The Iraq War - Opinions on a website comment panel.
Original Post : "DEAR AFGHANISTAN, PLEASE END YOUR OWN FUCKING WAR. I WANT MY FIANCE BACK.
SINCERELY, ARMY GIRLFRIEND"
FIRST RESPONDANT This is an American war. The Afghans are merely defending their country. This war will not end until the people who fight it (American soldiers) refuse to fight. Fuck the troops
THIRD RESPONDANT Dear MarineGirlfriend, Rowan made a fair point, it's America's war, not Afghanistan's. Her second statement was pretty dumb though, sure, it's not up to the troops to say "We're not fighting", they're doing their job, and they deserve support. It's up to the blinkered politicians who put young men and women in harm's way for their own selfish reasons to end the war. From a man whose Father, Grandfather and Uncles were all soldiers. .
ME - "Even the Troops Are Waking Up" - It IS the job of the troops and Us to stop fighting the war. There can't be a war without soldiers complying. There can't be a lot of what's going on without people complying.
FIFTH RESPONDENT Hang on, so you're telling me that people who are trying to support their families through the paychecks they receive through the military should just stop fighting. Right. If quitting your job meant going to jail for a LONG time, or moving to another country and never seeing your family again, possibly condemning your wife/husband and children to poverty and aching over the family member they don't have, you'd do it? I mean, don't get me wrong... I want these wars over and done with. I have family members in the Middle East this very moment. But my cousin's baby would have NO ONE if his dad decided to stop fighting and face military justice for refusing to carry out his orders. Morals are right and good, and we should stand up for them whenever we can, but sometimes there are more important things. Ethics are never cut and dry.
ME - You completely missed the point. There shouldn't be a war. It's immoral and illegal. I never said i don't support the troops. I know they are doing their jobs. And the officials should end the war but that will never happen. I bet you didn't even watch the video. If EVERYONE who is there fighting said "fuck this" and left - how much could they do about it? How is fighting a war that is illegal and immoral more important than doing the right thing? Especially on that scale?
FIFTH RESPONDANT No, I did not watch your video. Sorry, my computer doesn't have sound. I was just commenting on the sentence you wrote, not the video. I was presuming the video only further amplified the opinion you posted here. I honestly did not think you were against soldiers or anything like that, I'm sorry if I came off that way in my comment. I tend to believe most people are in support of soldiers even when they disagree with the war unless they specifically say otherwise. Now, I guess I did not clearly explain my point. Even if you take military prosecution of deserters off the table, though I don't believe you can, there are still VERY hefty consequences to the actions you are suggesting. Dishonorable discharge can make it extremely difficult to find another job - particularly a decent job that pays enough and has the kind of benefits the military does - EXTREMELY difficult, even in a normal situation, let alone an economy like the one we currently in. Unfortunately, for a lot of soldiers, including those in my family, you are asking them to choose between being able to support and care for their own families, and doing the right thing for families in another country. I don't know about you, but I could never ask my family to pay for easing my own conscience. Maybe that's immoral to you, but my morality says I need to care for my family, because it's my first responsibility. I also don't believe what you propose would work for the simple fact that there are thousands of people who do actually believe this particular war is the right thing to do. I realize they don't often show up in the media, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And there are enough of those people that this war would continue even if all of the people who disagreed refused to fight. Which would end up in a bunch of people being dishonorably discharged and a large percentage of them being prosecuted. Soldiers signed a contract when they entered the military. They don't get a choice, and the military holds every right to prosecute them for violating the terms of that contract. I agree with you, this war IS immoral. (I'm not sure where you get the illegal thing from, but you have a text document from a verified source on why it's illegal, I would gladly read it. No offense, but I don't really trust a youtube clip on that kind of thing anyway). I'm a pacifist, I hate that war exists. And I hate that there are people in my family who volunteered for the military out of a sense of duty and are forced to fight a war they don't agree with. But I just don't see how what you suggest would work in the real world.
ME - Okay. I thank you for re-explaining what you feel and believe. However, I am not suggesting it's a cut and dry or even an easy thing. I don't live in some fairy dream land. I am quite aware that it is incredibly hard to go against conventional wisdom and what is popular and to do the truly right thing. There are several documents, online sights discussing the matter, videos and books about the war being illegal. For starters, read the U.N. Charter. It states that it is unlawful - in international law - to start a war of aggression. This means, unless the "enemy" country is posing an imminent threat to the life and well-being of the protagonist (i use that for lack of being able to think of a more suitable word at the end of my day - brain fried) country. Do we really expect anyone to believe that Iraq has really done anything to show this? Even assuming the 9/11 attacks was supported by the Iraq government (which i DO NOT believe - if it was actually Iraq "terrorists" it was by a group who isn't even really technically associated with Iraq), that is ONE attack. That does not constitute a threat. Also any country who signs the U.N. Charter, that nation is legally bound to obey it. That means that violating the charter is not only illegal internationally, that is violating the U.S. Constitution - which it doesn't seem like the government seems to value at all anymore anyway. The only other exception (other than defending themselves) is if the U.N. Security Counsel authorizes it. The U.N. did not authorize it and in March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.
Sites (Although I'm sure many people don't see online sites as completely reputable ) include
This video - and there are many others - although i am aware that you said your computer doesn't have sound, i strongly suggest you find a way to watch these because they're incredibly well thought out, logical, factual and informative -
Here are a few books about it
- The Iraq War and International Law - Edited by Phil Shiner and Andrew Williams Lies,
- Damned Lies and Iraq: An In depth Analysis Into the Case for War and How It Was Misrepresented bye Peter Kilfolye
- War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict by Michael Byers I'm getting off on a tangent here though.
Back to topic - there was at least one soldier named Ehren Watada who publicly refused to be deployed to Iraq based on many things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Y-jZdeL70 You can see his speech in this video. And this is a Wikipedia page about him - not that that personally see Wikipedia as 100% factual all the time - but usually is on-point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada He faced trial in 2007 and could have faced up to 6 years in prison. But he looked at many facts, laws and logic and decided he could not, in good conscience or morality, go to war. His rationale was based on a careful analysis of Documented facts , official U.S. military codes of conduct, Domestic Law, International Law, and the U.S. Constitution. Also, if the U.S. administration and/or soldiers are ever put on trial for war-crimes, Soldiers are just as responsible for these as the Commander in Chief. Using the excuse "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable reason to carry out crimes against humanity. Think of it like this - If Iraq soldiers came here and started killing everyone - and yes they DO kill civilians and civilian buildings in Iraq - would you say "oh, well they're just doing their jobs. I can understand why they're killing people. They have to pay for their families comfort and well-being at home." I really don't think you would think that. Why should it work the other way around? There are tons of topics related to this and this debate could go on forever but i really urge you to do some research, study lots of history and don't believe whatever you're told. That's the most important thing. By the way, I tried to find a transcript of Ehren Watada's speech so you could read it but with no luck so far. It is a very profound speech and I think you should make and effort to hear it.
(Update : Watada was court-martialed in February 2007, with the case ending in a mistrial. On February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began with him entering a plea of not guilty to all of the specifications against him. He faced three specifications: one for missing movement, and two for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" related to his public comments criticizing the Bush administration and the war. Panel selection was conducted on the first day, narrowing a pool of ten officers down to seven, holding the rank of captain through lieutenant colonel. The court-martial panel is similar to a jury in a civilian trial, but due to special rules provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), panels consist of service members equal or superior in rank to the defendant. )
No comments:
Post a Comment