US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

areyoushittin'me? · #**361** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve k

"One billion dollars is all it would take to save a million lives from malaria with bed nets, etc. -- $1 billion. Four billion dollars, you could change the world. From the United States, an extra commitment of $4 billion" would go a long way, he said.

Thank you for making my point..."Four billion dollars, you could change the world." and yet we chose to spend more than that in Iraq every month.

Talk about putting the humanitarian argument into perspective.

Got any other arguments that you feel was a good reason to go into Iraq?

areyoushittin'me? · #**362** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nefarious_plot

The regulation s of the military are such that this guy will be punished. He should be. I think what really is key in this is that soldiers arent mindless robots. IN aone foew instances I have to agree with rednecks in that this dude siged the contract and is under obligation. Recuiters though are like used car salesmen and to take advantage of ignorance of potential recurits. As we know though ingnorance is not excuse for law breaking.

I agree...the fool signed on the dotted line.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way...if the military treated people better they would probably get more volunteers.

nefarious_plot · #**363** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I agree...the fool signed on the dotted line.

My point is that it shouldn't be that way...if the military treated people better they would probably get more volunteers.

I thin the problem lies in when they treat them well versus when not Training and discipline is low upon entry. They are coddled in comparison to even the late 80's Its kindergarten compared to the way ti was many decades ago. Then when they get out they are really shat upon and dumped like garbage. The whole system needs to be re worked.

This dude would have been much more effected joining the growing numbers of veterans involved in organizations protesting the war.

Cordelier · #**364** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

The problem with that argument is twofold...

First, we haven't accomplished that objective.

Second, to legitimize that argument we should have gone back and got a resolution stating that was the intention and therefore we were going to have to take military action into Iraq...why didn't we do that?

The UN is probably one of the worst examples of do nothing bureaucracy on the planet and as we have already agreed, we didn't need them but I'm not arguing that point.

Let me try and put this into perspective...my coming into this debate started way back when Tileboy made the statement that there were 14 UN resolution authorizing Military action to go into Iraq.

That is obviously not true and he has long since run off with his tail between his legs but we have carried on.

We can continue to debate the semantics but I don't see much sense it that...besides, I've other things to do that will keep me entertained so, unless you are prepared to offer evidence that spells out that the UN sanctioned us going into Iraq which would have taken unanimous UNSC support which we obviously didn't have or France, Germany, Russia etc would have joined in, I'm going to leave this debate at the point we have come to.

I thank you for your participation...it's been fun.

Let me ask you this, then... if a second Resolution was so necessary, then what was the purpose of Resolution 1441?

Cordelier · #**365** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nefarious_plot

How can you be taken serioulsy when nothiing is done for over 10 yeas about the violations...

Good point... and perhaps the Coalition should have been more vigorous in responding to Saddam's provocations during that time period. What would you have done and when would you have done it if you were President instead of Clinton?

areyoushittin'me? · #**366** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Let me ask you this, then... if a second Resolution was so necessary, then what was the purpose of Resolution 1441?

Another resolution was necessary because 1441 did not authorize the removal of Saddam...it dealt primarily with the renewed inspections...read it for yourself...

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq

areyoushittin'me? · #**367** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Good point... and perhaps the Coalition should have been more vigorous in responding to Saddam's provocations during that time period. What would you have done and when would you have done it if you were President instead of Clinton?

I would have dealt with Saddam prior to his going into Kuwait...I would not have allowed our Ambassador to indicate to him that we weren't concerned and that that issue was a local matter...we set him up for failure...the real question is why did he fall out of favor with Bush Sr/Cheney/RumDum?

What was that all about?

Tileman · #**368** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 06:04 PM

Wasn't this thread suppose to be about a soldier?

Even if this seriously delusional soldier were correct about a war being illegal he STILL is in violation of the contract he signed to serve!

Stockade!
Stockade!
Stockade!

areyoushittin'me? · #**369** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

Wasn't this thread suppose to be about a soldier?

Yeah...we got sidetracked when some kid made a bogus claim about UN resolutions.

So, what do you think...why don't they just send him back to Afghanistan?

Cordelier · #**370** (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Another resolution was necessary because 1441 did not authorize the removal of Saddam...it dealt primarily with the renewed inspections...read it for yourself...

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance to comply with it's obligation to provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure" of all aspects of it's weapons programmes. Paragraph 4 stated that "any false statements or omissions" in this submission would constitute a further material breach of Resolution 687.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page document which they purported to be it's final disclosure... this report, by Dr. Blix's own statement before the Security Council on January 27, 2003, fell far short of the mark and was rife with factual omissions and false statements.

Paragraph 13 warned Iraq of "serious consequences" for continued non-compliance. Paragraph 2 expressly stated that this was Iraq's final opportunity for compliance.

How many "final chances" was Iraq supposed to have before the Coalition was justified in using military action? Resolution 678 gave the authority to use force - it was the authority under which the Coalition operated in the Gulf War and maintaining the no-fly zones for 12 years. Going from Operation Desert Storm to the No-Fly Zones to Operation Iraqi Freedom was simply a matter of degree.

A final opportunity is a final opportunity - there was no need whatsoever for the Security Council to pass another Resolution to state the obvious - that Iraq had squandered it's final opportunity to live up to it's ceasefire obligations.