Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[peejay 327]

Well, we are already an increasingly fascist state, might as well incorporate all components of a good one.

As compared to what...the Netherlands. I was born during Eisenhower and have lived through many Presidential administrations since then. I feel just as free now as I have through all the other Presidents. Our democracy will survive Bush.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

this says it all. i wonder who is who on the soldier's back

[Reynaldo 0]

I am sorry to be too much of an intruder, but this is a subject that i need to give you all the pleasure of my opinion.

A girl compared this Lt. attitude with Ghandi and Hitler, 2 or 3 posts later someone said with that attitude Hitler would have won the war.

Let me make something clear, if some soldier from the red army (the one that took over Berlin) did something even remotely similar to that would be shot and his family persecuted by the soviet regime. And they didn't have the choice to join the army.

So, Stalin, a guy that killed millions of people, must not be wrong, right?

And the whole involvement of the U.S.A. in the world war II is controvertial. You can't just say: "War is good, remember 1941 when we started to help you deal with nazis?", even though your government was aware of the jewish persecution in nazi germany all along.

The life of an American soldier isn't more valuable than a pole jewish person killed by the nazis, and you avoided the subject for too much time before you took any course of action.

What I am saying is simple: a guy need to choose his battles. The United States is not fighting for freedom in Iraq, unless the word freedom in english means: "protecting the interest of oil companies". If that is the case then I am so sorry, my english is not that good.

And, please, no WWII analogies. People that fought that war died protecting their beliefs, and i bet y'all that their beliefs had nothing in common with oil companies interests.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The United States is not fighting for freedom in Iraq, unless the word freedom in english means: "protecting the interest of oil companies".

True. But this isn't exactly new. The military isn't doing in Iraq anything that it wasn't doing in Korea and Vietnam, for example. Of course we had a draft back then, people 'had' to go or face jail. Its is incredibly dubious to force someone to risk their life for a war that doesn't amount to 'protecting the national interests of the American people'.

Perhaps the guy needed to wake up and smell the coffee before he signed those enlistment papers.

And, please, no WWII analogies. People that fought that war died protecting their beliefs, and i bet y'all that their beliefs had nothing in common with oil companies interests.

Agree - this is not the same at all. Saddam Hussein is not Hitler, and Iraq's manufacturing output is pathetic say, compared to Nazi Germany.

[tmma 467]

I am sorry to be too much of an intruder, but this is a subject that i need to give you all the pleasure of my opinion.

A girl compared this Lt. attitude with Ghandi and Hitler, 2 or 3 posts later someone said with that attitude Hitler would have won the war.

SHE brought Hitler into it.

MY point was that if the members of the military THEN had just said "I don't want to go..." No matter which allied country they were from ( and there was many more allied countries fighting Hitler than just Britain and later on, the US)-Hitler would have won.

Let me make something clear, if some soldier from the red army (the one that took over Berlin) did something even remotely similar to that would be shot and his family persecuted by the soviet regime. And they didn't have the choice to join the army.

So, Stalin, a guy that killed millions of people, must not be wrong, right?

Are you bringing Stalin into it , too?

And the whole involvement of the U.S.A. in the world war II is controvertial. You can't just say: "War is good, remember 1941 when we started to help you deal with nazis?", even though your government was aware of the jewish persecution in nazi germany all along.

I was NOT saying War is good....You are mudding the waters of my point.

The life of an American soldier isn't more valuable than a pole jewish person killed by the nazis, and you avoided the subject for too much time before you took any course of action.

I do NOT think anyone even remotely even insinuated this....

What I am saying is simple: a guy need to choose his battles. The United States is not fighting for freedom in Iraq, unless the word freedom in english means: "protecting the interest of oil companies". If that is the case then I am so sorry, my english is not that good.

This officer took an OATH-a sworn OATH. The fact that he is only just now an LT means that he obviously took it whilst the conflict in Iraq was already occuring, why does he have a problem with it now?

And, please, no WWII analogies. People that fought that war died protecting their beliefs, and i bet y'all that their beliefs had nothing in common with oil companies interests.

I think you completely missed the point I was making, but whatever.

BTW most of MY mother's family were killed during WW2; and you think NONE of the battles/loss of life in WW2 was political or socio-economic? Explain the Suez Canal battles, or the Somme, for example, please.

EDIT-that cartoon REALLY DOES say it all, CharlesandNessa!

Edited July 10, 2006 by tmma

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

EDIT-that cartoon REALLY DOES say it all, CharlesandNessa!

i've been waiting to use that one

edit: the title of the cartoon is "a soldier's burden"

here's another one that might demonstrate what's wrong with our country

Edited July 10, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[tmma 467]

And the whole involvement of the U.S.A. in the world war II is controvertial. You can't just say: "War is good, remember 1941 when we started to help you deal with nazis?", even though your government was aware of the jewish persecution in nazi germany all along.

OK-Lets talk about "complacency" during WW2-Seeing as you bring it up.

I'll start-

The list of nations that were complacent during the horror of WW2 is LONG

-The French and Italians capitulated and then the Italians plain out surrendered ( Mousellini in fact teamed up with the Russians-I believe).

-The Swiss remained "neutral" and infact actually helped the Nazi regime by holding their ( mostly stolen) assets in their Swiss banks!

-The Pope signed a concordat with Hitler to protect the Vatican and the Catholic Church. Yet did nothing to protect Jewish Italians shipped out of Italy to the various camps around Europe.

-Various tribes/countries/provinces of the Middle East actively helped the Nazi regime in way or another ( for their own purposes, of course).

-Oh and not to forget the list of S.American nations that offered the running Nazis a safe haven after the war! Later refusing to extradite them for their war-crimes trials!

-all the while knowing the horrors brought upon not only Jews, but basically anyone that was not what the regime in Germany considered "true German/Aryan anscestry."

Whilst there is NO EXCUSE for complacency in the face of the horror of WW2-it is often forgotten that whilst the USA was indeed late entering the war. At least they did-and at a great cost too.

I am so tired of this "America bashing". Give credit where it is due, at least. We are building hospitals and schools in Iraq ( as we did in Bosnia too-where there is NO oil-that was a purely humanitarian mission; yet I remember a BUNCH of people complained about that deployment too).

Edited July 10, 2006 by tmma

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You liberals realize that when you join the US Military you lose your constitutional rights. People join to protect rights that they don't even have. Have a little appreciation.

[Fandango 1,439]

You liberals realize that when you join the US Military you lose your constitutional rights. People join to protect rights that they don't even have. Have a little appreciation.

*applauds*

[john_and_marlene 162]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

[tmma 467]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

Agreed in your point.

The issue of the legality of the orders is a complex one. Technically his orders ARE legal and correctly executed. His OWN personal thoughts on the conflict is what he is saying is preventing him from participating in his sworn duty...Is the way I am construing this.

EDIT-Ok-I really have to leave this computer! I have been sat here way too long and I have stuff to do!

Edited July 10, 2006 by tmma

[john_and_marlene 162]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

Agreed in your point.

The issue of the legality of the orders is a complex one. Technically his orders ARE legal and correctly executed. His OWN personal belief system is what he is saying is preventing him from participating in his sworn duty...Is the way I am construing this.

MM.

Also Captain, USAF Retired ( Med)

If his personal belief system changed in that regard, he should have resigned his commission. After resignation he can protest all he wants. Before resignation, he has sworn obligations.

(20+ years total, 11 years enlisted)

[Fandango 1,439]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

Agreed in your point.

The issue of the legality of the orders is a complex one. Technically his orders ARE legal and correctly executed. His OWN personal thoughts on the conflict is what he is saying is preventing him from participating in his sworn duty...Is the way I am construing this.

EDIT-Ok-I really have to leave this computer! I have been sat here way too long and I have stuff to do!

Haddaway and shite :P stay off the puter

[tmma 467]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

Agreed in your point.

The issue of the legality of the orders is a complex one. Technically his orders ARE legal and correctly executed. His OWN personal thoughts on the conflict is what he is saying is preventing him from participating in his sworn duty...Is the way I am construing this.

EDIT-Ok-I really have to leave this computer! I have been sat here way too long and I have stuff to do!

Haddaway and shite :P stay off the puter

Why aye, marra

But-it's Pie...and Chips...FOR FREE!

OK- REALLY GOING NOW!

[Fandango 1,439]

Most people don't understand some of the responsibilities of "following orders". The oath does not say that all orders will be followed blindly regardless of morality and legality. Following an order that is illegal does not obsolve guilt. Everyone is responsible for their actions. There are, however, formal avenues to follow if you suspect that an order is not legal. There are also other laws governing conduct of military personnel. I'm not surprised that this Lt. was charged with other misconducts as he has not conducted himself appropriately. I, myself, have been faced with an order on at least one occasion that I had to question. It is not a comfortable position to be in, but there are proper ways of handling it that do not bring discredit upon the service or the country.

Captain, USAF Retired

Agreed in your point.

The issue of the legality of the orders is a complex one. Technically his orders ARE legal and correctly executed. His OWN personal thoughts on the conflict is what he is saying is preventing him from participating in his sworn duty...Is the way I am construing this.

EDIT-Ok-I really have to leave this computer! I have been sat here way too long and I have stuff to do!

Haddaway and shite :P stay off the puter

Why aye, marra

But-it's Pie...and Chips...FOR FREE!

OK- REALLY GOING NOW!

chokka block, lovely jubbly cor blimey crikey moses

ok done hijacking the thread