DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Soldier Fights Extradition in Canada
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 117, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/16/2004 04:08:48 PM · #51
All the last few posts have been good points Kavey and Olyuzi and tho I see what Socal is saying, I have to agree that unless you have served in a war or closely know of someone who has, its hard to realize the full affect it can have on a human, especially in a situation where you may not allways feel like the 'good guy'.

My dad used to tell me when I was young and being a smarty pants, "you dont really know until you KNOW".
 07/16/2004 04:10:05 PM · #52
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Have you served in war?


No. So I guess I have no idea what I'm talking about.


*****
It's very easy to say that this man with a young family should fulfill his obligations because he signed a contract, but until you've been in his shoes, it's alot easier to do that behind a computer screen. Not that you don't know what you're talking about, but what's going on there is a horror and I can understand where he's coming from. This is not just about a business/military contract, but ethical and humane issues.


Doesn't mean I don't have friends or family over there. You can break a contract anytime you want, but you must expect to pay the price. If he didn't want to abide by the rules he should not have signed up. I beleive they tell you that you don't have a choice what wars you fight in when you sign up.
07/16/2004 04:15:28 PM · #53
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Hey, how old are the Bush daughters? Shouldn't they enlist and be eligible to be sent off to war?


It's a free country, if they chose to, they can. How is that relevant to the topic?


Because when my son has served his four years in the military I think it should be someone elses turn. It breaks my heart that all of his young life will be spent like this. He joined when he was seventeen and should be out by twenty one but has already been told he will have a fifth year and a third deployment. Three years over seas?

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 16:16:28.
 07/16/2004 04:24:07 PM · #54
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
tho I see what Socal is saying, I have to agree that unless you have served in a war or closely know of someone who has, its hard to realize the full affect it can have on a human, especially in a situation where you may not allways feel like the 'good guy'.

My dad used to tell me when I was young and being a smarty pants, "you dont really know until you KNOW".


I agree with this statement completely. I cannot even begin to imagine what it is like, since I have not gone through it myself. However, since he decided to join the military (which, if memory serves, historically involves wars, guns, blood and horror), he should honor the obligation.

I do not mean to imply that this commitment is taken lightly or is insignificant. However, I think it is pretty obvious he knew what he was doing when he enlisted. His hope was that he could serve in peacetime and reap the benefits without having to actually be deployed into combat. Once he found that he actually had to be deployed, he chose to ignore his commitment and run.

My only point is this, despite all the rhetoric about the war that has gone on in the above posts... If you choose to enlist, you need to honor that commitment, whether you agree with the policies of the military (and president) or not. The military offers several administrative remedies to make your objections known. However, once you have exhausted those remedies, you must abide by the outcome, regardless of your opinion of whether that outcome was right or wrong. This is the way our civil, criminal and military system works.

I am making what I believe to be a simple single point. I make no assertions about the validity of the war, this soldier's beliefs or objections, or the impact of the horrors of war on a soldier or his/her family.
07/16/2004 06:01:46 PM · #55
here here Socal.

So, as far as what the soldier is doing, why isnt the US going after him? Is he now under the protection of Canada? Or is this one of those things like "hide now, when you come back..."?
 07/16/2004 06:12:52 PM · #56
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Just like no one in the Bush family has sent their children to fight overseas...


Actually they did, he was shot down in the Pacific and awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery in action.
 07/16/2004 06:19:57 PM · #57
Originally posted by jimmyn4:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Perhaps you should ask this of a college football or basketball coach ... they seem to find it perfectly fine to "move on" whenever a better offer surfaces, regardless of the commitments they made to their school or recruits.


In the words of Dr. Evil "Riiiight"

Coaches have these things called clauses in the contract that allow them to do such things. Anyways, back on subject.

I'm not saying this guy followed it, because I'm very uninformed on the particulars of this individual case, but there is a provision in the "contract" military inductees make with the US Government covering the proper procedures and circumstances under which current personnel may pursue a claim of Contientious Objector status.

I'm not in a position to judge the validity of his particular claim, but it is certainly within the law to make a claim
 07/16/2004 06:53:23 PM · #58
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I think us "softies" are already questioning why our government didn't do anything to stop the WTC attacks when they had foreknowledge of the attacks.


Is it that time of the month again? You really need to try renewing your prescriptions BEFORE they run out.


****
Have you served in war, Tom?


No, I've never been to war, but I am aware of basic military strategies like "forward deployment". Thankfully we have brave people willing to go overseas so the FDNY doesn't have to fight another war here at home.
 07/16/2004 07:18:23 PM · #59
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Now, after having accepted and received all of these benefits, they have decided that they do not want to keep up their end of the bargain. I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. If a private company contracts for you to do a job, and they pay to train you, house you and provide a salary, and you accept all those benefits, do you then get to just decide to change your mind when you suddenly "don't agree" with the underlying princples?

Perhaps you should ask this of a college football or basketball coach ... they seem to find it perfectly fine to "move on" whenever a better offer surfaces, regardless of the commitments they made to their school or recruits.


College coaches are not paid with taxpayer's money.
 07/16/2004 09:24:42 PM · #60
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Now, after having accepted and received all of these benefits, they have decided that they do not want to keep up their end of the bargain. I'm sorry but this is unacceptable. If a private company contracts for you to do a job, and they pay to train you, house you and provide a salary, and you accept all those benefits, do you then get to just decide to change your mind when you suddenly "don't agree" with the underlying princples?


Perhaps you should ask this of a college football or basketball coach ... they seem to find it perfectly fine to "move on" whenever a better offer surfaces, regardless of the commitments they made to their school or recruits.


College coaches are not paid with taxpayer's money.

Coaches at the University of California are paid with taxpayer money, as well as those at San Jose State, Michigan State, UCLA, and "several" other well- and lesser-known schools ....

The issue is what kind of example we set for our young people in terms of "commitment." When they routinely see "responsible" adults walking away from those commitments (contract holdouts by athletes and entertainers are another notorious example), why should they be presumed to understand that some other standard applies ... besides, like I pointed out, there is a way to do this completely within "proper procedure." It's not illegal, it's not immoral, it may be unethical, and it is definitely rare.

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 21:28:39.
 07/16/2004 11:03:50 PM · #61
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I think us "softies" are already questioning why our government didn't do anything to stop the WTC attacks when they had foreknowledge of the attacks.


Is it that time of the month again? You really need to try renewing your prescriptions BEFORE they run out.


****
Have you served in war, Tom?


No, I've never been to war, but I am aware of basic military strategies like "forward deployment". Thankfully we have brave people willing to go overseas so the FDNY doesn't have to fight another war here at home.


******
So why don't you enlist and help our men/women over in Iraq, or are you just another chickenhawk? Surely there's something you could there to help.

Message edited by author 2004-07-16 23:06:42.
 07/17/2004 12:12:03 AM · #62
Originally posted by Kavey:
Olyuzi,
Sorry! I didn't mean to come across as a forum moderator or anything.
:0)
I think it was just that the question about whether people had served themselves was repeated a few times to the point where I really noticed it.
Usually when people are being very rude I just ignore them since I feel that it's often a sign of intellectual weakness - can't argue a point eloquently, just insult the opposition instead. In your case I didn't feel that you were posting aggressively or ignorantly, I just wanted to point out that the question you asked came across as rude/ irrelevant to me. I don't want to make this into some weird righteous hunt for the rude so forgive me if I don't follow up on the post you're referring to.


****
Kavey, forgive me if I express my dissapointment in your declining to comment on Thelsel's comment to me earlier after you had called me out for being rude by asking a simple question to point out the obvious. Thelsel's comment directed to me ("Is it that time of the month again? You really need to try renewing your prescriptions BEFORE they run out.") is not only rude but a personal affront to me, as well as, imo, a disparaging remark directed at women and the mentally ill. His tact is to attack the messenger and not the message because he mostly hasn't got much to add to a conversation, and as you've said, rude people usually do have intellectually inferior positions. He's done this on a number of occassions before to try to get my ire up, but he's failed everytime.

What has me disturbed here is that you've editorialized on my basically innocuous question and left his rude and callous comment (and so intended) unchallenged. You also have decided to avert commenting on Jab119's name calling in an earlier post. I guess you don't want to get more involved in this thread or maybe you haven't read all the way through, but to me, it's a cop out. Well, thanks so much for pointing out the proper ettiquette for DPC salon speak (sarcasm). I'll have to remember that the DPC ettiquette police are out and about.

Message edited by author 2004-07-17 05:36:38.
 07/17/2004 12:35:22 AM · #63
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Thelsel's comment directed to me ("Is it that time of the month again? You really need to try renewing your prescriptions BEFORE they run out.") is not only rude but a personal affront to me, as well as, imo, a disparaging remark directed at women and the mentally ill. His tact is to attack the messenger and not the message because he mostly hasn't got much to add to a conversation, and as you've said, rude people usually do have intellectually inferior positions. He's done this on a number of occassions before to try to get my ire up, but he's failed everytime.



Kind of like the chickenhawk remark...............
 07/17/2004 01:29:04 AM · #64
That's enough name-calling by everyone, thank you. Further posts in that direction will have to be taken note of by more than myself ...
 07/17/2004 04:26:11 AM · #65
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
His tact is to attack the messenger and not the message because he mostly hasn't got much to add to a conversation, and as you've said, rude people usually do have intellectually inferior positions. He's done this on a number of occassions before to try to get my ire up, but he's failed everytime.


Ok, I haven't got anything to add to the conversion? I'm the one with intellectually inferior positions? So far in this thread you've:

1. Questioned President Bush's military service without backing up your claim with any tangible proof.

2. Implied that President Bush had prior knowledge of 911 before it happened. Again no tangible proof.

3. Called for sending the Presidents daughters as well as the children of other dignitaries to war against their will.

4. Questioned the patriotism of anyone outside of the theater of operations.

5. Filled every other post with "Have you ever been to war?" If you keep asking the question eventually you need to make a point.

As far as my "tact" of attacking you on a number of occasions before, that is simply untrue. I invite you to sight any thread were I've attacked you or anyone else before. As for today, your uninstantiated conspiracy theories finally got the best of me. I can see by your consecutive posts to me and numerous references to my comments, that you were truly flustered. That was not my intentions. I have a tendency to through out a zinger now and then for humor. Apparently, it didn't go over well. So, I am truly sorry.
07/17/2004 07:35:53 AM · #66
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

********
I think us "softies" are already questioning why our government didn't do anything to stop the WTC attacks when they had foreknowledge of the attacks.


Again with the rhetoric. I have yet to see anyone cite facts which show this claimed "foreknowledge." I don't have a problem with questioning or investigating whether they did or didn't, but if you are going to make an affirmative statement such as this, please back it up with facts which evidence it.


*******
Well, here's a couple of links to start off with that chronicle and demonstrate the governments foreknowledge regarding the WTC attacks, as well as, other related information. The second article shows that President Bush did have knowledge of the likelihood of hijackings by terrorists in the weeks leading up to the WTC attacks.


Article 1

Article 2

There seems to be many many articles out there about the governments foreknowledge of WTC attacks that can easily be accessed with a Google search.
 07/17/2004 08:06:30 AM · #67
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Olyuzi,
Sorry! I didn't mean to come across as a forum moderator or anything.
:0)
I think it was just that the question about whether people had served themselves was repeated a few times to the point where I really noticed it.
Usually when people are being very rude I just ignore them since I feel that it's often a sign of intellectual weakness - can't argue a point eloquently, just insult the opposition instead. In your case I didn't feel that you were posting aggressively or ignorantly, I just wanted to point out that the question you asked came across as rude/ irrelevant to me. I don't want to make this into some weird righteous hunt for the rude so forgive me if I don't follow up on the post you're referring to.


****
Kavey, forgive me if I express my dissapointment in your declining to comment on Thelsel's comment to me earlier after you had called me out for being rude by asking a simple question to point out the obvious. Thelsel's comment directed to me ("Is it that time of the month again? You really need to try renewing your prescriptions BEFORE they run out.") is not only rude but a personal affront to me, as well as, imo, a disparaging remark directed at women and the mentally ill. His tact is to attack the messenger and not the message because he mostly hasn't got much to add to a conversation, and as you've said, rude people usually do have intellectually inferior positions. He's done this on a number of occassions before to try to get my ire up, but he's failed everytime.

What has me disturbed here is that you've editorialized on my basically innocuous question and left his rude and callous comment (and so intended) unchallenged. You also have decided to avert commenting on Jab119's name calling in an earlier post. I guess you don't want to get more involved in this thread or maybe you haven't read all the way through, but to me, it's a cop out. Well, thanks so much for pointing out the proper ettiquette for DPC salon speak (sarcasm). I'll have to remember that the DPC ettiquette police are out and about.


You clearly missed the point I made above. Sometimes people are so childish and petulant in their posts that it's hardly worth the waste of effort pointing it out. I'd class referring to someone's medications in that group. It's ignorant, petty and hardly presents the poster as a bastion if intelligent thought. Your posts were, I felt, more thoughtfully written, hence your insistence on asking about posters' military service stood out to me more. I hadn't pegged you as part of that ignorant group of posters who can't make their point without resort to namecalling. Then you went down the chickenhawk route and I realised I WAS wasting my time and to leave everyone to it.

Truly, it could have remained a far more enlightening discussion of opinions without all that rudeness and pettiness. But you're right, I've lost interest. I had intended to read again and post my own feelings. I shan't bother.
 07/17/2004 09:26:07 AM · #68
Originally posted by SoCal69:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I"m sorry you find it rude, and I don't mean to be, but I do find it relevant to the discussion since it's very easy to say someone should be off fighting in a war situation that could result in loss of life or limb, from behind a computer when you, or your offspring, is not. Just like no one in the Bush family has sent their children to fight overseas, or any congressperson, I find it rude that this war, which imo is not ethical or needed, should be hoisted on the American public to fight and fund, when our leaders in government are not willing to. To me, that's equally rude.


You miss the point entirely. No one is telling anyone what they have to do. Parents do not send their children to enlist. Each person has a choice, and I respect that choice, whether it is to serve or not to serve. Your point makes no sense. The only point being made is that if you have signed up for 8 years of military service, you should complete it and not cut and run simply because it has suddenly become distasteful to you. No, I have not served in the military or in a war, nor do I ask or require anyone else to enlist. However, if you choose to enlist, then you should honor your obligations. I know enough about myself and my character that, had I enlisted, and had I been called to duty in Iraq, I would have honored my obligation, despite the threat to life and limb and despite any reservations about whether it is a "legal" war.


*******
I’m happy to hear that you have the fortitude and strength of character to honor your obligations and commitments (at least the legal ones) to the end. In the case of Mr. Hinzman, the CO, his strength of character comes not just from his legal commitments (remember, he’s already served time in the military and Afghanistan), but also his personal moral code. He does not want to kill peopleâ€Â¦period. He may not have foreseen how he would feel when confronted with that actuality when the military came around when he was younger (and maybe more naive) and dangled a whole lot of WOW! in front of him to enlist. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt as I imagine that most of us would abhor killing another person. Bravo to him for finding his humanity and standing up for his convictions. Knowing now how innocents were being tortured in Abu Ghraib and how lower rank enlistees were being blamed, he does not want to take part in that, and I can’t blame him for that.

As for breach of contractâ€Â¦well that happens on a daily basis it seems in many other spheres of life. Would you be against divorce in a marriage where a spouse was being abused? Ask many Vietnam war veteran about their treatment post war and the government’s failure to deliver on contractual obligations. The Bush administration has already cut overtime pay and other benefits for current enlisted men/women. As signatories to both the Kyoto Accord and the ICC the Bush admin has pulled out of those agreements. I guess they changed their minds because it didn’t suit their immediate needs being that they knew their plans for going to war.

What is so disturbing in this thread is that you view this merely as a contractual breach of contract in such cold hearted, monetary and business terms. This, from people who have not walked in Mr. Hinzman’s shoes. Ok, call for the return of his prorated financial gains from the military, but not of court martial and jail time. Where is the humanity in your position? I think there’s a big problem when we have such a hard time with a person who morally refuses to be part of the military killing machine.
07/17/2004 10:27:43 AM · #69
He can breech his contract if he wants. No one has any problem with that. However, when you breach a contract, you have to pay a price. Why should he get to breach his contract without paying the price? Please answer.

There have to be a lot of soilders in the military that joined for the benefits and never intended on going to war. Should we just let all of them go home now?

Any of you that want to go home please raise your hand!
 07/17/2004 11:32:08 AM · #70
I stumbled accross this link while searching for info on political draft dodging. Clinton draft letter

Ill pull a segment here I found quite pertinent to our current situation:

Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to, quote, participation in war in any form, end quote. From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.

The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea, an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.

Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country, that is, the particular policy of a particular government, right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.

07/17/2004 11:38:27 AM · #71
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I’m happy to hear that you have the fortitude and strength of character to honor your obligations and commitments (at least the legal ones) to the end. In the case of Mr. Hinzman, the CO, his strength of character comes not just from his legal commitments (remember, he’s already served time in the military and Afghanistan), but also his personal moral code. He does not want to kill peopleâ€Â¦period. He may not have foreseen how he would feel when confronted with that actuality when the military came around when he was younger (and maybe more naive) and dangled a whole lot of WOW! in front of him to enlist. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt as I imagine that most of us would abhor killing another person. Bravo to him for finding his humanity and standing up for his convictions. Knowing now how innocents were being tortured in Abu Ghraib and how lower rank enlistees were being blamed, he does not want to take part in that, and I can’t blame him for that.

As for breach of contractâ€Â¦well that happens on a daily basis it seems in many other spheres of life. Would you be against divorce in a marriage where a spouse was being abused? Ask many Vietnam war veteran about their treatment post war and the government’s failure to deliver on contractual obligations. The Bush administration has already cut overtime pay and other benefits for current enlisted men/women. As signatories to both the Kyoto Accord and the ICC the Bush admin has pulled out of those agreements. I guess they changed their minds because it didn’t suit their immediate needs being that they knew their plans for going to war.

What is so disturbing in this thread is that you view this merely as a contractual breach of contract in such cold hearted, monetary and business terms. This, from people who have not walked in Mr. Hinzman’s shoes. Ok, call for the return of his prorated financial gains from the military, but not of court martial and jail time. Where is the humanity in your position? I think there’s a big problem when we have such a hard time with a person who morally refuses to be part of the military killing machine.


This will be my last post in this thread because it has become clear to me that logic and reason seem to escape you on this subject. Rather than making a statement or point, you resort to namecalling and belittling others.

You know nothing about me at all, yet despite the fact that I "have the fortitude and strength of character to honor your obligations and commitments (at least the legal ones) to the end" you came somehow to the conclusion Mr Hinzman's character is of a stronger nature because of his "personal moral code" (which I gather is that he does not want to kill people). First of all, I think it is pretty clear that everyone here would prefer not to kill people. It does not say a lot about mr. Hinzman's character if he is so easily swayed by the "WOW" being dangled in front of him that it blinded him tot he realities of joining the nation's ARMED SERVICES. He didn't seem to have a problem being part of the "military killing machine" when he was receiving money and benefits. As for the reference to Abu Ghraib, that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand as Mr. Hinzman, as far as I have read, was in no way connected to Abu Ghraib, so I find it hard to see how he was concerned about becoming involved in that particular scandal.

Yes, breach of contract does happen on a daily basis, and in those cases, the breaching party must suffer the consequences of that breach. You are suggesting here that Mr. Hinzman need not face those consequneces (perhaps due to his strong moral character?), which is simply wrong. He chose to undertake actions in violation of his agreement with the military, and he will face the consequences (of which he was aware at the time he fled). This does not mean I am cold-hearted or anything else. I abhor killing, war and the atrocities it visits on people. However, I also recognize that militaries are necessary and killing is what militaries are trained to do. I am sure (unless you want to suggest Mr. Hinzman is somewhat slow on the uptake) that Mr. Hinzman knew it too.

In the end, there is only one issue here, which you cannot refute, despite your name calling and belittling of posters' opinions. That is that Mr. Hinzman, without authorization, abandoned the obligations to which he committed and is therefore subject to the penalties which were in place and of which he knew when he did so. The fact that he fled to Canada rather than remaining in the U.S. belies the lack of strength in the position he puts forward.
 07/17/2004 02:00:46 PM · #72
Oh, let Hinzman go free. It's not like he gave (sold) nuclear secrets to China.
 07/18/2004 12:24:10 PM · #73
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Have you served in war?


I think the question here is have YOU served in war Olyuzi.

My unit has recently returned from 9 months in Afghanistan & we are well aware that early next year we could very well deploy again to Iraq. Whether or not we WANT to has nothing to do with the fact that it is our obligation to do so. We signed that dotted line. We said that we will defend our nation against all enemies. What makes an enemy of our nation is not for an individual to determine.

You have been deliberately dodging the reason for this thread. Hinzman deserted his post. He wants to reneg on his word. Why should he be allowed to do so? Because he doesn't agree with the situation is not a valid reason.

He can say that he made every attempt to bow out from the military. I'll tell you what would've been an easier path for him. He could've gotten hopped up on drugs, been tested & promptly seperated from the military with a dishonorable discharge. Drugs would be a much more appealing reason for discharge than desertion.

And what would your solution for Hinzman be? That we give him immunity from his desertion & give him his benefits. Why should he be so special that this courtesy be only extended towards him?

Please, educate me.
 07/18/2004 12:52:14 PM · #74
Originally posted by fullmontez:
He can say that he made every attempt to bow out from the military. I'll tell you what would've been an easier path for him. He could've gotten hopped up on drugs, been tested & promptly seperated from the military with a dishonorable discharge. Drugs would be a much more appealing reason for discharge than desertion.

Why go to all that trouble ... all he'd have to do as remark how "simply smashing" his CO looks in his dress uniform and he'd be outta there right away, regardless of whether or not he wanted to serve ...
 07/18/2004 01:12:56 PM · #75
Originally posted by fullmontez:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Have you served in war?


I think the question here is have YOU served in war Olyuzi.

My unit has recently returned from 9 months in Afghanistan & we are well aware that early next year we could very well deploy again to Iraq. Whether or not we WANT to has nothing to do with the fact that it is our obligation to do so. We signed that dotted line. We said that we will defend our nation against all enemies. What makes an enemy of our nation is not for an individual to determine.

You have been deliberately dodging the reason for this thread. Hinzman deserted his post. He wants to reneg on his word. Why should he be allowed to do so? Because he doesn't agree with the situation is not a valid reason.

He can say that he made every attempt to bow out from the military. I'll tell you what would've been an easier path for him. He could've gotten hopped up on drugs, been tested & promptly seperated from the military with a dishonorable discharge. Drugs would be a much more appealing reason for discharge than desertion.

And what would your solution for Hinzman be? That we give him immunity from his desertion & give him his benefits. Why should he be so special that this courtesy be only extended towards him?

Please, educate me.


******
No, I have never served in war, nor have I served in the military, although, if I felt that our nation's security was truly threatened, I would.

I think Mr. Hinzman's dilemna is that he enlisted with good intentions to help defend this country and it's freedoms and the Constitution. What I think he sees now is not a defense, but an offense of another country...an invasion that he does not want to be part of. I believe he sees that innocents over in Iraq are being detained and jailed and treated miserably and tortured. I think he has started to see his wife and kid when he sees an "enemy." He seems to be a thinking man with feelings and is following his convictions and moral beliefs that he doesn't want to kill innocents that he does not believe to be his enemy.
He may also see that the real reason for this war is oil. Not WMDs or nuclear threat that was the administrations reason for going to war.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you when you say it's not for us to decide who our enemy is. The leaders of our country are human and can have evil intentions just like the rest of us or other evil minded leaders. It's our duty as citizens to be ever watchful and question our government. It's the patriotic thing to do...not just to follow along blindly with what our leaders want. But that's what they want soldiers to do...not think.

I never stated in this post that Mr. Hinzman is free of obligation or punishment from his actions. No pension and paying back whatever gains he's received from the military prorated to the military time he's served already is fine with me, and I'm sure with him too.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 07:43:06 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 07:43:06 PM EDT.