Irony of the day

[Brotha]

Awhile back I read about a sailor who refused to leave with his ship because he was opposed to the "illegal" Iraq war:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nort ... redes.html

Guess what his ship is doing now? Read this on a blog:

Reader Patrick Charles makes a great point: "One of the ships helping is the U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard, an amphibious assault vessel carrying U.S. Marines. This is the same ship that [critical phrase deleted] Navy Petty Officer Third Class and darling of the anti-war left, Pablo Paredes, refused to board back in Decemeber because his ship was aiding in the "illegal" war in Irag. This sailor went AWOL back in December and staged a little media party in San Diego back in December. This is a wonderful irony."

Yes it is. The Bonhomme Richard joined the effort in Sumatra today, and will depart for Sri Lanka later this week.

Boy, doesn't Pablo feel proud today? His protest against the "illegal" war ensured he would contribute absolutely nothing to the U.S. Navy's tsunami relief efforts. Way to go!

Good stuff

[Sueven]

Can you explain to me how that is either ironic or relevant?

To clarify:

A naval vessel being used for a naval mission that is different than the naval mission it was previously used for is not ironic, as a major component of irony is that the ironic event was the opposite of what was expected.

I do not understand why the current mission of this vessel should change my opinion in regards to the incident in question.

Finally, I think that Paredes is an idiot.

Edit: I suppose it could be considered ironic that he refused to board the ship in order to help prevent death, and he is thus denied an opportunity to save life. I still feel that:
1. He still would have been forced to aid in killing had he remained aboard the ship, contradicting the irony, and
2. The ironic outcome would be that people died because of his actions, not that he missed an opportunity to save others.

Actual irony in this situation would be that, say, he thought the ship was heading for Iraq but it actually headed directly to Sumatra to aid in relief without ever nearing Iraq. Or perhaps if his absence on the boat led to a mistake which caused the vessel to attack and kill innocents.

[Zaelath]

Thanks, Alanis.

[Lynks]

Irony would be him refusing to take part in anything illegal while he was smoking a cuban cigar at a cock fight.

[Aruman]

Irony would be him refusing to take part in anything illegal while he was smoking a cuban cigar at a cock fight.

That would be hypocrisy.

[*~*stragi*~*]

Irony would be him refusing to take part in anything illegal while he was smoking a cuban cigar at a cock fight.

That would be hypocrisy.

let me try!

That would be Christianity.

[Lynks]

Irony would be him refusing to take part in anything illegal while he was smoking a cuban cigar at a cock fight.

That would be hypocrisy.

And just a bit of irony.

Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended

You wouldn't expect him to be doing what he is doing.

[Aabidano]

Considering his job is completely defensive, against unmanned weapons that no one we're fighting posseses he wouldn't have been killing anyone regardless. Protecting those who are in an offensive position but that's about it. Adding extra workload to the people who actually did go as well, there isn't too much padding in a ships crew.

He's an idiot who could have achieved the same end in a manner that didn't screw others over for the next 6 months, and himself for the next ~10 years in other ways.

I've been to some of the places they're showing on the news, nearly unreconizable from then to now.

[Kylere]

He is a coward for his actions. Cowardice in the face of the enemy can legally be punished by execution and it should be.

Now, for joining the ARMED FORCES with no intent of going to war, he is a fraud and should be punished for entering into a contract he had no plan on upholding.

Also, he is an idiot, because that is his only defense for not knowing what the military is for and signing up anyways.

Not to mention he was a Petty Officer First Class, which is the rank equal of an E-4, which is the last enlisted rank with no real responsiblity and can be obtained in less than 18 months of service. he is no Admiral with knowledge of geopolitics rejecting the authority of the US Government, he is the Military equivilent of a Fry Cook at MCD's in terms of responsibility. I do not care what the world view is of some punk fry cook is and he is not worthy of a news conference.

[Lynks]

Kylere = Klingon?

Anyways, I wouldn't call him a coward for not taking part in an illegal war. If it was Afghanistan, then ya, he should be punished.

[Zaelath]

Maybe he just watched "A Few Good Men" one too many times.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Maybe he just watched "A Few Good Men" one too many times.

Agreed. I know I have.

[Kaldaur]

You can't handle the truth, Midnyte!

[Kylere]

Kylere = Klingon?

Anyways, I wouldn't call him a coward for not taking part in an illegal war. If it was Afghanistan, then ya, he should be punished.

Since when is ANY war legal?

Your ancestors burned down the White House, and slaughtered hundreds of millions of Natives, I see your wars being pure...NOT

If you sit at home and say , "I am not going to enlist I do not support the war" then so be it, if you SIGN up with FREE WILL, then you should honor your commitment. If I signed a contract promising you x in goods in exchange for Y in services, then you and I both ahve to deliver our parts, otherwise we show that we lacking in faith, fidelity and honor.

[Lynks]

1. You sign up to defend your country from harm, the war in Iraq wasn't about that.

2. I dont have to deliver X goods if your Y goods have been stolen.

3. Sorry, my ancestors didnt slaughter natives, please try again. And comparing the world today to what it was hundreds of years ago is a weak argument.

[Sueven]

You sign up to serve in the military. Part of this job is to take part in whatever actions the military chooses to assign you to, along with following orders from your commanding officers. As far as I know, military regulations don't give soldiers the luxury to decide whether their assignments are acceptable or not.

Now the fact that you've signed up to do something doesn't mean that you must, in fact, do it. I would argue that someone who chose to desert over a matter of principle such as this had better have an ironclad argument to back it up.

[Zaelath]

It's a borderline call, "I was just following orders" is no defense in a war crimes tribunal. Of course, there's room within the system to accommodate those objections, most of which end up in a military jail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Perhaps that's why he had his media circus; if no one knows about it, you'll certainly rot in jail a lot longer than if everyone does.

If someone wanted me to go to Iraq I'd take my lumps back home too, illegal or not, I goes against everything I believe in.

[Aabidano]

3. Sorry, my ancestors didnt slaughter natives, please try again. And comparing the world today to what it was hundreds of years ago is a weak argument.

Look at the Canadian govt's indian\innuit policies that were in place until very recently before you make those statements. It wasn't a hundred years ago, try 20-25. And no, the US isn't lily white in that respect either.

Anyway, what he did while serious, was minor enough to be punishable by administrative action, to give you some idea of his crime\impact on life in general.

Perhaps that's why he had his media circus; if no one knows about it, you'll certainly rot in jail a lot longer than if everyone does.

If you knew anything about the military justice system, you wouldn't make that statement. He did it for the melodrama, you'll note that once the media outlets found out what really happened, they dropped the story very fast.

When he declared his intent and sat on the pier missing ships movement, they left him alone. Not because of the press, but because 1) he hadn't done anything illegal yet, and 2) he wasn't worth the bother.

The US military justice system is the closest thing you'll see to a court\disciplinary system that delivers actual justice. It works very well, way better that the civilian court system IMO.

Kylere - he was a Petty Officer Third Class, the lowest Navy NCO rank. First Class is an E-6. Looking at his time in service and specialty, he should have been a couple grades higher. Those folks are generally E-5s when they leave secondary training.

*Edit - At a guess, he will be court martialed (which is nothing like you see on TV, I've been to a few), be reduced in rank to E-1, forfeit all pay and allowances, serve anywhere from 30-90 days in the brig (jail) and receive a dishonorable discharge. They could do more (or less) but neither is likely.

[Aruman]

Kylere - he was a Petty Officer Third Class, the lowest Navy NCO rank. First Class is an E-6. Looking at his time in service and specialty, he should have been a couple grades higher. Those folks are generally E-5s when they leave secondary training.

This type of person was called a 'dud' in the US Army. I have no idea what they are called in the US Navy.

Anyway, looks like the US Navy will be discharging an oxygen thief... no great loss.

[Bubba Grizz]

I am with Kylere on this one. You took the responsibility to join the armed services and you benefit from all the things they offer. You had better be prepared to actually defend your country when the time comes. It isn't for you to decide what your role will be. You gave up a portion of your free will when you said the oath. If you can't handle that then you should never have gotten into the service in the first place. The closest thing to the military you should be is flipping burgers for AAFES.

[Lynks]

You had better be prepared to actually defend your country when the time comes.

Sorry for being a broken reacord (some of you have a hard time processing information), but what threat did Iraq pose again?

[Bubba Grizz]

You had better be prepared to actually defend your country when the time comes.

Sorry for being a broken reacord (some of you have a hard time processing information), but what threat did Iraq pose again?

You see it doesn't really matter. You are told where you go and who to point your weapons at. Beyond that you don't need to know. If you need to know you will be told. This may sound like the military are a bunch of non thinking robots but this is the way it must be. If solider suddenly stops in the middle of a fire fight and says that doesn't want to fight anymore because he thinks it is an illegal war then he endangers not only his own life but those lives of the men in his unit. Bottom line is, you are not paid to have an opinion much less act on them.

[Zaelath]

That works right up until you're in Nuremberg.

[Bubba Grizz]

That works right up until you're in Nuremberg.

Only if you lose.

[Aabidano]

Agree with it or not, might makes right in international politics. What constitues a legal war? Getting permission to do so? Or should it be strictly responding to a direct threat to your own nation. While I don't know that the justification given for the war was accurate, the world will (likely) be a better place without Saddam leading a nation in it.

Suppose Hitler was only butchering Jews within his own borders, would that mean we should leave him alone?

The "winner" makes the rules, McNamara said in an interview that had we "lost" in Vietnam due to China, Russia, or whoever getting involved he believed he'd have been prosecuted for war crimes.

There are things that are very evident to be wrong, illegal, whatever. Yes you can get away disobeying those orders when they happen, however this is most certainly not one of those situations.

[Zaelath]

Agree with it or not, might makes right in international politics. What constitues a legal war? Getting permission to do so? Or should it be strictly responding to a direct threat to your own nation. While I don't know that the justification given for the war was accurate, the world will (likely) be a better place without Saddam leading a nation in it.

I could say the very same thing for Bush though, I really don't see that as a justification for war, or even assassinating him.

Vile as it is, I have to agree that you're basically untouchable while you are so mighty But, that doesn't mean that soldiers should be reviled for acts of conscience.

[Cartalas]

Hey Lynks Im calling Bullshit on this statement!!!

"3. Sorry, my ancestors didnt slaughter natives, please try again. And comparing the world today to what it was hundreds of years ago is a weak argument."

Im assuming your ancestors came from Canada.






"1880

Canada creates the Department of Indian Affairs to control the assets, culture and religion of the First Nation Canadians (Indians).

A riot broke out at Fort Walsh when the farming instructor refused to give rations to the starving Indians. The Indian Act made it very clear "the term person means an individual other than an Indian." This simple provision allowed Canadians to treat Indians as animals. The Indians are effectively removed from all basic human rights. A Mohawk summed up the Indian Act this way; "the Indian Agent's duties are becoming more and more like the commander of an internment camp of a defeated enemy." Each Indian, like any prisoner of war is given a treaty number that over time became like a surname. His movements are restricted and governed, he could not buy or sell the products of his labor, he could not practice his religion nor raise his children in his religious tradition. The Indian Act failed to completely subjugate the People and religious ceremonies are conducted in isolated places. These Canadian ghettos became a model for the justification of the German ghetto for the Jews. The only difference is the Jew is deemed civilized but killers of Christ whereas as the Indians are savage."

[Spang]

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Zaelath]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

You forgot to highlight according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

[Spang]

i know. Pablo didn't disobey any unlawful orders.

[Zaelath]

Ollie certainly did.. there's precedent for unlawful Presidential orders. Given it's pretty much accepted grunts don't tend to be lawyers, they are pretty much screwed either way. All they can hope is that if they can show reasonable cause for their assessment of an order, legal or not, the judge will go easy in the sentencing phase.

[Nick]

What a stupid fucking thread.

[Cartalas]

What a stupid fucking thread.

It is now!