More US troops questioning Iraq duty

Camilo Mejia taken away by US Army MP's


As the tally of American casualties in Iraq continues to rise, so does the number of soldiers uneasy about serving in the two-year-old war.

US army figures indicate that since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, about 5500 military personnel have absconded.

Camilo Mejia is one of them. He spent six months in a combat unit in Iraq after the invasion, and upon returning to the US for a vacation decided he would not return for moral reasons.

"The commanders wanted us to get into firefights because they wanted to put that on their resume to make them look better," Mejia told Aljazeera.net. "Thirty people were killed by my unit. About three of those people had weapons."

"'What the hell else are we there for?' Soldiers ask themselves this question. It's like there is no ending," he said.

"You go into an Arab nation, you kill people, you steal their oil, you destroy their country and charge them to have it rebuilt," Mejia said.

"You are giving terrorism a whole new life."

source:
english.aljazeera

As the Pentagon struggles to maintain fresh troops to already overstrched troops Iraq and Afganistan, they are running out of men. So here the draft comes in - especially the so called "powerty-draft" - where mostly men and women from poor backgrounds go to the US Army to get out of money troubles.

"I think poor people are definitely targeted. We refer to it as a poverty draft. What that really means is that recruiters target low-income people. So when they choose which high schools to recruit people from, they spend a lot more time in high schools in poor areas,"

[edit on 13/4/05 by Souljah]

Top Post.

Its good to see some soldiers asking questions about this war.

People are wrong to think this was all just to take Saddam out and is a war on terrorism. So many have died for WHAT??? Not for the freedoms of Iraqi people thats for sure. If we done what we said we were going to do and thats get in, setup the system, get out. Simple, but for some reason they have got to have troops until 2009 maybe longer. WHY???

Extract from website - 11/3/98
Claiming confirmation from unnamed US and UN officials, Walcott reports that Washington agreed to let French and Russian oil firms control expanded Iraqi oil sales as well as extensive repairs of the country’s oil industry, in return for the two governments’ acquiescence in possible US strikes against Iraq in the coming weeks or months.

As you can see the war was planned years before 911 and other "suposed" terrorists attacks.

There is more than enough evidence that Bush IS commiting War Crimes himself so why isn't anyone doing or saying about it!!!!

Yes, but these troops will quickly be labeled as Traitors - which betrayed their country and the US Army. Their "job" is not to quesiton authority, not to quesiton orders - but to follow orders, no matter what they are!

Not to mention the source of this news - Aljazeera.net - which will also quickly be labeled as a terrorist supporter anti-american news station, with pro-islamic propaganda.

I am suprised that your post was positive in this way.

Now, do you really think that ANY of the US presidents were ever charged with War Crimes that they commited, or helped to commit in their service? If you remember Reagan years and Iran-Contra affair, then it is clear, that the International Law does not apply to everybody in the same way - some are Above it!

[edit on 13/4/05 by Souljah]

There are less soldiers doing this than you think. Many that are there are doing their duty and wish to be there. My best friend whom I speak with everyday is in Iraq and I get the scoop(also member here Incognitoghostman). He came home for two weeks of family medical emergency leave and couldn't wait to get back to his piers. This is his duty and will fullfill it. He doesn't see any of the b-crap being portrayed in the media and says differently.

Look it quits quite simple if you sign up for the military in any country you sign a contract that allows the government to send you to Iraq or any hell hole the government chooses.

I didn't have any money. I was broke. I was in debt and there was a $2500 bonus for those who joined, so I sold my soul to the devil," he said.

Wouldnt that money be given as bonus be better off spend on the Welfare have servicemens family or buying body armour for troops?
As a non american Im not sure what is ment by benfits dose it mean a soilder gets free health care ?
These people get paid to kill the enemy what do they expect a PS2 controller?

[edit on 13-4-2005 by xpert11]

EXACTLY.

Look at ourselves, Listen, take orders, don't ask questions etc. etc.

ARE WE NOT FREE PEOPLE. We should not be told what to do, you can only be suggested to do something if you don't like what your doing the common thing to do is question it they don't like it so they lock you up. What a nice world.

Why listen to over paid, stupid, egomaniatic fools that couldn't give a toss what you think!!!

alright its aljazeera but still it is news nonetheless.

ARE WE NOT FREE PEOPLE. We should not be told what to do, you can only be suggested to do something if you don't like what your doing the common thing to do is question it they don't like it so they lock you up. What a nice world.

Why listen to over paid, stupid, egomaniatic fools that couldn't give a toss what you think!!!
.

If someone isnt prepared to face the chain of command then they should wear a differnt uniform no one forced these people to sign up for a military service people will respect someone who gose into a war zone dose a diffcult and hopefully comes out alive. Forgive me if I misread your post cant figuer out which post your refering to.

Originally posted by xpert11
Look it quits quite simple if you sign up for the military in any country you sign a contract that allows the government to send you to Iraq or any hell hole the government chooses.

I agree. Its a contract, and when you put your signature on that contact - your a** belongs to Them. When you enlist into the Army, you are expected to follow orders and shoot to kill if ordered to.

But you know what really caught my eye in this article? This statement:

"The commanders wanted us to get into firefights because they wanted to put that on their resume to make them look better," Mejia told Aljazeera.net.
"Thirty people were killed by my unit. About three of those people had weapons."

3 out of 30 people were armed in their unit? Now that is pathetic! Only 10% of the soldiers were able to defend themselves with guns? Really weird...

You can question all you like...

as posted by Souljah
Yes, but these troops will quickly be labeled as Traitors...

Hmm, perhaps by those who are arm-chair 'generals' and 'resistance experts' such as yourself, Souljah.

As a 1st Gulf War vet, among other actions, I simply choose to either see them as conscientious objector(s) or dereliction of duty offenders.





seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
You can question all you like...

as posted by Souljah
Yes, but these troops will quickly be labeled as Traitors...

Hmm, perhaps by those who are arm-chair 'generals' and 'resistance experts' such as yourself, Souljah.

As a 1st Gulf War vet, among other actions, I simply choose to either see them as conscientious objector(s) or dereliction of duty offenders.

Nope. Not by me, Sir. I never labeled these men as Traitors. What I ment to say was, that they will Get labeled as traitors - mainly by others, BUT NOT by me!

This is not the first thread with the similar topic of US troops refusing service in the Army - and if I remember correctly a bunch of bush-supporters quickly barged in and called these men traitors. I must say I like your two versions of this word better: Conscientious Objector and Dereliction of Duty Offender.

[edit on 13/4/05 by Souljah]

But you know what really caught my eye in this article? This statement:

"The commanders wanted us to get into firefights because they wanted to put that on their resume to make them look better," Mejia told Aljazeera.net.
"Thirty people were killed by my unit. About three of those people had weapons."

3 out of 30 people were armed in their unit? Now that is pathetic! Only 10% of the soldiers were able to defend themselves with guns? Really weird...

While I take the info about 10% of a unit is armed with a pinch salt Im not sure about offices getting men into firefights to boost there resume.
How much of it is lies and how much can be contributed to human error?
A report from a soilder on the ground isnt likely to be 100% accurte this isnt due to the lack of truth but rather what the human eye sees
Was that insurgent killed or did he/she take a dive to avoid fire?

Thats why I dont belive the numbers of insurgents killed that the US military because the numbers are built on a number of flawed reports. Im sure it was the same in vietnam If america and its allies had killed the number of VC they claimed to the war should have been won five times over.

as posted by Souljah
This is not the first thread with the similar topic of US troops refusing service in the Army - and if I remember correctly a bunch of bush-supporters quickly barged in and called these men traitors. I must say I like your two versions of this word better: Conscientious Objector and Dereliction of Duty Offender.

Well, in your drumming of those who do use the word "traitor", bear in mind that for all intents and purposes, they may be correct. You, as others, may want to read this:

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who reneges on an oath of loyalty or a pledge of allegiance, and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

--snip--

In the United States, the accusation of treason has at times been levelled at those who dissented against the government's foreign policy, especially during military actions.

traitor

As I recall, everyone in the military takes the/an oath. As such, that 'oath' is considered an "oath of loyalty".

I am not going to get into a debate or an argument based on semantics. These men and women are entitled to act according to their own ethics and morals, beliefs, opinions, thoughts, and conscience. But in doing so, they will also reap the consequences of their actions.




seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Seekerof]

Sorry Souljah, I did have to comment on this even after at first deciding not to.
You are very correct in that the news source would be brought into question. the english.aljazeera is a very very poor news source. I too monitor thier site but not for posting "news" but for the laughability that they bring to me.
Instead of bringing information to it's viewers, they deliver misinformation. I first started taking note of them when they were airing Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf Saddam's ex Minister of (Dis)Information". Example.... from the article that you have cited:

"The commanders wanted us to get into firefights because they wanted to put that on their resume to make them look better," Mejia told Aljazeera.net.

needless to say that Mejia's claim (if the statement is even true!)
is very comical. If one single commander of troops ever to do this, there are many channels that a trooper could should use to report such behavior. As history has shown, sadly in the past this type of behavior was seen but was quickly quelled since any commander understands that such actions by a lower ranking commander is placing the military resources at risk both directly as well as in-directly.
Also, he did not join the military for anything other than for monetary gain. Then he deceided to break his contract. From what I am reading from your story, Mejia had no intentions of doing anything but to commit the crime of fraud. Hmmmm..... I do believe that this is a crime even in the civilian world, Am I wrong?????
Another problem with the statement, with all the international news coverage that is going on in Iraq,
Where are all the reports on such actions? please, there are way too many anti-american as well as anti-war journalists out there that would die for a "SCOOP" like this.

One other thing, which has been brought up to you in your previous posting on this type of topic. there is something in the military called "Contentious Objector". If you have forgotten what this is, let me remind you. If a member of the US Military, decides that they have a problem with going into a war zone or in taking "military' actions as they are ordered. The military member has the option to put in for Contentious Objector status. Yes this process takes time, but once a trooper has put in for this status, do you REALY think that any commander (much less than his fellow troopers!) would even want such a person anywhere near them in a "fire-fight" situation?

In all of the examples that you have cited in the past (as well as Mejia this time), none of them have ever even attempted to bring the subject of CO prior to their desertion. This "lack of judgement" by any of these deserters now brands them as criminals by the very oaths that they gave and the laws that govern them.
Let me put this in simple terms. Such actions is very similar to a man marrying a woman, fathering 2 or 3 kids, and then leaves since they want to be single again, but forget to tell their wife, children of his decision. This way they can have their "freedom" and their money (since of course they will not be paying alimony or child support).
I have no problems with people who object to the war. I have no problem to people who follow the law and actually take steps to voice their objections. I do have a problem though with people who sign a contract, pledge their loyalty etc. and then take the money then run.

I do not support this war. I do support our troops who are there. As long as these men and women are there I will give them all the support that I can. One of the things that I can do to support them, is to peak out against "Hanoi Janes' such as you have shown yourself to be.
I can understand as well as accept your stance against the war. All that I ask of you, is to instead of attempting to pull down our troops, support them. If you want attack the goverment (I do). Take your frustrations out against GWB. Stop ridiculing our servicemen and women

kenshiro2012,

I undestand your point of view. After all, I dont have any friends down in Iraq, fighting for some Inseane goverment. But the facts, that US troops are questioning orders and intentions of the army and the goverment, are saying that there is something rotten in the land of Denmark (a figure of speech, I dont really mean Denmark). That means that troops, Your People, who are fighting down there, have seen 'nuff and have had 'nuff of this "Crusade for Peace & Liberty" sponsored by hungry capitalistic corporations. I know that they are only pawns on a big board - and they are pretty much innocent. Just as the Iraqi people are; both are dying everyday becaues of somebody elses words. I do not ridicule your serviceman and woman - they are ridiculing your US Army and the goverment.

But yet again we come to this "moral dilemma" - who has the right to decide what to do with his Life and who has the Contract. I fully undestand the meaning of Oath when you join the Army, and what it means ot break it. You are not putting yourself in danger, but your entire unit. But do you, as a soldier, have the Right to question your Army and what they are doing, even with your signature on the Contract? Or is your job to Shut Up and Shoot, without any quesitons asked?

Nice comparison to the married father of 3 kids, who left them - I know how that feels like.


Anyways, I fully afree with mister Seekerof, who said in his last post:

These men and women are entitled to act according to their own ethics and morals, beliefs, opinions, thoughts, and conscience. But in doing so, they will also reap the consequences of their actions.

Again it is a Right against Right situation; one has the right to act according to their own belifs, morals, ethics - and the other has the right to act according to the contract and the laws.


PS: I knew there are going to be comments on the news source - you find them a poor news source, yet I see them as a valid and reliable source, just like any other western. But I do find a western news source laughable - like Fox News for example. This is the diffrence between You and me.

[edit on 13/4/05 by Souljah]

why should you be surprise Souljah? all of America's wars soldiers in all branches have ? about fighting the enemies. either because they don't like killing people even if they are enemies because most soldiers join the military for college money, also some are religious people who do not condone violence like the Quakers for example. if they don't want to join an organization that is design for violence then they shouldnt have join the first place. no one is forcing them to join the military.

because most soldiers join the military for college money,

Can someone explain to me how you hold a gun in your left hand and a book in your right hand?
And I thought I was good at multy tasking.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by xpert11]

Yes, but these troops will quickly be labeled as Traitors - which betrayed their country and the US Army. Their "job" is not to quesiton authority, not to quesiton orders - but to follow orders, no matter what they are!

Soldiers should realize that they hire on to become contract killers. It is their very definition. If they cannot obey orders, then they have chosen the wrong career. I wouldn't label such troops "traitors". To me, that is a term reserved for those purposefully acting against their nation. However, I will label them cowards and quitters, for they signed on and received the benefits of military service, but now want to skip on the check.

If ideology was strong enough to not do their job, then they simply made a bad career move, and now must live with the penalties of that mistake.

agree with u on definition between traitors and cowards Gazrok. traitors are consider people who turn against their own country and threaten the lives of americans. cowards are just people who are afraid and abandon their post. for example Charles Jenkins who defected to North Korea who was sentence for like a month in prison!! not to mention a dishonorable discharge at least thats calm me down. what kind of justice is that, could at least put a little more harsher punishment like a year in prison or somthin.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Soldiers should realize that they hire on to become contract killers. It is their very definition. If they cannot obey orders, then they have chosen the wrong career. I wouldn't label such troops "traitors". To me, that is a term reserved for those purposefully acting against their nation. However, I will label them cowards and quitters, for they signed on and received the benefits of military service, but now want to skip on the check.

If ideology was strong enough to not do their job, then they simply made a bad career move, and now must live with the penalties of that mistake.

My main point of this thread were not the individual soldiers, trying to "quit" the army; for they have every right to, as Free individuals who as you said, made a bad career choice. They are not on trial here. Maybe I have chosen a hard word for them - was not my intention to do that. Its about the Army, and how overstreched it is - stationed in Iraq and Afganistan, with most of the National Guards oversees (The National Guard were originally for emergencies within the United States, so a lot of people join the National Guard for a host of reasons), and everybody just waiting for a draft to happen - and ofcourse lots of dereliction of duty offenders, who really do not contribute to the overall status and public opinion of the Army. This war will now be 2 years since its supposed End - and still there is need for more troops!

According to army figures the active-duty army in March missed a monthly recruiting goal for the first time since May 2000, and the Guard and Reserve are also lagging. And as the Pentagon struggles to find enough troops to replace already overstretched units in Iraq and Afghanistan, many say it is resorting to measures that amount to an unofficial draft.

Souljah,
I can speak from my own history on this. I am a former member of the US military forces. I was in the Gulf War. So I can address some of your points here. I also entered the military for 2 reasons, the first was to travel the world and also for the educational benefits both of which I filled to my satisfaction.
1) If a military member is given orders that are immoral or illegal, they are required under the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) to report such orders to their commander's superiors. If there is no action, by military commanders, then one fallback that a military member has is to request a Congressional Invesitgation. I have actually used the latter method in the past. All military members are aware of these rights and duties. so when Mejia makes the statement that his commanders were placing them into fire-fights so that the commanders can put it into their resume demonstrates his (as well as his fellow troopers) lack of following the UCMJ.
2) If when a military member comes to a personal decision that to continue to fight is somehting that they can no longer do. That member then has the option to elect for CO status. Mejia again failed to do this,

Yes, it is indeed a Moral Dilemma, and one that needs to be addressed. Again though, there are steps in place where such dilemmas can be resolved. In the case of Mejia, by his own words, his entrance into the military was soley for monetary gain. After his entrance and inductiion, training, he could have easily submitted fir CO status and thus not have placed himself into such a moral dilemma and also would have been able to fullfill his contract.

As to the news source, well, we will have to agree to disagree on the validity of reports from Aljazeera news. Suggestion, add a few more sources to back up thier statements.

One thing we agree on though, th FoxNews "Fair and Balanced" is in many cases also laughable
I have used them in the past for 2 reasons, One they tend to report the news first. The second, is due to my job, I monitor their reports. When I post news articles here, I may use them as the origional source, but as soon as the other networks and news sources catch up, then I add them to the posting to back things up.

I have one more question for you though. If as aljazeera states, Meia's claim of being placed into fire-fights for nothing other than the glorification of their commanders, where are the other news reports on this or on the number of unarmed kills that aljazeera reports?
Just a thought.