[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 17:15:11 03/22/07 Thu
Subject: Addendum to Ehren Watada discussion
Let me just qualify what I said, again, lest I offend anyone. We all have different views on what is and isnít legal or constitutional, or whether or not the Constitution should even be regarded in this discussion.
From my perspective, Ehren Watada was correct in refusing to deploy to Iraq based on his argument that the war was illegal in the first place. Now, I canít say what his real motivation was, only that if I take him for his word, then he was in the right. My perspective is based upon my personal study of the Constitution.
On the other hand, I know that there are those who disagree with me about the legality of the war, although, I honestly cannot understand their side. Iíve asked many times and never heard a good argument for the legality of the war. But that aside, Iím sure that there are many good people who believe that what they are doing by going to Iraq is in the best interest of the country, and that they are doing their patriotic duty.
If those people have studied the Constitution and that is the conclusion that they have come to, then God bless them. On the other hand, if they havenít studied the Constitution that they took an oath to defend, and have only gone to Iraq because they were simply following orders, then I say, shame on them. I think itís implied that when a person signs a contract, they understand, or should understand what it is they are signing. A person serving the country in the position of a military servant has the moral obligation to study and understand the Constitution, and if they donít, they are no patriot nor hero of mine. Itís not like trying to understand a 60-page mortgage contract that takes a professional to read and explain. The Constitution was written so simply that a person with a basic education can understand it. If you havenít studied it, then donít you dare take an oath to defend it. Youíre no more qualified to defend me than Iím qualified to give you a heart transplant.
So my question is simply this:
Did you study the Constitution that you took an oath to defend and are your actions in line with your understanding of the Constitution?
If your answer is ďyesĒ and you decided to refuse to go to Iraq, then I salute you.
If your answer is ďyesĒ and you decided it was still the right thing to go to Iraq, then I respect you.
If your answer was ďnoĒ, no matter what your decision was, then you have no right being in the military or representing our country under any circumstances.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
- Jay -- Cricket, 09:24:01 03/26/07 Mon