Army Officer Refuses To Go To War

The man is a yellow bellied coward. He joined the army for the benefits not for his country. I hope he get to know levenworth a long time. Duty, Honor, the man does not know these words.

This guy joined while there was a war in Iraq, he knew he would be deployed. Coward, thats all I have to say to this guy, hes affraid of the battle field as hes never been in battle, and he fears his first tour. liberals will come to save this coward of course however he broke the law, he joined and he should follow his orders or be court marshled.

Sorry double post.

[edit on 6/8/2006 by Rockpuck]

Well if he feels so strongly about the war in Iraq, why hasn't he resigned?

When you sign up for the military, you know the risks. He did so voluntarily. He's just wanting to not have to interrupt his comfy life and go away for a few months.

I remember when 9/11 first happened and my sister and her husband were worried they would both be sent over seas. They didn't complain; sure they were a little disappointed since they had a 2 year old and a newborn, but they made arrangements with the grandparents to take care of the kids if they were both deployed.

This guy just doesn't want to do his job. Like jrsdls said, he wants the pay and the benefits, but that's all.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by abbyful]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
liberals will come to save this coward of course

Originally posted by notbuynit
Another example of neolib influence.

Just couldn't help yourself could you. I looked through this entire thread to find JUST ONE person who brought up how bad the republicans handled the war, nothing. Yet I find two people some how bashing "liberal influence" and "liberal actions". This is just one of the many times it seems you cant help yourself to bashing the opposite side. STOP THE POLITICAL JIBBERJABBER!

now back to the topic. Did it ever occur that maybe in light of all the events taking place that he just feels disgraced to be part of the army now. Maybe, just maybe, hes realizing how wrong we have been, and didn't realize that. you people bashing "liberal" influence are the same people that act like hes been scheming to do this since 2003 when he enlisted. Disgusting.

Originally posted by MRGERBIK

And you know what's funny? Why is it so many express this theatrical dinner theater anger like it's valid? Because you heard a story? Where's your proof? We can find a irregular incident in any political agenda. And yet here it is this jingoistic schtick outrage about incidents. Stop trying to polarize every little thing. You are shucking n jiving because that's all you can do. You want to react emotionally to something you were never a part of.

And btw alot Vietnam Veterans were protesting over Vietnam alot of important issues such as Agent Orange. Things that you would rather scrub over and forget about. That's what being a patriot is about. Speaking truth to power. Anyone can soapbox outrage and make angry emoticons on this board all day and blame it on "political agenda"
[edit on 8-6-2006 by MRGERBIK]

You have voted MRGERBIK for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
This guy joined while there was a war in Iraq, he knew he would be deployed. Coward, thats all I have to say to this guy, hes affraid of the battle field as hes never been in battle, and he fears his first tour. liberals will come to save this coward of course

however he broke the law, he joined and he should follow his orders or be court marshled.

His orders are to defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I say he is following them just fine. This administration and everything they stand for are most definately enemies of the constitution. He should be given a medal.

He had the opportunity to register as an objector and he chose not to. He is a presumably a grown man capable of making his own decisions and comprehending the consequences.
Beyond that it is his choice to make. He must now reap what he sowed. If he takes the punishment without complaint he has my utmost respect. If he turns this into a political game he is just another coward playing a game to save his own hide.

This clown needs to be Court Marshalled and imprisioned. When you sign your name on the enlistment papers there are certain rights that you give up voluntarily. They are not called the "Armed Forces" because they go out and play with guns. Everybody who enlists knows that there is a chance that they might get called to fight. It is not your descision where you go to war and with whom. This is decided by our elected leadership. You get to voice your opinion every second Tuesday in November. Our going into Iraq was authorized by Congress, no matter how far some want to distance themselves from their vote, so the legality of this action is not in doubt. People like this clown are why I am NOT in favor of the draft even though I am in favor of military service. If this clown had been drafted I might have some sympathy for him, but he enlisted DURING a WAR, knowing full well that he might have to fight in it. There is no compairison between now and Vietnam. In the 60's we had a draft and people had no choice, unlike now where you have to volunteer to join the military. Personally I think that this clown enlisted in order to do just what he has just done as a form of protest. When he enlisted he committed himself until December of this year, so resigning is not an option.

Well said JimC
How anyone can compare this to Vietnam eludes me as well. I grew up watching the body counts nightly. Watching friends and family come home in body bags. Knowing I had no control over whether or not I would be drafted. We knew there was no real enemy and that people were dying for nothing. Now with this volunteer force fighting a real enemy I do not understand what all boo hooing is about?
It is truly hard to find anyone who thinks or agrees with the possitions I read on this board so they must be part of a tiny minority. A very vocal minority. I guess if your possitions are so radical you have to do a lot of yelling and complaining to even get noticed and since there is no proof of what is being said you have to fabricate conspiracys or resort to name calling.

The problem is that he is in the Army, and yes he does have to go. That is part of being in the military. Refusing to follow an order for deployment is against the rules of Military conduct. The problem is that he should have followed through with the orders. He essentially has just ruined his carreer in the military and will probably have to resign his comission.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Refusing to follow an order for deployment is against the rules of Military conduct.

The guy is just taking his lead from the president in being a decider. After all the president says we can torture prisoners and ignore the rules of geneva convention. This despite the fact that the US signed the treaty.

These days the whole military planning process is underpinned by lawyers who assess the legality of a whole raft of issues, from the initial invasion itself, through to rules of engagement for all forces, definitions of entities within the battlespace (what is combatant? What is a non-combatant? What is lethal intent? When does a threat stop being a threat?). At the end of the day, like any legal argument, there are grey areas, and it is entirely possible to argue both sides to a level that would satisfy a truly neutral observer. You can bet your bottom dollar that the legal advice to the President was "yes Sir, it falls within the requirements for self-defence, and we can invade Iraq". The self-defence requirement would be suitably worded along the lines of "has a reasonable belief that a real and immediate threat to the US exists, and without taking military action the lives of US citizens would be at risk." Note the words reasonable belief. The argument will be that the balance of evidence at the time indicated that Iraq had WMD, and was a terrorist sympathiser. Even though no WMDs were found, legally the US (and Coalition allies) have done nothing wrong because of the "reasonable belief". Now I'm sure another lawyer would be able to argue otherwise, however it is much easier to argue reasonable belief sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office, than when behind the dock in a court room (ask Saddam and a number of Nazis...).

So, from that point of view this man's argument won't stick (I'm not saying rightly or wrongly, just pointing out the lie of the land as it is). Also, under international law, occupying countries (as the Coalition is) have a responsibility to maintain security and services within the invaded country on completion of hostilities. So again, refusing to go on the basis that US forces shouldn't be there won't work either.

And finally, rules of engagement place legal obligations on all combatants. This includes both sides (not that insurgents seem to realise this, though a few Coalition soldiers will soon be reminded of the fact). If a commander gives an order to kill, say, a random school kid at the side of the road, and the school kid did not meet the definition of "combatant" "immediate threat" "military necessity" "proportionality", and a whole range of other considerations (most rules of engagements are in the order of tens, if not hundreds, of pages long), then he would have every right to legal disobey the order. So again, no real comeback to the "they will make me do unlawful things and I'll have to do them." If you equate a US soldier shooting an insurgent with a Nazi Officer gassing hundreds of civilians, then you really should consider your sense of proportion. The fact that US soldiers are being investigated for illegal actions suggest that the system actually works. Didn't see too many insurgents complaining about Zarqarwi decapitating civilians.

And finally, as has been mentioned previously, this guy joined in 2003. There was every expectation he would be sent to Iraq. You take the good with the bad in the military. I think he is quite simply using the anti-war bandwagon as an excuse to cover his own fears. In many ways his soldiers are better off that he has taken this course of action, as they will now get a leader who will hopefully put their troops interests first, rather than his own.

This officer needs to either follow orders or face the consequences. He joined the Army of his own free will knowing that there was an almost guaranteed deployment into Iraq. His refusal to go is not an example of moral courage but quite the opposite. This male, I refuse to call him a man because a man or woman keeps their word, is a coward both physical and moral and should face the consequnces of his actions.

Originally posted by thematrix
ThePieMan, you aughta read the article.

He served in Korea, enlisted in 2003, is 28 years old.

He didn't serve in the "Korean War".

LOL I thought the age was a mistake. When they said he served in Korea I assumed they meant the Korean War.

Conduct Unbecoming An Officer

If what I've read in this Reuters article is true, then Mr. Watada's military career is over.

He hasn't been living under a rock for the past three years, and the timing and nature of his statements hopelessly undermines his credibility.

He is, in so many words, claiming that his fellow soldiers in Iraq are war criminals, and that he doesn't want to deploy to Iraq because doing so would make him a war criminal as well.

Choosing to tar his comrades-in-arms with this sort of vicious, broad-brushed and patently false defamation is evidence enough of his unsuitability for command. With that one stroke, he has disgraced himself and declared himself unfit for duty.

This fellow has no business wearing any uniform of United States military service -- with the sole exception of a prison uniform -- and the UCMJ has many fitting provisions for the likes of him.

He is free to make the decisions he has made. Now he will face the consequences of those decisions.

As for the soldiers either formerly or soon-to-be formerly under his command, they should be glad this has come out now, rather than while deployed in a combat zone.

God forbid they should have to depend on someone like this to keep a clear head in life-or-death situations.

This person embodies the definition of "dishonorable".

The sooner the Army rids itself of him, the better. :shk:

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Majic]

What a line of crap. You know this is the biggest myth of ALL TIME in Viet Nam lore? You weren't there,X Philes. It's a nice try. One golf clap for you. You can't even draw one picture of this act occurring. Jesus, I can't believe you can fall for such urban legend. It kind of proves to me you are lacking in the research department. Stripping credibility away is so fun. This schtick is old. get a new one.

You're a schtick. My old man went. He knew POWS and he remembers what it was like when he came back . Your leftist posts don't don't prove anything other than you are either a neolib or an outright communist. I have more respect for the vietcong, forced or not, they gave blood and didn't hide behind a message board. The only thing keeping us in Iraq defending them is we won't disrespect those that give far more than you ever would.

I'll take the word of a man who volunteered the second time because he beleived he was saving the lives of his men and not that of some questionable website at best. Let's ask John McCain about his treatment by commies and the American public or thousands others?

You are a liar.

This is ATSNN, the ATS News Network.

BEHAVE.

His participating would not make him "party to war crimes" by his very pressence.

There are real legal procedures out there regarding soldiers disobeying orders because of their legal status. This almost certainly isn't protected. You can still be sent to the war zone, even if war crimes are occuring. Being in the war zone doesn't make you party to it.

He can't use that as an excuse to not go Iraq anymore than someone else can prosecute a soldier 'who's only crime is his pressence there' for war crimes.

All he can do is refuse to follow specifically illegal (or at least perceived to be illegal) orders.

Also, the war itself is not illegal. What US law was broken?