mnealtx 0 #26 June 8, 2006 Exactly...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #27 June 8, 2006 QuoteQuote His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one. So what makes this dipstick think he has the right to decide what is acceptable to him and what is not? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the military are volunteers, and have willingly, knowingly subordinated their personal wishes in order to become the instruments of foreign policy, and therefore do not get to decide what wars they will fight. This man (and I use the term loosely) has chosen not to honor the terms of the agreement he made when he received his commission, and should therefore be punished according to the UCMJ. End of story. If I were the JAG, I would move this case along as slowly as possible, so that by the time it goes to trial (assuming he is formally charged), it will no longer be a liberal-left-wing-radical-anti-war Cause du Jour. mh Very well put... He's a traitor at best, and I would label him as a terrorist. No sympathy, he needs to be prosecuted. When you raise your hand, you give up your rights to pick and choose. It has to be this way, or our military would crumble. A US officer speaking out against our government is nauseating. I'd give him to his troops... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #28 June 8, 2006 <> Come off it... the man's done wrong (big time) but to redefine words like Terroist or Traitor is pushing it(sorry). . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #29 June 8, 2006 Quote<> Come off it... the man's done wrong (big time) but to redefine words like Terroist or Traitor is pushing it(sorry). . Traitor: One who betrays another's trust, or is false to an obligation, or duty. (right on the mark) I may have been a little harsh with the "terrorist" label, but don't tell me that every American hating faction in the world won't use this guy as a tool to bash the hell out of us. Enabling the cause makes one just as guilty as those who pull the trigger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #30 June 8, 2006 O.K I'll run with the traitor definition. I had more of a problem with the terroist one (which you retracted - thanks) .. It just seems that, that word is used too much these days and inappropriately (IMHO), which devalues the true meaning that's all. - Pedantic? Probably Regards, (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #31 June 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote His attorney tells us from Hawaii that Watada is not against all wars, just this one. So what makes this dipstick think he has the right to decide what is acceptable to him and what is not? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the military are volunteers, and have willingly, knowingly subordinated their personal wishes in order to become the instruments of foreign policy, and therefore do not get to decide what wars they will fight. This man (and I use the term loosely) has chosen not to honor the terms of the agreement he made when he received his commission, and should therefore be punished according to the UCMJ. End of story. If I were the JAG, I would move this case along as slowly as possible, so that by the time it goes to trial (assuming he is formally charged), it will no longer be a liberal-left-wing-radical-anti-war Cause du Jour. mh Very well put... He's a traitor at best, and I would label him as a terrorist. No sympathy, he needs to be prosecuted. When you raise your hand, you give up your rights to pick and choose. It has to be this way, or our military would crumble. A US officer speaking out against our government is nauseating. I'd give him to his troops... No, he isn't a traitor. If he were supplying information to foreign states or various bad guys, that would be very different. But he's not. He's made up his mind that he's no longer willing to be an instrument of US foreign policy, and he's willing to submit himself to military adjudication. Let him take his lumps as they come to him. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #32 June 8, 2006 QuoteExactly..... as you are probably aware from my other posts, I'm not in favour of the Iraq situation BUT (as ex-military myself ) .. he took the American equivilant of the Queens' Shilling and has a duty to serve. Absolutely. Once you enter, you take the whole package. No-one gets to sign up exclusively for "The wonderful water-skiing opportunities", you have to walk backwards through Londonderry as well! Personally, I'd like to see Court Martial for desertion, 1 or 2 years in military prison (do they have one in Baghdad / Iraq?) and "Soldier-On" after the sentence. Pour Encourager Les Autres. Mike. edited to add: I don't think he's a traitor. That implies an act of commission, whereas he's threatening an act of omission (desertion). He's not wilfully inciting others to follow his example (other than by presenting the example), so the important thing is to show that this is a bad example to follow. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #33 June 8, 2006 <> - In my case it was the skydiving at Weston - Thanks Liz. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #34 June 8, 2006 I conceeded ROKs definition of traitor based up a dictionary look up ... <> and it seems to fit here. This chap did make an oath of loyalty, which he has renaged upon, he has also been disloyal... QED? Regards, (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #35 June 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteNaaah. Just give him a "Other than Honorable" discharge and move on. Too soft, I say. I say strip of commission, dishonorable and throw some time there too, at a minimum. I second that, raise your right hand, take the money, take the training, then you don't want to fight "this war"? tough shit the guy should have never signed up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #36 June 8, 2006 Could always get him to pay back his training costs... but without a job, that's going to be tough. . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #37 June 8, 2006 QuoteCould always get him to pay back his training costs... but without a job, that's going to be tough. . He could pay it back with his upcoming appearance in Michael Moores next movie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #38 June 8, 2006 Quote<> - In my case it was the skydiving at Weston. Right!... NOTHING to do with the cheap fags & beer in the NAAFI! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #39 June 8, 2006 You have me confussed with someone else....... I dont smoke . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #40 June 8, 2006 something tells me that even if he gets a dishonorable discharge, he will be able to find a job due to anti-war people he knows giving him one. of course, they will make him take out the trash one day, and he will refuse to "serve as a janitor in an unjust trash-hauling procedure" and try to resign his job MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #41 June 8, 2006 (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoobrothertom 5 #42 June 8, 2006 Well put soldier! He's not a traitor. Whether or not we agree with his decision to reneg on his oath. Bad example, (insert your favorite adjective here) or whatever. Legally/UCMJ this has nothing to do with the current activities in Iraq. He agreed to follow orders and he's about to disobey those orders. BTW, don't you think conscientious objector should have gone out with the draft? But, what do I know...____________________________________ I'm back in the USA!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #43 June 8, 2006 QuoteI had more of a problem with the terroist one (which you retracted - thanks) .. It just seems that, that word is used too much these days and inappropriately (IMHO), which devalues the true meaning that's all. I use that word to describe everyone's kids but my own. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #44 June 8, 2006 <,I use that word to describe everyone's kids but my own.>> - Now that's O.K (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 June 8, 2006 QuoteBTW, don't you think conscientious objector should have gone out with the draft? But, what do I know.. Absolutely agree, 100%. The days of the draft and the "military or jail" are over... CO has no reason to exist anymore with a volunteer force.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #46 June 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteBTW, don't you think conscientious objector should have gone out with the draft? But, what do I know.. Absolutely agree, 100%. The days of the draft and the "military or jail" are over... CO has no reason to exist anymore with a volunteer force. Wow. This has never even occured to me that a CO would have been Draft derivative. It's been tried at least three times here in the Volunteer Navy alone since the War (sad thing, they were usually cooks or some type of admin that would never have left the safety of a ship). I guess the phrase has been used in the wrong way. What happened to a CO in Vietman?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
niu 0 #47 June 8, 2006 Since any invasion or war of aggression that is not UN sanctioned is considered a no-no since at least 1945,he is right to protest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #48 June 8, 2006 Lt. Watada showed some balls. It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe in. I am sure he knew he would be called many names and might serve time in jail. I fully agree with what he is doing. I have no issue in fighting to protect the US, but not an unjust war like this one. Some of the most respected people who we now view as heroes were viewed as traitors at one point or another. They had the vision and the courage to stand up for what they believe is right. No matter what a contract says you have to be able to be at peace with what you do. There is nothing more valuable then that, Nothing.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 June 8, 2006 Where do you draw that conclusion from?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #50 June 8, 2006 QuoteLt. Watada showed some balls. It takes a lot of guts to stand up for what you believe in. I am sure he knew he would be called many names and might serve time in jail. I fully agree with what he is doing. I have no issue in fighting to protect the US, but not an unjust war like this one. Your position might have a little traction if he joined up prior to the Iraq war. But from what I read here he joined up in 2003, after the war had started. So certainly he knew, or should have known, that it was entirely possible, if not probable, that he'd be posted there. And that's what I think the fatal flaw is in his position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
