US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

Tileman · #**281** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

No matter what he believes, or his sincerity, he is defying his contract, and he should pay the consequencees.

Glad we can agree on that portion.

Jetblast · #**282** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Iraq isn't an illegal war - President Bush acted under the authority given to him by the Congress.

Iraq is clearly an illegal war. Bush premeditatively lied about the reason for the first unprovoked invasion of a country that did not attack us first by the US. To lie about the reason for the invasion of another country is illegal by all know civilized conventions and international treaties. If we really had a true democracy Bush would be impeached.

I'm glad to see that Americans are cowards willing to ignore this clear fact and fight to put a brave man who stands up for truth against those who would punish him for it in jail. Some great freedom democracy we have!

Nice to see we have jingos and military holding us to a lie.

Jetblast · #**283** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 12:50 AM

Nice to see "shittinme" reduce Amazed to the gelatinous mound of truth distortion that he is. Well done.

Bush sr plainly established the grounds and definition of the UN resolutions and their meaning. Nice to see Amazed so visibly unable to refute this or admit his whole false argument deflated with such an obvious hissssss. So there they are with their argument in a rubbery mess at their feet with little else to say.

Perfect representation of Bush Amazed. Well done.

Cordelier · #**284** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

That resultion wasnt about a war. Cease fires dont justify another war.

Sure they do! If you have a war and then you have a signed ceasefire, but one party refuses to comply with that ceasefire, then has the original war ever really ended? If aggregious and repeated violations of ceasefire agreements don't justify the resumption of hostilities, then ceasefires aren't worth the paper they're printed on, are they?

nefarious_plot · #**285** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Sure they do! If you have a war and then you have a signed ceasefire, but one party refuses to comply with that ceasefire, then has the original war ever really ended? If aggregious and repeated violations of ceasefire agreements don't justify the resumption of hostilities, then ceasefires aren't worth the paper they're printed on, are they?

Cease fire means nothing. AMerica signed treatise to not engage in agressive war. Iraq had violated those terms numoers times. ONly Bush made idssue. There was no reason for war and war is NEVER justified.

Dom1 · #**286** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nefarious_plot

war is NEVER justified.

This statement is beyond stupid.

nefarious_plot · #**287** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

This statement is beyond stupid.

Well for a brain dead animal like you IM sure it isl Seeing you dont have the humanity or common civlity fo real human you cant see peast arm conflict you coward ass doesnt have the balls to fight in.

Cordelier · #**288** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

That is not quite correct...Resolution 678 provided for war to remove Saddam from Kuwait...the UN never sanctioned removing Saddam from power.

In fact, check this out...

Actually, what they are referring to regarding, "not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," is that the only way we got support of the UN and other countries of the region, including the availability of basing in Saudi Arabia was because we agreed to not personally get rid of Saddam...in fact, the other countries in the region didn't want him gone because the asshole provided some stability in such a volatile region...they all realized we would have the mess that we do today.

But Resolution 678 authorized "all necessary means" to enforce Iraqi compliance with relevant Security Council Resolutions - it neither specifically called for or barred the removal of Saddam from power.

I'm not saying Bush's invasion of Iraq was strategically correct - if I were in Congress I would have voted against it, and for the very reasons that Gen. Scowcroft stated above - my argument is that even if it was misguided, it wasn't technically illegal.

nefarious_plot · #**289** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:14 AM

The Charters signed forbid agressive war. Playing agmaes of smeantics with granted vaguley worded resolutions really wont hold water with anybody. Its just not plausible foer the UN would contridict its intial charters. The reason for its existance was to prevent war

Dom1 · #**290** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nefarious_plot

Well for a brain dead animal like you IM sure it isl Seeing you dont have the humanity or common civlity fo real human you cant see peast arm conflict you coward ass doesnt have the balls to fight in.

Was World War II justified?

What about the American Revolution?

Can you give me any significant where non-violence worked in absence of violence? Not that violence is always the answer and that it can't be coupled with non-violent methods, but to say that violence is never the answer is not only naive, it is stupid. I stand by what I said.