Yes, it is the UCMJ which people seem to think is some sort of inferior law, but it is the law passed and approved by Congress. It's law, just like any other federal law. He will stand court martial before a panel whose members include officers equal and higher in rank (especially since you can't go much lower than 1st LT). He will be represented by counsel free of charge unless he chooses to hire a civilian attorney. He will be afforded all the same protections any defendant in any court would be. He has the right to present any legal defense he wants. He will be granted appeals if he is convicted.

And no, military judges don't have more latitude in determining what laws apply. They are bound by the same laws of this country and the same judicial ethics as any civilian judge. Like state judges, they have different laws to keep up with than those in the next state.

He can cite UN treatises and Nürnburg laws all he wants, but it is US law and the UCMJ that applies. No one here elected the UN and they do not have the authority to pass laws for our country. Period. They have no authority to pass laws for anyone. That's why abiding by UN resolutions and sanctions is optional. They can't do squat to enforce anything.

Besides, with the exception for extreme cases, international law applies to nation-states, not individuals. Normally, only in very rare cases of grotesque war crimes, are individuals tried in international courts. Even in co-operative international law enforcement efforts like the recent crackdown on child pornography, individuals are arrested by local authorities and tried in local courts, not international ones.

[Plekto]

Yeah, I know how it works. I jsut thought that seeing the potential courtmartial looming, oh, say, a year ago... He could have pulled some strings and maybe gotten redeployed to Afganistan or half a dozen other places.

But he went and peed in their cornflakes. And he's going to get reamed and made an example of. Such is military life. When you sign on the dotted line, your day-to-day schedule and rights are pretty much what the government says they are(of course your Constitutional rights still exist, but you know what I mean). If Congress says go fight for some rock in BFE, well, son, you're going to stomp up that hill or get your butt lit on fire for disobeying.

And as an officer, he does impact the performance of the people under him. The worst thing they say, in a combat zone, is a green officer with no combat experience. I'm sure his buddies he served with for over a year appreciate having to re-learn how to work together as a team while still getting shot at.(it'd be interesting to see how well they fared vs their first deployment)

If he was *smart*, he'd have deployed and then filed grievence while there for the actions that he was required to take - killing civilians, whatever - I'm sure he could have come up with something. (note the several hundred enlisted and officers doing exactly that right now) "I'm not going to kill everyone at the top of the hill" is totally different than "I'm not showing up to march up it."

And illegal? Once Congress has officially declared war - it doesn't matter if they are atacking the Vatican. It's as "legal" as any other law as long as you remain inside the U.S. If it was some under the table war like how we bombed Cambodia or incited revolutions in half of Central America, then illegal might very well apply.

[Y.T.]

Hmm... it's rumored that US Army'll officially start signing up foreigners...
(Nowadays, there are ~ 30 000 foreigners in the services, but those are mostly illegals who want to get citizenship, or so I have read).. I think I am pretty high up when it comes to intelligence percentile .. won't be a problem. Right now they take in retards (IQ 85 ..tsk tsk), scrape the bottom of the barrel. Recruiting foreigners will only highlight how gutless and hypocritical Americans are. For christ's sakes.. 50 million voted for the shrub, there should be 12 million potential recruites... and that's not counting women.

So I'll probably sign on the dotted line too. It's gonna be a hoot, being on the cutting edge of foreign policy I dislike. But then I prefer doing things, not deciding what should I do.

It's all meaningless anyway. And the Neocons'll be out in no time.. maybe the wars'll start making sense.

[Beowulf]

If this guy was national guard I could get behind him 100%

But he's not so screw him.

[haterllnation]

Another thing to point out for those going in. NCO can get in and get out after their tour of duty (in most cases). If you are commissioned, you are in their back pocket for as long as they want you to be.

/random

[Kaji]

Another thing to point out for those going in. NCO can get in and get out after their tour of duty (in most cases). If you are commissioned, you are in their back pocket for as long as they want you to be.

/random

True. The reason is that the NCO signed a contract of limited length, whereas all commissioned officers serve "at the pleasure of the President of the U.S.", which usually comes out to serving until they've either been passed over for promotion twice, or served 20+ years (and thus retired) and are no longer in a capacity the government considers them too essential to release from (it's why my uncle in the Navy, after being as active as possible while on reserves practically since the first Gulf War, was able to get reactivated and since promoted from a reserve commander to an active-duty captain and officially get his 20 years of active service in).

In the end though, stop-loss mitigates all that by saying that if you are considered too essential to let go, you can be drafted back into the service in your old MOS at any point in time, so long as you have at some point signed your life to the US Government and not been discharged under adverse circumstances.

[seiji]

I think I am pretty high up when it comes to intelligence percentile .. won't be a problem. Right now they take in retards (IQ 85 ..tsk tsk), scrape the bottom of the barrel.
In addition, because people with IQs below 80 (the 10th percentile, Department of Defense "Category V") are difficult to train, federal law bars their induction into the military.
And that's still ten points higher than the usual limit for retardation. :watson:

[Y.T.]

Hmm. If he wanted out, why didn't he say he was gay ? That boots you out of the Army in no time..

Or if he is so smart, commiting some kind of infraction that gets you a dishonorable discharge and nothng else isn't that hard ..

Oh. I get it .. he wanted to make a point.


And that's still ten points higher than the usual limit for retardation.

Jeez. I was speaking figuratively... anyone who watches pro wrestling is a retard ..:duh:

[Jetsetlemming]

Being gay does not get you thrown out of the army. :bored: Breaking "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't get you discharged. Unless you broke it on the "Don't ask" side of it, and did so via gay bashing. >_>
Hey! He could just be a violent homophobe with no self control! That'll get him out! :liar:

[Plekto]

Better yet, just hit on someone in his command. Even if it's fake, he'll be pulled off of that duty right quick and probably be scrubbing floors somewhere. So many ways to get discharged.

But as Zakalwe said, he wanted to make a point. Such a moron. If there's one thing you can learn from this administration, what after Guantanimo, stealing the last election, gutting the Pentagon of most peolpe who didn't agree with the policies, and even threatening to jail journalists for protecting their sources... Yeah, you don't even think about getting in their face. They have an auger the size of a Mack Truck and aren't afraid to use it to give you a *few* new holes in places you didn't even know existed.

[Kass]

Hmm... it's rumored that US Army'll officially start signing up foreigners...
(Nowadays, there are ~ 30 000 foreigners in the services, but those are mostly illegals who want to get citizenship, or so I have read)..

That would mean they are already signing up foreigners and to enlist, you can't be in the country illegally as that is a felony and the military won't accept felons. You have to be legally in the US or a resident of a US protectorate (American Samoa, for example) to enlist and gain citizenship.

[Kurogetsu]

If it's true that he signed up after the war broke out, then to me it seems like he didn't make a very conscious decision. People get deployed all the time, what makes him the exception?

[Trump]

That's easy. It's because he has a lawyer!! Duh!

sigh...

[Y.T.]

Being gay does not get you thrown out of the army. :bored: Breaking "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't get you discharged. Unless you broke it on the "Don't ask" side of it, and did so via gay bashing. >_>
Hey! He could just be a violent homophobe with no self control! That'll get him out! :liar:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/19/BAGGNCR4QO1.DTL
http://www.q.co.za/2001/2002/11/18-usmilitary.html

From the last article:

Shanks said it was US policy to discharge any soldier who was either discovered engaging in homosexual conduct or admitted being homosexual.


Another from SFgate

The GAO report, requested by Congress, found that 10,000 troops have been discharged since President Bill Clinton instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1993. Among those were 322 language specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 missile specialists, 49 nuclear, chemical and biological warfare specialists, 50 intelligence operatives, and 163 police officers and professional prison guards.

10 000 ? That's a whole fucking division. Dissmissed for nothing.... the flowery turn of phrase from FMJ springs to mind .. "grabasstic pieces of amphibian shit" .. is a good way to brand the originators of that policy.

... Oh really? I imagine making a pass at your CO would get you out of the army in no time ..

Maybe it has changed, but then I haven't noticed it.

[Kass]

Yes, but were they actually discharged for violating "don't ask, don't tell" or is that a list of all less than honorable discharges? It doesn't say and sounds a bit high for "don't ask, don't tell" discharges.

And yes, jetsetlemming, you are still discharged if the military finds out your gay. Telling includes getting outed or getting caught. You can't do anything that might lead anyone to realize you're gay. That's telling.

[Y.T.]

Hmm.. wikipedia has a similar statistic.. but that doesn't prove anything either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask_don%27t_tell#Statistics

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/05/052406Military.htm

Official army numbers would be better..

[TygressVirgo]

Mistrial Declared, Maybe months before New Trial date is set

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032609/?GT1=9033

[Plekto]

I've done more reading on this and I'm finding myself actually supporting his side more and more because of two pieces of data that aren;'t making the news.

1:He specifically requested that he be redeployed to Afganistan instead way before any of this started. He has zero qualms about serving there and if they gave him the option tommorrow, he'd be on the next plane gladly.

2:The Nuremburg Trials had our own government taking his exact argument. That is, that a soldier has an obligation to disobey if he feels what he is doing is illegal or immoral. We used this rationale to convict many people who were "just following orders". Yet when its us doing the invading and questionable tactics, suddenly the same rules don't exist.(actually to be expected)

His other concern and the one that doesn't make the news wasn't that it is an illegal war so much as he was worried about doing things over there that would be war crimes.

I think there's going to be a rude awakening over this if we don't get out of there soon. Many of our soldiers and leaders could be convicted of crimes and hunted down like many people were after WWII.(Germany's laws don't recognize borders at all for such crimes - so even the U.S. isn't that safe, since many - no almost all of the people involved won't have Secret Service protecting them after they elave service/office.) I think the recent convictions in Germany and Italy concerning CIA abductions are just the start of a very bad thing - and I think he might be worried.

Getting tried for war crimes or serving a few years in jail... If he posed it as this sort of dillemma - it would probably gain more traction. But both sides are being asses at this point.

Me, though, I'd avoid it all and ship him to BFE Afganistan. Make sure he got a very difficult command over there. That's the real way things should be solved - no trials, no B.S. - you make a ruckus - you get your wish - in spades.

[Chris]

I think there's going to be a rude awakening over this if we don't get out of there soon. Many of our soldiers and leaders could be convicted of crimes and hunted down like many people were after WWII.(Germany's laws don't recognize borders at all for such crimes - so even the U.S. isn't that safe, since many - no almost all of the people involved won't have Secret Service protecting them after they elave service/office.) I think the recent convictions in Germany and Italy concerning CIA abductions are just the start of a very bad thing - and I think he might be worried.

Hardly. Your comparison is off base simply because while yes, some of our soldiers have commited immoral acts, but we have had no systematic destruction of any races. The majority of our soldiers, a huge majority have tried to balance survival and not slaughtering innocents. They've done a pretty good job of it.

[Plekto]

War crimes don't only include attempted genocide. And most of what our leaders have done, evenif the soldiers haven't, are dangerously close to over the line, by the most conservative estimates.

There's a reason even most Republicans now want out. They can so easily see their careers and butts on the line if this keeps going on like Vietnam did.

[Chris]

Then what is your definition of war crimes in this case? Obviously the CIA abductions, but what else has the military done (in a large scale, as you have suggested) that could be classified as a war crime (not simply a side effect of war, like the death of civilians)?

[Kass]

The acts Abu Ghraib could be considered war crimes, but here's the difference between us and the people we're fighting in Iraq. When our soldiers get caught doing something like that, we actually try them and put them in jail.

The soldiers who raped a woman in Mahmoudiya and burnt her body are going to spend the rest of their lives in prison and are lucky they won't be swinging in a hangman's noose since the federal government has the death penalty. One has already pleaded guilty to his part in the cover up.

The Marines who killed those civilians in Haditha had better take pleas as well, because they are extremely likely to face the death penalty in courts martial if they don't.

Also, early in the war there were some soldiers tried and convicted for looting gold and money from some of Saddam's seized properties. That kind of looting is also considered a war crime. It's also why so many Jewish organizations spent so many years hounding Switzerland--they protected people who looted the wealth of Jewish families.

We don't burn the bodies of our enemies in effigy and we don't behead people and post it on the internet for entertainment.

Think about the number of encournters our soldiers have had in the last four years and think of the number of incidents like this that have come to light. I can think of those four off the top of my head and I think there is one more, but that is five out of a million encounters with Iraqi civilians. Even if you triple the number, it is still a small percentage of soldiers who are not worthy of the uniform.

Yes, a small percentage of any military force is going to commit acts that are unspeakable, just like a small percentage of any society is going to commit acts that are unspeakable. By and large, the military members over there are honorable and decent people. Most of them genuinely want to do what is right. Most of them do what is right.

Honestly, unless Watada believed that if he was in Iraq, he personally was going to commit crimes, he has no basis to refuse a lawful order. Merely defending yourself or firing on enemy positions is not a crime. Whether or not people think the war is just is an entirely different argument than whether or not it is legal. Nothing in international law and nothing that resulted from the Nürnburg trials says that a country cannot got to war against another country. Like it or not, the war is legal. It might not be a just war, but it is legal. As such, Watada is obligated to follow lawul orders and no one ordered him to rape anyone, humiliate and degrade prisoners or slaughter families.

[Roxie]

Honestly, unless Watada believed that if he was in Iraq, he personally was going to commit crimes, he has no basis to refuse a lawful order. I think he does (believe that).

[Jetsetlemming]

He has no basis to refute the lawful order anyway. A soldier being able to refuse an immoral order, like slaughter an innocent village, or kill women and children, doesn't mean that they can decide anything they want is illegal and refuse. Their actions are reviewed by someone else higher up. They can't say "It's illegal to station me as a guard at the weapons depot!" or "It's a warcrime and a travesty to make me go through boot camp!" There has to be a good reason and cause.
This is one case where clearly no official is gonna agree with him.

[Plekto]

But once you are deployed, there, how do you know you'll no end up all but levelling another city like they did in Fallujah? White Phosphorus use is also a war crime - and we use it all the time over there.

I think he has a valid point - and so did the judge, hence the mistrial.

Of course, I STILL say - since it's a *volunteer* army we have and not a damn prison, let him go off to Afganistan. A nice difficult assignment since he made a stink about it.

"well, we have your normal job here in California or a radar station in BFE Alaska... your choice" This sort of option has always been good at motivating slackers. I'm sure there are plenty of hellish assignments in Afganistan right now...

[Chris]

But once you are deployed, there, how do you know you'll no end up all but levelling another city like they did in Fallujah? White Phosphorus use is also a war crime - and we use it all the time over there.




Um, what? Yeah, we hit Fallujah pretty hard, but we did not "level" it. Check your facts.

Same with white phosphorus, I'm sure we used it, but we didn't go dropping it on civilian areas for the hell of it. That'd do nothing for our goals over there.

[Mechs]

Um, what? Yeah, we hit Fallujah pretty hard, but we did not "level" it. Check your facts.

Same with white phosphorus, I'm sure we used it, but we didn't go dropping it on civilian areas for the hell of it. That'd do nothing for our goals over there.

White phosphorus has many other uses as well. Smoke screen and arty spoting are the first to come to mind.

[Beowulf]

White phosphorus has many other uses as well. Smoke screen and arty spoting are the first to come to mind.
Yeah and plain old colored smoke does the exact same job without the incineration of everthing in the area...

[Kass]

I think he does (believe that).

So he personally believes he was going to commit rape, murder children and steal from the Iraqi treasury? That's some upstanding young man you're defending. [/sarcasm]

I seriusly doubt that Watada personally intended to commit war crimes and with some prosecuted exceptions, the military action Iraq does not meet the international standards of war crimes.

So unless, he personally and deliberately intended to plan and commit a crime, making him the criminal, not the military, he has no grounds whatsoever to stand on. Like it or not, the war is legal and so are the overwhelming majority of the actions of the military there. As I said earlier, that doesn't speak to whether or not the war is justified, just the legality of it.

Since the international community has decided that the terrorists in that region deserve the same protections as a legitimate military force, please, how many countries in that region would actually put their war criminals on trial like we do? You know, the ones beheading people and putting the video out on the internet?

[Roxie]

So he personally believes he was going to commit rape, murder children and steal from the Iraqi treasury? That's some upstanding young man you're defending. [/sarcasm]
No, smart ass, if you've paid attention you'd see that's not the case.
I'm saying I think he believes that going to Iraq he may be asked to do illegal things.
Beside the fact that he believes the war to be illegal, which would make just about everything that happens there a war crime, no?

[Kass]

Whether or not he believes it to be illegal is irrelevant. I paid attention, You miss the point. International law and the US congress have already deemed the war legal. He's SOL on his opinions. Unless his commanding officer actually directly ordered him to do what was done at Abu Ghraib (and those soldiers are now in jail), kill children or rape women or the like, none of his orders were illegal.

His opinion on the war doesn't matter. The opinions (Congress, etc.) that matter have already weighed in on the subject. All that matters now is whether or not his actions based on his (irrelevant) beliefs violate the UCMJ.

The possibility that someone else might commit a crime is not justification for him to violate the law. On any given day anywhere in the world, a soldier might ask another soldier to commit a crime. That is no justification for disobeying lawful orders. "I can't deploy because someone might ask me to do something illegal" is a spurious defense. He only has grounds to refuse an order if he is actually asked to perform an illegal act. He can't pre-emptively refuse a non-existent order. He was not actually given any illegal orders, therefore, he has no right to refuse them.

[Kaji]

Just because a subsequent order may or may not be illegal does not make his order to go there illegal.

[Roxie]

I paid attention, You miss the point.
Good. Then you'll know I'm not defending him, as my mind on this issue hasn't been made up.

I don't miss the point, I'm trying to answer your question.
I think that he believes that by going to Iraq, during a war he is trying to prove as illegal, he will be ordered to do illegal things, whether they be out of the ordinary or not.

[Trump]

Also, the fact that it was a mistrial has nothing to do with the validity of any arguments.

[Plekto]

International law and the US congress have already deemed the war legal.


Actually, the U.N. itself has declared the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. International law says that we are in direct violation of the rules of warfare. Technically, the U.N. would be within its rights to gather together a multinational force and try to kick us out by force like we did with China in the Korean War.

P.S. before this all blows up in the military's face... just ship him to Afganistan and remove him from the media entirely. Such a simpler opton, really.

[Chris]

Actually, the U.N. itself has declared the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. International law says that we are in direct violation of the rules of warfare. Technically, the U.N. would be within its rights to gather together a multinational force and try to kick us out by force like we did with China in the Korean War.

P.S. before this all blows up in the military's face... just ship him to Afganistan and remove him from the media entirely. Such a simpler opton, really.


Yeah, but how is the UN the deciding authority? That's the same organization that hopped around the bush on whether Rwanda was a genocide or simply "acts of genocide." This isn't to say that we should discount everything the UN says, however simply because the UN says it's illegal doesn't make it so, there are other standards too, such as the Geneva convention. And by and large we've followed the Geneva convention.

[TygressVirgo]

Actually, the U.N. itself has declared the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. International law says that we are in direct violation of the rules of warfare. Technically, the U.N. would be within its rights to gather together a multinational force and try to kick us out by force like we did with China in the Korean War.

P.S. before this all blows up in the military's face... just ship him to Afganistan and remove him from the media entirely. Such a simpler opton, really.


I did a little research and as far as I could find, all that came up was the the UN secrtary general stated that the war was illegal, not so much that the UN as a whole said it was illegal. Do you have any links to articles that state different?

*edited for typo*

[Kaji]

As a forum, the US is barely half-decent. As a body that decides policy it is terrible, because it has no means of enforcing law without violating the soverignty of every nation on the planet (and believe it or not, uniting the world under a single nation is not the solution to said problem).

[Plekto]

Well, I said they *could* - just... yeah. Canada might as well try to take over California. ;)

IIRC, it's not a matter of dicsussion - we broke several rules - because invading a country as the aggressor on a whim(the imminent threat clause was also not met) is wrong. We signed those rules ourselves, so yes, we are breaking the laws we swore to uphold.

But such is life - every nation thunbs its nose at the U.N. because they have no balls. If the U.N. went in with 50,000 troops and crushed the Genocide in Africa with extreme force - yeah, people might - just MIGHT start to listen to them.

Hell, I don't even blame Iran for thumbing their nose at them - like the U.N. can do anything worse than their own isolationist policies have done.

[Kaji]

Plekto: Perhaps, but where is the UN going to get those 50,000 troops? From its own citizenry? Oh, wait, the UN doesn't have any citizens, hence its lack of power. You can say that it will insist that member nations contribute, but then you get political struggles such as France not wanting to commit any troops, but still wanting to provide the HQ company for the force so that it'll be under a French general, or other nations claiming that number of troops should be equal from each country, while others insist that it should be proportional to their population, while others moan about how X country isn't sending any troops in the first place.

Hence, until the UN has a citizenry of its own, it's utterly pointless for it to try to enforce laws passed through it.

[Campion]

Without getting in to the moral minefield of whether or not the invasion of Iraq is 'just' or 'right', let's settle once and for all the legality of the affair shall we?

The basis that we (both America and Britain) went to war was on the thorny issue of WMD, we invaded the country a second time on the now seemingly tenuous basis that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distruction.

He did have Weapons of Mass Destruction, we know this.

Question: Why do we know this when we found absolutely no evidence of them after the war?

Answer: We sold them to him. Yup, that's right, before the first Gulf War, America sold Iraq Botulism, Anthrax and a whole heap of other nasty biological weapons with which to gas his populace and anyone else he disliked. Don't believe me? It's all in the Reigle report. Arm yourselves with a copy.

As for good old Blighty (England) We sold him the parts to make the delivery systems. (remember Saddam's super gun?) According to the Scott report, we and our equally corrupt corporates and politicians had an awful lot to do with that. Want to see a really good piece of trying to hide evidence in political hyperbole, get a copy of that report.

I would postulate that after the first Gulf War we failed to find all of the weapons of mass destruction that we sold him, the UN obviously didn't find anything like what we sold him, so it wasn't a major stretch of the imagination to believe that Saddam still had pockets of these tools at his disposal.

We were certain he had those weapons, that's why our politicians went to war on that basis, they thought they could prove it and that at least this way they'd be justified in declaring war, unfortunately for the politicos our grunts just never found them.

On the basis of WMD the war was legal, but our politicians dont want to tell us why they knew it was legal. 'We know he has those weapons because we sold them to him' is unlikely to go down well with the voting public who are sick of war.


Campion.

[Chris]

Yeah, that was a huge mess.We sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in the hopes that they'd both just kind of "go away" if they were at war with one another long enough. Not one of our best moments in foreign policy.

[Plekto]

One note, though...

These weapons are useless once they get to be more than about a decade old - at least in a combat sense(sure you could die if you went crawling around in the hole where it landed). This is like comparing an old nuclear warhead. At a certain point, it's as effective as a firecracker - at best you get a dirty bomb and not much else.

But four years later... yep - nothing found. My guess is that he really DID use it all, every last drop, on his own population.

Btw - my theory on this is that Sadam collected and purposely destroyed the evidence of their destruction and/or use. He knew that the U.S. was blind and wouldn't believe he had none anyways. The more he told the truth, the more we were sure he was lying. It took so very little to feed us bad intel and get our leaders to invade him.

If Sadam wanted to really harm America(and Israel by extension) - a few bombs are nothing compared to how our reputation has suffered and how everyone in the whole region is against us. He set it up and we fell for it like rubes. It also had the bonus effect of completely crippling any progress at peace in Israel.

[Campion]

One note, though...

These weapons are useless once they get to be more than about a decade old - at least in a combat sense(sure you could die if you went crawling around in the hole where it landed). This is like comparing an old nuclear warhead. At a certain point, it's as effective as a firecracker - at best you get a dirty bomb and not much else.

But four years later... yep - nothing found. My guess is that he really DID use it all, every last drop, on his own population.

From memory, I think the Riegle report mentioned that they may have been used on American grunts in the first war too. I could be wrong, It's been a long time since I read it.

As for weaponised bio/chem, perhaps in the case of VX/Sarin gas et al they wouldn't last more than a decade. I'm not a chemist so I'm not sure about that, but I am pretty certain that all weapons grade Anthrax (Including the American stuff) dates back to a strain unique to Oxford in 1937 (Developed in Porton Down Weapons Research Facility, in the UK) and that's slightly longer than a decade ago. In fact, that's one hell of a shelf-life, but it's not something we can be proud of at all.

I remember seeing a News Report in 2002/3 and hearing a Politician (I can't remember who it was) claim 'We will account for all of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction', it was the word 'account' that struck me as an odd word. After all, you can't account for things if you don't know exactly what is where (incoming and outgoing). 'Find' would have been more appropriate word in that context if we didn't already know what he had. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but I remember an alarm bell going off in my head when I heard it.

It was then I started doing research on how the Gulf war(s) were managed, it's been interesting, to say the least. Particularly the whole 'Nurse Nayirah' affair. That was extremely disturbing. :(


Campion.

[Plekto]

Well, they WILL last a long long time, but at 25% yield or worse, plus the horribly bad shape the munitions would be in, you'd be better off strapping the missile to a fertilizer bomb and exploding it that way to disperse it a few blocks. The "Mass destruction" part is not even a factor.

[Kaji]

You act as though you can't breed bacteria...

[Jetsetlemming]

If Sadam wanted to really harm America(and Israel by extension) - a few bombs are nothing compared to how our reputation has suffered and how everyone in the whole region is against us. He set it up and we fell for it like rubes. It also had the bonus effect of completely crippling any progress at peace in Israel.
Yeah, because Saddam was totally the kind of guy to put the cause of his supporters over his own life and power in the name of a goal. That's certainly the impression I got from him having all those decadent palaces and how he genocided so much of his country's population and killed off all those that opposed him and generally treated his people like ants to be stomped on and squished and tortured! Yep. He sure was an altruistic guy. :sarcasm:

[Campion]

Well, they WILL last a long long time, but at 25% yield or worse, plus the horribly bad shape the munitions would be in, you'd be better off strapping the missile to a fertilizer bomb and exploding it that way to disperse it a few blocks. The "Mass destruction" part is not even a factor.

Let's say you're right and the yield is greatly reduced. We also sold him the equipment (under the guise of 'dual-use' technology) to reproduce more viable anthrax and according to the following DOD report, it's both A: Hardy, and B: Easy to reproduce, I mean if all viable weaponised anthrax did come from Porton Down in 1937, then is it a major leap to believe that with the advanced technology of the 90's that Iraq couldn't maintain and cultivate viable anthrax as a WMD?


* Stores well for long periods - Anthrax spores can remain viable for years. Climate control is not as critical as with other microbes because the spores have been known to live for decades in arduous environments. Anthrax was tested in the 1940s on Gruinard Island off the coast of Scotland, and viable spores could still be found until it was decontaminated in 1986.

* Easy to produce - Unlike viral agents that require more complicated production equipment, Bacillus anthracis can be produced in equipment common to almost any biologic production. It is easier to produce than almost any other BW agent. (The Anthrax Terror: DOD's Number-One Biological Threat - Col (Dr.) Jim Davis, USAF, Dr. Anna Johnson-Winegar, 2000)


Campion.

[Plekto]

True, the Anthrax/biological weapons can be kept alive - but the chemical ones are a use soon or not at all sort of proposition. Hence why you need active factories running to make the stuff. But we found no such installations. It was all used up, most likely.

Sadam had had several attempts at his life and getting on in years, it was only a matter of time before he was overthrown - like he did to the previous regieme. His hate for the U.S. was on the psychotic level - and he knew that getting us in a mess like this was his best choice of not only uniting everyone against Israel, but also against the U.S. And the U.S. was going to invade anyways - or at least back a coup to take over.

It's clear that he told the people to hide and go back home/underground. We faced almost no opposition in our takeover. He hid, and so did his brothers. There was a good chance that one of them would have lived or been wrapped up in court for years if they were captured.

We just were better at finding him that Bin Laden. And his trial was such a kangaroo court - he was probably thinking it would take another year or two to resolve. Of course, the main goals of damaging our reputation and getting us stuck in another Vietnam... Those were a done deal the second we invaded.

Me? I'd have sent Seals/Special Ops/etc in and shot him(he'd be dead either way). Let his own party clean up the mess and find a new ruler who would be easier to manipulate into doing what we wanted. Half a trillion dollars and 5000+(by the end of it) soldiers saved.

Or just give a few hundred million dollars to one of the groups opposing him. It's not very ethical, but then again, it's better than what we ended up with.

[Kass]

Actually, the U.N. itself has declared the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. International law says that we are in direct violation of the rules of warfare. Technically, the U.N. would be within its rights to gather together a multinational force and try to kick us out by force like we did with China in the Korean War.

P.S. before this all blows up in the military's face... just ship him to Afganistan and remove him from the media entirely. Such a simpler opton, really.

The UN isn't the deciding authority. The International Court at the Hague is and the UN hasn't actually passed any binding resolutions. Kofi Annan offered his opinion. There's a difference between the King of Corruption's opinion and actual law. Oh yes, the UN lacks the authority to pass any kind of law or enforceable action. It can't even enforce its own sanctions (and usually chooses not to do so) and can't enter a country without the permission of the country's government. Somehow, I don't see the Iraqi government inviting them in since right now, the only thing keeping them in power is the US.

[Chris]

Sadam had had several attempts at his life and getting on in years, it was only a matter of time before he was overthrown - like he did to the previous regieme. His hate for the U.S. was on the psychotic level - and he knew that getting us in a mess like this was his best choice of not only uniting everyone against Israel, but also against the U.S. And the U.S. was going to invade anyways - or at least back a coup to take over.



True, his hate for the US was on the psychotic level, but so was his want to stay in power. Look at his history and his decisions while in power. All were bent on furthering his stay as head of the Iraqi government.


It's clear that he told the people to hide and go back home/underground. We faced almost no opposition in our takeover. He hid, and so did his brothers. There was a good chance that one of them would have lived or been wrapped up in court for years if they were captured.

We just were better at finding him that Bin Laden. And his trial was such a kangaroo court - he was probably thinking it would take another year or two to resolve. Of course, the main goals of damaging our reputation and getting us stuck in another Vietnam... Those were a done deal the second we invaded.



That might have more or less been a goal of the terrorists, who wanted a chance to hurt the US and at the same time hated Saddam's regime enough t o see it fall, but I wouldn't say it was Saddam's goal.


Me? I'd have sent Seals/Special Ops/etc in and shot him(he'd be dead either way). Let his own party clean up the mess and find a new ruler who would be easier to manipulate into doing what we wanted. Half a trillion dollars and 5000+(by the end of it) soldiers saved.

Or just give a few hundred million dollars to one of the groups opposing him. It's not very ethical, but then again, it's better than what we ended up with.


I saw similiar arguments before the war, and they hold no more ground now than they did then. What's the point? We kill Saddam, another dictator goes into power, and who says he has to listen to us? What will make him? Threats? Hasn't worked too well in the past. Who's to say that if he listens to us in the first place that he'll continue doing so, and that he'll treat his people well? While I didn't agree with our method of completing disbanding the Ba'ath party, we couldn't have kept the exact same government with all of it's corruption and expected that to do any better with a new dictator. We would of ran into the same problems.

And what would any money do to an opposing group? We already screwed the Iraqi's once by promising support and withdrawing it. What amount of money would convince them that we wouldn't repeat that?

[Plekto]

I saw similiar arguments before the war, and they hold no more ground now than they did then. What's the point? We kill Saddam, another dictator goes into power, and who says he has to listen to us? What will make him? Threats?

Yet what will we deal with? Right - another dictator who won't listen to us. Our government actually loves to install dictators in foriegn contries as long as they are sympathetic to us and let us take their resources. It's actually the preferred outcome.

And how do we motivate them? Send billions in aid. Bribe them with enough money - that has usually worked for 10-20 years, at which time we can do it all over again if they step out of line.

In the end, we still get access to ther resources and more importantly, keep pounding down their military so that they never get close to our levels in technology(and don't get nuclear weapons)

Obviously I don't condine this myself, but that's how our government works.