My brother the Solider

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep babbling about your utopian principles of the military. Give us a call in the real world when you want to re-join us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely, its important that we keep murdering foreigners in order that we can make small improvements in our standard of living.

Mack

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree completely, its important that we keep murdering foreigners in order that we can make small improvements in our standard of living.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are only small for most of us. For some they are quite substantial.

[Vanquish]

Bush = Worst President in History.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You are comparing the Taliban to the American military? And you are using this comparison to support your argument?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you contend that (1) those who refuse service in the U.S. Army are dishonorable; (2) those who refuse service in the Iraqi army for the purpose of invading Kuwait are dishonorable; but (3) those who refuse service in the Taliban army might not be dishonorable, but only because there's obviously no comparison between the Taliban and the "American military." Which must mean that, on the issue of refusing service, Saddam's army is sufficiently comparable to that of the U.S. And you've ignored the argument over those who served or refused service in Hitler's army.

Either you need to think about this some more or admit that you believe that all armies fighting on behalf of all causes, including those fighting against each other, are always so correct to do so that none of their members can justify refusing to serve. Which is, as everyone knows, morally stupid.

[Chris Alger]

Ignore the holocaust, which really didn't begin until after Hitler invaded Russia. Limit it to German aggression against Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Norway, etc. or any of the foregoing. Or refer to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Tell me that those who refused to embark on these adventures are morally inferior to those who helped.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for serving in a war of aggression? Shouldn't you be more inclined to feel ashamed of him? Or perhaps believe that he was caught up in a conflict where his choices made little difference and he at least didn't personally make things worse. But pride? It isn't justified.

Now Sgt. Camilo Mejia, on the other hand, is someone a brother could be proud of. An veteran of the Iraq war, he risked prison and served a year rather than return on the grounds that "I was part of a war that I believed was immoral and criminal, a war of aggression, a war of imperial domination."

The brave young people who refuse to serve in criminal wars are the best America has to offer. Nothing you've written differentiates your brother from any other soldier in any other ignorant army.

P.S. Consider sending your Mother a list of Democrats Senators that voted for the war resolution and continue to support the occupation. This is a bipartisan crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post sucks. Big time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't.

And you are the one comparing apples with oranges, Chris just made a point about a soldiers decision of being a CO; and then you started talking about all the possible decisions a soldier can make in the war.
Being a CO is a decision a soldier has the right to make in the American Army, you know that, right?

[MtSmalls]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong;

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, most soldiers still have outdated body armor, most of the Humvees are still underarmored, the US is using mercenaries (private security troops) to protect the Generals and weapons caches, so apparently he's not too worried about making sure the soldiers are well supplied.

I'm sure that the 'strategy' has NEVER been clear, at least since the end of the invasion. And the coalition is shrinking by the month....

GREAT JOB!!

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a CO is a decision a soldier has the right to make in the American Army, you know that, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you? Here's what the law says:
"Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to require any person to he subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United Slates who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in wsr in any form. . . the term `religious training and belief' does not include essentially politicsl, sociologicsl, or philosophicxl views, or a merely personal moral code. Any person. . . whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the armed forces. . . be assigned to noncombatant service. . . or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service. . .perform ... civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. . . "-Section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act.

Note the requirement that the CO be opposed to ANY WAR. Belief that the Iraq War is unjust is NOT sufficient to make someone a CO.

I'm not sure CO status really applies to deserters, either.

[ QUOTE ]
I and everyone else not only has the right but a moral obligation to denigrate anyone who knowingly and willingly participates in military aggression. That might exclude the vast majority of those in uniform, but at the very least we should think less of them for participating than those who, for whatever reason, refuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

How can you post a staement like this? You are correct in saying that the soldier who refused to return to war and faced the consequences of his actions is worthy of everyone's respect. Anyone who takes a stand for what he believes in and is willing to face the consequences of his actions should gain people's respect whether or not people agree with his beliefs.

But exactly what philosophy/religion do you ascribe to where people have a moral obligation to denigrate other people?

You sound like a left-wing version of Fred Phelps. Simply change the words "military aggersion" to "a homosexual lifestyle" and you can see how utterly stupid your statement is.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong;

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, most soldiers still have outdated body armor, most of the Humvees are still underarmored, the US is using mercenaries (private security troops) to protect the Generals and weapons caches, so apparently he's not too worried about making sure the soldiers are well supplied.

I'm sure that the 'strategy' has NEVER been clear, at least since the end of the invasion. And the coalition is shrinking by the month....

GREAT JOB!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we ought to exacerbate these existing problems by sending 100,000 soldiers off to arrest one man. What's your point here?