Hey Bush ..
Don't be a fuc*ng hero.You have killed thousands of U.S soldiers because of your big shot,"i'm your hero who's going to solve all the problems" attitude..
You stupid redneck with your stupid speeches..
All the crap that's going on right now is bacause you YOU !!! you dumb ass
yeah...you're all tough threatening a small nation to get rid of their weapons
Try threatening a bigger nation you idiot..Korea has weapons too and so does China;you don't seem to be sticking you redneck nose in their business..You coward..I wonder what you would do if it was your family member in the warzone;I bet you would cry like a little redneck baby you stupid moron..
I would LOVE to see you blindfolded with iraqi soldiers behind you getting ready to behead your sorry redneck asss

Asian version of Muhammad Ali

US military personnel face a difficult moral dilemma when serving our country.
They must sacrifice themselves without having the right to criticize their commanders. They are not able to determine whether or not they believe in the war. The average soldier has no say no ability to influence our leader’s foreign policy. Those that do are punished and silenced. They are made an example of how not to act. They are deemed traitors or conspirators for thinking critically, for questioning a conflict that may take their lives and undoubtedly impact them forever. Furthermore many do not understand what they are sacrificing before they join. Are they giving all of the facts regarding service? Do they understand the extent to which they must not question authority? Do they understand what is means to maim, to kill, and to destroy?

I understand that cohesion, discipline and organization are the foundation for a successful military. However is Watada so wrong in what he is doing? From childhood we are taught a set of morals and are blessed with a set of rights. Is it possible or even fair to block these morals and rights from soldiers. They are the ones placing their lives on the line everyday, they are the ones that suffer from our mistakes, they are the ones who have the best insight on the realities of our military policies and yet they cannot speak out? That seems counter productive at least from a long-term approach.

Where do we draw the line between duty and moral obligation? Why do we punish criminals for murder and yet allow our soldiers to do the same? How do we remain consistent in our beliefs and polices at home and abroad? Watada has indirectly forced us to answer those questions.

Mr Watada is a disgrace to Asian-Americans and not fit to be a U.S. soldier. By joining the military, he has an obligation to the Commander-In-Chief. His country was attacked on 9/11 and war waged by the Taliban and al Qaeda, and Iraq under Hussein had made contact with UBL's terrorists. He was being ordered to Iraq to do his job and fulfill his duty. Regrettably, he has failed all of us.

Eugene, I disagree. Watada joined the military to fight terrorism, but he's also not blindly following orders. He's doing his thinking, and came to the conclusion that there's no connection between Iraq and terrorists. It must be difficult for him to make such a stand, and to do so publically. I think that is courageous, not a disgrace.

Yes, our country was attacked. But what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Nothing. There are no weapons of mass destruction there. Hussein is not al Qaeda. So why are we wasting our time occupying a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? This takes our energy away from fighting actual terrorism.

Here's an update. Watada has now been formally charged and could face 8 years in prison: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/war_objector

See you in the brig, at least two years!

Watada is another fine example of how there are no strong Asian men in America. Just like that Asian Muslim chaplain or that Chinese scientist who got busted, Watada proves yet again that Asian men will only grace the pages of mass media if they are perverts, sneaky, weak or whining. Where are the Asian Jarheads who smoke Marlboros and kill (without two-fisted guns or aerial acrobatics)???

Is that the only way to be masculine? To smoke and kill people? Sounds like someone is feeling insecure.

Insecure? "Insecure"? How about "inane" or "insane"? Oh, I'm so-sorry. I guess it's only cool when white guys smoke, only patriotic when enlisted latino immigrants kill and defend our country. Besides -- prejudice is about perceptions. Why do lesbians dress like men? Why do gay men work out and try to be He-Men? Are they insecure? Do you think they are insecure? Oh, so-sorry again. Since the prevailing view is that Asian men are weak, I guess the word "insecure" IS appropriate when a straight Asian man speaks up. It's a pity when Asian women hate Asian men. These "strong" Asian women also don't have a problem with "macho" men who are white/black (non-Asian). Double-standard?

I didn't say it was cool when white guys smoke and kill people. Or latinos. Or black men. Did I say that it's hot when these guys do it, but not hot when an Asian man does it. No, I did not. I love my men masculine. And I love Asian men. But my definition of masculine does not include smoking and killing people.

I'm not calling you insecure because you're a straight Asian man speaking up. It has nothing to do with your Asian-ness or your straightness. It's about what you define as masculine. Why is it about physical agression? Perhaps that's what this society thinks is manly. But I think that's a stupid and dangerous way to think of what is manly.

Stupid and dangerous? Exactly. Precisely why I listed “inane” or “insane” in my initial response. Unfortunately, instead of stupid, dangerous, inane, or insane, the first word that fluttered out of someone’s fingertips was “insecure.” Spin all you want, but I doubt that the word “insecure” would have sputtered out if it was a white/black/Latino – anyone other than an straight and strong Asian male – who was making the point.
And getting back to the point – the initial comment with respect to Marlboros and toting guns has nothing to do with whether or not these iconic images should construe masculinity – right/wrong good/bad is NOT the issue –that these images ARE perceived by American media as attributes of manliness/masculinity (ergo strength, stature, power) in American society IS pertinent.
Watada can object all he wants and do whatever he wants – the issue is why the American mass media continues to highlight “weak” Asian males, and thereby continue to deny ANY depiction of Asian males as being strong. I would prefer that there were NO representations of Asian males in American media if all we see – over and over – are Asian males who are either “mystical” (supernatural aerial martial arts acrobatics or two-gun-toting-never-run-out-of-bullets, a combination of both, or John Lone playing the “Ice Man” or Jason Scott Lee being the “Jungle Boy”), “mythical” (supernatural aerial martial arts acrobatics – the difference is only that it is set in ancient China), “measly and weak” (comedic, soft-spoken, asexual, or gay).
In the absence of any Asian males being portrayed as “strong” (as perceived by society) and a proliferation of Asian men being “mystical,” “mythical,” and “measly and weak” in American media, the anti-Straight and Strong Asian Male sentiment has become so pervasive that the majority of Americans do not even see an Asian male as – an Asian male. The inconvenient truth is that many Asians, themselves, have accepted this as the norm, and therefore, it is of NO surprise that the first word uttered was “insecure” – a stereotypical anti-Strong Asian Male moniker akin to “bitter,” “whining,” or “weak.”
Questioning the correctness of a prevalent perception is noble, but placing the onus only when an Asian male speaks up is another form of Asian Male-bashing.
Iconoclastic images – Marlboros and toting guns – are iconoclastic for a reason. They resonate – for good or for bad – with the masses. These images – for good or bad – will prevail.
Light one up for Asian Males.
PS: Watada, while a victim himself of American media -- victimizes all Asian American males. Besides, he apparently believes that some wars are worth fighting for and others aren’t. Please, Asian. War is war. Don’t be like the Pro-Lifers who oppose abortion but not the death penalty, or religious fools who believe in heaven (but not for all, especially for the non-believers), or the pseudo-liberals who are “open-minded” (except when someone has a contrary opinion -- at which point they inevitably poo-poo anyone who disagree with their enlightened East Coast education).

You are wrong to think that I called you insecure because you're Asian. It has to do with your gender, not your race. I would have called any man insecure for making such a comment. That you think I called you insecure because of the fact that you are Asian kind of reinforces that you're insecure, no? Why are you so convinced that it is race based?

BTW, I believe the topic of this post is America's involvement in Iraq and a soilder's stance against that. This is not a discussion of American mass media's portrayal of Asian men. There are PLENTY of other threads on this site about that topic.

Sheesh. Man-hater, eh? Hypothetically, if I were to say that Asian women who dress up in mini-skirts, lots of make-up, and date white men are "insecure," you would believe that I'd say the same for all women? And if I did, I guess that would make me a woman-hater, no?
BTW -- yeah, it is about Watada. Read and stop skimming my post. Failure to see the many facets of Watada's impact on Asian-Americans is like Bush and Cheney cherry-picking WMD information. Besides, if this blog was just about "America's involvement in Iraq," why is it in Hyphen? Why not just pick an article about any Joe Soldier who refuses to deploy to Iraq? Finally, your BTW is akin to someone who sees a cop arresting a black man for no reason other than black and someone saying: "This is just a criminal matter, stop bringing race into the picture." I guess you would only recognize a Klansman if he was wearing white sheets...