Right as soon as the 9/11 investigation is all wrapped up in say.....uhhh NEVER...
Thanks for shopping at Walmart...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dude, you're making a case for international justice within a system that has no sovereignty to support it. International criminal prosecutions are simply witchhunts by lynch-mobs in suits. Which makes it all the more ironic when they try someone for "illegal war".
They aren't "anti-war". This isn't about that and you know it. They both saw active duty.
You're right, they aren't anti-war. They're anti-them-serving-in-this-war, along with a lot of other people, despite signing contracts stating that they'd do what they were told by the organization that makes war. They've been co-opted by anti-war camps as shining examples of "anti-war" sentiment. Yet they represent the cause of war more than its solution: the idea that actions and consequences shouldn't be linked.
just say no to stale twinkies and ho-ho's we'll all be safer in the longrun...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Here's a couple of guys putting it all on the line that think the same thing.
These guys don't think the same thing. If they thought the same thing, they'd understand the morality of lies, which is often equal to the morality of war.
These guys don't think the same thing. If they thought the same thing, they'd understand the morality of lies, which is often equal to the morality of war.
You may want to elaborate on that. I'm guessing your angle is coming from the opinion that they are "only" military men.
does the UN law supercede US law? Can someone from the UN come to the US and prosecute this "illegal" war?
Does international law supercede US law. I honestly don't know. What does the US law say about war? And why did they sign the internationally law when they have no intention in following it? How about the Human Rights, which were also established by the UN?
Dude, you're making a case for international justice within a system that has no sovereignty to support it. International criminal prosecutions are simply witchhunts by lynch-mobs in suits. Which makes it all the more ironic when they try someone for "illegal war".
You should read the article. It doesn't assume the improbable.
You may want to elaborate on that. I'm guessing your angle is coming from the opinion that they are "only" military men.
What specifically do you need elaboration on? These men lied in saying that they would submit themselves to the military in exchange for payments and benefits. They accepted those payments and benefits and then defaulted on their agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" military men.
What specifically do you need elaboration on? These men lied in saying that they would submit themselves to the military in exchange for payments and benefits. They accepted those payments and benefits and then defaulted on their agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" military men.
How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.
Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.
What specifically do you need elaboration on? These men lied in saying that they would submit themselves to the military in exchange for payments and benefits. They accepted those payments and benefits and then defaulted on their agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" military men.
Well, they didn't lie and did do a tour. In the meantime a lot of evidence comes out that shows that the war is illegal, therefore, the obligation to the contract is null and void. Or, to put another way, the contract itself is illegal, based on the assumption that the war was waged on fraudulant statement/evidence.
So far as I know, Watada, in his court-martial, used the UN charter as his defense, but the Army judge threw it out as "poltical." This was followed by calling a mistrial on some other matter. It isn't over yet.
If I signed a contract to make something for you that was in turn used for illegal or immoral purposes, I don't see how I couldn't break that contract.
I understand he doesn't like war...so why did he enlist in the army?
He's not refusing to go back because he doesn't like war. He's refusing to go back because he doesn't believe in this particular bullshit war. There's a difference.
How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.
Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.
Yep...fighting the battle of being "anti-war" by joining the military. Real heroes :rolleyes:
It's pretty easy to be "anti-war" when someone is asking you to fight one. Apparently it's a little harder when someone's offering you free college tuition and other giveaways.
There were thousands of Veterens who'd done two or three years service in Vietnam, and who then joined the anti-war movement. Would you say these people weren't brave or patriotic?
How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.
Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.
Lying is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that you will submit yourself to military discretion, and then you don't, you're lying.
These guys lied. That doesn't make them evil or awful, but it does make them liars.
Look, I'm not trying the make the case for execution or even punishment for these guys. But to portray their actions as dissenting against a broken military machine that was broken when these guys signed up in the first place is, in my opinion, also dishonest.
There were thousands of Veterens who'd done two or three years service in Vietnam, and who then joined the anti-war movement. Would you say these people weren't brave or patriotic?
It depends on their motivation for joining the "anti-war movement", Byrnzie. If they served their time and discovered how awful, immoral and unjust war can be, it doesn't mean they weren't brave or patriotic. Furthermore, if we're talking about draftees here it's a totally different argument.
However, if you sign up for service, collect a bunch of benefits, and then complain about having to do what you signed up for to get those benefits, you're pretty unpatriotic and cowardly in my book.
Well, they didn't lie and did do a tour. In the meantime a lot of evidence comes out that shows that the war is illegal, therefore, the obligation to the contract is null and void. Or, to put another way, the contract itself is illegal, based on the assumption that the war was waged on fraudulant statement/evidence.
You're putting justice ahead of judgment here, and that makes no sense. This war has not been determined to be "illegal", nor will it be.
So far as I know, Watada, in his court-martial, used the UN charter as his defense, but the Army judge threw it out as "poltical." This was followed by calling a mistrial on some other matter. It isn't over yet.
And it was thrown out as "political". So it was therefore ruled legal, at least in that context. Yet Watada continued to protest. You can't interchange legality and morality whenever it suits your argument or case.
If I signed a contract to make something for you that was in turn used for illegal or immoral purposes, I don't see how I couldn't break that contract.
Hehe...then you sure as hell shouldn't sign a military enlistment contract.
Look, the US military along with militaries throughout the world have been involved in so many ridiculously immoral and "illegal" wars that to assume somehow that your services in the war machine would be used in only moral contexts is like signing an employment contract with the mob and then complaining when you have to break some knees. It's a patently ridiculous argument.
People are always going to be human over soldiers and humans change their minds constantly especially given new information or seeing first hand how wrong something is...contract or no. It would be far worse, IMO, to continue to fight a war and follow orders when I think it's wrong and unjust.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Lying is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that you will submit yourself to military discretion, and then you don't, you're lying.
These guys lied. That doesn't make them evil or awful, but it does make them liars.
Lying is, imo, saying something which isn't true when you know it's not true. I'm not sure if this is the case here. Their motives could have been honest (ignorant maybe) but seeing the war might have showed them something they thought they could handle but couldn't. It's an error of judgement maybe or stupidity or naivety.
Lying is, imo, saying something which isn't true when you know it's not true. I'm not sure if this is the case here. Their motives could have been honest (ignorant maybe) but seeing the war might have showed them something they thought they could handle but couldn't. It's an error of judgement maybe or stupidity or naivety.
Ok..I can actually get on board here, in theory. I completely agree with all the above, but probably not the conclusions you'll extend from it.
I don't know about this case, but in Watwada's case there is no "stupidity or naivety". Watwada's own father went through exactly the same thing in Vietnam.
I think you guys might be misunderstanding me. I don't think these guys should be forced to fight in Iraq. I don't even think they should be forced to stay in the military. Rather, I think the military is both completely right and justified in a) courtmartialing people like this and b) withholding or repossessing any benefits acquired as part of the original broken contractual promise.
It depends on their motivation for joining the "anti-war movement", Byrnzie. If they served their time and discovered how awful, immoral and unjust war can be, it doesn't mean they weren't brave or patriotic. Furthermore, if we're talking about draftees here it's a totally different argument.
However, if you sign up for service, collect a bunch of benefits, and then complain about having to do what you signed up for to get those benefits, you're pretty unpatriotic and cowardly in my book.
Maybe they're not complaining about having to do what they signed up for. Maybe they're protesting a bullshit war after having seen it's effects at first hand. When people/soldiers are placed in a situation which they see is helping no one, and which they begin to see has nothing to do with spreading any kind of freedom, or with saving anyone's nationhood or life, but is instead contributing to needless suffering and destruction, then they will react accordingly. A bullshit war is a bullshit war. We know it. And those on the ground doing the fighting know it.
Maybe they're not complaining about having to do what they signed up for. Maybe they're protesting a bullshit war after having seen it's effects at first hand. When people/soldiers are placed in a situation which they see is helping no one, and which they begin to see has nothing to do with spreading any kind of freedom, or with saving anyone's nationhood or life, but is instead contributing to needless suffering and destruction, then they will react accordingly. A bullshit war is a bullshit war. We know it. And those on the ground doing the fighting know it.
Hehe...a bullshit war is a bullshit war. Try thinking of my posts this way:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
Thanks for shopping at Walmart...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Dude, you're making a case for international justice within a system that has no sovereignty to support it. International criminal prosecutions are simply witchhunts by lynch-mobs in suits. Which makes it all the more ironic when they try someone for "illegal war".
You're right, they aren't anti-war. They're anti-them-serving-in-this-war, along with a lot of other people, despite signing contracts stating that they'd do what they were told by the organization that makes war. They've been co-opted by anti-war camps as shining examples of "anti-war" sentiment. Yet they represent the cause of war more than its solution: the idea that actions and consequences shouldn't be linked.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Morals and laws are two different things.
These guys don't think the same thing. If they thought the same thing, they'd understand the morality of lies, which is often equal to the morality of war.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Does international law supercede US law. I honestly don't know. What does the US law say about war? And why did they sign the internationally law when they have no intention in following it? How about the Human Rights, which were also established by the UN?
naděje umírá poslední
You should read the article. It doesn't assume the improbable.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What specifically do you need elaboration on? These men lied in saying that they would submit themselves to the military in exchange for payments and benefits. They accepted those payments and benefits and then defaulted on their agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" military men.
How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.
Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.
naděje umírá poslední
So far as I know, Watada, in his court-martial, used the UN charter as his defense, but the Army judge threw it out as "poltical." This was followed by calling a mistrial on some other matter. It isn't over yet.
If I signed a contract to make something for you that was in turn used for illegal or immoral purposes, I don't see how I couldn't break that contract.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
He's not refusing to go back because he doesn't like war. He's refusing to go back because he doesn't believe in this particular bullshit war. There's a difference.
doesnt matter why he signed in.
There were thousands of Veterens who'd done two or three years service in Vietnam, and who then joined the anti-war movement. Would you say these people weren't brave or patriotic?
It does if you say they're liars.
naděje umírá poslední
Lying is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that you will submit yourself to military discretion, and then you don't, you're lying.
These guys lied. That doesn't make them evil or awful, but it does make them liars.
Look, I'm not trying the make the case for execution or even punishment for these guys. But to portray their actions as dissenting against a broken military machine that was broken when these guys signed up in the first place is, in my opinion, also dishonest.
It depends on their motivation for joining the "anti-war movement", Byrnzie. If they served their time and discovered how awful, immoral and unjust war can be, it doesn't mean they weren't brave or patriotic. Furthermore, if we're talking about draftees here it's a totally different argument.
However, if you sign up for service, collect a bunch of benefits, and then complain about having to do what you signed up for to get those benefits, you're pretty unpatriotic and cowardly in my book.
You're putting justice ahead of judgment here, and that makes no sense. This war has not been determined to be "illegal", nor will it be.
And it was thrown out as "political". So it was therefore ruled legal, at least in that context. Yet Watada continued to protest. You can't interchange legality and morality whenever it suits your argument or case.
Hehe...then you sure as hell shouldn't sign a military enlistment contract.
Look, the US military along with militaries throughout the world have been involved in so many ridiculously immoral and "illegal" wars that to assume somehow that your services in the war machine would be used in only moral contexts is like signing an employment contract with the mob and then complaining when you have to break some knees. It's a patently ridiculous argument.
People are always going to be human over soldiers and humans change their minds constantly especially given new information or seeing first hand how wrong something is...contract or no. It would be far worse, IMO, to continue to fight a war and follow orders when I think it's wrong and unjust.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Lying is, imo, saying something which isn't true when you know it's not true. I'm not sure if this is the case here. Their motives could have been honest (ignorant maybe) but seeing the war might have showed them something they thought they could handle but couldn't. It's an error of judgement maybe or stupidity or naivety.
naděje umírá poslední
Ok..I can actually get on board here, in theory. I completely agree with all the above, but probably not the conclusions you'll extend from it.
I don't know about this case, but in Watwada's case there is no "stupidity or naivety". Watwada's own father went through exactly the same thing in Vietnam.
I think you guys might be misunderstanding me. I don't think these guys should be forced to fight in Iraq. I don't even think they should be forced to stay in the military. Rather, I think the military is both completely right and justified in a) courtmartialing people like this and b) withholding or repossessing any benefits acquired as part of the original broken contractual promise.
Actually, I just like debating semantics:D
naděje umírá poslední
Maybe they're not complaining about having to do what they signed up for. Maybe they're protesting a bullshit war after having seen it's effects at first hand. When people/soldiers are placed in a situation which they see is helping no one, and which they begin to see has nothing to do with spreading any kind of freedom, or with saving anyone's nationhood or life, but is instead contributing to needless suffering and destruction, then they will react accordingly. A bullshit war is a bullshit war. We know it. And those on the ground doing the fighting know it.
Hehe...a bullshit war is a bullshit war. Try thinking of my posts this way:
Why is this a bullshit war?
Simple. Who's it benefiting?
the kurds
they are NOT the only ones benefiting.
~Ron Burgundy
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ok, so they are others benefiting? great
All sorts of people. Some Iraqis. Some terrorists. Some Americans. Some corporations. Some nations.
A war's morality isn't measured by whom it benefits. So I'll ask you again:
Why is this a bullshit war?