home

Army Charges Conscientious Objector

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 08:29:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sgt. Kevin Benderman served 8 months in Iraq and refused to return. He says that what he saw there has turned him into a conscientious objector. The Army has filed charges against him. It takes the position that Benderman must return to Iraq while he waits for a decision on his conscientious objector application.

A conscientious objector is legally defined as one who:

bq..... objects to participation in all forms of war, and whose belief is based on a religious, moral or ethical belief system.

The key here is that you must object to participating in all wars, not just the War in Iraq. There is no requirement that you believe in G-d, and you don't have to be completely non-violent. For example, you can be a c.o. even if you believe in using violence for personal self-defense.

Update: Thanks to Peter G. for suggesting a better link for persons interested in knowing more about claiming conscientious objector status. Here's some of the things the application must contain:

* the nature of your beliefs about participation in war;
* how your beliefs changed or developed since you entered the military;
* when and why you felt you could no longer continue serving in the military because of your beliefs; and
* how your daily lifestyle has changed as a result of your beliefs.
* further information required in the application.

< Church and Mortuary Schemed to Take Fetal Tissue for Burial | Dobson vs. SpongeBob >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Army Charges Conscientious Objector | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    Thanks for linking to my old friends at CCCO, TL. But don't confuse the idea of being classified as a conscientious objector under the (now dormant) draft with the standards for discharge from the military as a conscientious objector, which are well described here. The criteria are the same, but the context and procedures are very different. Another good source is the Center on Conscience and War. [Thanks, Peter, I changed the post to include a link to the site you recommend from the one I found via google.]

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 03:52:47 AM EST
    I've seen this discussion on here before... Not too long ago as I recall. He, just like every other American soldier, signed a contract. That contract contains no ambiguity. So now he wants to get out of his contract because they're making him fullfill his end of the bargin? Yes, I want to be in the military but only during peacetime - that's a tub of crap!

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 04:05:43 AM EST
    Todd, The only reason that you can find for this soldier going to Iraq is because of the fine print in his contract? I guess thats what it amounts to now, doesn't it? The WMDs were not there, the link to Al Queda wasnt there, even the establishment of a democracy is becoming more problematic everyday. How shallow the cause when the sacrifice of one's life is reduced to a contractual obligation.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 05:22:44 AM EST
    One has no obligation to fulfill an immoral conduct. Sgt. Benderman signed up to defend his country, not to wage an unjust war on a country that never had any "links" to al-Qaeda, that was not in any way responsible for 9/11, that no weapons of mass destruction. A country, in short, that posed no threat to the USA whatsover. The US govt committed to endanger his life only if necessary to defend the USA. The US govt broke this commitment, and has no right to insist that Sgt. Benderman keep his end of the already-breached contract.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#5)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 05:36:44 AM EST
    “The only reason that you can find for this soldier going to Iraq is because of the fine print in his contract?” Really folks, it’s the job description. Soldiers are hired to kill when told. As far as his CO status; it’s in the works. He is just required to go back while the government grinds through the mountain of paperwork and review. I have to wonder how unimaginative this guy is that he couldn’t foresee how gruesome and heartbreaking war can be.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 06:04:03 AM EST
    Hasn't the government already broken the contract? And does that mean they all are null and void? Am I dreaming?

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 06:12:54 AM EST
    Really folks, it’s the job description. Soldiers are hired to kill when told.
    Does anyone remember Nazi Germany? How long has it been since they've required kids to study modern world history in high school? The nation is suffering from losing contact with history

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 06:14:45 AM EST
    How shallow the cause when the sacrifice of one's life is reduced to a contractual obligation.
    Amen to that brother.
    Really folks, it’s the job description. Soldiers are hired to kill when told.
    True, but I always believed they would only be asked to kill those who are threatening the USofA. I cannot be convinced that Iraq ever had the capability to do that, what with no navy, air force, or wmd to speak of. Therefore, I feel any soldier is morally justified to break their word, as the nation broke it's word first. Legally justified is another matter, but I wish all the guys who want no part of this travesty the best of luck fighting Uncle Sam, they are up against it big time. My only hope is that the next generation is paying attention, and they won't join the military. Don't get sent thousands of miles away to kill and die for nothing, that's not what I call defending the nation. Once you sign, your life is not your own, and that's insane.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 06:54:36 AM EST
    “True, but I always believed they would only be asked to kill those who are threatening the USofA.” But here’s the sang. Soldiers have never been asked to think; as close at it comes is the compliance with the war conventions. If a war is appropriate or effective is the purview of Congress. Ask all those soldiers that participated in the bombing around Belgrade how convinced they were that Serbia was a threat to US security. Their opinion is simply academic as it is immaterial to their mission. It has been, for all times, the duty of a soldier to fight and die without asking for justification.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:02:08 AM EST
    et al - Didn't I read that this guy's next duty station was not in Iraq? Somebody is giving him some seriously bad advice.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:40:57 AM EST
    mfox - It is absurb for you to call the army that fought our revolution, "bloody terrorists." It is also disrespectful, and in exceedingly poor taste. First, it was an army with a clear chain of command, well identified with battle flags and carried their arms for all to see. It sought out the enemy and engaged in open warfare on both land and sea using recognized weapons of the day. It did not blow up buildings, or take other actions, where it was obvious that non-combatants would be killed. The captured enemy was held within the customs of the times. They were not beheaded or killed in public displays. It did not send unidentifed combatants into England for the purpose of killing civilians for the purpose of spreading terror. In short, mfox, you haven't the vaguest idead of where you speak, and your motivation appears to be just to attack the country of your birth.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    Interestingly, PPJ, you zoned in like a moth to flame on the one humerous comment I made. I'm sure England considered them terrorists - that was my point that it's very subjective. Today's Afghan Freedom Fighters (Reference Dire Straits Brothers in Arms) are tomorrow's Al Queda. Interestingly, also, I challenge you to apply the standards of our forebears (listed above) to today's Forces fighting in Iraq. You can't, can you. I guess we're terrorists, then????? Feel free to comment on the ACTUAL CONTENT of my thread. I'm still trying to see you as a rational but conservative thinker (emphasis on thinker).

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 09:22:27 AM EST
    mfox - So you were just kidding. Okay. I find your sense of humor suspect, but I am sure you would defend my right to tell a female associate about pubic hairs on coke cans. BTW - And no, England didn't consider them terrorists. They considered them rebels. And hung a few to make the point. And given we meet all the definitions in the GC, no we are not terrorists. Except in the minds of those who believe, "My country, always wrong." As an English friend would say, "Good grief man, are you bloody daft?" And the answer is....

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 09:50:50 AM EST
    Dear no-name,
    Except in the minds of those who believe, "My country, always wrong."
    I would re-phrase it a bit to read: "My country always under scrutiny" and back this position up with the belief (don't know the reference on this one) that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Pigwiggle, I can't argue with you technically, but isn't an all volunteer army made up of those who want to fight? Based on our other discussions, you seem like a "Rules are Rules" person. I tend to lurk in the gray areas and are- at heart- a pacifist (unless I truly feel that it's self-defense in my heart). I'm wondering at what point a soldier can say "this is wrong" or "I just can't fight anymore" and does this stance necessarily cost him his life or a significant portion of it? And what do you think about the unit that refused to deliver goods without life-saving armor? Again, I'm sure your argument is the government's argument, but people (and governments) get out of contracts all the time. I think your argument, though logical, would not work to keep soldiers on mission, nor would it allow a soldier to disobey an illegal command.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#17)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 10:38:44 AM EST
    “"Rules are Rules" person.” … “I'm sure your argument is the government's argument, but people (and governments) get out of contracts all the time.” Not really, more of an accountability type person. Read the fine print and if you still get suckered, grin and bear it; the government included. I will say I am much more wary of signing a contract with the government. A private business need consider me as a potential future customer and source of recommendations. Their accountability extends to my satisfaction. By way an example; consider how long it took the IRS to get its PR in line. “I'm wondering at what point a soldier can say "this is wrong" or "I just can't fight anymore"” So you’re right that we are talking cost/benefit. The benefit is that the (ex) soldier gets out of a commitment that they now regret, presumably for good reason. I don’t think jail time is appropriate; a fine to repay the military for it’s ruined investment. I only have a passing familiarity with contract law, but I don’t think punitive damages are appropriate unless there are some willful and reckless damages inflicted by breaching the contract. If I had my way it would be a significant fine, but only a fine. “And what do you think about the unit that refused to deliver goods without life-saving armor?” Soldiers are asked to risk and even forfeit their life to promote a mission, without the benefit of an explanation. These folks decided that was too dicey for them. I agree; that’s why I’m not a soldier. “nor would it allow a soldier to disobey an illegal command.” That was my one exception; “Soldiers have never been asked to think; as close [as] it comes is the compliance with war conventions.”

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    Fair enough, pigwiggle. I want to argue that because I don't feel this war is just that soldiers shouldn't have to fight in it or that it would offend their moral sensibilities more greatly and/or more quickly. However I try to hold myself to a standard of logical thinking on this website and I can't argue my feelings logically. I feel like the public had their chance to debate sending the troops. We were suckered, in my opinion, but it was our responsibility to ask the right questions. However, I do call on all who feel for this soldier's predicament as I do to contact their elected officials and let them know that our boys and girls are suffering greatly, many in silence and I believe unnecessarily, in fulfillment of their contracts, as these officials have a contract with us, their constituents, as well.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    mfox - That was me, sorry I missed my name. Eternal vigilance is fine, but I see no approval for anything. Tell me what you would to combat terrorism, fix social security, etc.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    PPJ writes:
    Tell me what you would to combat terrorism, fix social security, etc.
    Thanks for asking, Jim. I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you. I would use this country's economic and political capital to insist that the United Nations fulfill its mandate. I would embark in a multi-national twenty year plan which would: Infiltrate Al Queda through the use of planted spies and special ops. Provide economic incentives and disincentives to countries based on their border protections and willingness to persue Al Queda operatives in their country. Re-assess our foreign oil dependence and mandate lowering our foreign oil dependence to 25% as a matter of national security. Consider U.N. military action against countries that provide aid and comfort to Osama's Mujahadeen (such as Afghanistan and Sudan). Assess our relationships with governments who abuse their citizenry and repress dissent as to whether we are unwittingly allying with anti-democratic powers and thus exacerbating the problem of disenfranchisment and religious brainwashing. And that's just a few for starters... Re: Social Security. When the bill for the war comes in, we pay it. When the bill for Social Security comes in, we pay it (with money we already have paid taxes with - there's certainly enough of it and for anyone to say the system will be broke is disingenuous at best.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    While PPJ usually invokes strawmen with a bit more substance, he is wrong in both the relevance to the original post and his facts on the American Revolution. "It did not blow up buildings, or take other actions, where it was obvious that non-combatants would be killed." While we had an army, quite a bit of the fighting was by folks without uniforms and yes they did burn down Royalist families' houses, attack whole settlements and kill non-combatants to convince other Royalist families to leave, IOW effect a political outcome, AKA terrorism. Both sides also employed Amerind tribes to help their cause in the war, and frequently the tribes pay was based on proof of kill; man, woman and child scalps all counted. "They were not beheaded or killed in public displays." Wrong, many times they were hung in public because the British considered us traitors. Many times they were killed or their corpses displayed in public as a 'lesson'. In the South and the Northwest Territories the atrocities committed by both sides were particularly egregious. "It did not send unidentifed combatants into England for the purpose of killing civilians for the purpose of spreading terror." No, we just wrote letters of marque so that "unidentifed combatants" in privateers could go in English waters and capture and/or sink civilian shipping. These crews weren't in the armed services and, if given a choice, they only attacked civilian ships. The purpose of this tactic was to inflame and incite British public ("the rebels are in our home waters!") opinion against the war, AKA terrorism. We were terrorists, that is the only way an oppressed smaller force can win against a large state. Whether you are 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists' in in the eye of the beholder.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    All right, some of this stuff is getting a little out of hand. Bloody as the deeds of the American Revolutionaries undoubtedly were (and thanks, sailor, for your examples), their cause differed starkly from Al Quaeda, for example. George Washington and Bin laden are not analogues, no matter how you slice it. Y'all: How does drawing such comparisons help us forward principled dissent from the Iraq War?

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    Sorry glanton, I fell for the strawman almost as hard as SD does;-) But speaking of strawmen, what does Bin Laden have to do with the Iraq war?

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    Well, I'm certainly among those convinced that the two are wholly exclusive from one another. But this thread ostensibly started out in regards to conscientious objection re Iraq, yet somewhere along the way we plunged into a squabble over terrorism/freedom fighting. I attempt not to conflate, but rather to untangle.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    Glanton - Fair enough. It does highlight the subjectivity of the term terrorist (which is the satirical/darkly humorous point of my parenthetical aside in my comment). Relative to Iraq, I believe it may help (some) people to understand that our opposition is human and possibly that the terms "Iraqi Insurgent" and "Terrorist" Have become synonymous. When this happens, the principled dissent you speak of becomes assaulted by inflamatory doublespeak, in which category I put the term terrorist.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    mfox, great discussion, whether conflated or not. I would use this country's economic and political capital to insist that the United Nations fulfill its mandate. How do you think this type of bullying activity be received by the UN and the rest of the world? I would embark in a multi-national twenty year plan which would: Infiltrate Al Queda through the use of planted spies and special ops. I like this one. I would sincerely hope it's being done now... Provide economic incentives and disincentives to countries based on their border protections and willingness to persue Al Queda operatives in their country. AQ says it targets us, broadly, becase we have influence and presence in "traditional" Arab homelands. Wouldn't this be more of the same? Re-assess our foreign oil dependence and mandate lowering our foreign oil dependence to 25% as a matter of national security. How would this help? As far as I can tell, 25% of our economy thrown into a tailspin by foriegn oil producers would quickly have the same chilling effect on the other 75%. Consider U.N. military action against countries that provide aid and comfort to Osama's Mujahadeen (such as Afghanistan and Sudan). See previous UN comments. Assess our relationships with governments who abuse their citizenry and repress dissent as to whether we are unwittingly allying with anti-democratic powers and thus exacerbating the problem of disenfranchisment and religious brainwashing. I really doubt we are "unwittingly" allying with such folks. If we were to un-ally ourselves with them, wouldn't we then lose the opportunity to use our economic and political capital that you suggest above?

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#27)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    As anyone who was of age during Vietnam can attest, there is nothing that focuses the mind like facing the possibility of being sent to war. This is where the rubber meets the road. The reasons for going to war are not abstractions when it is your life on the line. War no longer becomes a spectator sport that is enjoyed by people waving flags on the sidelines. What more than 5,500 soldiers have done is to take a serious look at the reasons given by Bush and found those reasons wanting. In discussing this issue, not a single commentator has provided a reason that these soldiers should go other than it is a contractual obligation. Don't you think you owe the families of the 1300 men and women who have given up their lives in this war a better explanation than that? As I've said before, how shallow the cause when the sacrifice of one's life is reduced to a contractual obligation.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    Mfox writes - Thanks for asking, Jim. I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you. I would use this country's economic and political capital to insist that the United Nations fulfill its mandate. I would embark in a multi-national twenty year plan which would: Given that we went to the UN in the Fall of 02 and Winter of 03, and given that they told us to bug off, what is your next plan? Infiltrate Al Queda through the use of planted spies and special ops. Now given that the type of person who might do this type of work isn’t likely to be the kind of guy you’d like to have brunch with, are you willing to cut that person some slack on the “nice” meter. And given that special ops might require some “panties on the head,” “frat boy body stacks,” and “dog collar leases,” would you agree that they are immune from prosecution? Provide economic incentives and disincentives to countries based on their border protections and willingness to persue Al Queda operatives in their country. Wonderful. And what will you do when they tell you to stick it in your ear” Re-assess our foreign oil dependence and mandate lowering our foreign oil dependence to 25% as a matter of national security. I just told my wife that I mandated that she reduce the household energy costs to 25% of previous levels. I won’t tell you what she actually said, but it contained references to dumb and certain body orifices. No, I will be kinder and just say, how will you do that? If I assume this is still a democracy, can you guess just how fast you will be dis-elected. Can you spell “next election?” And if you do by increasing US based sources, does that mean you will tell the environwhackos to kiss off, and drill in the Artic? Will you build nuclear reactors? Consider U.N. military action against countries that provide aid and comfort to Osama's Mujahadeen (such as Afghanistan and Sudan). Uh, you sure are big on having the UN do what they have just told us they won’t do. How will you do that? Diplomacy? Really? What stick do you have to use if they don’t? Assess our relationships with governments who abuse their citizenry and repress dissent as to whether we are unwittingly allying with anti-democratic powers and thus exacerbating the problem of disenfranchisment and religious brainwashing. What does that mean? So I say, Iran is evil. What then? Invade? Because you sure aren’t gonna make them change otherwise. And that's just a few for starters... Re: Social Security. When the bill for the war comes in, we pay it. When the bill for Social Security comes in, we pay it (with money we already have paid taxes with - there's certainly enough of it and for anyone to say the system will be broke is disingenuous at best. Clinton’s administration was wrong. Bush’s administration is wrong. But wait. The Demos have just switched position for political reasons so…. You know mfox, I don't think you have been living in the same world I do.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    “Don't you think you owe the families of the 1300 men and women who have given up their lives in this war a better explanation than that?” An overwhelming majority of the military and military families are died in the wool conservative republicans. They are in favor of the Iraq invasion. Are you then suggesting that we should ask the parents of a dead soldier to justify this war to you? It is equally as absurd. It is about time for the left to drop the mantra of ‘victim soldiers’. “What more than 5,500 soldiers have done is to take a serious look at the reasons given by Bush and found those reasons wanting.” I wonder how many reservists joined for the benefits, i.e. tuition, certain they wouldn’t need to fight only to later desert when they faced combat.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    Woops that should have been dyed; but perhaps the mistake is more fitting.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#31)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 21, 2005 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    Pig What I know is that those who have fought and died in this war includes conservatives, liberals, supporters of this war and opponents. Those who favor sending our men and women to war have an obligation to provide a reason for why they must fight. In other words wars should not be fought for light and transient reasons. The only reason you provide is because it says so in their contracts. I think even those military personnel and/or their families that support this war would find that reason insufficent.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 06:19:34 AM EST
    pigwiggle writes - "So it's increasing the effect of the taser, not the power, what's the difference?" Hard question. I would say 5549.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 06:22:13 AM EST
    et al - Pardon, I am LOL. I didn't copy when I thought I did and thus reposted what I had posted. Try this .... Pigwiggle writes - "I wonder how many reservists joined for the benefits, i.e. tuition, certain they wouldn’t need to fight only to later desert when they faced combat." Hard question. I would say 5549.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    john horse- Let me first say I don’t believe in messing in the affairs of any nation. I’m the kind that would prefer we only trade with others and perhaps letting our dignitaries rub elbows to grease the wheels of commerce. That being said I will tell you why I think the invasion was inevitable and a consequence of ‘both sides of the isle’. Prior to the invasion we were already fighting a war. No-fly zones and crippling sanctions are a war of attrition, and a particularly cruel one in my estimation. The sanctions were leverage for inspections and inspections were necessary for disarmament. I’m not in favor of disarmament; let his neighbors deal with him. If for some reason the US is attacked I propose we retaliate in such a horrific and disproportionate way to serve as an example. But I’m not the legislature or the UN, so we had sanctions. During the Clinton years there was much talk on the left about lifting sanction due to the negative impact on the Iraqis, for which oil-for-food was meant to fix. We know it didn’t, and additionally many so-called dual use items that were needed for a viable medical system were banned. It seems quite disingenuous to me to see those same folks complaining sanctions were working when 4 years ago they were decrying sanctions. Additionally, no one seriously thought sanctions were working; consequently we now have UN Security Council resolution 1441 with its laundry list of requirements, many of which Sadam failed to live up to. So, sanctions for inspections, a war of attrition, calls for no sanctions, an ongoing war of attrition, again calls for inspections, more material breaches of UNSCRs. The answer coming from the left was more of the same; from the right is a call to put down this lame horse. The entire mess looks absolutely inevitable to me. Sadam was more than happy to sell us oil, even the Kuwaiti’s in fact. There was no economic reason to invade, only one of fear. As the executives outline time after time, the fear that the next most likely nexus between terrorist and WMDs would be Baghdad. And of course they were wrong, its probably N Korea or Iran, however that’s a whole new kettle of fish.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    Pig, I do appreciate your attempt at providing a reason for why we should be fighting in Iraq. Running throughout you line of reasoning is that Saddam did not fully disarm, despite UN sanctions and inspections. We now know that he did disarm because we were unable to find any WMDs. If I am following you, you say the war was "inevitable" because Saddam could not produce the weapons that we erroneously believed he possessed. You also acknowledge that Iraq was not the "nexus between terrorist and WMDs." In other words, we sent Americans to die in Iraq not because Saddam was actually a threat but because we believed that he was a threat. By the way, you provide no reason for why Americans should be occupying Iraq. I guess that must have been "inevitable" as well. Also could you explain this. You say that you are not in favor of disarmament. Yet one of the major reasons that Bush said he invaded Iraq was because Saddam had not fully disarmed. If, according to you, it is wrong to use sanctions and inspections to make a country disarm, then isn't it also wrong to invade for the same purpose?

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    John Horse writes - "We now know that he did disarm because we were unable to find any WMDs. " Forgetting about the fact that the really bad stuff may have just been ran across the border... Why do you ignore the Kay Report? It clearly speaks to the efforts Saddam was going through to be in the WMD business, including long range missles. So if he had not been stopped, how can a reasonable person not understand that he would have had. "Second, we have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation. Even in the area of actual weapons there is no doubt that Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons. Even if there were only a remote possibility that these pre-1991 weapons still exist, we have an obligation to American troops who are now there and the Iraqi population to ensure that none of these remain to be used against them in the ongoing insurgency activity."

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#37)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    john horse- “We now know that he did disarm because we were unable to find any WMDs.” Sadam was found to be in material breach of UNSCR 1441, which included many stipulations other than providing reasonable proof for the absence of WMDs. Including, but not limited to, dissolution of weapons program resources; intellectual and otherwise. It has been clearly shown that Sadam actively maintained the intellectual capital and intent to restart weapons programs when inspections were complete. Additionally he maintained and was actively seeking banned conventional weapons. The list of UNSC resolution that pertained to Iraq covered many more areas than weapons of mass destruction; i.e. no-fly zones; radar installations in no fly zones, aggression toward no-fly patrols, etc. A more interesting question is why he postured as though he still had WMDs. “In other words, we sent Americans to die in Iraq not because Saddam was actually a threat but because we believed that he was a threat.” Correct. And it wasn’t just the US; all member states of the UN Security Council had been advised by their intelligence agencies that Sadam did have clandestine WMD programs. They were wrong. “By the way, you provide no reason for why Americans should be occupying Iraq.” It is an attempt to stabilize the country. I would be satisfied if we pulled troops out today, however I think you would find most folks would object to what they consider ‘abandoning’ Iraq. I imagine many progressives here would object; certainly John Kerry has. “ [if] it is wrong to use sanctions and inspections to make a country disarm, then isn't it also wrong to invade for the same purpose?” Yes. I’m not justifying it, simply pointing to its inevitability. There was a common goal by conservatives and liberals to disarm Iraq. The measured put in place over the last decade predictably moved the international community into UNSCR 1441. Combined with the absolute failure of UNSC countries’ intelligence there was little else to do. I imagine if the intelligence had been better we would still have crippling sanctions in Iraq. Hardly a solution; although it is the nature of an opposition to do little else but oppose. This is why you see many on the left pointing to the success of sanctions when they unequivocally opposed them before 1441. It is easier to criticize than provide a workable solution.

    Re: Army Charges Conscientious Objector (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 05:40:11 PM EST
    Sailor - The more common word used is Loyalists, albeit technically it´s not wrong to call them Royalists either. et al - Iraq is old news, get over it and start looking forward to the next quagmire!

    Army Charges Conscientious Objector | 36 comments (36 topical)