jenni-m

Wow. Just wow...

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

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Liebling:-)))

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:-)))

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:-)))

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


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.

This is your opinion.

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:-)))

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:-)))

[QUOTE]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/en...eyResultsChart

http://ftssoldier.blogspot.com/2004/...-petition.html



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

it's called... war, maybe?

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.

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-))) 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:-)))

[QUOTE] 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.

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:-)))

[QUOTE]


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.


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.

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

__________________

jenni-m

I have respect for you, but it's gotten WAY out of hand.

It has long outlived it's usefulness, nothing new is being added, by you or anyone else. It is getting annoying.

I'm not asking for you to be censored, I didn't ask anything to be deleted, your opinion would still be here for all to see.

But I think the useless bitching on all sides needs to stop.

Jiro

Do you want me to ask you a theoretical question - would you ever molest your child? That is an insulting question, isn't it? He was being ordered to deploy to a location. How is that illegal? Is it illegal to order him to be deployed in North Korea? or Saudi Arabia? or Israel? The WHOLE issue with Watada is the ORDER OF DEPLOYMENT, not an ORDER OF KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me with that link. It proved what we're saying - Canadian Supreme Court said the soldiers' reason for desertion and refusal to obey the "illegal" order is irrelevant for refugee status. Same thing for Watada. His reason of disobeying the order of deployment based on the illegality of Iraq War is IRRELEVANT.

jenni-m

Save yourself! Logical rhetoric is futile!

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE] The question to ask is not an insult but a simple. Please check the links, I posted at #39. It says that the soliders do not deny their knowledge that they kill inncoents and said that it´s their job to kill humans. They were being trained, etc. Get real, it´s not an insult because everyone knows that. I asked you a simple question because you can´t understand that we CAN say NO for good reasons. All what you keep on saying that Watada broke the contract, oath, etc. He MUST obey the order, call solider coward for say no... etc... Yes you said this... that´s why I asked you a simple question either you would obey the order from the general to kill inncoent person or not? You really have no idea what and how soliders experienced there. Look the example of your previous post "it's called... war, maybe?" ...


Anyway, accord your theoretical question. This question, you made toward me is not an insult but stupidity and ignorant question. I don´t mind to answer any stupid questions...

Here is my simple answer: No.

Would you call me a coward if I said no to general´s order to do something wrongly?



Not that, I am trying to tell you but numbers which different as your link... Your link said around 100 and 250 but my link says around 300 live in Canada, and around 20,000 to 50,000 moved to Canada to aviod military duty (Vietnam war) and over 3,300 deserters last year to somewhere. Yes I have read from that link, I posted that Canada government is not US soliders´side.

__________________

Jiro

Fact #1: The issue is about Lt. Watada - not other soldiers.
Fact #2: The issue about Lt. Watada refusing the order of deployment.
Fact #3: His legal argument based on illegality of the war is IRRELEVANT
Fact #4: He was not ordered to kill the innocent people
Fact #5: He was offered an office duty in Iraq so how is he being ordered to kill innocents unless he's the one who ordered soldiers to kill innocents.

Please stick to the topic in your own thread. We're arguing about Lt. Watada's case, not other soldiers. Most of us have concluded that he illegally disobeyed the order of deployment. I have not seen any one other person in this thread who supported Lt. Watada.

So my figure was off by 50 people... You said "many" escaped to Canada perhaps in an "exaggerated" manner so I wanted to clarify it. and we're not concerned with deserters during Vietnam War. It is . Stick to Iraq War issue please... more specifically - stick to Lt. Watada's case.

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE]No, this is not , it's not just Lt. Watada but any military who refuses are welcome to post here. You know that Lt. Watada is not only one who refuses to deploy at Iraq. I want to say that the soldiers can say No to the order.

Fact #1: - No, it's not just Lt. Watada's issue. It's about Iraq refusal accord the title of my thread and also links, I posted in previous posts.

Fact # 2: Accord the title of my thread "Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal". It's about Iraq refusal for any soliders, not just Watada.

Fact # 3: What Watada said is correct about violate the Constitution, international law and Army regulations. Accord the links, I posted yesterday that Bush ignored military rules and regulations. We including politicans know it and can't do anything against him, even can't impeach him which is really sad. That's why I said that Lt. Watada is brave to stand up himself against Iraq war as an illegal to the public and the world..

Fact #4: Do you mean Watada should not have gun with him to defend himself there? Did you know what kind of country Iraq is? Do you really think government send their soliders to Iraq without weapons? Thousands of innocent Iraqis are being killed thru weapons... Check the links, I posted few days ago and other link... "Why didn't you shoot?" some of the other soldiers asked him. "Next time you shoot," they ordered. He's right "It's my human right to choose not to kill innocent people,"
"I can't go back to Iraq" | The Dominion

Fact #5. US/Iraqi civillans and officers who stay in the office were being killed in Iraq. this is happens that's why they use weapons. Watada do not want to risk his life over that oil.

We argue about war refusal where the title of my thread is about. Yes I posted Watada's case in first place and more soilders refused to go Iraq war, not just him. I do not consider Watada as an illegal but he has the right to say NO to illegal war when he felt it's illegal war accord the links of his interview yesterday.

There're many Iraq war threads around the Forum who are against Iraq war and knew it's wrong to send soliders there to death. Why should ADers repeat their view on this thread for when we already debated in many Iraq War threads in the past. Yes, we know it's wrong to send troops there to death.

I still consider 50 or 250 or 300 as many... I only showed you the link that many websites say differently.

Yes, we can talk about Lt. Watada's case but ADers are welcome to post new links about other Lt. Watada to here because it's about "Iraq Refusal" when it's not just Watada.

__________________

~SG~

*Checking thermometer* It's rising, please cool it down and stick to on topic, as it is swaying offtopic.

__________________

Reba

That's the whole point--your Hitler/Bush comparisons were as ridiculous as the comparisons that I posted. It shows how illogical your comparisons were.

Please excuse me now while I bang my head on a brick wall--it's a lot less painful than trying to have a logical discourse here.

Jiro

I have given up. It's more lost than Iraq War

Byrdie714

Jiro

Reba

I used to crochet, and I do lots of gardening, but my mind is untamed.

Liebling:-)))

[QUOTE]Please re-read my post. I know that Bush is not Hitler. I explained in my previous post that it's unfair to use Hitler or Saddam to compare Bush as what the many websites wrote. I stated that Bush's speech REMIND me of Hitler. His speech also remind Nazi survivors, too. I'm sorry that you don't want to see it. We know that there're no comparison between Bush and Hitler or Saddam but we only said that his speech REMIND us of Hitler. It's natural thing to remember something.

__________________