Officer refuses to serve in Iraq

Yep, we are all trained in LOAC procedures...

 

You are in denial, as well.


You wrote:
"he would otherwise be forced to commit war crimes as I would not doubt he would."

It is evident you are not interested in the facts when you make such a statement without any facts to back it up.

 

How am I in "denial"?
I have not said one way or the other if this guy is right.
I simply have not just given and auto response like you have before I read more about what is going on.

"Ec 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

I have nothing to apologize and I am not in denial.

Don't get on debate forums if you can't handle people that don't mindlessly go along with whatever the PC line is.

 

Just for a little more info on the subject, here is his official statement:

 

You are in denial.

You made a false assumption without the facts to back it up when You wrote:
"he would otherwise be forced to commit war crimes as I would not doubt he would."

clearly indicating you are not all that interested in the facts after all.

 

Denial of what?

 

That , while claiming to be interested in the "facts" of the case, you made a statement that was clearly opinion, not backed by facts.

You wrote:
"he would otherwise be forced to commit war crimes as I would not doubt he would."

This statement clearly indicates that you are predisposed to believe some "facts" and not others, depending on whether or not they match your opinions.

 

What that means is that I am already opposed to the war, I already think that it is unconstitutional and I know of reasons for not fighting.
Now, I didn't know exactly why this man was refusing. Just because I knew the war was wrong, doesn't mean he had the right reasons.
You sir are just as biased as I am. You are going to support the US Military no matter what they do and no matter what atrocities are commited.

For what it is worth, I have read his reasons and I do agree with him.
I do not apologize, this man is a courageous American who is making a stand to defend our constitution!

Congress has NOT declared war. It is a war of aggression on foreign soil. It is unBiblical in all ways.
He is duty bound to uphold his oath. He is not duty bound to carry out any order given him if it denies his oath!

 

I was right. You weren't interested in the "facts" unless they matched what you already believed.

Nice act though.:laugh:

 

I don't mind discussing things with people of integrity but I am not going to get into a personal contest with you.
You are more interested in attacking my intentions than you are about discussing the situation.
I DO care about facts and TRUTH so much that I have been against this war from the beginning, not all war, jus tTHIS war.

If you want to discuss this as a gentleman, then I would be happy to as I am still research it. I am not sure what all is right in the situation yet but you are so diverted that I am going to cease discussing it with you.

Dale

 

Riding a high horse will sometimes put a knot on your head.:smilewinkgrin:

Why bother with your "research"? You have already declared your results.

 

From more reading I have done it seems that what happened is he found out a little too late. So now he faces either prison or Iraq. He says he can't choose the CO route because he is not opposed to all wars.

The consequences of his action will probably be prison and he says he is willing to do that. It is just too bad he didn't realize all this about the war before he joined up! I guess he figures a couple years of prison beats a couple of years in Iraq.

 

Most cowards would feel the same way.

But , personally, I don't believe he'll ever see the inside of the stockade.

 

You better wear a helmet then, or risk serious brain damage.:laugh:

 

Good for him! A man of priniciple. He's following what he believes, and I commend him for that.

I find it remarkable that people would call him a coward. I call him a patriot.

That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~Theodore Roosevelt

 

To the contrary, he appears to come up short in the principle department.

He has a commitment and a responsibility he is failing to honor by making judgements that are not his to make.

 

Oh, that is SO wrong. That is what is supposed to be so great about America! We're allowed to be free thinkers, and make judgments. However, it is rare that the American people do such. They shirk their duties as patriots and leave everything in the hands of a government that has learned it will not be questioned by the mentally lazy majority.

Yes, he had a commitment and he is failing to honor it. Technically, that should be a bad thing.
Situationally, it is good. If someone made a contract with someone else to come kill my family, and then didn't do it, I'd not look down on him.
He has a moral duty to be true to his convictions. He's following that, despite the possibly severe consequences.
Yes, I call that a man of principle, the kind of man I would trust with my life, the kind of man that relies more on honesty and moral obligation than the kind of man that relies on the accolades of others when deciding between right and wrong.

 

:applause:

 

When you volunteer yourself for military service, it is with a clear understanding of what is expected of you.

One can think what they want, but they understand they give up the right to go wherever they please whenever they please, for whatever reason they please.

They have no say in national policy except at the ballot box.

This ...I have a hard time calling him a man, is acting dishonorably and cowardly. The proper way for an officer to handle this type of situation is to submit his resignation, but do his duty until it is acted on.

That is what he promised to do when he enlisted.

 

Do you really want someone serving in Iraq who doesn't believe in the cause? Would you want to serve beside a man in a life or death situation, if you knew that the man didn't honestly view your opponent as an enemy?

He did the decent thing. The decent thing for our country to do would be to thank him for his honesty, for refusing to endanger his fellow soldiers, and let him resign, rather than threatening him with punishment. Or find an alternative place for him. Have him clean toilets at the white house or something if they must keep him.
But I can't see punishing him for this. That to me is incredulous.