1st. Lt. Ehren Watada

**stroller** · 07-02-2007, 02:42 PM

'Technically' it is legal, re: no fly zones and UN resolutions.
The guy will be ripped to shreds, he'll have a tough time, the denouncing of character and the typical moronic lynch-mob mentality can be witnessed in this very thread, but he might inspire some more thoughts about the lies of the Bush gov.

**man with no head** · 07-02-2007, 03:59 PM

Was there any legality under international law to remove the sovereign government of Iraq? I don't recall that being any consequence for failure to adhere to any resolution? And why hold Iraq accountable and not Israel or any other such rogue nation?

**stroller** · 07-02-2007, 04:23 PM

An unscrupulous, pre-meditated overreaction, but legal, 'technically', since Iraq didn't keep to the conditions of the ceasefire, it was up to the US to resume war, which they did.

**man with no head** · 07-02-2007, 04:27 PM

...and if the U.S. found no WMDs (as alleged) then it would appear Iraq had met that condition as part of the cease fire.

I know I used your argument in the past but as time goes on it looks like a very weak argument.

**stroller** · 07-02-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

...but as time goes on it looks like a very weak argument.

It is.

That's why I emphasise "technically", the only grounds established beyond any doubt are the no-fly zone violations, a mere excuse for the course of action taken. The other reasons range from unproven allegations to outright lies.

Anyway, this ground will no doubt be covered during the trial, by people who are better qualified than myself to comment.

**RDN** · 08-02-2007, 02:32 AM

Anybody reading this thread would think that the majority of people on this forum think that this guy was right to refuse to go.

Until you realise most of the posts are Stroller and Surasak talking to each other.

I'm currently downloading a song whose lyrics are very apt: Charlie Drake singing "Please Mr Custer, I Don't Want To Go."

**man with no head** · 08-02-2007, 02:37 AM

I'm merely suggesting that:

IF

the war in Iraq is deemed to be illegal...

THEN

he had the right under the United States Unifom Code of Military Justice to disobey those orders as all soldiers have the right to disobey immoral or illegal orders under the law.

Therein lies the argument.

**RDN** · 08-02-2007, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

I'm merely suggesting that:

IF

the war in Iraq is deemed to be illegal...

THEN

he had the right under the United States Unifom Code of Military Justice to disobey those orders as all soldiers have the right to disobey immoral or illegal orders under the law.

Therein lies the argument.

IF what you say (that all soldiers have the right to disobey immoral or illegal orders under the law) is TRUE

THEN yes, he has the right to disobey an illegal order.

HOWEVER, being given an illegal order is NOT the same as being given a legal order while participating in an illegal war.

So, even if the war is ultimately deemed illegal, if the order he was given was legal, he's in trouble.

**man with no head** · 08-02-2007, 04:05 AM

An order issued to participate in an illegal act cannot itself be legal.

**Boon Mee** · 08-02-2007, 05:11 AM

Yep...this jerk is the Looney-Left's definition of a "Hero"

So, who does inspire these left wing troop-bashers? Whose courage do they cheer? Whom do they call "hero"?

Not the American soldier on the battlefield, willingly and freely putting his life on the line for his beliefs, his family, our country, security and freedom.
No, their idea of a military hero is Army Lt. Ehren Watada. Did Watada take a bullet for his comrades? Rescue innocent civilians from insurgent forces? Throw himself on a grenade? Ambush a terrorist sniper nest? No. This guy makes me want to hurl and I hope the military court gives him the max.

**man with no head** · 08-02-2007, 05:21 AM

The soldiers in Iraq are not heroes. Neither were the ones in Vietnam.

**barbaro** · 08-02-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by surasak

The soldiers in Iraq are not heroes. Neither were the ones in Vietnam.

The world "hero" often used as propaganda by the media.

The word was recently used to described two Americans abducted at a checkpoint, and the word "hero" has also been used to describe Americans injured or killed by IEDs.

One constant thing missing from these newspaper article are: what specific actions these people took to be labeled heroes.

**stroller** · 08-02-2007, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by RDN

Anybody reading this thread would think that the majority of people on this forum think that this guy was right to refuse to go.

Until you realise most of the posts are Stroller and Surasak talking to each other.

Well, then you haven't read my comments well at all.

**stroller** · 08-02-2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yep...this jerk is the Looney-Left's definition of a "Hero"

Haven't heard of anyone calling him a "hero". Bit of a strawman argument, your comment.

**man with no head** · 08-02-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by surasak

The soldiers in Iraq are not heroes. Neither were the ones in Vietnam.

The world "hero" often used as propaganda by the media.

The word was recently used to described two Americans abducted at a checkpoint, and the word "hero" has also been used to describe Americans injured or killed by IEDs.

One constant thing missing from these newspaper article are: what specific actions these people took to be labeled heroes.

Exactly.

**Whiteshiva** · 08-02-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yep...this jerk is the Looney-Left's definition of a "Hero"

Haven't heard of anyone calling him a "hero". Bit of a strawman argument, your comment.

So, so stroller, don't be too hard on him! I don't think he knows any other way of debating.

Thread: 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions