Soldier in Iraq Resists the Occupation

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/23812

Soldier in Iraq Resists the Occupation
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-06-20 21:40. Nonviolent Resistance

On June 19, 26 year old SPC Eli Israel put himself at great personal risk by making the courageous decision to refuse further participation in the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Eli told his commanding officer and sergeants that he will no longer be a combatant in this illegal, unjustified war. Eli believes that the U.S. government used the attacks of September 11, 2001 as a pretense to invade Iraq and that "we are now violating the people of this country (Iraq) in ways that we would never accept on our own soil." Eli is stationed at Camp Victory in Baghdad with JVB Bravo Company, 1-149 Infantry of the Kentucky Army National Guard. This soldier's decision to refuse orders puts him at great risk, especially because he is in Iraq, isolated from legal assistance and other support. The following is a message that Eli sent yesterday to a friend back home:

"I have told them that I will no longer play a 'combat role' in this conflict or 'protect corporate representatives,' and they have taken this as 'violating a direct order.' I may be in jail or worse in the next 24 hours.

Please rally whoever you can, call whoever you can, bring as much attention to this as you can. I have no doubt that the military will bury me and hide the whole situation if they can. I'm in big trouble. I'm in the middle of Iraq, surrounded by people who are not on my side. Please help me. Please contact whoever you can, and tell them who I am, so I don't 'disappear.'"

Eli is taking an incredible risk by refusing orders in Iraq and will most likely be court martialed. Please help him by contacting his Senator and requesting that he take any steps necessary to support and protect this soldier and ensure that the Army respects his rights and does not illegally retaliate against him.

[JohnyCanuck]

1. Finally, a troop I can support. n/t

[sanskritwarrior]

18. Why?

Because he's willing to abandon his fellow soldiers? How could you support a man that when others lives depended on him, he refused to do his job? Do you support a surgeon that gets drunk before he operates on you??

[Usrename]

36. drunken surgeon?

gee, I don't know if the sober doctor theory has ever been posited before as a defense for an unjust war..

[SammyWinstonJack]

69. That makes no sense. Also, what does a "drunken surgeon" have too do with this thread?

:crazy: Do you support a surgeon that gets drunk before he operates on you? :crazy:

[w8liftinglady]

2. How long before this guy is "disappeared"?

[babylonsister]

3. Yep, that's what he's afraid of. He's a brave soul imo. nt

[malaise]

4. Not long

although going public will help him a bit.

[sanskritwarrior]

19. Yes because the Army is disapearing all the soldiers that are against the war.

:eyes:


If we are lucky this sad sack that broke faith with the guys he was fighting with will spend a long time in jail. Call me whatever you want, bu I know Im right according to the code combat soldiers live by, I'm not going to apologize for heaping scorn on a guy that abandoned his friends who were fighting for their lives. Say what you want about the war, but in the end this guy let his friends down when lives were on the line when his prescence watching their backs could mean the difference between life and death........Sickening that anyone would side with this guy, if people from his unit are killed his hands will share the blood with the people that started this war.......

[LynnTheDem]

30. When are you signing up?

[sanskritwarrior]

32. Already signed up my dear

My first trip to Iraq was 4th Brigade 4th ID way back in late March 2003.......

My third trip will be at the end of this year........

Any more smart questions?

[LynnTheDem]

33. Then you would know my 4ID US army officer hubby

So it's strange how he's laughing at your posts.

[sanskritwarrior]

40. Cool

I normally am very respectful of people but if some officer is getting his jolly's laughing at a troop he has never met, then that officer is not worth my time. And neither are you my dear. Welcome to oblivion.

[LynnTheDem]

43. No apostrophe in "jolly's", dear.

It's a plural.

;)

[whopis01]

45. It is also spelled "jollies", dear. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

56. Yes, actually, that was my point.

Dear.

[whopis01]

66. sorry, I didn't realize that.

I thought you were correcting his incorrect use of the apostrophe. I didn't realize that your point was to correct the spelling of the word as well.

[LynnTheDem]

67. I was going to...

correct the spelling as well.

But figured the point was made, why go for overkill.

:D

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

46. Question unrelated to the topic.

As an E-7 in the Army, where do you find so much time to post so often?

Do 96D's have that much spare time?

You have numerous posts on here in normal duty hours, Hawaii time.

I wish I had that much time to fuck off when I was in the Army.

[sanskritwarrior]

52. 96B not 96D

Hawaii has DU blocked so I can't post during duty hours......I am in the 300 club as in 300 on my PT test so I don't have to do PT in the morning nor show up for first formation, so if ever post in the morning Hawaii time it's because I am waking up and checking my email and my favorite sites :) .....Tuesday I was on recovery from supervising extra duty soldiers.......I can't post from work, if I am posting I am home.........

and I'm not really a 96B anymore I just carry it as a secondary MOS, although I am in a 96B slot.........

[SaveAmerica]

58. Just to be sure I understand you, you're saying that DU is blocked

on post? Every computer found on the post has it blocked? Have you ever tried other political forums? For example, Free Republic? If so, was it blocked too? I know of another post stateside that has DU blocked but not Free Republic, made me madder than I can tell you. I've always wondered how far reaching that was.

[sanskritwarrior]

61. Don't know

DU is blocked, that's the only board I go to at work........

[SaveAmerica]

63. Can you check for me, I'd be interested to know. My friend asked

the librarian on post why DU was blocked and she said because "it has, you know, bad stuff". DU is chock full o'porn I guess. That's so 1984.

[Marrah_G]

70. My friend used to post to live journal all the time in Iraq

He did 2 tours there as an Army National Guard MP (captain) and he would try to post as often (daily with the exception of trips to kurd terriory, or other places far away from his base)as possible so the folks at home would know he was okay. We heard from him alot more then when he spent 18 months in Bosnia. It all depends what someones job is. I aso had a friend in the AF years ago that would email back and forth while on duty, because he had a job with alot of freetime.

[bpeale]

48. as a former soldier myself...

i applaud this soldier for standing in accordance with his conscience. each soldier must do this for themselves. this war will not end until they all stand, throw down their weapons and refuse to fight for big oil.

[genie_weenie]

5. The Troops, the Veterans and the American People are all

against the Brutal Occupation in Iraq. When will their voices be heard? Why do our public servants continue to disregard their voices?

Why do the Terrorists in DC hate our Troops?

[roody]

6. Good on him, a troop supporting a troop!

[Disturbed]

8. If the Army officails were half bright they would assign him to

non combat duty and give him an Article 15. For those that aren't familiar with Article 15 there are many search engines on the Net.

[lazer47]

10. He has gone way beyound what an Art. 15 would cover

[sanskritwarrior]

20. Yep he did it in an actual War zone

we could be looking at Desertion or even some JAG officer trying for treason........

[lazer47]

21. The Charges would be more than we can print here

suffice to say, they will at the very least convene a General Court martial

[sanskritwarrior]

22. Yeah and he might have to waive certain rights as

he did it in a war zone in the middle of an offensive campaign........It's very different than LT. Watada, this guy actually deserted in what could be construed as the face of fire...................

[pettypace]

7. hope for the best

unfortunately he is hurting himself greatly.

A dishonorable discharge is an albatross for his post-service life here.

Aside from that, I admire his convictions.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Yup, but sometimes conscience demands it.

[sanskritwarrior]

9. A disgrace to the uniform

Yeah I said it, hit your alert buttons........ :eyes:

It doesn't make me any less a Democrat to despise a man that would abandon his comrades in an actual war zone......It doesn't matter if he hates the war, it doesn't matter if the war is wrong, it doesn't matter if this President is a criminal, what does matter is that his comrades now know they cannot count on this man when their lives are on the line.........Sorry that's how a combat soldier sees it................

[lazer47]

12. You will not get much support for that, however you have mine

it is impossible to explain to non/combat types, what you are saying,,,, suffice to say most of us who have been there do

[sanskritwarrior]

13. Thank you........

I'm sure the man has principles and good on him for that, but he has disgraced himself and proven to his buddies that when their lives were on the line, he chose the cowards way.........If one of my men ever did that.........Man I'd make sure I did my damnedest to see him put away.

Any combat veteran knows that you have to trust the man on the left and the right, and if he flakes out on you abandons you and the rest of team, you despise him for the rest of your days........

[lazer47]

15. I could not have said it better,

the reason for his actions are commendable, his actions however are contemptable, and they will only hurt him and no one else.

[ConsAreLiars]

23. I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that

you hold that view that continuing to participate in genocide is "better" and more honorable than refusing, because the others who are participating in a war crime would be endangered (somehow). That is a common view, and testimony to the power of the brainwashing techniques used by the military.

Think about your argument. It could equally well be used by the mafia or any gang of butchers anywhere on the planet. And is.

[sanskritwarrior]

25. I would hold the view that this man

has a duty to protect the fellow men he is serving with. That bond can only be broken when one person acts as a coward both morally and physically. It has nothing to do with the war and everything to do with survivial so people can return home....the more I think about this guy the angrier I get.........If I was the JAG officer I would go with dereliction of duty and desertion in the face on enemy action if convicted I would go all the way for punishment........This one individual might be the first soldier I label with the term "disgusting coward that will hopefully get what he deserves"............

Read my posts I'm not a rightwing anything, but there is an expected shared sacrifice to be made by men in combat, men look after each other, ESPECIALLY in a GODDAMN INFANTRY BATTALION. Failure to live up to the expectations of the other men you are risking your life with is the most egregious sin a soldier can make with his fellow troops......this man broke bread with them, and now when they all need each other to stay alive, he became a coward........I'm disgusted, I need to go away for a little bit.......

[ConsAreLiars]

27. As I said, your view shows the power of the brainwashing you have been through.

If you can break through it, and understand that the life of an Iraqi child, or a Vietnamese Grandmother, or a bridesmaid in Afghanistan, is worth every bit as much as the soldier next to you, then you may find a path toward healing and a sense of peace.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ConsAreLiars]

29. Just an observation. Take it, if you are able and willing, or not.

Best wishes, in either case.

(edit typo)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karenina]

47. ACHTUNG!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1136368

Selatius Tue Jun-19-07 01:52 AM
Original message

War Is a Racket

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

-- Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, USMC; War Is a Racket, 1935

[sanskritwarrior]

53. Oh noes..........

Smedley Butler........i am beaten, I'm melting...................... :eyes:

[uppityperson]

57. Didn't you just post a long rant on manners?

Seems hypocritical

[sanskritwarrior]

59. Whom did I insult

[bpeale]

49. gee. if you use that standard...

there is no statute of limitations on desertion. i suggest we try bush for deserting during wartime. that law still applies to him.

[sanskritwarrior]

60. Get Congress on board and i'm there

until then it is nothing more than blowing smoke.

[some guy]

14. Does it make a difference

to you that he is National Guard, and not actual Army/Marine?

Does the US have a history of using National Guard members in overseas combat zones? (Serious question, because I don't know the answer to that.)

[sanskritwarrior]

16. YES they do have a history of it

In World War I, the National Guard made up 40 percent of the U.S. combat divisions in France. In World War II the National Guard made up 19 divisions. One hundred forty thousand guardsmen were mobilized during the Korean War and over 63,000 for Operation Desert Storm. They have also participated in U.S. peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo as well as for natural disasters, strikes, riots and security for the Olympic Games when they have been in the States.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_National_Guard#Twentieth_Century

[some guy]

17. Thank you. n/t

[Tom Joad]

38. Nothing honorable about continuing participation

in an illegal war of aggression.

[sanskritwarrior]

62. In your opinion

abandoning your fellow soldiers while you are on combat operations is the dishonorable part.............to me.

[Marrah_G]

71. I disagree

Think of it this way.

My brother got pulled from retirementinto active duty to lead 450 sailors on the ground in Iraq. He has the experience and is great at his job and truly cares for the well-being of his sailors. If he were to have refused to go, those sailors would be being led by someone with less experience and possibly someone who didn't care for them as much. From his view, if his going keeps one more family from losing a sailor then it is worth it. If he refused those sailors would still be deployed, that would not change.

[martymar64]

51. So if ordered to shoot or rape civilians, you'll dutifully comply?

This is a real question. If you are given a direct order by your superior officer to shoot or rape or injure or maim civilians, knowing they are civilians, would you do it? If your fellow soldiers are willing to do it, would you go along or would you refuse to obey a direct order? If you had direect knowledge of or witnessed fellow soldiers doing what I described to civilians, what would you do. Would you report them to your superior officers, knowing that you may die at the hands of your comrades for snitching on them? Or would you just keep your mouth shut and go along to get along? If, here in the states, you were ordered to go out and shoot unarmed protestors, would you do it?
I'm interested in your answers. I've seen your posts and know that you place extremely high regard in the military. I'm just trying to gauge what the line between morality and obligation is for you as a soldier and a human being.

[sanskritwarrior]

54. LOL not at all

that is illegal, now if the civilians are shooting at me, I'll gladly gun them down.........this is such bullshit kiddie logic......if you fight in the war you must also be willing to rape women and children........ :eyes:

One is legal right now according to our laws, the war........the other is illegal according to our laws.......raping......

It's a pretty basic concept......

[martymar64]

72. Good

I 'm just making sure that the military hasn't stripped you of your humanity yet.. I hope you come back alive and with your soul intact. Way too many soldiers are coming back forever damaged. I speak from experience as someone who comes from a military family.

BTW, if someone is shooting at you, they're not civilians. As far as raping, tell that to the scumbags that raped that poor girl and murdered her whole family last year. Those fuckheads are responsible for what happens to their comrades as a result and deserve to be turned over to the Iraqis for real justice to take place.

[Cha]

24. Unreal! As in amazing for

him..you couldn't make this shyte up! I hope he gets out in one piece and gets hooked up with Adam Kohesh. Will they have some stories to talk about!

[sanskritwarrior]

26. I believe he might be looking at Life in prision

at the very least 20 years if they hit him with........"in the face of the enemy" there ain't no way out of it if he really did all the things the article claims he did.......

[LynnTheDem]

34. A reply from a 4thID army officer...

"Bullshit"

Oh my gawd, another person who must be insane for not agreeing with you. YIKES, the insane really are a massive majority!

:eyes:

[Pastiche423]

35. But he's NOT brainwashed!

:sarcasm:

He says the same script over and over and over again, but he ain't brainwashed.

He wants to go back to this pre-emptive, illegal war, killing people that have done our country no wrong for his CIC that's a fucking liar than cares not one whit about the troops.

But he ain't brainwashed. :crazy:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

100. I don't think it's right that you call sarcastically deem him "Brainwashed"

He stated his opinion, he backed up countless times and ways to explain why he holds his opinion.

You can disagree, that is your right.

What is wrong is to say that he holds his opinion because he is brainwashed. Better to state why you disagree with his statement. Calling someone brainwashed for their statement while not backing up your own position is an ad hominem attack and sort of undermines the strength of your own position.

And besides, I just hate when people's rejoinder to an arguement is, for example, "he's brainwashed". Though what you said was that you didn't believe he was brainwashed followed by the "sarcasm" icon.

[sanskritwarrior]

41. Again

I'll keep my opinion to myself but if an officer is encouraging this he is encouraging the breakdown of good order and discipline, if he is doing that, what the hell is he doing in the Army....Now off to ignore land Lynn enjoy the veal........

[LynnTheDem]

42. LOL!

You crack me up! :D

[roody]

44. Bush is the one destroying the army.

[Tom Joad]

39. The enemy? The enemy sits at the white house! Bush is the enemy of the people

that this young man swore to defend his country from.

[Tom Joad]

37. Thanks for posting this. We must remember there are heroes...

Too much of the news today is about the cowards in Congress who choose to support Bush, we must honor those young men and women who are saying NO to this war of aggression.


See more heroes here:
http://tomjoad.org/WarHeroes.htm
U.S. War Heroes of the Iraq War
War Resisters from within the Military

[conscious evolution]

50. He deserves a medal

It takes courage to stand up to the fascist war criminals responsible for this illegal war and occupation.

[sanskritwarrior]

55. A metal boot in his ass........

[lonestarnot]

65. Spoken like a true warmonger.

:eyes:

Guess you like this sort of thing too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1151144&mesg_id=1151144

[genie_weenie]

64. sanskritwarrior provides much insight on the control

exerted on members of the military. Why is he willing to post repeatedly on the issue of the soldier? 1 man making a choice to resist a war he believes is immoral angers him greatly. As a 96B he should have critical thinking skills and access to intel, he should be worrying about the WET (weather, enemy, terrain). But, the outspoken and bravery of Eli Israel lay bare the lie of this war and the evils which are being perpetrated upon the Iraqi people. However, getting back to the issue of what Spc Israel is going to have to face:

It is made clear to the troops that if they do resist the war the power of the government will be brought ot bear upon them. Brig time, a BCD or dishonorable, loss of gibill, loss of benefits, the black mark.

Then sanskritwarrior also points out with his "metal boot to the ass" the real threat that a more war-minded member of the military may mete out some barracks justice and harm a war resister.

Next, this brave soldier is going to have his name smeared for months by the likes of melanie morgan or bill orally or brave warrior hannity. They will make sure their followers equate this man's moral choice with treason and advocate (perhaps subtly perhaps not) he be pilloried. Also he can be sure that except for his brothers in arms (ivaw.org or votevets.org) the American people are allowing their apathy and ignorance to let themselves be apathetic to the plight of the Iraqis and the horror that is being done in the name of We, the People.

[CreekDog]

73. Sanskritwarrior is right about the job of the military

Our job as civilians is to elect the government that will get them home.

The military cannot choose what they will do and what they will not do according to their will, but upon laws that they are sworn to follow (and no, they do not report to the UN).

If the military members could do whatever they wanted according to their morals, we might have a coup d'etat, we might have a legitimate war that isn't fought because service members disagree. We might have some service members who support a legitimate war die in disproportionate numbers because those that didn't support it refused to fight.

It would be an unholy mess in total opposition to the nature of civilian rule in this country.

The fact is that beyond what is legal and illegal, our military must be under the control of civilians ultimately --even if they are dunderheads -which they are.

Now, everyone leave Sanskrit alone and get him a better elected government so that he can come home.

And those of you that think he should desert, you are idiots if you still think so after reading my post.

[uppityperson]

74. Geneva Conventions. Do you believe they are legal?

USA signed them, are they legal?

[CreekDog]

75. Please cite the text where you claim the illegality is substantiated

thanks.

[uppityperson]

76. Do you believe the Geneva Conventions are legal?

[CreekDog]

78. They are legal for US soldiers if the USA has ratified them

The US has not ratified all of the protocols of the Convention.

Further, the Geneva Convention doesn't prohibit war, but prohibits actions during armed conflict. Thus serving in an unjust war is not a violation of the Conventions, taking certain prohibited actions (by the Geneva Conventions) is the violation.

Also, those countries not ratifying the conventions are not subject to them, nor protected by them.

So, please cite the text and explain what the illegality of this soldier's actions are with respect to the Iraq War. If you don't, we will assume that you cannot substantiate it.

[uppityperson]

83. I ask if you think the Geneva Conventions are legal and you say "cite the text...

"and explain what the illegality of this soldier's actions are with respect to the Iraq War. If you don't, we will assume that you cannot substantiate it."

OhhhhKay. I ask a question, you respond telling me to cite something you claim I said, and if I can't, I can't substantiate what you say I said, when all I did was ask if you think GC are legal. Talk about putting words in my mouth and getting defensive about the words you put into my mouth.

Naw, this isn't worth talking about here.

[CreekDog]

86. And I answered you with my other post

Saying they were legal for US forces if the US ratified them, however not all of them have been ratified.

So SOME of the Geneva Conventions are legal as US law for our soldiers.

How's that for an answer?

And you did say the war was illegal, but you did not provide the text in the GC which you have based that statement on.

C'mon, if you actually want to convince people that don't already agree with you, or not have them doubt your statement, you should respond and back up your statements.

But I've argued with you before and what was frustrating then and is frustrating now is that you simply don't back up rather strong statements you make. Which sort of undermines your credibility.

[uppityperson]

88. Thank you for your answer. No thanks for the argument.

[CreekDog]

79. US Ratified Geneva Conventions don't prohibit the Iraq War itself

The Geneva Conventions refer to prohibited actions within a conflict. The UN Charter deals with the issue of what is a just war, however.

Thus, the soldier in question may be following the rules of the Geneva Conventions and simultaneously serving in Iraq under US Command. His serving in Iraq is not a breach of the convention, however if he were to engage willingly in conduct against the convention such as what happened at Abu Graib, that would be another matter and not correct behavior.

Furthermore, the United States has not ratified all the protocols of the Geneva Convention, so like it or not, by the Geneva Convention's own definition, those not ratified do not apply to the USA.

Of course, this is more information and substantiation of my position than you posted in yours.

Emotionally and logically, I am against the Iraq War. However, I would be lying if I said I believed our soldiers their are acting illegally by simply serving in Iraq and performing legal orders from their command.

[uppityperson]

80. deleted because arguing with you isn't worth the aggravation.

[CreekDog]

81. In which part of the Geneva Convention is that

Second, US signature does not make it binding on the US since all treaties are not binding until they are ratified by the US Senate.

Of the amendments to the Geneva Conventions, the 1st and 2nd Protocols haven't been ratified by the US.

[CreekDog]

82. Also I believe the "imminent threat" language is in the UN Charter not Geneva

So, a citation of where you are finding this language is needed to substantiate your statement.

[CreekDog]

84. Why can't you cite the text? Tell us the text and where it is?

Or perhaps you don't know it as well as you state. It's really a simple matter.

Geneva Conventions by Wikipedia are as follows and none of them refer to justification for war, but basically activities DURING war:

* First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
* Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
* Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)
* Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

In addition, there are three additional amendment protocols to the Geneva Convention:

* Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries.
* Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 163 countries.
* Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of June 2007 it had been ratified by 17 countries and signed but not yet ratified by an additional 68 countries.

[uppityperson]

85. Go fight with someone else.

I asked you a question above, you responded by putting words in my mouth and being defensive. I asked again, same thing. Not worth the time since all you seem to do is want to jump to conclusions and argue about your conclusions of what I might have meant, rather than simply answering. Bye.

[CreekDog]

87. And I answered that question above, go read it

Then you said the war was illegal because there was no "imminent threat". And by illegal, you said under the Geneva Convention. I said GC doesn't cover justification for A war, but activities during a war.

Then you deleted your post.

So, if GC makes the Iraq War itself illegal, cite the text. You must know it pretty well because you stated it and when you asked I knew where you were going. Then in response you went there, so state why GC or else maybe you just don't know.

If I am wrong, I want to know but I want you to demonstrate why it is so.

[uppityperson]

89. bwahahahahahahahahaha

deleted because arguing with you isn't worth the aggravation.

[CreekDog]

90. Or you could cite the text and location from the GC and I will shut up

Deal?

So far you have not cited a word from the Geneva Convention so that one could go look it up and see that you are correct. That's all I'm asking.

And if you expect the soldier to act differently based on your say-so, you are crazy and he would be also.

[CreekDog]

91. Real mature and real good argument by the way

[ConsAreLiars]

92. Seems that CreekDog is far happier talking about semantics and

parsing phrases than the true facts of what is being done to the people of Iraq. What a vile attitude to take when, if he/it has every chance to know the truth, and chooses to ignore it.

A link, (WARNING, this is not for those who choose to remain blind to the truth of what the monsters now controlling the US military have done) http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

[uppityperson]

93. Seems annoyed that I won't argue.

I don't like arguing with people who use "the best defense is a good offense" strategy, esp getting defensive about the words they assume I meant. I also don't like arguing with people who get prissy about my not wanting to argue and don't like my deleting arguments rather than continuing to argue them. Not saying CreekDog is like this, just a general observation about types of people I like to discuss things with. I like to discuss things with people rather than argue with them, in general. Just a better usage of my time. I am aging and time passes by so quickly these days, you know? It is hard to believe that it is already late June 2007 when it seems like it was just 1987. Odd.

Oh yes, I don't like being commanded to do things either. And the argument "prove it or we'll assume you don't know what you are talking about" is along the same lines as "I left you a message on your answering machine and I'll assume you got it". Assumptions are often wrong, but it sadly too often happens that the one doing the assuming is the one who gets the most upset when the assumption is wrong. Sad, that.

[CreekDog]

95. I'm not annoyed you won't argue

I'm annoyed that you won't show that your statement about being illegal in the Geneva Conventions is actually based on something inside them.

When you make a statement like that it's fair for someone to say, "where in the document you have cited is the language that supports your position". To be fair, after you posted that statement, you deleted it, so the wording is no longer there at all. If that means you retract or correct your statement, that's fine.

And I don't know how we can have a useful discussion if people won't back up what they say.

[uppityperson]

96. You are annoyed that I won't argue about something I deleted rather than argue about.

You edited your post a bit from being so demanding, but I just don't feel like arguing with you since, historically, even recently historically, you have not been able to have a useful discussion with me. You are on my "don't bother arguing with" list. Lots of other folks to argue/discuss with.

[CreekDog]

98. I never said the best defense is a good offense

But then again, I was just trying to get out of you that stupid language that backs up your point. Maybe you just don't know it, maybe you do. But what the heck, why won't you just say where it is and what it says. Egads.

You'd think I'd asked for your Social Security number to prove you're a citizen.

I didn't, I just asked what you were basing your statement on.

If you provided that language and it was ratified by the USA, I would have to stop arguing, period, I would have no leg to stand on. But instead, by remaining silent, you are making it look like there's no backup to the statement that GC prohibited the Iraq War. Hell, I keep looking for it and I can't find it.

Did you mean the UN Charter?

[CreekDog]

94. I am not arguing the rightness of the Iraq War

A big point of the thread was to discuss what a member of the military should do.

If the war was legal but not just, should he desert when asked to serve or should he serve?

I was saying his choice should be based on law for the sake of civil order of the military.

Somewhere in this thread the argument was made about the legality of the war. In theory, he should desert if this were an illegal war. But then I noticed it's legality was said to be because of the Geneva Conventions but that didn't appear to be correct.

Yet nobody is providing the text of the GC that says it is illegal.

What's the big deal with backing it up?

Now, some actions during the Iraq War were prohibited by the Geneva Convention as far as I can tell, but that doesn't mean the entire war was prohibited by them.

But what should a soldier do? That's the point of this discussion. Should he/she desert or should he/she serve and BASED ON WHAT should they act?

Just cite the text. Big deal.

I went looking in the Geneva Conventions to see where this war was prohibited and finding none began asking around here. Nobody can substantiate as of yet where this text is.

[CreekDog]

97. Or maybe this is just the mutual admiration society for those who hate this war

And nothing they say needs to be proven or argued against.

But DU isn't just a support group for us liberals, for me it's a place to actually learn and understand, thanks to others, information I didn't know to back up our positions.

But I could never argue that Iraq War was prohibited by Geneva Conventions with my friends at church. They would say, "wait, no it isn't, where is that written in the Geneva Conventions?" and if I said, I don't want to argue, they would go off laughing, happily comforted that their liberal friend couldn't even back up his statement.

When I argued with them defending Pelosi's trip to Syria, they said she should be prosecuted for it. In the same way I argued with you, I said, under what law, they said the "Logan Act" and I said, what provision did she violate? They said they didn't know. I said they how do they know she violated it, especially since nobody's been prosecuted under it for over a century. They stopped arguing that and just got emotional.

Yeah, they didn't like Pelosi's trip, that's fine. But it's stretching things to say it's illegal when you don't even know it is. And that's the story here at DU.

If you can't convince me it's illegal, after all my liberal activism, then you are not going to get anywhere with moderates who might change the course of things provided they unite with us on the Iraq War.

[CreekDog]

99. Civilian control of the military is not mere "semantics"

And it was my statement about whether a soldier should obey the civilian command that started this debate. That's why the Geneva Convention was brought up. Of course, the soldier is obliged to obey the GC if their nation has ratified it, but then we discover that nothing in the GC prevents the soldier from serving.

So this is hardly "semantics". It is truly about the action of the soldier in participating in Iraq and the legal issues about that service.

[B Calm]

101. This is the kind of thing that scares the hell out of military brass! He

needs our support because they will make him disappear.