Hero or Coward?
Thread Starter
Hero or Coward?
This fellow enlisted in the US Army after the war began and now when receiving orders to serve in Iraq refuses to go saying he does not agree with "this" war.
Hero or Coward?
Fort Lewis Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq
Hero or Coward?
Fort Lewis Soldier Says He'll Refuse To Go To Iraq
June 6, 2006
By Keith Eldridge
SEATTLE - As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand.
A lieutenant says he is going to refuse to go, saying it's an unjust war. Anti-war groups are rallying to his defense.
Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade writes, "I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression.
"I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home." - signed LT.
His name had been kept a secret until now, but Lt. Watada's father confirms that his son is taking this bold step and told the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper that he's proud of his son.
Fort Lewis says since the lieutenant hasn't done anything official yet, there's no violation. But should he decide to go ahead with this, he could be charged with 'desertion' or more likely with 'missing the movement' of his unit.
It's happened before with a sergeant who refused to go. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months for refusing to go to Iraq.
Lt. Watada asked for reassignment and tried resigning his commission, but the Army refused. His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one.
"I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I'm somewhat astounded that in the context of a war that is becoming increasing unpopular that they are relatively unsophisticated in addressing these issues," said attorney Eric Seitz from Hawaii.
This doesn't sit well with fellow soldiers.
"We're here to serve our country and fight and that's his job," said Private Nathan Hanson. "It's his duty."
Anti-war protestors, many of which demonstrated at the Port of Olympia recently, are rushing to his aid. They have put up a Web site believing he's the first commissioned officer to refuse to go.
The lieutenant says he'll make his intentions official Wednesday at noon and that's when his defense team will kick into gear.
By Keith Eldridge
SEATTLE - As thousands of Fort Lewis Army troops prepare to head back to Iraq, one of their officers is making a stand.
A lieutenant says he is going to refuse to go, saying it's an unjust war. Anti-war groups are rallying to his defense.
Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade writes, "I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression.
"I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home." - signed LT.
His name had been kept a secret until now, but Lt. Watada's father confirms that his son is taking this bold step and told the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper that he's proud of his son.
Fort Lewis says since the lieutenant hasn't done anything official yet, there's no violation. But should he decide to go ahead with this, he could be charged with 'desertion' or more likely with 'missing the movement' of his unit.
It's happened before with a sergeant who refused to go. Sgt. Kevin Benderman was sentenced to 15 months for refusing to go to Iraq.
Lt. Watada asked for reassignment and tried resigning his commission, but the Army refused. His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one.
"I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I'm somewhat astounded that in the context of a war that is becoming increasing unpopular that they are relatively unsophisticated in addressing these issues," said attorney Eric Seitz from Hawaii.
This doesn't sit well with fellow soldiers.
"We're here to serve our country and fight and that's his job," said Private Nathan Hanson. "It's his duty."
Anti-war protestors, many of which demonstrated at the Port of Olympia recently, are rushing to his aid. They have put up a Web site believing he's the first commissioned officer to refuse to go.
The lieutenant says he'll make his intentions official Wednesday at noon and that's when his defense team will kick into gear.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
He's a plonker, for sure.
Politicians pick the wars soldiers fight, not soldiers. If you don't want to fight in a particular war, don't join the military, as it's the only way you can be sure of avoiding a war you don't agree with.
Politicians pick the wars soldiers fight, not soldiers. If you don't want to fight in a particular war, don't join the military, as it's the only way you can be sure of avoiding a war you don't agree with.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For one, he didn't enlist, he is a commissioned officer. And as he is only a lieutenant, he has less than four years of active duty, meaning he joined after 9/11/2001. As such, he should have had a better idea of what he was getting into...
Failure to Go falls under Article 86 (Absence without leave) of the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I am sure he will feel the full brunt of that code, if his I Corps Army buddies don't kick his ass first!
An Army of One!
Cheers! M2
Failure to Go falls under Article 86 (Absence without leave) of the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I am sure he will feel the full brunt of that code, if his I Corps Army buddies don't kick his ass first!
An Army of One!
Cheers! M2
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither hero nor coward. Plonker for sure. However,
I fail to see the connection between Iraq and the events of 11 September 2001 or indeed how Watada was expected to foresee that those events would result in the chimp Bush lashing out at the totally uninvolved Saddam whom the USA had largely armed and promoted. 
meaning he joined after 9/11/2001
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Jerez
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the phrase? "Sign on the line and take the dime."
A legal order is just that. You cannot pick and choose which ones you want to follow depending on what mood you are in. The guy should be court-martialled pronto, not just for refusing but also por encourager les autres.
Thats why its called military discipline.
A legal order is just that. You cannot pick and choose which ones you want to follow depending on what mood you are in. The guy should be court-martialled pronto, not just for refusing but also por encourager les autres.
Thats why its called military discipline.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by An Teallach
Neither hero nor coward. Plonker for sure. However,
I fail to see the connection between Iraq and the events of 11 September 2001 or indeed how Watada was expected to foresee that those events would result in the chimp Bush lashing out at the totally uninvolved Saddam whom the USA had largely armed and promoted.
I fail to see the connection between Iraq and the events of 11 September 2001 or indeed how Watada was expected to foresee that those events would result in the chimp Bush lashing out at the totally uninvolved Saddam whom the USA had largely armed and promoted.
Cheers! M2
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Originally Posted by airborne_artist
He's a plonker, for sure.
Politicians pick the wars soldiers fight, not soldiers. If you don't want to fight in a particular war, don't join the military, as it's the only way you can be sure of avoiding a war you don't agree with.
Politicians pick the wars soldiers fight, not soldiers. If you don't want to fight in a particular war, don't join the military, as it's the only way you can be sure of avoiding a war you don't agree with.
If we open up the argument, how about those hundreds of USAF aircrew that joined up as part of the Western deterrent in the Cold War only to find themselves in a hot war in southeast Asia.
What about long serving military who find their Government is engaged in politics a world removed from the war when they joined? Then they should be able to selectively opt out - ie leave - or be drafted to an important defence job in a different theatre, like the Aleutians for instance.
If he believes that it is an "illegal and immoral war", then any order requiring him to fight in it would surely be an illegal order, and he'd be morally and legally obliged not to obey it.
However, while the initial invasion of Iraq may well have been illegal and immoral, it's extremely arguable as to whether ongoing operations in Iraq (peace enforcement, aid to the civil power, etc.) are in any sense illegal. Badly-led, ineptly executed, counter-productive to the USA's national interests, dangerous and unpleasant, perhaps, but illegal?
Aren't US forces now there at the express wish of the Iraqi Government, such as it is?
And if it is illegal, then could he not be sent somewhere else, equally dangerous, and equally unpleasant (Afghanistan, perhaps?).
However, while the initial invasion of Iraq may well have been illegal and immoral, it's extremely arguable as to whether ongoing operations in Iraq (peace enforcement, aid to the civil power, etc.) are in any sense illegal. Badly-led, ineptly executed, counter-productive to the USA's national interests, dangerous and unpleasant, perhaps, but illegal?
Aren't US forces now there at the express wish of the Iraqi Government, such as it is?
And if it is illegal, then could he not be sent somewhere else, equally dangerous, and equally unpleasant (Afghanistan, perhaps?).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idiot more like, He joins whilst the US are at war and complains whilst He is sent to it! only in America.
I am also against this war but I would never have joined if I thought(expected)to be sent in it.
I am also against this war but I would never have joined if I thought(expected)to be sent in it.
Thread Starter
If he believes that it is an "illegal and immoral war", then any order requiring him to fight in it would surely be an illegal order, and he'd be morally and legally obliged not to obey it.[/B]
In this case.....he can bet his breeches on that happening if he in fact refuses the order to Iraq. He signed a contract when he entered the Army and that contract binds him for a period of service wherever the Army wishes him to serve....for as long as the Army wishes him to serve there within the period of that contract.
I don't know if he is a "Chicken****" but he for sure is a Dumbass.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little question . . .
Are there any legal and moral wars?
A study of history would indicate that wars (whether instigated by politicians or monarchs) are generally about money and power, with perhaps a variation of power and money - however it's dressed up. WMD was a great ploy - when you consider the Chief Weapons Inspector said that there wasn't any evidence, and they were paying HIM to look.
Anyone who joins the US military - especially after 9/11 is naive (to say the least). With recent US foreign policy (way before this clown - post WW2) anyone who doesn't expect to go into someone else's country is a bit of a dick.
I'm not really interested in politics, but governments really do push the credibility envelope and moan like hell when individuals do the same. Guess who'll win though?
Edited four spelin
A study of history would indicate that wars (whether instigated by politicians or monarchs) are generally about money and power, with perhaps a variation of power and money - however it's dressed up. WMD was a great ploy - when you consider the Chief Weapons Inspector said that there wasn't any evidence, and they were paying HIM to look.
Anyone who joins the US military - especially after 9/11 is naive (to say the least). With recent US foreign policy (way before this clown - post WW2) anyone who doesn't expect to go into someone else's country is a bit of a dick.
I'm not really interested in politics, but governments really do push the credibility envelope and moan like hell when individuals do the same. Guess who'll win though?
Edited four spelin
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddam whom the USA had largely armed and promoted
Weapons supplied to Saddam
Russia 57%
France 13%
China 12%
US 1%
UK less than 1%
Therefore, armed by........
WMD was a great ploy - Chief Weapons Inspector said that there wasn't any evidence
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3386357.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3722855.stm
No use using the excuse - "they were old/forgotten about" - they still existed, against UNSCRs
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem, Maple01, is that the lie of "America armed Iraq" has become so widespread on the interweb and the likes of the Grauniad newspaper that to many it has become the truth.
I always find it amusing that those well known modern-day warmongers, the Swiss and Austrians, between them sold more military equipment to Saddam: $335M, than did the USA and UK together: $279M. Those crazy Danes did well for sure yah: $226M.
I always find it amusing that those well known modern-day warmongers, the Swiss and Austrians, between them sold more military equipment to Saddam: $335M, than did the USA and UK together: $279M. Those crazy Danes did well for sure yah: $226M.
Last edited by Confucius; 7th Jun 2006 at 20:33.
"No use using the excuse - "they were old/forgotten about" - they still existed, against UNSCRs."
Except that these are reports of weapons that MIGHT have contained banned agents with no confirmation of what the follow up investigations actually found.
Except that we were 'sold' the idea of invading Iraq on the basis that Saddam had an active chem/WMD programme and represented a credible and robust and present NBC threat (you'll remember the 45 minute nonsense) and NOT merely that he had screwed up the disposal of long-retired and forgotten weapons.
A possible, minor, technical breach was not what people had in mind when the WMD threat was used to justify the war.
And there have been plenty of legal, moral wars, from GW1 (Iraq had invaded Kuwait), and the Falklands, to Korea and the two big ones.
Except that these are reports of weapons that MIGHT have contained banned agents with no confirmation of what the follow up investigations actually found.
Except that we were 'sold' the idea of invading Iraq on the basis that Saddam had an active chem/WMD programme and represented a credible and robust and present NBC threat (you'll remember the 45 minute nonsense) and NOT merely that he had screwed up the disposal of long-retired and forgotten weapons.
A possible, minor, technical breach was not what people had in mind when the WMD threat was used to justify the war.
And there have been plenty of legal, moral wars, from GW1 (Iraq had invaded Kuwait), and the Falklands, to Korea and the two big ones.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 155mm Arty shell find was confirmed Jacko, as were other chemical rounds, I accept that their continued existance could be described as
actually I prefer "confirmed breach" but this pales into insignificance to the admitted and proven illegal posession of missiles for 11 years with a range in excess of 150km, which was, IMO enough to kick off - too late to destroy and say 'whoops, sorry'- clear breach of UNSCR 687 - game over - no second chance, no being let off the hook.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2756987.stm
Anyway sorry to go over old ground, back to the US Lt - Send him mine clearing in Bosnia if he's upset about Iraq!
A possible, minor, technical breach
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2756987.stm
Anyway sorry to go over old ground, back to the US Lt - Send him mine clearing in Bosnia if he's upset about Iraq!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*Shrug*
I Don't know about others but I've certainly noted that since the cold war ended, military service is more and more considered just another optional career path.
I don't think - or for that matter - know anyone in service or out who still thinks purely in terms of; military service = highly likely to wind up in some unpleasant part of the world where the locals greet you muzzel first.
Think about it, how many of us actually think of a Det as the job we actually signed up to do instead of an unpleasant chore we grugingly endure? Not the majority, I'd guess.
Is it really any wonder then that the occasional mong crops up who, instead of cracking on, bitches about it?
Heck, I'm not particularly fond Bliar and the chimps stupidity either but I'll do my job both because it's my duty and what I'm employed to do. I'll voice my displeasure come voting time.
I Don't know about others but I've certainly noted that since the cold war ended, military service is more and more considered just another optional career path.
I don't think - or for that matter - know anyone in service or out who still thinks purely in terms of; military service = highly likely to wind up in some unpleasant part of the world where the locals greet you muzzel first.
Think about it, how many of us actually think of a Det as the job we actually signed up to do instead of an unpleasant chore we grugingly endure? Not the majority, I'd guess.
Is it really any wonder then that the occasional mong crops up who, instead of cracking on, bitches about it?
Heck, I'm not particularly fond Bliar and the chimps stupidity either but I'll do my job both because it's my duty and what I'm employed to do. I'll voice my displeasure come voting time.