Wmtc readers, once again, I ask for your help.
You helped me find my way in my new country when I thought Canadian Tire sold only tires and a Green P was a choice of side dish. You taught me strange expressions like Meech Lake Accord and Arrogant Worms. You comforted us when we lost our dearest Buster, and cheered for us when we found jobs. You helped me fashion my comment policy and keep this blog free of trolls.
You're an intelligent lot, with a strong moral compass and finely tuned bullshit detectors. So once again, I ask you to explain something to me.
A person claims to oppose the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. He (I'll use "he" for argument's sake) claims to "100% oppose" the Resident and the current US agenda. He claims to want peace.
Yet he also says, "Soldiers sign contracts, and they have to do what they're told. It's up to civilians to end the war. But until it ends, if soldiers refuse orders, they must pay the consequences, whatever the US determines that to be."
I ask you, knowing...
... how military recruiters lie,
... how soldiers are involuntarily re-enlisted ("stop-lossed"),
... how under the internationally recognized Nuremberg Principles, a perpetrator of war crimes is responsible for his own behaviour, that "I was under orders" is not a legal excuse, and that international law supersedes the orders of any sovereign nation,
... how the Uniform Code of Military Justice says a soldier has a right and a duty to refuse to obey illegal orders,
... how history shows that there will never be a shortage of people to blindly follow orders, with horrific results, but there has always been a shortage of moral courage to refuse immoral orders,
...knowing all this, tell me how can a person who claims to oppose the war also claim that all soldiers must continue serving, or else go to prison?
Please explain this to me.