.

I'll pick up the trashin' job here.

Sorry, though I could perhaps have a little respect for the individual here, I don't.

When he signed his contract with uncle Sam, he knew there'd be the possibility of having to accept orders like he was given. If he had issues with those potential orders, he shouldn't have signed the contract, shouldn't have accepted payment from uncle Sam in any way, shape, or form, and we shouldn't have to be worried about collecting money spent educating, training and preparing him for the potential of being called upon for such duty or any service for the government.

There are other ways to serve your country, even if you object to some actions they may be undertaking, and other ways to earn money for education, for making a living on, for being able to care for loved ones, for getting benefits such as health/dental/vision care, and more.

Signing up for the military and then refusing to perform the duties that have been assigned is bogus in my opinion.

Yes, I understand that circumstances change. Someone may sign up for service when single, get married, have a family and then feel higher obligations to that family. They may be reservists, get other jobs and such and feel that they are more obligated to outside interests rather than their commitment to the military, but they must remember that they signed the dotted line. They made the commitment and took the oath/pledge of service. They weren't forced into it.

Standing firm and saying no is not supposed to be an option, and isn't an acceptable option, nor one to be cheered or otherwise positively acknowledged (as the scum like Cindy Sheehan are probably doing for the above named individual).

You correctly point out that the individual will face consequences for his actions or lack of action, but does that really help others that may have been affected by all of this? Lets say the person that has to pick up the ball for this persons stand is Texas Wahine's spouse - is it fair to her and him that he gets pushed into service to make up for the loss of this other individual who is taking a stand on principle? I don't think so.

Take a stand if you must, but the best time to do it is well before signing that contract and taking that pledge/oath. It is not at the time that orders are cut and plans are made that involve having a specific body in a specific place at a specific time.

From the first days of Basic Training, ROTC or the service academies, we are taught that it is not only our right, but our responsibility to question orders we think are unlawful. If Watada deems his orders are unlawful, it is up to him to prove that they are.

On that part, I disagree with him. Nothing about his orders to deploy to Iraq are unconstitutional or against the UCMJ. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree with you though. He is not skipping the country, running to the press to claim victim status or even whining to the ACLU. He is standing up for what he believes and is willing to face the consequences. Agree or disagree, you gotta respect him for that.

I do think though that facing the consequences of his actions should include repaying the cost of the education and training he has received but now refuses to earn.

I remember two times in my Army career that I questioned direct orders. Unfortunately the first time I didn't have the guts to follow through with reporting my commander for his unlawful order... I felt so low for not standing up for myself and the other troops.. the next opportunity (I was a seasoned NCO by then) I was not going to feel like that again.

Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Friday, June 16, 2006I'll pick up the trashin' job here.

Signing up for the military and then refusing to perform the duties that have been assigned is bogus in my opinion

it's bogus in my opinion too, BUT as long as he has the courage to take what is coming to him...

You correctly point out that the individual will face consequences for his actions or lack of action, but does that really help others that may have been affected by all of this? Lets say the person that has to pick up the ball for this persons stand is Texas Wahine's spouse - is it fair to her and him that he gets pushed into service to make up for the loss of this other individual who is taking a stand on principle? I don't think so.

In know it sems not fair , but would you want this man leading you into combat knwing how he feels? I would not!

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, June 16, 2006From the first days of Basic Training, ROTC or the service academies, we are taught that it is not only our right, but our responsibility to question orders we think are unlawful. If Watada deems his orders are unlawful, it is up to him to prove that they are.

he will never prove that , he is screwed! and he deserves it, I am in no way approving of his actions, but do give grudging respect for standing by his concious.

The guy joined in March 2003.

Think about that before you salute him.

Terp

You correctly point out that the individual will face consequences for his actions or lack of action, but does that really help others that may have been affected by all of this? Lets say the person that has to pick up the ball for this persons stand is Texas Wahine's spouse - is it fair to her and him that he gets pushed into service to make up for the loss of this other individual who is taking a stand on principle? I don't think so.

That's the thing. I know it isn't that rational, but I feel like every troop over there is only there because we were prevented from taking care of business in 91. Brandie and Karen's husband (and all the others who have been, will be, or are there, are there in my place. Doing the job I should be there doing.

#6 by Texas Wahine Fri, June 16, 2006 3:13 PM

The guy joined in March 2003. Think about that before you salute him

tex, I salute him standing by his concious and taking his medicine... not his actions.

#7 by ParaTed2k Fri, June 16, 2006 3:24 PM

That's the thing. I know it isn't that rational, but I feel like every troop over there is only there because we were prevented from taking care of business in 91. Brandie and Karen's husband (and all the others who have been, will be, or are there, are there in my place. Doing the job I should be there doing.

it's a very rational feeling ted, I am still pissed they did not let us fight vietnam properly.

tex, I salute him standing by his concious and taking his medicine... not his actions.

Perhaps his conscience should have prevented him from joining. Do you remember when combat began in Iraq? I do, because I watched the news from a hotel room right outside Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, TX.

This dumbass joined up when the war was already begun. If he had a problem with it, he should have stated it LONG ago, not suddenly when he was called up to deploy.

He's a pussy, pure and simple. It's not about his conscience. It's about convenience.

10 by Texas Wahine Fri, June 16, 2006 3:40 PM

Perhaps his conscience should have prevented him from joining

agreed./

Do you remember when combat began in Iraq? I do

was that remark necessary? you know damn well I know when the war started.

This dumbass joined up when the war was already begun. If he had a problem with it, he should have stated it LONG ago, not suddenly when he was called up to deploy.

I agree, he should have went for C>O> status when he enlisted.

He's a pussy, pure and simple. It's not about his conscience. It's about convenience.

Here we disagree, if he was a pussy he would have ran for Canada, what he is doing takes alot of cojones.

was that remark necessary? you know damn well I know when the war started.

Every remark is neccessary.

Here we disagree, if he was a pussy he would have ran for Canada, what he is doing takes alot of cojones.

Well hell, MM, my husband's leaving for Iraq in 2 months. I'd rather have him in jail. Should I prompt him to try this shit as well? Would that be respectable?

#12 by Texas Wahine Fri, June 16, 2006 4:10 PM

Well hell, MM, my husband's leaving for Iraq in 2 months. I'd rather have him in jail. Should I prompt him to try this shit as well? Would that be respectable?

no. your husband { may he be safe and return whole} stands by his beliefs and honors his duty. He is as different from watada as night from day.

"The guy joined in March 2003. Think about that before you salute him."

People can change their minds. If you look at polls, and what a lot of people are saying, there are a LOT of people who were pro-war in Iraq at the beginning who sooner or later decided that it wasn't the right thing to do. A lot of people expected the people in Iraq to eventually stop fighting us and build their own nation.

SO, i agree that he should be punished for not keeping his commitment, but in the end we have the obligation as Americans and human beings to follow our concience. I'm glad he's accepting the due consequences of not keeping his committment, and I think he's done what many of us would do if we felt we were being sent to die for an unjust cause.

Ask yourself this, TW. Would you want someone who didn't believe in the cause and who didn't feel they should fight to be alongside your husband who is counting on them? Would you prefer this person to go over there and make a "statement" by lobbing a grenade in a tent, or making up lies about the troops as his form of protest?

Me, I'd rather people who aren't committed to the cause to stay home.

Very interesting. I visited the link you provided MM, which offered a link to Lt. Watada's official statement on the matter, in writing and in video. Link

I've got to say after reading his words, I have a feeling that many MANY Americans likely agree with his stance on the war. I don't doubt that there are many people in the military who feel the same way he does, but keep their mouths shut and "serve" as they said they would. I put the word "serve" in quotations because that's what many military people claim they're doing..."serving"...when in reality they know they're going to a job like they would be doing anyway, but enjoying awesome benefits, traveling the world at the govt's expense, and keeping their families fed. (My husband included. I've known few people who joined up for purely altruistic reasons to serve their country.) 'Nother topic though.

Can you imagine if every servicemember who silently agrees with Lt. Watada were to do the same thing he did? Can you imagine what the impact on this issue would be if there were THOUSANDS of deserters?

WOW.

Of course that won't happen because we all cherish our benefits and paychecks. And everyone remembers that dotted line they signed. Apparently the last guy who pulled this stunt received FIFTEEN MONTHS in prison. Yup, that's three more months than he would've spent in Iraq.

From a different angle, if Lt. Watada is so opposed to this war, why the heck did he sign up after the war began? Me wonders if he was looking forward to making this statement? Or perhaps he was hoping that he'd get through his commitment without being called up to go to Iraq, while enjoying his nice fat paychecks? I wonder if he hadn't received orders he would have kept his opinion to himself like so many others do?