Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I stand by that both practically and theoretically, second guessing should not be permitted, save in the extreme circumstances of war crimes. And even then I'm wary.

In my opinion, that is a dangerous mindset to have. Of course as a soldier you have a duty to follow orders, but it doesn't mean you stop thinking for yourself and keep in check what you believe is right and just. It doesn't mean that every little decision is a labored process, but it means a soldier is not simply a tool. That's the kind of military I hope we have today. We should be paying them to think, not to simply act as robots.

Until you order your fastest man 'over the top' and he says "No fear! I might get shot!"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I stand by that both practically and theoretically, second guessing should not be permitted, save in the extreme circumstances of war crimes. And even then I'm wary.

In my opinion, that is a dangerous mindset to have. Of course as a soldier you have a duty to follow orders, but it doesn't mean you stop thinking for yourself and keep in check what you believe is right and just. It doesn't mean that every little decision is a labored process, but it means a soldier is not simply a tool. That's the kind of military I hope we have today. We should be paying them to think, not to simply act as robots.

Until you order your fastest man 'over the top' and he says "No fear! I might get shot!"

I think we can reasonably recognize the difference between noncombat orders and in the heat of battle.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Granted - but as I see it this is a moot point considering that you don't know the guys motives, and as someone else said the fact that he wrote the letter shortly before he was due to be deployed is suspicious.

You think he is a "hero" because you think he is acting according to some internal set of ethical principles - but the truth is you don't know what is behind his decision. Seizing on it to justify your own anti-war views is simply a detriment to the whole debate.

I don't support the Iraq war, and truth be told I think the War On Terror is a load of shite too. Regardless, a lot of people (for whatever) reason decided to swallow that shite - which (to me) was never anything more than a thinly disguised justification for an escalation of the same imperialist foreign policies that the US has engaged in since the end of WW2.

Quite frankly, I find this whole thing laughable - this guy made his choice to jump on the national bandwagon for war - and now he finds that its not what he signed up for. Oh dear.... I suspect he would be better off with a "new chance to begin again on the offworld colonies".

[Artegal 1]

Wow mr. StevenJinky. How many qualifications do you want a soldier to make--Okay is my president justified, is my commander giving me a politically correct order, is my order justified under law, is war even a legalized operation, and it this a time of combat or just a casual order?

Way too many ideas to run through a solider's head. And as far as the heat of battle versus as you say non-combat orders. Um we haven't had heat of battles in a long time--today's wars are not like two armies approaching each other in a open field in schirmish lines. Today is roadside bombs, ambushes, and snipers targetting non-combat units, such as, Military Police, Medical, or Logistical support personnel. So to really try and split the hair over if its a combat order or a non-combat order is invalid. Furthermore as the oath of military service states you follow all orders of your superiors not just combat or non-combat orders that you aggree with politically.

As far as calling this guy a hero--I think that is huge misuse of the word. I would call him a Martyr. Because he knew his action would lead to his punishment by UCMJ. And as Fishdude has pointed out this guy's action is very self-centered. A hero does not make a choice for self-centered reasons, the very nature of the idea of a hero is to be anything but self-centered and to save or protect those in need, without regard for the self-interested benefits or fame it might bring.

For this guy to be a hero he should have gone to Iraq. As an officer he is in command, and his subordinate soldiers would be served by his selfless act of guiding them in a dangerous combat zone. As it is now he has abandoned his men, his army, and his country--for the self-centered reasons that he does not aggree politically with the president's decision.

He is intitled to his opinion, and the excercise of his belifes--and as such, like a true martyr he will pay the consequences.

Not a hero--a martyr yes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A hero does not make a choice for self-centered reasons, the very nature of the idea of a hero is to be anything but self-centered and to save or protect those in need, without regard for the self-interested benefits or fame it might bring.

Or an anti-hero perhaps?

[Artegal 1]

A hero does not make a choice for self-centered reasons, the very nature of the idea of a hero is to be anything but self-centered and to save or protect those in need, without regard for the self-interested benefits or fame it might bring.

Or an anti-hero perhaps?

He is apparently an "example" also. As I read that he had tried to resign his commission, and it was not accepted--they apparently want to make an "example" of him.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Artegal

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Granted - but as I see it this is a moot point considering that you don't know the guys motives, and as someone else said the fact that he wrote the letter shortly before he was due to be deployed is suspicious.

You think he is a "hero" because you think he is acting according to some internal set of ethical principles - but the truth is you don't know what is behind his decision. Seizing on it to justify your own anti-war views is simply a detriment to the whole debate.

I don't support the Iraq war, and truth be told I think the War On Terror is a load of shite too. Regardless, a lot of people (for whatever) reason decided to swallow that shite - which (to me) was never anything more than a thinly disguised justification for an escalation of the same imperialist foreign policies that the US has engaged in since the end of WW2.

Quite frankly, I find this whole thing laughable - this guy made his choice to jump on the national bandwagon for war - and now he finds that its not what he signed up for. Oh dear.... I suspect he would be better off with a "new chance to begin again on the offworld colonies".

"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

While you may rightfully question his true motives, based on what I understand about this case, he has followed his convictions and that to me is heroic. I think it's important to acknowledge that being heroic in the military doesn't simply mean following orders.

Watada did not apply for status as a conscientious objector because he isn't opposed to war in principle, just the war in Iraq. Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44261.htm

Edited July 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sorry I don't see it. This is a bit of a Golden Calf IMO.

[46]

I stand by that both practically and theoretically, second guessing should not be permitted, save in the extreme circumstances of war crimes. And even then I'm wary.

In my opinion, that is a dangerous mindset to have. Of course as a soldier you have a duty to follow orders, but it doesn't mean you stop thinking for yourself and keep in check what you believe is right and just. It doesn't mean that every little decision is a labored process, but it means a soldier is not simply a tool. That's the kind of military I hope we have today. We should be paying them to think, not to simply act as robots.

1. Respond to the rest of my above post with counterpoints. You seem to be ignoring crux of my argument. If you don't understand it, I'd be happy to explain again.

2. Why is it more dangerous than obeying? It seems that most war crimes are committed when soldiers violate the rules of engagement and mission instructions.

3. Soldiers are hired for a specific job just like you or I. We are given scope and are not expected to work outside it. I'm not sure why you think they are different.

If you are simply against the war in Iraq, that's fine, but don't make it a theoretical argument if it has no theoretical underpinnings.

[Fandango 1,439]

Granted - but as I see it this is a moot point considering that you don't know the guys motives, and as someone else said the fact that he wrote the letter shortly before he was due to be deployed is suspicious.

You think he is a "hero" because you think he is acting according to some internal set of ethical principles - but the truth is you don't know what is behind his decision. Seizing on it to justify your own anti-war views is simply a detriment to the whole debate.

I don't support the Iraq war, and truth be told I think the War On Terror is a load of shite too. Regardless, a lot of people (for whatever) reason decided to swallow that shite - which (to me) was never anything more than a thinly disguised justification for an escalation of the same imperialist foreign policies that the US has engaged in since the end of WW2.

Quite frankly, I find this whole thing laughable - this guy made his choice to jump on the national bandwagon for war - and now he finds that its not what he signed up for. Oh dear.... I suspect he would be better off with a "new chance to begin again on the offworld colonies".

"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

While you may rightfully question his true motives, based on what I understand about this case, he has followed his convictions and that to me is heroic. I think it's important to acknowledge that being heroic in the military doesn't simply mean following orders.

Watada did not apply for status as a conscientious objector because he isn't opposed to war in principle, just the war in Iraq. Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44261.htm

I once read an interview with the ghost of Elvis...I should send that your way

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sorry I don't see it. This is a bit of a Golden Calf IMO.

Many here have questioned why he didn't just become a conscientious objector but according to the military, he wouldn't qualify to do so since he is not opposed to war in general. So at least we can agree that he didn't have any other option but to either follow his orders for deployment or request a resignation. He chose the latter and the military rejected his request.

He said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The Army refused to allow him to resign his commission because his unit is covered by a stop-loss policy and he has not fulfilled his service obligation, which ends in December.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44261.htm

Edited July 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[46]

"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

While you may rightfully question his true motives, based on what I understand about this case, he has followed his convictions and that to me is heroic. I think it's important to acknowledge that being heroic in the military doesn't simply mean following orders.

Watada did not apply for status as a conscientious objector because he isn't opposed to war in principle, just the war in Iraq. Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44261.htm

The war is not illegal until taken to a US court and a judgment obtained, or legislated against federally. These have not occurred. He is simply in dereliction of his duty. There would be more veracity in him stating, "I cannot be a soldier because I am trained to kill and murder is illegal."

You could stand-up at work tomorrow and state, "I cannot do this job because we use paper and killing trees is illegal." It isn't, and your refusal to work will cause you to be fired and possibly sued if you had sworn an oath stating killing tress was ok. This is what is happening to him.

You simply care a lot about this conflict. Nothing else. He is violating a job contract with mean terms. He probably shouldn't have signed it if he felt he has the right to choose where he serves (which he did to some degree - and he chose the infantry in the army).

Edited July 10, 2006 by Gerard

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The war is not illegal until taken to a US court and a judgment obtained, or legislated against federally. These have not occurred. He is simply in dereliction of his duty. There would be more veracity in him stating, "I cannot be a soldier because I am trained to kill and murder is illegal."

You could stand-up at work tomorrow and state, "I cannot do this job because we use paper and killing trees is illegal." It isn't, and your refusal to work will cause you to be fired and possibly sued if you had sworn an oath stating killing tress was ok. This is what is happening to him.

You simply care a lot about this conflict. Nothing else. He is violating a job contract with mean terms. He probably shouldn't have signed it if he felt he has the right to choose where he serves (which he did to some degree - and he chose the infantry in the army).

So the Holocaust was not deemed criminal until the Nuremberg trials? He stated that he once believed and supported the President's war in Iraq but after learning more about the war he came to the conclusion based on his military expertise that this war is in fact illegal. Whether or not that will ever be declared by our government remains to be seen.

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html

[Fandango 1,439]

Clutching at straws, party of one...clutching at straws, party of one....

Ok, I'll be serious again for a sec & repeat summat that's gone uncommented on.

Steven_n_Jinky....you yourself have admitted you don't know this guy's motives. You read some copy & now you're picking up a ball and running a mile with it. You call him a hero when you don't know all the facts or motives.

Just like your other thread where you started with the 'this prolly happened' instead of sticking to the FACTS presented. You're projecting here! This soldier signed up for service & vowed to follow orders. He didn't. That doesn't make him a hero...that makes him a ####...End of discussion.

[tmma 467]

Granted - but as I see it this is a moot point considering that you don't know the guys motives, and as someone else said the fact that he wrote the letter shortly before he was due to be deployed is suspicious.

You think he is a "hero" because you think he is acting according to some internal set of ethical principles - but the truth is you don't know what is behind his decision. Seizing on it to justify your own anti-war views is simply a detriment to the whole debate.

I don't support the Iraq war, and truth be told I think the War On Terror is a load of shite too. Regardless, a lot of people (for whatever) reason decided to swallow that shite - which (to me) was never anything more than a thinly disguised justification for an escalation of the same imperialist foreign policies that the US has engaged in since the end of WW2.

Quite frankly, I find this whole thing laughable - this guy made his choice to jump on the national bandwagon for war - and now he finds that its not what he signed up for. Oh dear.... I suspect he would be better off with a "new chance to begin again on the offworld colonies".

"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

While you may rightfully question his true motives, based on what I understand about this case, he has followed his convictions and that to me is heroic. I think it's important to acknowledge that being heroic in the military doesn't simply mean following orders.

Watada did not apply for status as a conscientious objector because he isn't opposed to war in principle, just the war in Iraq. Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

http://www.komotv.com/stories/44261.htm

Honor and integrity?

Where is the honor in swearing an OATH and then renaging?

Where is the integrity in watching the rest of his Infantry unit or squad leave for deployment without him ( he who has been trained -at great expense- for that very job-i.e leading his unit in the time of battle).

We have a VOLUNTEER military force.

No draft no conscription. He willingly volunteered.

He brings up "honor " and "integrity". Doesn't he owe the rest of his unit the very same?

What has the nation been paying his salary for? Where is the honor and integrity in this?

OK, so he doesn't agree with the war in Iraq. It's not like working for Microsoft. You cannot pick and choose the contracts you want to do and disregard the ones you don't. He knew that when he VOLUNTEERED! It was all explained to him at the time of commissioning, make no mistake about that! It would have also been explained that under UCMJ there is consequences for failure to follow lawful orders, and like it or not, initially the call to war WAS approved by congress-and has as of yet NOT been rescinded. Thus-LAWFUL and correctly executed orders, like it or not.

So his excuse is that his view on the war in Iraq has changed. Well, that's too bad....he is a coward, nothing more.

Sorry caught up with this debate so late-and only time for one reply too! Just had to add to it, though as this story really boils me!

Edited July 10, 2006 by tmma