i need honest answer from Military people.........?

Question

First Lt. Ehren Watada could face at least two years in prison for failing to obey an order to deploy. ....
Based on his study of papers by international and constitutional law experts, as well as documents from governmental and non-governmental agencies, he said he concluded that the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral.

"We have violated American law," Watada told The AP, adding he believes that with respect to the question of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, intelligence was manipulated "to fit a policy that was already implemented prior to 9-11 and prior to the invasion."

"We can't break laws in order to fight terrorism"

First - do you agree with his statements about the war
Second - Would you do the same thing?

Honest answers & please be respectful...even if you do not agree

Answer 1

As honestly and respectfully, to you, as I can put it - Watada is a coward and a liar. It is amazing how he didn't come to his conclusions until it was his turn to serve, isn't it.

The 'war' in Iraq was not and our presence there now is not illegal, it is predicated on years of Saddam's violations of international sanctions. The event that was 9/11 set in motion the inevitable. The issue that is being suppressed, the fact that our government fears to acknowledge, is that this is in reality a great 'holy' war. This is Christianity versus Islam. The West has not sought this war, Iran is the big culprit here - and if you'll check a map, Afghanistan is on one side of Iran, and Iraq is on the other. War takes stragegy. This whole thing is a war against Iran's aggression against the rest of the world. Iran seeks to export Islamic Jihad globally and destroy Israel. Russia wants the resources Persia and Babylon offer. France and Germany want to preserve their status as world powers by being Wal-Mart to the Arab world. Argentina hates Great Britain and the US and has close ties to Iran due to their status as an oil exporting nation. Syria is of course allied with Iran. North Korea? Big scary clown hanging out with the tough crowd to look dangerous and powerful. So what we've got is the US and Great Britain taking seriously the threat Islamic Jihad poses. A significant portion of the rest of the 'civilized' world has a vested interest in kissing Iran's butt or being highly agitated about us being in Iraq while ignoring the reality that they will eventually be absorbed by what they are feeding off of.

In short, this is a real war about survival of civilizations. The difference between us? Islam enslaves, Christianity liberates. God does not call people to war, but He empowers us to choose, corporately, how we will communally live as a society. He put us in this garden - we choose whether or not to tolerate the snakes. God didn't want it this way, we rebelled against Him and made it this way. When the time is right, He'll come back and fix it.

As far as breaking laws - if you're in a fight for your life, and there's a law that says you just have to lay down and die... what would you do? Besides, if our governmental agencies who are responsible for keeping us safe can't 'break a law' to fight terrorism, then Watada can't 'break a law' to not fight terrorism.

Men make laws out of their desire to create an idealistic world which we are incapable of attaining. Some of those laws are well intentioned, but stupid. Some are intentionally mis-interpreted or taken out of context for political points. Some people who says laws are being broken are just plain lying. It is sad to think that people are really so power-hungry that they will tell lies that will hurt their own nation in an effort to get into power.

The only good thing I can say about Watada is that at least he tried at some point to be a part of something larger than himself before he wussed out. There are WAY too many people in the world today who are entirely self-absorbed and would never dream of giving up their personal comfort so that others can continue to live free. We are an endangered species.

Answer 2

As a veteran of the first Iraq War, I have a hard time understanding him mindset of "studying international papers", when did International papers EVER dictate what the UCMJ outlines as Law for the Military. Lt. Ehren must know and understand we follow the Geneva Convention rules as we are a civilized Nation, but what happens when he is given a direct order to accomplish a mission which clearly violates this. Or sees the enemy do such things that would cause international chaos? As a VOLUNTEER to Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States he has a Duty to uphold. Until he is promoted to General of the Army or takes Office, he has no right as an officer of the armed forces to "conclude that the war is illegal or immoral" I would ask if the actions of 9/11 in his eyes are illegal and immoral and how would you explain it to the families of the Heroes who are no longer with us.

Answer 3

When you take the oath of office in the military you pledge to support and defend the constitution of the united states. It does not permit you to make decisions on how yo do that. His training as an officer also provided more information on his responsibilities. You can object to things but the contract is in place and must be enforced. I have no respect for people that try and cop out of responsibilities. Moral objections are permitted but not at the expense of performance. If he receives an illegal order he can question it and object but he must carry it out. That is how the military functions. He probably entered the service after the war started so tough luck do your job.

Answer 4

He may be right with his statement and he has the right to his opinion but as a soldier it is not his place to question the orders he was given, he could have resigned his commission.

You must obey a legal order given by a superior rank, as long as this does not conflict with various international conventions.
The idea of an officer not obeying a given order would cause anarchy where does it stop, if the men in his command refused his orders then what??

Answer 5

I am not in the military, but my father was in the Navy, and my father in law was, and will always be a marine.

They signed up with the understanding that they would go where there superiors sent them, and it was not an option for them to publicly condemn or disagree with their commander in chief.

First Lt Watada bases his actions partly on what he believes occurred, yet their is no evidence to support his assertions, or beliefs.

Do I think, and does my family think that First Lt Watada should be thrown out of the armed forces, or imprisoned for his actions? No. None of us feel that would be appropriate. His execution would be more appropriate.

Answer 6

It comes down to this...

He joined the military of his own free will. When he did this, he raised his right hand saying he would fight all enemies foriegn and domestic.

He does not have the right to choose which ones are the ememies. Being a Lt, he follows orders... If he could not do this, he should not have joined the Armed forces.

Answer 7

First, he's full of it, and himself.
Second, having taken the oath as a soldier, he loses a fair amount of choice to begin with.
Further, HE cannot make the determination that the war is illegal. That is a job for civilian courts (the military MUST be ultimately subject to civilian leadership). Finally, his announcement will be used by those who intend us harm as propaganda (giving aid and comfort to the enemy).

Answer 8

There are rules allowing you to state your disagreement with higher command on public records and you are allowed to defy higher command on the basis of higher morality (that's why people that refused to take orders to kill little innocent people in Vietnam are now given medals as well as why Quakers can't be drafted (they're passificists by religion). What they did though, was not at that level. They weren't asked to kill civilians they were asked to fight another military force. In this circumstance, I don't think he was right and he should be prosecuted.

Answer 9

This is my wifes account so dont fear approximately the icon. I am within the USMC and i'm energetic obligation. I am stationed in Beaufort, SC at the airstation and feature been right here for 4 years. I have certainly not been deployed due to the fact it looks that i'm the one one to understand my task good ample to do it. Before you choose picking out reserves or energetic obligation. The handiest intent to do reserves is for those who desire to conclude tuition. dont get me flawed you'll conclude university in energetic obligation however you're going to have extra time within the reserves. energetic obligation is a ache within the *** however it is usually valued at it. Especially for those who get stationed someplace wherein theres now not a complete lot of army. You must be scared approximately if you're going to get deployed that rather depends upon your MOS. If you opt for an Admin MOS extra instances than now not you're going to now not installation. I hate admin ive performed it for three years thats why i'm LAT relocating to EOD in order that i will be able to honestly do anything with my Marine Corps profession. Honestly you have got to sit down down and make a decision if that is going to be a stepping stone to different matters or for those who desire to make this your existence. for those who simply desire to do that to support with university then move reserves for those who desire to make this your existence and make a change move energetic obligation. Either approach you're doing anything that alot of others dont do and also you must take that for what its valued at due to the fact nobody can ever take that from you.

Answer 10

What you believe and what you think does not come into play when you put on the uniform - he should get the firing squad.