This man has testicular fortitude

[White Riot!]

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

Facing six years in jail to stand up for what he believes in , this man has balls.

I am proud

[Hababi]

He's breaking his oath, which he voluntarily signed up to follow. He has no right to do so.

[White Riot!]

Why not?

Not everyone has to be a puppet of the state. I say let him go , since the war is pretty illegal. The "mighty" U.S forces will be okay with one less man , (maybe they wont since they are so imcompetent and insensitive)

people are people , not simply assests to ensure death and destruction for the governments political gain. I sure as hell wouldnt want to try to force democracy on people who arent culturally orientated for it.

I hope he wins the court case. It will be a step in the right direction.

War is stupid

[Mr. Ron]

It's his duty as a soldier to go where he is deployed. It's not his choice where wars happen.

You can't just say "hey, let him go it's only one man!" Then others will see it and want the same.


He won't win the case, and he's going to jail.

[HeatoN]

So if the government wants to commit mass genocide or any other similarly retarded acts he must follow orders?

[Mr. Ron]

So if the government wants to commit mass genocide or any other similarly retarded acts he must follow orders?

Thats an extreme case where him not following orders would be ok.

This is just a matter of him not wanting top be shipped out to service.

[HeatoN]

This is an extreme case, thanks.

[Mr. Ron]

This is an extreme case, thanks.

Not on par with genocide. It really isn't.

[HeatoN]

And why not? It's ok to kill hundreds of thousands of people as long as you aren't specifying what type of people they are?

[Mr. Ron]

And why not? It's ok to kill hundreds of thousands of people as long as you aren't specifying what type of people they are?

This is a relatively small operation. It's not extreme, just a matter of containment.

But anyway, even if he thinks this war is illegal, it's his duty as a soldier to obey orders to be shipped to his destination in the theater of war. He signed up for this.

[HeatoN]

Soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders, so no.

[Mr. Ron]

Soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders, so no.

Telling a soldier to deploy to the battlefield isn't an illegal order. It's his duty.

[HeatoN]

It is an illegal order if the war is. That is his point durr.

[Mr. Ron]

It is an illegal order if the war is. That is his point durr.

No, it's not. Even if the war is illegal, telling a soldier to do his job he signed up to do, is not giving him illegal orders. An illegal war does not inherently make orders illegal.

[HeatoN]

Of course it does, an order that results in illegal activity is illegal.

The attack on Iraq that he would be participating in is illegal.

[Mr. Ron]

Of course it does, and order that results in illegal activity is illegal.

The attack on Iraq that he would be participating in is illegal.

I agree that the war is wrong, but really is any war ever legal? I just don't like using the words legal and illegal with wars, since wars by nature can't be done "legally".

But yeah, he can cry and moan all he wants, he's going to jail.

[Syncratic]

How you can possibly ever make that correlation is beyond me.

However, he did break the law, and he's going to jail, plain and simple.

EDIT: That's directed toward HeatoN

[LittlePound]

Howabout, if you don't like war, don't sign up for the military. If you dont like war and you sign up for hte military anyways, do what you're told and shutup or go to jail and shutup.
It really is that simple.

[White Riot!]

How you can possibly ever make that correlation is beyond me.

However, he did break the law, and he's going to jail, plain and simple.

EDIT: That's directed toward HeatoN

Who cares about legality, laws such as this one are made by the burgeios ruling class and government. I am celebrating the fact he is releasing the shackles and cutting his puppet strings and has the balls to stand up for what he believes in.

As a human you should never be forced into participating something that is unjust , there should be some precedent to opt out whilst not letting the government crush you in an act of jailing you , that achieves no absolutely no good to society

[White Riot!]

Howabout, if you don't like war, don't sign up for the military. If you dont like war and you sign up for hte military anyways, do what you're told and shutup or go to jail and shutup.
It really is that simple.

No its not. Peoples persectives change and people change as well , why cant the military accept that. What does jailing achieve? nothing! its a simply brutal scare tactic by those above us to keep its puppets achieving its goals.

Like any other career , why cant you quit? I'll tell you why ~ the warlords dont like it and cannot afford to let people have their freedom once they become puppets of the state , becuase if they did the turnover rate would be massive

that is THE SOLE REASON THIS LAW EXISTS of terms of service

[Mr. Ron]

Who cares about legality, laws such as this one are made by the burgeios ruling class and government. I am celebrating the fact he is releasing the shackles and cutting his puppet strings and has the balls to stand up for what he believes in.

As a human you should never be forced into participating something that is unjust , there should be some precedent to opt out whilst not letting the government crush you in an act of jailing you , that achieves no absolutely no good to society

Now you're just sounding paranoid.


He isn't being forced, he agreed to follow his orders when he joined the military. He agreed to go to jail if he didn't follow orders.

[Mr. Ron]

No its not. Peoples persectives change and people change as well , why cant the military accept that. What does jailing achieve? nothing! its a simply brutal scare tactic by those above us to keep its puppets achieving its goals.

Like any other career , why cant you quit? I'll tell you why ~ the warlords dont like it and cannot afford to let people have their freedom once they become puppets of the state , becuase if they did the turnover rate would be massive



Would you stop sounding like you just got back from your local commune get together? Man...

[Iskandar]

That's a military for you: coercive, hierarchal, etc. I don't like the way most militaries function, but hey, I can see why the powers that be don't want their soldiers backing out before deployment.

[White Riot!]

Now you're just sounding paranoid.


He isn't being forced, he agreed to follow his orders when he joined the military. He agreed to go to jail if he didn't follow orders.

Yes he agreed to be a puppet of the state , and now he wants out of that because he disagrees with being a puppet , he has extreme courage , and I dont think there is anything immoral about that

[Mr. Ron]

That's a military for you: coercive, hierarchal, etc. I don't like the way most militaries function, but hey, I can see why the powers that be don't want their soldiers backing out before deployment.

It has to be that way to function.

[Syncratic]

As a human you should never be forced into participating something that is unjust , there should be some precedent to opt out whilst not letting the government crush you in an act of jailing you , that achieves no absolutely no good to society

He knew about the conflict, it's four years into it. He knew there was a chance that he'd be called up to be deployed. Why is he in the military if he objects and rejects so?

[Mr. Ron]

Yes he agreed to be a puppet of the state , and now he wants out of that because he disagrees with being a puppet , he has extreme courage , and I dont think there is anything immoral about that

WHAT COURAGE. Not wanting to be shipped somewhere isn't showing courage but contempt for your duty as a professional soldier. I can bet you he just doesn't want to leave home.

[LittlePound]

No its not. Peoples persectives change and people change as well , why cant the military accept that. What does jailing achieve? nothing! its a simply brutal scare tactic by those above us to keep its puppets achieving its goals.

Like any other career , why cant you quit? I'll tell you why ~ the warlords dont like it and cannot afford to let people have their freedom once they become puppets of the state , becuase if they did the turnover rate would be massive

that is THE SOLE REASON THIS LAW EXISTS of terms of service

I'm sure part of the reason they don't let them quite is becuase they have so much invested in them. Heck, if i joined the armed services right now i could go through a program that allowed them to pay for all of my college and allow me officers pay upon graduation. And then what, i join for the four years while i'm in school (and they generally don't deploy you or anything while you're a full time student) and then quit. No, they can't let you do that, that's just using the goverment to pay for school and giving little or nothing in return. It's completely fair for them to state the terms of employment. One of them being you have to stay for a certain amount of time, not staying for that time means you're breaking the contract and you should accept all responsability/consequences that come with breaking the contract.
If you're not sure you'll want to stay on for all of your term, then don't sign up in the first place. You don't have to join the army.
The only way this guy would have something to be mad about is if he was drafted, but seeing as he wasn't he's got nothing to be mad about except his own decision to sign up. It's his own fault for not having the foresight enough to think that by joining the military he may end up going to war.

[Iskandar]

It has to be that way to function.
Militaries have operated on a more open and voluntary basis. Yes, they lose some efficiency but they gain ... well, it depends whether you value that sort of thing or not.

[White Riot!]

Would you stop sounding like you just got back from your local commune get together? Man...

typical meathead tactics , instead of discussing the issues at hand and subject matter , you accuse me of being an enemy or a communist. Dont you remember all the stupidity of the cold war , or actually do you buy the crap and ignore the fact that america's fear of communism has caused lots of people resentment against the U.S for meddling with their affairs

If ya aint with us ya against us , right? :smash:

[Iskandar]

typical meathead tactics , instead of discussing the issues at hand and subject matter , you accuse me of being an enemy or a communist. Dont you remember all the stupidity of the cold war , or actually do you buy the crap and ignore the fact that america's fear of communism has caused lots of people resentment against the U.S for meddling with their affairs

If ya aint with us ya against us , right? :smash:
Dude, I understand what you're saying but it's out of place here. There's no need to lapse into rhetoric.

[Mr. Ron]

Militaries have operated on a more open and voluntary basis. Yes, they lose some efficiency but they gain ... well, it depends whether you value that sort of thing or not.

A good military is a well disciplined one. Not one that has it's members decide how they "feel" about the war. They sign up to be deployed and fight.


Now, if this was a case where a soldier was told to do a heinous act, like execute someone, then I'd encourage him to disobey orders.

[White Riot!]

I'm sure part of the reason they don't let them quite is becuase they have so much invested in them. Heck, if i joined the armed services right now i could go through a program that allowed them to pay for all of my college and allow me officers pay upon graduation. And then what, i join for the four years while i'm in school (and they generally don't deploy you or anything while you're a full time student) and then quit. No, they can't let you do that, that's just using the goverment to pay for school and giving little or nothing in return. It's completely fair for them to state the terms of employment.

Whilst I agree with you , you dont grasp the fact that its a trapping in contract , why dont they allow an opt out for deployments , as does almost al other careers in existence?


The only way this guy would have something to be mad about is if he was drafted, but seeing as he wasn't he's got nothing to be mad about except his own decision to sign up. It's his own fault for not having the foresight enough to think that by joining the military he may end up going to war.

In a democracy there should be safeguards against the governments actions to protect the peoples interests , it should not be a one way street.

America did lie about the war. WMD's anyone?

[Iskandar]

Now, if this was a case where a soldier was told to do a heinous act, like execute someone, then I'd encourage him to disobey orders.
Maybe to him it's a heinous act, although I find it perfectly plausible that he simply wants to kick up a fuss and get something out of it.

[dei]

Isn't murder illegal?

[Mr. Ron]

typical meathead tactics , instead of discussing the issues at hand and subject matter , you accuse me of being an enemy or a communist. Dont you remember all the stupidity of the cold war , or actually do you buy the crap and ignore the fact that america's fear of communism has caused lots of people resentment against the U.S for meddling with their affairs

If ya aint with us ya against us , right? :smash:

Sorry, but once someone starts to talk like they're reading out of das Kapital, it get tiring.



Woah woah, since when did I ever call you an enemy? :confused:



Yeah, man if ur aint wit us ur against uzz!!1!!! :rolleyes:

[White Riot!]

A good military is a well disciplined one. Not one that has it's members decide how they "feel" about the war. They sign up to be deployed and fight.


Now, if this was a case where a soldier was told to do a heinous act, like execute someone, then I'd encourage him to disobey orders.

Hey we live in democracy , why cant the military be democratised in some way? WHY NOT?

[HeatoN]

Why are Americans scared of communism anyway. o.0

[Mr. Ron]

Maybe to him it's a heinous act, although I find it perfectly plausible that he simply wants to kick up a fuss and get something out of it.

To him it is, but the military doesn't care what he thinks of the war.


I think he has other motives to not going.

[LittlePound]

Whilst I agree with you , you dont grasp the fact that its a trapping in contract , why dont they allow an opt out for deployments , as does almost al other careers in existence?
I'm sure there are careers in the military that don't get deployed. Or atleast have a very low chance of being deployed. My friends father was a dentist in the military, i doubt the deployed him all over the place to fight in afghanistan or iraq. If you want to join the military but don't want to fight find the branch/job that has a really low chance of deployment.



In a democracy there should be safeguards against the governments actions to protect the peoples interests , it should not be a one way street.

America did lie about the war. WMD's anyone?
The safegaurd is not forcing you to join. They let you make your own decision about it, people just can't accept responsability for their actions anymore.

[White Riot!]

Sorry, but once someone starts to talk like they're reading out of das Kapital, it get tiring.



Woah woah, since when did I ever call you an enemy? :confused:



Yeah, man if ur aint wit us ur against uzz!!1!!! :rolleyes:

well right , you said go back to my commune right, what does that suggest?

oh im a communist! and who has been america's big enemy oh say for the last say 50 years or so.......oh shi! communist!

dont try to worm away from what you imply

[Mr. Ron]

Hey we live in democracy , why cant the military be democratised in some way? WHY NOT?

Because it wouldn't be efficient.


There's no, "awwww how do you feel today?" when you are training to kill people.

[HeatoN]

The safegaurd is not forcing you to join. They let you make your own decision about it, people just can't accept responsability for their actions anymore.But you join with the hope and faith that the government will not abuse their control over you.

[Mr. Ron]

well right , you said go back to my commune right, what does that suggest?

oh im a communist! and who has been america's big enemy oh say for the last say 50 years or so.......oh shi! communist!

dont try to worm away from what you imply

Oh wow, you look far too much into jokes I make.

[HeatoN]

Because it wouldn't be efficient.


So why don't you make America a dictatorship, what was it Bush said, it'd be much easier if he were a dictator?

Yes, striving for efficiency!

[White Riot!]

Oh wow, you look far too much into jokes I make.

um well this place is for serious discussion only......so expect a serious interpretation.

Because it wouldn't be efficient.

Cause the people wouldnt be so overcontrolled by military structure and government

[Mr. Ron]

So why don't you make America a dictatorship, what was it Bush said, it'd be much easier if he were a dictator?

Yes, striving for efficiency!

You totally missed the point.


I'm not talking about the government. The military is totally different. A soceity of free people are born free. When they join the military, they agree to follow orders that are given to them.

[Iskandar]

Sorry, but once someone starts to talk like they're reading out of das Kapital, it get tiring.
Das Kapital doesn't contain anything like that. It's a treatise on economics.
Why are Americans scared of communism anyway. o.0
The word has become synonymous with "Marxist-Leninism." Pity they're completely different things.
There's no, "awwww how do you feel today?" when you are training to kill people.
Certain democratic processes could be implemented, like the election of officers, say.

[Mr. Ron]

um well this place is for serious discussion only......so expect a serious interpretation.



Cause the people wouldnt be so overcontrolled by military structure and government

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be your lack of a sense of humor.



Sorry to break it to you, but in the military people need to be controlled to a certain extent or nothing would go according to plan.

[LittlePound]

But you join with the hope and faith that the government will not abuse their control over you.

nobodies abusing anything, you signed up to fight for your country. That's what he's doing. Where's the abuse?

[Iskandar]

nobodies abusing anything, you signed up to fight for your country. That's what he's doing. Where's the abuse?
Well, should a military be structured in a way to allow a conscientious objecter to back out?

[HeatoN]

nobodies abusing anything, you signed up to fight for your country. That's what he's doing. Where's the abuse?

You signed up to defend what's outlined in the constitution, if the government uses the military for the ends of a few people (ie not fighting for your country at all), that is abuse.

[White Riot!]

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be your lack of a sense of humor.



Sorry to break it to you, but in the military people need to be controlled to a certain extent or nothing would go according to plan.

Its not about how you feel , dont exxagerate the case to attempt to poorly create a defense. We live in a democracy and things go to plan , the water runs , the garbage gets collected , we go to work etc etc. So you really have no evidence that a semi democractised military wouldnt work

to a certain extent there is room for democracy and opting out within reason , why not create an opt on system? mmm those power wolves must be scared to NOT be able to attain their minions full and utter control

[Mr. Ron]

Das Kapital doesn't contain anything like that. It's a treatise on economics.

The word has become synonymous with "Marxist-Leninism." Pity they're completely different things.

Certain democratic processes could be implemented, like the election of officers, say.

That would slow everything down, create in-fighting, and would just complicate things more than they already are.

What if there are two Lieutenants. One is a great leader, knows the ropes and will lead them into combat with full confidence...but he makes them exercise a lot and the troops hate him for it. Now, the other one isn't so good at leadership, isn't confident in his training, but the guys like him just because he gives them some breaks hear and there.

Now, lets say the troops elect Lieutenant number two, they are screwed once they get into battle, but hey! They got to vote, didn't they!


The same goes for this country. The stupid masses put Bush back into the white house, and now we're screwed.

[Iskandar]

You signed up to defend what's outlined in the constitution, if the government uses the military for the ends of a few people (ie not fighting for your country at all), that is abuse.
So should armed forces only be used for matters of national security (e.g. defense)?
Now, lets say the troops elect Lieutenant number two, they are screwed once they get into battle, but hey! They got to vote, didn't they!


The same goes for this country. The stupid masses put Bush back into the white house, and now we're screwed.
That's the democratic process. You get what you vote for.

Look, a system of simply appointing inferiors to ranks isn't all that great if you ask me.

[LittlePound]

Well, should a military be structured in a way to allow a conscientious objecter to back out?

if you're a consciencious objecter, or think that you may be, then don't sign up. I'm not for fighting, i'm not much one for the "war in Iraq" but if you sign up for the military you need to do what you signed up to do. If you're against fighting, you don't have to join.
Like i said before, the only way this guy has anything to complain about is if he was drafted, but that's not the case.

[Mr. Ron]

Its not about how you feel , dont exxagerate the case to attempt to poorly create a defense. We live in a democracy and things go to plan , the water runs , the garbage gets collected , we go to work etc etc. So you really have no evidence that a semi democractised military wouldnt work

to a certain extent there is room for democracy and opting out within reason , why not create an opt on system? mmm those power wolves must be scared to NOT be able to attain their minions full and utter control

Killing someone and training how to win wars is a little different than picking up your recycling bin. There can be no individual thought in the military, only team thought.


Create an opt out system? Do you want your military to suck?

[White Riot!]

That would slow everything down, create in-fighting, and would just complicate things more than they already are. .

That already happened in iraq with major generals not co-operating....hmmm efficentcy right there (hey they cant even secure airport road)

A democractic method is to resolve infighting in a systematic method. Well these generals just dont co-operate in a system where they are equals without democractic transparentcy for someone to recognise whats going wrong

[Iskandar]

Create an opt out system? Do you want your military to suck?
Hey, it'd get rid of anyone who isn't devoted.

[Mr. Ron]

That already happened in iraq with major generals not co-operating....hmmm efficentcy right there (hey they cant even secure airport road)

A democractic method is to resolve infighting in a systematic method. Well these generals just dont co-operate in a system where they are equals without democractic transparentcy for someone to recognise whats going wrong

exactly, they didn't cooperate, and look what happened?


I love you guys, but i'm realllly glad your not in charge of our military. :p

[White Riot!]

Create an opt out system? Do you want your military to suck?

well if sucking means having a more well rounded view and approach , then yes.

Military is not about kicking arse and blowing **** up. Far from it kiddo :smoke:

[HeatoN]

I don't know if we should have a democratic military, most of the people in it are stupid.

[White Riot!]

semi-democracy. Mostly in terms of civil rights and liberties in modern style of culturally advanced democracy

[Mr. Ron]

well if sucking means having a more well rounded view and approach , then yes.

Military is not about kicking arse and blowing **** up. Far from it kiddo :smoke:

Explain to me how it would be more "well rounded".


I know it's not, but most of it is preparing for that kind of situation.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't know if we should have a democratic military, most of the people in it are stupid.

Nope. The average soldier in today's military is from the middles class, and has a high school to college education. Look it up.

[Iskandar]

Mr. Ron, kindly respond to the posts I've been making just for you.:upset:

[White Riot!]

Explain to me how it would be more "well rounded".


I know it's not, but most of it is preparing for that kind of situation.

transparentcy and accountability.

Dont try to argue that it isnt a problem , because still the higher ranked officers are getting off scot free from the horrible and ireprehensible attrocities at abu ghraib.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/05/usint9945.htm

[Mr. Ron]

So should armed forces only be used for matters of national security (e.g. defense)?

That's the democratic process. You get what you vote for.

Look, a system of simply appointing inferiors to ranks isn't all that great if you ask me.

And it shouldn't be allowed because of it's inefficiency.

[Mr. Ron]

Hey, it'd get rid of anyone who isn't devoted.

So you want to create ways for deserters to get away?

[White Riot!]

Nope. The average soldier in today's military is from the middles class, and has a high school to college education. Look it up.

Although I dont agree with Heatons comments , I will say that simply being in class does not make you smart or stupid as that depends upon the individual. more often than not you are born into class. High school or college education does not make you any smarter nor politically or morally sensitive that someone who hasnt either

[White Riot!]

And it shouldn't be allowed because of it's inefficiency.

better to be inefficiently good , rather than efficentely bad. :thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

Although I dont agree with Heatons comments , I will say that simply being in class does not make you smart or stupid as that depends upon the individual. more often than not you are born into class. High school or college education does not make you any smarter nor politically or morally sensitive that someone who hasnt either

I think it's pretty obvious that:


Person A who goes to college/high school

will be smarter than:

Person B who never passed highschool

[HeatoN]

Nope. The average soldier in today's military is from the middles class, and has a high school to college education. Look it up.

High school to college you say! Well, I never knew they were so smart.

The education system in America is bad, getting through high school doesn't make you smart here, let alone there.

[Mr. Ron]

better to be inefficiently good , rather than efficentely bad. :thumb:

The military is good, but the person who's in charge (Bush) is bad. You can't really blame the puppy for being bad if the master beats it.

[White Riot!]

So you want to create ways for deserters to get away?

no , a formalised application to exit the military. They wont be deserters anymore but people who wanted to leave

[White Riot!]

The military is good, but the person who's in charge (Bush) is bad. You can't really blame the puppy for being bad if the master beats it.

so bush ordered abu ghraib.?

or was it really just american military culture at work with no safeguards or transparentcy?

[Mr. Ron]

no , a formalised application to exit the military. They wont be deserters anymore but people who wanted to leave

So one day you'll have a full battalion on the eve of an invasion, and you'll have people wanting out because of it? You might as well not even have a military.

[Mr. Ron]

so bush ordered abu ghraib.?

or was it really just american military culture at work with no safeguards or transparentcy?

To be honest I'm not sure who gave the Ok to abu ghraib, but you can't deny that Bush has used the military pretty stupidly.

[White Riot!]

So one day you'll have a full battalion on the eve of an invasion, and you'll have people wanting out because of it? You might as well not even have a military.

No a formalised application process , that requires approval. Not a magic waiver to sign to emphasis your spastic example.

This would prevent jailings and such. People would be more content to apply to an application process several times rather than go to jail. If the option was given to this man I actually think he serve in iraq whilst waiting for his application to opt out to be approved

[Mr. Ron]

No a formalised application process , that requires approval. Not a magic waiver to sign to emphasis your spastic example.

This would prevent jailings and such. People would be more content to apply to an application process several times rather than go to jail. If the option was given to this man I actually think he serve in iraq whilst waiting for his application to opt out to be approved

This opt out thing is too static. The military needs people to at least serve a certain amount of time to receive all the training and programs they need to become a soldier. If they have people coming and going, it would be chaos.

[White Riot!]

To be honest I'm not sure who gave the Ok to abu ghraib, but you can't deny that Bush has used the military pretty stupidly.

its not about saying ok. its about the higher ranked guys who knew what was going on and turned a blind eyed its about a lack of transparentcy

[Iskandar]

And it shouldn't be allowed because of it's inefficiency.
Democracy is less efficient, but more effective.
So you want to create ways for deserters to get away?
Deserters can already get away. They have since militaries were created.

What I'm proposing is a means for people who don't want to serve the military to leave at an appropriate time. Why would you want someone who wasn't committed anyway?

[Krabsworth]

Democracy is less efficient, but more effective.

Deserters can already get away. They have since militaries were created.

What I'm proposing is a means for people who don't want to serve the military to leave at an appropriate time. Why would you want someone who wasn't committed anyway?

I think pretty much everyone who volunteers realises that they can't just get out, and they stay committed. That is why the U.S. Military is barely meeting recruitment standards/quotas...they get the best of the best, the people who want to serve.

If we did have a form to get people out of the military if they didn't like it, people would look at joining as a "trying new things" type experience...not a highly serious thing.

[Iskandar]

I think pretty much everyone who volunteers realises that they can't just get out, and they stay committed. That is why the U.S. Military is barely meeting recruitment standards/quotas...they get the best of the best, the people who want to serve.

If we did have a form to get people out of the military if they didn't like it, people would look at joining as a "trying new things" type experience...not a highly serious thing.
I would say they're not meeting quotas because nobody wants to be in a military that isn't viewed with favour and doesn't appear to be accomplishing anything.

Don't people do that already?

[Krabsworth]

I would say they're not meeting quotas because nobody wants to be in a military that isn't viewed with favour and doesn't appear to be accomplishing anything.


good point :(

[CrossTheBreeze]

War is stupid
It is also inevitable.

[CrossTheBreeze]

Like any other career , why cant you quit? I'll tell you why ~ the warlords dont like it and cannot afford to let people have their freedom once they become puppets of the state , becuase if they did the turnover rate would be massive
how can you fight a war when your soldiers have they ability to quit when they wish?

[the_green_bastard]

This man has balls of steel. You have to respect that. Six years to make a point that everyone is afraid to make, but one that is true nonetheless. What an excellent man.

He's breaking his oath, which he voluntarily signed up to follow. He has no right to do so.

You, sir, are a tool.

[Iskandar]

It is also inevitable.
See the Democratic Peace Theory.

[griftadan]

he signed up for the army, singing himself to whatever duty the state decides. i don't feel to bad for him.

[RockStar]

Mr ron > this thread

[AA-12]

It's his duty as a soldier to go where he is deployed. It's not his choice where wars happen.

You can't just say "hey, let him go it's only one man!" Then others will see it and want the same.


He won't win the case, and he's going to jail.

Exactly.

Lock the bastard up.

[Knifeboy]

You guys are crazy.. If america started a war against canada because you ran out of lumber, you'd say it would be wrong for soldiers to object and not following orders?
Killing people is a mentally extremely hard thing to do.. Imagine killing someone for something you don't believe in? That'd ruin the rest of any sane persons life. You're terrible bastards if you believe he should be going to jail
I'm sure he signed a contract with the military because up untill now he 's agreed with the governments decisions, and had faith in them... If he loses faith, that's not his fault, it's the other way around


There should be an option to not go to war, and do your duty in your home country instead..

[purplefeet]

You guys are crazy.. If america started a war against canada because you ran out of lumber, you'd say it would be wrong for soldiers to object and not following orders?
Killing people is a mentally extremely hard thing to do.. Imagine killing someone for something you don't believe in? That'd ruin the rest of any sane persons life. You're terrible bastards if you believe he should be going to jail
I'm sure he signed a contract with the military because up untill now he 's agreed with the governments decisions, and had faith in them... If he loses faith, that's not his fault, it's the other way around


There should be an option to not go to war, and do your duty in your home country instead..

Then how would one ever have a strong army, if everyone they sign up just says they want to dishes in their home instead?

I mean, Im not for war and I hate the American Government BUT in the same sense, he is probably not the only guy who doesnt want to go to war/ fight for something he may not believe is entirely true. It is unfortunate that now he is sucked into going, as he has changed his mind, but he should serve.

[lunchforthesky]

Thing is he didnt even sign up before Iraq, he signed up after and so has even less of a leg to stand on. The Iraq war might be a joke but you cant have an army without forcing people to fihgt once they've signed up.

[MegaPhony]

I think it's kind of humourous how people are tied up in honour and oaths.
Let's take a trip back to say, 1944 shall we?
So if you signed an oath for the National Socialists in Germany, and it just so happens they were slaughtering a race for unjustified reasons, is it your place and "duty" to do so?
There's a fine line between defending your country and attacking one.
I'm glad he is able to stand up for his morals without fear of ridicule or punishment, it's too bad there are so many close-minded people.
I can understand criticizing him for being a coward or dishonorable but I don't see many of those who frown upon him joining the army now do I.
Who's the coward now?
In the end, I'd rather die a coward with morals, than a puppeteered hero

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

He signed up for it. He has an obligation to follow orders, so long as they are not illegal. At the moment, killing insurgents isn't illegal in a warzone, and irrelevent: arresting people for murder in a war is like handing out speeding tickets at the Daytona 500. The legality of the war is also irrelevent and won't be contested, like most international law

The guy signed up for it voluntarily. While I don't support the notion of an all-volunteer military, his acceptance of the job gives him even less of a leg to stand on

[MegaPhony]

It's not clear-cut like that.
Signing up does not negate freedom and free will.
There's a line between right and wrong, and he'd rather make the right choice.
It's not like he's just going "yea, i don't want to go" and heading home.
He's facing jailtime and disapproval from the nation.
Like the TS said, he realizes he's more than a legally-bound soldier and not a robot.
And if you read I said killing INNOCENTS, not insurgents.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Signing up does not negate freedom and free will.

With a few exceptions, it actually does

There's a line between right and wrong, and he'd rather make the right choice.
Right and wrong are subjective. I personally think he's being a moron. The US hasn't fought a "legal" war since World War II. He signed up after the war started. He knew it was "illegal" when he joined, yet now he wants to stay home?

It's not about the "legality" of it. He's scared shitless about getting chewed up. It's understandable. But he signed up for it. He's a commissioned officer, for chrissakes

It's not like he's just going "yea, i don't want to go" and heading home.
He's facing jailtime and disapproval from the nation.

He knew the punishment for desertion. He deserves it

Like the TS said, he realizes he's more than a legally-bound soldier and not a robot.

Then he should not have joined the military

And if you read I said killing INNOCENTS, not insurgents.

Good thing we're not intentionally ordering our troops to kill innocents

[MegaPhony]

He knew the punishment for desertion. He deserves it

I am not saying he should not be punished, that is inevitable.


Then he should not have joined the military

He joined based on false information provided by the US government which has been admitted to being inaccurate and wrong by the same people who stated the reasons for the war. He signed up based on certain facts, and he realized that he isn't going to fight a war he doesn't support or believe in.
It's common sense.



Good thing we're not intentionally ordering our troops to kill innocents
Good thing it's happening everyday then, I guess whether it's on purpose or accidental makes a difference.:rolleyes:

[the_green_bastard]

You guys are crazy.. If america started a war against canada because you ran out of lumber, you'd say it would be wrong for soldiers to object and not following orders?
Killing people is a mentally extremely hard thing to do.. Imagine killing someone for something you don't believe in? That'd ruin the rest of any sane persons life. You're terrible bastards if you believe he should be going to jail
I'm sure he signed a contract with the military because up untill now he 's agreed with the governments decisions, and had faith in them... If he loses faith, that's not his fault, it's the other way around


There should be an option to not go to war, and do your duty in your home country instead..

You, sir, are a saint. Brilliantly put. :chug:

With a few exceptions, it actually does


Right and wrong are subjective. I personally think he's being a moron. The US hasn't fought a "legal" war since World War II. He signed up after the war started. He knew it was "illegal" when he joined, yet now he wants to stay home?

It's not about the "legality" of it. He's scared shitless about getting chewed up. It's understandable. But he signed up for it. He's a commissioned officer, for chrissakes



He knew the punishment for desertion. He deserves it



Then he should not have joined the military



Good thing we're not intentionally ordering our troops to kill innocents

Where is your soul? your spirit? Does the law, in and of itself, justify anything? Have you no decency? Think, man, think! If this is to be a world in which a man "deserves" a punishment such as this for refusing to be a weapon in a war of conquest, a tool of the state and no longer a human being, then I don't want to be here anymore. This is a sad, sad day. Oh, and you're a cunt. You cunt.

[USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST]

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

It's not like he was forced into the military. He agreed to be weapon in the war. He's a commissioned officer, for chrissakes. He's clearly spent a long time preparing to be an effective and efficient killing machine

When you join the military, you sacrifice your individuality. If you don't want that, then don't join

[Otherside]

He knew the punishment for desertion

lol @ trying to debate without reading the article

[MegaPhony]

When you join the military, you sacrifice your individuality. If you don't want that, then don't join

Individuality =/= Freedom

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

lol @ trying to debate without reading the article

Fine. The punishment for "missing troop movement" and "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman", or whatever euphemism they want to use

Individuality =/= Freedom

You give up your freedom, too

[Steerpike]

I have a friend whose mother is in the armed services, and she's concerned that she will soon be called back into service. She's already made the decision that she would rather go to prison than be used as cannonfodder for a ****ing chimp in a suit.

She knows the consequences of her actions, and has judged that a few years in prison and preserving her sense of right and wrong is more important to her than dying for a cause she doesn't believe in.

The same can be said of this man.

[Apollyon]

Thats an extreme case where him not following orders would be ok.

This is just a matter of him not wanting top be shipped out to service.

That's bull. Did you even read the entire article, Ron?

He was on the voluntary immediate deployment list as a junior officer, and signed up with the intentions of deploying to Iraq. He had a change of stance because he chose to look at a lot of very obvious facts and determined that as per his oath to defend the constitution, he was doing that oath more justice by refusing to deploy than by defending the war.

I think his reasons are valid, but there's too much conservative nationalism here in the US for it to have any impact.

[Mr. Ron]

That's bull. Did you even read the entire article, Ron?

He was on the voluntary immediate deployment list as a junior officer, and signed up with the intentions of deploying to Iraq. He had a change of stance because he chose to look at a lot of very obvious facts and determined that as per his oath to defend the constitution, he was doing that oath more justice by refusing to deploy than by defending the war.

I think his reasons are valid, but there's too much conservative nationalism here in the US for it to have any impact.

My opinion in this has nothing to do with conservatism, I'm not even a conservative.

It has to do with the military running efficiently. Some of you suggest optional service? You'd never get anything done.

[spitfirejunky]

It's actually crippling enough for the military not to have mandatory service. Can't imagine what would happen if people just left the battlefield at any point during service.

If people are allowed to stop service on a whim, the military simply won't function. While I support the guy's cause, these laws are in place for a reason.

[Hababi]

It's actually crippling enough for the military not to have mandatory service. Can't imagine what would happen if people just left the battlefield at any point during service.

If people are allowed to stop service on a whim, the military simply won't function. While I support the guy's cause, these laws are in place for a reason.

Yup. I wish we hadn't invaded Iraq, but that doesn't change the fact that we're there, and that soldiers have a responsibility to uphold.

[ThePinkPanther]

Good thing it's happening everyday then, I guess whether it's on purpose or accidental makes a difference.:rolleyes:

It does. Ordering someone to kill an innocent civilian is much worse than a civilian who got in the way of fighting and was accidentally killed (i dont mean like they got in the way so a soldier shot her. i mean like a stray bullet).

[Knifeboy]

Then how would one ever have a strong army, if everyone they sign up just says they want to dishes in their home instead?
.

I'm almost positive that having soliders in an army who are against the war they're in, makes the army alot weaker, instead of making it stronger

[MegaPhony]

It does. Ordering someone to kill an innocent civilian is much worse than a civilian who got in the way of fighting and was accidentally killed (i dont mean like they got in the way so a soldier shot her. i mean like a stray bullet).

What difference would it make to you, if you were killed on purpose or by accident?
Nothing, you're dead. You've ceased to live and it doesn't matter.
Death is death, if there was no war, there would be no dead civilians and innocents due to the war.
That was my point.

[ThePinkPanther]

What difference would it make to you, if you were killed on purpose or by accident?
Nothing, you're dead. You've ceased to live and it doesn't matter.
Death is death, if there was no war, there would be no dead civilians and innocents due to the war.
That was my point.

how a person is killed matters to the currently living people involved in that persons death.

and your point wasnt even evident in what you said originally.

[PerpetualBurn]

The only way it makes sense in an army is for soldiers to be independent of politcs.

You couldn't have the English army running away because they signed up under Labour and Conservatives got into power during their service.

Soldiers aren't politicians. Unless the action they are ordered to make is demonstrably and definitely illegal, they have no right to refuse without being reprimanded.

[lfantwister]

I'm almost positive that having soliders in an army who are against the war they're in, makes the army alot weaker, instead of making it stronger
But having no soldiers would be weakest

[Knifeboy]

But having no soldiers would be weakest

But that's really not relevant, seeing as the vast majority of the army is for the war (or atleast pro trying to rebuild iraq)

[The End]

The only way it makes sense in an army is for soldiers to be independent of politcs.

You couldn't have the English army running away because they signed up under Labour and Conservatives got into power during their service.

Soldiers aren't politicians. Unless the action they are ordered to make is demonstrably and definitely illegal, they have no right to refuse without being reprimanded.

im pretty sure bombing the sh!t out of Baghdad was/still is illegal

[White Riot!]

It's actually crippling enough for the military not to have mandatory service. Can't imagine what would happen if people just left the battlefield at any point during service.

If people are allowed to stop service on a whim, the military simply won't function. While I support the guy's cause, these laws are in place for a reason.

That wasnt the suggestion so dont take things out of context

[rancid22]

Where is your soul? your spirit? Does the law, in and of itself, justify anything? Have you no decency? Think, man, think! If this is to be a world in which a man "deserves" a punishment such as this for refusing to be a weapon in a war of conquest, a tool of the state and no longer a human being, then I don't want to be here anymore. This is a sad, sad day. Oh, and you're a cunt. You cunt.

he is not being punished for refusing to be a tool. he is being punished for AGREEING to be a tool, and then going back on his word. yes, he has balls to face this stuff. but if he is refusing to go with a punishment that he has forced upon himself then is barely making any statement at all.

and stop calling people names because you disagree. just because the guy disagrees with you does not make him a cunt.

[spitfirejunky]

That wasnt the suggestion so dont take things out of context

Oh yeah?

Why not?

Not everyone has to be a puppet of the state. I say let him go , since the war is pretty illegal. The "mighty" U.S forces will be okay with one less man , (maybe they wont since they are so imcompetent and insensitive)

people are people , not simply assests to ensure death and destruction for the governments political gain. I sure as hell wouldnt want to try to force democracy on people who arent culturally orientated for it.

I hope he wins the court case. It will be a step in the right direction.

War is stupid

You directly suggested that the guy should leave without facing a sentence. The fact is he has to face one.

[Smokey D]

It's pretty stupid signing up for the military thus entering into a contact in which you acknowledge that you will follow orders and then getting refusing to deploy when told to do so. On the other hand, the Nuremburg trials give the precedent that 'only following orders' is not a sufficient defence.

Legally, though, this guy doesn't have much of a leg to stand on; unless he comes before a panel of particuarly sympathetic judges, he's going to get quite a nasty sentence. Testicular fortitude indeed.

[White Riot!]

Oh yeah?



You directly suggested that the guy should leave without facing a sentence. The fact is he has to face one.

I directly suggested there should be a system where you can apply to leave the army within good reason i.e ideological disagreement with a war etc without handing down a draconian prison sentance thats only real function is it instill fear into those who are thinking of taking a moral stand against wars they dont want to participate.

comprehension is your friend.

[Smokey D]

The thing is, though, you enter into armed service knowing that it entails following orders. He wasn't drafted; he can't complain that he wasn't informed that he might be required to go to war.

Also, the war isn't illegal, at least not according to domestic US law which would be the relevant authority in this sort of case. The courts don't consider international law unless it has been ratified by Congress, especially where it comes into conflict with domestic law that has been passed.

[rancid22]

I directly suggested there should be a system where you can apply to leave the army within good reason i.e ideological disagreement with a war etc without handing down a draconian prison sentance thats only real function is it instill fear into those who are thinking of taking a moral stand against wars they dont want to participate.

comprehension is your friend.

i agree that such a system should exist. but i highly doubt this man would qualify considering he stated himself that he joined with total agreement with the war he is now refusing to fight.

[spitfirejunky]

I directly suggested there should be a system where you can apply to leave the army within good reason i.e ideological disagreement with a war etc without handing down a draconian prison sentance thats only real function is it instill fear into those who are thinking of taking a moral stand against wars they dont want to participate.

comprehension is your friend.

Incase you're not aware, it's a crime to break a binding contract. So no, the law won't let him slide because you think these rules are in place to instill fear.

And that is the flimsiest way to keep a military functioning. Anyone can conveniently fabricate an ideological disagreement at any time.

[White Riot!]

Incase you're not aware, it's a crime to break a binding contract. So no, the law won't let him slide because you think these rules are in place to instill fear..


But it shouldnt be that severe an offence. The severe and draconian punishment is a tool of fear

[White Riot!]

And that is the flimsiest way to keep a military functioning. Anyone can conveniently fabricate an ideological disagreement at any time.

Just as people can fabricate asylum , it gets assesed and scrutinized.

[Smokey D]

But it shouldnt be that severe an offence. The severe and draconian punishment is a tool of fear

The contract which he freely and willingly entered into explictly states that the punishment will be that severe. He has no right to complain that he wasn't informed. If he didn't want to be subject to the laws of the military, he shouldn't have signed up.

Under normal circumstances, breach of contract is a civil not criminal offence. The special relationship of the military means it's a whole different ball game.

[Blackichan]

You guys are saying he entered into a contract and he should have to obey the commands given to him. Even though he doesn't believe in them. Ever heard of Romeo Dallaire. He did obey the commands given to him in Rwanda and didn't protect the civilians getting slaughtered in the thousands. When he got back he tried to kill himself. So was that the right thing to do? Yeah he obeyed the orders given to him by his superiors, but who fvcking cares when it's something morally disgusting and wrong?

[Smokey D]

As I said, the Nuremburg trials give precedent to the insufficiency of the defence 'only following orders'. I don't think that will apply in this case, however, because the courts are likely to distinguish between the circumstances of the Holocaust and the circumstances of the Iraqi invasion. I also imagine the Rwandan genocide would be deemed sufficiently different to not apply, should it somehow make it into evidence.

On the otherhand, I would very much like to see these positions argued and to examine the way in which the courts responded.

[Blackichan]

I agree. I never thought it would make it into the evidence. I was just using it as an example of the opposite of what this guy is doing. He's standing up for what he believes in while Romeo Dallaire didn't and it basically ruined his life for the past 10 years till he finally got it back on track.

[Smokey D]

Yes, but he shouldn't have signed up for the military if he thought he was going to disagree with any potential wars.

[Blackichan]

Yeah well hindsight is 20/20 right? When he did join up he had a different view of the conflict. Then when new evidence surfaced like the lack of WMD's and no connection with Al-Qaeda his thoughts on it changed. How can he be expected to follow through on something he promised when he was under the influence of lies?

[Smokey D]

It doesn't matter. Once you sign up, you waive your rights to refuse deployment without prosecution.

[Blackichan]

Do you think that's right? Even if you sign up so you can fight for something then find out later it was a lie.

[Smokey D]

I think the courts are right to prosecute him, though they can use judicial discretion to minimise the sentence.

[Blackichan]

Well then let us agree to disagree.

[Devil's Reject]

You can't deny the fact that he dissobeyed an order from his superiors that not his place to do so.He was content with his situation till he was deployed to the middle east.That says alot about his character in which I see a coward.He knew what he was getting into when he enlisted.It was not like the war crept up on him all of a sudden.His true colors are in plain view when it came time for actual combat.What!He thought the chances were slim to nothing on going to Iraq or mabey he was hoping for a cushy desk job state side and ride it through his carreer.When they ask him he'll say"Yes I'm a gulf war veteran"when in actuality he never saw Iraq more or less combat.It's not like they didn't warn him at first what was going to happen if he didn't go so he dose his time in levenworth,gets stripped of his silver dollar bar and sent home with a DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah well hindsight is 20/20 right? When he did join up he had a different view of the conflict. Then when new evidence surfaced like the lack of WMD's and no connection with Al-Qaeda his thoughts on it changed. How can he be expected to follow through on something he promised when he was under the influence of lies?

Your view doesn't matter to the military.

[Devil's Reject]

Yeah well hindsight is 20/20 right? When he did join up he had a different view of the conflict. Then when new evidence surfaced like the lack of WMD's and no connection with Al-Qaeda his thoughts on it changed. How can he be expected to follow through on something he promised when he was under the influence of lies?

Have you ever served in the armed forces.I'm asking this politely because I did and know the military structure.

[palepalepeach]

If I were him I wouldn't go either, but if the court ruled in his favor, it would set a precident allowing other soldiers to do the same thing. So he'll probably lose.

[Blackichan]

Have you ever served in the armed forces.I'm asking this politely because I did and know the military structure.

No and I never will. Not because I'm scared or anything it's just I have trouble with people being in positions of authority over me whom I consider don't deserve it. Also I don't really believe in what militaries do (try to break you down, reprogram you into something your not) you know the whole shabang. Also you said before that he was being a coward. As soon as it came time for him to go he stepped aside. If you read the entire page you would have realized he even volunteered for any company short of junior officers. He did that in 2005 when he still felt strongly about the war. I really can't see that as cowardice.

[Mr. Ron]

No and I never will. Not because I'm scared or anything it's just I have trouble with people being in positions of authority over me whom I consider don't deserve it. Also I don't really believe in what militaries do (try to break you down, reprogram you into something your not) you know the whole shabang. Also you said before that he was being a coward. As soon as it came time for him to go he stepped aside. If you read the entire page you would have realized he even volunteered for any company short of junior officers. He did that in 2005 when he still felt strongly about the war. I really can't see that as cowardice.

You will find yourself hard pressed to find lieutenants or people above a private who just "got" the position. They busted their humps to get in that rank.

[Blackichan]

This thread wasn't really made to discuss why I won't join the military.

[Mr. Ron]

This thread wasn't really made to discuss why I won't join the military.

I didn't even hint at that in my post.

[Thasis]

If a war is illegal then there is no right to send unwilling men into the battle. There is no right to even have the war if it's illegal.

[spitfirejunky]

A democratic country can't view the war domestically as "illegal" if it voted for it.

[White Riot!]

but they voted to find those WMD's Amiriite?

[Iskandar]

but they voted to find those WMD's Amiriite?
They voted for a leadership who chose to play the WMD card. We can't control the actions of our leaders once in power; we can only limit them beforehand. That's representative democracy for you.

[_Sock]

You can impeach the president after such failures, however.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It's not a soldier's responsibility to consider the ethics of what he is doing, but if they choose to, good on them.

[Iskandar]

You can impeach the president after such failures, however.
That's not going to happen, though.

[_Sock]

And that's why the citizens of America are still at fault.

[ringworm]

He's breaking his oath, which he voluntarily signed up to follow. He has no right to do so.

this thread didnt need to go any further than this

[Steerpike]

He thought the chances were slim to nothing on going to Iraq or mabey he was hoping for a cushy desk job state side and ride it through his carreer.When they ask him he'll say"Yes I'm a gulf war veteran"when in actuality he never saw Iraq more or less combat.

I'm convinced you didn't actually read the article.

this thread didnt need to go any further than this

Yeah, **** discussing precedent setting, legal ramifications, nuance, or anything complex like that.

[ringworm]

yeah, **** oaths & contracts


:/

[Iskandar]

And that's why the citizens of America are still at fault.
The citizens of America aren't able to impeach the president.

[PerpetualBurn]

A democratic country can't view the war domestically as "illegal" if it voted for it.

Yes it could.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Yes it could.

Obsoive:


TB: "45 minutes wumds lulz"

GB: "ohshi- fix it plz"

TB: <breaks it>

WepsInspects: "dudez no chemz here"

TB: ":s"

GB: "lulz pwned"

Iraq: "roflcopter"

USA: "keke roflcopter gunships"

[PerpetualBurn]

Saddam got pwned.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

SH: dudez wtf basecamp

IraqiInsurgents69: umm TEAMZ

US: lol nice gunz lol

II: im in ur base killin ur d00ds lol

US: oshi-

US: im in ur kuntry h@ngin ur dicktators

II: GTFO pls

[spitfirejunky]

Yes it could.

How?

[Steerpike]

yeah, **** oaths & contracts

So you think we're all anti-military or something equally retarded? There's more to this issue than that and it deserves to be discussed.

[ringworm]

So you think we're all anti-military or something equally retarded?
Maybe anti-reality is a good description? :)

I guess I just look at things more simplistic instead of finding loopholes & absurd reasons to escape the simpe truth.

This guy voluntarily signed & enlisted, nothing else needs to be said?
He has a contractual duty, very simple.

I do applaud his willingness to stay on the base though & face the charges, but its mostly just an attempt to draw some attention, gain sympathy or pity & help his cause.

[Steerpike]

nothing else needs to be said?

Perhaps the ramifications of the outcome of the case, what sort of precedent the different possible verdicts could set, what if any degree of free thought is acceptable in soldiers, that sort of thing.

[ringworm]

Perhaps the ramifications of the outcome of the case, what sort of precedent the different possible verdicts could set, what if any degree of free thought is acceptable in soldiers, that sort of thing.

or maybe just think a little before you sign a dotted line?

I tend to make my life desicions a little easier by "thinking"

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

or maybe just think a little before you sign a dotted line?

I tend to make my life desicions a little easier by "thinking"

A decision made on false information isn't one you should have to keep.

[ringworm]

LMAO, so I guess you actually beleive him, lol :)


I simply see someone who pre-meditated the best alibi he could to escape his accepted/sworn duty

most people would have just gone awol (or however you spell it)

he is simply using the opposition of the current war to gain support
but that STILL isnt enough to retract from his obligation

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

LMAO, so I guess you actually beleive him, lol :)


I simply see someone who pre-meditated the best alibi he could to escape his accepted/sworn duty

most people would have just gone awol (or however you spell it)

he is simply using the opposition of the current war to gain support
but that STILL isnt enough to retract from his obligation

I don't agree with what he's doing; I don't think it's appropriate for soldiers to be expected to question their orders because when they do, somebody can die.

[CrossTheBreeze]

See the Democratic Peace Theory.
I was saying that there will never be complete world peace. There will always some type of disagreement that will lead to war.

[Blackichan]

I didn't even hint at that in my post.

woops. I wasn't thinking.

[myfingersareonfire]

I was saying that there will never be complete world peace. There will always some type of disagreement that will lead to war.

not really

[PerpetualBurn]

How?

A referendum isn't necessarily able to pass an action if that action is unconstitutional. So it, hypothetically, could require constitutional amendment to make war domestically legal.

[Smokey D]

And that's why the citizens of America are still at fault.

No, because Congress does the impeaching.

Congress is smart enough to realise that Bush is a lame duck anyway and doesn't need impeaching.

A referendum isn't necessarily able to pass an action if that action is unconstitutional. So it, hypothetically, could require constitutional amendment to make war domestically legal.

Well, that would require the executive to go against the accepted structures and processes, which hardly bears thinking about because it didn't happen.

[Steerpike]

I tend to make my life desicions a little easier by "thinking"

Don't patronize me.

I simply see someone who pre-meditated the best alibi he could to escape his accepted/sworn duty

So you don't know this guy personally, but can take a few inferences and suddenly declare yourself an expert on his motivations?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, that would require the executive to go against the accepted structures and processes, which hardly bears thinking about because it didn't happen.

Did you not read "hypothetically"?

My point is that people can't just vote for anything they want. Legislature has restrictions.

If the majority of people wanted to vote in favour of the random killings of minorities, it wouldn't be domestically legal for them to force a referendum to legalise it.

[ringworm]

Don't patronize me.

im just demonstrating the lack of common sense in these people you like to defend :)

(reference to TaserKid too)

So you don't know this guy personally, but can take a few inferences and suddenly declare yourself an expert on his motivations?

LMAO, whatever, you & I know we're on opposite sides on most issues :)

:chug:

[Steerpike]

im just demonstrating the lack of common sense in these people you like to defend :)

(reference to TaserKid too)

LMAO, whatever, you & I know we're on opposite sides on most issues :)

:chug:

The reason this one sticks in my craw is because, as I stated earlier, the mother of one of my closest friends is also in the military. She's made her decision that if she is contacted to be redeployed into Iraq, she's not going. If it means going to prison, so be it. And I guarantee the press will be all over it, whether or not she likes it.

So given that, I feel a little more sympathy toward soldiers who believe dying for a bullshit war is not what they signed up for or were sworn to do.

[spitfirejunky]

Did you not read "hypothetically"?

My point is that people can't just vote for anything they want. Legislature has restrictions.

If the majority of people wanted to vote in favour of the random killings of minorities, it wouldn't be domestically legal for them to force a referendum to legalise it.

I'm arguing after the fact. If it's already been legislated, then it's not illegal. This war already passed the Congress, so it's not illegal as far as Americans are concerned.

[Smokey D]

Did you not read "hypothetically"?

My point is that people can't just vote for anything they want. Legislature has restrictions.

If the majority of people wanted to vote in favour of the random killings of minorities, it wouldn't be domestically legal for them to force a referendum to legalise it.

In the Westminster system, there are no restrictions on the legislature. It could order the random killings of minorities or pretty much any other undesirable thing you could imagine.

[ringworm]

The reason this one sticks in my craw is because, as I stated earlier, the mother of one of my closest friends is also in the military.
I have several friends over there as well & hope they all come back

So given that, I feel a little more sympathy toward soldiers who believe dying for a bullshit war is not what they signed up for or were sworn to do.
but thats just it, they didnt sign up for a specific conflict, they enlisted in the Military, plain & simple, which can entail MANY different roles, conflicts or deployments and is made of of superior's that give orders for subordinants to follow. They have my sympathy but at the same time, THEY have their orders.

[Steerpike]

but thats just it, they didnt sign up for a specific conflict, they enlisted in the Military, plain & simple, which can entail MANY different roles, conflicts or deployments and is made of of superior's that give orders for subordinants to follow. They have my sympathy but at the same time, THEY have their orders.

And she has chosen to defy orders. She believes going to prison for standing up for her beliefs is better than dying for nothing. And I agree.