Active Military members speaking out against Iraq war.
 

Serveral active military members are speaking out against the war in Iraq, with the number of troops being killed in Iraq soaring I quess their(active military) voices should be heard.

Military personnel are not 'authorized' to have a vocal political opinion. I am very divided on if it is fair or not. I am more inclined toward believing that military personnel should shoot, communicate and move out-keeping their opinions inside their head. Our military system is deigned in a fashion that is contrary to democracy-to minimize dissention within units. Each member is well aware of the rules prior to enlisting. Violators can can incur judcial action.

Unless they are telling us something we dont already know, i think the media should not encourage them to possibly ruin their careers.

Military Members and their opinions
 

We may have an opinion about the war in Iraq, however as a military member our opinion should not be vocalized while we are at work or as a voice of dissension. It can cause a lot of issues and you may be labeled a conscientious objector and subject to UCMJ. As a former active duty member and current reservist, I have an opinion about it, however I just don't talk about it while I am in a military setting.
We can disagree with it, but the fact remains that if you are deployed you have to go and honor your oath and contract as a servicemember

I think, and I could be wrong, that most people sign up to fight for their country justly. I would take the punishment that comes along with stating the truth: this war is wrong, expensive, and the agenda of certain members of the White house and not the general public.

These men/women know the risk their taking and I fully commend them for speaking out.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. THIS is one of the reasons why I ultimately did not accept the commission to the Air Force academy. Of course, this was also around the time the FIRST Gulf War kicked off....

I don't really see this as news...I mean, this comes as no shock to me, I imagine the military is split on the issue just like the American people are.

I have to agree w/Opi. If this war was against a country involved w/ 9-11 that would be one thing but to be expected to fight & die b/c of a bunch of mis-information & lies is something totally different. Then when one remembers that too little forces were sent & that the equipment was sub-standard to the point that some troops were forced to request that their parents provide them w body armour......I think a little venting is in order.

[QUOTE=teena;1346306]Military personnel are not 'authorized' to have a vocal political opinion. I am very divided on if it is fair or not. I am more inclined toward believing that military personnel should shoot, communicate and move out-keeping their opinions inside their head.

Like sheep......sorry teena I couldn't resist that one....but I do respect the opinions of yours & GIJANE

Saudi Arabia was a country involved in 9/11, should we invade them. There are terrorists throughout the middle east, people saying we should only be fighting it in Afghanistan shows a completely erroneous understanding of what we're up against.

Yes. Instead of bending over backwards and kissing the Saudis ass, they should be warned to get a handle on the problem of terrorism or else. I quess it's hard to attack the real producers of terrorism when you're in their hip pocket as deep as the Bush family is in the Saudis'. There are many home grown terrorist right here in America remember Timothy McVeigh so to just focus on the middle east is asinine. Back to the thread w/96 troop members killed so far in October I can understand some active members being outspoken about the direction of the war.

The first commissioned officer to publicly speak out against the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

If you know like I know, you'd better HOPE that our military personnel are very much like sheep, otherwise we gonna be in a whole heap of trouble.

AXEAM, entertain me on this....if soldiers following orders without question or public dispute is sheeplike, how does pledging/being a part of a fraternal organizaton compare? I think the two are one in the same, except one's global impact being much more influential on global affairs.

I still say that unless they are revealing something scandalous, they should be quiet and stick to their mission.

I think when the troops are not provided w/ body armour this counts as scandalous...how can the troops succeed if they are not given the proper equipment. Also they were sold a bill of false goods, it's hard to put your life on the line for B.S.

Couple of thoughts about this thread in general and one point about this quote in particular.
First, No one expects the military to be overjoyed by all of their assignments. Some of them can be downright unpleasant and some pretty heartbreaking. Further, the Military is not expected to be ardent philosophical supporters of any war. What the military is expected to do is to carry out the foreign policy of the United States and not to undermine it by public dissent. From time immemorial it has been a soldier's right to "grouse" about his/her job, his/her sergeant, his/her CO, the war he/she is in, or just about anything else that ticks him/her off. What that soldier cannot do is publicly do anything to undermine the mission. Our Army is built on the principle of civilian control. That is an absolute. If the Army starts second guessing what it wants to do or not do then we can expect to follow the model of countries where military coups are the normal way of advancing the political process. In the USA the military is the instrument of the government, not the other way around. If one does not like the way the government is doing its job then one must exercise his/her vote to change things. All military personnel can vote and all are encouraged to do so.
God help us if the Army starts changing our foreign policy on its own.

Second, as to the quoted comment, one does not accept a commission to the Academy. One accepts an appointment to the Academy and earns that commission if one is successful in completing a rigorous four year program. Its not an exercise in semantics, its a very crucial difference.

axem, you keep bringing up Timothy McVeigh, why? I agree, I mean, sure we should obviously be on the lookout for domestic terrorism, but if you think its as large a threat as Islamic terrorism is, you're nuts.