Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ducimus
Quote:
|
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).