Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

[Liebling:-)))]

Well I'm sorry but he made a very poor and illed comparison of Iraq War to Nazi... soldiers blindly obeying orders... No no no no no... Why? because the major differences between Iraq War and Nazi War are -

1. Hitler ordered a mass-scale of genocide aka the Holocaust. President Bush did not.
2. Hitler preached to Germany about Aryan Race and blamed Jews, Gypsies, etc. for the demise of Germany. President Bush did not.
3. Hitler invaded whole Europe because he had a vision as the savior of Aryan Race. President Bush did not.
4. Hitler ordered his soldiers to gun down (aka execution) the civilians and prisoners. President Bush did not.

Accord your list from #1 to #4, I do not see that Walata compared those list from #1 to #4, you made but he compared "oath" between Nazi and Bush.

Re-read his word

"Many Germans went along with the Nazi's idea of racial superiority or because they were afraid of prison or execution if they didn't. Real leadership means first realizing what's wrong, finding everything there is to know about it, and finally acting upon it."

His comparison is about oath is true... Yes, it's true, that many Germans were afraid of Nazi when they knew the war was a crime before WWII was over. They were forced to obey oath during Hitler's time, if they disobey then they will get prison or death penatly... That point, Walata compared to.

I know many websites tried to compare Bush with Hitler or Saddam. I do not like Bush but I feel it's an unfair to use Hitler or Saddam to compare Bush. I know it sound werid to know Bush's speech... Sometimes his speech remind me of Hitler, not just me but some people.

Example:

1. Hitler and Bush lied to his own people and the world.

2. Hitler and Bush convinced the world that their war were correct. (Bush did said this at several weeks ago.)

3. Hitler and Bush used their rough/harsh word. (Bush admitted and regret for his rough/harsh word and wish he should say something different at few weeks ago).

4. Imprisonment/death penalty for soliders for disobey the oath.

5. Invaded countries for no reason.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Interesting thread.

 

[Jiro]

Correct, we have different agreement contracts. It's also correct that US/LN civilian employees and military agreement contract are not same as well.

No, any agreement contracts cannot be change but our negotiate can only if employer/military agrees. We have to stick with agreement contract if employer or military said no to negotiate.

why do you keep talking about your contracts or civilian contracts? that's :topic: Please stop talking about any civilian contracts in this thread. It is not related at all unless you have signed that Enlistment Contract.

Yes some military people use lawyer to convince what it written in contract if they doubt to trust their employer. If they agree with negotiate then add in writing, never use the negotiate out of their mouth.

why do you not understand that military contract (with soldiers, not civilians) is AS IS? It never changes. they have only 2 choices - sign or leave. Not very hard to understand, isn't it? BTW - the employer is Uncle Sam. There's no negotiation with him. take it or leave it. very simple.

I admire Watada for stand up for his own rights because he did not desert or run away and hide from his decision when he knew what the consequences is about when he refuse to deploy to Iraq War. That's bravey.

What rights? He broke the contract. He was ordered to go to Iraq. That's all. It didn't say that he has to go to Iraq and kill some people. He can even probably stay in Iraq for a week and then be ordered to go somewhere else.

With his officer ranking, he is in position to help make sure Iraqis and soldiers are well-taken care of. We need more fine leaders out there to make sure everything's ok and they don't even need to be in combat zone. It can even take ONE courageous officer with smart strategy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis! Do you rather the office be run by incompetent or callous officers who do not care about people and enforce unfair rules like curfew?

He deserted his own men. How is that a bravery to abandon your own men? There are many people who entrusted their lives in him as a leader but he shit on them and does not care about them except his own life. That's not bravery - it's a cowardice. Bravery is to accept the order of deployment and do his best to protect his men and Iraqis from harm. That's bravery.

Please do us a favor and stop defending your position with this lost cause. Many of us agreed that Lt. Watada is guilty of charges. Please find another example. Lt. Watada is a very poor choice.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

why do you keep talking about your contracts or civilian contracts? that's :topic: Please stop talking about any civilian contracts in this thread. It is not related at all unless you have signed that Enlistment Contract.


why do you not understand that military contract (with soldiers, not civilians) is AS IS? It never changes. they have only 2 choices - sign or leave. Not very hard to understand, isn't it? BTW - the employer is Uncle Sam. There's no negotiation with him. take it or leave it. very simple.

I responsed Reba´s post.

What rights? He broke the contract. He was ordered to go to Iraq. That's all. It didn't say that he has to go to Iraq and kill some people. He can even probably stay in Iraq for a week and then be ordered to go somewhere else.


With his officer ranking, he is in position to help make sure Iraqis and soldiers are well-taken care of. We need more fine leaders out there to make sure everything's ok and they don't even need to be in combat zone. It can even take ONE courageous officer with smart strategy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis! Do you rather the office be run by incompetent or callous officers who do not care about people and enforce unfair rules like curfew?

He deserted his own men. How is that a bravery to abandon your own men? There are many people who entrusted their lives in him as a leader but he shit on them and does not care about them except his own life. That's not bravery - it's a cowardice. Bravery is to accept the order of deployment and do his best to protect his men and Iraqis from harm. That's bravery.

Please do us a favor and stop defending your position with this lost cause. Many of us agreed that Lt. Watada is guilty of charges. Please find another example. Lt. Watada is a very poor choice.

This is your opinion as I have my opinion as well. I stand what I beleive in...

 

[Jiro]

I responsed Reba´s post.

Her post and mine are same - just that we have to say the same thing in 20 different ways for you.

This is your opinion as I have my opinion as well. I stand what I beleive in...

OK that's fine but do not go too far by using Lt. Watada as a representation for all and an argument that Iraq War is illegal. If you want to make your opinion stronger and convincing for us - pick someone else more credible and "honorable." Lt. Watada is a very poor choice. Notice how you're the only one in here who thinks he's the hero? Reba and I have convinced skeptical AD'ers that Lt. Watada is nothing but a coward and thief who used his smart to avoid Iraq and used our tax money for his college tuition without paying back for it via military service.

You have not. All you said is "that is your opinion..."

 

[Byrdie714]

Her post and mine are same - just that we have to say the same thing in 20 different ways for you.


OK that's fine but do not go too far by using Lt. Watada as a representation for all and an argument that Iraq War is illegal. If you want to make your opinion stronger and convincing for us - pick someone else more credible and "honorable." Lt. Watada is a very poor choice. Notice how you're the only one in here who thinks he's the hero? Reba and I have convinced skeptical AD'ers that Lt. Watada is nothing but a coward and thief who used his smart to avoid Iraq and used our tax money for his college tuition without paying back for it via military service.

You have not. All you said is "that is your opinion..."

And the facts have spoken for themselves.....

 

[jenni-m]

This is your opinion as I have my opinion as well. I stand what I beleive in...

I hate to jump back in here, as it is a bit volatile to me. But it is hard to stand by and watch.

I have nothing against you personally.

But you need to see what opinion actually means, and what the differing kinds are.

And no, I'm not just trying to teach you something for no reason.
I am trying to get you to see why there is a problem in this thread.

I was thinking the other day of looking at different principals of opinion and how they effect each other, and making a thread on it. Perhaps I should.

But the fact is, a lot of times... personal opinions are meant to be left out of the discussion.

Maybe this is what is confusing you. You are discussing what you feel, against other people who ARE NOT. The two things do not mix, and it causes fights like this one in this thread.

Maybe you don't recognize this due to misunderstanding intentions of other people, I don't know. But that is what is happening here.

 

[jenni-m]

In other words:
Andere Menschen sind schriftlich vorurteilsfrei und das Sachverständigengutachten.

Nicht persönliche Meinung.

 

[Reba]

...I know many websites tried to compare Bush with Hitler or Saddam. I do not like Bush but I feel it's an unfair to use Hitler or Saddam to compare Bush. I know it sound werid to know Bush's speech... Sometimes his speech remind me of Hitler, not just me but some people.

Example:

1. Hitler and Bush lied to his own people and the world.

2. Hitler and Bush convinced the world that their war were correct. (Bush did said this at several weeks ago.)

3. Hitler and Bush used their rough/harsh word. (Bush admitted and regret for his rough/harsh word and wish he should say something different at few weeks ago).

4. Imprisonment/death penalty for soliders for disobey the oath.

5. Invaded countries for no reason.

Absolutely not.

If you're going to make ridiculous comparisons, why not go all the way?

1. How about Hitler and Alicia Silverstone? They're both vegetarians.

2. How about Hitler and Barack Obama? They're both men.

3. How about Hitler and Marlene Dietrich? They both spoke German.

4. How about Hitler and Bill Clinton? They both gave long speeches.

5. How about Hitler and Hillary? They both look frumpy in pant suits.

6. How about Hitler and FDR? They convinced the world that their war was correct.

7. How about Hitler and Winston Churchill? They convinced the world that their war was correct.

8. How about Hitler and Watada? Both of them broke signed agreements.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If you're going to make ridiculous comparisons, why not go all the way?

It´s war issue, I refer to, not make a ridiculous comparison like what you made here. The some of all lists, you made is not refer to war issues.

1. How about Hitler and Alicia Silverstone? They're both vegetarians.

No, it´s not war issue. There´re many people including ADers who are vegetarians, not just Hitler and Alicia Silverstone.

2. How about Hitler and Barack Obama? They're both men.

There´re many men around the world, not just Hitler and Obama.

3. How about Hitler and Marlene Dietrich? They both spoke German.

There´re many people who speak/spoke Germans, not just Hitler and Dietrich.

4. How about Hitler and Bill Clinton? They both gave long speeches.

No, they were different because Hitler use harsh voice which Clinton doesn´t when they gave speeches.

5. How about Hitler and Hillary? They both look frumpy in pant suits.

Not just them, but many people wear like that.

6. How about Hitler and FDR? They convinced the world that their war was correct.

FDR? - it´s Bush, I am refer to because it´s him who convinced the world that his war is correct at few weeks ago. I am sure that you know that.

7. How about Hitler and Winston Churchill? They convinced the world that their war was correct.

No, it´s Hitler who started it to attack British and other countries. You made an error comparison. It´s Hilter who beleived that his war was correct in first place. It does the same with Bush who beleive that his war is correct. He said this at few weeks ago.

8. How about Hitler and Watada? Both of them broke signed agreements.

You made an error comparison because Hitler was a dictator and Watada is a solider. You should compare German solider with Watada, not Hitler.

 

[jenni-m]

[...]

Wow. Just wow...

Can we get a lock on this thread or something...?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Wow. Just wow...

Can we get a lock on this thread or something...?

I ask you to respect my POV when you see different as me on issue.

This is my thread, I allow ADers to share their different POV what they feel like to. It's freedom of speech, they can express their POV on this issue if they feel like to.

Please respect that and remember that each person is different.

It's a simple, if you don't like this thread, then don't post.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

OK that's fine but do not go too far by using Lt. Watada as a representation for all and an argument that Iraq War is illegal. If you want to make your opinion stronger and convincing for us - pick someone else more credible and "honorable." Lt. Watada is a very poor choice. Notice how you're the only one in here who thinks he's the hero? Reba and I have convinced skeptical AD'ers that Lt. Watada is nothing but a coward and thief who used his smart to avoid Iraq and used our tax money for his college tuition without paying back for it via military service.

You have not. All you said is "that is your opinion..."

Yes, this is my decision for support Watada because I beleive in personal experience (reality) than paper. You support the US Government and law over solider's experience is your decision. I support solider's experience over Government and law is my decision. Like what I said before that the law could be ignore sometimes... Look this example...

Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations - Google-Suche

I need reality is: many solider's side.
Support Officer Resisting Iraq War (many solider's experiences, not just Watada)

Watada's interview

t r u t h o u t | First Officer Announces Refusal to Deploy to Iraq


That's why I believe personal experiences and truth from people who "have been there"

If you think Watada is a coward or whatever, what do you call Bush?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

What rights? He broke the contract. He was ordered to go to Iraq. That's all. It didn't say that he has to go to Iraq and kill some people. He can even probably stay in Iraq for a week and then be ordered to go somewhere else.

With his officer ranking, he is in position to help make sure Iraqis and soldiers are well-taken care of. We need more fine leaders out there to make sure everything's ok and they don't even need to be in combat zone. It can even take ONE courageous officer with smart strategy to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis! Do you rather the office be run by incompetent or callous officers who do not care about people and enforce unfair rules like curfew?

It explains in his interview at one of links, I post few minutes ago.

He deserted his own men. How is that a bravery to abandon your own men?

No, he is a human being who saw the reality as many have not seen. Sign up to be a soldier does not mean you have to do everything what they say. Example: Would you do if a general tell you to shoot the innocent person?

Many people escaped to Canada to avoid for go Iraq war... Check one of links, I posted at few minutes ago but Walada doesn't. He stand up what he beleive in and accept to face the court.

There are many people who entrusted their lives in him as a leader but he shit on them and does not care about them except his own life. That's not bravery - it's a cowardice. Bravery is to accept the order of deployment and do his best to protect his men and Iraqis from harm. That's bravery.

This is your opinion.

Please do us a favor and stop defending your position with this lost cause. Many of us agreed that Lt. Watada is guilty of charges. Please find another example. Lt. Watada is a very poor choice.

Many? I only see few ADers here in my thread. I assume you mean that "many" in general way, not just ADers. Right? If yes, here is link...



Recent polls have indicated that many Americans, like Watada, no longer support the war in Iraq. A Harris Interactive poll from mid-May shows that 61 percent are not confident that U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful versus 22 percent who are confident. A recent Zogby poll also showed that over 70 percent of people in the military want to withdraw from Iraq by the end of this year.


APA Community Grapples With Soldier's Decision to Refuse Deployment to Iraq


You can see Watada's other interview and over 2,700 comments. Some supporters and some not. (I do not read the whole to 2,700 comments yet but 1/7 of 2,700 comments... )

Conscientious Rejector? - Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone From Yahoo! News

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I hate to jump back in here, as it is a bit volatile to me. But it is hard to stand by and watch.

I have nothing against you personally.

But you need to see what opinion actually means, and what the differing kinds are.

And no, I'm not just trying to teach you something for no reason.
I am trying to get you to see why there is a problem in this thread.

I was thinking the other day of looking at different principals of opinion and how they effect each other, and making a thread on it. Perhaps I should.

But the fact is, a lot of times... personal opinions are meant to be left out of the discussion.

Maybe this is what is confusing you. You are discussing what you feel, against other people who ARE NOT. The two things do not mix, and it causes fights like this one in this thread.

Maybe you don't recognize this due to misunderstanding intentions of other people, I don't know. But that is what is happening here.

Remember, each person is different. Debate with different POV when they beleive in paper and others beleive in personal experience. If they beleive in paper as "fact" then is their opinion as same as I beleive in reality (personal experience) is my opinion. We can debate agree to disagree. I sometimes feel that you do not understand what debate is about.

I can choose what I believe, what I think, how I feel, to experience is my decision as the same what they choose what they beleive in is their decision. I respect their decision without insult/bash them. I never said that their POV is wrong but disagree. Is it wrong to disagree with them or disagree with me?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Liebling, are you talking about soldiers being unduly pressured into serving the army longer than their contract? No one can allow this to happen if they dont want to, no matter how much pressure is used.. unless they are being threatened. Then that is a different story!

I already provided several links about this issues in other thread. Yes, they were being forced to extend their agreement contract soon before their agreement contract end. to StopLoss Policy - they can do what they wants and can ignore soliders's resign letters. They can extend soliders with contracts to more years, maybe 8 or more years if they like to. It traps soliders which is really sad.

http://endstoploss.com/2007/04/03/endstoplosscom.aspx?results=1#SurveyResultsChart

http://ftssoldier.blogspot.com/2004/10/sign-stop-loss-petition.html

Hate to say it but soldiers who signed up have to follow orders or get themselves discharged in some manner. Changes need to come from the top of chain, very hard in the lower chains. Oh yes, changes very much needed.

Unfortunlately yes, they signed and have to stick with it... Nobody can help them to get out of Military, but Walada's case is different and explain his reason... Walada is a first man who stand what he beleive in. I hope Walada's case will help to get troops out of Iraq.

 

[Jiro]

No, he is a human being who saw the reality as many have not seen.

it's called... war, maybe?

Sign up to be a soldier does not mean you have to do everything what they say.
Example: Would you do if a general tell you to shoot the innocent person?

I have warned you many times to choose your word carefully. You are on borderline of greatly insulting men and women of uniform especially those you work with. Watada was not ordered to shoot the innocent person nor has ever ordered anybody to do so. He was ORDERED to deploy to Iraq and he won't even do the office duty! PLEASE STICK TO FACTS - NOT INSULTING SPECULATION.

Many people escaped to Canada to avoid for go Iraq war... Check one of links, I posted at few minutes ago but Walada doesn't. He stand up what he beleive in and accept to face the court.

Quote from CBS News - "Estimates say there are between 100 and 250 of them." And that is many? no it's just a few cowards who did not want to be redeployed and ran away to Canada. It's simple. The pollsters do not think objectively. They were only thinking about their sons and daughters in Iraq. It's typical of Americans to lose support for war if it takes 3+ years. Most of our wars lasted about 3 years or less.

Conclusion: The longer the war is, the less popular it gets. Plain and simple.

 

[Jiro]

I already provided several links about this issues in other thread. Yes, they were being forced to extend their agreement contract soon before their agreement contract end.

to StopLoss Policy - they can do what they wants and can ignore soliders's resign letters. They can extend soliders with contracts to more years, maybe 8 or more years if they like to. It traps soliders which is really sad.

Actually no. That is wrong. 8 years? Are you mad? Absolutely not. Stop-Loss Policy typically extends your contract up to 1 year. Most soldiers are extended up to 6 months.

New Army Stop-Loss Policy
Under the new policy, soldiers will generally be subject to Stop-Loss for no more than 12 months -- even though their military occupation specialty may remain affected by Stop-Loss in support of the global war on terrorism, said officials from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1.

Enlisted soldiers under Stop-Loss can now voluntarily separate on the one-year anniversary of their original expiration of service or ETS date.

Unfortunlately yes, they signed and have to stick with it... Nobody can help them to get out of Military, but Walada's case is different and explain his reason... Walada is a first man who stand what he beleive in. I hope Walada's case will help to get troops out of Iraq.

Please stop using the phrase "forced to extend." You're making it sound like they were illegally forced to sign the contract. Like I said - it is perfectly legal. They were "involuntarily extended." How is Watada's case different?

Watada can't base defense on war's legality, judge says

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I have warned you many times to choose your word carefully. You are on borderline of greatly insulting men and women of uniform especially those you work with. Watada was not ordered to shoot the innocent person nor has ever ordered anybody to do so. He was ORDERED to deploy to Iraq and he won't even do the office duty! PLEASE STICK TO FACTS - NOT INSULTING SPECULATION.

I do not see anything that my word is an insult but question. Please re-read my post carefully... Example: Would you do if a general tell you to shoot the innocent person?. Is "question an insult? No, if you accuse something wrongly then is an insult. I do not insult but ASK you QUESTION. You call Watada as a coward is an insult because you ACCUSED him, not QUESTION him. Get the difference?

I use the example to ASK you question because of your previous posts... You repeated to say that Watada broke the oath, contract, etc. and must obey the order, etc. and then call him coward for say no. I repeated you that Watada has the right to say no to the order when he felt it´s wrong. You denied and keep saying that Watada is wrong... coward, etc. That´s an exactly why I tried to tell you that we can say NO.

Quote from CBS News - "Estimates say there are between 100 and 250 of them." And that is many? no it's just a few cowards who did not want to be redeployed and ran away to Canada. It's simple. The pollsters do not think objectively. They were only thinking about their sons and daughters in Iraq. It's typical of Americans to lose support for war if it takes 3+ years. Most of our wars lasted about 3 years or less.

Conclusion: The longer the war is, the less popular it gets. Plain and simple.

To me, 100 or 250 to Canada is many but other link says different.

Canada court: AWOL U.S. soldiers not refugees - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Actually no. That is wrong. 8 years? Are you mad? Absolutely not. Stop-Loss Policy typically extends your contract up to 1 year. Most soldiers are extended up to 6 months.

New Army Stop-Loss Policy
Under the new policy, soldiers will generally be subject to Stop-Loss for no more than 12 months -- even though their military occupation specialty may remain affected by Stop-Loss in support of the global war on terrorism, said officials from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1.

Enlisted soldiers under Stop-Loss can now voluntarily separate on the one-year anniversary of their original expiration of service or ETS date.

See? You have no idea what you are saying because you beleive in paper written more than solider´s personal experience. Yes, they were being extend and then re-extend the involuntarily contract for 2 to 3 times. Yes they CAN ignore and extend and then re-extend their contracts.

Please stop using the phrase "forced to extend." You're making it sound like they were illegally forced to sign the contract. Like I said - it is perfectly legal. They were "involuntarily extended." How is Watada's case different?

No, I never make it look like illegal. I use those word "forced to extend" which mean is they did not extend their agreement contract voluntarliy. Get it? Okay, I will use those word "involuntarily extended" next time. for correction.

Watada can't base defense on war's legality, judge says

The link, you posted dated 17th January 2007. Here is updated link of 22nd May 2008. It written everything from June 2006 to his last court in November 2007...

Watada’s Legal Limbo :: The Sirens Chronicles