US soldier refuses to serve in â€˜illegal Iraq warâ€™

areyoushittin'me? · #**501** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viking

I was a combat engineer and served in several places such as Ft Leonardwood MO Ft Benning Georgia, Ft Bragg North Carolina Ft. Lewis Washington, Darmstadt Germany The only actual combat I saw was very minimal compared to Iraq, Grenada.

A soldier goes where he is told to....

He obeys the chain of command clicks his heels and does what the hell he is told....

If he is not willing to do this than a life in the military is not where he belongs.

He was not drafted, everyone knows when they go in the military that there is a chance that they will go to combat, guess what that is what armies do.

This man should be court martialed and probably will be and he should be tried for desertion, soldiers who desert during war have been executed in the past.

He should at the very least spend the better half of his life behind bars.

Many brave men are out there day in and day out doing their duty for their country. He has shamed himself and his family.

He is a coward.

Viking

I think calling him a coward is a bit extreme considering he enlisted after 9/11 and served in combat in Afghanistan.

The fact that he doesn't wish to serve in Iraq may show that he is either a damn fool for signing up in the first place or he has had second thoughts due to thinking which is apparently a no no in that line of work but regardless, yes, he should be prepared for the punishment which is pretty damn sad, in that our government would choose to pay to lock him up when they could probably make better use of him by simply sending him back to Afghanistan instead.

areyoushittin'me? · #**502** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Resolution 1441 declared Iraq to be in material breach of the ceasefire - once the Security Council made that determination, the terms of the ceasefire no longer restrained the resumption of hostilities, ie, Resolution 678's "all necessary means" once again came into effect.

Not true...1441 called for resumption of inspections and laid out further requirements related to such.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Let me ask you this... what if Iraq hadn't given up in 1991? What if they kept fighting to the bitter end? Would the US have been justified in pushing the ground war to Baghdad then? Or would that have been compelled to just stop at the border and hunker down while the Republican Guard kept shooting at them?

We didn't stop at the border, we pushed them back a safe distance from it...we stopped before going into Baghdad and removing Saddam from power...who knows what would have happened? Bush determined we couldn't go any further...check with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Show me that they needed to once Resolution 1441 declared them to be in material breach of the ceasefire.

Let's take a look at 1441...again...

Quote:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, subcomponents, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

If you're confident you're on the side of the angels then all you have to do is stay true to what you believe in and outlast the bastards. They claim to fight for Islam and yet they betray what Islam stands for time and time again. You're not going to beat that by becoming more hypocritical than they are... the way to beat it is to stay true and expose them for the hypocrites they are.

Why has Canada joined the fight in Afghanistan?

Cordelier · #**503** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Not true...1441 called for resumption of inspections and laid out further requirements related to such.

Resolution 1441 went further than that - there were umpteen Resolutions passed by the Security Council between 1991 and 2002 which called for those things. The difference was that 1441 formally declared Iraq to be in material breach and gave them a final opportunity to comply immediately. Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 - five months later, was Iraq in compliance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

We didn't stop at the border, we pushed them back a safe distance from it...we stopped before going into Baghdad and removing Saddam from power...who knows what would have happened? Bush determined we couldn't go any further...check with him.

Not all members of the coalition crossed the border, though... some refused on principle. Only the Americans, British, and French actually entered Iraq. Bush didn't go any further because Saddam signalled he wanted a ceasefire - it remains an open question what would have happened if there was no such signal.

Regardless, though, I didn't ask President Bush what he would have done... I asked you whether he would have been justified in continuing the Gulf War if the Iraqis hadn't thrown in the towel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Why has Canada joined the fight in Afghanistan

We're there in support of our NATO ally who was attacked on 9/11 - under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on the US is the same for us as an attack on Canada.

areyoushittin'me? · #**504** (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Resolution 1441 went further than that - there were umpteen Resolutions passed by the Security Council between 1991 and 2002 which called for those things. The difference was that 1441 formally declared Iraq to be in material breach and gave them a final opportunity to comply immediately. Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 - five months later, was Iraq in compliance?

I provided copy of most of it and highlighted the parts I thought relevant to this discussion...feel free to point out the parts I missed that make your case...or supply any other resolutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Not all members of the coalition crossed the border, though... some refused on principle. Only the Americans, British, and French actually entered Iraq. Bush didn't go any further because Saddam signalled he wanted a ceasefire - it remains an open question what would have happened if there was no such signal.

That should tell you something...I'd bet we would have pulled back to a safe distance since we had already gone beyond that which was authorized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Regardless, though, I didn't ask President Bush what he would have done... I asked you whether he would have been justified in continuing the Gulf War if the Iraqis hadn't thrown in the towel.

No...he appears to have come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

We're there in support of our NATO ally who was attacked on 9/11 - under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on the US is the same for us as an attack on Canada.

Why didn't you join us, your ally, in Iraq?

Jetblast · #**505** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 12:57 AM

You're wasting your time trying to argue with someone who limits their information to skewed legal arguments while ignoring everything else. This is the trick that allows them to demand proof while giving none themselves for WMD's. They aren't honest and don't deserve a respectful argument.

countryslim · #**506** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

You're wasting your time trying to argue with someone who limits their information to skewed legal arguments while ignoring everything else. This is the trick that allows them to demand proof while giving none themselves for WMD's. They aren't honest and don't deserve a respectful argument.

Step back an re-read... I've read your words extensively, and You are no different in your methods of debate..

This is an endless merry go round, and you simply prove that you aren't Infallible.

Amazed · #**507** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

You're wasting your time trying to argue with someone who limits their information to skewed legal arguments while ignoring everything else. This is the trick that allows them to demand proof while giving none themselves for WMD's. They aren't honest and don't deserve a respectful argument.

Christ, this from the dolt who's ONLY source is the NYT? Fact, You and ShitForBrains never provide "proof" for anything. You look at black and see white, or look at white and see black. Proof for the two of you is only what you say it is...your only refuge is retreating to name calling or ignore...

areyoushittin'me? · #**508** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 03:07 PM

Perhaps, eventually there will become a legal challenge to the war...

Iraq claims burst over White House trail - Yahoo! News

McClellan, 40, wrote in his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," that the Iraq war "was not necessary" and "was a serious strategic blunder," according to Politico.com.

"I still like and admire President Bush," McClellan wrote.

"But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war..."

Amazed · #**509** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 03:18 PM

Also from McClellan's Book....

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

So now you'll ONLY believe the "parts" you WANT to believe...

areyoushittin'me? · #**510** (**permalink**) 05-28-2008, 03:43 PM

Doubtful Bush would lie...he'd leave that to others...he'd just be selective on which "truth" to portray...

Quote:

McClellan wrote that the president was not "open and forthright" on Iraq and relied on propaganda to sell an unnecessary war, and also savaged the White House over its botched handling of Hurricane Katrina, which swamped New Orleans.