What about the troops?

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 15:17
VIEWED: 12335
PAGE 1 of 1

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Over in another RWED thread, I posted an explanation of the military command structure as part of post regarding my military service in Iraq. I tried explaining how the chain of command works, and that the chief function of the military is to protect the country, its citizens, and its system of governments. I got the following response:

Quote:

Wow. Here's a hint about debating - if you're going to make a big, self-promoting statement like "servicemen are in the military to preserve your freedoms", do not immediately follow it with a comprehensive argument that shows your career has no basis on our freedoms (you're the C-in-C's bitch) and in fact if you were ordered to end our freedoms (for example, our freedom not to have a bullet lodged in our chests), then you'd do so.

This scared the hell out of me. Because up to this point in the Iraq war, those who oppose it have been able to separate their anger at the President from their feelings toward the military. Apparently, the wall that separates the two is beginning to crumble: apparently we veterans and active-duty servicemtn are "bitches" who would happily put bullets in the chests of civilians and who have no interest in preserving the freedoms enjoyed by American citizens.

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?

OLDENGLANDDRY

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:45 PM

Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 10:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

I'm not sure what this question has to do with the military being "an extention of the politician's arm." I guess I was under the impression that having the military under civilian control was a good thing, being that it provides a check on the power of the military.

In the second place, it would depend on the crowd. Are the civilians armed and shooting at me? If so, darned tootin', I'd shoot. If the civilians were not armed, and not posing a mortal threat to the lives of my men, hell no, I wouldn't shoot. That would constitute a Rules of Engagement violation, and as such, it would be an unlawful order, and I would, therefore, be obligated under military law to disobey it. Then I'd try like hell to get that officer court martialed for dereliction of duty for passing on an unlawful order (because he, too, had the obligation to disobey).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?

The vast majority of men and women that serve and have served this country deserve our gratitude and respect, as well as BETTER quality benefits than they've been recieving from miserly old Uncle Sam!!!! Average 100+ day wait for attention from the VA seems completely effed to me. If money can be dumped into this war, it sure as hell should include the well being of the troops back at HOME!!!

All manner of concerned Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:08 PM

Chris, I agree that the government isn't terribly swift about caring for vets (and neither, for that matter, is the military itself).

I guess the big issue on my mind, though, is the basic question: should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed? Some on this board have said that the only troops they support are the ones who refused to deploy (which I find disturbing) and others have come perilously close to the sort of rhetoric we saw in Vietnam (baby killer, et al). I am just wondering what people think: are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to blame? Or just Bush?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:09 PM

I'd like very very much not to believe that our boys are behaving like vikings. But they must follow orders. To question an order or refuse to obey one during war time can be a lethal mistake. I haven't seen enough evidence out of Iraq from the media to indicate they have behaved innapropriatly. This whole thing about "bitches" and all the rest is disrespectful given the lack of evidence of any atrocities.

CAUSAL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
I'd like very very much not to believe that our boys are behaving like vikings. But they must follow orders. To question an order or refuse to obey one during war time can be a lethal mistake. I haven't seen enough evidence out of Iraq from the media to indicate they have behaved innapropriatly. This whole thing about "bitches" and all the rest is disrespectful given the lack of evidence of any atrocities.

Yeah, that's a thing: it's one thing to arm-chair quarterback, another to make decisions when it's life and death and bullets are flying. And you're absolutely right. If you sit down to figure out whether or not you like an order, you or someone close to you will die. And the hell of it is, it's impossible to explain that fully to someone who hasn't had the experience of mortal terror in combat.

That said, there has been some misbehavior in Iraq. Haditha springs immediately to mind, as does Abu Ghraib. I hope the wrong-doers are punished severely. What seems to be missed is that those people are a tiny proportion of the 135,000 people who do their jobs honorably, professionally, and in keeping with the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 5, 2007 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
should the troops be blamed for Iraq in the same way, or to the same degree (or at all) as the President is blamed?

Troops do a job; they don't make the job details up to suit themselves. Wanna blame workers at Wal-Mart for closing down mom and pop shops? Wanng give them respect when Wal-Mart gives out a scholarship? They work there. Difference is they don't put their very lives on the line. Troops deserve respect for the hard and potentially deadly job they do. Apart from the inevitable tiny wacko percentage that you'll also find in any population of Police, Seven-11 workers or Hollywood actors, they are peeps, just like us, but braver. And in NO WAY responsible for the mess in Iraq, and any who say different are just in need of scapegoats and a kicked ass.

Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:11 AM

I have a theory that says that civilians have a tendency to treat the military and military operations the same way that they treat a waiter in a restaurant.

I see it happen every day.

If a consumer eats at a restaurant and the food is lousy, the waiter's tip suffers.

Why is this? What does the waiter have to do with the quality of the food? Usually nothing at all. Their job is to bring the food to you, and to get you accessories as you need them. (Refill your beverage, get a spare napkin, etc.)

Now, it's one thing if you ordered Eggs Benedict and got an Omelette. That is clearly the fault of the waiter. But if you got your Eggs Benedict and it's just awful, that's not the waiter's fault.

People seem to treat the military similarly, unfortunately. They don't like the quality of their war, so they take it out on the warriors. Why didn't the warriors refuse to go to this bad war? Likely the same reason the waiter didn't refuse to serve your bad Eggs benedict. It's their bloody job to serve. They don't choose the food or the war, and they don't choose how it's cooked or executed. They merely pledge to serve when called to do so.

Lately, as terms of service are changed and lengthened, I have begun to wonder if we aren't going to see more restaurant analogies.

You see, if your waiter/waitress has been forced to work mandatory overtime with no days off for 3 consecutive weeks, the quality of their service is bound to suffer. They aren't going to be as peppy in getting your order. You might not get that smile. Your extra napkin might never arrive. They might even get testy and rude with you.

The waiter certainly takes some blame, but so, too, should the management that forced endless days of long hours upon the beleagured employee. How long can a waitress be expected to deliver peppy, smiling service without a chance to unwind?

What about the folks carrying guns and getting shot at? What happens when they are pressed into service beyond reason? What happens when months turn into a year? What happens when a year turns into two? Or three? Or more? What is the warrior's equivelant to 'bad service?'

When the men in the field start to break down after too-long service, will we remember that the management is also to blame?

It's amazing how much the military is like a restaurant.

Then again, maybe I'm just hungry.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:15 AM

EXTREMELY well put, Tony!!!

Oh, waiter Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

I'm not sure what this question has to do with the military being "an extention of the politician's arm." I guess I was under the impression that having the military under civilian control was a good thing, being that it provides a check on the power of the military.

In the second place, it would depend on the crowd. Are the civilians armed and shooting at me? If so, darned tootin', I'd shoot. If the civilians were not armed, and not posing a mortal threat to the lives of my men, hell no, I wouldn't shoot. That would constitute a Rules of Engagement violation, and as such, it would be an unlawful order, and I would, therefore, be obligated under military law to disobey it. Then I'd try like hell to get that officer court martialed for dereliction of duty for passing on an unlawful order (because he, too, had the obligation to disobey).

Damned good answer.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:40 AM

Quote:
Yeah, that's a thing: it's one thing to arm-chair quarterback, another to make decisions when it's life and death and bullets are flying. And you're absolutely right. If you sit down to figure out whether or not you like an order, you or someone close to you will die. And the hell of it is, it's impossible to explain that fully to someone who hasn't had the experience of mortal terror in combat.

I call bullshit.

Not about whether you "like" an order or not, mind you... but about whether you SHOULD follow an order or not, as in how do you know without thinking it over.

Soldiers are warriors, warrior trained and although they have no *formal* training in Bushido, the very nature of their intent and intended use obviously is there as a basis.

When given an order, there's no NEED for thought, a soldier *KNOWS* in the eyeblink instant whether or not he should do it, or he is no soldier, but just a killer.

Our current training gives a lot of lip service to defying an illegal order, but then provides endless reinforcement against actually DOING it.

This Watada guy even tried to do it the right way to begin with, BEFORE making an issue of it, he attempted to resign his commission, something normally done for the exact reasons he tried to do it - and the military defied it's own regs to throw it back in his face and demand his compliance with an order he felt illegal.
*sigh*

Look, either they KNOW, or they're not soldiers, they're killers.
Which is it ?

That bein said, mostly the troops at the front end of things get the mushroom treatment, they don't know shit about what's going on, could care less about the big picture - cause what's really important to them is finding decent cover, a safe place to pee, and not gettin themself or their buddies killed - at which point I am not going to assign blame cause there's no way for em TO know, you understand.

I want em outta there, actually paid enough for the dirty job they're doin, and medically and psychologically supported after the fact - but in 220+ years of this country that hasn't happened a single time, and it would be ridiculous to expect it this time.

I think our sad history of crapping on war vets is pretty shameful, overall.

And yes, I did serve a stint in a somewhat ludicrous MOS, 76X10 basically the guy who gets the food from the airdrop to the warehouse (with the help of a 20,000lb MoGas rough terrain forklift) and then from the warehouse to the troops at the front line, be it perishables for cooking by the 94B10 (cook) with the unit, or MREs, someone has to GET the food to those yahoos and more often than not logistics doesn't have the folk or trucks to spare.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/atlas.htm
Woo, the new 20,000lb units are nice, man what I woulda given to have that extendable boom back in my day!

So prettymuch yer on your own, no escort, no air support, just you and a deuce and a half of MRE's trying to find the unit that was "kinda somewhere around here, last time we checked" on your map, and get the food to them, armed with naught more than a badly worn vietnam era M16A1 that will probably jam on the second round if the damned thing fires at all.

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

I gotta say, out of all the usually crummy equipment the army forced off on me, I loved "Moi Deuce" - that damned thing would go places you couldn't get a mule to go, and was tougher than clint eastwood with bad constipation.

The guys I feel the worst for are our current logistics folk, stuck on predictable routes and underarmed, unarmored, often without escort down IED alley.

We can discuss the matter in detail once we've got em OUT of there, because the whole if,why,and how matters a lot less than getting them the hell out before more of em die.

And that's ALL I plan to say on the matter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CAUSAL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Our current training gives a lot of lip service to defying an illegal order, but then provides endless reinforcement against actually DOING it.

Well, no offense, but I have to wonder how long ago your service took place; you did, after all, say "current." My service took place in Afghanistan and Iraq. And here's what I can tell you about the lawful/unlawful training we got: at least 2-3 units in bootcamp, another 2-3 in my primary and secondary schools covering more job-specific stuff, 2 units prior to each deployment, 1 unit when arriving in theater (both deployments), 1 unit when arriving in the combat zone, and an ROE brief before every mission. So it is not lip service. It is something that is taken seriously, as far up the chain of command as I ever had access to.

Quote:
This Watada guy even tried to do it the right way to begin with, BEFORE making an issue of it, he attempted to resign his commission, something normally done for the exact reasons he tried to do it - and the military defied it's own regs to throw it back in his face and demand his compliance with an order he felt illegal.

I have to respectfully disagree over the case of Watada. He tried to resign his commission and the Army refused his resignation--but that's not illegal. The Army typically has a minimum number of years that an officer must serve after being commissioned (to prevent people from taking a commission and walking away after 18 months or some such). In addition, the Army can refuse the resignation of an officer if they deem that there is a pressing need for his continued service (and please note, I'm not saying that's right, but it is legal). In addition, the Army offered Watada a non-combat posting with his current unit, but Watada turned that down. Why? Because he felt that the Iraq war was wrong. And that's why he's on court martial: he doesn't get to make that call. I can sympathize with Mr. Watada's situation in this much: he is firmly convinced that the order to deploy was unlawful, and he therefore disobeyed that order. But if the military court should find him guilty, as seems likely, it will be because Watada was wrong about that. Frem, I know you disagree with that passionately, and I respect your right to do so. I'm not wanting to pick a fight over this issue. I'm just wanting to offer an additional perspective on Mr. Watada's actions. Because Mr. Watada does not get to disobey an order that he feels is illegal. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that his deployment order was not illegal, which is why he's being tried for missing movement.

Quote:
Look, either they KNOW, or they're not soldiers, they're killers.
Which is it ?

The fact that you disagree with the military situation does not mean that the orders being given to the men fighting the war are illegal ones. So why are you implying that the people who are doing their job--which is to serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief--are just killers, not soldiers? Because if you want to tell me that these are illegal orders, I need to you to show me what parts of the UCMJ, US law or Geneva Convention that has been violated--specifically, what's law has been broken such that each and every deployment order is actually and unlawful order? And if it is so clear cut that deployment orders are unlawful, why is that not being talked about? Why is that not being debated on the senate floor? Surely there are '08 presidential contenders who would love just that kind of ammo...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

WALKERHOUND

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:57 AM

ya know i always get the impression that there are some people that have this picture in there head...kind of a what if or a what should happen.

It’s of the "troops" in masse refusing to do X to follow order Z. Just say dropping there weapons and declaring that they wont be a part of this clearly -insert adjective- war/action. On account off how it's all so obvuase and clearly wrong and the only reasonable reaction from people of good faith....yada yada (maybe there's even a little bit of the fantasy were instead of dropping the guns' thay return home and "SET THINGS RITHT").

Sounds real string and it's the sort of thing that can make a real kick ass climax to a story. Shoot in small way's things kind of similar have even happened in history. After all it's what these people would do them selves an't it? Seeing as how it's just such a clear and obvuase conclusion especially at a safe distance.

Problem is the world just don't work that way. If for no other reason than that well ya know that obvuase and oh so clear conclusion ya came to? Well ya'd be surprised how many people (and perfectly pleasant reasonable people at that) just as strongly disagree with ya.

ERIC

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:31 AM

I've always had this notion, utterly unworkable I know, of a final step in basic training that would involve a concocted situation in which a soldier is intentionally given a clearly illegal order, just to see if they would have the guts to disobey. Like, being ordered to shoot an unarmed civilian, only the soldier doesn't know that his weapon is loaded with blanks and the 'civilian' is really an undercover officer. I'm sure the case could be made that it's an unfair test, but then, so is combat. It'd be interesting to see the success rate...

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
What seems to be missed is that those people are a tiny proportion of the 135,000 people who do their jobs honorably, professionally, and in keeping with the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

________________________________________________________________________

What happens when the President, the Commander -in-Chief, declares that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, as GWB did?

He's on moderately reasonable legal ground, too. I've read 'em-- they only apply between the armies of nations that are signatories to the Convention, which Islamic Jihad and al-Quida are not. They also require that armies wear distinctive uniforms, and carry their arms openly, so ya know who to target-- by definition, an insurgent army wants to look as much like a bunch of civilians as possible.

But then, the Conventions are about protecting non combatant civilians and the wounded and sick, and others, such as POWs, who no longer fight.

So he says, Conventions don't apply, tells the General in Command, who tells your colonel, who tells your Sergeant, who tells you to shoot somebody, or torture a prisoner to find out about some future terrorist attack.

Is it an illegal order you should refuse? C-IN-C says no. When did it become one? What will the US Supreme Court decide? or the International Criminal Court, to which the C-IN-C says we don't have to listen?

CAUSAL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
What happens when the President, the Commander -in-Chief, declares that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, as GWB did?

He's on moderately reasonable legal ground, too. I've read 'em-- they only apply between the armies of nations that are signatories to the Convention ... But then, the Conventions are about protecting non combatant civilians and the wounded and sick, and others, such as POWs, who no longer fight.

Well, just so you know, I completely disagree with the decision to withhold Geneva Convention protection from "enemy combatants" because the Geneva Convention is supposed to be about keeping civilians safe and insuring a baseline level of humane treatment for those who are no longer able to fight (like POWs). That said, we are not (to my knowledge) summarily executing or torturing (in the same sense that the North Vietnamese did) captured fighters. And where abuses have a occurred (e.g. at Abu Ghraib), people have been held to account. And in places like Guantanamo Bay, there is enough noise being made and legal challaenges being brought that those things are beginning to change, thank God.

Quote:
So he says, Conventions don't apply, tells the General in Command, who tells your colonel, who tells your Sergeant, who tells you to shoot somebody, or torture a prisoner to find out about some future terrorist attack.

Well, I have a hard time seeing how the shooting somebody thing works. I assume you've never been in combat--I have. Your Sergeant never just says, "Hey, shoot that dude." You don't shoot anyone, really, unless they're already shooting at you. And then it's pretty unambiguous who the threat is: the man or woman (or child, because yes, that happens) firing the weapon at you. And in those circumstances, ROE is pretty clear: you kill whoever it is that's trying to kill you. We even made sure to have a Geneva Conventions brief about what targets were legitimate and when (e.g. peaceful mosque just sitting there: not a target; people using the mosque as cover to attact you: legitimate target under the Geneva Convention). As I understand it, Bush didn't throw out the entire convention, just the "POW" designation and associated material.

If I were ordered to torture a prisoner, yes, I would disobey that order. In the first place because it offends my conscience and in the second because it's illegal under various laws. If they wanted to arrest me, fine: I would hope that it would come out in the wash. And incidently, as a member of a Naval Special Warfare Task Element, I did conduct interrogations. We never used physical violence on them (in fact, we even loosened a guys cuffs because they were cutting off circulation to his hands). About the worst we did was conduct interrogations in a dark, smelly room and raise our voices. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't consitute torture.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

HERO

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Let me answer with a question. As the military is an extention of the politicians arm, if your commanding officer recieved an order to fire into a crowd of civilians and passed that order on to you, what would you do?

Thats too easy. Take one crowd of civilians and add a sprinkling of terrorists using them as cover to fire on the soldiers and perhaps mix in one suicide bomber with a nuclear bomb strapped to his back using the crowd as cover to get to the UN and George Clooney is yelling in your ear "TAKE THE SHOT" and Jack is nowhere in sight...

The answer is yes, unless the answer is no.

H

HERO

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
I've always had this notion, utterly unworkable I know, of a final step in basic training that would involve a concocted situation in which a soldier is intentionally given a clearly illegal order, just to see if they would have the guts to disobey.

There was an incident during WW2 in which a German military police commander, a reservist, refused an order to execute a group of Jews by firing squad. In the end he and only a handful of others in the unit refused the order despite assurances that there would be no fallout (and there was not because the commander had connections).

The incident was a case study for my Political Violence professor.

H

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 4:46 PM

"Political Violence Professor?" bet that looks good on a resume!

Still, props to the German guy, hope he ran for public office in later life.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:00 PM

Quote:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Therein lies the issue, you see: The Constitution takes precedence, first and foremost in a soldiers duty, and obediance to it's principles is not a matter of debate or conjecture - it takes precedence even over and above his orders, because it is the very basis they rest upon.

Quote:
US CONSTITUTION.
Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the power to declare war - they cannot legally abdicate it, the President cannot legally usurp it, and unless a power has been specifically granted to either one, it is the province of the state, or it's people respectively (See: Amendments IX and X)

We ain't supposed to have a standing army either, you wanna get picky about it.

This was absolutely intentional, and intended to prevent exactly the situation we are staring down the barrel of now - a President who thinks he's King.

Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WA

SHINYED

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:03 PM

The troops are certainly not evil.

In the military there is chain of command, and it is necessary in order to reduce casualties and win objectives....if every soldier "debated" and "pondered" every order given, all you would have is chaos and mass casualties.

For this war.....I blame ( my opinion ) the Generals and former Sec. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was stubborn & arrogant, and did not take the General's advice for more troops from the onset, and the Generals have horrendously under-estimated the enemy's resolve and capabilitites. Going way back, the minute I saw the endless days of looting in Baghdad I knew that the whole thing was screwed up. Also the politics of this have messed things up alot. We could have nabbed Al Sadr a zillion times but never did....then he went on a rampage against Sunnis, plunging Iraq into civil war...and we are in the middle of no-man's land. I'm not a military man...but I still ask the question..I don't understand WHY the military can't protect a street from roadside bombs located a few blocks from the Green Zone??? I don't understand why ANY Iraqis were EVER allowed to carry guns, etc etc. This is going exactly like Vietnam...after America pulled out of S. Vietnam about 3 million Vietnamese & Cambodians were slaughtered by the Communists...In Iraq when we pull out no one will be slaughtered (except the Govt.) but Iranians and their terrorists stooges will have a new base to wreak more havoc against all their neighbors..I don't see (like Bush always says) that America is threatened any more or less by our leaving there. And finally, I'd like to see Rumsfeld arrested and charged with gross negligence, incompetence, and reckless endangerment.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.

Don't throw that goddamned piece of paper in our faces, Frem. (Kidding- in the not-so-funny way)

Peeps not exposed directly to abuse of power have a hard time dealing with how complicated and subtle it can be. I've been in contact with it on the court judge/police officer level, and it's quite surprising to see at first; it makes you feel like you're in a bad TV movie. You wanna ask them "So, you're a good guy? What are the bad ones like?"

Just tossin' that in Chrisisall

WALKERHOUND

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:58 AM

Quote:

Of course it's unworkable, if they did that then folks might start *gasp* actually disobeying unlawful orders, and without the threat of force to push the will of the empire upon us, we might not be "good little americans" anymore... can't have that, can we ?

No it's unworkable because its...literally imposable to implement in any truly meaningful form. I mean out side of some sort of star trek convergence of holodeck / alien mind modification/ MKultra mess.

First you would have to some how convinces a guy that he is in fact in a real no Sh* combat situation. Then you would have to come up with some at lest marginally plausible reason that given the situation at hand (which in spite of being completely mocked up he has been convinced is the real deal) for him to cap a "innocent civilian".

I mean it can't be patently ridicules ether way can it as far as the shot/don’t shot scenario is concerned? There are after all "child" solders and female suicide bombers it's all situatnel.

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:16 AM

Since there's some cross-posting, here's the location of my post that also applies here.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26886

Rue

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Well, FFF.net: what do you think? How should we respond to the military and to those who have served in Iraq?
The vast majority of men and women that serve and have served this country deserve our gratitude and respect, as well as BETTER quality benefits than they've been recieving from miserly old Uncle Sam!!!! Average 100+ day wait for attention from the VA seems completely effed to me. If money can be dumped into this war, it sure as hell should include the well being of the troops back at HOME!!!

All manner of concerned Chrisisall

Hear! Hear!

ChrisisallisDaBom

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:21 AM

Quote:
it's all situatnel.

Course it is.

That's why I am not faulting the guys on the ground at the front line - the time to think about this crap is before you get there, cause once you do not taking a round takes precedence.

To paraphrase David Drake a little - When you send a person into a combat zone, they are going to do whatever they feel is necessary in order to survive the situation, and if you have a problem with that, the time to do something about it is before you send em.

Yer typical fresh faced recruit straight out of high school and the american "education" system doesn't know jack diddly shit about this kind of issue, nor are they given any incentive or opportunity to learn it, especially not when rammed through BASIC, AIT and shipped to the front, hell no - they don't know these things and faulting them for that ignorance is asinine.

I rest the blame for such things on the shoulders of the folks giving orders they DO know are unlawful, but in the rare case of a soldier realizing he's caught in a bind between his oath and his orders, I am not going to fault him either, provided he responds in a way that does not needlessly endanger his unit.

When yer out on patrol is not the time to address those issues, obviously, let's have a little common sense in here folks, but if upon return and standdown he takes it up with his CO, that is his perogative and his duty.

The blame for this fiasco belongs squarely on the shoulders of the high command, and ShinyEd just gave a good concept of that failure, although I would not agree with disarming Iraqis as a whole, since we've proven beyond doubt that we're unable to protect them if we do so.

What's gonna happen is gonna happen, whether it happens now or later, our responsibility is going to be the same regardless, and there's no easy solution, no.

Probably the best thing we could possibly do is throw it in the lap of the UN and split, sure they're corrupt as hell, but honestly no more so than KBR, Haliburton, and all the war profiteers WE brought with us, really.

Given the realities of the situation I'd prefer to unfuck the situation first and start layin blame later - but in spite of those realities the illusion that the orders in question are legal is just that, an illusion, and we should at least be honest with ourselves about it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have a theory that says that civilians have a tendency to treat the military and military operations the same way that they treat a waiter in a restaurant.

Hear! Hear! TonyisalmostasbrilliantasChrisisall

FutureIamhungrytooMrsFillion

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:06 PM

Quote:
From combined dispatches
FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070206-121218-7307r.htm

The words "Drumhead Court" come to mind.

When a Judge exerts control over what testimony and/or evidence can be introduced, at that point in ANY case, he has overstepped his authority and the trial itself becomes a farce, if you are going to sit there and refuse any evidence or testimony in order to bend the trial to your will, deny the jury their rights to decide the law as well as the case - fuck it, just drag em out back and lynch em, cause that's exactly what yer doing.

I've already pointed out the facts of the matter above - they have no case, so they manufacture one by preventing evidence from reaching the jury, thus deliberately and with malice aforethought, misinforming them in the hopes of skewing the verdict.

And this case, as well as others related to gun ownership and tax payment, make me wanna fucking puke when some asswipe judge states the The Constitution has no place in a US Court of Law ?

When it is the very BASIS of those Laws ?

ANY Judge who speaks those words should be stripped of his robes, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, period.

Are we America ?

Or are we really just some pathetic tinpot junta pretending to a title we no longer have a right to ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
From combined dispatches
FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq barred several scholars on international and constitutional law from testifying yesterday about the legality of the war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070206-121218-7307r.htm

The words "Drumhead Court" come to mind.

When a Judge exerts control over what testimony and/or evidence can be introduced, at that point in ANY case, he has overstepped his authority and the trial itself becomes a farce, if you are going to sit there and refuse any evidence or testimony in order to bend the trial to your will, deny the jury their rights to decide the law as well as the case - fuck it, just drag em out back and lynch em, cause that's exactly what yer doing.

I've already pointed out the facts of the matter above - they have no case, so they manufacture one by preventing evidence from reaching the jury, thus deliberately and with malice aforethought, misinforming them in the hopes of skewing the verdict.

And this case, as well as others related to gun ownership and tax payment, make me wanna fucking puke when some asswipe judge states the The Constitution has no place in a US Court of Law ?

When it is the very BASIS of those Laws ?

ANY Judge who speaks those words should be stripped of his robes, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, period.

Are we America ?

Or are we really just some pathetic tinpot junta pretending to a title we no longer have a right to ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

For what it's worth, the reason the judge ruled that the legality of the war is not permissible in Watada's defense is because it's not germaine to the charges. Watada is not being charged with dereliction of duty or refusing to obey a direct order. He's being charged with missing movement--that is, for failing to be physically present with his unit when it shipped out. Now, if Watada had move with his unit, and then refused all orders once in-country, then I imagine that the legality or illegality of the war would be germaine to the defense. This is part of what I've been saying about soldiers not being able to choose which orders to obey and which not to. As far as I can tell, the movement order wasn't unlawful, so the legality or illegality of the war isn't relevant. What is relevant is just whether or not he was with his unit. So apparently there's going to have to be another dissenter to get the legality/illegality question brought up in court.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
US CONSTITUTION.
Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power...
To declare war

Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the power to declare war - they cannot legally abdicate it, the President cannot legally usurp it, and unless a power has been specifically granted to either one, it is the province of the state, or it's people respectively (See: Amendments IX and X)

Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.

By the very letter of the highest law, orders for deployment to Iraq are unlawful orders

Yeah, but here's the trouble:

Quote:

US CONSTITUTION
Article 2, Section 2

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

The trouble seems to be this: the constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and it names the president Commander in Chief. This means that the president can issue orders to the military, but not declare war, and congress can declare war, but not issue orders to the military. As I understand it, this is meant to insure that both branches work together. But the framers missed a huge loophole: they did not specify whether or not the president could order the military into combat without a declaration of the war. So: big issue. Can a president order the nation's forces into combat without a congressional declaration of war? Well, pretty clearly, the president has (the most notable examples being Vietnam and Korea, which were labelled "police actions" avoid this whole issue). Now, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the way jurisprudence works is that when a law seems to cover a particular circumstance but does not do so explicitly, an appeal is made to precedent. Now, there are at least three twentieth century examples of presidents ordering American forces into combat without declarations of war (Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I). It would seem that the precedent established has been that yes, the president can order America's military into combat without a declaration of war. Unless a legal challenge is mounted and precedent is set that contradicts that, I'm pretty sure that ordering American forces into Iraq was not illegal (though it was certainly monumentally foolish).

Now, the War Powers Resolution was passed with exactly this sort of situation in mind: congress wanted to restore what it viewed as the slide of power away from the legislative branch toward the executive. So the War Powers Resolution places a check on executive power by requiring the president to seek congressional approval before the commencement of hostilities (which Bush did, and which congress duly gave him). So again, the Iraq war may be foolish, but it is not illegal, being that the president sought and received congressional approval. Interestingly, the War Powers Resolution can be used by congress to require the president to pull US troops out of combat (it was used this way in the aftermath of the battle in Mogadishu, Somalia). So congress could, conceivably, still act in order to legally require the president to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FIVVER

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:25 PM

Actally there's precedence going back to at least 1801 where congress, without specifically declaring war, authorized Thomas Jefferson to use whatever military forces he needed to protect American interests against the Barbary Pirates.

This is pretty much what congress did with Iraq. They voted to give the president authority to act militarily and since then have continued to authorize funds to conduct the war.

But the main reason the judge is not letting the trial become about the legality of the war is he has no authority to do so. The judges authority only extends to trying the defendant under the law he is accused of violating. It is at the appeals court and supreme court level where other issues (did the defendant receive a fair trial, were his rights respected, is the law he was tried under constitutional, etc) are determined.

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:28 PM

Well, then I guess Mr. Watada will have his hearing at those levels. I wonder if they'll really make a run at it...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 8, 2007 1:27 PM

Casual -

On that one I agree, he should have showed up, demanded, as is his right, his orders in writing and THEN refused them, by the book.

So yes, on that charge I would spank him, but that's a minor thing and by the potential sentence they're offering, it's just another sidestep like the captain I mentioned above used to discipline a female troop ostensibly for something else, when in fact he was retaliating for her failure to do what he ordered, you see.

There's a few spots where Watada failed in his duty regardless, by missing movement for one, and by attempting to influance fellow troops to also refuse - that is not his decision to make, and I do feel it comes under conduct unbecoming because in a position like this an officer speaks with his ACTIONS, and he should have simply stated his position and then stood to it with the silent dignity an officer is required to maintain in such a situation.

Being issued, and subsequently refusing, an unlawful order gives you no right to simply pitch the whole rulebook, and a soldiers actions are his own - him encouraging others to also refuse might fall under spreading sedition, which is a whole other can of worms unrelated to simply refusing an unlawful order.

What this smacks of is trying him for one offense, and then sentencing him for another, and that's complete bullshit, in my opinion.

As for the War Powers Resolution, and I trust we're speaking of Public Law 93-148-1973 - the final arbiter is still the constitution, and an unconstitutional act is still such a thing regardless of cover of law, because it is the basis for those laws - writing a law in such a fashion is no different than writing one ex-post-facto, which has also been done repeatedly.. just because the powers that be choose to ignore said document's requirements, does not absolve one of one's oath to uphold and defend it, which oath, mind I remind folk, does not expire when one leaves the service, which is why this is such an issue for me.

That being said... his 60 days are long since up, Congress has failed in their duty to declare war in iraq, be it by negligence, ignorance or unwillingness to commit, they have still failed that obligation and thus no state of war exists, rendering deployment orders unlawful at this time.

All that being addressed, I *would* charge Mr. Watada with deriliction of his duty both for failing to appear with his unit, because by the book he should have appeared, demanded those orders in writing and then refused them, and also for conduct unbecoming an officer in lieu of the more debateable sedition charge.

And yes, he should be charged for those things, and if convicted should be sentenced for those things - but what should NOT happen, is convicting him of those things, and then SENTENCING him for something else, that's a bullshit sidestep manuever used all too often by military courts in a case where unlawful orders have been issued and disobeyed.

And finally, the defense is allowed in any court of law to present evidence that they feel is relevant to the charges, and to a degree it is, if only as a mitigating factor in the sentence, and it is not a judges right to decide what evidence or testimony can be entered, to usurp this falls to "cherry-picking" and an active attempt to influance the verdict in that fashion resulting in something other than the fair trial Mr. Watada has a right to.

I hope that clarifies my position on the matter a bit.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 8, 2007 1:35 PM

Well, it's pretty clear we're not going to agree over the issue of Constitutionality (because in my mind the declare war/CinC thing is ambiguous).

The judge in Watada's case has declared a mistrial on the basis that Watada didn't understand a form he was signing (funny, he can investigate the war thoroughly enough to decide it's illegal, but 12-page documents give him trouble). In any event, I think it's a short-term victory and a long-term defeat for his case. He's not going to prison (at least not for now), but he's losing the opportunity to put the war on trial in the appeals process. And personally, I wouldn't mind having the government make an official pronouncement on the legality/illegality of the war (if for no other reason than to shut up people like us!).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 8, 2007 2:27 PM

Agreed, and since it is their responsibility, and one they have neglected, I say we put the screws to Congress and DEMAND they vote on it.
(Declaration of War, that is)

A nice simple Yea or Nay that would settle the matter in instant.

Yea - They have to come up with some unambiguous plan involving what needs to be done before we can declare victory and go home.

Nay - We throw it to the UN and bug out.

I call that a win-win situation.

-F

RUE

Sunday, February 18, 2007 7:11 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070208131528.htm

Study Based On Abu Ghraib Suggests Military Veterans Highly Tolerant Of Detainee Abuse

Only 16% of veterans indicated zero tolerance for detainee exposure and deprivation
Only 31% indicated zero tolerance for detainee exposure and sexualized humiliation
Not even half (48%) indicated zero tolerance for detainee rape

In general, veterans' tolerance for abuse was least when soldier-initiated, and greatest when superior-ordered. Tolerance for abuse also was high when a whistleblower was involved.

SIMONWHO

Monday, February 19, 2007 1:48 PM

The trouble is if someone says abuse is widespread, some people will say "No it isn't" because they genuinely believe that and others will say "No it isn't" because they're just Iraqis and who cares if they get killed, maimed, tortured.

I think it's pointless to debate with the latter group and the first group will just insist that any abuses are just one off examples:

So here's my first one-off example:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/opinion/web.0218abuse.php

Your standard man is held by the Americans, interviewed twice, tortured, starved, electrocuted then released (providing he signed a form saying "I was not mistreated during my incarcaration").

AMITON

Monday, February 19, 2007 4:02 PM

Quote:
Well, it's pretty clear we're not going to agree over the issue of Constitutionality (because in my mind the declare war/CinC thing is ambiguous)

Just to throw a quick idea in, I don't think that the Constitution is ambiguous on the matter in intent. Only Congress can declare war, and when that's combined with the original intent to not maintain a standing national army it stands to reason that the President wouldn't have anyone to command unless Congress had called up the military. I think the ambiguousness came from sidestepping the application (apparently all the way back to Jefferson...who knew?)

Amiton.

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:52 AM

Caution: today's link contains images of those tortured by the Americans. You will see pictures of people dead, abused, covered in excrement, beaten, bloodied.

If you want to keep pretending there's no systemic issue with the troops, do not click on the following link:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:40 AM

Yes, because everyone knows that still images prove that everyone who's deployed to Iraq must have tortured their very own Iraqi! And furthermore, the intense scrutiny in the post-Abu Ghraib world hasn't turned up a thing on systemic torture because the military has a vast conspiracy in which everyone has a role! And we all know that photos can't be reproduced, doctored, faked, or anything else! Oh, wait. Those are from the roll of film from the Abu Ghraib scandal. The same peresonnel appear in photos throughout that list.

Look, what these people did was wrong, no question, and I hope they're crucified, if for no other reason than for besmirching the honor of the rest of us. But a parade of photos hardly establishes anything like "systemic" torture.

Oh, and your IHT article, while interesting, only establishes a your-word-against-mine situation. Even if true, it's also not evidence of systemic torture.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

RUE

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:35 AM

Testimony is evidence.

My post I believe shows shit flows downhill. They were more comfortable with torture if it was ordered. Who would be ordering that? They were more comfortable with torture if they suffered from depression or PTSD, or especially both. Now who would be keeping them on extended tours? They were more comfortable with torture if a whistleblower was invovled. That sounds like seige mentality to me. How would that happen, I wonder?

I don't think the troops are to blame - it belongs at the top.

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:49 AM

Yep, I totally agree with you. How's this for testimony: I, and three of my friends, served in Iraq (and Afghanistan, in my case). Neither I, nor any of my friends, tortured anyone, nor have any first-hand knowledge of torture being performed. In addition, I personally participated in the interrogation of a number of Iraqis, and not only did we not torture them, there was one instance in which we loosened a prisoner's flex-cuffs because it was obvious that they were cutting off circulation to his hands, and we didn't want that.

Now, I don't disagree that there is malfeasance going on. But to claim that torture is commonplace and de rigeur is pretty ridiculous. Let's apply the principle of parsimony: which is the more realistic explanation for a lack of evidence for widespread, systemic torture by the majority of American units? That there is no such systemic torture, or that there is a vast government- and military-wide conspiracy to bury the evidence of all that torture? Principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's razor) says do not multiply entities beyond necessity; and positing a vast conspiracy of the type that would be required to suppress what would have to be a mountain of evidence is most certainly multiplying entities.

Now here's the part that I don't think people comprehend: I don't condone torture. I think the Abu Ghraib folks should be hung from the fing yard arm. They did wrong. In doing so, they soiled the honor of the rest of us who served honorably in Iraq, and never tortured a soul (the vast, vast majority, I can assure you). Torture is wrong. It shouldn't be done. If it's done, it should be punished severely. But I also maintain that accusing the troops (en masse, as some seem intent on doing) of torture on a grand scale is just ridiculous. It's an insult to all of us who served our country (and, by extension, you) honorably.

For the record, Rue, I don't feel attacked by you. This is more a general purpose rant than anything else.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:38 AM

I think we all know where I stand in regards to this war. Frem pretty much says all that needs to be said about that, so I won't bother going there.

I do have an opinion on how the media says we should feel about the war though. I resent being told that we can be against the war, but we must support our soldiers.

I'm not even saying that this is necessarily untrue on the whole. My brother served in the millitary and I was really worried for him. He already had a college degree prior to enlisting. He was even one of the ones who signed up after September 11th and not one of the weekend warriors looking for a free ride to college who bitched and whined when they had to do their duty. I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and what he did for this country and I believe that his intentions were benevolent and that he did not partake and was not aware of any torture situations.

Are the soldiers bad? No, I don't believe so. Not anymore so than I would say your average civillian is bad, which unfortunately isn't really saying all that much. They are doing a job and taking orders. If our soldiers stopped obeying orders, I don't know what makes anybody feel that we wouldn't have been invaded by any other country who has a much more diciplined army by now. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast.

My whole problem with the "If you don't support the war, you must support our troops", is that the overall sentiment among the sheeple is that very catch phrase. It makes it almost impossible to petition or picket the war without looking like an insensitive asshole to all of the Brave and Honorable Soldiers who put their lives on the line for you and me. I think this is the most sordid use of propeganda and doublethink I have ever been witness to in my life.

My closing thoughts are this:

If you have a loved one(s) serving in a hot zone, I suggest you pray to whatever God(s) you believe in that they make it home in one piece, physically and mentally, and show them that you support them, be it care packages or letters or whatnot. If you don't believe in any sort of higher power, just let them know that you love them and that you miss them and you long for their return. Otherwise, I see no problem with my statement that "I don't support the war or the soldiers". It is doublethink to believe that you could truly do both at the same time. I choose not to.

Let the crucification of 6SJ commence.......

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

JOSSISAGOD

Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:00 PM

It's our current Commander-in-Chief I have issues with; not the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces of our country. In short, the troops aren't the bad guys, they just have "Curious George" leading them.

I will always respect the men and women in the Armed Forces, no matter what I think of the guy telling them what to do.

Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD

Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.

SIMONWHO

Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, because everyone knows that still images prove that everyone who's deployed to Iraq must have tortured their very own Iraqi! And furthermore, the intense scrutiny in the post-Abu Ghraib world hasn't turned up a thing on systemic torture because the military has a vast conspiracy in which everyone has a role! And we all know that photos can't be reproduced, doctored, faked, or anything else! Oh, wait. Those are from the roll of film from the Abu Ghraib scandal. The same peresonnel appear in photos throughout that list.

Look, what these people did was wrong, no question, and I hope they're crucified, if for no other reason than for besmirching the honor of the rest of us. But a parade of photos hardly establishes anything like "systemic" torture.

Oh, and your IHT article, while interesting, only establishes a your-word-against-mine situation. Even if true, it's also not evidence of systemic torture.

Exactly the response I expected - you attack the authenticity of the photos despite them being supplied by the US Military to the trial of US soldiers and that nobody's stories can be substantiated. Have you any idea how insulting that is to those who have been tortured? Put it this way, how insulted would you be if I said that you were lying about not torturing prisoners?

I'm just going to keep posting links to "one person's story" until the pile of dead bodies is so high that you can't ignore it.

Here's the Red Cross's report about US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Their verdict? Torture used as a modus operandi by certain parts of the military.

http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.rcr.iraq.pdf

If a thorough investigation by an independent source doesn't convince you, what will?

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:13 PM

Well, I hope you're not busily replying to my old post right now, because that would only push this argument ahead.

Here's what I think we can agree with: torturing of detainees has occurred, it's wrong, and should be punished.

Here's what I think we disagree about: how widespread said torturing is.

My question to you is: you've entered the thread with information on torturing. Does that mean that you think that all the soldiers serving in Iraq are torturers? Are all our forces over their evil abusers?

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
My whole problem with the "If you don't support the war, you must support our troops", is that the overall sentiment among the sheeple is that very catch phrase. It makes it almost impossible to petition or picket the war without looking like an insensitive asshole to all of the Brave and Honorable Soldiers who put their lives on the line for you and me. I think this is the most sordid use of propeganda and doublethink I have ever been witness to in my life.

I call BS. I served, and if you want to picket and protest, be my guest. But don't do it outside the gate of a military base. Nobody there is in a position to do anything about. Don't do it by spitting on a soldier (which happened to my uncle)--he doesn't control US foreign policy. Don't do it by shouting slurs at military recruiters. If you want to protest the war, get your ass on a plane, and take your poster-board sign to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and tell that guy how terrible you think the war is. He's the guy who has control over how this war thing goes. It's just pure bullshit to say that you can't protest the war without looking like a schmuck, because many of the people that I know that protest the war do so because they support the troops--and they think that the best thing that could be done to support them is to bring them all the hell home.

Quote:
I see no problem with my statement that "I don't support the war or the soldiers". It is doublethink to believe that you could truly do both at the same time. I choose not to.

Must be nice to think that "support the troops but not the war" is a doctrine for the "sheeple." That must make you feel all kinds of smart and special and different. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I want you to do. Claiming that it's impossible to separate the two is just asinine. What I'm asking you to do is exercise your power of discrimination. Can you detect a difference between the guy who gives orders and the guy who follows them? Between the civilian leadership of the military and the military itself? Can you distinguish between the person who ordered American forces into Iraq and the person that actually has to go there and carry a rifle? I'm sure that you can--you seem like a very bright chap. Now if you can do that, you can support the troops and not the war. Because supporting the troops is as easy as not blaming them for the situation we're in. It's as easy as saying, "Thanks for serving our country." As easy as not calling them monsters. If you can discriminate between a trigger-puller and the order-giver, you can support the troops. It's as easy as this: you hate the war, but you don't let that hatred extend to the people stuck fighting it.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIMONWHO

Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
My question to you is: you've entered the thread with information on torturing. Does that mean that you think that all the soldiers serving in Iraq are torturers? Are all our forces over their evil abusers?

Of course not. But the fact you have to load the question that way (and indeed the title of this thread) shows how badly the soldiers in Iraq are perceived at the moment.

Amnesty International says that prisoner abuse is widespread. The Red Cross says prisoner abuse is widespread. The UN says prisoner abuse is widespread. This is systemic torture, not withstanding what's happening at Guantanamo.

The fish rots from the head of course and your President has made it quite clear that he's prepared to ignore international law and the Constitution. That's spread all the way down the government and the military, leading to exactly this situation: the US troops believe they are beyond the law which leads to incidents like this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6384781.stm

So I guess my question to you is: traditionally soldiers have been hailed as heroes for the actions of the collective, regardless of individual deeds. Why should they not be collectively held responsible for their failure and atrocities committed under their banner?

CAUSAL

Thursday, February 22, 2007 6:46 PM

But they shouldn't be so hailed. Hero is a much abused term IMHO. I'm certainly no hero, and I don't want to be thought of that way. Furthermore, most people who really would fill the definition of a hero don't think they're heroes. So no, I don't think the troops should collectively be held responsible for the deeds of a few. Because even if every detention facility and every guard and every interrogator tortured--and I don't believe that's true--even if that's the case, guards and interrogators are a really small slice the American military presence in Iraq. Even if that were the case, why are you so intent on extending culpability to every soldier who is serving there? Your link to the BBC article is compelling--it would clearly seem that that guy should be locked away. But you are reasoning from single instances (like the murder of the girl, to global guilt (all serving in Iraq are guilty of war crimes). I din't commit any war crimes, nor did anyone I served with. So again, I ask you: am I a liar?

More on this later, I'm in class...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIMONWHO

Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Your link to the BBC article is compelling--it would clearly seem that that guy should be locked away. But you are reasoning from single instances (like the murder of the girl, to global guilt (all serving in Iraq are guilty of war crimes). I din't commit any war crimes, nor did anyone I served with. So again, I ask you: am I a liar?

"That guy"? You make it sound like it was a lone gunman. In fact there were five of them, who planned this atrocity in advance. They raped a 14 year old and murdered a five year old girl in cold blood. Five of them.

This is why I'm doing a succession of posts with 'single' instances. What I'm wondering is how many abused Iraqis will it to make you admit there's a problem, not with one or two bad apples, but with the entire structure.

You can read more about the attack here, along with details about the conditions the soldiers were living in:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.familyslain/index.html

If someone doesn't support the troops - that's their decision. I think it's often a misguided one but there you are. But when people like Bush and Blair come forward and boast about how they support the troops... how? By giving them inadequate equipment? By not providing decent lodgings (see above)? By hanging them those who have been wounded out to dry?

And personally, no, I don't think you're lying when you say you've not committed any war crimes. But that's purely because you seem an intelligent, together guy. Would you claim that about every soldier serving in Iraq?

CAUSAL

Friday, February 23, 2007 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
"That guy"? You make it sound like it was a lone gunman. In fact there were five of them, who planned this atrocity in advance. They raped a 14 year old and murdered a five year old girl in cold blood. Five of them.

Yes, they did. Five of them. I don't deny that those men did that. But gee, I wonder why we haven't heard about the crimes of the other 85 men in their infantry platoon? Where are the terrible stories of their torture, rape and murder? Why haven't we heard about that? I maintain that the reason we haven't heard about all those crimes is because they did not happen. Apparently, you're still not getting it. I think that every single person who commits a crime during their service in Iraq should be punished accordingly. What you seem to be refusing to hear (let alone acknowledge) is my point, which is this: while all of your examples are compelling, they do not establish universal guilt on the part of all American servicemen in Iraq. Do you know how many Americans are currently serving in Iraq? On the order of 160,000. We've been there for four years, so in addition to the 160K, there are probably at least that many who are not now there who've served in the past. That would put the number of Americans who've served in Iraq at 320K. Now, even if 10,000 of those had committed some kind of atrocity (which I believe is a vast exaggeration, but let's go with that for the time being) that means that for every one atrocity-committing soldier, there are 32 who did nothing wrong. If, as you seem intent on suggesting, the commission of war-crimes is so wide spread that greater than half of American soldiers have committed some atrocity, there would have to be an enormous amount of evidence for such abuse. So why is it that we haven't heard about all that crime? I'm sure that you will simply ignore this point and post yet another story of wrong-doing, but please try to answer next time.

Quote:
What I'm wondering is how many abused Iraqis will it to make you admit there's a problem, not with one or two bad apples, but with the entire structure.

It will take one hell of a lot more than you've given so far. Your half-dozen examples are far from establishing universal guilt of the American servicemen in Iraq.

Quote:
If someone doesn't support the troops - that's their decision. I think it's often a misguided one but there you are. But when people like Bush and Blair come forward and boast about how they support the troops... how? By giving them inadequate equipment? By not providing decent lodgings (see above)? By hanging them those who have been wounded out to dry?

Have you ever served in a combat zone? I'm not sure if you knew this, but there isn't exactly a Hilton on every street corner in Iraq. Sometimes, you have to make your home where you find it, even if it's not optimal. That's not the fault of the civilian leadership of the military, it's the reality of combat. That would be why training exercises often involve tents, shovels and mud.

Quote:
And personally, no, I don't think you're lying when you say you've not committed any war crimes. But that's purely because you seem an intelligent, together guy. Would you claim that about every soldier serving in Iraq?

Well, obviously, it's impossible to claim about every solitary one because clearly, crimes have been committed. On the other hand, I can confidently say that the vast, vast majority of US servicemen in Iraq served honorably. Apparently, you are now in the habit of insulting the intelligence of the American military, as well as its moral fiber. Again, obviously, not every single servicemember in Iraq is the picture of intelligence. But again, the vast majority are at least intelligent and together enough not to commit war-crimes.

And just out of curiousity, where are your reams of stories about atrocities committed by the Brits?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 23, 2007 1:54 AM

I'm a pretty bright chap regardless of what you have to say about it brother. I don't disagree with you about aiming blame at the top, but to think that it's all Bushes fault is asinine as well.

The troops aren't evil and I never said they were. The troops ARE puppets, however. They are mindless puppets and yes-men who are not required to think for themselves and are actually punished for doing so.

Do I want to see Americans die in a bullshit war we have no fucking business in? Of course I don't. I don't get all giddy when I read about more of our boys and girls dying all the time, but I don't feel bad for them either. They chose to do a job and they knew that they were signing their own lives and ability to think for themselves away in the process. They are part of a machine that doesn't give a shit about them. They will get no tears from me.

If my brother was to die, that's a different story. That's why I said what I did about people you know and love in the millitary. Otherwise, fuck the administration, fuck the troops and fuck the war.

You should have titled this thread "The Troops Are Not Evil", if it was a rhetorical question to which you already knew the answer.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CAUSAL

Friday, February 23, 2007 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm a pretty bright chap regardless of what you have to say about it brother. I don't disagree with you about aiming blame at the top, but to think that it's all Bushes fault is asinine as well.

The troops aren't evil and I never said they were. The troops ARE puppets, however. They are mindless puppets and yes-men who are not required to think for themselves and are actually punished for doing so.

Do I want to see Americans die in a bullshit war we have no fucking business in? Of course I don't. I don't get all giddy when I read about more of our boys and girls dying all the time, but I don't feel bad for them either. They chose to do a job and they knew that they were signing their own lives and ability to think for themselves away in the process. They are part of a machine that doesn't give a shit about them. They will get no tears from me.

If my brother was to die, that's a different story. That's why I said what I did about people you know and love in the millitary. Otherwise, fuck the administration, fuck the troops and fuck the war.

You should have titled this thread "The Troops Are Not Evil", if it was a rhetorical question to which you already knew the answer.

Here's my question: do you hold the American soldiers reponsible for the problems in Iraq? That's the question. I served there and in Afghanistan, and I want to know if you think that I'm partly to blame for the situation there? Would it be legitimate, for instance, to vent your anger at the situation at me, being that I'm one of the servicemen that fought in Iraq? That's what I want to know. Regardless of what you may think, I am not impugning your intelligence. You've ably proven that you have plenty of that, in a number of other threads. I want to know why American military forces don't deserve at least your gratitude for their service to the country. I'm not asking for you to throw a ticker tape parade. I'm wondering why it is that you would not be grateful that there are people willing to put their lives on the line in service to their country? Or is it the case that they only get that gratitude when you personally approve of the mission that they are asked to perform?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 23, 2007 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Casual:
I served there and in Afghanistan, and I want to know if you think that I'm partly to blame for the situation there? Would it be legitimate, for instance, to vent your anger at the situation at me, being that I'm one of the servicemen that fought in Iraq?

This is a very loaded question, at least from my perspective. I think that surely depends on an individual basis, as I am able to distinguish between people who would enjoy torturing prisonors or killing the "enemy" as opposed to someone like my brother, or I would imagine you, who find this deplorable. I also realize that when thrust into a life or death situation you're going to take him down without a thought if your own death is the alternative. I would never spit on a soldier personally.

I know you don't want to hear it, but yes, in a way I do hold the individual responsible partially for what we're doing to those people. I don't share the opinion that we are doing anything to help those people. If we lived in a Utopia, or at least a place where our Government wasn't trying to screw its own people and completely micromanage their lives, and we didn't have one of the highest murder rates in the world at the same time, I might think we were doing something to better their way of life. Things being the way they are, I can't imagine that life for them will be any better when we turn them into a Godless "Democracy" puppet state.

I've already said that I understand the dilemma of obeying the chain of command. If we had an millitary where soldiers were constantly questioning their orders and their superiors, it would have fallen apart a long time ago. Things are the way they are, in that respect, because that's the way they have to be.

So in this regards, no I don't blame the soldier. What are you supposed to do? Say fuck you to your superiors and orders and end up in the clink? Go AWOL and basically ruin your life and be on the run?

It's a very hard question here loaded with doublethink, because for every reason I can find to be angry with the soldiers there's most likely a reason why I should be greatful to them as well.

I think the biggest factor at play here in this is the fact that our own Government abuses its power here at home with its own people and is constantly amongst itself tooth and nail with our broken 2 party system. Not to mention the Cable NEWS shows that poison the minds of the people with a lot of garbage they didn't even need to know. Many people are seeing past the illusion that there is even 2 parties at all and that they are only there to give the average beat-down Joe the illusion of choice. This is a thought once only contemplated by conspiracy theorists, but like it or not, it is becoming much more mainstream now and will only worsen the longer this war goes on. How many times do I have to hear vote "the lesser of two evils"?

Bullshit!

Why can't we get another party or three in there? At least one that wants to go in and start repealing some of the laws which constantly restrict our freedoms and decision making and our supposed "Free Market"? Somebody who will do what it takes to remove illegal monopolies which are sprining up in all sectors of trade that are so in bed with either party that they don't even really try hiding it anymore. We've all let the Government into our own homes and they will never leave now. This happened when people started to believe that they had to rely on the Government as opposed to the Government simply being an institution to serve the people.

As they grow in power, they're even more free to make decisions, such as this war which effects all of our lives drastically, without the conscent of the people. It allows them to lie to us and spread propoganda and work us into such a rage, as the year after 9/11, that we're foaming at the mouth and want revenge so badly that it blinds us to the fact that we're allowing them to go after everyone else who wasn't even involved in 9/11 while we're there. Why do we allow i

CAUSAL

Friday, February 23, 2007 1:18 PM

Whoa. Guess I didn't expect all of that.

Interestingly, you and I seem to have had a similar sort of a journey (though probably from different starting places). Prior to the Iraq war, I was very much a die-hard conservative Republican, waving the flag for W. and the War on Terror. But as I sat my ass in Kuwait, waiting for the go order, I just couldn't help but wonder, "What are we doing? We're preemptively invading another country?" It wasn't like Afghanistan. I had no qualms with that. The 9/11 attacks were planned out of there and Al Qaida was based out of there, and we even gave them a chance to give up bin Ladin. But in Iraq--sure, Hussien's a baddie, but an aggressive invasion? That's not the American way (pardon the platitude--but it ain't). But I did my duty and kept my guys alive, and they kept me alive, and we all made it back in one piece (thank God we were so lucky). But the longer the war went on, the more upset I became about it. We hadn't made the world safer. We'd just opened up the biggest terrorist training camp (aka the Iraq War) since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So I started to think long and hard about President Bush. Now I was in intelligence, so I don't agree with the whole Bush-lied angle. But Bush is a fool? You bet. Bush is too much a hawk? Damned skippy. But the more I got to thinking about it, the more I realized that the Dems aren't really any different. On surface issues they look light years different. But they aren't really. They just want to hang on to power as long as possible. They just use different talking points to get and keep it. So now I'm in a situation where I don't really trust that the government has my best interest in mind any more. Not very comfortable, is it? So I can at least understand your ambivalence towards the military. The military is a branch of the government, and you don't quite trust the government, therefore maybe you shouldn't trust the military. Understandable, at least. I can at least envision a possible scenario where the military is used domestically in improper ways. I hope to God it never comes to that. But at the same time, those poor guys in Iraq just wanted the GI Bill or to learn a trade, or to get out of poverty or (yes) to serve their country. And now they're being asked to do a shitty job by that same government. My version of "support the troops" is this: 1) thank the ones who've served, 2) advocate for us to figure a way out of this mess so they're not being shot at any more. That seems to be the best kind of support we could offer.

For the record, I was a sailor--US Navy.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

SIMONWHO

Friday, February 23, 2007 10:03 PM

Just to reiterate - I don't believe that all soldiers serving in Iraq are "evil" or guilty of war crimes. However I do believe that the behaviour of our troops in the country has had so many reprehensible incidents that the people of Iraq will hate us for generations. Remember it being marketed as a war of liberation? The attitude of the troops has put paid to that idea.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
And just out of curiousity, where are your reams of stories about atrocities committed by the Brits? Or is it just us Yanks that aren't "intelligent" or "together" enough to turn to barbarism?

Oh, there's plenty of Brit stories out there. Check out the following video where British soldiers drag some children in off the streets and beat the crap out of them. Decide for yourself which one is more unsettling, the troops beating up defenceless kids or the cameraman screaming with delight as they collapse under the blows.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3884035267639445814

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:17 AM

Hey Casual. Yeah, a lot to read there I know. You asked a very legitimate question and considering everything that factors into my answer I didn't feel that I would be doing either of us any justice by giving you a few sentences for a reply. Frem said something about how minds like his in mine work in another thread and I think that he's pretty on the money. Rarely does my stance on any issue come from one or two other things, but more often a hundred or a thousand things happning at a time that I connect together. A lot of the time they seemingly have nothing to do with each other unless somebody points them out to you and does a good job explaining how they came to that conclusion. The hardest part about all that is I'm rarely ever able to get those points across to anybody in a digestible mannar, so I'm almost always arguing with somebody in here or rubbing them the wrong way. The only reason that it's any different in "real" life is that I tend not to delve so deep into issues when I'm face to face with people.

I usually am pretty good natured about it but the last couple of weeks I've been digging my heels in. I know better. I've read "How to Win Frineds and Influence People" and the number one rule is if you come at somebody combatively and arguementally they're never going to listen to anything you have to say, regardless of it's legitimacy. I've got some real heavy stuff going on with my family and it's kind of like a boil coming to a head. I know that's no excuse for some of my behavior in here though. I know that having served in the millitary yourself, this is a very personal topic to you and I think after a few of my posts earlier, you could have been well within your right to tear into me, but instead you calmly asked me the question in a different way and kept an open mind. I thank you and that's why I took the time to give you a real response.... that and I had a really slow day a "work" so I had a little more time to burn than usual.

Anyways... I think I may have actually managed to get my point across here, which is a rarity, and I'm pleased to see that it looks as though we pretty much see eye to eye. One thing that I neglected to mention earlier that i feel needs to be said though is that I believe that our Veterans who are injured physically and mentally do not get the support they diserve. I think that, regardless of the validity of the "poliece action", it was particularly shitty how Nam vets were treated by the Goverenment and civillians alike when they came back home. It must have been a nightmare for them to come home and have civilians spit on them and the Government basically turn their backs on them after the loyalty they had shown and the sacrafices they had made. I can't really fault the civilians attitudes there up to a certain point for the reasons in the last post and scenarios like "Kent State", but when they came back and nobody was in there corner... well, I think you get the point. I'm glad that when they're coming back now they have friends to come back to and there's not the insanely high death count that there was in Nam.

My brother will be going to DC this year and plans on meeting up with some people from fff. I won't say who he is on fff because I think I got me a few people who don't care for me too much here and I don't want to associate him with that. He doesn't post in here, but I'll just mention that he is in the 76th. I haven't decided if I'm going to burn the vacation and the cash on the trip yet myself, but it does sound like fun. Thanks for serving, I'm glad you're back, and if I do make it to DC this year and you're there, I'll buy ya that beer I promised.

Simonwho - It is unfortunate, the stories that we hear about the behavior of our troops and the negative effects that will come of those actions. You mention it being "marketed" as a war of Liberation and I think that's a very valid point. Unfortunately, I think just the reverse is happening now. I do believe that these incidents are far and few between, at least much le

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
My version of "support the troops" is this: 1) thank the ones who've served, 2) advocate for us to figure a way out of this mess so they're not being shot at any more. That seems to be the best kind of support we could offer.

Damn right. I've said before, and I'll say again. Support our troops by making sure we risk their lives ONLY as a last resort. Don't take their willingness, and the willingness of their families, to sacrifice themselves for granted. Go to war only when we would all do it ourselves. I think that was the intent of the Constitution in requiring Congress to declare war. It has to be something the overwhelming majority feels strongly about.

Quote:
Here's my question: do you hold the American soldiers reponsible for the problems in Iraq?

No. Anthony's analogy is actually pretty good. Don't blame the waiters for the bad cooking.

However, having said that, I wish there were more soldiers standing up against the war like Watada. I don't blame them for not doing it, but given the corruption of our government, I don't see how badly conceived wars are going to end without more protests from both citizens and soldiers alike.

I think about soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces. They are quite frequently instruments of oppression, and sometimes it seems, quite voluntarily so. The government's policies and methods are intractable--there is no way anyone can change them. So some soldiers have taken it upon themselves to refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. The list of "refuseniks" is growing.

This is not the desirable fix. But when the commanding powers are corrupt beyond repair, it ultimately falls to the soldiers to refuse to serve in immoral wars. Perhaps we aren't there yet, but I'm afraid we are approaching that scenario.

Edited to add: As much as I oppose this war and most wars, I absolutely have no tolerance for anyone spitting on a soldier or otherwise insulting or degrading a soldier. It is evil and cruel.

I used to work exclusively with Vietnam veterans and their families. For all the traumatic stress they suffered during war, the most painful and enduring traumas occurred when they returned "home" to spiteful hostility. They expect the enemy to be hostile. They don't expect their fellow countrymen to be vile.

No matter how wrong a war is, these soldiers put their lives on the line. No one should ever cheapen a sacrifice like that.

And another pet peeve. Our govt uses up these men and women, and then spits them out when they get home. It exposes these folks to unnecessary dangers for whatever reason (experimental vaccines, dioxin, the war itself), and then deny all responsibility when things go wrong. We don't have adequate services for our veterans, period. And I say we, because ultimately, WE allow our govt to do this to our veterans.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

SIMONWHO

Monday, February 26, 2007 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I used to work exclusively with Vietnam veterans and their families. For all the traumatic stress they suffered during war, the most painful and enduring traumas occurred when they returned "home" to spiteful hostility. They expect the enemy to be hostile. They don't expect their fellow countrymen to be vile.

No matter how wrong a war is, these soldiers put their lives on the line. No one should ever cheapen a sacrifice like that.

Did any of those you treated confess to what would now be considered war crimes? Did you not think that if someone (as indeed many American soldiers were) actually did kill babies, that "spiteful hostility" is the very least they deserved?

JASONZZZ

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:09 AM

The constitutionality of the military action in Iraq is such an on going debate. It isn't illegal and it hasn't been declared as that in any courts, the legality of the action has yet been successfully challenged. The fact that dems today are hamstrung over how exactly to stop the war tells me that there isn't any problems with the POTUS's authority in declaring military action.

The War Powers act gives the POTUS unilateral decision in taking military action for 60 days before he (so far, no she yet, but who knows) has to seek congressional approval. Further, Congress in fact passed resolution in Oct 2002 to allow POTUS to use all force necessary to secure the US from all threads by Iraq and to enforce all UN council resolutions.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Besides, Congress really haven't "declared" war since WWII, all of them "wars" that US have fought have all really been military actions - all approved by Congress though.

I think in fact there were several challenges on the legality of the "war" and the courts found that Congress at the very least "implicitly" approves of the war thru repeated and continual appropriation of funding for all of these military actions.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Is there an Offical, recorded Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq ?
No.

THEN THERE IS NO WAR, Constitutionally.

Don't throw that goddamned piece of paper in our faces, Frem. (Kidding- in the not-so-funny way)

Peeps not exposed directly to abuse of power have a hard time dealing with how complicated and subtle it can be. I've been in contact with it on the court judge/police officer level, and it's quite surprising to see at first; it makes you feel like you're in a bad TV movie. You wanna ask them "So, you're a good guy? What are the bad ones like?"

Just tossin' that in Chrisisall

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:30 AM

If they killed unarmed and completely innocent babies who provoked no threat or violence at all (or any other type of war crime), then they should be tried and face whatever punishment is due. If they didn't do any of that, then they absolutely do not IMHO deserve anything but our humble respect for their dedication to serve this country rightfully or not in spite of the fact that people absolutely hated them... What dark times it must be to trump up enough courage to serve your own country when so many of us hate the people who do and to lay their lives down so that we can all have the freedom to glibly debate their mentality and morality for obeying the orders that civilians give them...

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I used to work exclusively with Vietnam veterans and their families. For all the traumatic stress they suffered during war, the most painful and enduring traumas occurred when they returned "home" to spiteful hostility. They expect the enemy to be hostile. They don't expect their fellow countrymen to be vile.

No matter how wrong a war is, these soldiers put their lives on the line. No one should ever cheapen a sacrifice like that.

Did any of those you treated confess to what would now be considered war crimes? Did you not think that if someone (as indeed many American soldiers were) actually did kill babies, that "spiteful hostility" is the very least they deserved?

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:34 AM

Think of it this way, if soldiers, and given our military in general, are free to act on their feelings - we would no longer have a civilian controlled military; we would officially have a well paid mob. This is how military coups happen, when the fellas/gals with the guns starts making decisions on their own about what needs to be done and not directly obeying civilian authority.

I do not want to live in that sort of place... As beautiful as Malaysia is, I'd just like to visit there when there isn't an active military coup going on.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs new equipment to keep the site shiny. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=13317#185514

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

PIRATENEWS

Friday, March 16, 2007 1:44 PM

Soldiers are citizens first, soldiers second. Soldiers take a sworn oath "to protect and defend the US Consituttion from enemies foreign and domestic".

The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires soldiers to ignore illegal orders, and to arrest their coworkers and "superiors" for all crimes.

"I vas jus follwing ze odahs" is never a valid legal defense during courts martial, not at Nurenburg, and not in the Iraq Wars.

A sergent from my hometown testified in his court martial yesterday, as reqorted on network snews channels. His defense is that his troops massacred POWs, and then turned on him to save themselves from the death penalty. His defense is that his commanders gave them an unlawful order to "kill every military age male". But he never told his soldiers to ignore that order. This moron then testified that he covered up the crime by attacking his soldiers with his knife, and punched them in the face, to make it look like the POWs attacked them. In all courts, a criminal is guilty of murder, if he assists in any part of the crime, even when he did not pull the trigger himself (Charles Mansen was never accuses of committing a murder himself). Our local TV disinfo babes are treating this moron as a hero, trying to sell the sheeple to volunteer for the Afghan/Iraq/Iran meatgrinder....
www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43345

My wife pointed out that in her NCO experience during Gulf War #1, her troops always listened to her rather than an officer, and she told them to ignore all those illegal orders from their commanders, or they would go to jail. Her commanders were all fired, and Dick Cheney offered her a bribe, er, job to work directly for him at the Pentagon. Congress and the IG found billions of dollars missiing during their audits into the govt contracts she identified. The USAF chief of staff was fired while leading Gulf War #1, becuase we filed felony charges against him for lying to Congress during the IG investigations. After she retired, the Veterans Administration, White House and Congress stole her pension, as perped against 95% of all retired disabled veterans.
www.piratenews.org/pentagon_whistleblower.html

If every soldier had the guts and brains to do this, there would be no more wars, and no more treason by the White House. Jr Bush is a convicted criminal alcoholic coke-addicted draft deserter, who is NOT "commander in chief", since Congress never declared war. Jr is just another govt employee, who can be arrested at any time for his 100,000s of felonies.

Any citizen has the authority to file criminal charges, or make a citizen's arrest, of any govt employee eyewitnessed perping a misdemeanor, or suspected or accused of perping a felony. I've done this many times as a civilian, and it always works against gangster employees of Gangsta Govt, including a Skull & Bones mayor/ambassador:
www.piratenews.org/affidavit-criminal-complaint13jun05.htm

I'm currently seeking the arrest of the billionaire mayor of Knoxville Tennessee, for turning over city court and replacing city police with a foreign corporation in AUSTRALIA. Many lawyers and state politicians are now joining my side in this battle, with 2 bills pending in the state legislature, quoting my proposed amendment to the city ordinance as I testified in city council.
www/piratenews.org/kill-robocops.html

I'm also seeking the arrest of the governor of Tennessee, along with the entire state police, for selling fake driver licenses to 250,000 illegal alien enemy combatants:
www/piratenews.org/warning-to-bikers-on-deals-gap-dragon129.html

USA is currently in a Civil War / Revolutionary War / World War, with the latest battles on 9/11/2001 and in the bombing/flooding of New Orleans, both crimes perped by the Bush White House and his royal cousins running the British Empire. The REAL war front is on the Mexician and Canadian borders, and the sea ports in USA (now run by the Communist Chinese military and British Empire in USA). Canada has been identified in participating in the 9/11 attacks against USA. These are t

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:19 AM

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 3:17 PM

If you're just a guy trying to get a scholarship for school or support a young family back home, my unease about your involvement is tempered by an understanding about the difficulties of your circumstances - it's rough coming home to a country that distrusts you, and I've no doubt your experiences have been hard and there's pretty much no support or funding anymore for returning veterans.

You went over to fight in another country while the government was whittling away our "freedoms" HERE. It's classic misdirection, and you're the victim as much as anyone.

Thing is, while I can sympathize with you, I know there's bad mojo going on over there and all the hands are bloody. Chances are while you were over there you relied on the regular degree of piss-poor intelligence during action at least once. And intelligence is worse over there than anything I've ever seen, so when the intelligence is wrong, innocent people DO die.

Ultimately, I don't really want your protection. No one ASKED you to sacrifice for me or anyone. I don't understand how you can expect me to feel grateful for you soldiers lining up to go and get slaughtered. Water's rising, leadership's to blame, but y'all keep jumping in the pool.

And frankly I don't see how forcing our will on foreigners by gun point protects any of us anyway. I think even though you probably feel differently, you got yourself shot at and nearly blown up and I think it probably wasn't anything to do with preserving freedom back home OR abroad.

Lastly I think you've probably been trained to follow orders just a little too well. Sir.

So yeah, unfortunately military service is not the badge of honor it once might have been. Sorry you got that shock, we can be a little bit rude about this. But then, we also don't like being guilted or shamed or trampled by any high horses for a war none of us believed in or asked for, and while that may not be how you meant it, might've been how it came across.