Deserters: We Won't Go To Iraq

[bradclark1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml
When I was in you could put in for conscientious objector status. I don't know if that has changed any but to volunteer and then desert! They should be held accountable.

[Skybird]

Could be a hint that there is a gap between what volunteers at young age think "serving their country" is about - and what it then turns out to be in reality. Like i am saying that the historical values the US had been founded upon are one thing - but today's US politics are something very different.

But after school I was asking myself these questions, too, and came to the conclusion that I better do not join the army. Now, twenty years later, I still believe that that decision was right. If I was able to see the risk of needing to serve flawed politics when being part of the BW, then others should be able to see that, too, so probbaly you are right: one should not volunteer, and then desert. That decision should have been made and checked before one joins an army.

[Ducimus]

I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do

Theres unlawful orders, and then theirs politics. Why were in Iraq, is politics. An unlawful order would be, being ordered to shoot a surrendering enemy, unarmed non combatants, engage in any acts that would cause undue suffering that are against the geneva convention, whatever.

When you sign the contract, you go where and when your called to go. You don't have to like it, but you do have to do it. .

[NEON DEON]

The U.S. has an all volunteer force. When you sign up, you do it knowing they could call you to duty. It is the Army for god's sake not a sewing circle. The time for objecting to the war ended when you entered the Army.

[Bertgang]

I could simpatyze with conscripted soldiers who become desertors, as the war is something breaking their normal life, but not with professional soldiers having this duty as choiced job; they earn money for years just playing training, then want leave uniform when called to the real work; not correct at all.

Anyway, Skybird has a good pont speaking about immature choices; lot of people has a life conditionned by decisions taken without complete informations during his youth; under this side, the professional soldier who refuse to fight seems similar to the catholic priest who later discover sex.

Complex emotions against duty; it's hard to set a rule good for everybody.

[Yahoshua]

I remember this phrase very well:

"You volunteered for everything when you signed the dotted line."

[scandium]

I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it, and I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do
Theres unlawful orders, and then theirs politics. Why were in Iraq, is politics. An unlawful order would be, being ordered to shoot a surrendering enemy, unarmed non combatants, engage in any acts that would cause undue suffering that are against the geneva convention, whatever.

When you sign the contract, you go where and when your called to go. You don't have to like it, but you do have to do it. .
I've got no dog in this race, so this is just idle curiousity on my part, but doesn't it follow that if the soldier believes the war in Iraq to be an illegal war of aggression then doesn't it follow that an order to deploy there could rightly be considered an unlawful order?

Your arguement implies that, by way of historic analogy only, Germany's decision to invade Poland was "just politics" rather than the war of aggression it was denounced as; it also ignores the many tried, sentenced, and sometimes hung, at Nuremburg on the charge of "waging an illegal war of aggression" (this was also one of the charges levelled at Grand Admiral Doenitz, and although I don't recall if he was convicted on this charge I do know that he was sentenced at Nuremburg to 10 years in prison and yet he had never ordered or participated in any war crimes).

[waste gate]

Your arguement implies that, by way of historic analogy only, Germany's decision to invade Poland was "just politics" rather than the war of aggression it was denounced as; it also ignores the many tried, sentenced, and sometimes hung, at Nuremburg on the charge of "waging an illegal war of aggression" (this was also one of the charges levelled at Grand Admiral Doenitz, and although I don't recall if he was convicted on this charge I do know that he was sentenced at Nuremburg to 10 years in prison and yet he had never ordered or participated in any war crimes).

That is why the war crimes arguments are only as good as air used to express them. The winners write the rules. Not the folks who talk about it (read anyone invoking war crimes in the current ME conflict).

[Ducimus]

scandium, as a soldier, sailor, Airmen or Marine, your's is not to reason why.

In otherwords, why your being sent to Iraq, Korea, Bosnia, Guadamala, Honduras, or wherever, isn't of your concern. You simply have no say in it. You signed a contract, you took an oath, and it's your job to go where they tell you to go, when they tell you to go there. You don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, but it's your job and sworn duty go when and where sent. Why we're "there" to begin with, is totally irrelvant as a boot on the ground. Thats a theater of reasoning that belongs to the politicians.

What you DO while THERE, is what falls under Lawful and Unlawful orders. You don't have to be a genious to figure out what an unlawful order is. Rape, murder, killing of unarmed noncombatants, cruel and unusual punishment/treatment, viloations of the geneva convention, etc etc are unlawful orders. And the age old escuse of "i was just following orders" will never hold up in any courts martial.

Overall your not paid to agree or disagree with the countries administration or not. You don't have to like it at all, you can hate the adminstration and its executive decisions with every fiber in your being. But you Do have to lawfullly execute your duties to the best of your ablity.

[August]

"waging an illegal war of aggression" (this was also one of the charges levelled at Grand Admiral Doenitz, and although I don't recall if he was convicted on this charge

According Dan Gallery he was charged with:

1. Conspiring to wage aggressive war
2. Waging aggressive war
3. Violation of the laws of war at sea

He was acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the other two. No mention of an waging an "illegal" aggressive war.

[scandium]

"waging an illegal war of aggression" (this was also one of the charges levelled at Grand Admiral Doenitz, and although I don't recall if he was convicted on this charge
According Dan Gallery he was charged with:

1. Conspiring to wage aggressive war
2. Waging aggressive war
3. Violation of the laws of war at sea

He was acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the other two. No mention of an waging an "illegal" aggressive war.

Fine, "waging aggressive war" then, I had not looked up the specifics but was only relying on the vaguely remembered memoirs that I'd read several months ago.

[August]

Fine, "waging aggressive war" then, I had not looked up the specifics but was only relying on the vaguely remembered memoirs that I'd read several months ago.

Relax, i'm not disagreeing with you as seems to be our forum habit, i just think Doenitz was unjustly railroaded.

"Waging an aggressive war" is a completely asinine charge to make against a military man. Of COURSE he waged an aggressive war. Isn't that what soldiers and sailors are supposed to do for their country?

So was "Violating the laws of war at sea" another stupid charge to make, especially when each and every one of the Allied countries doing the proscecuting broke the same exact laws he was accused of, except our people got medals for it while he got 10 years in Spandau prison.

[Skybird]

Politics make and decide on the reasons for war, not the military. Thus it is not the military's or individual soldier's job to assess by his own personal standard if a war is just or not. His conscience and a possible rejection of obeying "illegal orders" only comes into play if the orders are in violation to the army's own code of conduct and behavior, much of that is written down in some sort of military legal code.

So, a soldier saying he does not go to war because he sees that war not fitting his personal bill, has no cause to defend. Soldiers do not decide the reasons to go to war, it is the politician's responsebility. If you want to complain about a war, blame politicians, not the military leaders (who in case of Iraq 2003 are said to have been extremely cautious to favour that war, because as professionals in military issues, different to Bush and Rumsfeld they saw many of the problems in advance, btw.). soldiers accept commands by politicians, that way it is played and not any differently. That's why it makes me sick to see politicians taking the responsebility that comes with that easy, and triggering adventures like Iraq so easily. Some politicians seem to think the army is just their personal servant.

[fredbass]

I haven't read the previous posts, but...

It's ironic that just about any soldier that you ask would never consider deserting their friends in the field. NEVER

I certainly hope we still shoot deserters. I think that is still the best deterrent.

[Iceman]

scandium, as a soldier, sailor, Airmen or Marine, your's is not to reason why.

In otherwords, why your being sent to Iraq, Korea, Bosnia, Guadamala, Honduras, or wherever, isn't of your concern. You simply have no say in it. You signed a contract, you took an oath, and it's your job to go where they tell you to go, when they tell you to go there. You don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, but it's your job and sworn duty go when and where sent. Why we're "there" to begin with, is totally irrelvant as a boot on the ground. Thats a theater of reasoning that belongs to the politicians.

What you DO while THERE, is what falls under Lawful and Unlawful orders. You don't have to be a genious to figure out what an unlawful order is. Rape, murder, killing of unarmed noncombatants, cruel and unusual punishment/treatment, viloations of the geneva convention, etc etc are unlawful orders. And the age old escuse of "i was just following orders" will never hold up in any courts martial.

Overall your not paid to agree or disagree with the countries administration or not. You don't have to like it at all, you can hate the adminstration and its executive decisions with every fiber in your being. But you Do have to lawfullly execute your duties to the best of your ablity.

Excellent post...also from what I see that is what most do and do very well.The few bad apples like these rapisits and murders in the armed forces that have been caught latley only represent the worst in all human beings and in no way reflect our military overall.