Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
US soldier refuses to serve in "illegal Iraq war"
breitbart.com — Chiroux is one of thousands of US soldiers who have deserted since the Iraq war began in 2003, according to figures issued last year by the US army. But while many seek refuge in Canada, the young soldier vowed to stay in the United States to fight "whatever charges the army levels at me."
mofw- 2067 diggs
- digg it
- johnabq, on 05/16/2008, -74/+316All wars will end when all young men refuse to fight...
- NYPD, on 05/16/2008, -77/+12Bend Over. People will always want to Kill. You have to fight or Die. Are you in Frisco?
- CryRightardCry, on 05/16/2008, -15/+47Why are you threatening to ass rape him?
And SOME people will always want to kill.
The rest of us try for better.
But hey, it's so much easier for you to just give up and play the "fight or die" game, right?
"Are you in Frisco?"
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Geez, with the "bend over" and Frisco I'm guessing you are trolling for man meat.
Typical rightard. - Modulo, on 05/17/2008, -3/+6It's a hell of a lot easier to to avoid fighting when you aren't actively going around starting fights. Or more correctly, invading sovereign nations, killing massive amounts of civilians, overthrowing their governments and installing puppet regimes in order to steal their resources and use them as a convenient waypoint in the route for the heroin that you are using their pipelines to transport from Afghanistan to sell in your ghettos to keep the "lower classes" down and/or in jail as, essentially, slave labour, while using the profits to fund your black ops both inside and outside of your country. Oddly enough.
- CryRightardCry, on 05/16/2008, -15/+47Why are you threatening to ass rape him?
- roastedbagel, on 05/16/2008, -38/+7No, they'll enforce the draft.
- ryansmith18, on 05/16/2008, -3/+31...the draft has no mechanical power to force you to fight. If you get drafted, you can still refuse to fight. You just have to pay consequences.
- lvritter, on 05/16/2008, -45/+13Turn off your video games, pick up a history book or two, read them cover to cover, and take notes. Then you'll probably be less likley to make any more ignorant statements as such!
- Brownds, on 05/16/2008, -10/+5 l----D Here is a shovel to dig yourself out.. You should know better that to be that to bring facts and realism to Digg sir.
- MoofTheStoof, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7He's paraphrasing the Albert Einstein. (Just helping alleviate your ignorance.)
- zephyr42, on 05/16/2008, -7/+48Or when the economy collapses and their money is worthless... (see Germany after WWII)
- BESTenemy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+20 Well, if you look up Germany before WW2 (particularly Weimar era 1920-1924), you'll see that an economic collapse is just as capable of leading nations to wars. Hitler got elected having received 98% of votes. He offered a recovery plan... he might've not advertized its true nature, but people desperate for change went with it anyway.
If US economy collapses, disturbances will pave the way for the establishment of a more invasive totalitarian government. Nothing good will come out of it. One war will end only to be followed by bigger wars.- torressr3, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4lets just wish that it doesn't happen.
Although history has proved us all that after a time of abundance, like the 90s and the early 2000, there will always be a crisis followed usually, but not always by war.
- torressr3, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4lets just wish that it doesn't happen.
- Derrekito, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Germany was suffering high inflation due to the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles - which ended WWI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles - Sillywombat, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I dont think that was quite relevant
- LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"Remember, If you want more clones we will need more time to grow them..."
Real Robot Army vs. Clone Army war,
Winner: Robots!
Flesh is a Design Flaw.
- BESTenemy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+20 Well, if you look up Germany before WW2 (particularly Weimar era 1920-1924), you'll see that an economic collapse is just as capable of leading nations to wars. Hitler got elected having received 98% of votes. He offered a recovery plan... he might've not advertized its true nature, but people desperate for change went with it anyway.
- stix213, on 05/16/2008, -8/+19There will always be at least one young man who would gladly take advantage of the other's refusal to defend themselves. Dictatorships across the globe depend on this fact.
- john2kx, on 05/16/2008, -6/+16I don't think anyone is refusing to defend themselves..
The war in Iraq is NOT America defending itself.
- john2kx, on 05/16/2008, -6/+16I don't think anyone is refusing to defend themselves..
- Ricemanstm, on 05/16/2008, -15/+21All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...
In this case, the Dems will roll over for us. This guy deserves Leavenworth.- Lunarbunny, on 05/16/2008, -11/+9I hear the military is desperate for new recruits. How about you go?
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -6/+4Or, how about you don't go, because you have the freedom not to.
- cloud4197, on 05/16/2008, -10/+11'All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...'
Yeah I agree with that. Trouble is the US government aren't the good guys. - beaunewcomb, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1how do u know he's not talking about ACTION against the war?
- Lunarbunny, on 05/16/2008, -11/+9I hear the military is desperate for new recruits. How about you go?
- masterm1nd, on 05/16/2008, -11/+4The problem is, if you can't get them all to do it at the same time, the ones who refuse to fight end up getting killed by the ones who don't. It sounds so good and dreamy, but in reality, it's attempt brings about quite the opposite results.
- oldgal, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2Ever hear of Mahatma Gandhi? India?
- masterm1nd, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Yes, do you know how he died? Ironically, he was assassinated. I love the idea, but it doesn't work out that well in the real world. You can willingly die for the unrealistic cause that won't amount to a hill of beans, but don't ask me to. Anything which relies on humans going against human nature is destined to fail.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Yes. But do you know WHY he died?
He did not die in an act of peaceful resistance, but in an effort to foolishly bring two feuding parties together. There's a reason why there aren't very may unifiers in recorded history.
Peaceful resistance was something he did right, though. - ciaran036, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Unifiers in recorded history? There are many, but they are still clouded over by stupid people.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Could you name more unifiers than famous explorers? Unifiers make up a vastly small percentage of historical figures. Technological, economic, military, and philosophical figures are each far more abundant.
Again, the reason why unifiers are not common is directly related to human nature in general. While I could make the easy argument of 'show me a unifier and I'll show you ten more significant military persons', I think it would be better to say 'show me a unifier and I'll point out a far more useful and beneficial figure of history*'.
*AND I will grant you that wars of aggression are not useful, so I will discount all military and politician figures, as well as philosophical figures who are only regarded for their literature or beliefs.
- oldgal, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2Ever hear of Mahatma Gandhi? India?
- IdevInull, on 05/16/2008, -29/+6This man should be shot for desertion.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4you should be shot for ignorance and war mongering neo-con attitudes. Not going to Iraq isn't desertion, it's political protest and should be protected under freedom to petition and freedom of speech. He was willing to go anywhere in the world, just not Iraq which he thought was anti-American to do. He's a true patriot and if he's shot then he will become not only a martyr, but also a true American hero that will take his place in all the U.S. History textbooks and will be an inspiration to a new generation of war protesters. The government doesn't need to give another reason to be hated, but killing a young man for protesting a war will be another.
- jesushitler, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3he knew what he signed up for.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4you should be shot for ignorance and war mongering neo-con attitudes. Not going to Iraq isn't desertion, it's political protest and should be protected under freedom to petition and freedom of speech. He was willing to go anywhere in the world, just not Iraq which he thought was anti-American to do. He's a true patriot and if he's shot then he will become not only a martyr, but also a true American hero that will take his place in all the U.S. History textbooks and will be an inspiration to a new generation of war protesters. The government doesn't need to give another reason to be hated, but killing a young man for protesting a war will be another.
- mnemy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Except when the old war junkies have a big red button they can fall back on
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Yep. There won't be any more "wars". That's for sure. Only a lot of pre-programmed devices running around, and doing a helluva job. Long live the UAV.
- richardiscool, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2No more fighting one to one,
Just a program to be run.
- richardiscool, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2No more fighting one to one,
- arcooke, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Here's the video:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/96993.html
You'll probably have to disable adblock to watch it as I did. - mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -14/+5Keep dreaming hippie.
Thank ***** all humans arnt as useless as that, or we would still be several rungs down on the food chain. - afterlife23, on 05/17/2008, -5/+7then the women will just fight
- oldgal, on 05/17/2008, -7/+10Or when the folks who decide to go to war must lead the troops into war.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6Like the days of Napoleon. Now they hide behind desks and titles. War Pigs. Enough said.
- diskit, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3and when they refuse to blow themselves up, taking numerous innocents with them.
- taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2I'd never enlist voluntarily. If there was a war, this is what I'd to:
- Try to avoid the draft legally.
- Try to avoid it illegaly.
- Flee.
- If caught, refuse to serve and go to prison.- IdevInull, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Coward.
- taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4I'd never enlist voluntarily. If there was a war, this is what I'd to:
- Try to avoid the draft legally.
- Try to avoid it illegaly.
- Flee.
- If caught, refuse to serve and go to prison.- bmcelrath, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Wuss.
- taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1No. Anarchist.
- bmcelrath, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Wuss.
- ciaran036, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Well let's hope that never happens! Don't let that ever happen. All attempts to force Americans into war should be stopped immediately. The laws should be re-written so that this should never ever happen.
- Chameleongoo, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2I knew Mathis before he joined the military, and there is more to the story than what is in this article. First off, he was honorably discharged last september and enrolled in a college to pursue his pre-law and journalism major. Here is a quote from him. " As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter service members stories, I heard many stomach churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand..."
I am honored to know him, and wish him the best in his efforts.
- NYPD, on 05/16/2008, -77/+12Bend Over. People will always want to Kill. You have to fight or Die. Are you in Frisco?
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -50/+185When (in your pipe dream) "all young men refuse to fight," you get opression and tyranny of Saddamic proportions.
Wars will not end because young men refuse to fight. Wars will end because men will refuse to allow others to own them, usurp their Rights and limit their Freedoms.
Period.- Akaji, on 05/16/2008, -5/+19Exclamation point!
- treed, on 05/16/2008, -7/+11Question mark?
- ostracize, on 05/17/2008, -3/+5Interrobang‽
- Elranzer, on 05/17/2008, -2/+0Ampersand... TRANSFORM!!
- soccerman90, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9maybe johnabq should have clarified by saying foreign wars will end. On the other hand domestic wars for overthrowing a tyrannical government will always exist
- digitallysick, on 05/16/2008, -10/+47Right now the only one limiting my freedoms and rights is my own government
- lordmetroid, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2Your in the government? Why don't you get yourself out?
- gllopc, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2LordMetroid is making the point that the US is government is "of the people"; meaning that we the people have placed ourselves here, and so we the people can dig ourselves out.
He made a valid point. - copypasta, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Your stupid.
/sarcasm
- gllopc, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2LordMetroid is making the point that the US is government is "of the people"; meaning that we the people have placed ourselves here, and so we the people can dig ourselves out.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -7/+5Name me one freedom or right you had in 2001 that you no longer have.
Just one.- Devilboy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5So just because YOU are not stuck in cuban prison cell with no charges and no release date - everything is OK yea?
Selfish prick. - Elshar, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Do you even realize what the patriot act did? It pretty much usurps habeas corpus if you are doing something that the government considers to be 'terrorism'. Not to mention that they no longer are REQUIRED to get a court order before hand to conduct surveillance on us. Remember the rights about freedom to privacy and freedom of speech? Yea, gone.
That's just the tip of the iceburg, but there's two for you. - Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Devilboy666 - I'm not stuck in a cuban prison cell because I'm not a Cuban who has ever spoken out against Castro. But if you're talking about Gitmo, no, I'm not there, either, because I haven't been captured on a battlefield while engaging US forces in combat.
Elshar - the Patriot Act doesn't usurp habeas corpus. You're most likely speaking about Section 412 of the Patriot Act, which specifies mandatory detention of suspected terrorists and habeas corpus provisions. Note that the Act only refers to aliens, not US citizens. Rights of US citizens regarding habeas corpus have not been infringed with the Patriot Act. Do some of your own research instead of listening to leftist bloggers.
Here, I'll even post the relevant section of the Act for you to read for yourself.
SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following:
`MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW
`SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-
`(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.
`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
`(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.
`(2) APPLICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--
`(i) the Supreme Court;
`(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;
`(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or
`(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.
`(B) APPLICATION TRANSFER- Section 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus described in subparagraph (A).
`(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.
`(4) RULE OF DECISION- The law applied by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1).
`(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any other provision of this Act.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 236 the following:
`Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial review.'.
(c) REPORTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--
(1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a);
(2) the grounds for such certifications;
(3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
(4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; and
(5) the number of aliens so certified who--
(A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
(B) were removed;
(C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or
(D) were released from detention.
- Devilboy666, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5So just because YOU are not stuck in cuban prison cell with no charges and no release date - everything is OK yea?
- troye, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3@Kythas
habeas corpus
(sorry im just getting used to the new comment system)- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1See my comment above, please.
- lordmetroid, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2Your in the government? Why don't you get yourself out?
- laserpig, on 05/16/2008, -18/+22Pacifism is not weakness, but strength. It is a coward who solves his problems by shooting at them.
The only reason wars continue is that it's easier to manufacture guns than it is to dispel ignorance.
Yes we need to stand up for our rights, but there is no reason anybody has to die in the process.- shaelen, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10I agree with you.. There is no reason anybody has to die in the process, until that other guy starts shooting pacifists for being pacifists. Are you suggesting that pacifists should just stand there and die? Or should they just run around setting up traps and peacefully cage tyrants?
- laserpig, on 05/16/2008, -11/+5I don't know where you live that you're personally assaulted by various tyrants, but I recommend you move.
People don't start fights without reasons. Even if only one side of a conflict is being reasonable, violence can be prevented. Pacifism doesn't mean doing nothing, pacifism means using nonviolent means of conflict resolution. Means such as diplomacy, trade embargoes, and the vast collection of other tactics that sane politicians use.
It is people LIKE YOU who end up being the unreasonable group demanding a fight: the guy who starts shooting pacifists just for being pacifists. When you're unwilling to even attempt a peaceful resolution, OF COURSE violence will be the only answer left. - Sairgem, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4"People don't start fights without reasons."
Hahahahaha. - TheImaginator, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1'People don't start fights without reasons'
True - but what are the reasons?
Oil, land, control over neighbouring countries, prevention of development of countries you want resources from later, keeping your head above water so your culture will be the one that comes out on top.
Or ignorance breeding hatred in a bunch of men who are boys fantasising about being heroes.
- laserpig, on 05/16/2008, -11/+5I don't know where you live that you're personally assaulted by various tyrants, but I recommend you move.
- SkittlesUSA, on 05/17/2008, -5/+7Pacifism didn't win us our independence. Pacifism didn't win World War I. Pacifism didn't win World War II.
I am very thankful people like you weren't in the majority in our history... or we would all probably be speaking in German right now.- infinitiesedge, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8Pacifism never caused wars or millions of deaths either.
- Murdats, on 05/17/2008, -0/+7we weren't the aggressor there like we are now, imagine if all the german and japanese troops had agreed not to fight, there would have been a lot less deaths and a lot more peace.
- troye, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2EXACTLY!!!
- arjie, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2It won _us_ _our_ independence. But funnily, we are talking in English.
- ciaran036, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I would much rather have been speaking German than going to the trenches and watching my friends get ripped to pieces.
- catfish182, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1for the rest of time there very well will be a need for a military. you can have 99 (out of 100) people that want peace. There will always be one person that will get what he wants by any means necessary and that person will need to be meet with force and stopped.
It is sad that that will always be that way but it has to be.
- Brumbar, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Pacifism may be perceived as a strength. What it will get you is dead or enslaved.
You have the right to be a Pacifist because there are rough people ready to do violence in the night so that you may sleep soundly in your bed. - SeekritSkwirl, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0because... pacifism is working for the Dalai Lama?
- shaelen, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10I agree with you.. There is no reason anybody has to die in the process, until that other guy starts shooting pacifists for being pacifists. Are you suggesting that pacifists should just stand there and die? Or should they just run around setting up traps and peacefully cage tyrants?
- richporter, on 05/16/2008, -6/+8Romantic at best. I commend you for thinking in such a way but I fear you are gravely mistaken. Of all the violence this earth has seen at the hands of the governments of men, what percentage of them were truly for freedom and rights?
Now what percentage of those wars were for greed?- sodade, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Thank you for saying that so I didn't have to.
- dmaynard, on 05/16/2008, -5/+10Wars will only end when there is a fundamental change within the human race in how we view and interact with each other.
Until them, the violence, the greed, and the loss of innocence will continue. - mnemy, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3Err? That's kinda how a lot of wars START.
- acegi, on 05/16/2008, -6/+13when 'all' young men refuse to fight, there will be no young men at tyrant's command either.
makes sense within stated sentence - CrazyDave303, on 05/16/2008, -5/+7"When (in your pipe dream) "all young men refuse to fight," you get opression and tyranny of Saddamic proportions."
I think the point is if there is no young men to fight then governments can not use them to create oppression and tyranny.- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -5/+9No, Dave - the point is: under oppression and tyranny, you live, work, and fight for the tyrant or you die.
Show me a pacifist nation that hasn't been over run by war.
"All young men" will never refuse to fight - just as "all guns" will never be taken off the streets. When pacifists learn these lessons, they will stop pretending that pacifism brings about peace and that disarming law-abiding citizens will accomplish NOTHING more than making us all targets.- OliveStreet, on 05/17/2008, -4/+1Sweden.
- hobophobe, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Are you saying that a single tyrant has the ability to oppress the masses without foot soldiers?
Have you never heard of Jesus or Gandhi or King?
Are you an arms dealer? - CrazyDave303, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I'm not a pacifist, but once again as hobophobe pointed out how can a single tyrant oppress more then his wife, dog, and children with out an army. So the original quote is still valid. It might be impossible pipe dream, but that's a difference argument all together.
Expanding on the agreement a bit because I kinda see where you where heading with your own comments. I personally think there is a BIG difference with nations that work on Defensive, Defense through Offense, and just plan out Offensive military basis. There is a big difference with using a countries military to defend against an others military threat, rather then using a military to gain advantage.
Side note:(Why did Canada go in to Afghanistan along with the US, but not Iraq? Afghanistan looked like it was a good case of Defense through an Offense. While Iraq looked Offensive attack on a country that was a mild economic/political threat.)
So really not agreeing with senseless wars does not make some one a pacifist.
PS show me a tyrant that has taken over a target with out an army? And then I you might prove to me the quote in question is flawed.
- bman1984, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Canada
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -5/+9No, Dave - the point is: under oppression and tyranny, you live, work, and fight for the tyrant or you die.
- geneusutwerk, on 05/17/2008, -3/+6Saddamic proportions? I mean he was pretty horrible and all but no where near any sort of pinnacle of tyranny or oppression, try Stalin or Mao.
- Nconn360, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Truesay, and Saddam was buddies (read supported and validated) with the States for quite awhile there while he was killing Iranians for them, so where's the moral line here again? Saddamic Proportions. Tyrants are only tyrants because others give them their power, whether the people in the streets in their cabinets or in other countries. Note: the US people need to remember what a "servant government" is supposed to be.
I would be much more impressed by the Egyptians if the pyramids didn't exist and they drowned their pharaoh in the Nile. Out.
- Nconn360, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Truesay, and Saddam was buddies (read supported and validated) with the States for quite awhile there while he was killing Iranians for them, so where's the moral line here again? Saddamic Proportions. Tyrants are only tyrants because others give them their power, whether the people in the streets in their cabinets or in other countries. Note: the US people need to remember what a "servant government" is supposed to be.
- hamdogthirty, on 05/17/2008, -5/+2The deeper story here (rather than the man refusing to serve alone) is the broader story; those men and women testifying about corruption and abuses. I hope the television news and the papers pick up on this story. Get out of Iraq! Vote Obama in November.
- jonojai, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2i think you've missed the point.
- CrazyDave303, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should stop thinking so black and white using only premises that are not defendants themselves. Believing we should not go to war with a country is very different then saying we should not defend ourselves. Granted a good offense is some times the best defense, but some times being on the offense is not about defense at all, it's just an offense.
- Akaji, on 05/16/2008, -5/+19Exclamation point!
- mathewsjw, on 05/16/2008, -94/+40wrong war will end when there are NO more anti-war peace-niks giving aid and comfort to those that cut the heads off Americans for Islamic or other tyranny, because there will be no one able to attack America.
This guy enlisted to desert, for the unintelligent this is call a FALSE FLAG event.
facts "thousands...deserted" and other misinformation is blatantly false. my guess is this is paid for by the Democrat sock puppets to surrender America to their Islamic allies.
"support the troops by bringing them home" is just a slogan for SURRENDER NOW, by the Democrat surrender monkeys.
Support the troops, by supporting Victory.- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -17/+57Read a ***** history book you ignorant flag waving piece of *****. Start in 1947 and focus on how we've been ***** with the entire region for 60 years. Peaceniks have nothing to do with our failures in Iraq and until you stop treating the political process like a ***** football game, you'll be blind to that fact.
- Hawk2007, on 05/16/2008, -12/+5Maybe you should start with the "blame us" mentality.
If the Muslims didn't want war, maybe Osama would have taken a page out of the "Pelosi Foreign Affairs" book and brought his grievances to President Bush rather then slaughtering thousands that have nothing to do directly with the Middle East.- josak, on 05/16/2008, -3/+7I have a better idea, how bout we just get the ***** out of their and stay out, and start minding our own business -- then maybe these "extremists" might not want to kill us so much.
- oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9
Or Maybe if Bush cared he would have done something about the eminent attack he was warned about in the memos leading up to 9/11? Why would he ignore them...i mean, if someone who has a history of blowing my ***** up tells me he's gonna crash a plane into one of my houses, i think i'd look into it at least...
Wait! Nevermind...then he could never scapegoat the entire thing onto Saddam to finish that oil pipeline they built after taking over afghanistan and iraq...the one they so vehemently want to protect for the next 100 years...
And what with the price of crude creeping up, and forecasters declaring $200/barrel oil in the next year, who can blame them?? thats like a 250% increase from the time Bush became president...him and all his friends are gonna be so rich. But they won't live here. Why would they do that...no Bush is gonna live in his new home in Costa Rica, and get paid in his high-valued Euros, while the rest of us lose everything because of his greed and complete disregard for the country.
But no, wait. The Muslims wanted us to plunder and take advantage of them so they could start they're holy war right. - oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3Or Maybe if Bush cared he would have done something about the eminent attack he was warned about in the memos leading up to 9/11? Why would he ignore them...i mean, if someone who has a history of blowing my ***** up tells me he's gonna crash a plane into one of my houses, i think i'd look into it at least...
Wait! Nevermind...then he could never scapegoat the entire thing onto Saddam to finish that oil pipeline they built after taking over afghanistan and iraq...the one they so vehemently want to protect for the next 100 years...
And what with the price of crude creeping up, and forecasters declaring $200/barrel oil in the next year, who can blame them?? thats like a 250% increase from the time Bush became president...him and all his friends are gonna be so rich. But they won't live here. Why would they do that...no Bush is gonna live in his new home in Costa Rica, and get paid in his high-valued Euros, while the rest of us lose everything because of his greed and complete disregard for the country.
But the muslims wanted us to take advantage of them and plunder they're resources! how could they start their holy war otherwise right?
Right. /sarcasm. - Smiths, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Because Osama speaks for all Muslims like Hagee or Robertson speaks for all Christians...
You are a simple minded tool of those whose ideology you trumpet. - StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Oh, you mean like all the effort we're putting into Darfur or Burma? Or is it that they haven't written us an official letter in triplicate? America's shown what it takes to get its attention, and it isn't "need."
- fabthegerm, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0"If the Muslims didn't want war"
you know that you're talking about more than 1.3 BILLION people on the face of the earth, right? right? racist...
- Hawk2007, on 05/16/2008, -12/+5Maybe you should start with the "blame us" mentality.
- JKap, on 05/16/2008, -6/+10Have some Victory Gin to go along with your delusions of grandeur.
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4Wow, 7 people actually dugg you up.
On a side note, I love this new comment system. - RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -8/+8Sounds like you pieced that together from a bunch of conservative bumper stickers.
- poihead, on 05/16/2008, -9/+13First, if the American Army was made up of only mindless soldiers like you, I would have no problem Mccain keeping all of you in Iraq for the next 100 years.
Second, if you are so willing to sacrifice American blood for a purposeless conflict, why are you not in iraq right now fighting for our victory? Smells like a bumper sticker patriot to me... - koumed, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Did you know who gave weapon and power to "Taliban" to fight USSR?
anti-war and peace-niks? hhm no, It's the US. its the USA who made those terrorists, every war lead to an other war and so on. It's never gonna end if USA doesn't try to understand and negotiate with everyone.
for now, they are supporting Saudi Arabia and thinking they're their allies in their "war in terrorism", but who knows what's gonna happen in 50 years - StepCousin, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3I think this pussy was partying it up in Japan and Germany, taking it up the ass in the red light district, and suckling Uncle Sam's teat. Next thing you know he gets dropped in Afghanistan, tastes some combat, and realizes he's a total coward.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YDecLiA_Qbw - Elwood19k20, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4Some people do not understand the oath that they took to uphold and defend the "Constitution of the United States". These are the same people that call this nation "America" instead of the "United States". Wrong war will end when soldiers start defending the oath that they took instead of the lies that they are fed to promote false pretenses to go to war. The question that should be asked first and foremost is : "What is the true reason that I am going to war?" and "Is it the will of the people?" I am an Army Veteran ranked SGT and MOS 19k20 and I support this message.
- StepCousin, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should obey orders, good or bad, and STFU. That's what you signed up for when you started suckling on the federal teat.
- ciaran036, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2I'd love to hear from those who digged up this ridiculous comment...
- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -17/+57Read a ***** history book you ignorant flag waving piece of *****. Start in 1947 and focus on how we've been ***** with the entire region for 60 years. Peaceniks have nothing to do with our failures in Iraq and until you stop treating the political process like a ***** football game, you'll be blind to that fact.
- Soulcase, on 05/16/2008, -52/+32Johnabq, you're an idiot. The only young men that refuse to fight come from pussified nations like ours. The much larger and more populous Third World will never stop producing fighting young men. Honestly, anyone who believes that war will disappear when more men act like Matthis Chiroux are in total willful denial of human history and nature.
As for this article, it is beyond biased. "Fillet mignon?" This guy is a joke. I was fillet mignon; college-educated, fit, and a combat arms volunteer. It is not condemnation, but this ass-hat's MOS isn't even listed, so I'm guessing he's not a combat soldier. If he was, I figure an august organization like AFP would have mentioned it, like saying, "Chrioux had participated in numerous violent engagements with the cunning and deadly Afghan insurgency." I bet you this guy is in supply or food service or some pogue MOS.
How dare he cry about what happens in Iraq when he had not even been there? Histrionics, plain and simple. If he's feeling pain as a combat veteran, then I sympathize completely. But so far, he's simply reveling in the limelight at a pity party. Get him the f**k out of the Army, charge him with desertion, a hang him. The Greatest Generation fought a much harder war, returned home, used their GI benefits, and made America the strongest nation in the world. Now, our generation is tearing it down, and calling it patriotic dissent.- Cognoscenti247, on 05/16/2008, -14/+3AMEN.
My brother is returning from his fourth tour and has seen the transformation. Our forces have decimated Al-Qaeda in Iraq in unbelievable numbers which will never be reported.
Obviously, this disturbed young man is being used as a puppet. Somebody had to feed him this party line because in addition to being supported by congress and the house; the United Nations UNANIMOUSLY authorized action in resolution 1441. What is illegal? It had broader support than the previous invasion.- coolmanmax2000, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
* That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
* That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations".
All the UN agreed to was that Iraq did not fulfill its contract to the UN, not that the US had the right to invade. - RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5Obviously, your brother is a puppet of the terrorist organization known as the U.S. military. Al-Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before you assholes destabalized the whole region.
- oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4from my previous post a while ago:
We attacked a sovereign country without UN approval.
"On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [4]" -taken from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi ...
The world does not recognize our laws. We are not the end-all be-all world police.- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2***** the corrupt and utterly useless U.N.
- quaxon, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1If i worked for KBR id rape your brother with a broom stick then slit his throat. Hows that for hoo rah...
- oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1***** the corrupt and utterly useless U.N,? As opposed to the corrupt and religously etreme zealotry of the USoA?
Lol.
- Smiths, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1What unit is your brother in? Is it a USA outfit, or UK like your profile says...? Or are you just trolling?
- coolmanmax2000, on 05/16/2008, -3/+4Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
- ryansmith18, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6You could always hit the "Reply" button under his comment.
- laserpig, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1See, Soulcase? It's easy!
- StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred. - Elwood19k20, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Some people do not understand the oath that they took to uphold and defend the "Constitution of the United States". These are the same people that call this nation "America" instead of the "United States". Wrong war will end when soldiers start defending the oath that they took instead of the lies that they are fed to promote false pretenses to go to war. The question that should be asked first and foremost is : "What is the true reason that I am going to war?" and "Is it the will of the people?" I am an Army Veteran ranked SGT and MOS 19k20 and I support this message.
- Soulcase, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Alright, 19 kilo, I feel you. But whatever we may say about this war, it was given full authorization by the representatives of this republic. The CINC asked for authorization and got it. That is how the Constitution works, which you and I swore to. If it doesn't agree with your politics, well that doesn't make one ounce of difference. You follow your orders, because that's your oath. You want to fight it? Go through all the legal chains you want, and be better be satisfied with the result, because that's another branch of the
As for America, well, we are known around the world as Americans. When I'm asked overseas where I'm from, I say America. The semantics really make little difference. War will NOT end when people do as you say. By that thinking, WWII should have ended war. The Constitution may be infallible, but the people in whom that document places power do not always make the best decisions. Sorry, 19K20, that dog don't hunt. But I do respect your service.
And to get back to the point of my original post, this guy swore an oath. That's not something one should take lightly. He wants to fight it, fine. But he should be charged with desertion. That's one aspect of the USC that has not been applied to theses asses.
- Soulcase, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Alright, 19 kilo, I feel you. But whatever we may say about this war, it was given full authorization by the representatives of this republic. The CINC asked for authorization and got it. That is how the Constitution works, which you and I swore to. If it doesn't agree with your politics, well that doesn't make one ounce of difference. You follow your orders, because that's your oath. You want to fight it? Go through all the legal chains you want, and be better be satisfied with the result, because that's another branch of the
- Cognoscenti247, on 05/16/2008, -14/+3AMEN.
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -29/+25Amen.
How is it, exactly, that "objective" (read: "partisan hack Democrats") people suppose they are supporting the troops by opposing what we believe in so strongly that we're re-enlisting in historic proportions?
This article pretends that a few "soldier's" testimonies are "smashing" the official DoD story. How is it that a few testimonies "smash" the ground truth?
... and these "objective" people refuse to accept that mainstream media bias is rampantly on their side ...- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -8/+12got some statistics for your "historic proportion" reenlistments? That why they dropped the reqs for entrance and we're only mustering a few hundred thousand over in the sandbox? You didn't get the memo apparently, they changed the slogan away from "army of one".
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -7/+6Think before you write, White.
Reenlistments have NOTHING to do with entrance requirements. They have everything to do with soldiers who are already IN the service and ARE or HAVE served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Here's your stats.
- In percentage of re-enlistment goals from 1995 to 2007: 99.3, 99.9, 99.5, 101.5, 109.5, 104.9, 101.5, 102.5, 106.2, 107.0, 108.3, 104.8, 112.00.
- The MAX re-enlistment rate between 1963-1972 was 41.7%
(Source: Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, US Army)
Speaking of not getting the memo, you seem to be the only one who is (selectively) unaware of the incredible re-enlistment rates for soldiers who have seen action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even your elected Democrat leaders acknowledge this fact.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with whether you received the memo, but whether you're capable of reading it. Next time, we'll send pictures.- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4Lower entrance reqs serve as a key indicater of whether their are enough bodies over there. If enough people believe in what you're doing, they''d volunteer. It appears they don't. I'm thrilled you and your buds in the minority enjoy tooling around bagdhad in hum-vees blowing out over-priced .50 cal like it's peanuts. I'm thrilled you gung-ho lifer types exist, because when the *****-hits the fan, I want you over there taking a bullet. All you're doing right NOW however, is enfuriating an entire region and ensuring that you and your ilk will have a job for the next 25 years.
It's great you believe in what you're doing, but tell me, what is it exactly? - SpudgeBoy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2It is called "stop loss" look it up.
- SpencerMc, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3How can there be an over 100% reenlistment rate?
- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4Lower entrance reqs serve as a key indicater of whether their are enough bodies over there. If enough people believe in what you're doing, they''d volunteer. It appears they don't. I'm thrilled you and your buds in the minority enjoy tooling around bagdhad in hum-vees blowing out over-priced .50 cal like it's peanuts. I'm thrilled you gung-ho lifer types exist, because when the *****-hits the fan, I want you over there taking a bullet. All you're doing right NOW however, is enfuriating an entire region and ensuring that you and your ilk will have a job for the next 25 years.
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -7/+6Think before you write, White.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2I see what you did there,... Stats pulled out of your rear.
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Not in the least, Vit. I cited my source.
If you care to wager $1000 to the winners favorite charity, I'll send you a copy.
Since you wont back that up, you're welcome to disprove my stats. Good luck.
- SeekritSkwirl, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Not in the least, Vit. I cited my source.
- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -8/+12got some statistics for your "historic proportion" reenlistments? That why they dropped the reqs for entrance and we're only mustering a few hundred thousand over in the sandbox? You didn't get the memo apparently, they changed the slogan away from "army of one".
- mattowan, on 05/16/2008, -18/+295Easiest thing in America to do is to not fight in a war. Simply don't join the military. It is a 100% all volunteer military.
- usafdave, on 05/16/2008, -9/+77Oh, snap... someone finally said it. Muchas gracias.
Let's not forget that since he has been in for 6 years (RTFA), he PROBABLY re-enlisted at some point. So the whole, "I was suckered in right after highschool, boo hoo hoo" argument holds NO water.- zephyr42, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2he probably didn't re-enlist because after 2 years of active duty service you can make it into more of a career (if you did well) or you can leave.
- root1657, on 05/16/2008, -0/+16Actually, that's not how it works. The post you replied to hit on the magic 6 number there.
There is no such thing as a 2 year enlistment anymore, and hasn't been for a while. Believe it or not, this was done because the vast majority of 2 year people are not eligible to re-enlist, because they have not had time to achieve a specific career milestone that is required to re-enlist.
4 years for a first term is pretty standard. At the end of that 4 years, the member either just waits for his last day and moves on, or if they choose to, they can request permission to re-enlist. That's right, request permission... the decision for them to stay has to be mutual. There are a number of reasons why a person would not be granted a re-enlistment.
Persons who enlist for certain specific programs that require extensive expensive training are usually required to do a 6 year first term, but since there is no such thing as a 6 year enlistment, this is done with a 4 year, then upon completion of their training, they sign a 2 year extension, usually in exchange for accelerated rank, based on proving their abilities by completing the training.
The most a person can enlist for is 4 years at a time. That's it. It's not like you decide to make it a career and stay forever, it's a request every time your contract is up. No one enlisted in the US military now 'didn't reenlist' since the beginning of the war, it's been too long. Even a guy who went to boot camp on 10sep01 would have been out a year and a half ago, even if he was on a 6 year deal. - copypasta, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Actually there is such thing as a 2 year enlistment. I started my 2 years in 2003 and got out in 2005.
Army, 14J. - catfish182, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2well actually all army personal on in for 8 years at minimum.
you do a certain time of active duty and then you go inactive reserve where you can be called up at any time.
So you may be active for 2 or 4 but regardless the army has your ass for a bit
- root1657, on 05/16/2008, -0/+16Actually, that's not how it works. The post you replied to hit on the magic 6 number there.
- treed, on 05/16/2008, -14/+2They're not allowing people to leave right now.
- sovietninja, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Wrong. My friend just got out in April. 1 tour in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq with the US Marines.
- marvin69, on 05/17/2008, -0/+8"They're not allowing people to leave right now."
Really! Don't tell my brother that. He's on his way home right now!
(June 6 to be exact) - bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -5/+1I'm totally against the war, but I respect your friends/brothers service.
Here's to hoping they don't get "stop-lossed" and called back. - bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2Why am I being dugg down. Are people hoping they DO get called back on stop-loss orders?
- SpudgeBoy, on 05/16/2008, -12/+9Stop Loss. Read up.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4So you're saying because of Stop Loss nobody's been discharged on their ETS date since the war began in 2003?
Stop Loss usually only occurs when you're in a critical MOS that is short of people or for a very specific reason, such as a unit deployment. Typically, when replacements get trained up and assigned to your unit, those personnel under stop loss orders are then released. It's not a general action. Read up. - lbdinh, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I was a wheel mechanic (ground) in an aviation unit and my MOS was not critical and I was stop lossed anyways. I was supposed to ETS just under 3 months before my deployment. Ended up doing 15 months in Iraq anyways and it wasn't by choice. Replacements were trained up but were only sent out if a soldier was sent back due to medical/mental stuff. There're only a certain amount of soldiers authorized to be in an unit. It's called an MTOE.
Stop loss policy applies to all soldiers of an unit 90 days prior to deployment. You can get out of it but you have to have a damn good reason and it has to get approved by all the commanders in your chain of command before going to G1 to make the final decision. I know because I filed for an "exception to policy". Once you're stop lossed, you stay for the whole deployment. I also had to wait 90 more days (along with about another 15-20 soldiers who were also stop lossed) when I got back from Iraq to finally ETS. Read up. - Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Ibdinh, note that I stated a stop loss also occurs for a specific reason, such as a unit deployment. When I was in the Army, stop lossed soldiers would be rotated at such a time as a replacement for that person was assigned to the unit. I wasn't aware that policy had changed.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4So you're saying because of Stop Loss nobody's been discharged on their ETS date since the war began in 2003?
- udjet, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7I would expect someone with the alias usafdave to actually know something about the military and the fact that you can sign up for a 6 year enlistment, which a lot of young people do and add to that an extension if he had a PCS overseas within the last 2 years of his enlistment. Technically you could spend close to seven and a half years on your first enlistment. I would suggest taking a new alias. Just saying...
Oh, before you try to call me out, I served fro 10 years in the Air Force before a receiving disability discharge.- Smiths, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yep, I did 6.5 years on my first enlistment through PCS overseas extensions and a stop loss (during Kosovo).
- gsxrjason, on 05/16/2008, -8/+10He has no issue being deployed other places. It's specifically Iraq that he has a problem with. You're trying to dismiss him being against an illegal occupation by saying "so what, don't join the army".
- PabloMac, on 05/16/2008, -4/+21You don't enlist into the military to pick and choose your assignments.
- ConceptualTrap, on 05/16/2008, -8/+6You join the military to follow orders. These orders you can disagree with and face penalties as a result. This soldier isn't fleeing, isn't trying to avoid punishment. He's speaking out against a war that he doesn't think the US should be a part of and is fully accepting of whatever the army feels his punishment should be.
The military isn't ALL bad, and I'm a hardcore liberal saying that. It does do SOME good in the world and personally, I wouldn't be opposed to being a part of that. However, there are a lot of things that the military would have me do that I'd refuse. Now, since I don't want to face those penalties, I choose not to. But I see no problem in joining and refusing orders that you find morally reprehensible. They may own him for 7 years but he has to live with himself for the rest of his life. - JointVenture, on 05/16/2008, -11/+7OMFG, yeah he had no problem doing "short time" in asia and germany but when he realized there were no short time hotels in Iraq he ran up to Canada.
- ConceptualTrap, on 05/17/2008, -6/+5Joint, if you read the article, you would have seen that he's NOT running to Canada. He's resolved to stay in the US, spoke out against the war in the Senate, has already said he's not going to report for duty and that he's accepting of any punishment that the army feels justified in giving him.
- mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -2/+12Well tough ***** *****.
This isnt the cub scouts, you go where and when you are assigned. He knew that going on.
And sorry, but since congress authorized this its not "illegal" either. He should be tried for desertion. - catfish182, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Mike i agree with you but i do have to say that i can at least respect this guy for not running and taking what ever punishment is handed to him. I dont know if the army will really punish him hard though since that would make them look bad and hurt recruitment. I know regulations are regulations but reality says otherwise
- zephyr42, on 05/16/2008, -12/+2he probably didn't re-enlist because after 2 years of active duty service you can make it into more of a career (if you did well) or you can leave.
- sponge666, on 05/16/2008, -18/+10I agree. But let's not forget that a lot of these kids that end up joining the army really dont have much of a choice. Its either join the army, become a welfare bum like their parents, or jail.
- 9thisisme, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11there is always a choice.
- stix213, on 05/16/2008, -1/+13BS. If there are no job opportunities in your town the military is definitely an acceptable option, but I don't understand why no one ever considers the fact that you could simply move your ass to another town with a job opening for you.
I commute 2 hours each way everyday because jobs I am good at are only really available in the city, but I live deep in the suburbs 2 counties away. I could cry about it, I could move to the city, or I could just understand the realities of job market supply and demand and do what I need to do.
If you don't know how to do anything that someone else will pay you for it is your own damn fault. That doesn't mean you have to go to college, just learn how to do something in demand. When the job market changes, you need to anticipate that too. - root1657, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8The military stopped taking jail deferals a very long time ago.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2John Kerry? Is that you?
- shredswithpiks, on 05/16/2008, -7/+6Yeah, but most times when you do join the military you don't know what they're going to throw you into. Some things you are ok with and other things you aren't. You either do something about it or you don't.
I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is here.- 9thisisme, on 05/16/2008, -3/+20when you join the military you choose to deny yourself any freedoms granted by this country. your surrender your future. it's your choice and you should be prepared for what it may cost you.
- mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8You man up and do it.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8Anyone who's joined the military since 9/11 knew exactly what they were going to be thrown into, as you put it. Anyone who's joined since the invasion in 2003 absolutely knew they would almost definitely be going to Iraq.
If you don't agree with the war, don't enlist. Simple as that. Don't join up and refuse to obey orders for some political protest *****. That dishonors those who have fought, those who have been wounded, and those who have died.
I have zero sympathy for this guy. He should be tried for desertion. Unfortunately, as we're not in a declared war, I'm not sure on the legality of shooting him for desertion, but 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth would suit me just fine. - catfish182, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1shred,
i can tell you what you do when you get a ***** assignment. suck it up and drive on.
thats it. you can ask to change but that ***** will not happen 98% of the time i bet.
9thisisme is correct for the most part. you do not have the freedoms that you swore to defend. it sucks but that is part of the cost of what you signed up for.
I did 3 years as a m1a1 crewman.
- MadEnvoy, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8...for now...
- gsxrjason, on 05/16/2008, -8/+11I'm not against all wars, just stupid wars.
- userperson, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3... and a non-stupid war is ... ?
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -13/+29He probably figured that his military would be used to defend his country, not launch pre-emptive strikes and murder innocent civilians.
- mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -3/+15Except of course he enlisted after the war had already started.
He is just a coward, nothing more.- goldfishey, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3a coward would have run to canada. He has not. Precedent has shown that you can be court marshalled for following unjustified morally reprehensible orders, so clearly soldiers are supposed to think about what their doing to some extent, and not just blindly follow orders. If he feels that he can no longer follow his orders in the field because of what he believes, then he is doing the right thing by declaring it now and accepting the due process that goes with it.
// As for enlisting after the war started, there is nothing like first hand experience, to show you how you really feel about something. - userperson, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2So when do YOU head back to Iraq?
- goldfishey, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3a coward would have run to canada. He has not. Precedent has shown that you can be court marshalled for following unjustified morally reprehensible orders, so clearly soldiers are supposed to think about what their doing to some extent, and not just blindly follow orders. If he feels that he can no longer follow his orders in the field because of what he believes, then he is doing the right thing by declaring it now and accepting the due process that goes with it.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -8/+2And you believe US soldiers and Marines murder innocent civilians?
Go cry to mommy. Maybe she can protect you from the bad terrorist men who drive car bombs into crowded markets or blow themselves up in mosques.
American soldiers take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. Your statement tells me you know nothing of the men and women who serve our country and, in fact, hold them in contempt.- goldfishey, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3I would believe what the men and women who serve your country are telling you. According to this article they are telling your that there is some seriously poor decision making going on over there.
- Kythas, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I am one of those "men and women who serve your country". I know what I saw, what I was taught, what my unit policies were, and what my orders were from my officers. I know the times my unit and I held fire, at danger to ourselves, to ensure we would avoid civilian casualties or make sure the threat we were perceiving was, indeed, a threat.
There are always disgruntled soldiers and soldiers who don't believe in the mission. They are a tiny minority. The only reason this guy's story is on Digg is because he's saying what the liberals want to hear. They don't front page articles from the vast majority of the soldiers in Iraq who agree with the mission or the many success stories coming out of Iraq, the schools being built, the local populace who welcomes US soldiers and are glad we're there, because any good news from Iraq doesn't fit with the worldview of most Diggers.
Go read "Moment of Truth in Iraq" by Michael Yon. It might open your eyes if you read it with an open mind.
- MoosaofND, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.- userperson, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
Adolf Hitler
- userperson, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
- mike17032, on 05/17/2008, -3/+15Except of course he enlisted after the war had already started.
- RogueGenius, on 05/16/2008, -8/+21Not gonna cut it. We join the military because we want to serve our nation. Some of us wanted to go kick the crap of the enemy and wound up it Iraq instead!
This is a ***** war and, though I wouldn't desert, I can't say I hate the people that do. This isn't what they signed up for.- lilrabbit129, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Just because you didn't sign up for it doesn't mean that you get a choice. What you thought you signed up for and what the army thinks you signed up for aren't always the same. And what the army thinks goes... once you sign that paper.
- catfish182, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1a person signs up for military service for many reasons but there is one thing that binds them all. There can be a time when someone that does not know them will tell them to go and kill another human being. I dont care what you say about this "war" but every member asked to join for what ever reason so a person can not say "i will go here but not there" you go where they hell you are told to go.
I totally disagree with being in Iraq but until enough civilians put enough pressure on Washington we will have this "war" and maybe more.
The soldiers are just in the middle and told where to go.
- lukemann, on 05/16/2008, -4/+13The Armed forces don't involve choice. An order is an order. If people start to question orders then the entire system breaks down. If you're not up for that then don't join the Army. Prior to 9-11 a lot of people joined the Army for the GI bill or just to have a steady job. It didn't even cross their minds that they would have to fight. This guy really doesn't have that excuse, he knew what he was getting into.
- rmxz, on 05/17/2008, -5/+4People tried the "just following orders" excuse before.
- da_bradler, on 05/17/2008, -4/+2International law overrides American Military law. the war in Iraq is a illegal invasion of a independent nation, any military personal who serves in that war regardless of his orders is a war criminal.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3"International law overrides American Military law."
BWAAAA HAA HAAAAAA! - smackphat, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1You are an idiot neocon, eh Biscuits? My offer still stands. See you on the other side of the fight come the next US Civil War.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3"International law overrides American Military law."
- Derrekito, on 05/16/2008, -7/+7I wish I could agree 100% - but in my community it is unfortunately the only option many of our poor, young, and POORLY educated youth have to fall back on. If only Republicans could seriously deal with OUR problems (education, poverty, healthcare) before ***** up another country.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4Why don't you and all of your dumb neighbors take a shot at dealing with your own problems? Or do you plan to suckle at the tit of government for the rest of your life? Man up and take control of your own destiny. I am one generation removed from dirt poor coal miners, for *****'s sake. Unless you're some kind of sharecropper I seriously doubt you have it so bad.
- Derrekito, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I don't quite understand why you are attacking me, but I'll bite. I never claimed that I (personally) had it so bad. I live in a border city (Mexico-US). Suckling the government's tit? I do believe their failure to produce a better educated populous led to many of the poverty issues in my community. We have no job opportunities here. So unless you are lucky, you probably will end up at some ***** job or the military. Many people joined because they had kids in high school (no thanks to Catholicism's views on contraceptives).
Why am I here then? After my family immigrated here from Mexico - half went to California and half stayed in Texas. I'm currently going to school for an Electrical Engineering degree.
"Why don't you and all of your dumb neighbors take a shot at dealing with your own problems?"
I do believe it is unfair to simply write them off as "dumb". Many of them are poorly educated because the school systems gave up on them. They are just passed along until graduation.
Let me leave with this: I live in El Paso Texas (look at it in a map). The capital of Texas is Austin. Look at the distance between us. Many Texan's either do not know we exist or think of us as Mexico. Our state legislature reflects that kind of sentiment often (especially when they ***** with education every two years). The main problem with the legislature and education is that once and a while a good program will come out - but once it expires so does all the funding - then it's just gone.
- Derrekito, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I don't quite understand why you are attacking me, but I'll bite. I never claimed that I (personally) had it so bad. I live in a border city (Mexico-US). Suckling the government's tit? I do believe their failure to produce a better educated populous led to many of the poverty issues in my community. We have no job opportunities here. So unless you are lucky, you probably will end up at some ***** job or the military. Many people joined because they had kids in high school (no thanks to Catholicism's views on contraceptives).
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -3/+4Why don't you and all of your dumb neighbors take a shot at dealing with your own problems? Or do you plan to suckle at the tit of government for the rest of your life? Man up and take control of your own destiny. I am one generation removed from dirt poor coal miners, for *****'s sake. Unless you're some kind of sharecropper I seriously doubt you have it so bad.
- Elderon, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5Problem is our government seems to be hell bent on being in Iraq. Also while we do currently have a volunteer army it only stays volunteer while people keep enlisting and going over to fight in Iraq. If people stopped signing up and more and more keep defecting, I don't think it will stay volunteer based for long.
The government can and will use a draft to force people to join. It has done so in the past and it can again.- kelvinbanner, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0well said
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -4/+5When your fresh out of highschool, little chance of affording college, and along comes an army recruiter who feeds you patriotic ***** and more importantly a way into college, and a 100% job placement, who's gonna refuse. Especially when he never thought he was ever going to be asked to go into Iraq.
- known, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. --Oscar Wilde
- catfish182, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3i can respect your thought up until you said the recruit never thought he was going to iraq.
Sorry that can not be a thought of a recruit.
If a recruit say that they will not serve a tour in iraq then they were delusional before joining.
- known, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. --Oscar Wilde
- PoopOnPaul, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3He's not against the military in general. He's specifically against an illegal and immoral Iraq war.
- petrusa001, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2join the army - and refuse to fight illegal and immoral war, thats correct and good. because this is what this war is. i agree with the soldier here.
i did the same - refused to serve while i was to serve in the communist army of Czechoslovakia.- catfish182, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3and as long as he takes his punishment then thats fine.
Then no one will be able to say anything about him as he refuses to serve and he takes his punishment- petrusa001, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0What do you think the punishment should be? Or, what is it the Army has here?
- catfish182, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3and as long as he takes his punishment then thats fine.
- toddcat, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1It's a nice idea in theory but many poor folks join the military for a scholarship.
- usafdave, on 05/16/2008, -9/+77Oh, snap... someone finally said it. Muchas gracias.
- ninjaface, on 05/16/2008, -33/+13This is a real Iraq war hero. This quote from Rage seems appropriate here:
"***** you I won't do what you tell me...."- usafdave, on 05/16/2008, -4/+8"Now you get to go to Fort Leavenworth prison"
- pitlord, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4He can't be an "Iraq war hero" until he actually GOES to Iraq.
>.>
Moron. - Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2He is a hero because he doesn't choose the path of the sheep but instead his own path which is contraversial but which he believes is right, and the only person who matters at the of day is YOU. NOT the government which is made up of a bunch of bureaucratic liars and war pigs. Principle is a lost value in this country and I'm glad to see someone still has some principles and you know he must believe strongly in this if he's willing to face possible execution. A man buy the name of Jesus once sacrificed his life for what he believed strongly in and many followed after him (Ghandi for one). This man is another in a long list of people that actually matter and who stand out in history. It's said that the only people who deserve life end up having to give it up to show the world their dedication.
- ciaran036, on 05/17/2008, -0/+120 digg downs? He's a lot more of a feckin hero than any "Iraq war hero"!
Since when did hero's include murdering maniacs?
- aa1voice, on 05/16/2008, -37/+24Go to the brig, go directly to the brig. Do not pass go.... Idiot
- Elwood19k20, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Some people do not understand the oath that they took to uphold and defend the "Constitution of the United States". These are the same people that call this nation "America" instead of the "United States". Wrong war will end when soldiers start defending the oath that they took instead of the lies that they are fed to promote false pretenses to go to war. The question that should be asked first and foremost is : "What is the true reason that I am going to war?" and "Is it the will of the people?" I am an Army Veteran ranked SGT and MOS 19k20 and I support this message.
- pizano3, on 05/16/2008, -37/+20The poster boy for Obama's campaign has been found!
- Elwood19k20, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Some people do not understand the oath that they took to uphold and defend the "Constitution of the United States". These are the same people that call this nation "America" instead of the "United States". Wrong war will end when soldiers start defending the oath that they took instead of the lies that they are fed to promote false pretenses to go to war. The question that should be asked first and foremost is : "What is the true reason that I am going to war?" and "Is it the will of the people?" I am an Army Veteran ranked SGT and MOS 19k20 and I support this message.
- kreatre2007, on 05/16/2008, -37/+30In what way is this war illegal? It was authorized by Congress. This guy looks like he's been away from the military for a while. He has had time to grow his hair beyond military regulations. If you want to get out of the military, the right way is not to go on the news and whine. I served in the military myself and it wasn't always fun. I put up with the pitfalls and lived with it.
- MrWhite7, on 05/16/2008, -20/+9It's called making a stand and a point. This fellow seems to want to do more with his dissatisfaction then post on a digg comment.
- sibhod, on 05/16/2008, -5/+19First, war hasn't even been declared, unless declaring war on a concept gives the president carte blanche to attack anyone he wants.
Second, a nation doesn't have the right to preemptively invade another nation for a hypothetical or perceived threat. Just try a preemptive self-defense in a criminal court and see how that goes over.- kreatre2007, on 05/16/2008, -14/+4Nations have a right to do what ever is in the best interest of their security. Learn how the world works! There is no governing authority that controls nations in the world community. It's up to the United States to have the courage and conviction to defend our interests instead of passing a global test as John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) wants us to do.
- SpudgeBoy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3Wrong, it is up to the United States citizens to stand up and say "We aren't going to be lied into a ***** war."
But, folks like you are racist and therefore think every other color of person is out to get you. - buckrogers1965, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Tell that to Nazi Germany. We hung a lot of their asses for planing and waging wars of aggression.
- SpudgeBoy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3Wrong, it is up to the United States citizens to stand up and say "We aren't going to be lied into a ***** war."
- root1657, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Actually you can do preemptive self defense. The legal standard is that you believed your life was in danger, and that no reasonable lesser means could have stopped it.
- kreatre2007, on 05/16/2008, -14/+4Nations have a right to do what ever is in the best interest of their security. Learn how the world works! There is no governing authority that controls nations in the world community. It's up to the United States to have the courage and conviction to defend our interests instead of passing a global test as John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) wants us to do.
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -5/+4Some people are just not willing to "just live with" being a war criminal. To each his own.
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Some people aren't willing to "just live with" being a war criminal.
- oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3Well for one, the council of the United Nations, which we started! says it is. Retard:
We attacked a sovereign country without UN approval.
"On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [4]" -taken from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Securi ...
The world does not recognize our laws. We are not the end-all be-all world police.- kreatre2007, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4***** THE UN!! They do not govern this country. They have no right to govern anyone. I don't want this country giving up sovereignty to any outside power. The day we do that, this is no longer our country. The UN is full of countries ran by dictators who have no respect for human rights. They cannot be trusted.
- Viend, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1***** THE US!! They do not govern this world. They have no right to govern anyone. I don't want this world giving up sovereignty to any single power. The day we do that, this is no longer our world. The US is ran by dictators who have no respect for human rights. They cannot be trusted.
- Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1***** the UN and the US!! I say give all power to the scientists of the world because they see the world objectively, without their own bias opinion, Nationalistic policy,political ideology, and most importantly, religion (excluding scientologists of course).
- oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2And actually kreatre2007, they do have the right. We created them to give them that right and to create a world voice and opinion on matters.
The fact of the matter is that even if there are countries that are ran by dictators, the majority are our allies and friends, and they all agreed that we should not have engaged in this illegal war.
Iraq did nothing to us to deserve having their government being overthrown. They posed no threat to our nation, and it has been declared that they didnt even have the technology to really create these weapons of mass destruction our president so vehemently decried they had in stockpile ready to be used against us.
Why are we there?
Is it for oil?
Is it to lay the groundwork for an attack against Iran, to help the Jewish Zionist accomplish their dreams of a Holy War to fulfill prophecy? To make whats written in Revalations true so that Christians can be content with their bible prophecy?
What the hell is it about?
It sure as hell was never about protecting US soil.
- Photokon, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Lol! We don't need authority from the U.N. The only thing we need authority from is the U.S. Constitution.
- oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Riggght....becuase the entire world follows OUR constitution!
You guys are such idiots its incomprehensible.
We had no right to go to war with Iraq. They didn't attack us. They posed no threat to us. We even ran over the official government forces with a weeks time.
If you can't see that Bush just did it so they could complete their Gulf Oil Pipeline, your living in a dreamworld.
- kreatre2007, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4***** THE UN!! They do not govern this country. They have no right to govern anyone. I don't want this country giving up sovereignty to any outside power. The day we do that, this is no longer our country. The UN is full of countries ran by dictators who have no respect for human rights. They cannot be trusted.
- pyrogyro, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Texas dumbass...
- kreatre2007, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1You're the dumb ass.
- oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Im not even from Texas. *****, i just live here now.
- Elwood19k20, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2War was never declared by Congress. Congress unconstitutionally gave the president the ability to declare war against whomever he pleased. This was an open ticket, but it was ILLEGAL. If you support to uphold and defend the constitution as the president has done as well as all military personel, then anyone with half a brain would understand that our own government broke the law to defaend out nation against a false pretense.
Now that we know that it was false, why are we still persuing the "status quo"? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? I would really like to know before this issue becomes a second revolutionary war within this small peice of dirt called the United States.
I agree that the world does not recognize our laws as "Oscenester" has mentioned. Do we follow a rule of law as is governed in our Constitution, or do we follow a flawed rule of man that is represented by the socialism of the Democrats or the Fascism of the Republicans.? Or should we look for something that is truly new, yet long approved and demonstrated by this great nation? - Cobain27, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Congress hasn't declared war since WWII
- whodat51773, on 05/16/2008, -21/+95It's okay to disobey a lawful order in time of war as long as you are prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions....
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.- RobC1999, on 05/16/2008, -15/+6I respect this individual's stand to refuse to go. That is different then if he reported and then didn't fight or do his best or worse just plain got in the way.
Of course his disobedience needs to be punished as a conscientious objector which means either reassignment, jail, or discharge.
This war was over a long time ago when Saddam was ousted and a new government put in place. Now it is a fight against insurgents/rebels - a support mission. - sbaz, on 05/16/2008, -29/+10This "male" (can't call him a man, because he doesn't stick to his commitments) will end up on Oprah will all of the other self-admitted losers. The military - and by extension, the taxpayers - attempted to lift him out of his pitiful state and to give him military training and education. When it got tough, he quit. I would NOT want him standing near me in any sort of firefight, so it's better he leave.
- Cheysuli, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7So, how many tours did you serve?
- ConceptualTrap, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6That's a good question. I hope he answers.
I wonder if he'd prefer a trigger happy hillbilly with a death wish at his side. - mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4"So, how many tours did you serve?"
I don't know. How often do you work as a volunteer fireman?
- ConceptualTrap, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6That's a good question. I hope he answers.
- schind, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That's exactly what this soldier is saying. He is an unwilling participant in what he feels is an unjust war, so he doesn't want anyone relying on him to have his heart in the fight. He is doing the right thing and you should agree...
- Cheysuli, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7So, how many tours did you serve?
- warlockuskta, on 05/16/2008, -12/+7Yet another reason I don't like CAN..
Full of Americans who want something free but can't do their job to get it.- jlhoben, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Americans who want something free are all in the Bush administration.
- YodaJones, on 05/16/2008, -12/+5What a loon. You'd follow the other lemmings over the cliff too because your parents did. There is your history and legacy as you would have it.
- NSResponder, on 05/17/2008, -8/+9The man's contention is that this war is unlawful, and he's got a point. He swore to defend the constitution, which vests the power to declare war in the congress, not in the executive or the UN.
Until and unless the congress declares war, legally speaking the wartime rules don't apply.
-jcr- Gonasadude, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4Wrong. A soldier's only job is to do what he is told from up the chain of command. Ask anyone that is actually in the military.
- NSResponder, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"A soldier's only job is to do what he is told"
What's your next guess?
American soldiers are held responsible if they follow an illegal order. "I was just following orders" was rejected as a defense at the Nurenburg trials.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1"A soldier's only job is to do what he is told"
- whodat51773, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Really...
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq- catfish182, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1gonasadude is correct. a soldiers job is to go where he is told to go and shoot who he is told to shoot.
If the soldier does not want to follow the order then he can do what this guy is doing.
As long as this soldier accepts his punishment then the system works that the military has. - NSResponder, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"gonasadude is correct"
Not according to US law, he's not.
-jcr
- catfish182, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1gonasadude is correct. a soldiers job is to go where he is told to go and shoot who he is told to shoot.
- Gonasadude, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4Wrong. A soldier's only job is to do what he is told from up the chain of command. Ask anyone that is actually in the military.
- majestichazard, on 05/17/2008, -5/+0Saddamic? Wtf?
- idesofmarch71, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3The key is "lawful order." Since the Iraq war is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful, there's no justification for any punishment, except of course for the lowlifes who continue to propagate this war.
- whodat51773, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Really...
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
- whodat51773, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Really...
- Chameleongoo, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3I knew Mathis before he joined the military, and there is more to the story than what is in this article. First off, he was honorably discharged last september and enrolled in a college to pursue his pre-law and journalism major. Here is a quote from him. " As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter service members stories, I heard many stomach churning testimonies of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military I failed to report these crimes, but never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand..."
I am honored to know him, and wish him the best in his efforts.- whodat51773, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Bovine Excrement! He was coward then and a coward now!
- adrock2, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1This war isn't constitutional! You're an idiot! You were the kid who always reminded the teacher that homework is due, huh? I'd love if YOU went over there to experience all this first hand, and then you could make the first educated statement of your life...
- RobC1999, on 05/16/2008, -15/+6I respect this individual's stand to refuse to go. That is different then if he reported and then didn't fight or do his best or worse just plain got in the way.
- exgop, on 05/16/2008, -46/+33What a piece of *****. Like he didnt know what he was getting himself into.
- FUR10N, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9I completely agree with you.
And go ahead bury me too, but he chose to be in the military, he didn't have to join. - dixienormous101, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6dugg, AGREED. If he didn't want to participate he should not have enlisted himself. Volunteer basis, jackasses.
- PoopOnPaul, on 05/17/2008, -2/+0All of you:
He's not anti-military, or even necessarily anti-war in general. He's anti-Iraq war specifically. He served in other countries first, and had no problem doing so. - DarthNihilist, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I don't understand how so many people are missing the basic fact that, while this man was willing to put his life on the line time and time agian in other combat theatres, he is not willing to die for what he believes to be an unjust war that he sees as illegal.
- exgop, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Military people do NOT have choice. They are their to do a job. Protect America and kill people who wish to harm America. This guy is a piece of *****. His parents should be ashamed for raising a reprobate.
- FUR10N, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9I completely agree with you.
- misterbee241, on 05/16/2008, -28/+17I say cut him loose. He doesnt sound like a great loss and not wanting to be in Iraq, he'd probably just get somebody killed anyway.
Adios, amigo - have a great life. John Kerry is looking for a voter.- bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I would have dugg you up if you hadn't added the last line.
It was a very good point. No need for name-calling.
- bjornski, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I would have dugg you up if you hadn't added the last line.
- ozymandias2012, on 05/16/2008, -29/+22It's his right to oppose the war but he made a committment, not just to the country but to the people who serve with him. If he won't fight for us, he should go fight for them. All this political posturing doesn't mean much to the men and women getting shot at.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6It is his duty to the constitution to not obey illegal orders.
- Zarchon, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5You don;t get to determine if the war is illegal or not, the courts do. And as far as I can tell no courts have said the war is illegal. Your opinion doesn't matter, neither does mine, neither does his. In my opinion abortion past the first trimester is murder and should be punished as such. Of course the courts don;t agree with me, but that doesn't mean I get to go shot doctors that preform abortions after the first trimester and then claim they were murderers. He should spend a lot of time in jail.
- josak, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5Fight for us? How are they fighting for us exactly? Are we in imminent danger? Did somebody declare war on us? Are missles heading our way? Get your head out of your ass dude. They aren't fighting for us, their fighting for a lie, perpetrated by this administration. "The only thing worse then one solider dieing in vain is more soldiers dieing in vain."
- pjf00, on 05/16/2008, -4/+5yeah, thats why this war is *****. there is no "us". all these assholes say "the greatest generation didnt do this blah blah blah" but that was because they had an "us" to fight for. if we didnt go to iraq, my life would not be any worse, and likely better, because Bush and his clowns ***** "us".
- mithrasinvictus, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2He might have signed up for the army, but that should not imply he is obligated to risk his life in a war based on lies.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6It is his duty to the constitution to not obey illegal orders.
- URnotheonly1, on 05/16/2008, -35/+16Hang the pussy! Illegal war my ass
- TheThirdLevel, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Why are you on Digg? Go to Iraq and fight it yourself.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1But your mama can't live without his sweet, sweet lovin' !
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -4/+0There are no words that can express how disgusting your comments are.
- TheThirdLevel, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Why are you on Digg? Go to Iraq and fight it yourself.
- InsultComedy, on 05/16/2008, -42/+59Sounds like a smart man no matter what the public schools did to him.
- mal1964, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3" I did badly in school " Sounds like he owns up to his faults and doesn't blame others.
- 4d669, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3This already happened with Watada about 3 years ago. What the hell happened to him?
- colinsullivan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Well he did join the army in the first place...
- InsultComedy, on 05/16/2008, -43/+116Wow, a bunch of neocons in Digg today. Hey, I'm a christian Ron Paul delegate, so eat your fascist war.
- Dystisis, on 05/16/2008, -10/+13And I am an atheist anarcho-technocratic communist! Screw this fascist war, cappie bastards.
Good job by this soldier, now if only all of them did this and turned instead on the greedy bastards who sent them there... - dexter411, on 05/16/2008, -16/+15You don't need to be a neoconservative to believe in the fact that serving in the military (and an all-volunteer one) is a matter of honor. Deserting your brothers in arms is simply cowardly and unforgivable.
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -10/+11That's funny, I always thought that pre-emptively invading other nations and murdering innocent civilians is cowardly and unforgivable. I guess we have a different point of view.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -6/+3"I guess we have a different point of view."
Yes. Dexter411 is not a blubbering pussy, just to name one difference. - smackphat, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2It makes him a blubbering pussy to strongly disagree with illegal imperialism and murdering of innocent civilians?
I bet you like Nascar. 'Look ma, the cars are shiny!'
***** tool. I look forward to shooting yo
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/17/2008, -6/+3"I guess we have a different point of view."
- RogueMountie, on 05/16/2008, -10/+11That's funny, I always thought that pre-emptively invading other nations and murdering innocent civilians is cowardly and unforgivable. I guess we have a different point of view.
- Dystisis, on 05/16/2008, -10/+13And I am an atheist anarcho-technocratic communist! Screw this fascist war, cappie bastards.