I became ashamed of wearing the uniform

[TashaN]

Just to be clear, The Truth provided two links to two news stories about two different officers who refused to serve. The person who's picture appears in the OP is Lt. Ehren Watada, and his case has resulted in a mistrial.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003561301_webwatada07.html

Yeah, i read in the newspaper about Watada then i found another one on the BBC too.

 

[lilithu]

I told the cadre that under no circumstance could I shoot a woman and child. This was followed by me spending the next 45 minutes in the push up position. The correct answer was I would follow any order given to my by my commanding officer. While I was in this position he explained to the class of a situation where he was in Vietnam and had to give the exact order. The soldier in his squad had a clear shot at a woman coming down a road they were guarding. The drill sergeant had noticed that she had something concealed under the baby. He gave the order and the soldier refused. He had to give up his position to shoot them. She had a grenade under the baby and dropped it when they were shot.

There is in my mind a difference between refusing to follow the orders of your commanding officer when you're in a deployed situation and refusing to be deployed in the first place. If I were the soldier in that situation, I would have shot. Because not doing so endangers the lives of my fellow soldiers. But refusing to be deployed into what one considers to be an unjust war does not directly endanger the lives of other soldiers. That doesn't mean that I don't think there should be consequences. Even when one correctly follows one's conscience, there are consequences to be paid. But I do think that the former is worse than the latter.

 

[greatcalgarian]

There is in my mind a difference between refusing to follow the orders of your commanding officer when you're in a deployed situation and refusing to be deployed in the first place. If I were the soldier in that situation, I would have shot. Because not doing so endangers the lives of my fellow soldiers. But refusing to be deployed into what one considers to be an unjust war does not directly endanger the lives of other soldiers. That doesn't mean that I don't think there should be consequences. Even when one correctly follows one's conscience, there are consequences to be paid. But I do think that the former is worse than the latter.

There are many cases where there was no bomb, and innocent people were killed. This is war. We should not have any war. Period.

 

[greatcalgarian]

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.

I gather until US becomes part of the International Criminal Court, we should expect no peace on this world, with US leading all the way starting all illegal wars?

 

[Valjean]

There are many cases where there was no bomb, and innocent people were killed. This is war. We should not have any war. Period.

An aerial bomb can be expected to kill many women and children. Just 'cause the bombardier doesn't see them doesn't make pressing the "drop" button any less objectionable than slitting their throats, one by one.
I agree we should not have any war, period.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

An aerial bomb can be expected to kill many women and children. Just 'cause the bombardier doesn't see them doesn't make pressing the "drop" button any less objectionable than slitting their throats, one by one.
I agree we should not have any war, period.

I would agree war is not only barbaric it is stupid and never achieves any good purpose.

usually Peace negotiations at the wars end, make agreements about what started it in the first place.
If those negotiations took place before wars were started, Death and destruction would not take place.

If The UK and the USA had know the outcome of the Iraq war before they started it; taking into account the cost in lives materials and the wealth of all the nations involved, and prospect for continuing fighting , and the lack of any evidence supporting the reason for starting it. Knowing all that would we have still gone to war.
I think not.


The question of a soldiers duty to follow orders would still remain; and is in no way dependent on a particular war. If a soldier signs up, he is signing up to the ethics of warfare and discipline, as in the statutes of his nation. If he does not accept these constraints he should have remained a civilian.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Do you think he has the right to refuse to fight in Iraq?

No. He joined the military, which means that he must follow orders. He should be dishonorably discharged and serve a small jail sentence.

 

[Valjean]

What would the small jail sentence accomplish?

 

[XAAX]

There is in my mind a difference between refusing to follow the orders of your commanding officer when you're in a deployed situation and refusing to be deployed in the first place. If I were the soldier in that situation, I would have shot. Because not doing so endangers the lives of my fellow soldiers. But refusing to be deployed into what one considers to be an unjust war does not directly endanger the lives of other soldiers. That doesn't mean that I don't think there should be consequences. Even when one correctly follows one's conscience, there are consequences to be paid. But I do think that the former is worse than the latter.

Although I understand following orders is necessary for the military to work. I could never follow an order that would result in karmic repercussions on myself. Especially something of that magnitude. Had someone pointed a gun at me and I was going to be killed had I not protected myself, that would be different. But just like the situation where a squad went into a know friendly village and massacred everyone. A few of the soldiers refused to kill the people. After it was over, the ones to get court marshaled was not the ones who killed the innocent people. It was the officer that gave the command and the ones who did not follow it. That is insane. Anyway as you can tell by my strong stance on things like this you can probably guess that I spent a lot of time peeling potatoes, scrubbing latrines, and pulling all kind of extra duty.:yes:

Got another story that gave me a problem. While being marched to church on Sunday we were singing a cadence that went something like "Train to Kill, We must, We will". This is while we were marching into the church. Out of a platoon of 130 people, I was the only one who seemed to have a problem with this. I put in a request to talk to the priest(catholic) about the matter. His response, "God understands that it is our purpose to kill in his name and in the name of freedom". I told him that under no circumstance (other than self defense) did I find killing to be acceptable. He then continued to lecture me on how it was my job as a soldier and God was on my side. Such disregard for life even by a priest. It was very sad. :sad:


Regardless of what someone tells you to do, when it is all said and done it will you be you answering for your actions. I would not go to war unless our country was being invaded. Especially if the war was over oil rights.:slap:

 

[Valjean]

Although I understand following orders is necessary for the military to work. I could never follow an order that would result in karmic repercussions on myself. Especially something of that magnitude. Had someone pointed a gun at me and I was going to be killed had I not protected myself, that would be different. But just like the situation where a squad went into a know friendly village and massacred everyone. A few of the soldiers refused to kill the people. After it was over, the ones to get court marshaled was not the ones who killed the innocent people. It was the officer that gave the command and the ones who did not follow it. That is insane. Anyway as you can tell by my strong stance on things like this you can probably guess that I spent a lot of time peeling potatoes, scrubbing latrines, and pulling all kind of extra duty.:yes:

Got another story that gave me a problem. While being marched to church on Sunday we were singing a cadence that went something like "Train to Kill, We must, We will". This is while we were marching into the church. Out of a platoon of 130 people, I was the only one who seemed to have a problem with this. I put in a request to talk to the priest(catholic) about the matter. His response, "God understands that it is our purpose to kill in his name and in the name of freedom". I told him that under no circumstance (other than self defense) did I find killing to be acceptable. He then continued to lecture me on how it was my job as a soldier and God was on my side. Such disregard for life even by a priest. It was very sad. :sad:


Regardless of what someone tells you to do, when it is all said and done it will you be you answering for your actions. I would not go to war unless our country was being invaded. Especially if the war was over oil rights.:slap:

Your story leaves me speechless, XAAX. It's not that I haven't heard similar stories a hundred times. It's just that I'm always flabbergasted by them.

The military is a totally immoral organization, to its core. Its purpose is to kill and destroy anything and anybody it's ordered to, no questions asked.
It strikes me that anyone affiliating with the military, in any capacity, has violated the most basic tenets of Christianity, has profaned the plain teachings of Jesus Christ and relinquished any hope of salvation.
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

 

[Guitar's Cry]

A soldier is not free to arrive at his own personal interpretation of morals and conscience.

Which is why I would never become a soldier.

I applaud the officer who refused if it was truly due to a moral conviction. Signing up to be a soldier in no way terminates a person's moral convictions, reason, or compassion. An err in judgement it may be, but we're all human and do such things.

To me, breaking an oath of service is a much better moral choice than killing someone who has done no wrong to you only because someone told you to.

 

[Ðanisty]

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.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

What would the small jail sentence accomplish?

Punishment.

 

[Valjean]

That's more a definition than an explanation, RF. Synonyms aren't very explanatory.

 

[Valjean]

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.

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...

 

[lilithu]

What would the small jail sentence accomplish?

As much as I was against this war from the start and as sympathetic as I am to anyone who refuses to fight an unjust war, I agree with RFX. There are repercussions to violating legal contracts. Civil disobedience often results in a small amount of jail time, even when the disobedience is righteous and the authority is unjust; and I see conscientious objection as a form of civil disobedience.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

That's understandable, since lives may be put at risk if soldiers are allowed to do whatever they may want without consequences. But it seems like a tragic aspect of having militaries if soldiers are expected to act like robots in the face of possibly unforseen orders, or suffer extreme penalties.

It's an imperfect world, I suppose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, The marines don't want robots, they want psychopathic killing machines...err...what branch was he in, army?

 

[Ðanisty]

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...

That's okay, with your attitude I don't think anything will get accomplished. Besides, where's the innovation I want to see? I'm not crossing my fingers for world peace. It frankly doesn't even interest me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that world peace would eventually be our downfall.

 

[lilithu]

To me, breaking an oath of service is a much better moral choice than killing someone who has done no wrong to you only because someone told you to.

ALL WAR, even the so called just war, requires that soldiers kill people who have done them no personal wrong, only because someone tells them to. That is the insanity of war. If someone hits you and you hit them back, that may be unfortunate but it's still sane. You have a choice whether to commit violence against someone who has harmed you. If someone kills someone you love and you kill that person, that may be unfortunate but it's still sane. You have a choice whether to kill someone who has killed your loved one. BUT IN WAR, soldiers are expected to kill other solders who haven't done them any personal harm, who in most cases are in the same situation as they are - enlisted or perhaps even drafted, who weren't the ones who made the decision to go to war, who just want to live and keep their buddies alive.

All war requires killing people for no other reason than because someone told you to do so. If people don't understand that when they're enlisting, then they have no idea what they're getting themselves into.

 

[lilithu]

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.

No, it's not. There were human cultures in which the concept of war did not exist. War is a human invention. A social construct.

I'm not talking about perpetual world peace. I agree that would never last. I have no illusion about a world in which there is no violence. Conflict is a part of being human. From conflict arises violence. There will always be conflict and violence. But war is another thing altogether.

As I've stated in other posts, in war, we've somehow convinced people to give up their own autonomy - their own ability to choose whether or not they want to fight, and kill and die - to a higher authority. So some president or prime minister or whoever declares war, someone who has little or no accountability to you, and you as a soldier, along with hundreds of thousands of people in your situation, are forced to go and try to kill other people whom you've never met, who have done anything against you personally, who are trying to survive and go home to their familes, just like you.

You say that it's obvious that the only way to get people to be willing to negotiate peace is to defeat them. The thing is that you are forcing leaders of countries to negotiate by defeating (ie-killing) hundreds of thousands of its citizens. Somehow, with the idea of nationality, we've come to believe that the leaders and the citizens are one and the same. War can only work if we believe this. War is a social construct, a human invention.


The war on terror makes even less sense since we can't even identify a nationality and therefore a citizenry to kill. I guess that's why we're waging war in two countries and still looking for more.