why can't soldiers choose where they want to be stationed if they feel Iraq war is false? Don't we want men...

Question

Don't we want men who fight with their moral beliefs and not at the whim of some other misinformed, misled, uncaring leader? Why should we punish men for having good morals?
We have a soldier who is willing to fight in Afghanistan, but the gov. says "no, you'll go where and when we say to go."

"if you could prove that what you have been ordered to do was illegal... (Iraq War)..."
Yes, but isn't that question being withheld from the trial?

Answer 1

It will open door to more soldiers 'choosing' to go where they want. Which will make military actions very complicated. Imagine we need to go fight North Korea, but vast majority choose to to to Iraq no matter how many are recruited and they have to fight million lawyers. It will be nightmare for military logistics. Many seem to think Bush is being put on trial for that Watada case. But someone else being immoral shouldn't be execuse for you to break rules that are in place already. After all there are people who think abortion is immoral so they kill doctors who perform it. So is that good moral from that person's stand point?
Watada have point and no doubt about what he claims, but he still is breaking military rule.

There's very very small chance Watada can win this thing. If court decides in favor of Watada it can imply that, basically, entire US troops are criminals doing 'illegal' things. Like how Roe v Wade 'legalized' abortion. It will come down to either punishing Watada or criminalizing 140,000 soldiers. I'm pretty sure which way the court will decide.

Answer 2

It would cause all sorts of problems. If you did not like going to say Alaska then who would? Or say you did not want to go to England what is going to stop you if you as a soldier has the right to refuse?
When a person enlists into the military you agree to obey any lawful order given by your officers and ncos.
Sadly sleepingrig does not know what he is talking about when he says that the Iraqi war is illegal. Congress gave the president the power to go to war and he did! This is contrary to what many senators are saying now and even more sadly what the people are being told by the media.

Answer 3

If a man (or woman) doesn't believe in doing the job the military sends him to do, he shouldn't enlist in the first place. Every single individual serving in Iraq today is there because they CHOSE to join the military, not one of them was drafted into service. Part of that enlistment entails taking an oath to do the job he is assigned to do, even if it is one he doesn't particularly agree with or like doing. If he/she isn't prepared to do the assigned job, he/she needs to be prepared to suffer the consequences of refusal. If they're willing to go to a military prison rather than fight what they think is an improper war, then more power to them. But if all they want is to pick and choose where they're sent, then they should have bypassed the enlistment office.

I myself have never served in the military, but I have a lot of respect for those who have and do, because they are doing a job that most Americans wouldn't do. Those men and women are committed to doing that job, and doing it to the best of their ability.

Answer 4

Your not suppose to enlist in the military with the belief you are going on vacation to a foreign country of your choosing. It is also not a good soldier's decision to make, soldiers are suppose to follow orders. But if you could prove that what you have been ordered to do was illegal... (Iraq War)...

Answer 5

?? properly, I grant you with this, you researched your question. So I definately appreciate you for dealing with the worry. and that i checked for accuracy (on a number of it, not all) too. solid interest!! I have a pair subject matters with this regardless of the reality that. a million. you're comparing apples and oranges. each and each conflict is diverse. Our WWII losses ought to have doubled if we did not drop the bombs. ought to we evaluate doing that now, as Nixon apparently did throughout the time of Vietnam? 2. bear in ideas "project finished"? grow to be that the proper of the conflict? Technically, we are not in a conflict immediately. per chance it really is the reason the dems are dissatisfied. what's the project in Iraq? First it grow to be WMD's. Then at the same time as that grew to grow to be out to be a bald-confronted lie, we shifted to "isn't it better effective now that Saddam isn't in potential?". After that, it grow to be "we decide on to grant stability till a authorities is formed". All that has been finished. So, what's next? what's the project? Oh, now we ought to attend till the Iraqi military is as a lot as interest. BTW, bear in ideas how Rumsfield demanded that the Iraq military be disbanded? ought to it not were better effective to save them in provider? 3. have you ever requested the mamma and papa of #2,582 on your stat sheet about how they sense? you're lacking the completed element of the talk via specializing in "deaths", and showing us that that is purely not that undesirable. the point is, we are stuck, resembling Vietnam and Korea. at the same time as are the troops coming residing house? We nonetheless save 30,000 plus (i imagine, be at liberty to maximum ideas-blowing me if i'm incorrect) in South Korea. yet our troops in Korea are not lack of life. Iraq troops are. And, the democrats ask, WHY? It has not something to do with lack of life expenditures, yet why we are over there, what's the project?

Answer 6

it is like marriage in good times and in bad times.