Foreign mercenaries in US military?

[Danzig]

Gotcha Jager, and I recieved you PM. Thank you. And thank you for your service to our country. For me this really is an ethical dilemma. It's been a thorn in my side since OIF 1.

My unit was located in Samarra at that time. Most recently we were located on LSA Anaconda, near Balad. I expect that next time we'll see Baghdad.

 

[SteelCore]

After watching from the sidelines, I have to go with Danzig.

Yes, a soldier must be willing to obey orders of all kinds, even when they might mean his death. Anything else would destroy the effectiveness of the military, which seems to be what Jager1 is basing his argument on. That's understandable. But ultimately, no soldier has a duty to obey any order that violates the Constitution. And the Iraq war does violate the Constitution. It was not declared by Congress, and Congress doesn't have the authority to delegate its powers to the president.

Danzig: You obviously became a soldier for the right reasons, and I respect that very much. I regret that your selflessness has been taken advantage of by the neocons who have hijacked the Republican party and whose goal is to spend US blood and treasure on Middle East wars for the sake of Israel.

By the way, before anyone automatically calls me an anti-Semite for that last statement, I should point out that I am technically Jewish myself (my mother was born Jewish but converted to Christianity). So if anyone needs to flame me, I believe the proper term to use in my case is "self-hating Jew." But unlike many of the neocons, this Jew is loyal to America rather than to Israel.

Anyway, I was pretty certain even before the war started that it had nothing to do with WMDs (of which Israel has plenty) or "liberating" anyone. It wasn't about oil, either. It was about Israel. While most of my fellow Jews opposed the war, those who worked so hard to bring it about -- namely, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Shulsky, Abrams, and all those guys -- were all extremely pro-Israel Jews and were essentially agents of a foreign power. Bush, Cheney, Rice, and some others were their willing puppets, possibly due to their "Christian Zionist" religious beliefs. The plan to invade Iraq existed well before 9/11, but 9/11 provided the "war fever" needed to sucker most of the US population into supporting an invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Well, now we see the mess we're in. Our borders are still wide open (how about putting some troops there?) and the world hates us more than ever. Probably the single best way to ensure a terrorist attack on one's own soil is to keep making enemies of people in the Middle East while refuse to seal one's borders. That's what this government of ours is doing.

 

[Jager1]

Sure doesn't say anything about policing the world and invasion of other countries.

I would submit the war in Iraq might be construed as to fall under the following section (paraphrased).

To define and punish…offenses against the law of nations;

I agree with the context in which you posted and have the same sentiment toward the bastardization of our Constitution. Still, if any part of the Article might be considered as the basis for military action in Iraq, it would be this one. You spared me having to post the article.

Faraway saved me even more time.

 

[SteelCore]

To define and punish…offenses against the law of nations;

Jager1,

You make a very interesting point there. But the fact that Congress didn't actually declare this war still makes it unconstitutional.

Also, there are other nations that were in violation of more UN resolutions (I assume that's what you're getting at by quoting the "law of nations") than Iraq, yet the US didn't give a darn about it. Those nations were Israel, Morocco, and several others I don't recall at the moment.

 

[Jager1]

You make a very interesting point there. But the fact that Congress didn't actually declare this war still makes it unconstitutional.

Agreed. It's just the way things are done anymore.

Also, there are other nations that were in violation of more UN resolutions (I assume that's what you're getting at by quoting the "law of nations") than Iraq, yet the US didn't give a darn about it.

Indeed that is what I was referring to. Of course, our founding fathers, brilliant as they were, could never have foreseen the politically apathetic and gutless constituents this nation might be filled with someday. :barf:

My point, if I even have one, is that when a person enlists today, they should educate themselves regarding the implications of that decision. Realizing the terrain one is contemplating a deployment in, as it were.

Having enlisted, balking at the idea 'suddenly' because conflict looms is wrapping yourself in the flag after the fact and does not make you courageous, but rather a coward, IMHO. The UCMJ has provisions for just such occurrences, as it must. Claiming idealism (I joined for college tuition or travel, not conflict/war) is naive, ludicrous and beyond the pale of blind ignorance.

 

[SteelCore]

I totally see where you're coming from, Jager1.

I'm sure there are those like you describe who join the military purely for selfish reasons and then want to slink away from combat duty. That I can't respect at all. But anyone who joins because he wants to defend his country and then gets taken advantage of -- well, I can't be mad at him for following his conscience and refusing to obey. The ones I'm mad at are those who lied the US into this war.

 

[Jager1]

Steelcore,

Trying to keep up with PM's AND the thread got the better of me and I did not see your previous post.

Yes, a soldier must be willing to obey orders of all kinds, even when they might mean his death. Anything else would destroy the effectiveness of the military, which seems to be what Jager1 is basing his argument on. That's understandable. But ultimately, no soldier has a duty to obey any order that violates the Constitution. And the Iraq war does violate the Constitution. It was not declared by Congress, and Congress doesn't have the authority to delegate its powers to the president.

You got me.

...taken advantage of by the neocons who have hijacked the Republican party and whose goal is to spend US blood and treasure on Middle East wars for the sake of Israel.

You are beginning to lose me...

Actually, there is much truth in what you say. However, I believe that the intelligence was crap, from multiple sources. Overall, I believe it was a strategic decision by this administration in order to get military bases in the region necessary to counter any threat to global oil reserves.

Much like the USSR in their attempt to gain warm-water ports in the region for their naval forces (to enable them inderdict oil shipments in the event of war with the US), Bush and company made the decision to put an end to the destabilization of the region (including Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran), Saddam's threats directed at the US and her allies and face the looming threat of an industrialized China, thirsty for oil.

I suppose my only contention to your points is I have a lot of difficulty believing that my government would lie at such a magnanimous level. If I come to believe that, it would necessitate voting from the rooftops.

I loathed Clinton sending US troops to former Yugoslavia. But he was OUR President, regardless of my disagreement. I supported Specialist New, the soldier who refused to don the UN apparel. At the top of the list, I wanted us to WIN, in spite of the illegality of many of the actions required by Clinton's decision and our choosing the wrong side to support.

Thread Hijack Avoidance Radar - Inop