i can't understand what you said.
Edited, Jan 5th 2007 4:58pm by ymeaveaiotrylin
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why haven't I heard of this guy before?
Why haven't I heard of this guy before?Follow
Quote:
I disagree. I believe that one sentence is a clear and simple explanation of our current situation. Iraq is a mess we created and it is our responsibility to clean it up. We can't un-invade Iraq, its done and can not be undone.
It seems that the only justification put forward these days for the troops to stay in Iraq, is that they are there to prevent sectarian violence/civil war.
Its already happening.
The US forces have been there the whole time its been happening, and it is STILL getting worse by the day. Their presence is achieving nothing, except to give varios factions an extra group of people to shoot at and bomb.
They are seen as being pro shiite, arming and training the shiite police and army, to be more efficient killers of Sunnis. If the troops are there to keep the peace, they have failed utterly. Any high falutin claims of humanitarian assistance and neccesity have been obsolete for months.
"You break it, you own it".
You really think the US has a humanitarian desire to help the Iraqi people?
I admire your faith.
Sadly I dont believe that the US Administration has any desire whatsoever to 'help' the Iraqi people. Call me cynical if you want. But the Iraq war was never about WMD's, or about removing a 'evil' dictator and for sure not about 'helping' the people of Iraq.
This thread is about Watada and his refusal to fight for something he doesn't believe in. He wont be the last. A lot of people in Iraq are realising they were misled. I think that feeling of betrayal will grow exponentially.
Support the troops by supporting their right to refuse to fight for what has been from the begining an unjustified and downright nasty bit of foreign policy.
Their job is to protect America.
What can they possibly do with 50k more troops in Iraq that they arent doing already?
'Surge"? A surge of deaths and injuries for sure. Maybe even a 'surge' into Iran?
That will help!!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Maybe even a 'surge' into Iran?
That will help!!
That will help!!
Now you're making some sense.
Atomicflea wrote:
I was simply stating my admiration.
You are reading into it. I was thinking maybe someone else had heard of this and knew more about it, because I was interested.
Quote:
Isn't that ultimately the whole point of this thread? To drum up "support" for this guy and his actions? Cause that's certainly the impression I got from it. Maybe I'm reading into it, but I really don't think so...
I thought you were stating your admiration for the guy?
What do you think is the point of doing that? Hmmm...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Let me be clear about why I *don't* admire this guy and don't believe he's sincere with his reasons for failing to deploy.
First off, I don't buy the whole "The government lied to me and that's why I joined, but now that I know the lie, I'm not going to deploy" argument. He signed up for the military in March of 2003. Great. However, up until September of 2005 he was still willing to deploy to Iraq and even (according to him) volunteered to do so.
I have a couple problems with this. First, what is so noble and admirable about someone who was apparently willing to join the military and kill insurgents and whatnot when he thought (again, according to him) that the people he was fighting possessed WMDs that presented an "imminent threat" to his country (again with the phrase that was never actually used by his government)? Is that a noble reason to join the military? He's willing to kill people in that situation, but *not* in order to stabilize the nation of Iraq after we've invaded when we haven't found large stockpiles of those WMDs?
The second problem is "What changed between Sep 2005 and June 2006?". He was *still* willing to deploy at that point. Well after we'd already invaded and occupied Iraq. Well after any "imminent threat" posed by the former regime's WMDs was past. Even if you buy his argument, it makes no sense in conjunction with his alleged actions. The mission by Sep 2005 had long since passed from any possible "protect the US from Iraq's WMDs" mission (again, despite that *never* having been a stated mission), and had progressed quite firmly into "keep Iraq stable until it's own government can take over fully".
What changed? I'd submit that *nothing* changed during that time period. If anything, during that time period more evidence supporting the argument that there were "some" WMDs in Iraq was released, not less. Why did he apparently support the war effort all through 2003, 2004, and most of 2005, during the time period when the whole "Where are the WMD's?" question was at it's height, but somehow *after* this time period he suddenly decided that the war was illegal and he shouldn't have to deploy? His decision clearly had far more to do with personal changes within himself and his own perceptions of events, then changes in the events themselves. He's certainly free to do that, but I find the blanket argument "I was lied to" questionable. It smacks strongly of an excuse created after the fact in order to justify his decision.
And at the end of the day, none of that really matters. You don't sign up to join the military for one particular reason. Ok. The individual can. But that's his personal reason. If *he* joined up thinking that his sole reason was because Iraq had massive quantities of WMDs that would be used at any moment and only if he joined could his country be saved, then that's his own personal silly reason. The contract he signed in no way stipulated that as a condition. His service in no way promises him where he'll be stationed or what he'll be doing. By that argument, could someone who signed up for similar reasons refuse to deploy if he were stationed somewhere away from "the action"? Pretend that there were WMDs. Could he argue that he was lied to because he joined up to fight against those with the WMDs, but ended up guarding an ammo dump in the US instead?
It's not about what *you* think you want to do when you join the military. It's about service to your country. That may very well have nothing to do with your personal reasons for joining. I think it's a huge mistake to accept people's desire to leave their service because after they joined up they didn't end up being involved in what they originally thought they would. What about those who've served since before the war started? Can they argue that they shouldn't have to deploy because when they signed up, they didn't agree to fight in Iraq? That's silly. And so is his reasoning...
First off, I don't buy the whole "The government lied to me and that's why I joined, but now that I know the lie, I'm not going to deploy" argument. He signed up for the military in March of 2003. Great. However, up until September of 2005 he was still willing to deploy to Iraq and even (according to him) volunteered to do so.
I have a couple problems with this. First, what is so noble and admirable about someone who was apparently willing to join the military and kill insurgents and whatnot when he thought (again, according to him) that the people he was fighting possessed WMDs that presented an "imminent threat" to his country (again with the phrase that was never actually used by his government)? Is that a noble reason to join the military? He's willing to kill people in that situation, but *not* in order to stabilize the nation of Iraq after we've invaded when we haven't found large stockpiles of those WMDs?
The second problem is "What changed between Sep 2005 and June 2006?". He was *still* willing to deploy at that point. Well after we'd already invaded and occupied Iraq. Well after any "imminent threat" posed by the former regime's WMDs was past. Even if you buy his argument, it makes no sense in conjunction with his alleged actions. The mission by Sep 2005 had long since passed from any possible "protect the US from Iraq's WMDs" mission (again, despite that *never* having been a stated mission), and had progressed quite firmly into "keep Iraq stable until it's own government can take over fully".
What changed? I'd submit that *nothing* changed during that time period. If anything, during that time period more evidence supporting the argument that there were "some" WMDs in Iraq was released, not less. Why did he apparently support the war effort all through 2003, 2004, and most of 2005, during the time period when the whole "Where are the WMD's?" question was at it's height, but somehow *after* this time period he suddenly decided that the war was illegal and he shouldn't have to deploy? His decision clearly had far more to do with personal changes within himself and his own perceptions of events, then changes in the events themselves. He's certainly free to do that, but I find the blanket argument "I was lied to" questionable. It smacks strongly of an excuse created after the fact in order to justify his decision.
And at the end of the day, none of that really matters. You don't sign up to join the military for one particular reason. Ok. The individual can. But that's his personal reason. If *he* joined up thinking that his sole reason was because Iraq had massive quantities of WMDs that would be used at any moment and only if he joined could his country be saved, then that's his own personal silly reason. The contract he signed in no way stipulated that as a condition. His service in no way promises him where he'll be stationed or what he'll be doing. By that argument, could someone who signed up for similar reasons refuse to deploy if he were stationed somewhere away from "the action"? Pretend that there were WMDs. Could he argue that he was lied to because he joined up to fight against those with the WMDs, but ended up guarding an ammo dump in the US instead?
It's not about what *you* think you want to do when you join the military. It's about service to your country. That may very well have nothing to do with your personal reasons for joining. I think it's a huge mistake to accept people's desire to leave their service because after they joined up they didn't end up being involved in what they originally thought they would. What about those who've served since before the war started? Can they argue that they shouldn't have to deploy because when they signed up, they didn't agree to fight in Iraq? That's silly. And so is his reasoning...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's his job. He signed on the bottom line. I think this is complete bull ****. The contract did not say he'd serve only as long as "he felt like it", he signed up for a set amount of time to be pretty much owned by the US government to do what ever they felt like he should do.
The only people I hate worse than this guy are those asshats who joined "pre war" and now feel they shouldn't have to fight because they joined before the war started. You join the military, you run the risk of seeing combat. It's the way it works. *********** pansy *** should move to France.[/sm]
The only people I hate worse than this guy are those asshats who joined "pre war" and now feel they shouldn't have to fight because they joined before the war started. You join the military, you run the risk of seeing combat. It's the way it works. *********** pansy *** should move to France.[/sm]
oh well what can ya do
Recent Visitors: 284
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Why haven't I heard of this guy before?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC