Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

Status
Not open for further replies.

jenni-m

New Member




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.

:ty:

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

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
:confused: 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.
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.

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
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

New Member
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.

Save yourself! Logical rhetoric is futile! :laugh2:
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
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.

:confused: 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?" ... :roll:


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?



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.


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

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
:confused: 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?" ... :roll:

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?
:topic::topic::topic::topic::topic:

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.

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.
So my figure was off by 50 people... :roll: 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 :topic:. Stick to Iraq War issue please... more specifically - stick to Lt. Watada's case.
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
:topic::topic::topic::topic::topic:

No, this is not :topic:, 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: The issue is about Lt. Watada - not other soldiers.

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: The issue about Lt. Watada refusing the order of deployment.

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: His legal argument based on illegality of the war is IRRELEVANT

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: He was not ordered to kill the innocent people

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? :roll: 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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

I have not seen any one other person in this thread who supported Lt. Watada.

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.

So my figure was off by 50 people... :roll: 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.

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

It is :topic:. Stick to Iraq War issue please... more specifically - stick to Lt. Watada's case.

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.
 
Last edited:

~SG~

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

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
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.[
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

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
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.

smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
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 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top