Meh. He's made a choice, he hasn't harmed anyone, and he's willing to deal with the consequences. I don't see a problem.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why haven't I heard of this guy before?
Why haven't I heard of this guy before?Follow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
blah blah blah
Get your panties out of a bunch. I'm about Godwin this *****.
Remember those nasty **** guys who kept yelling "I was only doing what I was told!" You, gbaji, would be the party faithful telling soliders who questioned the morailty of something to shut up and do what you are told because the war is legal "and therefore any order deriving from that decision is also legal."
It is up to each person to decide for themself if something they are told to do while in uniform is illegal, so yes "if any one single individual disagrees with a decision made by a government that this makes the decision "illegal" under humran rights laws", if it is actually illegal under human rights laws, if it isn't well then, "go you" for standing up for what you think is right anyway you liberal, hippy, peacenik.
gbaji wrote:
Clearly, he had no intention of ever fullfilling the duty he promised to do when he put it on in the first place. He's a disgrace to every soldier who has put that uniform on and fought and died for their country.
Because you obviously didn't read:
Quote:
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
Quote:
SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?
WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.
WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.
Quote:
SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?
WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.
It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.
WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.
It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.
This isn't someone who took this decision lightly. You can disagree with him, but it shows a lack of depth to ignore the thought and concern he again and again shows for what it took for him to arrive at this point. Then again, coming from gbaji, I'm not surprised.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2007 4:55pm by Atomicflea
The only problem with what he says on that matter Flea, is that he has orders that so far are in NO way illegal. Maybe to him they may be immoral but by no means illegal.
If he is not going to do what he has been ordered then he deserves to be punished. I agree with gbaji on the fact that he should have never have put the uniform on in the first place. The military isn't a place for people that cannot follow orders, period. It doesn't matter what anyone's views on that matter is either, the government says to do something you better do it. If you do not be prepared to face the consequences. That is exactly what he says he will do though, even if he is hoping they "don't make an example out of him".
Edit: Directed this at Tarv instead of Flea by mistake.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2007 6:06pm by jegzus
If he is not going to do what he has been ordered then he deserves to be punished. I agree with gbaji on the fact that he should have never have put the uniform on in the first place. The military isn't a place for people that cannot follow orders, period. It doesn't matter what anyone's views on that matter is either, the government says to do something you better do it. If you do not be prepared to face the consequences. That is exactly what he says he will do though, even if he is hoping they "don't make an example out of him".
Edit: Directed this at Tarv instead of Flea by mistake.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2007 6:06pm by jegzus
Quote:
If he is not going to do what he has been ordered then he deserves to be punished. I agree with gbaji on the fact that he should have never have put the uniform on in the first place. The military isn't a place for people that cannot follow orders, period. It doesn't matter what anyone's views on that matter is either, the government says to do something you better do it.
well, as the point has been brought up earlier which I feel is valid..
Waht IF you lived in Germany during the 1930s and the NAtional Socialist party had just gained power and you had just decided to join the army?
Suddenly you are ordered to perform crimes against humanity?
Waht then?
kelvy wrote:
Waht IF you lived in Germany during the 1930s and the NAtional Socialist party had just gained power and you had just decided to join the army?
Suddenly you are ordered to perform crimes against humanity?
Waht then?
Suddenly you are ordered to perform crimes against humanity?
Waht then?
In that case you do what you are told so you do not get in trouble, or killed for that matter. Then many years later you get in trouble for your part in it.
Crimes against humanity? Only if the victims fail to surrender and not do what they're told. What leftist is against using violence to take and redistribute to themselves and whomever? It's a crime against humanity if the Iraqi resistance and terrorists fails to turn over the oil fields and behave as told but it's not a crime against humanity if US citizens submit to their own government? It's the exact same thing! Somebody is using violence and the threat of violence to command somebody else.
Well, in 1930s Germany you'd probably be shot if you refused to follow military orders. In 2000s USA, you'll go to prison.
Every government in the world, and all leftists in the world, have no moral ground upon which to condemn. They're just as guilty as every other fascist.
Why don't you go to Iraq as an independent peacekeeper and tell the terrorists to peacefully surrender. Then the USA won't have to commit crimes against humanity against the terrorists. Just the way you pay your taxes. Just the way you vote to take taxes from your neighbor. Go tell the Iraqi government to make it illegal for the terrorists to carry assault weapons. But please stop pretending you're morally better than the US government when you're unquestionably not. @@
This person's stand is weak. Castro took a bigger stand, and thought it out well and heartfully too. So did the US government. So did the French welfare redistribution system government. So did all of them. And so did all those who voted for all the crap too. It's a big pile. Eat your fair share. Why bother complaining that their's smells different than yours?
What is the US government doing to certain people in Iraq that your own governments don't do to their own people? Nothing. There's plenty of well thought out and heartfelt positions we all could care less about.
Oh no, they *lied*, *lied*, I tell you! The income tax was said to never exceed 3% and only be applied to the very rich. Oh no, they *lied*, *lied*, I tell you! Grow up. You submit. You "vote" others into submission. What goes around comes around, so patiently wait for your turn. Take a look in the mirror. Iraqis, and French, British, and Mexican for that matter, can submit just as well to the US government as they submit to whomever else they submit to. "Legality" and "Morality" lol. That requires principles which they don't have either.
Well, in 1930s Germany you'd probably be shot if you refused to follow military orders. In 2000s USA, you'll go to prison.
Every government in the world, and all leftists in the world, have no moral ground upon which to condemn. They're just as guilty as every other fascist.
Why don't you go to Iraq as an independent peacekeeper and tell the terrorists to peacefully surrender. Then the USA won't have to commit crimes against humanity against the terrorists. Just the way you pay your taxes. Just the way you vote to take taxes from your neighbor. Go tell the Iraqi government to make it illegal for the terrorists to carry assault weapons. But please stop pretending you're morally better than the US government when you're unquestionably not. @@
This person's stand is weak. Castro took a bigger stand, and thought it out well and heartfully too. So did the US government. So did the French welfare redistribution system government. So did all of them. And so did all those who voted for all the crap too. It's a big pile. Eat your fair share. Why bother complaining that their's smells different than yours?
What is the US government doing to certain people in Iraq that your own governments don't do to their own people? Nothing. There's plenty of well thought out and heartfelt positions we all could care less about.
Oh no, they *lied*, *lied*, I tell you! The income tax was said to never exceed 3% and only be applied to the very rich. Oh no, they *lied*, *lied*, I tell you! Grow up. You submit. You "vote" others into submission. What goes around comes around, so patiently wait for your turn. Take a look in the mirror. Iraqis, and French, British, and Mexican for that matter, can submit just as well to the US government as they submit to whomever else they submit to. "Legality" and "Morality" lol. That requires principles which they don't have either.
I can tell that was a well thought out post.. but after reading it like 5 times.. I give up..
I guess I'm not smart enough
I guess I'm not smart enough
No, you give up and submit. That shows you are smart enough. Go raise that national socialist flag with your comrad brothers and sisters. It's the same thing. You vote for the Army. You vote for the Army to do stuff. Don't complain when the Army does stuff.
He has the right to disobey on the grounds that he believes the war to be illegal .
The onus is then on him to prove his point. If he fails, he disobeyed a legitimate order and should face the consequences. If he wins, he flips the bird at the C-in-C.
Afghanistan : Reasons given were valid, International support gained. QED - Legitimate
Iraq : Reasons given were false, International objections ignored. QED - Highly Questionable.
Either way, for those of us who have seen the consequences of people who were 'only obeying orders', I'd love to plant some of my memories in jegzus' head and see if he's so gung-ho.
The onus is then on him to prove his point. If he fails, he disobeyed a legitimate order and should face the consequences. If he wins, he flips the bird at the C-in-C.
Afghanistan : Reasons given were valid, International support gained. QED - Legitimate
Iraq : Reasons given were false, International objections ignored. QED - Highly Questionable.
Either way, for those of us who have seen the consequences of people who were 'only obeying orders', I'd love to plant some of my memories in jegzus' head and see if he's so gung-ho.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
MonxDoT wrote:
No, you give up and submit. That shows you are smart enough. Go raise that national socialist flag with your comrad brothers and sisters. It's the same thing. You vote for the Army. You vote for the Army to do stuff. Don't complain when the Army does stuff.
But the army is paid for by taxes, which you've already declared are an invasion of privacy so severe, it disallows anyone who supports taxes the right to protest any other privacy invasion.
So why don't you make up your mind already?
Please do implant Nobby, I'm all ears. Feel free to do so via PM if you wish.
jegzus the Meaningless wrote:
Please do implant Nobby, I'm all ears. Feel free to do so via PM if you wish.
Suffice to say, when you're told to participate in something you believe to be inherently wrong, you either grow a pair, or become as low as the scumbags who are sending people to their deaths to score political points.
Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, any democracy owes this man his day in court.
His behavioUr is marked as genuine courage in my book. It's the coward who pulls the trigger and hides behind military hierarchy when he believes the intended victims are innocent.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Kevin Sites was the reporter who, while embedded with some US army unit or other, filmed that shooting of the injured Iraqis in the mosque, during the destruction of Falluja last year. (year before?)
After witnessing that particular piece of violent slaughter, he went independant.
True fact.
I think Watada is a hero for refusing to go an' kill more humans in this ILLEGAL and morally corrupt war of aggression, wich now that theres no WMD's, no democracy, no stability and no fuckin' hope, is from here on in, going to be fought for the benefit of Georgie frat boy Bush's ego.....
But you knew I'd say that.
After witnessing that particular piece of violent slaughter, he went independant.
True fact.
I think Watada is a hero for refusing to go an' kill more humans in this ILLEGAL and morally corrupt war of aggression, wich now that theres no WMD's, no democracy, no stability and no fuckin' hope, is from here on in, going to be fought for the benefit of Georgie frat boy Bush's ego.....
But you knew I'd say that.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Nobby wrote:
jegzus wrote:
Please do implant Nobby, I'm all ears. Feel free to do so via PM if you wish.
Nobby wrote:
A bunch of people here already know my experiences. I'm not revisiting them for you, you ****.
Either way, for those of us who have seen the consequences of people who were 'only obeying orders', I'd love to plant some of my memories in jegzus' head and see if he's so gung-ho.
Ok so you are calling me **** for asking you to go ahead and tell me the things you would "love" to plant into my head. You a complex fellow Nobby.
Nobby wrote:
Suffice to say, when you're told to participate in something you believe to be inherently wrong, you either grow a pair, or become as low as the scumbags who are sending people to their deaths to score political points.
Ok so I guess I was just a scum bag for my three years because I agreed to do the job I signed up to do.
Nobby wrote:
Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, any democracy owes this man his day in court.
Never did I say that he did not deserve his day in court, in fact I said this:
jegzus wrote:
It doesn't matter what anyone's views on that matter is either, the government says to do something you better do it. If you do not be prepared to face the consequences. That is exactly what he says he will do though, even if he is hoping they "don't make an example out of him".
Nobby wrote:
His behavioUr is marked as genuine courage in my book. It's the coward who pulls the trigger and hides behind military hierarchy when he believes the intended victims are innocent.
Yes it does take courage to stand up for what you believe is right or wrong. But at the same time he should have known before joining the Army that he may have to do things he found to be immoral. So if it wasn't Iraq, what else would he be refusing to do, or where would he refuse to go?
Personally I think he only joined for the G.I Bill, so he could go to college after his time in the service. In my opinion he did not think his decision through enough before he decided to join.
jegzus the Meaningless wrote:
I am a dullard and an cUnt
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
I'm impressed...
You two with your boobie envy. You both have nice boobie avatards. Now make nice and uh.. let your 'tards make out.
Kelvyquayo the Irrelevant wrote:
well, as the point has been brought up earlier which I feel is valid..
Waht IF you lived in Germany during the 1930s and the NAtional Socialist party had just gained power and you had just decided to join the army?
Suddenly you are ordered to perform crimes against humanity?
Waht then?
Waht IF you lived in Germany during the 1930s and the NAtional Socialist party had just gained power and you had just decided to join the army?
Suddenly you are ordered to perform crimes against humanity?
Waht then?
Sure. And the second that he is given an order to drop napalm on innocent women and children, or round up dissidents and put them into mass graves via automatic weapons, THEN he can refuse the order on the grounds that it is illegal and violates the rules of war.
You're kinda skipping right from "joining the military" to "commiting crimes against humanity". You can't object to illegal orders until you're actually given illegal orders. That's the problem with this guy's whole argument. He's basically refusing to serve because he personally does not agree with the reasons we went to war. He's free to do that, but he's the one violating the law here and he's got to be willing to suffer the consequences.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
GitSlayer wrote:
You two with your boobie envy. You both have nice boobie avatards. Now make nice and uh.. let your 'tards make out.
I was just trying to have a good conversation, I don't know why it delved into name calling and the like. I know I'm not a regular here but I wanted to actually discuss something instead of reading post after post of "NO U" or name calling.
But I'm willing *shake hands* and make nice if Nobby is.
#48REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 03 2007 at 6:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Taxes aren't collected without an army. The army is more than gun toting grunts on the ground. When you vote for taxes you vote for the means of collection, which is, whatever is necessary. It's not just an invasion of immaterial privacy but an invasion of material person and property. Why should we pretend imaginary boundaries exist?
jegzus the Meaningless wrote:
GitSlayer wrote:
You two with your boobie envy. You both have nice boobie avatards. Now make nice and uh.. let your 'tards make out.
I was just trying to have a good conversation, I don't know why it delved into name calling and the like. I know I'm not a regular here but I wanted to actually discuss something instead of reading post after post of "NO U" or name calling.
But I'm willing *shake hands* and make nice if Nobby is.
Christ, who the fUck are you again? I just want to see the 'tards make out.
GitSlayer wrote:
Christ, who the **** are you again? I just want to see the 'tards make out.
For all intensive purposes I am a nobody in this section of the site. I reside mainly in the OOT, although lately I do more lurking than anything.
If you want our 'tards to make out then Nobby will have to post again.
Arlo wrote:
I went over to the sargent, said, "Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug." He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 207
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (207)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why haven't I heard of this guy before?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC