cowards!

[Akno21]

man, I bet you people would've whined about the Filipino soldiers and officers that refused to support Marcos when his regime became unstable and thus caused for it to collapse and forced him to flee, or the Romanian military when they decided to quit following orders from Ceausescu and overthrew and killed him and his wife instead.

You're going to compare that to the freest nation on Earth?

How the hell can you call the USA the freest nation on Earth? You can't legally smoke pot, we have the Patriot Act, no gay marriage, etc. You can say it's in our benefit to not be totally free, but we really aren't the freest nation.

[A18]

Patriot Act is not a restriction on freedom, nor are marriage laws.

As for smoking pot, that's true. Far more important is that we don't have a flat tax of 13% like Russia.

[A18]

In fact, we can't even hire who we want anymore. This country sure has gone downhill since FDR... though we seem to be headed in a brighter direction at the moment.

[Jake]

They are not killing Americans. My second sentence was reacting to your very low threshold for murder being acceptable.

Treason is fighting against your own country, they are not doing that. They are making a conscienous decision to not fight for it. Big difference.

They betrayed America and committed treason by escaping to a foreign power while AWOL from the military.  At the very least, they should rot in military prison for the rest of their lives, but for their crimes, and because Canada is of no help in bringing them back, it is alot easier to remove them from the picture now and make an example of them.

[Jake]

man, I bet you people would've whined about the Filipino soldiers and officers that refused to support Marcos when his regime became unstable and thus caused for it to collapse and forced him to flee, or the Romanian military when they decided to quit following orders from Ceausescu and overthrew and killed him and his wife instead.

You're going to compare that to the freest nation on Earth?

How the hell can you call the USA the freest nation on Earth? You can't legally smoke pot, we have the Patriot Act, no gay marriage, etc. You can say it's in our benefit to not be totally free, but we really aren't the freest nation.

Name a country where you can smoke pot, have gays marry, one with no Patriot Act, but it must have the same economic freedoms we have, namely low taxes, a free education, the ability to become whatever you want with hard work.  Also, that country must be able to defend itself with a strong military and its citizens must not live in fear of their government falling to a rebellion.  Look hard, because there isn't any such country.

[Akno21]

man, I bet you people would've whined about the Filipino soldiers and officers that refused to support Marcos when his regime became unstable and thus caused for it to collapse and forced him to flee, or the Romanian military when they decided to quit following orders from Ceausescu and overthrew and killed him and his wife instead.

You're going to compare that to the freest nation on Earth?

How the hell can you call the USA the freest nation on Earth? You can't legally smoke pot, we have the Patriot Act, no gay marriage, etc. You can say it's in our benefit to not be totally free, but we really aren't the freest nation.

Name a country where you can smoke pot, have gays marry, one with no Patriot Act, but it must have the same economic freedoms we have, namely low taxes, a free education, the ability to become whatever you want with hard work.  Also, that country must be able to defend itself with a strong military and its citizens must not live in fear of their government falling to a rebellion.  Look hard, because there isn't any such country.

Canada has everything you mentioned except low taxes. Canadians, or citizens in Western Europe, don't fear their government being overthrown. A strong military has nothing to do with freedom. If you want to talk about freedom from fear, the USA isn't very good because we have many more gun murders than any other first-world country per year, so we live in more fear of being murdered than Canada, France, Germany, etc.

[A18]

Low taxes are the greatest indicator of freedom.

[John Dibble]

I believe if you join the military you should expect the possibility of a war, even one you might not support. If you join the military, a war you don't support starts, and you run to Canada you are indeed a coward. If a war starts and it is to the point where you refuse to fight, you have two options as far as I'm concerned - request for a position where you don't have to or have a low probability of entering combat, or if that fails say "I object to this war and will not fight, I'll take my punishment now." We are not a nation that will kill you for refusing to fight - take your punishment rather than running away. Real men face the consequences of their actions.

[ATFFL]

man, I bet you people would've whined about the Filipino soldiers and officers that refused to support Marcos when his regime became unstable and thus caused for it to collapse and forced him to flee, or the Romanian military when they decided to quit following orders from Ceausescu and overthrew and killed him and his wife instead.

You're going to compare that to the freest nation on Earth?

How the hell can you call the USA the freest nation on Earth? You can't legally smoke pot, we have the Patriot Act, no gay marriage, etc. You can say it's in our benefit to not be totally free, but we really aren't the freest nation.

Name a country where you can smoke pot, have gays marry, one with no Patriot Act, but it must have the same economic freedoms we have, namely low taxes, a free education, the ability to become whatever you want with hard work.  Also, that country must be able to defend itself with a strong military and its citizens must not live in fear of their government falling to a rebellion.  Look hard, because there isn't any such country.

Canada has everything you mentioned except low taxes. Canadians, or citizens in Western Europe, don't fear their government being overthrown. A strong military has nothing to do with freedom. If you want to talk about freedom from fear, the USA isn't very good because we have many more gun murders than any other first-world country per year, so we live in more fear of being murdered than Canada, France, Germany, etc.

You ought to look at the Official Secrets Act and then tell me the Patriot Act is bad.

[Akno21]

You ought to look at the Official Secrets Act and then tell me the Patriot Act is bad.

Do you have a link?

[Jake]

You ought to look at the Official Secrets Act and then tell me the Patriot Act is bad.

Do you have a link?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

[Inverted Things]

I believe if you join the military you should expect the possibility of a war, even one you might not support. If you join the military, a war you don't support starts, and you run to Canada you are indeed a coward. If a war starts and it is to the point where you refuse to fight, you have two options as far as I'm concerned - request for a position where you don't have to or have a low probability of entering combat, or if that fails say "I object to this war and will not fight, I'll take my punishment now." We are not a nation that will kill you for refusing to fight - take your punishment rather than running away. Real men face the consequences of their actions.

Agreed.

I feel I should say a couple words about being a conscientous objector. I am not going to join the military, but if I were to get drafted, I would certainly claim a conscientous objection.

I'm not one to shrink from violence when it's necessary, but as far as I'm concerned, it's only necessary when there is a threat to me or my family.

Saddam was never any threat to me or anyone else in this nation.

[Smash255]

So tombstone....

Your profile says you're 26.  Have you served yet?  Are you serving currently?  Or are you another chickenhawk afraid to put his butt on the line for his millitant beliefs?

Ad hominem attacks such as these are not worthy of a response.

Yup, it's a real show of courage to avoid a driect question while attacking someone you never met by calling him a coward.

I repeat, ad hominem attacks such as these are not worthy of a response.

O.K then: justify your ad hominem attacks on all conscientous objectors.

People who join the military and all of a sudden have a crisis of conscious and then run to Canada are cowards.  If they believe war to be wrong, then why did they sign on with the military?  If they aren't cowards, then why don't they remain in the US and make their protests here, where they can show true courage by facing the consequences of their actions.

In the past I have been called a coward for supporting the war/military, but not serving in it.  That's just stupid.  As response to those who make such accusations I ask them the follwoing questions

"If you're so against the war and the US then why don't you join up with a terrorist group like Al Qaeda?"

If I'm a chickenhawk because I support the war but am not in the military, then those who are against the war, but not enlisted in a terrorist group are "parlor terrorists"

See how pathetic this is?  Just because I am not an enlisted man doesn't mean that these deserters aren't traitorous cowards.

They're traitorous, hypocritical cowards who don't deserve the unmitigated honor of being an American.  Let them rot in Canada.  Let Canada rot for supporting them.  Let all who enjoy our freedoms rot, for supporting cowards, while condemning the military. 

Anyone who supports these cowards should be ashamed of themselves.

For starters their is a difference in being against war & being against CERTAIN WARS.  I'm not defending what these guys did, however asking them why they joined the military if they are agaiunst war is a really unfair question.  They might believe in war when neccessary, but don't believe in certain wars.  For example the vast majority of the country regardless of party agreed that the Afghanistan war was right, this country is pretty much split when it comes down to Iraq.  Does that mean about 50% of this country is against war?  No.  So for all you know these guys could have joined the military because they believe in helping out the country & were willing to go to war when needed, but when faced with a war in which they felt wasn't needed and that they didn't believe in, they chose not to fight.  Now is what they did the right thing?  Not really, but that doesn't mean they are scum either

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is much like the "what if there was a war and no one came?" concept. This is a very common form of nonviolent resistance which is great. Ever heard of the White Rose in Germany?

[Rob]

I've always felt that draft dodgers used the "unjust war" claim as an excuse to make their cowardice look noble.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The quote indicates a fundamental flaw in the deserter's argument.
Soldiers have an obligation to follow any legal orders.  If the order to fire on unarmed people is illegal, he can refuse it.

In a bureaucratic situation, I have on one one or two occasion refused to follow orders that were a violation of policy.  Now, that is nothing compared to a military situation, but in one case the order was countermanded by a superior and in another, the supervisor withdrew it.

This is drilled (no pun intended) into soldiers in basic training.

Since we ignore the Geneva convention, are war crimes technically "illegal"? I don't think so.

[Jake]

I have no problem with people in the military chickening out and claiming conceintous objector status, but they should stay behind in America and serve here and if they object to that, serve their prison time.  You automatically become a coward by running away.

[??????????]

The quote indicates a fundamental flaw in the deserter's argument.
Soldiers have an obligation to follow any legal orders.  If the order to fire on unarmed people is illegal, he can refuse it.

In a bureaucratic situation, I have on one one or two occasion refused to follow orders that were a violation of policy.  Now, that is nothing compared to a military situation, but in one case the order was countermanded by a superior and in another, the supervisor withdrew it.

This is drilled (no pun intended) into soldiers in basic training.

Since we ignore the Geneva convention, are war crimes technically "illegal"? I don't think so.

The Geneva convention is a joke. The idea of "rules of war" is hilarious. To quote Sherman, "War is hell".

[J. J.]

The quote indicates a fundamental flaw in the deserter's argument.
Soldiers have an obligation to follow any legal orders.  If the order to fire on unarmed people is illegal, he can refuse it.

In a bureaucratic situation, I have on one one or two occasion refused to follow orders that were a violation of policy.  Now, that is nothing compared to a military situation, but in one case the order was countermanded by a superior and in another, the supervisor withdrew it.

This is drilled (no pun intended) into soldiers in basic training.

Since we ignore the Geneva convention, are war crimes technically "illegal"? I don't think so.

The Geneva convention is a joke. The idea of "rules of war" is hilarious. To quote Sherman, "War is hell".

Taking on the left and right in one post, neither is correct.  The principle of "legal orders" and a serviceman's duty to disobey them predates the various Geneva Conventions.  It began after the end of the Civil War with the trial of Andersonville commandant, Captain Henry Wertz.

Basically today, this covered under "Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)."  Something might not be, even under a broad interpretation under of the Geneva Convention, a "war crime," but still an illegal order under the UCMJ.

An armed forces member has, under the UCMJ, a duty to disobey a legal order.

If a deserter claims that he has deserted so he doesn't have a carry out an illegal order, the claim is false because if he stays, he still has the duty to disobey that order.  He, in effect, is deserting so that he that he can't exercise the duty to disobey the order.  Ironically, if he stays and disobeys, he's right; if he leaves because he doesn't want to obey, he's wrong.

[??????????]

The quote indicates a fundamental flaw in the deserter's argument.
Soldiers have an obligation to follow any legal orders.  If the order to fire on unarmed people is illegal, he can refuse it.

In a bureaucratic situation, I have on one one or two occasion refused to follow orders that were a violation of policy.  Now, that is nothing compared to a military situation, but in one case the order was countermanded by a superior and in another, the supervisor withdrew it.

This is drilled (no pun intended) into soldiers in basic training.

Since we ignore the Geneva convention, are war crimes technically "illegal"? I don't think so.

The Geneva convention is a joke. The idea of "rules of war" is hilarious. To quote Sherman, "War is hell".

Taking on the left and right in one post, neither is correct.  The principle of "legal orders" and a serviceman's duty to disobey them predates the various Geneva Conventions.  It began after the end of the Civil War with the trial of Andersonville commandant, Captain Henry Wertz.

Basically today, this covered under "Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)."  Something might not be, even under a broad interpretation under of the Geneva Convention, a "war crime," but still an illegal order under the UCMJ.

An armed forces member has, under the UCMJ, a duty to disobey a legal order.

If a deserter claims that he has deserted so he doesn't have a carry out an illegal order, the claim is false because if he stays, he still has the duty to disobey that order.  He, in effect, is deserting so that he that he can't exercise the duty to disobey the order.  Ironically, if he stays and disobeys, he's right; if he leaves because he doesn't want to obey, he's wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[2952-0-0]

Low taxes are the greatest indicator of freedom.

North Korea has no taxes.

[Jake]

Low taxes are the greatest indicator of freedom.

North Korea has no taxes.

North Koreans have no income

[J. J.]

An armed forces member has, under the UCMJ, a duty to disobey a legal order.

Actually, the duty is to disobey an illegal order under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Right the duty is to disobey illegal orders.

[Joe Republic]

They didn't have to join the military.

I'm glad SOMEONE else realizes this. If these idiots didn't want to  be involved in a situation where innocent folks may die, they SHOULDN'T HAVE JOINED THE !@#$ING MILITARY.

I agree totally.

Though obviously I don't really mind desertion if they were drafted in the first place, because that was a restriction of freedom to begin with.

[senatortombstone]

I've always felt that draft dodgers used the "unjust war" claim as an excuse to make their cowardice look noble.

I totally agree, an unjust war to a conscientious objector is one that they have to serve in.  It all comes down to selfishness.  This current batch of cowards are selfish.  Theyw anted a free education from the military and when the time came for them to make good on their obligations, they turned tail and ran.