No it doesn't boil down to blind obedience, and there is a huge
difference between the Nazis and the current US military. The one of then
biggest differences is that we (the US) will prosecute people that break
the law, where as the SS didn't.

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107028963.216475.74470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Jay T.Beatty wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106905316.257404.34700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Jay T.Beatty wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106427558.910146.61820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jay T.Beatty wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message

Let's see if I can figure this out. Deserters are

simply

because they don't believe in the lies of the government

yet

the

same people who would gladly lynch one of them believes

George

Bush

is

a great President. Yet he was a deserter.

It's amazing. The level of cognitive dissonance among

people

is

beyond belief.

A deserter is a coward because the refuse to do a job they

were

trained

for, when the time comes to do it. Others are depending on

them

to

do that

job. It really doesn't have much to do with their political

views.

Garbage. A deserter is no coward. They're simply using

or

morals to protest the most unreasonable and immoral practice

ever:

unnecessary war.

Reason and morals huh? Like, their to afraid to fulfill

obligations, or perhaps it's that they have simply run out on

their

buddies

in their time of need because of their fear? Yep, looks like

their

cowards

to me. How is it not? Did they join thinking that the

might never

have to fight a war and they would be wouldn't be called on?

thats the

case they are not cowards, they're just plain stupid.

Actually, most are decieved to enter in a contract which the

government

feels is as important as the toilet paper I use to wipe my *****

with.

They join to *defend* our country, not fight preemptive wars of

dubious

merit. If you think war for it's own sake (or the death of your
countrymen for a rich man's profits) is "honorable", then the

*real*

cowards are those that decide to go along with it in silence

they

know it's wrong.

You probably should have read the contract before you signed it,

did and

I knew exactly what I was getting when I signed. It's not the

military's

fault that people doesn't read the things, if I recall correctly

have

to go and look at my contract) there's even a place were you have

verify

that you read it. So it's not so much that the government isn't

honoring

the contracts, it's that people are too stupid to read them.

You're a fool if you think the government won't violate their

when it suits them. They've done it before and they'll do it

At best, it's a devil's bargain where only one side gets a fair say

is reasonably expected to follow the spirit and the letter.

And this happened before when?

What you propose is exactly the kind of blind obedience which

to

things like the Holocaust. Hey, they were "following orders"

shouldn't have questioned their leadership, right? Deserters

no

more "cowards" than anyone else who refuses to do something

immoral.

The Army "values" of Integrity, Honor, and Personal Courage

includes physical as well as *moral* issues) pretty much mean

a

Soldier is living up to the definition of what the Army's about.

What I propose is that people follow through on their

not

blind obedience.

Obligations to what, though? If one is obligated by the US
Constitution (the thing we all raised our hand to protect when we

in at MEPS), then there's no reason to go to Iraq. The UN Charter

the act was illegal and the US is bound by treaty to follow it.

is, if it ever lived by the rule of law.

Obligations to their country, their service, and most importantly

members of their unit that were depending on them to watch their

during a combat deployment. BTW, isn't the oath to protect the

the consititution, deffently not the UN) from all enemeys, forign and
domestic?

It's not the up to the soldiers to decide policy, thats
the job of our civilian leaders that are elected, it's the

job to

follow the lawful orders of those leaders. Can you show where the

order to

deploy with my unit is not legal?

It violates the UN Charter, which is US law under Article 6 of the

Constitution.

If so I'll make sure that I bring that up
to JAG and not go, but if you can't then I'll be deploying with

As

soldiers we don't get to decide which legal orders to follow.

Which boils down to blind obedience. Which is why we're seeing

prisoner torture scandals from Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and A-stan

time and time again. The orders to torture were "legal" (according

a twisted interpretations of the Geneva Conventions by Alberto
Gonzalez, current Attorney General) only because the government

so. So was the Holocaust *legal* under Nazi German law. Did we

the SS a free pass? Nope. We said during the Nouremberg

that following orders is no excuse.

No it doesn't boil down to blind obedience, and there is a huge

between the Nazis and the current US military. The one of then

differences is that we (the US) will prosecute people that break the

where as the SS didn't.

Too bad Nouremberg was nothing more than a political show trial.

Unless of course, the Army "values" are nothing but crap which

people

pay only lip service (don't bother denying it. I was in and saw

first

hand how much those "values" are actually followed, which was

as

often as the civilian world). Actually, in the civilian world I

see

more people living by those values than I did in the military,

which is

a haven for bullies given the big stick of the UCMJ.

Ah, now I see. This is the battle cry of every just about every

soldier

that has gotten into trouble, or the ones that have not liked

time in

the military.

Since when has not liking your time in the military been a bad

I never got so much as an Article 15 during my 2 years and left

chance I got. Liked some NCOs and thought others were careerist
assholes who were doing anything to get ahead (even screwing over

in their own battery). Just because I don't like it doesn't mean

words somehow become "illegitimate."

If this is truely the case then I commend you for doing a honorable

which is fullfilling you contract and leaving when your time was up.

nothing wrong with not liking the military, it's not for everyone, at

you finished what you started which is more than can be said for

went AWOL.

It's always some NCO or officer, that was most likely doing
his (or her) job (enforcing standard and insuring that regulations

were

being followed) that is to blame for the bad time that the soldier

having. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it.

Most people with at least a functioning brainstem would say "You

so many people say this so maybe there's a problem." Then there

others who say "Don't confuse me with fact, my mind's already made

Perhaps your right, but let me give you an example, a soldier that

caught smoking dope by way of UA, gets hit with an article 15 and is

extra duty, and he complains that his NCOs are assholes because they

"mean" to him, and that it's all their fault that he is in trouble.

reality is that he's a peace of crap, and has the discipline of two

old. It's the fault of his NCO's? Yeah right like they held him

forced the joint in his mouth and made him smoke it.

Army "values" is nothing more than something most in the Army pay

service to. Especially the Army Value of Respect. If they did

respect to their soldiers, they wouldn't treat raw recruits like

were total morons (and the government might actually get rid of CC

give them raises). And after OSUT, the situation just continues.
Until I get "rank", then magically overnight I'm human by their
standards. Screw that.

I'm not going to pretend that I knew what it was like in the unit

were in, some people with rank are like that it's true, and it's too

that you had such a bad time cause when its good, it's real good.

As for
respect, there are something I'd never allow a private to do, no

responsible or educated he is. I think that rank should be

also believe that respect is a two way street, you have to give to

it.

The one of then biggest
differences is that we (the US) will prosecute people that break the

where as the SS didn't.

You're a fool if you think the government won't violate their contract
when it suits them. They've done it before and they'll do it again.
At best, it's a devil's bargain where only one side gets a fair say and
is reasonably expected to follow the spirit and the letter.

And this happened before when?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:58:40 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

I knew you were - I thought "A deserter is no coward" referred to
Shrub. My error.

Do you realize that by the definition you have used - you are
basically calling me a deserter? (And I am winding up a tour in Iraq
right now.)