I personally uphold Kafkorea's freedom to post excerpts from articles that can cause patriotic blood to boil. After all, this is a forum. Post things that are controvertial! Our own Senators, Congressmen and other officials are often controvertial in their writings and opinions. I value the freedom of the individual and the press. I disagree that Kafkorea, who was a finalist in our writing contest a while back, has any interest in riling up those of us who served and are serving honorably. I say he is only presenting fact or his opinions, and I fought for that freedom as well. Granted, many of our members don't have any sympathy for servicemembers who refuse to fight. It is understandable that we may be patriotic to a fault. My country, right or wrong! Semper Fi! Army Strong! But human nature often plays a part, and cannot be overlooked.
I believe even after one has signed on to fight for his country, and obey the LAWFUL orders of those appointed over him, that the possibility of the LEGALITY of those orders CAN come into question. Whether that possibility is real or not, can cause one to act in accordance with his own conscience. Conscientious Objection may come up at any time, not always prior to enlistment or commissioning. I was really upset when one of our former Presidents went to Canada and avoided the draft. His character showed other serious flaws even in office. But I don't feel qualified to judge any man, as I cannot be sure of his motivation, or mental state at the time.
I like to read and try to see both sides of any story.

I love it when Kafkorea posts his drivel here. If Kaf actually had any valid arguments to make, it would be even better. The thing is< kaf only wants to post things that are primarily anti-military on this sight that has a bias toward serving your country. I welcome his/her posts because it gives me a chance to discount his stories. I think we all support the right to free speech Mr. Joe, we also supprot the right of our free speech to counter what we see as posts by someone who is totally and unequivically biased to one side of any argument concerning the United States Military. KafKorea's definition, or implied definition of what constitutes a lawful order is wrong as you, Mr. Joe, who has been around the military block for years should know. Furthermore, we do not have a draft today and those who serve do so as a result of their own decision. Don't tell me they didn't understand what they were getting in to. When the shit hits the fan and their country/ units need them, they let us all down by suddenly developing a false sense of personal morality. I welcome all arguments, don;t discount mine by thinking your are taking the high road by defending these cowards. I have said in my posts that there certainly are valid objectors however, the numbers imply taht most of them simply lost their luch at the though of living up to their commitments. No honor there Mr. Joe.

__________________
Turk Quid Pro Quo

[quote=Kafkorea]"Here's an article about some real American patriots and heros: those who refuse to fight in an illegal war." UNQUOTE

It seems apparent to me that Kafkorea is baiting the forum by quoting an article which details the feelings of that segment of the US population which believes that the Iraq war was illegal, and therefore even though they had volunteered to follow military orders, they now felt that contract was illegal, and refused to go.
I am not convinced Kafkorea actually has taken a stand on either side, I am guessing that he is only presenting the beliefs of the few who refused to honor the contract.
Even if he actually is in agreement with them, I still believe that until our justice system determines the validity or non-validity of their actions, the "deserters" should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Personal feelings are just that. No one can legislate how I feel. And circumstances can alter feelings; but the judicial system can look at contracts, and adjudicate legality or illegality. I also believe that a true proven deserter deserves the maximum penalty. He/she has to be the lowest being on the planet.
If Kafkorea, or anyone, wants to speak for themselves and say specifically what they personally feel, by doing so opens the door to criticism by those who believe otherwise. Turk speaks for himself, and I applaud that! I normally take the middle ground when I consider the varied opinions on the table. Personally, I still hold with the presence of WMD. I believe that significant WMD was there, and well hidden, and much was removed to a neighboring country in the early days of the war. I am convinced that I know which country. So, personally, I consider the war justified by possession of WMD alone. I don't think it was well planned or thought out.
Personally I think that anyone who thought that, after removal of Saddam, there was a possibility of establishing a "Democratic" regime in a Moslem country, should have been escorted out of the room. I am thoroughly disappointed with those who did not take advantage of the expertise available to them on this matter. The idea that any country under Moslem rule wants free elections and women's rights, and other western ideas is patently ridiculous. Shoving our ideals down their throat was never an intelligent decision. Now we may have to pay a big price for being so naive.

Turk,

I would say that your rationalization of following orders to go to war without using one's own mind to determine whether the war is legal or illegal or just unjust (political) could easily be applied to a Nazi soldier fighting under Hitler's Third Reich.

After two world wars, the establishment of the United Nations Charter and international law, which Americans played no small role in, was for the express purpose to stop war. Those countries, no matter how powerful or with what "right" they suppose they have, who disregard the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and international law when they prosecute a war and invade and occupy a sovereign country, automatically place themselves on the side of war crimes. Even for a leader to speak of war and being at war (such as the "war on terror") can be considered a confession of a criminal mind who is contemplating or participating in war crimes and crimes against the peace. It should be looked at and dealt with in the same manner that the Germans nowadays deal with those who claim to be fascists or members of the Nazi party. It simply is not allowed because it is considered criminal.

There can be only one justification for war these days and one only. War can only be justified as a matter of self defence, and even then, this matter is something that must be addressed within the context of the United Nations and international law since any attack upon a sovereign country is considerered to be illegal and criminal, and it is the responsibility of the international community to respond to such naked aggression.

So, the option of war is not permitted nor can any justification or rationalization be admitted. Such rationalizations are themselves to be considered the manifestations of criminal minds.

Thus, especially in the prosecution of unjust war, one cannot use the "grey area" rationalization to justify war crimes. In other words, your distinction of "blatant and intended murder of un-armed civilians" is categorically false. This is the same kind of rationalizations that Nazi war criminals tried to make. It is not acceptable. War criminals are accountable for all the deaths that are "inadvertantly" caused. As a matter of fact, there are no inadvertant deaths. There is only murder against a people who are attempting to defend their country, and the subsequent occupation is an act of rape. Your justification of war crimes, Turk, would not stand up at the Hague or the International Criminal Court. You would be prosecuted and you would serve time. You would not have to face the death penalty, however, since the international community has largely rejected the death penalty as a violation of human rights. Even as a criminal, you still possess certain fundamental human rights. Imagine that, Turk. It appears that the barbaric criminal system of justice in the U.S. has a lot of catching up to do with the rest of human civilization.

I heard today that one of our congressmen is again going to bring up a bill to outlaw the death penalty in the U.S. He says it is not a valid crime deterrent.

Also there is talk of eliminating the "Don't ask, don't tell" caveat when considering homosexuals for military service. General Shalikashlevi (sp?)(Now Retired) said he has changed his mind about their serving openly. He said that the climate has changed in the military, and he expects people to accept homos now.

In support of his courageous action, the Lt. Ehren Watada Campaign is working to educate and broaden the dialog on constitutional rights while mobilizing grassroots action to insure that our government upholds Lt. Watada's right to speak out and refuse to participate in illegal military action in Iraq.

http://thankyoult.org/

haha....Is that right ?
in the past, Your military had accepted one of the Arab terrorist. you know ?
FBI warned to U.S. Army Commander but he didn't believe it.

it took everything inside of me to NOT sign the petition just so i could really tell him what i think, unfortunately i think that they would count my signature in support of him and delete my comment.. i'm praying they send his @$$ to the brig