|
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 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. |
As I believe you chaps say 'Chicken****'
|
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. |
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! :ok: Cheers! M2 |
Neither hero nor coward. Plonker for sure. However,
meaning he joined after 9/11/2001 |
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. |
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. :confused: Cheers! M2 |
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. 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?). |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by SASless
I don't know if he is a "Chicken****" but he for sure is a Dumbass. NC43 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
if i was his commander i`d say Fine, if you dont want to do IRAQ for a year you`ll do STAN for 2:D
|
"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. |
The 155mm Arty shell find was confirmed Jacko, as were other chemical rounds, I accept that their continued existance could be described as
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! |
*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. |
Originally Posted by An Teallach
.....whom the USA had largely armed and promoted. :confused:
Really? Now I am confused. NC43 |
Maybe he should try another defence...
I think he'll probably end up in a military prison using the defence that the war is unprovoked and illegal (despite the validity of the argument).
However, what if he instructed his defence lawyer that he was not prepared to serve in Iraq because his own forces were pesently operating in a 'lawless' or 'anarchic' manner? By this I mean they are assassinating, kidnapping, torturing, murdering civilians and generally applying force which is massively disproportionate to the task - in contavention of military and civil law and probably the Geneva convention too? The Marines (alleged) recent re-run of Mai Lai and the introduction of ethics instruction for their troops would seem to support such a defence. He's on a hiding to nothing arguing that the war itself is illegal, but an SAS trooper recently escaped criminal charges when he refused to serve alongside the Americans for much the same reasons as I've described above. Will be interesting to watch.... |
Originally Posted by MajorMadMax
The US has pretty much been in a state of war since the events of 9/11, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq (plus a few other places). Whether you think there is a connection or not, anyone who joined the US Army after 9/11 (he may have even joined after OIF started, as promotion to captain in the US Army is at three years, and it doesn't say if he is a First or Second Lieutenant) and didn't expect to go to Iraq is a putz. Plus, if he was so against the war, why did he wait until his unit got notified of their deployment to object? In other words, he liked the paycheck until he was told he would have to actually earn it...
Cheers! M2 |
Originally Posted by matkat
Idiot more like, He joins whilst the US are at war and complains whilst He is sent to it! only in America.
29 May 2006 EXCLUSIVE: DESERTER STORM EXCLUSIVE 932 soldiers missing in 3yrs Iraq & bullies 'shatter morale' By Bob Edwards And Nick Sommerlad ALMOST 1,000 fed-up British soldiers have deserted since the start of the Iraq War, it was disclosed yesterday. Out of 8,600 AWOL between 2003 and 2005, 932 are still missing, with the numbers rising each year... |
Hold West, wasn't the point being made that he enlisted after the war kicked off, and then decided he didn't want to go. The report on the UK forces doesn't state how many of those signed up after the war started, and then decided to desert.
|
Maple,
While the weapons may have been found, there's been no confirmed evidence (offered to us mere mortals) that they actually contained anything. When found, it was suspected that they may have done, and then it went quiet. And while Saddam's posession of Al Samoud and Al Fatah missiles (even though these were not operationally deployed) was a breach of UNSC resolutions, and was thus a good excuse to go in, but that was not the reason that our politicians gave for our intervention. The democratic legitimacy of the war as we fought it was founded on the supposed fact that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to us, with WMD that were deployed and ready for use. Moreover, with the CIA circumventing international law and the norms of civilised behaviour by kidnapping and torturing suspects, the USA is leaving itself open to some of its servicemen deciding that this was not what they joined up to serve and protect. |
Maybe the Guy is an Anti-War Protester who enlisted to set this up?
A third possibility is not out of the question. Perhaps he is an anti-war protester who enlisted to set up this opportunity to protest the war. After all, it is very effective in gathering the media to listen to his protest message.
I find it hard to believe he is so stupid as to not understand he would be called upon to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan since he enlisted after the war kicked off. |
To answer the original question:
Coward. The war is legal. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to review the UN resolutions with a lawyer. |
Self important prat milking his 15 minutes of fame.
|
Originally Posted by PhoenixDaCat
Hold West, wasn't the point being made that he enlisted after the war kicked off, and then decided he didn't want to go. The report on the UK forces doesn't state how many of those signed up after the war started, and then decided to desert.
|
A little sensitive eh Holdwest, take a breath and chill fella:p
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced |
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ight=desertion
Alternatively hop over to ARRSE and read the thread on the mythical '1000 Deserters' talel - seems the BBC don't know the difference between AWOL and deserting and contradict themselves, actually the highest number of desertion/AWOL happened before GW2 as they now freely admit - pity they didn't make the retraction as big a splash as the inital story........ |
totally uninvolved Saddam whom the USA had largely armed and promoted. Exactly which of Saddam's weapons systems came from the US? Please tell me. Aircraft? Mostly Soviet, some French (Mirage). Tanks and APC? Soviet Small arms? Soviet Artillery? Mostly Soviet, some South African SAMS? Soviet and French The US did not arm Saddam and you know it. |
As for Lt. Ehren Watada, there's nothing wrong with him that couldn't be fixed with 10 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.
|
Originally Posted by OFBSLF
Exactly which of Saddam's weapons systems came from the US? Please tell me.
Aircraft? Mostly Soviet, some French (Mirage). Tanks and APC? Soviet Small arms? Soviet Artillery? Mostly Soviet, some South African SAMS? Soviet and French The US did not arm Saddam and you know it. Rumour, many, many years ago was the French built all their kit with a national command override. Get one of your own in the sights and switch off their kit. Ditto British training. Arab country flying Hunters. QFI tells all stude pilots, 'when you get into this situation pull up and roll to the right'. That way he knew which way the guy would go if he had to fight him in the future. |
"The report on the UK forces doesn't state how many of those signed up after the war started, and then decided to desert"
I don't see any moral high ground held by someone who deserts prior to the kickoff of hostilities and one who does it after. When you sign on the dotted line you should know you then become an instrument of your governments policy makers. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
When you sign on the dotted line you should know you then become an instrument of your governments policy makers.
NC43 |
I certainly knew what I was signing up for - am I an Instrument or a tool though?:}
|
Blunties are clearly instruments.
Geddit? Therefore aircrew must be tools.... Oh bol.locks. I'll get me coat. |
Hero or coward?
Possible neither, however, I'd lean more towards the latter. A). He volunteered, took Uncle's training, commission and money. All with his informed consent. B). Waiting until his unit recieves deployment notification to decide the conflict is illegal looks like a case of 'white feather' presentation. Either way, he hasn't deserted, but failing to make a movement will get him a nice room in Leavenworth. Deservedly so. |
I think out American cousins might like an explanation of the term PLONKER. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as n. course slang 1 derog. a foolish or inept person. 2 The Penis. I believe that in the days of old, early forms of Condoms were also classed as PLONKERS. I am sure Tony Draper would be able to confirm this!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.