2007-02-05 22:32:57 · 41 answers · asked by Difi 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's an illegal war anyway, so I don't see why he's being reprimanded for refusing to go.
2007-02-05 22:34:26 · answer #1 · answered by angel_of_thought 4 · 4⤊ 7⤋
The American army is a 100% volunteer force. No one is forced to join and based on America's past history, their army's activities should be suspect to any educated citizen. And once you join, you are expected to foloow orders, you can't choose which campaigns you will be involved in. If you think an action is unethical, you should ask to be removed, but I doubt that it would be honoured. There should be an option to register as an objector to a specific action since those soldiers won't be much good in the field and will reduce morale. But likely this boy is being used as an example for others who might do the same thing.
2007-02-05 22:56:20 · answer #2 · answered by Runa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why are a bunch of people who never have served one day in a forward deployed combat position so opinionated on this war and the military? It's like asking a draft dodger to be Secretary of Defense. First of all, this war is legal for those who haven't bothered to read the War Powers Act. Not that it's Constitutional but, as of yet, it hasn't been challenged. Inform yourself first, then you can share your opinion.
Next, as a former member of special forces and the military in general I can tell you that the only order you're allowed to disobey is an illegal one. His unit was assigned to Iraq and he disobeyed a command. For all the civilians who will never bother to know what it means to be in the military or stand on a line and never back down the word command is like understanding that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation.
They've never heard of it so it must not be true right? And a command is just another word that has no meaning to those who never bothered to serve.
This soldier will be court martialed and convicted. As he should.
2007-02-05 22:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If you sign an agreement and have any awareness of the situations in the world then you have to do your time in service. A contract is a contract. That's why it's called an all-volunteer army. Guess what? If enough were to back out, do you know what to expect around the corner? Try a military draft. Don't be surprised if you see that phrase floating around the halls of Congress after 2009.
2007-02-05 22:57:35 · answer #4 · answered by gone 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any fully signed up soldier either in the US Army or the Brit Army, has a duty to obey his political masters. It is a soldiers' duty to go where he is sent. When joining the Brit Army, a recruit swears an oath of allegiance both to the sovereign [HM Queen Elizabeth II] and her successors and her government. I imagine a similar oath of allegiance is sworn by US soldiers too, in effect to serve and honor the flag and nation etc. The only way out of serving your nation is either death in battle or repatriation because of injury or your government decide the war is over.
2007-02-06 18:39:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no draft which means this is a volunteer army,when you voluntary take a job you are not forced into it so I believe he should go to trial,when you get paid by the government to be a soldier thats what you are if you dont believe in violence or the way the government operates then dont sign up.
2007-02-05 22:37:09 · answer #6 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
the U. S. infantrymen are not to any extent further dropping in Iraq. it truly is and has been a failure of administration. Our infantrymen do the perfect they could with what they're provided. 1/2 the variety of troops that were recomended were despatched in through Bush/Rumsfeld on the begining and so we were under no circumstances in a position to guard the country. considering then our troops wer enever given the sufficient equipment to do the activity they were requested. they actually have under no circumstances been given a sparkling or consistent purpose or reason fo being there. That failure lies with the administration no longer the infantrymen
2016-11-25 19:52:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We made it international law at Nuremberg after WWII that no soldier should obey the order of a superior if he thinks it is illegal or morally wrong, saying that just following orders is not a legitimate defense.
2007-02-05 23:14:23 · answer #8 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's a load of sh#t! If a person's conscience tells them it's wrong to be a part of this crap who the hell made the government lord almighty and gave them the right to enforce service?! Of course the answer is the people and unfortunately there's aren't enough people who feel differently so this policy will probably never change. What a crock of SH#T!!
2007-02-05 22:58:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Disobeying a direct order. Failure to comply, dereliction of duty. He should net 18 months in a stockade and the then get a Dishonorable.
Don't sign on the line if you are not going to do the time.
2007-02-05 22:57:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He signed his contract and reneged on it. He was a volunteer when he joined the forces and swore on oath to uphold the terms of his contract. It sounds as though he was happy to take his pay as long as he didn't have to do what a soldier does.
2007-02-05 23:38:57 · answer #11 · answered by frank S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋