• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I became ashamed of wearing the uniform

krashlocke

Member
Booko said:
Why do you think there's such resistance in our gov't (regardless of party in power) to being part of the International Criminal Court?

They know very well that our servicemen and some politicians could be brought up on charges.

Actually, this has more to do with our international policay dating back to George Washington - we won't allow US citizens at any level to be held accountable by anyone but the US. This is the same reason that we won't sign completely binding treaties, as it endangers our absolute sovereignty.
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
Resurrecting an old thread and steering it back towards the topic...

WUERZBURG, Germany - A U.S. Army medic who refused to return to Iraq of his opposition to the war was convicted of desertion at his court martial Tuesday, and could face as long as seven years in prison.

Spc. Agustin Aguayo admitting to jumping out a window at his base housing in Germany and fleeing home to California to avoid being deployed to Iraq because he beleives the war to be immoral. His trial was being watched by anti war groups probably in the hopes they could convince others to desert their fellow troups.

Aguayo plead guilty to a lesser charge of absent without leave)AWOL), but the judge agreed with prosecutors in finding him guilty of desertion.

Hopefully, with this precedent, Watada will soon be convicted as well.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ðanisty said:
I wish you guys could explain this to me because I can't wrap my brain around it. How exactly do you propose we (as in the whole world) abolish war completely? It's never going to happen. There will be no world peace. The closest anyone ever gets is through conquering the world! War is a necessity. War will always be there. War will always involved killing.

The reason the peace talks and negotiation work after war is because people have been defeated. Before the war, they were arrogant and not willing to negotiate. Isn't this obvious?

I can't help but feel like you guys are living with your heads in a cloud. Just look at history. War is part of being human.


So you think of any War as a necessity even if it wasn't fair?

Let's assume you don't care whether it was fair or not?

Would you dare to post like this again if someone invaded your country, raped you and your mother, then killed all of your family in front of your eyes?
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
CaptainXeroid said:
Resurrecting an old thread and steering it back towards the topic...

WUERZBURG, Germany - A U.S. Army medic who refused to return to Iraq of his opposition to the war was convicted of desertion at his court martial Tuesday, and could face as long as seven years in prison.

Spc. Agustin Aguayo admitting to jumping out a window at his base housing in Germany and fleeing home to California to avoid being deployed to Iraq because he beleives the war to be immoral. His trial was being watched by anti war groups probably in the hopes they could convince others to desert their fellow troups.

Aguayo plead guilty to a lesser charge of absent without leave)AWOL), but the judge agreed with prosecutors in finding him guilty of desertion.

Hopefully, with this precedent, Watada will soon be convicted as well.

Thanks for the link, wow, this thing is much bigger than i thought. There is alot people who are doing this.
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
The Truth said:
So you think of any War as a necessity even if it wasn't fair?
No, I think war overall is a necessity. Some wars are pointless...like Vietnam.

Let's assume you don't care whether it was fair or not?

Would you dare to post like this again if someone invaded your country, raped you and your mother, then killed all of your family in front of your eyes?
You're avoiding my point and I'm not surprised at all. Just go ahead and believe whatever you want.
 
M

Majikthise

Guest
Ðanisty said:
I wish you guys could explain this to me because I can't wrap my brain around it. How exactly do you propose we (as in the whole world) abolish war completely? It's never going to happen. There will be no world peace. The closest anyone ever gets is through conquering the world! War is a necessity. War will always be there. War will always involved killing.

The reason the peace talks and negotiation work after war is because people have been defeated. Before the war, they were arrogant and not willing to negotiate. Isn't this obvious?

I can't help but feel like you guys are living with your heads in a cloud. Just look at history. War is part of being human.

I agree completely.
And , warfare is neccessary for troops to gain combat experience and leaders to gain diplomatic experience. Consant training and study are useful to prepare for conflict but they are no replacement for the real thing. Sitting on our hands waiting for enemies to come to us leads to weakness, has led to weakness.
Iraq should be a wake up call to get it in gear and do what needs to be done no matter how distasteful it might be.
Soldiers (and they don't deserve the title) like these only aid those who would see us fail and should be treated as traitors punished to the full extent of MILITARY law.
 
M

Majikthise

Guest
Seyorni said:
With that attitude you insure continuing strife, Danisty. Social innovators have always been told they have their heads in the clouds. When their innovations become the social norm the original criticisms are forgotten.
Be the change you wish to see...

Social innovation is good, but it will never negate basic human instinct,... thankfully.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ðanisty said:
Certainly no more predictable than the way you twisted everything I said to fit your preconceived notions.

If i misunderstood what you said earlier then enlighten me please instead of accusing me with things which i didn't intended to do or say. Can you at least elaborate what you said before if you don't mind?
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Majikthise said:
I agree completely.
And , warfare is neccessary for troops to gain combat experience and leaders to gain diplomatic experience. Consant training and study are useful to prepare for conflict but they are no replacement for the real thing. Sitting on our hands waiting for enemies to come to us leads to weakness, has led to weakness.
Iraq should be a wake up call to get it in gear and do what needs to be done no matter how distasteful it might be.
Soldiers (and they don't deserve the title) like these only aid those who would see us fail and should be treated as traitors punished to the full extent of MILITARY law.

:eek:
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
The Truth said:
If i misunderstood what you said earlier then enlighten me please instead of accusing me with things which i didn't intended to do or say. Can you at least elaborate what you said before if you don't mind?
Impressive.

Though I don't necessarily agree with his views, I think that he meant that war is an unavoidable part of international politics.

On the main issue, I think that I am willing to lend some degree of support for the deserter, simply because of the imbecility of his government. Wars can be won, but two things can happen with an occupation: it can be continued, or it can be ended. If the government has no clear criteria as to what marks "success," then the occupation will never end. I don't know one way or the other about Blair, but the point of the American occupation of Iraq continuing is to continue robbing the country blind in an effort to save face for the Bush family's political dynasty. For it to end during his presidency would be a loss of face. If he waits for another president to end it, he can merely shift the blame to his successor. It is entirely politically motivated, and Bush should be charged with high treason against the US. Now, how many millions of lives could have been saved, throughout history, if more soldiers had refused to commit their government's crimes for them?
 
M

Majikthise

Guest
The reason we are still in Iraq ,in the capacity that we are ,is due to a failure to mount an effective offensive strategy ,face the innevitable losses during armed conflict and also a desire to placate political costituents who cannot,will not face reality. The staunch anti-war-no-matter-what crowd is just as much to blame for this drawn out fiasco as anyone whether they will admit it or not.
Thank goodness the number of soldiers who actually use this immoral war excuse is low. To question our actions is a good thing, to give up on ourselves and our nation is to invite true disaster.
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
The dude chose two years of prison and loss of face over a paying job of tolerable risk. It's highly doubtful that he's insincere, and, quite frankly, I respect you less for your highly cynical and, frankly, rather spiteful attitude over this matter. Besides, I hold him to the same standard as everyone else, and I'll have none of this retarded nonsense of holding officers to some special standard as if, in joining the military, their mentality was somehow expected to take on some different form. To suppose such is both unjust and very dangerous. Also, try to get it into your head that the war ended with the fall of the Ba'athist Regime, and all combat since has been internal strife which can and should be handled by Iraq's own elected government. There's nothing left to win. There is plenty left to lose. Again, the White House's only motive in protracting the occupation is to save face on their own part, which is a criminal and treasonous waste of American lives.
 
M

Majikthise

Guest
Flappycat said:
The dude chose two years of prison and loss of face over a paying job of tolerable risk. It's highly doubtful that he's insincere, and, quite frankly, I respect you less for your highly cynical and, frankly, rather spiteful attitude over this matter. Besides, I hold him to the same standard as everyone else, and I'll have none of this retarded nonsense of holding officers to some special standard as if, in joining the military, their mentality was somehow expected to take on some different form. To suppose such is both unjust and very dangerous. Also, try to get it into your head that the war ended with the fall of the Ba'athist Regime, and all combat since has been internal strife which can and should be handled by Iraq's own elected government. There's nothing left to win. There is plenty left to lose. Again, the White House's only motive in protracting the occupation is to save face on their own part, which is a criminal and treasonous waste of American lives.


Where did the sincerity of these individuals stand when they took the oath of military service?
My disdain for these people is based on the fact that they feel they should shirk their personal responsibilities and abandon those who depend on them to perform their sworn duty. My feelings are probably a little stronger than mere spite. The miltary is a team and depends on each individual to carry out the duties ascribed to them in order for all to reach thier goal. The officer elite are required for guidance and morale and are given the apropriate testing, training and indoctrinatian to provide both and, hopefully, insure the survival of their charges. They may be front line commanders, chow hall supervisors or logistics administrators but each one is still responsible for the success of all. I don't expect someone who has never served to understand this.
To walk away in times of peace is acceptable, in times of strife it is contemptable.
I'll not argue whether or not we are done in the middle east here, I've done that in other threads.
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Majikthise said:
My disdain for these people is based on the fact that they feel they should shirk their personal responsibilities and abandon those who depend on them to perform their sworn duty.
They're still honorable, though, if they feel it's their moral duty not to perform them, whether or not you agree with them.

My feelings are probably a little stronger than mere spite.
Prejudice, then. Don't try to paint a rosy picture over nasty sentiments.

The miltary is a team and depends on each individual to carry out the duties ascribed to them in order for all to reach thier goal.
If you don't feel that it is ethical for them to reach this goal, though, it's perfectly acceptable in my eyes to abandon these duties. Your own conscience doesn't disappear upon joining.

To walk away in times of peace is acceptable, in times of strife it is contemptable.
No, it's only contemptable if one does it for selfish reasons, particularly if done when one's own country is under attack. Of course, we herald and praise those who betray our enemies, but double-standards are usual in politics.
 
M

Majikthise

Guest
If that's how you see things , that's fine and I can't change you.
But I don't pretend to hide my sentiments on this matter and do not believe in painting rosy pictures. I like putting things on the table and appreciate that you do also. If you see my opinion as some form of prejudice, then that's ok with me. Not all forms of prejudice are neccessarily bad in my opinion.
My respect for you remains untainted.
 
Top