Army Medic guilty of desertion

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

There's no such thing as an "illegal war". It makes no sense. I'm totally in agreement with this guy that this is an immoral war, but illegal? Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Actually, there is see the post above made by gue_barium.

farfromglorified

Rushlimbo wrote:

If you want mindless drones in our society then that is your opinion and I respect it. I like to think the men and women in our armed forces use their intelligence.

Hehe...nice.

I'm advocating a position of "think before you sign". Can you help me understand how that makes me a proponent of "mindless drones"?

farfromglorified

Collin wrote:

Actually, there is see the post above made by gue_barium.

gue posted something from the UN Charter. Can you point me to a UN ruling that declares this war "illegal"?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

There's no such thing as an "illegal war". It makes no sense. I'm totally in agreement with this guy that this is an immoral war, but illegal? Sorry, that just doesn't work.

Regardless, this guy signed away his right to have moral qualms about things. If he wants to desert, so be it and I applaud his decision. But he must own up to his obligations.

I think he is owning up to his obligations as an American soldier. As is the Watada fellow. They are both fighting the battle, just in a different way.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

I think he is owning up to his obligations as an American soldier. As is the Wataba fellow. They are both fighting the battle, just in a different way.

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

the guy can do whatever the hell he wants to... I'm sure he's looking for permission or approval from anyone...

chopitdown

gue_barium wrote:

It isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Also, even though I was in the Armed Forces, I certainly wasn't "owned" by the government.

"The UN Charter outlines two grounds on which you can lawfully engage in armed conflict – one is article 42 of the charter which says that you act together with other states once that action has been explicitly authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That didn't happen in the case of Iraq.

The other provision is article 51 of the UN Charter, which is about self defence. That didn't apply in the case of Iraq either."

does the UN law supercede US law? Can someone from the UN come to the US and prosecute this "illegal" war?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

They aren't "anti-war". This isn't about that and you know it. They both saw active duty.

gue_barium

chopitdown wrote:

does the UN law supercede US law? Can someone from the UN come to the US and prosecute this "illegal" war?

Here's a good read:

Could Bush be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/Bush_War_Criminal%3F.html

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

You yourself say this is an immoral war. Wtf? Here's a couple of guys putting it all on the line that think the same thing.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Right as soon as the 9/11 investigation is all wrapped up in say.....uhhh NEVER...

Thanks for shopping at Walmart...

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Here's a good read:

Could Bush be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/Bush_War_Criminal%3F.html

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".

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

just say no to stale twinkies and ho-ho's we'll all be safer in the longrun...

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

You yourself say this is an immoral war. Wtf?

Morals and laws are two different things.

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.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

You may want to elaborate on that. I'm guessing your angle is coming from the opinion that they are "only" military men.

Collin

chopitdown wrote:

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?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

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.

Collin

farfromglorified wrote:

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.