American Soldiers refuse orders to attack Syria!

No the pics arent real. In reality it is the Syrian soldiers who somehow got American uniforms and wanted to make america look bad. LOL

 

No we don't, no they don't. The President begets respect via his leadership, which is a quality this administration is SORELY lacking. Has America EVER intervened in a civil war until now? As Syrian said, we didn't intervene in Darfur in the 90's and the slave trade still ongoing in Africa. So why intervene here?

 

Yep, figured as much with the non issue headgear. The ball cap was out when I became a soldier in 1979 and the boonie was non issue after 1972.

You should post a photo of a guy in a civil war uniform or a ww1 doughboy.

 

Plenty of time... Korea, vietnam, south america... Plenty of intervention in civil wars.

 

right. keep believing whatever you want to believe

 

Link to the quotes you posted in the OP, please. Unless you're claiming to have heard this conversation with your own ears, we need a link.

 

Sorry but he's right. You can get these in any surplus store in just about any countries.

 

Posting a photo of a guy in a Roman uniform would be more pertinent since that is the last time you freakish people had civility and governance.

 

Pure Baathist propaganda, as evidenced mostly by the fact that according to the little check sheet of attacked countries Israel isn't a country only a claim which Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the rest of their terrorist fellow travelers try to assert.

Link from "the post" regarding their anonymous source?

 

U.S. military officers have deep doubts about impact, wisdom of a U.S. strike on Syria

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...5dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/military-uneasy-syria-strike/2013/08/30/id/523141

 

Link already posted. I guess "Washington Post" is Ba'athist Propoganda !

 

Newsmax has an agenda. Find a non aligned source.

NOT ALLOWED with pre posed photos before anything happened are a joke. Might as well post photos about the Apollo mission blowing up on the way to the moon before it was even launched.

And yes, I am right about the ball caps and boonies.

 

I added Washington Post. That was the original source.

I guess you will find an excuse to dismis Washington Post too!

 

I see now that Republicans would have done whatever they could to undermine Ameirica in order to discredit a Democrat president. It's a good thing this is being put to a vote, eh?

Either we're all in or (*)(*)(*)(*) Syria and poison gas is okay to use on civilians anywhere in the world by anybody.

Personally, I think we should give those monkeys a box of grenades and let them sort it out themselves and we should take care of our problems. No harm to us in shipping monkeys boxes of grenades.

 

He only discredit himself after making a red line. Not he dont know what to do.

 

Asserting that Israel isn't a country that Syria attacked on numerous occasions both directly and by proxy through terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, asserting that Syria didn't invade Lebanon, assassinate their leaders and refused to leave after being requested to do so by the Lebanese in 1986 4 years after their mandate ended in 1982, asserting that Syria didn't invade Jordanian territory in 1970 in an attempt to overthrow the Jordanian government on behalf of Palestinian terrorists, and asserting that the United States attacked for example Kuwait in 1991 when in actuality we liberated them from Iraqi occupation, is pure Baathist propaganda.

 

After WW2 many Nazi officers and troops were in court for crimes against humanity. Their cases were dismissed because it was found that "they were just obeying orders".

Then, in the Geneva Convention, between the articles in the treaty, it was stipulated that an officer or soldier has the right to refuse an order from superiors if the act of war was an agression against another country -The USA against Syria in this case- without provocation from the second.

I wonder if the troops who went to Iraq or to any other war after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, etc) knew about this part of the Geneva Convention.

I wonder as well, why this particular statement has disappeared and is not found in the many current publications on the Geneva Convention.

According to the Geneva Convention realized after WW2, no officers or troops might be under martial court for their refusal to participate in attacking another country without a declaration of war, or a provocation from the other country, and less to kill civilians and other already conventional accords. This stipulation was made to avoid similar future crimes against humanity -like Nazis did- by obeying orders from their superiors and not be under court martial because disobedience.

 

Really? American Soldiers are "allowed to refuse to fight"?!
Oh....wait a second.
Yeah, they are; but they're then subject to things like "Court Martial" and charges of Dereliction of Duty, things like that.

One has to wonder if leaving that tidbit off the post, was intentional or not.
B/c stated as baldy as it was written?
Reeks of intellectual dishonesty, in my humble opinion, beyond the pale.

*disgusted*

Thanks for clearing that up!

Aw crap.
You were just "funning" us.....

This type of behavior from Soldiers drives me bonkers!
And it did yes, when so many tried it/did it with the Afghan War and the Iraq war.
Soldiers simply are not, are not, are NOT "permitted" to pick and choose which damn fight they "want" to fight in.....and which ones they don't.
(without consequences)
To even suggest that a National Military force could be formed from a policy of telling Servicemen and Service Women...."It's okay, you only have to fight in wars/conflicts you agree with", is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ridiculous, I can't believe anyone sane would even consider it.

Politicians/lawmakers decide which wars to send military too and always have.

Vietnam sucked serious ass too....and lots of those soldiers were drafted.

Geez this kind of crap is so damn infuriating.

 

The soldiers are right, they should not be fighting on the same side al-qaeda, which is what they will be doing if they attack Syrian government and army !

 

Except that since they volunteered, no....in fact, refusing a lawful order, is in fact, the very definition of wrong.

I would have given anything to serve in the military and were it not for an undiagnosed balance disorder, I would have.
I would not have given a tiny rat's ass, at the time, about the idiocy of the discrimination policy, in effect at the time, with regards to us queers.

I would have jumped at the chance to serve my country proudly and would have done so with reverence, honor (one hopes) and pride that I was doing that I'd signed up to do.

That there are so many people (supposedly) refusing to do so?
It's freakin', (*)(*)(*)(*)ing disgusting to me.

On the edit:
AFK for a bit, strictly for medical reasons...I am not, "abandoning" this discussion & will in fact return to it ASAP.
tresh

 

So, what was the purpose of the OP other than to make people laugh and make Marines psychotically pissed and want to massacre Syrians with shovels?

 

Thank you. Neither link contains the pictures you posted... but I did look over the Mother Syria site one of the pics came from.

Problem is, blaming the US for Syria's problems doesn't help the Syrians who are dying as we speak. Maybe your anger would be more useful if directed at those doing the actual killing in your country.

It's not the USA.

 

Yeah, I linked this to a US Marine site and they want to kill all Syrians with shovels and hammers now, apparently. Kinda funny.

 

This whole thing is rife with hypocrisy. People keep bringing up the Iraq war and how we aren't going to repeat those mistakes. The reason we are possibly going ot strike against Syria is its alleged use of chemical weapons which I am still not convinced was done by the rebels or a rebel sympathizer officer who stayed behind the lines to cause chaos. We know that some of Syria's military joined the rebels so it only makes sense they would leave some people behind to keep tabs on what was going on and cause some chaos if possible.

We criticize the Iraq invasion because we didn't find any WMDs, only the programs themselves. We know for a fact that Saddam gassed and killed over 5,000 Kurds with chemical weapons with 10s of thousands more suffering permanent injuries. Saddam also killed over 180,000 Kurds in his ethnic cleansing campaign. This doesn't even included any Iraqis killed by Saddam. By all accounts Saddam was far worse than Assad and yet the Iraq war was "wrong". If the Iraq war was wrong it is inconceivable to promote a strike against Syria.

This isn't a clear cut case of bad guys versus good guys. Assads opponents are AQ and other extremist groups in the mix. Neither side should be supported.

They hypocrisy I am seeing from some people is astounding.

 

Not to mention sending in American soldiers is not even on the table as an option.