Why do all americans feel Soldiers are Robots and should do everythign they say?

Question

Back to LT Watada.
Hes a good example.
And until they convict him of anything, he is not what people call him.

EVERY SOLDIER HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO QUESTION IMMORAL ORDERS.
And because LT Watada is not being treated as someone found guilty of the orders brought upon him, shows The Military Courts agree with his objection.

So how can anyone try to argue that?

Could it be that thos that say, a soldier shouldnt get to pick and choose his wars, are the ones who wouldnt have the courage to stand up and question such an Immoral order?

Im thinking LT Watada had more personal courage than alot of soldiers who wouldnt have the courage to stand up against the military.

I admire that.

And since hes not been convicted of anything, who can argue?

His actions are doing more for our soldiers then he would going to a war that he, nor any other american should be fighting in (in Iraq).

He truly is fighting all enemies, foreign, and in this case DOMESTIC!!!

BILL H...yeah my credible facts are the fact that LT Watad has not been found guilty.

That should say somethign to any rational person dont you think?

RTO TRAINER - just for you
InternationalLaw - Article51 prevents pre emptive strikes from being taken place.

Now we all know how the Prewar intel was falsified, and what led us into a war has turned to us trying to get out as the new focus.

But the fact remains that pre emptive strike against Iraq who had no WMD's to the extent U.S. said, was in fact guilty of international Law.
and so is any Attack against Iran

Answer 1

You want ot defend LT Watada, then you'll need to demonstrate that the orders he received are immoral or illegal.

I await your explanation.

Bear in mind, he's been acquitted of nothing either.

(Ignoring that you don't appear to grasp the difference between immoral and illegal)

Since you state "immoral" yet cite legal objections, I'll assume you mean illegal.

Article 51 says:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

While it doesn't condone preemption, it doesn't do what you say it does.

Article 49 says this:
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Therein is what makes our actions in Iraq legal.

The decision to invade Iraq is a complex thing; there are, at minimum, two contexts in which it must be viewed and understood. The first is Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1991 and, of course, the Global War on Terror is the second.

What those who wish to make allegations of illegality don't get, is that there is an unbroken series of events beginning in 1990 and a corresponding series of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It is in these decisions and declarations that the legality of the invasion lies as well as proof of the bankruptcy and impotence of the United Nations.

For your research, fact-checking, and reading pleasure I've compled a list of the relevent resolutions (686 and 687 are especially instructive--1154 is included only for its comedic value):

1990

660 (2 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demands Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

661 (6 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait .Imposes comprehensive sanctions on Iraq and establishes a sanctions committee (the "661 committee") in paragraph 6 to monitor them. Paragraphs 3 and 4 drawn from those of SCR 253.

662 (9 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. Decides that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is "null and void".

664 (18 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. Demands that Iraq release "third state nationals".

665 (25 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. Imposes a shipping blockade by calling for the use of "such measures... as may be necessary" to enforce the maritime embargo. In effect,this resolution reassigns some of the practical responsibility for monitoring compliance with sanctions away from the UN machinery, in the form of the 661 committee, and to the States imposing the naval blockade.

670 (25 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. Strengthens and clarifies the embargo; confirms that it applies to aircraft. France and the USA disagree on whether 670 requires 661 approval for flights without cargo. Paragraph 12 of the resolution also invokes the possibility of unspecified "measures" against states that evade the sanctions regime. This paragraph seems to have been directed against Jordan and Sudan in particular. It caused disquiet within delegations, as the United Nations Charter has traditionally been interpreted as only permitting the Security Council to impose such measures against the state responsible for a breach of or threat to the peace.

678 (29 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait. "Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.

1991

686 (2 March 1991): Iraq-Kuwait. Affirms the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity ofIraq" and sets out terms for a cease-fire. The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.

687 (3 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait. Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (UNSCOM), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them. Described as a "Christmas tree", because"so much was hung on it". The fourth preambulary clause, on "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions", has been referred to as the "Saddam Hussein clause" as it has been used to link the continuation of sanctions with the survival of the present Iraqi regime.

688 (5 April 1991): Iraq. "Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" in the post-war civil war and "[d]emands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression". 688 is occasionally claimed to provide the legal basis for the American and British "no fly zones". These claims are incorrect both because 688 does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a necessary condition for the use of force, and because it does not authorise specific measures to uphold human rights in Iraq, such as "no fly zones".

699 (17 June 1991): Iraq. Approves the Secretary-General's plan for UNSCOM and the IAEA and asks for support from Member States.

700 (17 June 1991): Iraq-Kuwait. Approves the Secretary-General's guidelines on an arms and dual-use embargo on Iraq and calls upon states to act consistently with them. Paragraph 5 of this resolution makes the 661 committee responsible for the on-going monitoring regime, thus ensuring that it would retain a role in the long-term relationship between the UN and Iraq.

707 (15 August 1991): Iraq. Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR 687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programms to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for UNSCOM and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.

715 (11 October 1991): Iraq. Approves the plans of UNSCOM and the IAEA, including for long term monitoring. Iraq agreed to the monitoring system established by this resolution on 26 November 1993.

1992

778 (2 October 1992): Iraq-Kuwait. Deplores Iraq's refusal to implement SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.

1993

806 (5 February 1993): Iraq-Kuwait. Arms UNIKOM to prevent border incursions by Iraq.

1994

949 (15 October 1994): Iraq-Kuwait. "Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ...Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation withUNSCOM. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.

1996

1051 (27 March 1996): Iraq. Establishes mechanism for long-term monitoring of potentially "dual use" Iraqi imports and exports, as called for by SCR 715.

1060 (12 June 1996): Iraq. On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.

1997

1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait. "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" withUNSCOM. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21and 28 of SCR 687) until the next UNSCOM report and threatens to"impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

1134 (23 October 1997): Iraq-Kuwait. Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues. Sanctions reviews again delayed.

1137 (12 November 1997): Iraq-Kuwait. Rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections unless the composition of UNSCOM teams is altered to limit the number of inspectors from the US, and to prohibit UNSCOM overflights. Imposes travel ban on officials to be lifted when full cooperation resumes. Sanctions review to be in April 1998 if cooperation has been restored.

1998

1154 (2 March 1998): Iraq-Kuwait. Commends the Secretary-General for securing commitments from the Iraqi government to fully comply with weapons inspections on his mission to Baghdad, and endorses the memorandum of understanding (S/1998/166) that was signed on 23 February. The mapping of the areas of the eight "presidential sites" by a UN Technical Mission is described in anannexed report to a letter from the Secretary-General of 27 February(S/1998/166/Add.1). The procedures for the inspection of "presidential sites" are laid out in an annex to the letter from the Secretary-General of 8 March 1998 (S/1998/208). This agreement put off US and British bombing threats.

1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait. "Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with[UNSCOM] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.

1205 (5 November 1998): Iraq-Kuwait. Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.

1999

1284 (17 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait. Replaces UNSCOM with UNMOVIC, demands Iraqi co-operation on prisoners of war, alters the "oil for food" program, and discusses the possible suspension of sanctions in ambiguous terms.

2002

1441 (8 November 2002): Iraq-Kuwait. "Severe consequences" if Iraq does not comply with preceeding resolutions. Also note that 1441 cites Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

What all this shows s that there is an unbroken chain of resolutions in the UN Security Council, each one citing the ones before, keeping those issues alive. Absent a resolution closing out the authorization of force in 678, it was, and is, still in effect.

Further, given the language of Article 49, it is the perview of the Security Council to determine the illegality of actions of member nations. They have not done so and in fact, have recognized the US and UK as leagal and authorized Occupying Authorities under UN rules and International Law.

Answer 2

"Feeling" is not part of a intelligent discussion of the world's political problems. Our military has been and continues to be deployed throughout the world since the 1700's. When one joins the service they accept leadership from the president, regardless who it is. I served under Presidents Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush. Those in uniform go where and when the Chain of Command orders. As citizens our votes determine who that commander is. Once selected, our elected representatives in Congress provide oversite on executive power. If one does not like our the military is being used, then petition to change it. It's our Constitutional right. But, to say "I support the troops" without supporting the mission is illogical. All of us are supporting the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines, and any other foreign deployment and all ships at sea. One can voice dissent, but they must be willing to accept criticism for their views. Freedom of speech goes both ways and there are consequences. Wisdom and maturity will guide ones voice to say the right thing at the right time. Ignorance and brashness will lead one to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Strive to be the wisest, not the most expeditious.

Answer 3

I didn't. I still don't and I had a very successful career. The only ones that feel that soldiers are robots are the ones signing up and then running like cowards when a war begins.
Nobody, ESPECIALLY, a soldier despises war, but when you sign up expect that it may happen.
What would these deserters do if America were ever invaded?
Run as they have always done.

Answer 4

All Americans do not believe soldiers are robots.

I asked a few here in the office, none thought they were.

However, the 'DUTY' portion of a soldiers job description does require they perform thier duties.

LT Watada 'an army officer' did not.

Every 'OFFICER' has an obligation to follow the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them.

To reiterate others comments.... He wasnt given an immoral order to deploy with his unit. He is a man whos word is worthless, a faliure to uphold his oath of enlistment, the Army values, his comrades in-arms, and his nation.

Answer 5

every soldier has an obligation to follow a lawful order. that is how it reads. no one i know thinks that any soldier reacts blindly to orders. yes,the soildier is supposed to follow LAWFUL orders. morals are for those outside the military. as a soldier, all people should be treated the same. now as watada, why would a person join a military if you have moral issues with fighting. and how is it courage when you are scared to fight in a war you signed up for? it is not an illegal war. and i would dare say, coward. just my opinion.

Answer 6

Could it be that the belief in the unified chain of command wins battles and wars? While i agree that there are limits in carrying out atrocities, etc., the general idea of a disciplined army is what wars are all about....

Answer 7

When he took his commission, he made a deal to serve a prescribed period of time on active duty obeying orders. I could understand if he was objecting to an order to execute a non-combatant child or something, but that is not what he is doing. He is disagreeing with the foreign policy of his Commander-in-chief. He can lodge his complaints regarding foreign policy at the ballot box on election day. He should not be allowed to miss movement just because he would do things differently. Prosecute him.

Answer 8

Thank you for your mindless RANT which has duly been reported!

Another Latrine Liar ( opps,) Lawyer bites the dust!!


Being choosy about the destination you are being sent has nothing to do with being immoral, what is Immoral is joining the military in the first place for the free education and money then trying to use an excuse not to serve your country when you are ordered to.

And thanks for the points.

Answer 9

I have not heard of so much pysco babble B.S in a long time. If he didnt like the Service he could resign. Maybe you should go too

Answer 10

In your question you state that "all americans feel Soldiers are Robots".

Are you an American? If you are then you have stated that you feel Soldiers are Robots.

If you are not an American, then it is none of your dang business!

Answer 11

Do you have any credible sources for these premises you make ? If not, please stop the watada rant. He is a traitorous coward and worthy of our disdain.