US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

03USMCRAR_WA · #**601** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 12:54 PM

[quote=StormanNorman;443449]Clean the sand out of your clit??? Whoo, I know a couple of big women that would probably shoe you in the nuts for that one. [quote]

Hey I know plenty of Females that can do and say all things there on to pertaining and would have no problem going to war with them I simply meant that he needs to reevaluate his manhood. I hope that this guy never has the ability to have children and lives a long life where everyone knows that like that little bitch Watada are cowards who want nothing more than attention. Burn or tattoo a C into the side of their face to let everyone know what they are.

areyoushittin'me? · #**602** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 01:02 PM

"Things can always get worse (s)o be happy with just how shitty ever(y)thing is right now."

noneof yourbusiness · #**603** (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Clean the sand out of your clit??? Whoo, I know a couple of big women that would probably shoe you in the nuts for that one. Anyway, I pretty much agree with your point. I've talked to many who have served over in Iraq; they are not doing hand stands over the situation, but they do go because it is their job and responsibility.

Regardless of that wannabes online shit talk. What everbody fails to see is that is posst shows the individuality and ability iof free thought that humans, even US soldiers, have. Many for all sorts reasons refuse to belive these people are anything but robots.

Commissioner · #**604** (**permalink**) 06-03-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

Regardless of that wannabes online shit talk. What everbody fails to see is that is posst shows the individuality and ability iof free thought that humans, even US soldiers, have. Many for all sorts reasons refuse to belive these people are anything but robots.

Yes, sweetie, it can be confusing, can't it? Luckily it's easy enough to figure you out. You're a flaming asshole.

Cordelier · #**605** (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Hi Cord,

I think our little side discussion has gone off on some interesting, but somewhat irrelevant, historical tangents....at least, to the points I've been trying to make. So, let me try to summarize my stance on the Iraq issue:
- As I said before, I am no dove. I do believe that sometimes military force is necessary and the best means to achieving certain goals....and that includes persuasive/police action strikes, show of force, and more drastic measures such as occupation/regime change. Obviously, whether or not the use of military force is prudent (and the level of which) very much depends on the siutation....are there viable alternatives, etc. And this is not always very easy to determine. In fact, it's usually very difficult; every action has a set of reactions, etc.
- However, except in cases of self-defense, I am not a big fan of unilateral or near unilateral action. That was what I meant when I spoke of democracy in my previous post...."Democracy of Nations."
- I very much disagree with your Germany (1936) & Iraq (2003), Churchill/Baldwin comparison. I wouldn't even mention those two in the same breath to be honest. And, consequently, what may have been the proper course of action (COA) in the former has absolutely no bearing as to the potential COAs for the latter.
- China (1952): Now, like Germany (1936), China (1952) was a very different situation from Iraq (2003)....UN resolutions, etc. The point I was making was that Truman was faced with a plethora of potential actions ranging from very aggressive to passive. There were plenty of those who favored the aggressive. China was clearly a threat.....not so much to the US homeland, but the region.....and they were only going to get worse. And they had killed many allied servicemen....far more than Iraq has. Truman made his choice and opted to stay in the box. Was it the proper choice? I think most people today believe that it was.
- Nuclear proliferation: This is a tough one, Cord.....there are many policy types that wrestle with this question as a full-time job. Do you invade/occupy nations that are or are suspected of developing nuclear weapons? Are there other alternatives? I do agree with you that it does drastically change the geo-political landscape.....and makes the option of "regime change" very unappealing....especially if nearby centers of gravity can be held hostage. I don't have an answer, Cord. However, I also find the idea of invading/occupying/striking places like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan (don't forget about them) very unappealing as well.
- Had Iraq been a nuclear state in 1991, I would've still opted to forcefully (if necessary) removed them from Kuwait. Maybe I would have been more willing to give negotiation, sanctions, blockades, and other passive means more attention at first, but, in the end, the Iraqis would have to leave Kuwait....if not, think of the precedence that would set. Anyway, this must be the Churchill in me, huh???

In conclusion, the US-led invasion of Iraq was a very, very bad idea for all the reasons we've seen....it was unnecessary and not very multilateral....especially among the Arab nations. I don't have much more to say on this than that. Could I be wrong? Sure....my crystal ball has been on the cafritz....

I think you're missing the point on the whole Baldwin/Churchill appeasement debate, though, Storman - of course Iraq 2003 wasn't on the same scale as Germany 1936, but the basic principles at stake are the same:

1) How far would you be willing to go to enforce International Law?
Germany of 1936 was in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty, just as Iraq of 2003 was in material breach of the Security Council Resolutions. Was use of force justified to ensure compliance? Or is the flouting of such instruments an insufficient casus belli? Is some other additional provocation required?

2) How do you know when you're at "the last resort"?
It's an accepted tenet of international law that use of force should only ever be a "last resort"... but how do you know when you've reached that point? So long as your adversary is willing to keep talking to you - as Hitler was at Munich - is there ever recourse to a "last resort"? If you truly want to give peaceful negotiation every chance to work, then how can you ever walk away from the table?

3) When is unilateral use of force advisable?
All through the 1930's, as Germany was rearming, Britain's two main wartime allies - France and the US - were unwilling to join in any use of force against Germany. The US was bound by isolationism, and France was paralyzed by the constant political struggles of the Third Republic. In short, there was no international consensus to act against Germany - if there was going to be intervention, it would have had to be unilaterally done by Britain. Should that have served as an acceptable excuse not to act at all?

4) When is pre-emptive use of force justified?
Is pre-emptive force ever justified? Is it only justified when hostilities are imminent? Or is it better to strike when your enemies are at their weakest? If you're dealing with a tyrant with aggressive tendencies - a Hitler or a Saddam - is it not better to strike at them as early as possible rather than wait until they have had time to gain strength and become aggressive?

5) How narrow is your definition of National Security?
Germany in 1936 wasn't a direct threat to Britain - it's military was still weak while Britain was a global superpower. Given time, as we've seen, that situation was to change. So should Britain have intervened before Germany became a direct threat, or was it only justified in doing so when it was allowed to become one? When Hitler went into the Sudetenland, and they started digging trenches in London parks, Chamberlain said the following: "How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul." Should potential long-term National Security threats carry the same weight as clear and present short-term threats? Do you have to wait until the enemy directly threatens your own shores before you act, or is it acceptable to enter quarrels in "far away countries between people of whom we know nothing"?

crowonapost · #**606** (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 03:01 AM

Hey Cordelier.

Man, the Versailles Treaty was a complete distorted cluster fuck.

Sorry but the French after WWI helped set in motion, with that treaty, the monster that eventually became WWII.

150% war reparations? From a war that was created from conditions that were ambiguous at best....

I blame the Austrians for starting that mess.....

& before that there was no international community, there where only Imperial powers, Woodrow Wilson created the first concept for an international body & the Europeans held this upstart American in contempt...hence the Versailles Treaty.

Not a solid ground to argue from.....

Cordelier · #**607** (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote: