I am not going to read through all the babble on here, but there is no doubt this is a terribly liberal one sided view. I have one, and only one problem with the Was in Iraq, and that is the fact that they will not allow the soldiers to win. The pussificaton of this country is so complete that we have imbedded reporters with combat troops, and troops afraid to fire in a danger situation for fear of a court martial, and public scrutiny. You want to end the war?
1) Find an insurgent in a home? Drag all from the home out in the street and execute them from the smallest to the large.
2)Someone detonates a bomb on themself locate their family and drag the whole bloodline out into the street and execute them.
3)Taking fire from a Mosque? Bomb it into sand
4)Kick every reporter except for military ones out of the country
5)Close all borders. Any activity within 1 mile of the border will now result in automatic classification as enemy, and will take fire.


War is hell, and it takes lives. Whose lives it takes depends on what you are willing to do to end it. You cannot institute law until you first have order. Nobody has the stomach to do what it takes to bring that order

Matthis Chiroux is the kind of young American US military recruiters love.
"I was from a poor, white family from the south, and I did badly in school," the now 24-year-old told AFP.

"I was 'filet mignon' for recruiters. They started phoning me when I was in 10th grade," or around 16 years old, he added.

Chiroux joined the US army straight out of high school nearly six years ago, and worked his way up from private to sergeant.

He served in Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, and the Philippines and was due to be deployed next month in Iraq.

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

"I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq," Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.

"My decision is based on my desire to no longer continue violating my core values to support an illegal and unconstitutional occupation... I refuse to participate in the Iraq occupation," he said, as a dozen veterans of the five-year-old Iraq war looked on.

Minutes earlier, Chiroux had cried openly as he listened to former comrades-in-arms testify before members of Congress about the failings of the Iraq war.

The testimonies were the first before Congress by Iraq veterans who have turned against the five-year-old war.

Former army sergeant Kristofer Goldsmith told a half-dozen US lawmakers and scores of people who packed into a small hearing room of "lawless murders, looting and the abuse of countless Iraqis."

He spoke of the psychologically fragile men and women who return from Iraq, to find little help or treatment offered from official circles.

Goldsmith said he had "self-medicated" for several months to treat the wounds of the war.

Another soldier told AFP he had to boost his dosage of medication to treat anxiety and social agoraphobia -- two of many lingering mental wounds he carries since his deployments in Iraq -- before testifying.

Some 300,000 of the 1.6 million US soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from the psychological traumas of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or both, an independent study showed last month.

A group of veterans sitting in the hearing room gazed blankly as their comrades' testimonies shattered the official version that the US effort in Iraq is succeeding.

Almost to a man, the soldiers who testified denounced serious flaws in the chain of command in Iraq.

Luis Montalvan, a former army captain, accused high-ranking US officers of numerous failures in Iraq, including turning a blind eye to massive fraud on the part of US contractors.


Ex-Marine Jason Lemieux told how a senior officer had altered a report he had written because it slammed US troops of using excessive force, firing off thousands of rounds of machine gun fire and hundreds of grenades in the face of a feeble four rounds of enemy fire.

Goldsmith accused US officials of censorship.

"Everyone who manages a blog, Facebook or Myspace out of Iraq has to register every video, picture, document of any event they do on mission," Goldsmith told AFP after the hearing.

"You're almost always denied before you are allowed to send them home."

Officials take "hard facts and slice them into small pieces to make them presentable to the secretary of state or the president -- and all with the intent of furthering the occupation of Iraq," Goldsmith added.

Chiroux is one of thousands of US soldiers who have deserted since the Iraq war began in 2003, according to figures issued last year by the US army.

But while many seek refuge in Canada, the young soldier vowed to stay in the United States to fight "whatever charges the army levels at me."

The US army defines a deserter as someone who has been absent without leave for 30 days.

Chiroux stood fast in his resolve to not report for duty on June 15.

"I cannot deploy to Iraq, carry a weapon and not be part of the problem," he told AFP.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080516144757.0ds7otes&show_article=1

I disagree completely with this post, surprised? War is almost never necessary. Iraq was definitely not necessary at least for us, we had no business taking Saddam for 9/11. We should not be in the business of interfering with other countries personal issues. Sovereignty is sacred to a country and we enjoy ours, they are their own nation, run how they see fit and we need to mind our business.

With all of the bull that lead to this war, we should be dam tired now of being in the mix of their personal civil disputes, of which we cannot resolve.

Bring our troops home and if they say they think the war is unjust send them home, what is the problem?

We need to get the hell out of Iraq

if you refuse to do your duty as a member of the military you deserve to go to jail. i dont care if you think it is wrong or not. if you are told to go you had better get ready pack your crap and kiss everyone goodbye. he is a coward.

I am not going to read through all the babble on here, but there is no doubt this is a terribly liberal one sided view. I have one, and only one problem with the Was in Iraq, and that is the fact that they will not allow the soldiers to win. The pussificaton of this country is so complete that we have imbedded reporters with combat troops, and troops afraid to fire in a danger situation for fear of a court martial, and public scrutiny. You want to end the war?
1) Find an insurgent in a home? Drag all from the home out in the street and execute them from the smallest to the large.
2)Someone detonates a bomb on themself locate their family and drag the whole bloodline out into the street and execute them.
3)Taking fire from a Mosque? Bomb it into sand
4)Kick every reporter except for military ones out of the country
5)Close all borders. Any activity within 1 mile of the border will now result in automatic classification as enemy, and will take fire.


War is hell, and it takes lives. Whose lives it takes depends on what you are willing to do to end it. You cannot institute law until you first have order. Nobody has the stomach to do what it takes to bring that order

War is hell. So who are you? The devil?

I feel real sorry for you in that you seem to have lost all compassion and humanity.

JB

It's called being a realist. Yes, I may be satan in your eyes but the insurgency would actually never even gotten a foothold. It is so much more human, and compassionate to allow something to drag on and claim over a million lives than to set the example with the few. Your mentality is a nice one, but doesn't fit into the parameters of armed conflict, sorry. Oh, thanks for the sympathy, nice touch, sympathy for the devil

Yes I do have sympathy for the devil and for people who have lost their humanity. Yes war is hell. Solutions are not easy. Its a loose - loose proposition.

JB

All US soldiers know this mnhiker!!

FAQ # 1 - What is an illegal order? What is a "Manifestly" or "Patently" illegal order?


The history of liability for following military orders contravening the laws of war can be traced back to the Treaty of Versailles, the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals and, later, to the Geneva Convention. In general, it means that prisoners' lives and wellbeing are protected from cruelty and death, as are those of unarmed civilians, refugees, medical personnel; it protects hospitals, places of prayer, etc.: any order to the contrary is not only illegal, it is manifestly illegal.

A member of the armed forces is constrained by military law to obey orders – otherwise, the system and chain of command would collapse. People of all kinds and views serve in the armed forces and not every order will be to their way of thinking – it may even go against their conscience. A soldier must, under practically every circumstance, obey an order: his or her refusal to do so may incur serious consequences in terms of security, operational success, and personal responsibility at trial. [Pacifists refuse to serve in the military under any circumstances and many countries excuse service on ideological grounds; conscientious objectors, or those who refuse to serve in compulsory military service for political reasons, may find themselves in prison – this, in many countries.]

There is a difference between an illegal order and a manifestly illegal order. An illegal order can be in contravention of general legality, such as orders to make improper use of facilities, go beyond the speed limit in a military vehicle. A manifestly or patently illegal order applies to the protection of persons (civilians, prisoners, medical personnel and clergy), medical facilities, places of prayer, monuments, etc. (this list is not exhaustive). The US distinguishes a patently illegal order as one which orders someone to commit a crime.

Good night mnhiker!!

Humanity is a relative term that does not belong on the battlefield.....ever. You see where it has taken us here. People are still dying on both sides. Women, children, young, old, sick, healthy, it is indiscriminate. The way to peaceful coexistence is a hard pill to swallow, but if you are not prepared to offer greater than equal force to the opposition you will never have victory

Agreed, this is just somthing that most people cannot swallow. Most people just cannot except the fact that you cannot have humanity within a hundred miles of a war if you wish to win. A perfect example of where using greater than equal force is when we were fighting the japanese in WWII. There cities were made of bambo and paper, rice paper none the less, two very flamable materials. We knew this and what did we do... WE FIRE BOMBED THEM. Guess what people it worked. Now we have people yelling about every thing from our air burst weapons, that use nothing more than the air to do the majority of the damage and in my opinion is the least painfull way to die, to the DU rounds we use to eliminate tanks and bunkers, which as of right now we have no replacement for.

You are right in that we can not win a war unless we use superior fire power. However there is a line that must bot be crossed, and killing every last person in some terroorists family just because they were related to him (as someone in here suggested quite vehemently, is well beyond that line.

Instead you throw a country into complete lawlessness and chaos, and allow people to die daily, including your own troops. Definately seems like the humane course of action to me. Firepower does nothing without the will, desire, and ability to unleash it at the required times

You do not have to annihalate everyone on the country in order to subdue the enemy. You do not have to use nuclear bombs in order to overpower the enemy. Yes you ned superior weapons and numbers of troops. but there somes a point when too much is just that; too much.