Army Medic guilty of desertion

13

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What specifically do you need elaboration on? These men lied in saying that they would submit themselves to the military in exchange for payments and benefits. They accepted those payments and benefits and then defaulted on their agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" military men.
    Well, they didn't lie and did do a tour. In the meantime a lot of evidence comes out that shows that the war is illegal, therefore, the obligation to the contract is null and void. Or, to put another way, the contract itself is illegal, based on the assumption that the war was waged on fraudulant statement/evidence.

    So far as I know, Watada, in his court-martial, used the UN charter as his defense, but the Army judge threw it out as "poltical." This was followed by calling a mistrial on some other matter. It isn't over yet.

    If I signed a contract to make something for you that was in turn used for illegal or immoral purposes, I don't see how I couldn't break that contract.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    chopitdown wrote:
    I understand he doesn't like war...so why did he enlist in the army?

    He's not refusing to go back because he doesn't like war. He's refusing to go back because he doesn't believe in this particular bullshit war. There's a difference.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Collin wrote:
    How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.

    Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.


    doesnt matter why he signed in.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yep...fighting the battle of being "anti-war" by joining the military. Real heroes :rolleyes:

    It's pretty easy to be "anti-war" when someone is asking you to fight one. Apparently it's a little harder when someone's offering you free college tuition and other giveaways.

    There were thousands of Veterens who'd done two or three years service in Vietnam, and who then joined the anti-war movement. Would you say these people weren't brave or patriotic?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    jlew24asu wrote:
    doesnt matter why he signed in.

    It does if you say they're liars.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    How do you know this, ffg? Maybe they signed in because they felt it was the noble or brave thing to do. Maybe they wanted to defend their country and its "freedoms". But people can have a change of heart whether they like it, expect it or not.

    Or maybe you have a completely different definition of what lying is than I do.

    Lying is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that you will submit yourself to military discretion, and then you don't, you're lying.

    These guys lied. That doesn't make them evil or awful, but it does make them liars.

    Look, I'm not trying the make the case for execution or even punishment for these guys. But to portray their actions as dissenting against a broken military machine that was broken when these guys signed up in the first place is, in my opinion, also dishonest.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Byrnzie wrote:
    There were thousands of Veterens who'd done two or three years service in Vietnam, and who then joined the anti-war movement. Would you say these people weren't brave or patriotic?

    It depends on their motivation for joining the "anti-war movement", Byrnzie. If they served their time and discovered how awful, immoral and unjust war can be, it doesn't mean they weren't brave or patriotic. Furthermore, if we're talking about draftees here it's a totally different argument.

    However, if you sign up for service, collect a bunch of benefits, and then complain about having to do what you signed up for to get those benefits, you're pretty unpatriotic and cowardly in my book.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    gue_barium wrote:
    Well, they didn't lie and did do a tour. In the meantime a lot of evidence comes out that shows that the war is illegal, therefore, the obligation to the contract is null and void. Or, to put another way, the contract itself is illegal, based on the assumption that the war was waged on fraudulant statement/evidence.

    You're putting justice ahead of judgment here, and that makes no sense. This war has not been determined to be "illegal", nor will it be.
    So far as I know, Watada, in his court-martial, used the UN charter as his defense, but the Army judge threw it out as "poltical." This was followed by calling a mistrial on some other matter. It isn't over yet.

    And it was thrown out as "political". So it was therefore ruled legal, at least in that context. Yet Watada continued to protest. You can't interchange legality and morality whenever it suits your argument or case.
    If I signed a contract to make something for you that was in turn used for illegal or immoral purposes, I don't see how I couldn't break that contract.

    Hehe...then you sure as hell shouldn't sign a military enlistment contract.

    Look, the US military along with militaries throughout the world have been involved in so many ridiculously immoral and "illegal" wars that to assume somehow that your services in the war machine would be used in only moral contexts is like signing an employment contract with the mob and then complaining when you have to break some knees. It's a patently ridiculous argument.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    gue_barium, good posts throughout this thread!

    People are always going to be human over soldiers and humans change their minds constantly especially given new information or seeing first hand how wrong something is...contract or no. It would be far worse, IMO, to continue to fight a war and follow orders when I think it's wrong and unjust.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Lying is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that you will submit yourself to military discretion, and then you don't, you're lying.

    These guys lied. That doesn't make them evil or awful, but it does make them liars.

    Lying is, imo, saying something which isn't true when you know it's not true. I'm not sure if this is the case here. Their motives could have been honest (ignorant maybe) but seeing the war might have showed them something they thought they could handle but couldn't. It's an error of judgement maybe or stupidity or naivety.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    Lying is, imo, saying something which isn't true when you know it's not true. I'm not sure if this is the case here. Their motives could have been honest (ignorant maybe) but seeing the war might have showed them something they thought they could handle but couldn't. It's an error of judgement maybe or stupidity or naivety.

    Ok..I can actually get on board here, in theory. I completely agree with all the above, but probably not the conclusions you'll extend from it.

    I don't know about this case, but in Watwada's case there is no "stupidity or naivety". Watwada's own father went through exactly the same thing in Vietnam.

    I think you guys might be misunderstanding me. I don't think these guys should be forced to fight in Iraq. I don't even think they should be forced to stay in the military. Rather, I think the military is both completely right and justified in a) courtmartialing people like this and b) withholding or repossessing any benefits acquired as part of the original broken contractual promise.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I think you guys might be misunderstanding me.

    Actually, I just like debating semantics:D
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It depends on their motivation for joining the "anti-war movement", Byrnzie. If they served their time and discovered how awful, immoral and unjust war can be, it doesn't mean they weren't brave or patriotic. Furthermore, if we're talking about draftees here it's a totally different argument.

    However, if you sign up for service, collect a bunch of benefits, and then complain about having to do what you signed up for to get those benefits, you're pretty unpatriotic and cowardly in my book.

    Maybe they're not complaining about having to do what they signed up for. Maybe they're protesting a bullshit war after having seen it's effects at first hand. When people/soldiers are placed in a situation which they see is helping no one, and which they begin to see has nothing to do with spreading any kind of freedom, or with saving anyone's nationhood or life, but is instead contributing to needless suffering and destruction, then they will react accordingly. A bullshit war is a bullshit war. We know it. And those on the ground doing the fighting know it.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Maybe they're not complaining about having to do what they signed up for. Maybe they're protesting a bullshit war after having seen it's effects at first hand. When people/soldiers are placed in a situation which they see is helping no one, and which they begin to see has nothing to do with spreading any kind of freedom, or with saving anyone's nationhood or life, but is instead contributing to needless suffering and destruction, then they will react accordingly. A bullshit war is a bullshit war. We know it. And those on the ground doing the fighting know it.

    Hehe...a bullshit war is a bullshit war. Try thinking of my posts this way:

    Why is this a bullshit war?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...a bullshit war is a bullshit war. Try thinking of my posts this way:

    Why is this a bullshit war?

    Simple. Who's it benefiting?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Simple. Who's it benefiting?

    the kurds
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the kurds

    they are NOT the only ones benefiting.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    It starts with an H and ends with an aliburton... ;)
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    sonicreducer wrote:
    they are NOT the only ones benefiting.

    ok, so they are others benefiting? great
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Simple. Who's it benefiting?

    All sorts of people. Some Iraqis. Some terrorists. Some Americans. Some corporations. Some nations.

    A war's morality isn't measured by whom it benefits. So I'll ask you again:

    Why is this a bullshit war?

Categories