Army Officer Refuses to Deploy...

:lol: Cool. Reminds me of Stripes the movie "we're not gay but we're willing to learn":lol:
 
Rik Meleet said:
I understand that's the military way.

Might be time for a change though. I completley understand that when your platoon is attacked you do follow orders immediately without hesitation. This man is not directly putting anyone in danger; he isn't even outside the USA. He has a problem with the legalty of his mission and he (apparently) doesn't mind to go anywhere non-Iraq related. Why on earth is it so hard to honor his beliefs, political point of view and morals and let him serve on Diego Garcia for instance ???
Nobody is helped by him courtmarshalled, jailed or killed. And nobody certainly is helped by him fleeing to Canada, cutting his finger off or going to Iraq where his inactivity or his turning of sides might actually be hurtful.

What is there to gain in not honoring his opinion?
Come on; it's the 21st century.

If every soldier will decide for himself what is good war and what is bad war - army will not work. It is not very complicated.

Edit: this argument of course doesn't work for pacifist persons who believe we can manage without military today. I don't align with this idea and think it is utopia.

And btw, I strongly disagree (expressing it with nice words) on the statement that volunteering in army is not smart.
 
Sidhe said:
:lol: Cool. Reminds me of Stripes the movie "we're not gay but we're willing to learn":lol:
Yeah, Jimi got out of serving in 'Nam by acting very aroused around other soldiers, especially in the showers [pimp]

In the end the army said "Okay, we don't think you're quite right form the Army" and discharged him :lol:
 
Joining the army voluntarily is not smart in my eyes, so even though he should have known before he signed up that he could be send to an unfriendly area; he may not have had the brainpower.

Well, this is the second most offensive quote I've read on this forum ever. :( I'll have to show my boss, who graduated college as a teenager, this one.

EDIT2: And just an opinion since someone decided to resort to personal attacks below. There is a big difference between being offended by or attacking a view/idea/action and name calling. The first is a healthy part of debate, the last adds no value.

EDIT: And just to clarify why I think serving in the US military is the most honorable job one can have as well as a smart move for many, here is a short snippit of my story.

Why joined: Grew up in poor, small town. Since college isn't free in the US, by far the best option to get to college for me was joining the US military, which paid in total for my schooling. Basically an economic decision; I planned on getting out and moving up to a higher paying job.

Why stayed: In simple terms I was part of a comms team stationed in Germany during the initial Bosnia mission. I spent most of my time in Germany, Hungary and Macedonia. Without even doing a resume, I was already getting 6 figure job offers due to my education and training from various contractors that had worked with me; definately more than I make in the military. Then I went to Bosnia for all of one day, but that was all it took. One of my buds took me off-post on their patrol to the local town. A little Bosnian girl said "Thank you." in English. An interpretor that was with us conveyed more of the story, but basically she was thanking us for being there. Her expression and tone of voice affected me deeply. I knew then that the military would be my way of life.

While many see militaries as agressors, I see the US military as 'bringers of freedom and hope.' I know it hasn't always been so and that some individuals do horrific things, but overall I think it is a force for great good. I've been involved in more humanitarian relief missions than I have combat operations and believe every one of the later was removing evil men to give the people a chance for freedom and hope. While many will disagree on Iraq, I will never forget the Kuwait POW museum or the story by an Iraqi expat who escaped Saddam describe watching his family be fed into a meat grinding machine or of another who watched friends fed alive to dogs. For these reasons I will never see the removal of Saddam as a bad thing, though I think the execution of the peace part of the mission could have been much better.
 
@ Rik Me-fag

Your views on the military make me :vomit:

I'm sure there are lots of guys in the military that would make you seem like the one not smart

Moderator Action: Enjoy a week off. Trolling and flaming all into one so fresh off a ban will NOT be tolerated. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Evil Tyrant said:
@Cuivienen: Legally, you are right, it isn't a war. But practically speaking, it either is a war, or it isn't. All the words and jargon in the world cannot change it's nature.

And legally is what matters. You can't make it legally a war by calling it a war. Argumentum ad nauseam is a logical fallacy for good reason.
 
MobBoss said:
http://www.komotv.com/stories/43774.htm

Can we say "Attention Who**"? My prediction is once this is all said and done, this man wont see sunlight for a good length of time.

He shouldnt of joined the army then.

If you dont want to fight dont join. Simple as that.
 
MobBoss said:
http://www.komotv.com/stories/43774.htm

Can we say "Attention Who**"? My prediction is once this is all said and done, this man wont see sunlight for a good length of time.

Maybe, but it's still his right to refuse. Blind obedience is a convenient excuse to commit atrocity. What was the most common excuse in the Nuremburg Trials? "I was following orders."
 
I find myself in agreement with Rik. :D
 
capslock said:
@ Rik Me-fag

Your views on the military make me :vomit:

I'm sure there are lots of guys in the military that would make you seem like the one not smart

Is it just me or do I sense a iminent beating with the ban stick coming? Let me see...(rolls magic 8 ball around)....YES INDEEDY.
 
Nanocyborgasm said:
Maybe, but it's still his right to refuse. Blind obedience is a convenient excuse to commit atrocity. What was the most common excuse in the Nuremburg Trials? "I was following orders."

Once more...you dont have a "right" to disobey legal orders. None. El Zippo. Nada. Non-existant. ZERO.

And blind obedience to unlawful orders (i.e. atrocities) gets you about as much sympathy today as it did in Nuremburg.....ie...where is the rope?
 
tomsnowman123 said:
Well, as wrong as the war is, there is nothing in this war that hasn't happened in any other war, and he was commanded to be deployed. He got himself in this mess.

Still, I applaud his efforts of peaceful rebellion, we need more people like him who will stand up for their beliefs. I support him fully, too bad he can't get deployed smewhere else.

There isnt anything that hasnt happened in this war that has happened in any other war throughout history?

Surely you must be joking? :crazyeye:

I dont recall coalition troops razing cities to the ground, sowing the fields with salt, burning civilians alive, or piling up a mountain of skulls from enemy combantants or innocent civilians!

Oh and we havent commited genocide either.

Can you say that all that has happened?
 
MobBoss said:
Is it just me or do I sense a iminent beating with the ban stick coming? Let me see...(rolls magic 8 ball around)....YES INDEEDY.

:eek:

On topic: I have no sympathy for this officer. Lock him away, IMO.
 
MobBoss said:
Once more...you dont have a "right" to disobey legal orders. None. El Zippo. Nada. Non-existant. ZERO.

And blind obedience to unlawful orders (i.e. atrocities) gets you about as much sympathy today as it did in Nuremburg.....ie...where is the rope?

That's where the slippery rope is though, in determining which orders are legal and which are not.
 
blackheart said:
That's where the slippery rope is though, in determining which orders are legal and which are not.

Not at all, its very easy to be honest.

Order a. Deploy with your unit to Iraq. Legal order.

Order b. Patrol this area and follow the Rules of Engagement. Legal order.

Order c. I dont care how you feel; shoot the kid in the head!!..Illegal order.

Get it?
 
MobBoss said:
Not at all, its very easy to be honest.

Order a. Deploy with your unit to Iraq. Legal order.

Order b. Patrol this area and follow the Rules of Engagement. Legal order.

Order c. I dont care how you feel; shoot the kid in the head!!..Illegal order.

Get it?

Keyword here: illegal war

He better get a good lawyer to explain why this war is illegal if he wants to defend himself.

Better examples would be: bombing the Chinese embassy in Kosovo, firebombing Dresden in WW2, taking no prisoners on Normandy, etc.
 
Cuivienen said:
And legally is what matters. You can't make it legally a war by calling it a war. Argumentum ad nauseam is a logical fallacy for good reason.
There is what happens legally, and there is what actually happens. Let us say for example that I were to murder someone, and due to my diabolical cunning(or weasel lawyers, whichever you find more believable) I were to be found not guilty. Does this make me any less guilty? Legally, I am innocent, but in truth I am a murderer. Calling me innocent does not change that I am a murderer, it merely means that the legal system is identifying me by the wrong label. An undeclared war is much the same in my book. It is just as much a war as any other, only it "officially" does not exist.
 
blackheart said:
Keyword here: illegal war

Will never be allowed as evidence as it does not pertain to whether a commissioned officer disobeyed a legal order. The legality of the war, in no way diminishes the issue of the order at hand.

Besides if you view the "conflict" as Cuivienen does, its not illegal as its not a war.
 
Top Bottom