Antiwar Sailor Is Charged By Navy (from ATSNN)

Rockin the oldies...Thanks for the Coleridge!

This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with.

I feel no sympathy for the guy even if he is a Conscientious Objector. The military has spent the taxpayers money on his training. I am sure he knew how he felt before he signed up whether or not he could do the job. He is just trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Like you said, I hope he is man enough to accept the consequences of his actions.

People need to understand that the military follows a different system of justice than the US. It is in a way a seperate entity. You surrender many rights for the privelege to defend the rights of others. This punk needs to learn to accept responisibility to either do his job or suffer the consequences. It's not an easy job but someone has to do it.

Only one thing to do with a guy like this and its "Hang Em High". Really you join the military knowing that there is a possibity of going to war at anytime and if your against war then why join the military. No its just another idiot who doesn't want to leave his girlfriend behind because he knows whats going to happen after 3 months of being on ship and away from him.(MARINE CORPS BASE SAN DIEGO)

Originally posted by heelstone
This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with.

Um, I'm sorry maybe I'm not getting you right did you mean the sailor that is in question????? And if you did what do you mean? If they don't join the military then they can't be anything now can they? And Honorable please what kind of a Honorable person would sign a contract and then when when duty calls they said forget it and denied their duty.

The Navy evidently isn't out to make an example here. A Special Court Martial is like being convicted of a misdemeanor. He could theoretically do a little time and then get out with a Bad Conduct Discharge, so it's not like they'll just slap him on the wrist, but this definately isn't as bad as it could be. He's breaking his contract, he's getting a pretty fair deal on the punishment- let's see him be a man, plead guilty, serve whatever penalty the court finds appropriate (which shouldn't be too bad really- probably not even as long as his remaining time in service) then get on with his life.
I suppose I can't expect somebody to go fight when they don't believe in the war, but I can't exactly cry him a river when he let himself get into the military with the knowledge of what might happen. It's 2005 now. The odds that this guy didn't know about the war on terror when he enlisted are almost nil, and the odds that he didn't know we were going to Iraq are at least a bit slim.

I here you on that. And there is no way he didn't know about either. I feel like they should make an example out of him and definitly make him finish his enlistment in the brig.

Originally posted by heelstone
This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with.

I think your statement is fundamentally flawed. Here...let me try to correct it for you.

"This is the most honorable type of soldier around (NOT). The only soldier more noble is one who fights and dies for his country and YOUR FREEDOM!!"

Amen to that brother.

Originally posted by Ohio_Ron

Originally posted by heelstone
This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with.

I think your statement is fundamentally flawed. Here...let me try to correct it for you.

"This is the most honorable type of soldier around (NOT). The only soldier more noble is one who fights and dies for his country and YOUR FREEDOM!!"

Whether or not anybody these days fights "for your freedom" is subjective, to say the least. No? It's easy to romanticise it. In reality, today, the military is a job, a career. You volunteer to serve, essentially you should fulfill your end of the bargain. But to say that, today, those in Iraq are "fighting for your freedom" is extremely debateable.

Ordinary civilians; teachers, postmen, salesmen, shopkeepers, drafted to fight the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific "fighting for your freedom"? Yes

A relatively small contingent of professional soldiers, airmen and seamen tasked with invading a militarily inferior sandbox based on "dead wrong" intelligence "fighting for your freedom"? They might be fighting for freedoms, but not yours, or the Iraqi's. IMO of course.

What I have found by studying history in general (crusades, WWI, Colonization) I understand more now why China, Islamists, and African hate us. It's not because they are communists, Muslim, or Slavery. It's because of geopolitical ambition and we do not wish to take responsibility for it. I am not anti-american by any means, it is just that western civilization has to realize that what goes around comes around and if we cannot take the flak coming at us, then we should have never expanded because the world is not a nice place.

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by Ohio_Ron

Originally posted by heelstone
This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with.

I think your statement is fundamentally flawed. Here...let me try to correct it for you.

"This is the most honorable type of soldier around (NOT). The only soldier more noble is one who fights and dies for his country and YOUR FREEDOM!!"

Whether or not anybody these days fights "for your freedom" is subjective, to say the least. No? It's easy to romanticise it. In reality, today, the military is a job, a career. You volunteer to serve, essentially you should fulfill your end of the bargain. But to say that, today, those in Iraq are "fighting for your freedom" is extremely debateable.

Ordinary civilians; teachers, postmen, salesmen, shopkeepers, drafted to fight the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific "fighting for your freedom"? Yes

A relatively small contingent of professional soldiers, airmen and seamen tasked with invading a militarily inferior sandbox based on "dead wrong" intelligence "fighting for your freedom"? They might be fighting for freedoms, but not yours, or the Iraqi's. IMO of course.

1. No where, in what I quoted from heelstone, nor what I said, had anything to do with the Iraq situation. I don't condone certain things that our Government has done, and probably won't condone certain things in the future. This kid joined the military of his own free will, nobody twisted his arm! CO status is one thing, but waiting until the last minute to file for it is totally irresponsible on his part. Waking up just prior to deployment and deciding, "I can't kill someone during war time" is candy-arsed! That should have been contemplated prior to signing the papers. When anyone voluntarily joins the armed forces, they very well better read the fine print.

2. I joined the military in 1982 and was honorably discharged in 1992. When some one spews, "This is the most honorable type of soldier around. The only soldier more noble is one who does not sign up for military service to begin with. " it pisses me off to no end!

3. "A relatively small contingent of professional soldiers, airmen and seamen " is what will save your arse should another "rogue nation" decide to play "WWII Japan or Germany" with your freedom!

OK, well I know I might draw all sorts of fire for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.
The idea that a soldier fights for freedom is largely fallacious as far as military history in general is concerned. A soldier could be considered fortunate if he is even fighting for the national interest (as opposed to private ones). Even then, a soldier will fight for advantage just as often as he will fight for freedom.
My point certainly is not to say that our troops (many of whom are close personal friends of mine) are not deserving of respect. My point is simply that there is a tendency to romanticize and exaggerate the motives and the facts of a war, and this is bad for the troops. I think the "fighting for our freedom" cliché gets people killed in wars that would not be tolerated if they were discussed in a more objective light. How would you like to be one of the people who lost their a son in the Philippine-American war, trying to oppress people in a country that our own President admitted he couldn't find on the map at the time that he had given the order to take it from Spain!?
Historically, armies are the last refuge of the poor and the desperate. They have often been treated with little pretense as disposable heroes- paid to die. If that's not what we want our army to be, then we must accept that as the end to which an army will naturally gravitate if we do not consider our wars carefully in an honest light, and consider the pay, treatment, and preparation of our troops carefully as well.
In short I attack the cliché of troops necessarily fighting "for our freedoms" because I hope the result will be that we take care to see that they do. I would not want to see them wasted on less worthy causes.


So, let's look at the history of the United States, shall we?

Revolution: Fought for Freedom.

Northwest Indian War: Fought for Expansionism.

Quasi-War with France: Fought to protect American shipping.

War of 1812: Fought for Western Expansion and to re-open agricultural trade overseas.

First Seminole War: Fought to quell Indians and stop them from accepting run-away slaves, as well as to gain control of Spanish-held Eastern Florida.

The Second Barbary War: Fought to protect American shipping.

Second and Third Seminole Wars: Fought to displace Seminoles after Spain left Florida.

Black Hawk War: Fought for Expansionism

Mexican-American War: Fought for Expansionism.

Civil War: Arguably fought for freedom (both sides).

Spanish American War: Fought for Colonialism

Philippine-American War: Fought for Colonialism

Boxer Rebellion: Fought for Economic Advantages in China

Then you have the banana wars from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Panama, even Hawaii etc etc which lead Marine legend Smedley Butler to write his book "War is a Racket" and refer to himself as "A gangster for capitalism" and "High-class muscle for the Dole Corporation". All of those fought for Colonialism.

WWI, WWII, and Korea you could call "the good wars" if such a thing could ever be said without being oxymoronic. They were all fought not only for Freedom but in some cases arguably for the freedom of others. I think we should underscore that for about 50 years, America didn't really fight any purely expansionist or economic wars. That's really not bad at all for a major power which almost constantly has a problem somewhere in the world that could be solved by shooting someone.

I would argue that WWI changed the way we viewed and the way we treated our armed forces. The men who brought down the Kaiser couldn't be viewed as assets to be loaned out to corporate interests, and the Marine Corps which distinguished itself so highly in France was more than an imperial police force. So things changed until Vietnam.
Vietnam set us back 50 years. Vietnam proved just how political war could be and made our men disposable again. Vietnam paved the way for every half-hearted knee-jerk operation of the Clinton years and if not for the War in Iraq itself then surely for the way it is being handled. If we had retained the lessons of the world wars and not bought the mistakes of Vietnam there is no way we would be doing this kid-gloves routine in Iraq that is leading to an inflated casualty rate.

Our soldiers don't always fight for freedom. We say they do, but we don't always support them as if we believed it. This is the root of a great many problems. We'd better keep it where we believe in what we're fighting for just as much as we believe in fighting for freedom, and we'd better mean it. If that's not your attitude, all wars become Vietnam.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by The Vagabond]