^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

eom

...then tell your superiors that you refuse their orders because they're carrying on 'an immoral war', and see where that takes you.....

I'm sure you'll find the experience amusing and enlightening

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

Ehren Watada did just that.

That the army refuse en masse to carry out Bush's order? Is there a precedent for this in history?

Just Google "military mutiny" for all kinds of examples down through history to the present day. THe military of many nations have initiated full scale mutiny and, often, overthrown political masters. The Russian military stages full scale rebellion at least once per century. Then there's South America. Asia. Who can even count?

Obvisouly, full mutiny hasn't happened en masse in the US, but there are many, many smaller examples.

In December 2006, according to GLobal Research "raqi military sources told the newspaper that the reason that the American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Baghdad urgently after two days he received his new post as a Defense Minister; is to extinguish a military mutiny carried out by American VI Battalion based in Anbar, after refusing to obey orders and prefer not to leave their base in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province."

The sources added that Washington and specifically military, and intelligence in the American Congress, designedly sending Gates to rectify the mistakes that were made by his predecessor Rumsfeld and the most serious is; the American soldiers surrendering to the Iraqi resistance in Ramadi, which is what happened a month and a half before, while Iraqi resistance clashed with American patrol and managed to burn their military vehicle, US soldiers had no choice but to surrender and hope for safety.

With a help of an interpreter, the American POW explained they do not wish to fight the Iraqis and asked their captors to help them to smuggle them to Turkey across Mosul, Syria-Iraq borders in order to request political asylum."

The largest known mutiny in US military history was the Port Chicago Mutiny of 1944 when two transport vessels loading ammunition at the Port Chicago, California naval base were suddenly Explosionengulfed in a massive explosion. The blast destroyed everything within a one-mile radius, including the two ships, the pier and the dock. It killed 320 men on the base, and injured nearly 400 more, most of whom were black. Also almost completely destroying the town of Port Chicago 1.5 miles away, it was the worst home-front military disaster of World War II.

Afterward, a group of surviving enlistees refused to load munitions again until they could be assured of the safety of their working conditions. The Navy court-martialed 50 of these men for mutiny, and dishonorably discharged them. All were imprisoned, though President Truman commuted their sentences after the war was over.

SNIP from Pt Chicato Naval Mutiny:

In the aftermath of the explosion 300 uninjured African-American enlisted Navy men on the base en masse refused to comply when ordered to return to their assigned duty loading ammunition into the cargo holds of ships destined for the Pacific Theater of war. Although the Port Chicago Magazine shiploading pier had been destroyed in the explosion, the nearby Mare Island Naval Magazine piers were operational; to that facility the men were ordered to duty, which order they refused. Following confinement below decks on a barge at Mare Island the assembled men were addressed by the Commandant of the 12 Naval District (San Francisco) and instructed that they were subject to summary execution if they remained in defiance. Two hundred seventy-five men then agreed to return to duty as ordered and in summary courts-martial were convicted of insubordination and other offenses. Fifty of the men remained obdurate and were charged with mutiny-in-wartime and convicted of that charge by formal Navy court-martial. The Port Chicago mutiny is the largest mutiny in United States military history. Various legal reviews of the proceedings during 55 years sustained the convictions. On December 23, 1999, President William Clinton granted presidential pardon to one of the two known surviving Port Chicago mutineers, Mr. Freddie Meeks.

Thanks, Chickadee

But Chickadee did a good job.

I'll add my observation that the mass refusal of Russian soldiers to obey orders to take Moscow during the coup d'etat of 1991 is why that country hasn't been under a military dictatorship since that time.

And I'll add that Cheney and his ilk can't pull their scurrilous bullshit without help from willing goons. Empowering our goons to refuse to carry out actions that they see as wrong may be our only remaining tool to prevent evil men from prosecuting illegitimate wars.

the civvies during Vietnam to blindly assume that, just becaus they're there, the soldiers would be, by definition, evil.

So very, very, wrong. soldiers go where they're ordered, and do as they're ordered. You might say "well, you can always just say 'No', but you'd be wrong yet again. Disobedience of a lawful order will get you jail time (stockade), and possibly a bad-conduct discharge, something that will limit your future civilian life to scut-work at best.

I hope that whatever got Andy didn't hurt, and was quick. He was a decent sort, and deserved better than he got.
-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

our boys are "just following orders".

Sorry, it won't wash. Not the blood on their hands nor the ethical acrobatics required to justify what they do.

;-)

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash

...

Who knew?

reflect the editors or Agonist's views. I would think a regular blog reader would understand that.. Every blog with decent traffic in the world gets commenters who say things the bloggers don't agree with as does every forum in the world -- say, for example, the NY Times forums. Your attempt to smear both the Agonist and John Edwards is, however, duly noted as is the fact that your standard, duly applied, would make almost all blogs with comments and most newspaper and magazines unable to endorse anyone since someone in their comments, for sure, will have once said something offensive to someone.

Because a commenter says something at the Agonist does not mean the Agonist endorses it. For that matter, because a front page article says something, doesn't mean every editor (or any editor) agrees. If you've got a problem with something someone said at the Agonist, take it up with them, they own their words. If there's an editorial pattern, then take it up with the editors, but that doesn't apply here.

And if how Rush twists words is how you decide what speech to support and what not to support, you'll excuse us if we don't rush to join you in applying the "Rush" standard.

very brief post can be construed in any way as politicizing his death. As for the commenters: while I really dislike the tone and tenor of those attacking a soldier simply for being a soldier I am A.) not responsible for what other people write or think and B.) not about to delete comments just because I disagree with their point of view. We will delete comments if they incite to violence or threaten people but other than that? Not going to happen. Feel free to insinuate anything you want from my post, but the fact is that I simply mentioned his death and pointed out where to read his final post to other who were interested. There is no politics in that.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

if we refuse to call them out when they do wrong?

Franco's boys were wrong, and Pol Pot's, and Hitler's, and Cheney's too. They, and not just the arch villains who gave them their orders, bear responsibility for the harm and injustice they have done. Until we can make even the most blinkered teenage moron understand that, evil men will continue to be able to enact evil wars without direct consequences for themselves.

Your stance that this occupation is illegal and immoral is worthy and admirable. I support it. Your attack on a person because they believe differently, and chose to live by their ideals, paints you in the same narrow minded approach, and disrespecting tone, as used by the ugly and vile Hannity, O'Reilly, Coultier, et, el. I expect the word stupid to by used by them, not by those whom would oppose their agenda.

It is not what you believe that is at issue here, but the manner by which you present, and the lack of humility with which you present.

If you truly believe that you are better than others, especially those whom think differently than you, what is to keep that same judgment from being thrown in the face of your like minded ilk? I, for one, do not wish to find the same judgmental condensation thrown into my face, simply because I am in disagreement with some of your ideals and values.

Also, if you would vilify those whom supported the invasion, you are engaging in the age old propaganda ploy that has been used since mankind first battled amongst themselves; making your enemy less than human. It was what BushCo™ did to gain support of their invasion of Iraq.

Andrew was not, and never would have been, your enemy. He was an American citizen, doing what he believed to be right. Your stance against the invasion and occupation is what you believe to be right. How does that make you enemies? It seems that each choosing to live by the values and beliefs you find important makes you both similar. It is, in fact, the very ideal as espoused in our constitution, the right to live and act by our beliefs and values; the pursuit of happiness.

If you wish to decry the architects of this invasion, and their willing puppets in the media, I suggest you refrain from engaging in the very same hateful, spiteful rhetorical behavior as them. Otherwise, there is no option but to see you as the left-wing version of them, attacking the essence of the American Constitution just as they have been doing these many years.

You, too, can post on the internet.

I suggest holding back on your bile until you have something useful to say...

-5.75,-4.05
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, but it's very funny--
Did you ever try buying them without money?
-- Ogden Nash