I agree with Mike in that way they should be punished, but not being shot. That's something primitive people would do.
Ha! "Belgian Wafflers", that's a new one!
Look, I have no problem with them getting punished, but "being put to the wall and get shot" is something barbaric, life-degenerating and not suited for this forum!
I'm gonna end my discussion here, as CC1 pointed out, this is going nowhere and is not ontopic.
You know, I don't think any of us will truly understand why there are people who chose to go to Iraq. I had a close relative of mine who went to Iraq, he's back now thankfully, but I will never understand why he chose to go. And I would like ask the members of this forum (non-Americans in particular) to please try to be careful what is said in regards to issues of Iraq and going to war. Especially when we're talking about the soldiers, because there is a chance that the Americans who are on this forum know someone who have been deployed into Iraq, and there is a chance that the person is close them. So, I'm just asking to please take that into consideration.
But let's not go have this go off topic, okay folks?
They are perfect and shiny examples of humanity. Post will be deleted. Penalties assessed. And strange things may happen before you are banned. We love you. Do not offend those in power. So smile big and play the happy game.
I certainly hope Mike Cash is not leaving over this.
I have never been refered to as shining example of perfect humanity before. I'm a shining wit Mind you I sometimes object to being associated with the human race. Oh hum
Ontopic: The officer in question should be charged and dealt with. As far as I am concerned you join the armed forces and go where they send you. Essentially you are a tool of your government, whether you like it or not, and are there to do their bidding, unless you feel you can do better and lead a coup. Now that would be interesting to see in the US.
Now that can be for the good of the country or to defend against aggressors and in most cases it is an honourable course, but when the army is run by a political body at the top it can also be used to further their own private course, especailly whentop military brass are also involved with this discission to further their own wallets *cough* (did I say that?)
Call me a cynic (Cynic!), but even though you might or might not know what reasons why you have been sent to war, you still have that job to do. If I went to work on day and told that instead of my normal run to Nottingham I was going to spend two days going to Scotland instead, I would complain, but it is still my job. I'm sure my employer would not be too amused if I told him to stick it and refused to go. One would think that I would either have a warning for it or be picking up my P45 and the end of the day (A P45 is a slip of paper given to you when you leave or are sacked in the UK with tax details on it). This officer should be dealt with the same. I'm sure in some countries he would have been shot for doing such a thing, and if it was about 40-50 years ago he would have been, and I feel Mikes response was more a figure of speech, plus he speaks his mind, which I find refreshing, and he is very much a cynic.
Actually this reminds me of when the Iraq war started and some GI said that he didn't want to go because he could be hurt. What else do you expect when you join the army, dickhead? Getting hurt, shot at and even killed is a risk with that job, that's one reason I wouldn't join the armed forces. I have a severe lead allergy. So my heart does not bleed for this officer. Tough, it is your job. You can ***** and moan, but do it, everybody else has to.
You know, I don't think any of us will truly understand why there are people who chose to go to Iraq. I had a close relative of mine who went to Iraq, he's back now thankfully, but I will never understand why he chose to go. And I would like ask the members of this forum (non-Americans in particular) to please try to be careful what is said in regards to issues of Iraq and going to war. Especially when we're talking about the soldiers, because there is a chance that the Americans who are on this forum know someone who have been deployed into Iraq, and there is a chance that the person is close them. So, I'm just asking to please take that into consideration.
But let's not go have this go off topic, okay folks?
Actually this reminds me of when the Iraq war started and some GI said that he didn't want to go because he could be hurt. What else do you expect when you join the army, dickhead? Getting hurt, shot at and even killed is a risk with that job, that's one reason I wouldn't join the armed forces.
To clear up one of Mike's posts. If you are found guilty of desertion during time of war, (essentially what this man did although not charged with desertion) you may receive the following punishments:
Maximum punishment.
(1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.
(2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion.
(a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.
(b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
Death in this case would most likely be firing squad, although the last firing squad I know of was 1961. It is not the first choice of penalties in the present day military.
I am late to this discussion but what the heck: I think Mike can say whatever he wants: I am in favor of free speech. A limit may be put in place to try to limit personal insults, but if Mike or whoever thinks that Mr. This and That must be shot, sure. This is a discussion forum isn't it?
So remarks like "you American patriot" and "Belgian waffles" are a little out of place if you ask me.
Anyways, back to the topic. Now some of you might think I am anti-American because I am critical of the US, in the same way that I am critical of Europe and Japan or other country, but here's my opinion:
I haven't been in the army so I don't have the sentimental bonding some of you have, but to me it sounds weird that as a soldier you must go wherever they send you to. I do admit that if you start "whining" that it is too dangerous or whatever, you're not fit for the army. But let us take a very different perspective: what if some Japanese soldier during WWII was against the war and refused to go? Or if a Nazi-jugend realised the war wasn't according to his values? Are they then the same cowards you portray Mr. Watada to be? I think not. That's because the historical lessons have taught us that "they" were bad and "we" were good. It is just a matter of perspectives.
I mean, what if the war in Iraq is "officially" declared as illegal by politicians and historical scientists years from now? What if our childeren will read in our book that Mr. Bush did make a mistake and that war should never have happened? Then Mr. Watabe would be considered a man with values, not afraid to voice his opinions, a true hero.
To clear it up again: I am not engaging in US-bashing, this same line of thought could be applied for any other soldier from any country, for any other war. I am in no way implying that the current US administration is the same as the nazi and imperial regimes of the axis during WWII.
To put it perspective and "bad-mouth" Europe too: in this case, if the future generation will judge the war in Iraq as illegal, our childeren will also read that the rest of the world didn't stand up to it too. Joining a false war might even be worse than starting one.
Had any Japanese or German soldier refused to serve in their respective countries' army, then they would be subject to the stiffest penalties (or death) under those countries' laws. And rightly so. While they may have some justification for a refusal due to the fascist nature of those governments, if they desert during a time of war they should face the consequences (just don't get caught).
While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush. Claims of beind duped is nothing but B.S.
While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush. Claims of beind duped is nothing but B.S.
...a good reason to vote all the incumbents out of office.
Goodbye Mike Cash! You will be missed. The comments of a patriotic and conservative American were too much to handle.
I'm not sure how the post that was deleted was vulgar or obscene. It seems rather pedestrian to say that a soldier deserting in a time of war should be shot. I'm certain that deleting it and driving away a long time user is entirely justified, and the insults slung in his direction are driven by the purest motives.
i, to this day struggle with calling myself an american. i encounter new opinions everyday about the war.this may be a bit off of the topic but i will stray back.
at first i had none. then i had a fierce hatred for it, not anyone in particular though. i saw no reason to shot myself down along with whole nations because of miniscuel prejudices.
thus, i feel as if it were a child and cat game.
the child plays with the cat with glee. the cat responds hesitantly then smells the child, then decides if it is worth going after. then the child does something to scare the cat, the cat is angry now and does not want the childs hand on it's back. the child does it anyway, then finally, after a long struggle to get away from the child, the cat bites the child.
the cat is to be blamed of course, the cat is sick with rabies or some other disease that causes abnomal behavior, that is the childs excuse.
now you decide whether we are the cat or the child.
my research and basic knowledge of our involvement in warfare, and the great empires that inevetibly fell before us, of anykind has provided me with enough evidence to say that we, as a nation like any other great nation or empire that has conquered, will be conquered ourselves. we will either crumble or be destroyed. i see us crumbling now.
our methods of providing serivce to our people have resulted in brainwashing. everything is political.
what the hell does congress do all day, they argue about steroids and why it should be punishable.
crumbling because it seems we have nothing to look after. we have resticted ourselves with the laws that were created in an effort to bring forth a more stable society and hope that all of the razing childless mothers leave congress alone; just so they can argue their points on steroids.
leonmarino: Bush, well he is just a spokeman folks. he has no real power.
our values are a big part of what makes us tick. duh right?
well when our values are being replaced with borrowed ideas and philosophy is no longer being valued as something that creates invention and peace, then 'our' values are worthless.
war is nothing but a mechanical beast against warm flesh.
i see plenty philosophy in that statement alone.
who puts claim on warfare. is it a claim to glory and honour?
what is that anymore. seems like anybody can be honoured for having the lowest standards.
'no work eithic you say' the bow tied man would say. of 'of course we have that, that is what our governement provides the people'
nothing is our own
everything is handed to us and then we claim it as ours. and again borrowed ideas.
sure, i will run out in to the field to rescure a complete stranger that had their own ideas, and even faced heavy persecution for such, and made a radical effort to enjoy their life with the least discontentment as possible.
so i ask, who want's to just live?
then again, who just want's to live the life they were given?
This thread has turned into something
absolutely ridiculous; I don't think the fact that he is nikkei has any
influence over the situation, and is just an excuse to post it here on
the boards. Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100%
flamebait.
What can I say, Woah! Often times my posts don't get such a response.
While I am glad there is discussion, that is why we post on a forums
afterall, and did expect there to be disagreements, I did not intend to
get any tit-for-tat type of thing going. I thought about posting this
under other headings, but ended up with the first one I thought of, the
one about nikkei.
On the matter of MikeCash's statement, I didn't see the original, but
maybe he did not refer to any sort of US (military) law when stating he
believed someone should be shot? I don't know. Not refering to any
law, would jref have tolerated someone stating they believe so-and-so
should be shot? I don't know. I think war is just as barbaric as
lining someone up to be shot, thought police, and the full body burka.
Should pro-any of those be allowed here? How can one argue any
one of those is any less caveman than the other. (That's those
with the power to start the wars being the cavemen.)
What?? Maybe so. Before I go and check, simply bringing something up that is
not normally talked about is not flame bait. There might also be the matter
of someone not liking the topic talked about. Getting every single US troop
out of Okinawa and/or Japan, for instance. For me such is not flamebait.
I really do believe the US gov't should not keep those troops there or in
the 130+ other sovereign nations in the world and blackmailed with threats
of loss of aid to keep them there. So if someone takes that as
to be flamebait. That is on them, not me. But I won't deny that such may
have taken place, possibly me being in denial at the time of post.
****
Entering the military one takes an oath to defend the us AND its constitution.
As for "the soldier's job to determine the legality or worthiness of the conflict."
It actually is. Just following orders was determined to NOT be a legitimate
excuse at Nuremburg. Nuremburg determined that individuals, soldiers as well as
non-soldiers, had a higher obligation to not obey such things as illegal orders or
participate in crimes against humanity. This includes participating in crimes
against peace, a war of aggression.
It is also US military law obligating US soldiers to disobey illegal orders.
That may be very difficult on the ground when such comes about, like with the
rest of a unit chuckling, 'how are they ever going to catch us'. Perhaps
such training, including the ability to dicern between a legal and illegal war,
should be taught from day one of basic training, before they have to get up
at 4am the first day. I do not know.
If a Japanese, Italian, or German refused to fight in those wars, sure they probably
would have been shot. But of course we now view those that fled to have been very
brave.
I've actually heard that some people believe it is immoral to break the law, just
because it is the law. [Shakes head] Law that we live our day to day
lives by, including while being soldiers, is made by man. Sometimes they are wrong
or unjust. ex: Around the time of the US civil war it was illegal to help those
held in slavery to escape. But to break that law we see clearly now to be the
morally superior thing to do (except for a few crakkka kkk types).
And like Martin Luther King Jr in the past who committed civil disobedience,
Lt Watada is willing to serve his time in prison. That's what you do when you
think a law is wrong and you break it for the purpose of bringing attention to it.
You intend to serve your time. That goes for all in a democracy of laws, no
matter how high up one's position is.
There is actually quite a history of refusal to fight in wars by US citizens,
including WW2 The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It40,000 US citizens refused to fight in WW2. 40,000! And that was the so-called
"good war"; against fascism.
Paying for college does suck. Such is the way the system is deseigned that many people have
little other choice but to join. Cuts, cuts, and more cuts for education. What to do?
Dead end job, no skills, no future. I can get some skills in the military. I personally
know many people who have joined the military just because they had no where else to go.
It's actually pretty disgusting when you put it in that light.
Why can't we have such job training programs outside the military.
An educated/trained population is in itself 'giving something back' for the education.
And it would be cheaper too.
While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush.
I agree. They are all war criminals and should be held accountable.
Both under international law and US constitutional law.
Article VI of the US constitution reads
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So yes, the US gov't has a constitutional responsibility to adhere to treaties that are signed.
Plus the congress gave away what they could not give away.
Declaring war constitutionally is the sole perogative of the
legislative branch and that power cannot be legislated away
except with a constitutional amendment.
While I recognize that Mycernius was almost 100% joking when he said, maybe we need a coup.
Isn't that what happens when too many people become frustrated and feel they need change?
Scary. Especially since to many retired generals are saying Bush is utterly messing things
up with Iraq.
Maybe the last thing a country of such
immense military as the US needs is its military thinking they are
better than the non-military or think they know better what is best for
the country. That leads to things like coups like in Iran and Guatemala
in the 50s or paramilitary death squads like in El Salvador in the 80s
or Colombia today. Luckily such did not happen in the US in 1933 when
Smedley Butler (whom a Marine base at Okinawa is named after, btw) told
a bunch of wall
streeters to stick it.
I hope I did not go off on too many tangents trying to respond to many things at once.
If jref has to ban someone, why not ban me for posting flamebait?
Much better to be banned from a website than to have been disappeared like
in such fascist systems our US gov't, including the current president's father
back when he was the head of the US's secret police, helped set up and maintain such as El Salvador,
Augusto Pinochet's Chile, the Shah's Iran, Guatemala, Suharto's Indonesia, etc...
Don't leave Mike Cash.
If you must leave, just leave this crap string. er, thread.
GIs have the legal right to:
*Say what you think and feel about the military, and participate in peaceful demonstrations, when you're off-duty, out of uniform, off-base, and in the U.S.A. (DoD Directive 1325.6)
GI's don't have the legal right to:
*Call high gov't officials names, including "fascist", "thief", "murderer", "tyrant", "fool", or "gangster".
Since one has the right to state their opinions about the legality of war,
as per the conditions above, that would not be a factor unless on base for example. And some of this makes sense. You want a democratic gov't, not a military run one or a defacto one with threats from the military.
"statements made towards Bush in general"
It would have to be more specific than that.
Simply stating that one believes a war to be illegal is not the same as calling a gov't official names. Maybe in El Salvador or Guatemala in the past it would be the same. But then in those countries they would beat you if you didn't join the military (according to an ex-coworker from one of those countries).
--
It's really scaring me these days when sorts of gov't officials, cabinet members whatever, seem to be stressing 'the president's decision'. Sure it is technically his and not any cabinet member, pentagon person, cia or nsc person's ultimate decision. Tied into all this is this concept of "unitary executive" or the idea that "supremacy of the executive". Cow-dung scary, man. If anything there are 3 equal branches. And I've read else where that the legislative has been traditionally been the strongest of the three. The executive does only, can only do what the constitution says it can do and the legislative tells them. So that's why I'm fearing the idea of the #3 charge against Lt Watada.
I've met people who were no longer in the military who got upset with me because I was criticizing 'our commander in chief'. Well, I'm not in the military so s/he's not my commander in chief. And 2ndly, neither are you anymore. Unless and until you are called back to duty, you are a civilian and s/he is not your commander in chief. Realize that.
Can you imagine, how the Revolutionary War or Civil War or hell WWII had played out, if people put their ideological viewpoints over their commitment to being a soldier in the United States Military.
I don't think it's either treason or cowardice because he did offer to go to Afghanistan; he just didn't want to go to Iraq.
Its not cowardice, and it probably wont be considered treason - but it most definitely is insubordination.
Your whole rant doesn't make up for Mike's rude remark. Free speech or not, saying such a thing is totally unappropriate. If you have such an opinion, keep it to yourself!
That, is a pretty frightening statement. I mean, really. You're hating on the guy for stating an opinion - thats pretty crazy and doesnt fill me with confidence to keep posting here.
I agree. They are all war criminals and should be held accountable.
It doesnt work like that. At most, if any body of Congress is taken by Democrats there will be public hearings. Beyond that, nothing any of them did was illegal. You can argue the ethics and morality of making certain decisions, but no act was illegal.
That's because the Democrats do and want to continue to do more of the same. They're just typically more subtle about it.
They're not going to charge members of their party with anything.
Don't look back
The cartoon awfulness of the Bush crime syndicate's foreign policy is enough to make Americans nostalgic for almost anything that came before.
So here's a little reminder of what Clinton's foreign policy was composed of.
(the link "don't look back")
As noted above, US gov'ts are constitutionally obligated to adhere to treaties that are signed, i.e. international law. Breaking them is a violation of the constitution, i.e. illegal. Maybe this applies to only the Executive branch?
And warring outside of the constitutionally required declaration?
Executive violated the constitution here too. Violated the law. What they did was and continues to be illegal.
Perhaps all the congress did was "wash their hands" of caring whether the executive violated the constitution. They certainly did not constitutionally authorize war (making).
So maybe in this sense you are right. Maybe the congress did not violate the law (regarding authorizing war making).
I'll have to do more reading of the laws that were put in place immediately after WW2 with regards to crimes against peace/wars of aggression. 'The first war crime from which all others flow.' Maybe the legislative branches of gov'ts are as to be held accountable the same as the executive branches are. "lest we forgot." and all those Jews died in vain
Perhaps all the congress did was "wash their hands" of caring whether the executive violated the constitution. They certainly did not constitutionally authorize war (making).
So maybe in this sense you are right. Maybe the congress did not violate the law (regarding authorizing war making).
Yes. But they did not conduct a formal, constitutional declaration of war.
If you ask around, say congress themselves, even they will admit they did not declare war. Only authorized it the use of the military.
It seems according to the US constitution that the only uses of the armed forces are the declaration of war, or if invaded or about to be invaded the president or the states (if invaded) can use the armed forces.
It might be that, even then, the president has to eventually go get that declaration. At least in theory.
There is also the War Powers Act passed in the 70s? during or after Nixon?
which was in response to the Vietnam war with its escalation of troops unending. The WPAct allowed the president to use troops for up to 90 days at which time s/he must report to congress and get approval for another 90 days. This must be done every 90 days.
At least that is my understanding of the WPAct.
It also seems like it could be declared unconstitutional since war authorization is supposed to be reserved for the congress - a declaration. But as noted at wikipedia, the courts have refused to get involved.
Alberto Gonzalez is quoted saying there is no declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq because of things to do with treaties. I sure hope he's not thinking "we can avoid all those treaties by not actually declaring war".
Jeez, this really is shocking. I was wondering what had happened to Mike....
Most people here are also probably convinced that torturing international terror prisoners is deeply immoral not to mention police routinely using deadly force on suspected criminals, governments using force against their own citizens and all manner of "rude," "crude," "primitive behavior. On the other hand, there are legitimate cases to be for their practice in extreme situations and aspects of situations are still debated in the media and political commentary everyday.
If he had moderated his remarks with greater context or nuance I wonder if that would have made a difference ? The issues I've just mentioned have all been raised here in the past without incident as far as I know. Extremely brutal, graphic video images are still circulating this site. 'Rude' implies it was a personal insult against a member of JREF -- for instance calling President Bush 'stupid' or 'intellectually inferior' is equally infantile and degenerate in my opinion. In conclusion, I suppose I'm trying to flesh out a bit more where this line is being drawn (assuming it isn't completely mod discretionary).
If he had moderated his remarks with greater context or nuance I wonder if that would have made a difference ? The issues I've just mentioned have all been raised here in the past without incident as far as I know. Extremely brutal, graphic video images are still circulating this site. 'Rude' implies it was a personal insult against a member of JREF -- for instance calling President Bush 'stupid' or 'intellectually inferior' is equally infantile and degenerate in my opinion. In conclusion, I suppose I'm trying to flesh out a bit more where this line is being drawn (assuming it isn't completely mod discretionary).
it may have, but i think most of this wouldnt have happened if one mod hadnt read the remark. as far as im concerned its an opinion and a common saying. i wish you let us know where those videos/images are elizabeth, as those are things we should be deleting. and yeah, we are meant to take action on personal attacks on members of jref, not for members' opinions of public figures or people in the news, unless said opinions are vulgar; e.g. bush is a ******* ****stain. but alas...
and to answer mike's question.
we cannot give infractions to other mods in the same way that we can members, but there are other ways to go about things...
the mod here being from Belgium.
Mike Cash being originally from the US.
It is pretty well known that we in the US have a culture that glorifies
violence on tv & movies. And (although not really acknowledged)
sort of militaristic.
I'm not sure what the popular entertainment is like in Belgium.
But I'm naively guessing it is not as explosive happy.
Well, in Belgium we do not have the tendency to say in public or on a board somebody should get a bullet in the head. Neither do we have death-sentence. There is lots of violence on tv and 90% of the media is American. There isn't that kind of "patriotism" in Belgium either. Neither do we stand up and put a hand on our chest at the mere sound of the national anthem.
I think it's not appropriate to say something Mike said, even if it's your opinion. I wonder how many people would complain when I would write something like "I think they should put Bush to a wall and shoot him". It has absolutely nothing to do with thought police or any of that. It's just a matter of decency and in Mike's case we know how blunt he can be.
Also, those infractions are like 5 options to choose from, so it's not that I can choose the infraction i want. Anyways, t'is not that I don't like Mike or anything. I share his sense of sarcasm and enjoy his posting, but I can't allow such things to be said. If you don't like my decision or opinion, so be it.
Ah...but similar things have been said on this board before...just after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war. Many of the things said by Europeans on this board...maybe not that he should be shot, but still pretty bad.
Ok...back on topic!
He should at the very least receive his Other than Honorable discharge and be barred from any benefits due to him.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Mind you I sometimes object to being associated with the human race. Oh hum
