Is he really letting down the people he swore an oath to protect?

I am sure if the US was attacked he would take up arms to protect it against an aggressor. That is a big difference from being sent out as the aggressor by a crazed leader in an illegal war.
Those who send their soldiers oversees in a war of aggression care little, or nothing at all, for those soldiers. And, to be honest, the wars these guys are being made to fight are about economics and not "freedom and democracy".
Those at the top talk so much about honour and sacrifice but have no honour themselves and certainly make no personal sacrifice.

OK question for all of those out there swearing that if you make an oath, you should be hung, arrested, and/or court-martialed for breaking that oath.


What about the sacred oath of marriage? How many of you have been divorced? If you have, what makes the oath for marriage any less binding than the oath to protect the country? I guess you never change your mind in life or do you always follow through on something you said a decade ago?


Just a different viewpoint.

"Thou shalt not kill". Lovely little slogan. And I'm sure that if France used this in the face of Germany's attack, Hitler would have ordered his troops to turn around. Or maybe Saddam would have stopped using chemicals against his own people. Or maybe Japan would have ordered their Kamikaze fighters away from Pearl Harbor.

The fact is we (or any nation) are not imune from being attacked by another. This is why we have a military--because "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't work.

When you enter the military, you take an oath to protect and defend the constitution--our way of life. This requires the soldier to give up some personal liberties. This soldier has no right to do what he did and he therefore should be punished--unless, of course, he is suffering from some kind stress disorder; in which case he should be treated--then punished.

I totally understand the guys point of view and argument. I also dont like this war and think it isnt truly protecting Americans. I agree in sentiment with him.

But the guy's methods make him a coward. He is an adult that made an adult choice to serve his country, in a way that could bring him into harms way. And now that its time for him to fight, he backs down. The part that makes me so upset is, some other soldier is going to be standing in this guys place, some other soldier who lived up to his commitment and he may get killed. So through indirect actions, another person who lived up to his oath may die. And thats what bugs me about deserters. And please stop all the "why dont you all enlist" crap. The guy had a choice to do it, he made a promise that he wont keep.

And if people are measured by thier actions, then this guy is a coward. He says he would deffend his country in a just war, but those are just words at this point. The only actions he has shown so far is dessertion.

Im not kicking the guy because he doesnt want to go, I am kicking him because he is letting people down, possibly at the cost of thier lives.

He is a coward.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by skippytjc]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by skippytjc]

He enlisted to defend and fight for his country against threats perceived to be real and not ones his own country begatted. He simply does not want to fight in an unjustified war. Why should he kill innocents who have done no harm to his country?

Deep

He signed a legal contract.

In order to break it, both parties have to agree to a new contract. (in the case of marriage, the new contract is "divorce") Or, there must be a failure of one of the two parties, leading to the penalty clause. In divorce, this is usually the guilty one (the one breaking his/her end of the deal) paying up. In the military case, this means the one breaking the contract is then subject to the penalty phase, made perfectly clear when he signed the contract.

He's free to try and get Uncle Sam to agree to a new contract, but not a great history of that happening, hehe... Too bad, so sad...

This man is in the service. He has after years become integrated into the system. He is accountable under the system in which he volunteered.

While the bible says thou shall not kill, and it also says an eye for an eye, it also says turn the other cheek. But keep in mind people, Once shame on you, twice shame on me. Sorry men, the commander of the ship left. We all have to go home.

Do not use the bible as an exuse to deny your sworn duty for a greater good. If he wished not to be in the service, then allow him to serve the remainder of his term in a community position of charity out of harms way. That way he can be peaceful. Cowardice was a characteristic of some of the Apostles. There is a lesson to be learned in denial when one has pledged commitment.

[edit on 27-1-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by HIFIGUY]

by Monica Benderman

In a democracy, we are supposed to have choices. Our Constitution gives us those choices. Our Constitution is founded on the highest order of morality. As a soldier, my husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman, has a sworn duty to defend his country and its Constitution. As a soldier, my husband therefore has a sworn duty to defend morality.
"Thou shalt not kill." After seeing the immorality of war firsthand, my husband has laid down his weapons to kill no more. What greater defense of our Constitution is there?

Defending the Constitution is not the only part of that oath. The oath goes like this:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Swearing that you will defend the Constitution is all well and nice, but you also swear to obey the lawful orders of those superiors, including the democratically-elected Commander-in-Chief, who are appointed by Congress over you. If you don't like those lawful orders than you are, as we used to say, SOL baby.

War is hell and it ain't easy. It tears people apart and places an exceptional burden on those in the military. Thats is precisely why we have things like Veteran's Day, special gov't benefits for vets, and high levels of respect for those who faithfully and honorably served. Because you don't always get sweet duty assignments at NAS Bermuda, or Hickam Air Field at Pearl Harbor. Sometimes you get the shaft, and sometime you get sent into the meat grinder. Thats why its a voluntary based service.

This guy could have filed for CO status at any time during his first tour, or thereafter. He didn't. He waited until 1 week before deployment, and then pulled this stunt. This guys should be stripped of rank, jailed, and then dishonorably discharged.

Does the military oath include killing women and children in cold blood and torturing people?

Originally posted by masterp
Does the military oath include killing women and children in cold blood and torturing people?

Yes, it certainly could mean that if you are so instructed to do it.

If it is lawful and within the scope of your duty, then yes.

Do you think war is a tip-toe through the tulips?

Originally posted by masterp
Does the military oath include killing women and children in cold blood and torturing people?

When was this guy ordered to to that?

Any such order would be unlawful, and could be refused without penalty.

Show me where that guy was ordered to do those things and I might start feeling sorry for him. As it is he has broken the law, and I fail to see why people can defend him.

What is next, I don't think I should get speeding tickets because I do not agree with any policy that limits how fast I can drive?

Originally posted by Gazrok

In a democracy, we are supposed to have choices. Our Constitution gives us those choices.

He gave up those choices when he enlisted at least for the duration of his sign up.
He was made fully aware of both the benefits and the obligations of military service when he signed up.
If he is so against killing of any kind...perhaps choosing professional killer was not the wisest career choice?
That's kind of like a hooker complaining about the morality of sex.
Sure, everybody just loves the benefits, free housing, food, just saving up your money, house loans, free medical, etc. But when Uncle Sam comes to collect, suddenly you're born again? Nope, doesn't work that way. You sign up to be a professional killer, and collect the pay for it, then you show up to do the job. Simple as that.

I agree. I can see him not wanting to fight based on a disagreement in the justification of this war, but not because he doesn't believe in killing. The idiot shouldn't have enlisted if his religion disagrees with the job description. You can't be born again whenever it's convenient. He can still go to Iraq, and if he really doesn't want to kill when/if the time comes, I suppose he'll just have to take some lead. My guess is that he'd kill if he had to. If not, well then, he'll just have to learn a tough lesson and possibly die for his stupidity.

Originally posted by Souljah
deny ignorance.

increase tolerance.

and NEVER judge a man,
if you havent walked in his shoes.

that is all i can say to you...

I have walked in his shoes Souljah, not in Iraq but in Northern Ireland and the Balkens. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, he is a Soldier and War is his job. He is wrong to refuse another tour as long as he is in the Service of his Country.
Theres an old saying in the British Army; " If you cant take a joke, you shouldnt have joined "
If he dosent go then someone else perhaps with less experience than him will have to.
I respect your point of view, but he swore an oath and should stand by it.

Give me a break, people change.

Example:

I joined the Corps in January 98, was honorably discharged June 2001. I am in inactive reserve now (and until January 2006), so in theory I could be called up. It has been 7 years since I signed that paper. I am no longer single but married with two kids and one on the way. I am the only one who works for pay in my house.

I have come to the conclusion that I would only kill if I had no other choice. In other words, I'd tell Uncle Sam to kiss my ass if he tried to call me back.

I am no coward.

I truthfully believe that if this man decided to make his decision to leave the military he should welcome the consequences with open arms.
It will show his determination to stay with his decision if he goes to jail for his choice. I myself would gladly trade X number of years of my life to be able to rest at night that the blood of others is not on my hands. If he fails to accept the fallout from his choice I will lose a lot of respect for him.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Give me a break, people change.

Example:

I joined the Corps in January 98, was honorably discharged June 2001. I am in inactive reserve now (and until January 2006), so in theory I could be called up. It has been 7 years since I signed that paper. I am no longer single but married with two kids and one on the way. I am the only one who works for pay in my house.

I have come to the conclusion that I would only kill if I had no other choice. In other words, I'd tell Uncle Sam to kiss my ass if he tried to call me back.

I am no coward.

You will not go if called? How would you service your family by rotting in jail? That better? You say you are the sole provider, how would your family get by when you are earning nothing in prison? Dont get me wrong, you served and thats commendable, but you are still obligated under that oath until 2006.

I only going to say this, when a soldier starts questioning the oath he took to defend his country we have to understand that he is not killing people that are a thread to the US, he is killing people, the people that is defending their own country in their own lands.

We are the invaders in Iraq. The Iraqis are defending their country and their lands.

Marg, please allow me the latitude to slightly alter your quote to make a point:

Originally posted by marg6043
I only going to say this, when a soldier starts questioning the oath he took to defend his country we have to understand that he is not killing people that are a thread to the US, he is killing people, the people that is defending their own country in their own lands.

We are the invaders in Nazi Germany. The Nazis are defending their country and their lands.

Geo-political motivations can be debates all day long. They should be debated all day long. It is the right and the duty of American citizens to question their government's actions.

It is not, however, the right and duty of a US serviceman to question those same actions if they are presented to them as a lawful order. The soldiers are charged with protecting the citizens and executing the policy of the government. The citizens are responsible for protecting the soldiers and ensuring the policy of the government is righteous and true.

The moment a soldier begins to challenge a government's legal actions, it begins the slippery slope of rebellion and coup. Our servicement are taugh to understand this critical relationship, and they understand that when you sign up, you are sacraficing a great deal, including your right to political activism.

It's a damn good thing that during WWII there weren't alot of soldier and people who think as you do. If you hate the war, take it to the government. Regardless of policy, however, you had better hope and pray that our military faithfully executes their lawful orders they receive them, and never think of itself as a political entity.




[edit on 27-1-2005 by Pyros]

[edit on 27-1-2005 by Pyros]

duplicate





[edit on 27-1-2005 by Pyros]