thousants may be a lot to me, but this is the US government we are talking about. much more money is literally lost in mistakes, corruption and useless spending. Therefore shooting him in a face for stealing my 5000/1,000,000,000 *20 (the money in my wallet)= $0.000005. I wouldn't shoot someone for 'stealing' my <1 cents, but i would want it back.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 27 2004, 05:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 27 2004, 05:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wierd - I could have sworn the embargo didnt extend to medicines. Please explain to me how economic sanctions against Iraq destroyed their health care. And please, dont say they couldnt afford things after that - Saddam lived in luxury of that little license to print money we like to call oil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economic sanctions were all-around encompassing, with the exception of the Food For Oil program (referred to as FFO from here onwards), which was created to ensure that money made from oil sales by Iraq could be monitored and funneled into purchasing of food and various other basic supplies. However, FFO failed, mainly because there are a lot of nations in the world unscrupulous enought to be tempted by cheap oil sold past the FFO program. The program's stated intention was to ensure that the Hussein regime would not be able to buy arms or technology to create arms and to drain its massive coffers. As you pointed out, Saddam never felt the drain simply because he was able to go past the sanctions and sell oil anyway. I don't remember right now which countries accepted internally sanctioned oil shipments from him, but I'm willing to bet that Russia was among them, if not directly then through its front nation for illegal arms sales to third world countries, Belarussia.
In 1998 an independent consultant Eric Hoskins was asked by UNICEF, UN's organization for international child welfare, to compile a report of the effects of Iraq's sanctions from UNICEF's perspective. Among the cause-effect chains found and examined by the consultant was the main problem-causing matter - the fact that decreased exports and availability of foreign currency (and access to foreign markets) resulted in decreased imports (yeah, this is Economy 101 stuff), which resulted in drastically reduced availability of basic goods, such as food, medicine supplies, basic household items and communications equipment. The short-term effects were found to be lowered birth rate, lowered birth-weight of babies, increased number of birth complications and rise of pre-birth malformations of fetuses (such as anencephalia, which is quite rare in the western world). Deterioration of the quality of supplied water due to inability of purchasing new filtration systems for waterworks, and subsequent rise of infection and epidemic rates was also noted. High technology medical equipment such as x-ray machines also broke down because spare parts were no longer available. Among social impacts were increased poverty and the near-total obliteration of the middle class. The high class, favoured by Saddam, was not effected, but the middle class families (teachers, doctors and other schooled professions) suffered and slid down the scale to poverty). All this only served to make Saddam stronger, since those opposed to him were malnourished and subject to social depression, which combined to make their view rather fatalistic and strangled any chance of rising against the dictator.
One reason not to rebel was also found in the post-Gulf War rebellion of the southern Shi'ites. They rose against Saddam after repeated promises of the US to back them- promises that never materialized. Thus it wasn't very hard for Saddam to violently disperse the rebels.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and forgive me for not sobbing over those Iraqi lives lost in the attempt to liberate them - from the mass graves found all over the country, people were going to die any way this went. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if you don't care, then why support the "liberation"? As a result of the Gulf War, the US suffered about 350 soldiers as casualties. The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. Of course the Gulf War was entirely his fault, but since his army spent the most of it their backs turned to the US soldiers, running for their lives, I wonder why the casualty rate is so high.
Add into this all the events at Abu Ghraib and the fact the the US troops have on numerous occasions fired upon iraqi civilians with no pressing reason, it's not a wonder that the US army is not exactly popular in that corner of the world. The 'liberators' have killed scores of people, subjected them to random arrests and humiliation, all this after ten years of crippling economic sanctions that instead of bringing Hussein down, just made his power in Iraq more absolute, and it all starts to seem rather odd. To be completely honest, the US is not in it alone. For example, it was the spanish army that opened fire on civilians in Najaf.
We'll just have to hope that Iraq won't turn into another Afghanistan - a power vacuum filled by different people every day. Just hope that the future (possible) president of Iraq won't be called with derisive and belittling, albeit descriptive names, like Hamid Karzai is called "The Mayor of Kabul". Before planning this mess of an operation, it would have been awfully clever to clean up in Afghanistan first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not attempting to compare a war to one man's cowardice - I cant see where you got that idea from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess I got it from that one of your messages where you talked first about the importance of "correcting mistakes" and then about one man's cowardice, all in one paragraph.
<!--QuoteBegin-Xzilen+May 28 2004, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ May 28 2004, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow... Suprised to see that from you. Though I would like you to take a closer look at what exactly kerry got his purple hearts for.
You seem to be an honest liberal, I respect that, even for all the past arguments we've had. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Awwww, thanks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually, truth be told, the older I get, and the more I pay in taxes, I think I slip into more moderate territory. Heck, I've voted for conservatives before-- I just don't really like this administration or the whole neoconservative movement, so I think that makes me seem a tad more shrill and crazy left wing than I usually would be.
I'm not the hugest Kerry fan, but I'm willing to let him slide on the questionable Purple Heart . . . considering that he served in a war I sure as Hell would have run screaming from and has other impressive medals, it's splitting hairs when you get down to that point.
But I firmly believe in personal responsibility, which is why I think this kid should definitely have to pay a serious penalty. However, when I think of the garbage I tried to get away with when I was his age (and the ridiculous excuses I pulled out to try to cover myself) I certainly wouldn't advocate his execution.
I think that he should have known that it was a very real possibility that he might get sent to Iraq when he signed up to join the Army. I agree with hime that the war is pretty pointless, but he should have to stick with it and not wuss out. I was always taught that once you commit yourself, you're in it and dont back out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+May 28 2004, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ May 28 2004, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One reason not to rebel was also found in the post-Gulf War rebellion of the southern Shi'ites. They rose against Saddam after repeated promises of the US to back them- promises that never materialized. Thus it wasn't very hard for Saddam to violently disperse the rebels.
The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> For the record, Saddam forced those rebels to lie down while he paved hot asphalt over them.
Secondly, Saddam killed 2 million over the course of his regime. This amounts to about 100,000 citizens killed every year. Civilian casualties from the war we're not even close to this.
How can you justify applying the death penalty to someone who broke his contract to avoid killing people ? Now , the death penalty itself is an other topic , but I'm definitely temptated to put the posters of calls to murder on my ignore list for good.
I mean , we're on the discussion forum , where only rational opinions should be discussed. Why not invite fundamentalist muslims to justify the fatwa on Salman Rushdie while we're at it.
Also Saddam was trying to kill all those people, with about <100 accidental deaths. However pretty much every civilian casualty is accidental for the USA. 3000 people died in the twin towers, 3000 people died accidentally from the US occupation of Afghanistan.
<!--QuoteBegin-WoT|Lanfear+May 25 2004, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoT|Lanfear @ May 25 2004, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I may probably be part of the minority when I say this but I do not support him.
I shall list my reasons and that is really all I can say.
1) He signed up voluntarily was not forced in anyway, shape or form. Considering this even with one being only 17 that is not an excuse. (edited in) I was much like anyone who has lived in the US and been through HS attempted to be recurited. I even was able to take there ASVAB/P? test which tells you what jobs you would do well at while in the military. Even the non-combat ones. The recruiters here tried very hard to get a lot of people to join and I would say they had a sucess rate of about 30% which is more then I expected. Many of those people were friends of mine and are in Iraq right now, we just (south dakota) shipped some fresh troops over there. With him being 17, and I was the same aged when asked, I said no for I would pay my own way into college that was my choice. He opted for the easier way (in money wise, college is DAMN expensive) and now he is complaining.
2) The military will pay for his education when he completes however long he signed up for. That is a fact, and considering most college graduates have 10,000 to 50,000 or more if going for docorate/masters in debt, I think it is a fair trade.
3) If he doesn't think the war is just/moral and what not, he can file a compliant with his superiors, granted it will do nothing, and would not damage his "file" that the military keeps other then a small comment noting his objections.
4) The military does what it is told to do. It is a very well thought out machine and works very efficently, thus why soldiers when they are done are always welcome to the workforce, because they have the heightened disiclpine and awaress of what is around them.
5) IT IS YOUR DUTY. As previously stated if you do not want to join, you do not have to. Since there is no draft(at the moment) one does not have to worry about being FORCED to do something you do not want to when it comes to military matters.
Those are simply my views on why it is not approiate for him to have fled to canada. I will probably have many people going on and on about (SUYF etc) so feel free to do so.
Even though I do not agree with the "war" though I wouldn't call it that since we have not offically declared war. I still think the military is doing all that it can do make sure our boys and girls are doing a wonderful job over there. So, all the more power to those choosing to fight for our country and uphold the faith that I have in our military.
(edited at same time as #1 was) For those that are going to compare Iraq vs Vietnam or even Korea. Don't bother you really can't compare the two. We do not have nearly as many soldiers in the field nor even a 1/4 of the deaths and there is no draft to boot. The "war" in Iraq is not a good thing other then freeing a people that really do not know any better, and probably will see history repeat as that area is incredibly unstable.
(edit #2)
I noticed that the site seems to only post letters that support him and are majority out of the US. If I am wrong feel free to correct me on the from outside the US part. I do not think that represents the US very well in what it conveys. :-)
(Yes.. one of my longer posts) :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You should read 1984, they give great examples of how to "assist" you into "agreeing"
I support him, when the draft comes I will flee somewhere, I am not about to become a pawn in something that can't be helped.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1998 an independent consultant Eric Hoskins was asked by UNICEF, UN's organization for international child welfare, to compile a report of the effects of Iraq's sanctions from UNICEF's perspective. Among the cause-effect chains found and examined by the consultant was the main problem-causing matter - the fact that decreased exports and availability of foreign currency (and access to foreign markets) resulted in decreased imports (yeah, this is Economy 101 stuff), which resulted in drastically reduced availability of basic goods, such as food, medicine supplies, basic household items and communications equipment. The short-term effects were found to be lowered birth rate, lowered birth-weight of babies, increased number of birth complications and rise of pre-birth malformations of fetuses (such as anencephalia, which is quite rare in the western world). Deterioration of the quality of supplied water due to inability of purchasing new filtration systems for waterworks, and subsequent rise of infection and epidemic rates was also noted. High technology medical equipment such as x-ray machines also broke down because spare parts were no longer available. Among social impacts were increased poverty and the near-total obliteration of the middle class. The high class, favoured by Saddam, was not effected, but the middle class families (teachers, doctors and other schooled professions) suffered and slid down the scale to poverty). All this only served to make Saddam stronger, since those opposed to him were malnourished and subject to social depression, which combined to make their view rather fatalistic and strangled any chance of rising against the dictator<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right - this is not cool, and definately directly related to the UN embargo. However, I do find this still related to Saddam. I see a parallel situation in a family earning $100,000 a year. The money earner is fired, the family continues living like it was on $100,000 a year, and the children starve. The parents then turn around and blame the employer who fired them for killing their children. In that analogy I see Saddam as the parent figure - who could have provided them with such things, but simply chose not to. Lets face it - if you can get uranium from african nations, you should be able to get spare parts. I realise he turned down the uranium offer - but he still could have accepted it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One reason not to rebel was also found in the post-Gulf War rebellion of the southern Shi'ites. They rose against Saddam after repeated promises of the US to back them- promises that never materialized. Thus it wasn't very hard for Saddam to violently disperse the rebels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I learned about that little piece of American treachery on the movie "Three Kings". I'd join you in condemning the Americans for that - that was disgusting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, if you don't care, then why support the "liberation"? As a result of the Gulf War, the US suffered about 350 soldiers as casualties. The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. Of course the Gulf War was entirely his fault, but since his army spent the most of it their backs turned to the US soldiers, running for their lives, I wonder why the casualty rate is so high.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not that I dont care about Iraqi civilians - I just fail to see the rationale behind opposing war based on "innocent Iraqi's will die". The death of Iraqi's is unavoidable whether you took the war stance or the appeasement stance - its entirely irrelevant to the equation. Also of note that the First Gulf War was actually a UN thing - with the majority of troops provided by Middle Eastern nations, and not the US. If you wish to cast suspicions upon the US military slaughtering retreating troops, thats probably not the best scenario to use.
Killswitch has Iraqi (civilian) deaths at 100,000 a year under saddam (seems a little high to me given a pop of 25 million) - I dont know what casualties the American inflicted upon Iraqi civilians, but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 100,000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Add into this all the events at Abu Ghraib and the fact the the US troops have on numerous occasions fired upon iraqi civilians with no pressing reason, it's not a wonder that the US army is not exactly popular in that corner of the world. The 'liberators' have killed scores of people, subjected them to random arrests and humiliation, all this after ten years of crippling economic sanctions that instead of bringing Hussein down, just made his power in Iraq more absolute, and it all starts to seem rather odd. To be completely honest, the US is not in it alone. For example, it was the spanish army that opened fire on civilians in Najaf.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand the unpopularity of the American troops, that came as no surprise to me either. However, despite that, I consider any Iraqi battling against them an immortal fool, similiar to the dog at work that tried to bite me while I tried to give him injection so he'd vomit up rat poison.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll just have to hope that Iraq won't turn into another Afghanistan - a power vacuum filled by different people every day. Just hope that the future (possible) president of Iraq won't be called with derisive and belittling, albeit descriptive names, like Hamid Karzai is called "The Mayor of Kabul". Before planning this mess of an operation, it would have been awfully clever to clean up in Afghanistan first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, I would have liked to see the US contribute further to Afghanistan also. I also hate the idea of a power vacuum - which is why I despise with a passion anyone waving the "Troops out Now" banner. It also sticks in my throat that most of these same people accused the Americans of killing innocent Iraqi's, and yet are now baying for the blood of the same innocents by demanding a troop withdrawl.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+May 30 2004, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ May 30 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you justify applying the death penalty to someone who broke his contract to avoid killing people ? Now , the death penalty itself is an other topic , but I'm definitely temptated to put the posters of calls to murder on my ignore list for good.
I mean , we're on the discussion forum , where only rational opinions should be discussed. Why not invite fundamentalist muslims to justify the fatwa on Salman Rushdie while we're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll try and sum it up as succinctly as possible. This man has no problem with killing people - so long as he agrees with the rationale behind it or so he claims. This man has no problem with fleecing the American taxpayer for his living, training and university education. This man has no problem with abandoning his brothers in arms and his country for the cause of his own safety. This man has no problem with grabbing any excuse to legitimise his own cowardice. He made a decision to make a "moral stand", but instead of surrendering to the authorities to accept the consequences of his decision, he ran like a coward. He has dishonoured himself, his family, his country and his profession. I equate his life to approximately 50 US cents - that should more than pay for 3 cm of steel at several hundred k an hour.
But hey, if you dont think he should be die for all that - I can understand and appreciate that. However, if someone decides to support his actions - then my disgust for him extends to them. The only thing worse than his behaviour is affirmation of it.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Look at it this way, wouldnt the death penalty (teh ulmatimate punsihment) for him diminish the value of the penalty and that way disrespect all those victims for the mass-murders and other crimes that can get you to recieve such a punishment
Dishonour your family? Isnt that alittle medieval
And last, you have no problem to trowing out accusation that may or may not be true. The country already did a great job dishonouring itself
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 30 2004, 12:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 30 2004, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with killing people - so long as he agrees with the rationale behind it or so he claims. This man has no problem with fleecing the American taxpayer for his living, training and university education. This man has no problem with abandoning his brothers in arms and his country for the cause of his own safety. This man has no problem with grabbing any excuse to legitimise his own cowardice. He made a decision to make a "moral stand", but instead of surrendering to the authorities to accept the consequences of his decision, he ran like a coward. He has dishonoured himself, his family, his country and his profession. I equate his life to approximately 50 US cents - that should more than pay for 3 cm of steel at several hundred k an hour.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're assuming that he ran because he is a coward. Personally, I would have run for moral reasons. Not because I'm afraid of dying or because I'm afraid of killing people but because I oppose the killing of people without a cause that I consider justified.
You must consider all possible viewpoints on the situation, no matter how unlikely they are.
Please keep the comments like "His life is worthless, he should be killed, shoot him in the face" and such out of this thread. These are <b>personal</b> attacks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 30 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 30 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look at it this way, wouldnt the death penalty (teh ulmatimate punsihment) for him diminish the value of the penalty and that way disrespect all those victims for the mass-murders and other crimes that can get you to recieve such a punishment
Dishonour your family? Isnt that alittle medieval
And last, you have no problem to trowing out accusation that may or may not be true. The country already did a great job dishonouring itself <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps it is a little medieval - but the reprehensible actions of one man has a way of tarnishing those things with which he is identified. He is identified with his country, his friends and his family - in much the same way American Jailers at Abu Grahib (sp i know) are.
Please - stop giving me this "you dont know whether he is a coward" tripe. Thats flat out deceitful. If a man takes something that does not belong to him with no intention to return it - he is a theif. If a man unlawfully kills another man - he is a murder. If a man flees from the consequences of his actions, he is a coward. Unless you care to challenge my definition of a coward - then give up pretending that he just might be a really brave, heroic guy who happened to flee to canada to avoid the consequences of his actions.
EDIT
Forester - if you'd run, I'd accuse you of cowardice also. If you must make a moral stand in a position like that - then you have to accept the consequences. If you wish to conscienciously object, then I dont believe you should be shot. I believe you should accept the military punishment for refusing an order, spend time in prison and then be dishonourably discharged. But if you decide to run to avoid that - then you have clearly shown that its not actually a moral stand that you are making, but a spineless run from your the consequences of your actions, reminiscent of a certain Western European nation that shall remain nameless.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
As you are probably aware of there are several ways things can be. What if the thief needed bread so they could survive? Isnt that common sense? What if the thief stole bread to help someone, isnt that kindness? If a man kills someone without intent he's a victim. If a man decided to leave everything behind and go to a foreign land (not to mention the risk being sent back and shot) because he doesnt wish to participate in what he think is an illegal war. He's brave. Consequences? What's there to talk about? He'll still be sentenced despite being wrong or right. If you had the choice, what would you do? And why`?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with fleecing the American taxpayer for his living, training and university education<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again $5,000 to the USA is nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with abandoning his brothers in arms and his country for the cause of his own safety<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with grabbing any excuse to legitimise his own cowardice<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has already stated that he is doing this because the war is wrong, not because "he hates USA." He is NOT abandoning his country as this is not a war, this is an occupation. If he were an Iraqi, the above would be true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but instead of surrendering to the authorities to accept the consequences of his decision, he ran like a coward<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were about to spend 5 years in jail for not killing innocent Iraqi's would you run? Again, this is not a 'we must fight for the motherland or the evil forces will defeat us' scenario, the USA is occupying to find WMD's and/or remove the regime. He voulenteered. If you say he should be shot for backing out of a contract that means nothing more than money, time and petrol, you sir, should be shot.
<!--QuoteBegin-Epidemic+May 30 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ May 30 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As you are probably aware of there are several ways things can be. What if the thief needed bread so they could survive? Isnt that common sense? What if the thief stole bread to help someone, isnt that kindness? If a man kills someone without intent he's a victim. If a man decided to leave everything behind and go to a foreign land (not to mention the risk being sent back and shot) because he doesnt wish to participate in what he think is an illegal war. He's brave. Consequences? What's there to talk about? He'll still be sentenced despite being wrong or right. If you had the choice, what would you do? And why`? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am aware there are multiple ways things can be - the thief may be stealing for his family to eat. Or he may be stealing for his own personal benefit. In this case - I see a very clear cut decision for personal benefit.
If I had the choice, if I was Brandon, I dont know what I'd do. I am not him. But I'd damn well hope I'd know what I should do.
I signed a contract with my country to fight for it. I accepted money and training for this contract. Suddenly I find that this contract is compelling me to go and fight for a cause I dont believe in. In fact, its a cause I strongly feel to be wrong, so much so that I believe me fighting would be wrong. I feel SO strongly that I am willing to abandon my peers and my unit. I go to the commanding officer and inform him of my intention not to fight. I would explain to him I understand this to be a breach of contract, and he would doubtlessly have me arrested. I would be sentenced by a military tribunal and probably jailed, then dishonourably discharged. But my integrity and my honour remains intact - I stood up for what I believed in and I accepted the consequences of that action.
If I intend to break contract - then I should man up to the punishment associated. But not so for Brandon, he breached his contract then fled to avoid the punishment. You are never truely standing up for what you believe in unless you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. If you were a French Resistance fighter in 1943, and you stood up for what you believed in (a country free of the Nazi's) - then you would have to accept the fact that you could be killed for it. If you are not willing to accept those possible consequences - then you shouldnt be fighting. EDIT For the love of all that is holy - I swear the flames will come out if someone insinuates I'm attempting to equate French Resistance with American military action in Iraq - this is an ANALOGY EDIT
Brandon is determined to stand up for what he believes in - but he'll be damned if he accepts any sort of consequences for his action. He is a coward, he is a thief, he epitomises everything I despise.
Version - I seriously doubt it only cost the US army $5000 to train him. My little sister pays more than that for 1 school term (a quarter of a years school). Either way - stealing is stealing, you would doubtlessly not appreciate it if I decided you could absorb the cost of losing your computer and stole it. Its a moral thing - probably something that escapes Brandon.
The rest of what you said is covered above. I would NOT run - I'm a man for God's sake. I hope were I to find myself in the same situation that I would stand my ground and accept my punishment for my contract breach. My integrity would compel me too - as it would have our gutless friend had he a shred of it. He has the courage to stand up for what he believes in, but not to suffer for it - bah.
Marine , why don't you request some kind of hazardous assignment in Iraq , to show the example ? If you come back in one piece from Iraq your arguments would be much more convincing for sure <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+May 31 2004, 12:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ May 31 2004, 12:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine , why don't you request some kind of hazardous assignment in Iraq , to show the example ? If you come back in one piece from Iraq your arguments would be much more convincing for sure <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I had the choice, if I was Brandon, I dont know what I'd do. I am not him. But I'd damn well hope I'd know what I should do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hope were I to find myself in the same situation that I would stand my ground and accept my punishment for my contract breach.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not Brandon. I've never been asked to fight for my country. I've never joined the military or signed any contract involving possible calls to self sacrafice - which is why I said the above. I know what I <b>should</b> do - and I hope desperately that were I ever to find myself in such a situation that I would have the guts to do the right thing.
Point 2 - Brandon didnt even have to set foot on Iraqi soil to make a clear statement outlining his moral beliefs that prevented him from fighting. He wasnt given a hazardous assignment in Iraq, he wasnt ordered to fire on civilians - he didnt even get that far. At the first whiff of possible danger he headed in the exact opposite direction of A) danger and B) responsibility for his actions.
Point 3 - Please note that I only listed what I would do when asked to by Epidemic. Sneer all you want at old fashioned ideas like honesty, integrity, morality and personal ideals, that doesnt detract from a single one of my statements. Insinuating that I am all talk merely highlights to me your inability to answer my arguements against this man and criticism of his behaviour. His behaviour was morally bankrupt - cheap shots at me wont change that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again $5,000 to the USA is nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's way more than "just $5,000."
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072945/' target='_blank'>Army of One Carries a High Price</a>
Since Hu*** wasn't infantry, the cost differs. If anything, it's probably more expensive. As an armor crewman, you use more than just M-16 ammo. You have 7.62mm, .50 cal and the 120mm cannon ammo which runs over $1,000 a pop. Depleted uranium metallurgy isn't cheap. Then you have costs like fuel, since the Abrams uses jet fuel, not standard gasoline and it doesn't get good gas mileage.
On top of that, add in things like medical expenses. Everybody gets sick when they're at Fort Knox, so add in a few bottles of 800mg Motrin and a bottle of antibiotics. You also have immunizations when you first join. There are innumerable costs that go into soldiers' training and maintenance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you were about to spend 5 years in jail for not killing innocent Iraqi's would you run? Again, this is not a 'we must fight for the motherland or the evil forces will defeat us' scenario, the USA is occupying to find WMD's and/or remove the regime. He voulenteered. If you say he should be shot for backing out of a contract that means nothing more than money, time and petrol, you sir, should be shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming that he was going to go to Iraq to kill anything that didn't have blond hair and blue eyes.
He did indeed volunteer. He voluntarily joined the military. Not just as a paper-pusher, but as a crewman on a 60-ton war machine. Where were his peaceful disposition then? Do you have any idea what a contract is? He agreed to work for the U.S. Army in exchange for payment and various benefits and services. The Army upheld it's end of the bargain by providing payment and benefits. However, Hu*** failed to uphold his end of the agreement and is now subject to UCMJ, which he voluntarily agreed to be held accountable to. The whole point of a contract is that it is binding. You can't simply dismiss it when it's no longer convenient for you. He took the Army's money and ran at the first hint of danger, trying to disguise his greed as high morals.
Hu*** isn't a noble crusader for peace. He had no problem with joining the military and taking their money, nor did he have a problem with signing up for a combat MOS. Hu*** is an unscrupulous cur who was looking for a free ride on Uncle Sam's buck. Regardless of your feelings about the Iraq War, Hu*** should be held responsible for his criminal actions.
The military is no better than a tobacco company, spamming propaganda and advertisments at young men (15-18 years of age), the most impressionable time of ones life. I considered military too up untill I had a nice big cup of reality
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 30 2004, 01:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 30 2004, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've never joined the military or signed any contract involving possible calls to self sacrafice <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why didn't you do so ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Brandon didnt even have to set foot on Iraqi soil to make a clear statement outlining his moral beliefs that prevented him from fighting<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't blame him for refusing to fight an unjust war. His oh so sacred contract with the Army didn't mention the possibility of having to crush natives resistance in a colonial war fought for false evidences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sneer all you want at old fashioned ideas like honesty, integrity, morality and personal ideals, that doesnt detract from a single one of my statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theses have nothing to do with your medieval belief that people deserve to be slain for infringing their "honor"...
You want deserting soldiers dead , yet you don't say a thing about the US president who's notorious for causing the deaths of innocents as a governor. So much for your moral principles.
It doesn't matter wether the guy was for or against the war, he still signed a contract. A contract. ...Contract. Once he signed up to join the US Army he lost all say in wether he wanted to fight or not. Basically, he is the US's property until he gets discharged one way or another. While this isn't treason, "giving aide and comfort to the enemy in time of war" it is certainly a big no no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can't blame him for refusing to fight an unjust war. His oh so sacred contract with the Army didn't mention the possibility of having to crush natives resistance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless, he still signed a contract. Objectively speaking, he is running away from a contract. That is bad. It should not matter wether he feels what he does when he complys with said contract is right or wrong.
This is not to say "What if you signed a contract to eat a baby? Should you do it then?" First of all, don't sign contracts that want you to eat babies. Second, the Iraqi war is at least debatable to be right or wrong. I don't think you can debate "Is eating babies right?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You want deserting soldiers dead , yet you don't say a thing about the US president who's notorious for causing the deaths of innocents as a governor. So much for your moral principles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And no, capital punishment and war are not comparable. Those are two different things... Really.
<span style='color:white'>If you want to get a shiny new restricted membership, you can simply ask.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your right - this is not cool, and definately directly related to the UN embargo. However, I do find this still related to Saddam. I see a parallel situation in a family earning $100,000 a year. The money earner is fired, the family continues living like it was on $100,000 a year, and the children starve. The parents then turn around and blame the employer who fired them for killing their children. In that analogy I see Saddam as the parent figure - who could have provided them with such things, but simply chose not to. Lets face it - if you can get uranium from african nations, you should be able to get spare parts. I realise he turned down the uranium offer - but he still could have accepted it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are thinking along the same lines here, although maybe using different approaches. It is true that Saddam is to blame for the suffering of Iraqis under the embargo, but one must also remember that even after it was evident that the sanctions didn't effect Saddam and his confidantes in any way, they were not lifted, mostly because of continued efforts by the US and Great Britain to undermine any attempt to do so. A short while ago, there was a vote in the Security Council to lift the sanctions once and for all. This time both the US and GB supported the motion, while some of those who supported it before, turned against it. The reason behind this was that lifting the sanctions now would in fact imply that the UN supports the invasion led by the United States, which is clearly a signal they do not want to give. Ultimately, the blame for the plight of the common Iraqi rests both on the shoulders of Saddam and his cohorts, and the nations who backed his rise to power. Much like the blame for the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire) rests still atleast partly on the ex-President Mobutu Sese Seko and his foreign backers.
Oh, and on a side note, the uranium offer seems to have been completely fictious. It is true, that given the possibility to do so, Saddam would most likely have had the budget to buy weapons-grade plutonium. However, no such opportunity presented itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its not that I dont care about Iraqi civilians - I just fail to see the rationale behind opposing war based on "innocent Iraqi's will die". The death of Iraqi's is unavoidable whether you took the war stance or the appeasement stance - its entirely irrelevant to the equation. Also of note that the First Gulf War was actually a UN thing - with the majority of troops provided by Middle Eastern nations, and not the US. If you wish to cast suspicions upon the US military slaughtering retreating troops, thats probably not the best scenario to use.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is both true and sad, that despite what occurs, the common Iraqi suffers. Also, as you state, it must be noted that the first Gulf War was indeed sanctioned by the United Nations, IIRC the first time after the Korean War. It must also be noted that most of the troops participating in combat, about 500,000, came from the US, while troops from other coalition countries amounted to about 160,000. (Although the information about the exact troop strenght is a bit sketchy: another source states US troops strenght at over 527,000 and the rest of the coalition at over 205,000.)
And about casting suspicions, how about something more substantial (this is going to be long, so please bear with me):
February 26th-27th 1991 Situation: Iraqi troops are withdrawing from Kuwait in compliance with a UN resolution. This also had something to do with the fact that the Allied ground campaign had begun two days prior. Locations: A highway leading from Mutlaa, Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. A coastal highway leading from Kuwait to Iraq. Events: The US forces locate the retreating army columns which are miles long. The entire length of the coastal highway, 60 miles, is spattered here and there with Iraqi armor and light vehicles retreating towards southern Iraq. From somewhere above, a command is given to halt these columns. The result is an unnecessary massacre worthy of a war crime status. The retreating columns which are suspected to have contained also civilian elements are immobilized by destroying the vehicles in the front and rear ends. After that the air force, which really distinguishes itself here by using B-52s to bomb vehicle columns, is sent in to finish the job. The result is tens of thousands dead. The bodies and the wreckage were there for months, and journalists and photographers visiting the site noted that some of the bodies were placed and charred in a way that suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus and other incendiary compounds outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The precise death toll is unknown, partly due to the army's determined denial of anything like this ever occurring.
The date: March 2nd 1991. Situation: US ground offensive, titled operation Desert Storm is on full sail. The Iraqi armored divisions, including Division Hammurabi are retreating in front of the technologically overpowering enemy that seems to be capable of finding all enemy concentrations bigger than one infantry squad. The soldiers are afraid of Saddam, but even more afraid of what his propaganda has told them about the treatment of POWs by US troops, and also of the sheer firepower of their adversary. Events: The Hammurabi Division is retreating towards the Hawr-al-Hammar causeway. Unfortunately they are against Maj. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who even according to his own chiefs of staff was determined to have his armor battle, even if it meant chasing after a retreating enemy division. In the early morning hours of March 2nd a US recon chopper locates the division. Later on the army will claim that the retreating division fired at the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division on a recon mission. After this incident, reported to have happened around 6:30AM, but later disputed by some of McCaffreys own officers ("There was no incoming... The Iraqis were doing absolutely nothing." -Patric Lamar, operations officer) McCaffreys first battle order is logged just after 9AM. The result: a massacre. Over 600 vehicles destroyed. Every vehicle moving towards the causeway was reported to have been destroyed. Even to this date, the army upholds the myth that the Hammurabi Division broke the cease fire, but can give no valid reason for that kind of action. Even though both the claims for and against first fire by the Hammurabi Div. would be neglected, the fact remains that they didn't fight (not that they'd had the time or the means to) when the Apaches started strafing and bombing them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killswitch has Iraqi (civilian) deaths at 100,000 a year under saddam (seems a little high to me given a pop of 25 million) - I dont know what casualties the American inflicted upon Iraqi civilians, but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 100,000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Killswitch should realize, that during Saddam's years as the President of Iraq (1979-2003) that would come to about 2,3 million people. Even if this account would take in the casualties caused by the two Persian Gulf wars and the Iran-Iraq war (which lasted for 8 years), this count seems a tad high (the estimated casualties range from 500,000 to 1 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war). Comparing to that, the rate of civilian mortalities as 100,000 per year seems unbelievable, especially since some reports rate that during the decade of sanctions, about 400,000 to half a million civilian deaths could be directly or indirectly related to them. Considering that Saddam wasn't at war with anyone during those years, it seems unlikely that he could front the second half a million dead to get to the expected one million-in-a-decade figure. Please do note that I'm not making excuses for Saddam, a violent little ****, here. I just am trying to instill some sense of proportion. Someone do please correct me if I am wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Agreed, I would have liked to see the US contribute further to Afghanistan also. I also hate the idea of a power vacuum - which is why I despise with a passion anyone waving the "Troops out Now" banner. It also sticks in my throat that most of these same people accused the Americans of killing innocent Iraqi's, and yet are now baying for the blood of the same innocents by demanding a troop withdrawl.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here we are thinking exactly along the same lines, atleast when it comes to the troop withdrawal thing. Since the invasion of Iraq has already occurred, and the threat of a power vacuum is already there, pulling all the troops out now would just cause even more damage.
He signed a contract with 17 and he expected to do stuf that soliders to in peacetime. He did not expect to be sent to the other side of the earth to get killed by a carbomb while walking around the streets in a war that he thinks its illegal for various reasons (Iraq = Oil). Nice to see a soldier not acting like he is totally brainwashed "It is your duty" (I am not saying that soldiers are brainwashed in general)
If you say that he deserves being punished for this then I think you are very bloodthirsty.
If you say he is a coward for "running away" then plz imagine yourself having the choice of 5 years jail or running away because of a **** little piece of paper.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can everybody writing in this topic state his nationality plz? I bet most of the statements like "get a rope" come from the US<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record, I am an American, I've served in the U.S. Army and I opposed the Iraq War.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He signed a contract with 17 and he expected to do stuf that soliders to in peacetime. He did not expect to be sent to the other side of the earth to get killed by a carbomb while walking around the streets in a war that he thinks its illegal for various reasons (Iraq = Oil). Nice to see a soldier not acting like he is totally brainwashed "It is your duty" (I am not saying that soldiers are brainwashed in general)
If you say that he deserves being punished for this then I think you are very bloodthirsty.
If you say he is a coward for "running away" then plz imagine yourself having the choice of 5 years jail or running away because of a **** little piece of paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A contract isn't just a "piece of paper" that some of you seem to think it is. It's a legally binding agreement. <i>Legally binding</i> being the key part. When he signed up, he agreed to receive payment and benefits in exchange for work. Among the things he agreed to abide by was the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is very specific about what you can and can't do, as well as how you will be tried if you break these rules. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he has violated the law. Specifically Article 85, which concerns desertion. He left is unit, organization and place of duty. Wether it was for "morality," which I use loosely, or just because he didn't want to get shot at is irrelevant. Article 85 covers both scenarios.
Think of it this way. By entering a foreign country, you are agreeing to abide by the laws that have been set down there. I'll use the U.S. and Canada as examples. Say that murder is legal in Canada, but not in the U.S. When a Canadian comes to the U.S., they are forbidden to commit any murder. The fact that they are a Canadian citizen is irrelevant. By coming to the U.S., they agreed to follow local laws. It's similar to the military. By joining the military, you agree to follow their rules. He broke those rules and therefore deserves punishment.
He won't be executed. Nobody has been executed for desertion since World War II. He'll most likely get a Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinment for a period of 2-5 years. Expecting him to follow the law is hardly bloodthirsty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can't blame him for refusing to fight an unjust war. His oh so sacred contract with the Army didn't mention the possibility of having to crush natives resistance in a colonial war fought for false evidences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can and do. I have made it abundantly clear why his fleeing to Canada was not an act of moral standing but a shameless attempt at avoiding consequences. The repetition is getting tiring. Please, either state flat out that you dont give two hoots about breaking contract, personal integrity and morality - or abandon attempting to justify his actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Theses have nothing to do with your medieval belief that people deserve to be slain for infringing their "honor"...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you wish to keep this purely about my hardline stance on military cowardice, then I'm more than happy to. Your cheap shots about my personal lack of military experience seemed more aimed at my morality involved with courage, honesty, and facing up to the consequences of your actions rather than about my desire to see him face ultimate punishment - please refrain from hopping from one topic to the other to muddy waters here.
EDIT Scinet - thanks for the comprehensive reply, its given me plenty to think about. I'll reply in the morning, but I'm too angry and flamy to reply now.
<span style='color:white'>Related post nuked.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-kittycat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kittycat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can not expect from someone to risk his life for things he does not like<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you can. Police, firefighters, soldiers. These are men and women who, every day, risk their lives over things that they cannot stand to do, things that they hate. They do the dirty, messy, deplorable jobs that others wouldn't touch, and they risk their lives doing it. I bet that these people would give almost anything to see their professions become unnecessary, but until that time, they continue to serve others.
One of the points that I feel has been generally overlooked is the timeframe of his joining and then deserting. From his site, he states that he deserted on March 2, 2003. This is 18 days before the first troops were sent to Iraq. Since it's stated that he was still in basic training at this time, I think it's reasonable to assume that he had signed up within two months prior to his desertion. What was going on two months prior to the start of the war? There was plenty of heated discussion about the Iraq situation, and the prospect of going to war was a very real and looming possibility, and in fact had been for some time. For example:
December 18 2002 The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, indicates that the UK government believes Iraq has made a "material breach" of the UN resolution. Meanwhile the Ministry of Defence reveals that ships are being chartered to carry troops and heavy armour to the Gulf. December 19 2002 The United States accuses Baghdad of being in "material breach" of the UN resolution after the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says the Iraqi arms declaration contains little new information about its weapons of mass destruction capability. January 6 2003 Saddam Hussein says he is ready for war, accuses UN weapons inspectors of being spies and calls his enemies the "friends and helpers of Satan". January 11 2003 A British naval task force leaves for the Gulf headed by the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier and carrying some 3,000 marines. (<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html' target='_blank'>source</a>). Note that the U.S. was stratiegically deploying forces at the same time. If Brandon didn't realize that going to Iraq to fight in a war was a very likely thing for a soldier to have to do, then he must have been totally ignorant of news and world politics.
Also, at the same time he would have enlisted, there was an extensive operation going on in Afghanistan, which involved both peacekeeping, and searching for Bin Laden. Even now there are still battles with insurgents going on in the country. So, at the time he would have enlisted, being sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan was essentially a certainty. A question I would like to ask him would be: "would you still have deserted if you had been sent to Afghanistan instead?" The answer I glean from his site is "yes." A quote: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Is there ever any justifiable cause to go to war?</b> I believe that if your country is being attacked then you obviously have the right to self defence. The United States was clearly not under attack by Iraq, and military force should never be authorized unless it is absolutely necessary to defend yourself from foreign aggression. It is not the job of the U.S. to act as the world's police force. That responsibility lies with the U.N.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The impression this gives me is that he would refuse to fight in any war unless it involved self defense against another nation (or, I suspect, if he politically agreed with it.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasn't until after I had joined the Army that I really began to learn about the war in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I find this to be highly dubious. I really don't think it's possible to be that ignorant of world events. Also, I believe that when he decided to enlist, his parents or friends (if they cared about him at all) would have talked to him about his choice, and at least one person would have mentioned the possibility of going to war. If he was really that naïve, then so be it, and I say he should have taken some time to research and think about the choice he was making, and its possible consequences, rather than enlist on a lark and expect a free ride.
<i>He made the choice to volunteer and go serve</i>. He was not drafted. He wanted to do this. He chose to do it. He signed a legally binding contract affirming that, under penalty of law, he would follow orders and do his duty. When he found out he would be doing something disagreeable, rather than request transfer to non-combat or to a different assignment, or to do what he signed up for (that would be serve in the army), he decided that he would just up and leave the army, and flee the country. He knew that deserting would carry dire consequences. He is a spineless coward, a deserter, and a criminal. I think it's good that he left the army, because I would not trust such scum to cover the backs of the real soldiers.
If you were too lazy to read my post, I'll sum it up: <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Shoot him in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>
Admins note: Since I'm getting reports by irritated users, I'd appreciate if everyone toned their rethoric drive down a little. That means: No 'Get the rope!' comments unless you really mean it, not even slightly derogatory terms regarding other peoples stances; the whole jazz. The thread is decidedly too close to open hostility - consider it and the people pushing it there on probabition.
Comments
Wierd - I could have sworn the embargo didnt extend to medicines. Please explain to me how economic sanctions against Iraq destroyed their health care. And please, dont say they couldnt afford things after that - Saddam lived in luxury of that little license to print money we like to call oil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The economic sanctions were all-around encompassing, with the exception of the Food For Oil program (referred to as FFO from here onwards), which was created to ensure that money made from oil sales by Iraq could be monitored and funneled into purchasing of food and various other basic supplies. However, FFO failed, mainly because there are a lot of nations in the world unscrupulous enought to be tempted by cheap oil sold past the FFO program. The program's stated intention was to ensure that the Hussein regime would not be able to buy arms or technology to create arms and to drain its massive coffers. As you pointed out, Saddam never felt the drain simply because he was able to go past the sanctions and sell oil anyway. I don't remember right now which countries accepted internally sanctioned oil shipments from him, but I'm willing to bet that Russia was among them, if not directly then through its front nation for illegal arms sales to third world countries, Belarussia.
In 1998 an independent consultant Eric Hoskins was asked by UNICEF, UN's organization for international child welfare, to compile a report of the effects of Iraq's sanctions from UNICEF's perspective. Among the cause-effect chains found and examined by the consultant was the main problem-causing matter - the fact that decreased exports and availability of foreign currency (and access to foreign markets) resulted in decreased imports (yeah, this is Economy 101 stuff), which resulted in drastically reduced availability of basic goods, such as food, medicine supplies, basic household items and communications equipment. The short-term effects were found to be lowered birth rate, lowered birth-weight of babies, increased number of birth complications and rise of pre-birth malformations of fetuses (such as anencephalia, which is quite rare in the western world). Deterioration of the quality of supplied water due to inability of purchasing new filtration systems for waterworks, and subsequent rise of infection and epidemic rates was also noted. High technology medical equipment such as x-ray machines also broke down because spare parts were no longer available. Among social impacts were increased poverty and the near-total obliteration of the middle class. The high class, favoured by Saddam, was not effected, but the middle class families (teachers, doctors and other schooled professions) suffered and slid down the scale to poverty). All this only served to make Saddam stronger, since those opposed to him were malnourished and subject to social depression, which combined to make their view rather fatalistic and strangled any chance of rising against the dictator.
One reason not to rebel was also found in the post-Gulf War rebellion of the southern Shi'ites. They rose against Saddam after repeated promises of the US to back them- promises that never materialized. Thus it wasn't very hard for Saddam to violently disperse the rebels.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and forgive me for not sobbing over those Iraqi lives lost in the attempt to liberate them - from the mass graves found all over the country, people were going to die any way this went. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you don't care, then why support the "liberation"? As a result of the Gulf War, the US suffered about 350 soldiers as casualties. The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. Of course the Gulf War was entirely his fault, but since his army spent the most of it their backs turned to the US soldiers, running for their lives, I wonder why the casualty rate is so high.
Add into this all the events at Abu Ghraib and the fact the the US troops have on numerous occasions fired upon iraqi civilians with no pressing reason, it's not a wonder that the US army is not exactly popular in that corner of the world. The 'liberators' have killed scores of people, subjected them to random arrests and humiliation, all this after ten years of crippling economic sanctions that instead of bringing Hussein down, just made his power in Iraq more absolute, and it all starts to seem rather odd. To be completely honest, the US is not in it alone. For example, it was the spanish army that opened fire on civilians in Najaf.
We'll just have to hope that Iraq won't turn into another Afghanistan - a power vacuum filled by different people every day. Just hope that the future (possible) president of Iraq won't be called with derisive and belittling, albeit descriptive names, like Hamid Karzai is called "The Mayor of Kabul". Before planning this mess of an operation, it would have been awfully clever to clean up in Afghanistan first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not attempting to compare a war to one man's cowardice - I cant see where you got that idea from.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess I got it from that one of your messages where you talked first about the importance of "correcting mistakes" and then about one man's cowardice, all in one paragraph.
You seem to be an honest liberal, I respect that, even for all the past arguments we've had.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awwww, thanks <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Actually, truth be told, the older I get, and the more I pay in taxes, I think I slip into more moderate territory. Heck, I've voted for conservatives before-- I just don't really like this administration or the whole neoconservative movement, so I think that makes me seem a tad more shrill and crazy left wing than I usually would be.
I'm not the hugest Kerry fan, but I'm willing to let him slide on the questionable Purple Heart . . . considering that he served in a war I sure as Hell would have run screaming from and has other impressive medals, it's splitting hairs when you get down to that point.
But I firmly believe in personal responsibility, which is why I think this kid should definitely have to pay a serious penalty. However, when I think of the garbage I tried to get away with when I was his age (and the ridiculous excuses I pulled out to try to cover myself) I certainly wouldn't advocate his execution.
The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record, Saddam forced those rebels to lie down while he paved hot asphalt over them.
Secondly, Saddam killed 2 million over the course of his regime. This amounts to about 100,000 citizens killed every year. Civilian casualties from the war we're not even close to this.
I mean , we're on the discussion forum , where only rational opinions should be discussed. Why not invite fundamentalist muslims to justify the fatwa on Salman Rushdie while we're at it.
Also Saddam was trying to kill all those people, with about <100 accidental deaths. However pretty much every civilian casualty is accidental for the USA. 3000 people died in the twin towers, 3000 people died accidentally from the US occupation of Afghanistan.
I shall list my reasons and that is really all I can say.
1) He signed up voluntarily was not forced in anyway, shape or form. Considering this even with one being only 17 that is not an excuse. (edited in) I was much like anyone who has lived in the US and been through HS attempted to be recurited. I even was able to take there ASVAB/P? test which tells you what jobs you would do well at while in the military. Even the non-combat ones. The recruiters here tried very hard to get a lot of people to join and I would say they had a sucess rate of about 30% which is more then I expected. Many of those people were friends of mine and are in Iraq right now, we just (south dakota) shipped some fresh troops over there. With him being 17, and I was the same aged when asked, I said no for I would pay my own way into college that was my choice. He opted for the easier way (in money wise, college is DAMN expensive) and now he is complaining.
2) The military will pay for his education when he completes however long he signed up for. That is a fact, and considering most college graduates have 10,000 to 50,000 or more if going for docorate/masters in debt, I think it is a fair trade.
3) If he doesn't think the war is just/moral and what not, he can file a compliant with his superiors, granted it will do nothing, and would not damage his "file" that the military keeps other then a small comment noting his objections.
4) The military does what it is told to do. It is a very well thought out machine and works very efficently, thus why soldiers when they are done are always welcome to the workforce, because they have the heightened disiclpine and awaress of what is around them.
5) IT IS YOUR DUTY. As previously stated if you do not want to join, you do not have to. Since there is no draft(at the moment) one does not have to worry about being FORCED to do something you do not want to when it comes to military matters.
Those are simply my views on why it is not approiate for him to have fled to canada. I will probably have many people going on and on about (SUYF etc) so feel free to do so.
Even though I do not agree with the "war" though I wouldn't call it that since we have not offically declared war. I still think the military is doing all that it can do make sure our boys and girls are doing a wonderful job over there. So, all the more power to those choosing to fight for our country and uphold the faith that I have in our military.
(edited at same time as #1 was)
For those that are going to compare Iraq vs Vietnam or even Korea. Don't bother you really can't compare the two. We do not have nearly as many soldiers in the field nor even a 1/4 of the deaths and there is no draft to boot. The "war" in Iraq is not a good thing other then freeing a people that really do not know any better, and probably will see history repeat as that area is incredibly unstable.
(edit #2)
I noticed that the site seems to only post letters that support him and are majority out of the US. If I am wrong feel free to correct me on the from outside the US part. I do not think that represents the US very well in what it conveys. :-)
(Yes.. one of my longer posts) :-) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should read 1984, they give great examples of how to "assist" you into "agreeing"
I support him, when the draft comes I will flee somewhere, I am not about to become a pawn in something that can't be helped.
Your right - this is not cool, and definately directly related to the UN embargo. However, I do find this still related to Saddam. I see a parallel situation in a family earning $100,000 a year. The money earner is fired, the family continues living like it was on $100,000 a year, and the children starve. The parents then turn around and blame the employer who fired them for killing their children. In that analogy I see Saddam as the parent figure - who could have provided them with such things, but simply chose not to. Lets face it - if you can get uranium from african nations, you should be able to get spare parts. I realise he turned down the uranium offer - but he still could have accepted it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One reason not to rebel was also found in the post-Gulf War rebellion of the southern Shi'ites. They rose against Saddam after repeated promises of the US to back them- promises that never materialized. Thus it wasn't very hard for Saddam to violently disperse the rebels.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I learned about that little piece of American treachery on the movie "Three Kings". I'd join you in condemning the Americans for that - that was disgusting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, if you don't care, then why support the "liberation"? As a result of the Gulf War, the US suffered about 350 soldiers as casualties. The casualties of Iraq's armies are estimated to have been somewhere around 100,000. That's quite a reducement in the work force and fills quite many cemetaries too. People were going to die if Saddam stayed in power, but has the US actually at this point killed a notably higher amount of iraqis than Saddam could ever have in his lifetime. Of course the Gulf War was entirely his fault, but since his army spent the most of it their backs turned to the US soldiers, running for their lives, I wonder why the casualty rate is so high.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not that I dont care about Iraqi civilians - I just fail to see the rationale behind opposing war based on "innocent Iraqi's will die". The death of Iraqi's is unavoidable whether you took the war stance or the appeasement stance - its entirely irrelevant to the equation. Also of note that the First Gulf War was actually a UN thing - with the majority of troops provided by Middle Eastern nations, and not the US. If you wish to cast suspicions upon the US military slaughtering retreating troops, thats probably not the best scenario to use.
Killswitch has Iraqi (civilian) deaths at 100,000 a year under saddam (seems a little high to me given a pop of 25 million) - I dont know what casualties the American inflicted upon Iraqi civilians, but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 100,000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Add into this all the events at Abu Ghraib and the fact the the US troops have on numerous occasions fired upon iraqi civilians with no pressing reason, it's not a wonder that the US army is not exactly popular in that corner of the world. The 'liberators' have killed scores of people, subjected them to random arrests and humiliation, all this after ten years of crippling economic sanctions that instead of bringing Hussein down, just made his power in Iraq more absolute, and it all starts to seem rather odd. To be completely honest, the US is not in it alone. For example, it was the spanish army that opened fire on civilians in Najaf.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand the unpopularity of the American troops, that came as no surprise to me either. However, despite that, I consider any Iraqi battling against them an immortal fool, similiar to the dog at work that tried to bite me while I tried to give him injection so he'd vomit up rat poison.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll just have to hope that Iraq won't turn into another Afghanistan - a power vacuum filled by different people every day. Just hope that the future (possible) president of Iraq won't be called with derisive and belittling, albeit descriptive names, like Hamid Karzai is called "The Mayor of Kabul". Before planning this mess of an operation, it would have been awfully clever to clean up in Afghanistan first.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, I would have liked to see the US contribute further to Afghanistan also. I also hate the idea of a power vacuum - which is why I despise with a passion anyone waving the "Troops out Now" banner. It also sticks in my throat that most of these same people accused the Americans of killing innocent Iraqi's, and yet are now baying for the blood of the same innocents by demanding a troop withdrawl.
I mean , we're on the discussion forum , where only rational opinions should be discussed. Why not invite fundamentalist muslims to justify the fatwa on Salman Rushdie while we're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll try and sum it up as succinctly as possible. This man has no problem with killing people - so long as he agrees with the rationale behind it or so he claims. This man has no problem with fleecing the American taxpayer for his living, training and university education. This man has no problem with abandoning his brothers in arms and his country for the cause of his own safety. This man has no problem with grabbing any excuse to legitimise his own cowardice. He made a decision to make a "moral stand", but instead of surrendering to the authorities to accept the consequences of his decision, he ran like a coward. He has dishonoured himself, his family, his country and his profession. I equate his life to approximately 50 US cents - that should more than pay for 3 cm of steel at several hundred k an hour.
But hey, if you dont think he should be die for all that - I can understand and appreciate that. However, if someone decides to support his actions - then my disgust for him extends to them. The only thing worse than his behaviour is affirmation of it.
Dishonour your family? Isnt that alittle medieval
And last, you have no problem to trowing out accusation that may or may not be true. The country already did a great job dishonouring itself
You're assuming that he ran because he is a coward. Personally, I would have run for moral reasons. Not because I'm afraid of dying or because I'm afraid of killing people but because I oppose the killing of people without a cause that I consider justified.
You must consider all possible viewpoints on the situation, no matter how unlikely they are.
Please keep the comments like "His life is worthless, he should be killed, shoot him in the face" and such out of this thread. These are <b>personal</b> attacks.
Dishonour your family? Isnt that alittle medieval
And last, you have no problem to trowing out accusation that may or may not be true. The country already did a great job dishonouring itself <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps it is a little medieval - but the reprehensible actions of one man has a way of tarnishing those things with which he is identified. He is identified with his country, his friends and his family - in much the same way American Jailers at Abu Grahib (sp i know) are.
Please - stop giving me this "you dont know whether he is a coward" tripe. Thats flat out deceitful. If a man takes something that does not belong to him with no intention to return it - he is a theif. If a man unlawfully kills another man - he is a murder. If a man flees from the consequences of his actions, he is a coward. Unless you care to challenge my definition of a coward - then give up pretending that he just might be a really brave, heroic guy who happened to flee to canada to
avoid the consequences of his actions.
EDIT
Forester - if you'd run, I'd accuse you of cowardice also. If you must make a moral stand in a position like that - then you have to accept the consequences. If you wish to conscienciously object, then I dont believe you should be shot. I believe you should accept the military punishment for refusing an order, spend time in prison and then be dishonourably discharged. But if you decide to run to avoid that - then you have clearly shown that its not actually a moral stand that you are making, but a spineless run from your the consequences of your actions, reminiscent of a certain Western European nation that shall remain nameless.
Again $5,000 to the USA is nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with abandoning his brothers in arms and his country for the cause of his own safety<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This man has no problem with grabbing any excuse to legitimise his own cowardice<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He has already stated that he is doing this because the war is wrong, not because "he hates USA." He is NOT abandoning his country as this is not a war, this is an occupation. If he were an Iraqi, the above would be true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but instead of surrendering to the authorities to accept the consequences of his decision, he ran like a coward<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were about to spend 5 years in jail for not killing innocent Iraqi's would you run? Again, this is not a 'we must fight for the motherland or the evil forces will defeat us' scenario, the USA is occupying to find WMD's and/or remove the regime. He voulenteered. If you say he should be shot for backing out of a contract that means nothing more than money, time and petrol, you sir, should be shot.
I am aware there are multiple ways things can be - the thief may be stealing for his family to eat. Or he may be stealing for his own personal benefit. In this case - I see a very clear cut decision for personal benefit.
If I had the choice, if I was Brandon, I dont know what I'd do. I am not him. But I'd damn well hope I'd know what I should do.
I signed a contract with my country to fight for it. I accepted money and training for this contract. Suddenly I find that this contract is compelling me to go and fight for a cause I dont believe in. In fact, its a cause I strongly feel to be wrong, so much so that I believe me fighting would be wrong. I feel SO strongly that I am willing to abandon my peers and my unit. I go to the commanding officer and inform him of my intention not to fight. I would explain to him I understand this to be a breach of contract, and he would doubtlessly have me arrested. I would be sentenced by a military tribunal and probably jailed, then dishonourably discharged. But my integrity and my honour remains intact - I stood up for what I believed in and I accepted the consequences of that action.
If I intend to break contract - then I should man up to the punishment associated. But not so for Brandon, he breached his contract then fled to avoid the punishment. You are never truely standing up for what you believe in unless you are prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. If you were a French Resistance fighter in 1943, and you stood up for what you believed in (a country free of the Nazi's) - then you would have to accept the fact that you could be killed for it. If you are not willing to accept those possible consequences - then you shouldnt be fighting. EDIT For the love of all that is holy - I swear the flames will come out if someone insinuates I'm attempting to equate French Resistance with American military action in Iraq - this is an ANALOGY EDIT
Brandon is determined to stand up for what he believes in - but he'll be damned if he accepts any sort of consequences for his action. He is a coward, he is a thief, he epitomises everything I despise.
Version - I seriously doubt it only cost the US army $5000 to train him. My little sister pays more than that for 1 school term (a quarter of a years school). Either way - stealing is stealing, you would doubtlessly not appreciate it if I decided you could absorb the cost of losing your computer and stole it. Its a moral thing - probably something that escapes Brandon.
The rest of what you said is covered above. I would NOT run - I'm a man for God's sake. I hope were I to find myself in the same situation that I would stand my ground and accept my punishment for my contract breach. My integrity would compel me too - as it would have our gutless friend had he a shred of it. He has the courage to stand up for what he believes in, but not to suffer for it - bah.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I had the choice, if I was Brandon, I dont know what I'd do. I am not him. But I'd damn well hope I'd know what I should do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hope were I to find myself in the same situation that I would stand my ground and accept my punishment for my contract breach.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not Brandon. I've never been asked to fight for my country. I've never joined the military or signed any contract involving possible calls to self sacrafice - which is why I said the above. I know what I <b>should</b> do - and I hope desperately that were I ever to find myself in such a situation that I would have the guts to do the right thing.
Point 2 - Brandon didnt even have to set foot on Iraqi soil to make a clear statement outlining his moral beliefs that prevented him from fighting. He wasnt given a hazardous assignment in Iraq, he wasnt ordered to fire on civilians - he didnt even get that far. At the first whiff of possible danger he headed in the exact opposite direction of A) danger and B) responsibility for his actions.
Point 3 - Please note that I only listed what I would do when asked to by Epidemic. Sneer all you want at old fashioned ideas like honesty, integrity, morality and personal ideals, that doesnt detract from a single one of my statements. Insinuating that I am all talk merely highlights to me your inability to answer my arguements against this man and criticism of his behaviour. His behaviour was morally bankrupt - cheap shots at me wont change that.
It's way more than "just $5,000."
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072945/' target='_blank'>Army of One Carries a High Price</a>
Since Hu*** wasn't infantry, the cost differs. If anything, it's probably more expensive. As an armor crewman, you use more than just M-16 ammo. You have 7.62mm, .50 cal and the 120mm cannon ammo which runs over $1,000 a pop. Depleted uranium metallurgy isn't cheap. Then you have costs like fuel, since the Abrams uses jet fuel, not standard gasoline and it doesn't get good gas mileage.
On top of that, add in things like medical expenses. Everybody gets sick when they're at Fort Knox, so add in a few bottles of 800mg Motrin and a bottle of antibiotics. You also have immunizations when you first join. There are innumerable costs that go into soldiers' training and maintenance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you were about to spend 5 years in jail for not killing innocent Iraqi's would you run? Again, this is not a 'we must fight for the motherland or the evil forces will defeat us' scenario, the USA is occupying to find WMD's and/or remove the regime. He voulenteered. If you say he should be shot for backing out of a contract that means nothing more than money, time and petrol, you sir, should be shot.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're assuming that he was going to go to Iraq to kill anything that didn't have blond hair and blue eyes.
He did indeed volunteer. He voluntarily joined the military. Not just as a paper-pusher, but as a crewman on a 60-ton war machine. Where were his peaceful disposition then? Do you have any idea what a contract is? He agreed to work for the U.S. Army in exchange for payment and various benefits and services. The Army upheld it's end of the bargain by providing payment and benefits. However, Hu*** failed to uphold his end of the agreement and is now subject to UCMJ, which he voluntarily agreed to be held accountable to. The whole point of a contract is that it is binding. You can't simply dismiss it when it's no longer convenient for you. He took the Army's money and ran at the first hint of danger, trying to disguise his greed as high morals.
Hu*** isn't a noble crusader for peace. He had no problem with joining the military and taking their money, nor did he have a problem with signing up for a combat MOS. Hu*** is an unscrupulous cur who was looking for a free ride on Uncle Sam's buck. Regardless of your feelings about the Iraq War, Hu*** should be held responsible for his criminal actions.
Why didn't you do so ? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Brandon didnt even have to set foot on Iraqi soil to make a clear statement outlining his moral beliefs that prevented him from fighting<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't blame him for refusing to fight an unjust war. His oh so sacred contract with the Army didn't mention the possibility of having to crush natives resistance in a colonial war fought for false evidences.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sneer all you want at old fashioned ideas like honesty, integrity, morality and personal ideals, that doesnt detract from a single one of my statements.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theses have nothing to do with your medieval belief that people deserve to be slain for infringing their "honor"...
You want deserting soldiers dead , yet you don't say a thing about the US president who's notorious for causing the deaths of innocents as a governor. So much for your moral principles.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can't blame him for refusing to fight an unjust war. His oh so sacred contract with the Army didn't mention the possibility of having to crush natives resistance<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless, he still signed a contract. Objectively speaking, he is running away from a contract. That is bad. It should not matter wether he feels what he does when he complys with said contract is right or wrong.
This is not to say "What if you signed a contract to eat a baby? Should you do it then?" First of all, don't sign contracts that want you to eat babies. Second, the Iraqi war is at least debatable to be right or wrong. I don't think you can debate "Is eating babies right?"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You want deserting soldiers dead , yet you don't say a thing about the US president who's notorious for causing the deaths of innocents as a governor. So much for your moral principles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And no, capital punishment and war are not comparable. Those are two different things... Really.
<span style='color:white'>If you want to get a shiny new restricted membership, you can simply ask.</span>
Your right - this is not cool, and definately directly related to the UN embargo. However, I do find this still related to Saddam. I see a parallel situation in a family earning $100,000 a year. The money earner is fired, the family continues living like it was on $100,000 a year, and the children starve. The parents then turn around and blame the employer who fired them for killing their children. In that analogy I see Saddam as the parent figure - who could have provided them with such things, but simply chose not to. Lets face it - if you can get uranium from african nations, you should be able to get spare parts. I realise he turned down the uranium offer - but he still could have accepted it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are thinking along the same lines here, although maybe using different approaches. It is true that Saddam is to blame for the suffering of Iraqis under the embargo, but one must also remember that even after it was evident that the sanctions didn't effect Saddam and his confidantes in any way, they were not lifted, mostly because of continued efforts by the US and Great Britain to undermine any attempt to do so. A short while ago, there was a vote in the Security Council to lift the sanctions once and for all. This time both the US and GB supported the motion, while some of those who supported it before, turned against it. The reason behind this was that lifting the sanctions now would in fact imply that the UN supports the invasion led by the United States, which is clearly a signal they do not want to give. Ultimately, the blame for the plight of the common Iraqi rests both on the shoulders of Saddam and his cohorts, and the nations who backed his rise to power. Much like the blame for the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaire) rests still atleast partly on the ex-President Mobutu Sese Seko and his foreign backers.
Oh, and on a side note, the uranium offer seems to have been completely fictious. It is true, that given the possibility to do so, Saddam would most likely have had the budget to buy weapons-grade plutonium. However, no such opportunity presented itself.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its not that I dont care about Iraqi civilians - I just fail to see the rationale behind opposing war based on "innocent Iraqi's will die". The death of Iraqi's is unavoidable whether you took the war stance or the appeasement stance - its entirely irrelevant to the equation. Also of note that the First Gulf War was actually a UN thing - with the majority of troops provided by Middle Eastern nations, and not the US. If you wish to cast suspicions upon the US military slaughtering retreating troops, thats probably not the best scenario to use.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is both true and sad, that despite what occurs, the common Iraqi suffers. Also, as you state, it must be noted that the first Gulf War was indeed sanctioned by the United Nations, IIRC the first time after the Korean War. It must also be noted that most of the troops participating in combat, about 500,000, came from the US, while troops from other coalition countries amounted to about 160,000. (Although the information about the exact troop strenght is a bit sketchy: another source states US troops strenght at over 527,000 and the rest of the coalition at over 205,000.)
And about casting suspicions, how about something more substantial (this is going to be long, so please bear with me):
February 26th-27th 1991
Situation: Iraqi troops are withdrawing from Kuwait in compliance with a UN resolution. This also had something to do with the fact that the Allied ground campaign had begun two days prior.
Locations: A highway leading from Mutlaa, Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. A coastal highway leading from Kuwait to Iraq.
Events: The US forces locate the retreating army columns which are miles long. The entire length of the coastal highway, 60 miles, is spattered here and there with Iraqi armor and light vehicles retreating towards southern Iraq. From somewhere above, a command is given to halt these columns. The result is an unnecessary massacre worthy of a war crime status. The retreating columns which are suspected to have contained also civilian elements are immobilized by destroying the vehicles in the front and rear ends. After that the air force, which really distinguishes itself here by using B-52s to bomb vehicle columns, is sent in to finish the job. The result is tens of thousands dead. The bodies and the wreckage were there for months, and journalists and photographers visiting the site noted that some of the bodies were placed and charred in a way that suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus and other incendiary compounds outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. The precise death toll is unknown, partly due to the army's determined denial of anything like this ever occurring.
The date: March 2nd 1991.
Situation: US ground offensive, titled operation Desert Storm is on full sail. The Iraqi armored divisions, including Division Hammurabi are retreating in front of the technologically overpowering enemy that seems to be capable of finding all enemy concentrations bigger than one infantry squad. The soldiers are afraid of Saddam, but even more afraid of what his propaganda has told them about the treatment of POWs by US troops, and also of the sheer firepower of their adversary.
Events: The Hammurabi Division is retreating towards the Hawr-al-Hammar causeway. Unfortunately they are against Maj. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who even according to his own chiefs of staff was determined to have his armor battle, even if it meant chasing after a retreating enemy division. In the early morning hours of March 2nd a US recon chopper locates the division. Later on the army will claim that the retreating division fired at the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division on a recon mission. After this incident, reported to have happened around 6:30AM, but later disputed by some of McCaffreys own officers ("There was no incoming... The Iraqis were doing absolutely nothing." -Patric Lamar, operations officer) McCaffreys first battle order is logged just after 9AM. The result: a massacre. Over 600 vehicles destroyed. Every vehicle moving towards the causeway was reported to have been destroyed. Even to this date, the army upholds the myth that the Hammurabi Division broke the cease fire, but can give no valid reason for that kind of action. Even though both the claims for and against first fire by the Hammurabi Div. would be neglected, the fact remains that they didn't fight (not that they'd had the time or the means to) when the Apaches started strafing and bombing them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Killswitch has Iraqi (civilian) deaths at 100,000 a year under saddam (seems a little high to me given a pop of 25 million) - I dont know what casualties the American inflicted upon Iraqi civilians, but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 100,000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Killswitch should realize, that during Saddam's years as the President of Iraq (1979-2003) that would come to about 2,3 million people. Even if this account would take in the casualties caused by the two Persian Gulf wars and the Iran-Iraq war (which lasted for 8 years), this count seems a tad high (the estimated casualties range from 500,000 to 1 million dead in the Iran-Iraq war). Comparing to that, the rate of civilian mortalities as 100,000 per year seems unbelievable, especially since some reports rate that during the decade of sanctions, about 400,000 to half a million civilian deaths could be directly or indirectly related to them. Considering that Saddam wasn't at war with anyone during those years, it seems unlikely that he could front the second half a million dead to get to the expected one million-in-a-decade figure. Please do note that I'm not making excuses for Saddam, a violent little ****, here. I just am trying to instill some sense of proportion. Someone do please correct me if I am wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 29 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 29 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Agreed, I would have liked to see the US contribute further to Afghanistan also. I also hate the idea of a power vacuum - which is why I despise with a passion anyone waving the "Troops out Now" banner. It also sticks in my throat that most of these same people accused the Americans of killing innocent Iraqi's, and yet are now baying for the blood of the same innocents by demanding a troop withdrawl.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here we are thinking exactly along the same lines, atleast when it comes to the troop withdrawal thing. Since the invasion of Iraq has already occurred, and the threat of a power vacuum is already there, pulling all the troops out now would just cause even more damage.
He signed a contract with 17 and he expected to do stuf that soliders to in peacetime. He did not expect to be sent to the other side of the earth to get killed by a carbomb while walking around the streets in a war that he thinks its illegal for various reasons (Iraq = Oil). Nice to see a soldier not acting like he is totally brainwashed "It is your duty" (I am not saying that soldiers are brainwashed in general)
If you say that he deserves being punished for this then I think you are very bloodthirsty.
If you say he is a coward for "running away" then plz imagine yourself having the choice of 5 years jail or running away because of a **** little piece of paper.
For the record, I am an American, I've served in the U.S. Army and I opposed the Iraq War.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He signed a contract with 17 and he expected to do stuf that soliders to in peacetime. He did not expect to be sent to the other side of the earth to get killed by a carbomb while walking around the streets in a war that he thinks its illegal for various reasons (Iraq = Oil). Nice to see a soldier not acting like he is totally brainwashed "It is your duty" (I am not saying that soldiers are brainwashed in general)
If you say that he deserves being punished for this then I think you are very bloodthirsty.
If you say he is a coward for "running away" then plz imagine yourself having the choice of 5 years jail or running away because of a **** little piece of paper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contract' target='_blank'>Contract</a>
A contract isn't just a "piece of paper" that some of you seem to think it is. It's a legally binding agreement. <i>Legally binding</i> being the key part. When he signed up, he agreed to receive payment and benefits in exchange for work. Among the things he agreed to abide by was the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is very specific about what you can and can't do, as well as how you will be tried if you break these rules. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he has violated the law. Specifically Article 85, which concerns desertion. He left is unit, organization and place of duty. Wether it was for "morality," which I use loosely, or just because he didn't want to get shot at is irrelevant. Article 85 covers both scenarios.
Think of it this way. By entering a foreign country, you are agreeing to abide by the laws that have been set down there. I'll use the U.S. and Canada as examples. Say that murder is legal in Canada, but not in the U.S. When a Canadian comes to the U.S., they are forbidden to commit any murder. The fact that they are a Canadian citizen is irrelevant. By coming to the U.S., they agreed to follow local laws. It's similar to the military. By joining the military, you agree to follow their rules. He broke those rules and therefore deserves punishment.
He won't be executed. Nobody has been executed for desertion since World War II. He'll most likely get a Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinment for a period of 2-5 years. Expecting him to follow the law is hardly bloodthirsty.
You can not expect from someone to risk his life for things he does not like
I can and do. I have made it abundantly clear why his fleeing to Canada was not an act of moral standing but a shameless attempt at avoiding consequences. The repetition is getting tiring. Please, either state flat out that you dont give two hoots about breaking contract, personal integrity and morality - or abandon attempting to justify his actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Theses have nothing to do with your medieval belief that people deserve to be slain for infringing their "honor"...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you wish to keep this purely about my hardline stance on military cowardice, then I'm more than happy to. Your cheap shots about my personal lack of military experience seemed more aimed at my morality involved with courage, honesty, and facing up to the consequences of your actions rather than about my desire to see him face ultimate punishment - please refrain from hopping from one topic to the other to muddy waters here.
EDIT Scinet - thanks for the comprehensive reply, its given me plenty to think about. I'll reply in the morning, but I'm too angry and flamy to reply now.
<!--QuoteBegin-kittycat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kittycat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can not expect from someone to risk his life for things he does not like<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes you can. Police, firefighters, soldiers. These are men and women who, every day, risk their lives over things that they cannot stand to do, things that they hate. They do the dirty, messy, deplorable jobs that others wouldn't touch, and they risk their lives doing it. I bet that these people would give almost anything to see their professions become unnecessary, but until that time, they continue to serve others.
One of the points that I feel has been generally overlooked is the timeframe of his joining and then deserting.
From his site, he states that he deserted on March 2, 2003. This is 18 days before the first troops were sent to Iraq. Since it's stated that he was still in basic training at this time, I think it's reasonable to assume that he had signed up within two months prior to his desertion. What was going on two months prior to the start of the war? There was plenty of heated discussion about the Iraq situation, and the prospect of going to war was a very real and looming possibility, and in fact had been for some time. For example:
December 18 2002
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, indicates that the UK government believes Iraq has made a "material breach" of the UN resolution. Meanwhile the Ministry of Defence reveals that ships are being chartered to carry troops and heavy armour to the Gulf.
December 19 2002
The United States accuses Baghdad of being in "material breach" of the UN resolution after the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says the Iraqi arms declaration contains little new information about its weapons of mass destruction capability.
January 6 2003
Saddam Hussein says he is ready for war, accuses UN weapons inspectors of being spies and calls his enemies the "friends and helpers of Satan".
January 11 2003
A British naval task force leaves for the Gulf headed by the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier and carrying some 3,000 marines.
(<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html' target='_blank'>source</a>). Note that the U.S. was stratiegically deploying forces at the same time. If Brandon didn't realize that going to Iraq to fight in a war was a very likely thing for a soldier to have to do, then he must have been totally ignorant of news and world politics.
Also, at the same time he would have enlisted, there was an extensive operation going on in Afghanistan, which involved both peacekeeping, and searching for Bin Laden. Even now there are still battles with insurgents going on in the country. So, at the time he would have enlisted, being sent to either Iraq or Afghanistan was essentially a certainty. A question I would like to ask him would be: "would you still have deserted if you had been sent to Afghanistan instead?" The answer I glean from his site is "yes." A quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Is there ever any justifiable cause to go to war?</b>
I believe that if your country is being attacked then you obviously have the right to self defence. The United States was clearly not under attack by Iraq, and military force should never be authorized unless it is absolutely necessary to defend yourself from foreign aggression. It is not the job of the U.S. to act as the world's police force. That responsibility lies with the U.N.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The impression this gives me is that he would refuse to fight in any war unless it involved self defense against another nation (or, I suspect, if he politically agreed with it.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It wasn't until after I had joined the Army that I really began to learn about the war in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this to be highly dubious. I really don't think it's possible to be that ignorant of world events. Also, I believe that when he decided to enlist, his parents or friends (if they cared about him at all) would have talked to him about his choice, and at least one person would have mentioned the possibility of going to war. If he was really that naïve, then so be it, and I say he should have taken some time to research and think about the choice he was making, and its possible consequences, rather than enlist on a lark and expect a free ride.
<i>He made the choice to volunteer and go serve</i>. He was not drafted. He wanted to do this. He chose to do it. He signed a legally binding contract affirming that, under penalty of law, he would follow orders and do his duty. When he found out he would be doing something disagreeable, rather than request transfer to non-combat or to a different assignment, or to do what he signed up for (that would be serve in the army), he decided that he would just up and leave the army, and flee the country. He knew that deserting would carry dire consequences. He is a spineless coward, a deserter, and a criminal. I think it's good that he left the army, because I would not trust such scum to cover the backs of the real soldiers.
If you were too lazy to read my post, I'll sum it up:
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Shoot him in the face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--></span>