Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The Idea of America | Main | On Libertarian Bolshevism »

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Up Against the Wall

Eddie_2 It's too bad that the American whose appeal the Federal Court allowed on Friday can't follow the in the morally uplifiting example of Private Eddie Slovik.

What happened to this place?  When I think that I'm paying taxes to support worthless sub-human scum like Joshua Key and his family (he isn't working here, is he?  I don't see any indication that he is), I am filled with an absolute and un-utterable rage.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on July 6, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553a690878834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Up Against the Wall:

Comments

The comparison with Slovik to Key is not quite fair. Slovik was a repeat offender, deserting several times. He even said he would to his superiors. Key, on the other hand, is a one-time deserter. He will receive a light sentence, maybe a few months in Leavenworth, then dishonorably discharged. No one said it would be easy, but it's far better than it could be.

I'm amazed that he, and the other deserters, fail to realize how easy they have it. Yes, there are consequences to their actions, but they signed the contract and have no one to blame but themselves. Besides, there are plenty of brave men and women ready to take their place and take credit for the impending victory over Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-06 4:45:08 PM


Actually, I would argue that Key is far more deserving of execution than Slovik. Slovik was a coward - and seemingly motivated entirely by cowardice. Slovik was also borderline-retarded. Key, on the other hand, has an obvious political motive and agenda - making him far more deserving of death (even if I'd have had Slovik shot too).

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-06 5:03:22 PM


Nah. Key has a far worse fate ahead. He'll have to support his family (wife, 4 kids) on whatever job he can get, given that he'll have no veteran's benefits and a criminal record because of his dishonorable discharge. Worse, there are some employers won't like having a deserter on staff.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-06 5:14:02 PM


Unless he has a job, of which I see no indication (what kind of permits to pending refugee claimants get?), we're the ones supporting his kids right now, for some unGodly reason.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-06 5:15:41 PM


Maybe he can get a job in Canadian radio al la Andy Barrie.

Remember him?
Chicken shit deserters.

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2008-07-06 5:25:01 PM


Here's the irony: once he's deported, he won't be able to return to Canada because of his criminal record. He better enjoy his stay while it lasts.

I've met many soldiers down here who say they'd go back to Iraq or Afghanistan if asked. They know the risks, yet most say it's not as bad over there as the media says it is (who knew!) They say it's the life they voluntarily chose. I admire their courage.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-06 5:26:01 PM


I think we're wrong about this. It is the CBC, not surprisingly, that claims Key could qualify as a deserter. The ruling doesn't say that explicitly. It only ordered the board to re-examine his case. So, it is entirely possible his claim could be rejected again. Let's hope it is.

Send them all home to face their slap on the wrist, and destroy the CBC once and for all.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-06 5:58:14 PM


Take this, deserters! 1,200 American soldiers re-enlisted this weekend in Baghdad.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/06/video-more-from-the-largest-re-up-ceremony/

Their voluntary decision to re-up flies in the face of these cowards' claims of "war crimes" and "atrocities." They can't all be dupes of the Bush administration. Maybe, just maybe, they believe in what the US has been doing in Iraq. You could have been part of this great moment. Instead, you turned tail and run to Canada.

The irony here = six times as many soldiers re-enlisted in this one ceremony than deserted.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4281811.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

Try this on for size = MNF-I Commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus receives more photo ops in Iraq than visiting celebrities varying from politicians to Angelina Jolie. He's quite the guy.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-06 9:57:24 PM


"worthless sub-human scum".. Adam, reign it in. This is absolutely unworthy and hints at incipient sociopathy. If a man feels he is being coerced to kill, how can we condemn him? I have an idea, better for you all to lead by example than hide behind your collective keyboards. Gentlemen, time to stop harping and join the parade for which you are beating the drums. There is a recruiting centre in a town near you. Let us know how you survive Basic..

Posted by: geoff | 2008-07-07 3:10:17 AM


So this board has degenerated to deciding which humans you want to kill or have killed?

There's a law against that, you 'law and order' types, right?

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-07-07 6:20:15 AM


How can we condemn him, Geoff? On the following grounds:

1. What a person "feels" does not matter.

2. No one coerced this man to do anything. America's army is composed entirely of volunteers. For that matter, most of the soldiers who served in Vietnam were volunteers, regardless of what the movies and urban legends say.

3. Once you join, you are, of course, expected to follow orders, but then that was made pretty clear going in. And they don't give you that rifle just so you can try out for a spot on the silent drill team.

4. I have already served in the military, basic and all, although I am now too old for active service. You, however, I'm not sure about.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 7:08:09 AM


Joe Blew: "So this board has degenerated to deciding which humans you want to kill or have killed? There's a law against that, you 'law and order' types, right?"

No, it's a debate over the proper punishment for deserters, which in extremes has historically been death. Today the death penalty for desertion is applicable only in time of war, and since no formal declaration of war was ever issued to Iraq, and all of the men on the U.S. military death row have been convicted of murder/felony murder, and the last actual execution in the military took place in 1961 for rape/murder, the prospects of a death sentence for Key are remote indeed.

"Why don't you go rack yourself with guilt in your own room?" - House

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 7:13:49 AM


Precedents for punishment of deserters have already been set in the Iraq War. They'll get at most 12-15 months in military prison, followed by a fine and an Other than Honorable discharge. Whoever said they'll be executed is lying; if their lawyer said that, then he's giving bad advice.

What truly undermines their credibility is that they won't be sent to Iraq. I cannot imagine a commander who would want someone with their reputation in their unit, especially in a war zone where everyone's participation is essential. These deserters are the worst form of coward - they don't want to face any sort of consequences for their actions. Grow the hell up - there are consequences for everything in life. They don't deserve to be around heroes.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 8:55:01 AM


SM, have you never made a mistake? A 17 year old signs up and later discovers he is being forced to do something dishonorable. "I was just following orders" is no excuse for sacrificing your principles. The Nuremburg trials were full of guys who used that.

Posted by: Geoff | 2008-07-07 9:01:25 AM


I suggest that these deserters' stories must be taken with trepidation. It's in their interest to excoriate US actions in Iraq as much as possible. Whether or not they are accurate or even true seems to be irrelevant. In any case, their reaction - desertion - is unjustified and they will be punished. Nazi comparisons often reveal weak arguments. Moreover, national and military law takes precedence over international law. In other words, they're just trying to evade the consequences of their actions. Send them back now.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 9:14:58 AM


It's rarely someone with combat experience calling deserters cowards. Anyone who's had to step up knows it's a fine line between fight or flight.

I think these cases should be handled quietly. There's no point crucifying a deserter, especially when he's already served.

Maybe a little compassion might prevent this.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cdnsad/

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-07 9:52:15 AM


dp: they won't be crucified; as I've said they'll receive a light sentence and a discharge, not more.

Moreover, these people have dishonored themselves. I cannot see how a commander would allow these people to be in the presence of honorable men and women who willingly and proudly serve.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 10:03:06 AM


ZP, that's pretty harsh. And as to the Nuremburg reference, it's entirely relevant. Having served under QR&O, I'm aware that it's clearly stated that an individual must obey lawful commands. What is the recourse for the individual when the laws conflict with the individual's moral code? The individuals at Nuremburg were actually acting in accordance with the law of the land. The Nazi's were scrupulous in rules, regs and records.

It may surprise you to know that during the American War of Independance, so many British troops (including senior officers) refused to serve in what they saw was an unjust war that King George had to hire mercenaries (Blackwater anyone) to keep the (lawful) war running. Oddly enough,I guess that means that the US owes a debt of gratitude to a bunch of British draft dodgers (and the French navy) Ain't life strange?

Posted by: Geoff | 2008-07-07 10:54:33 AM


Zeb

I agree they should be punished. It would be bad for morale if they weren't. It is also bad for morale when the punishment goes too far. The troops will begin to see the hypocracy of those screaming for blood, while refusing to shed their own.

That's what happened in Vietnam. That mess was blamed on the hippies, but it was really the fault of the chickenhawks. At least the hippies admitted they were cowards, even though they probably weren't

Posted by: dp | 2008-07-07 11:03:03 AM


I am still waiting for Adam to sign up and do what he wants others to do, mainly go into a foreign country and shoot and get shot at.

When are you signing up again Adam?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 11:13:15 AM


I am still waiting for Adam to sign up and do what he wants others to do, mainly go into a foreign country and shoot and get shot at.

When are you signing up again Adam?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 11:13:25 AM


Oops. Server hiccup.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 11:13:48 AM


Zeb, The Vietnam myth should be allowed to RIP. I have to admit that I got caught up in Vietnam hysteria back in the 70's. I was keen to head over and "nuke the gooks" with the rest of the boys. Afterward I did my homework and it became sadly clear that things weren't as simple as they were made out to be. It was a totally unnecessary war. Too many lives lost, too much destruction and for what? They could have taken 1/10th of the budget spent to bomb the place and given every home in Vietnam a fridge/TV, paved all the roads, built hospitals and schools. Dien Bien Phu was a poor justification for devastating a country and a people. I'll go with Churchill on this one. It's always preferable to "jaw, jaw" than "war, war"..

Posted by: geoff | 2008-07-07 11:46:22 AM


Geoff asked:

"What is the recourse for the individual when the laws conflict with the individual's moral code?"

Simple: you say you won't obey these orders to your commanding officer, and accept the consequences of those actions, be it imprisonment or execution (as many Nazis found out).

Your American Revolution reference is full of holes. German mercenaries served alongside British troops, while Blackwater and other PMCs serve only specific tasks. Moreover, the Continental Army had its own disciplinary problems that outweigh any British 'draft dodging'. They won the war because of General Washington's superb strategic skills, without which the French never would have sent help.

Dienbienphu was a French battle, not a US one. While your economic comparisons are valid, none of it would have been possible while the North Vietnamese continued to fight.

Lastly, Churchill also said "Let us fight them on the beaches" and other belligerent, defiant warlike talk, so it's best not to read too much into that. Context matters.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 12:39:47 PM


ZP, you are missing my point. The refusal to obey an immoral order results in punishment which becomes a deterrant to the like-minded. How many decent Germans wound up having no recourse but to go along with the program or face serious repercussions?

As to history, I'll stand by what I stated earlier. I know British troops did fight in the war of Independance but "German mercenaries made up about one-third of the British troop strength in North America". The whole British contingent was just under 70,000 men. The French navy was a decisive factor in bottling up the British land forces; the Battle of Cornwallis was actually fought with Franco-American land forces under Washington's command. Remember Lafayette? The inability of the British to recruit enough veteran soldiers and most critically, experienced officers, contributed to their eventual capitulation and the success of the Revolutionary War.

As to Blackwater, it's a worrisome trend when military operations are outsourced. The purpose of military command and control is to ensure civil control and accountability for military actions leading right up to the Commander in Chief.

Dien Bien Phu.. Of course it was a French operation, but it resulted in the collapse of French Indochina and the subsequent infilling of hardened Vietnamese patriots. If Truman had taken the time to negotiate sincerely with Ho, the situation could have been resolved much earlier. The Vietnamese wanted freedom from French colonialism, not stalinist style totalitarianism. After the Japanese collapse, the Vietnamese felt quite sincerely that they had earned their independance the hard way. It was only when the French tried to re-assert colonial control that the whole mess spiraled out of control.

Finally, Churchill. His beaches speech was delivered literally as the Nazis were assembling an invasion force. The danger was imminent and the outlook was bleak. The "jaw jaw" quote was delivered to the US Congress in 1954. Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war' reference to the burgeoning cold war. This warning from a seasoned warrior and war leader remains good advice to this day. We ignore the lessons of recent history at our peril..

Posted by: geoff | 2008-07-07 1:47:27 PM


Geoff wrote: “SM, have you never made a mistake? A 17 year old signs up and later discovers he is being forced to do something dishonorable. "I was just following orders" is no excuse for sacrificing your principles. The Nuremburg trials were full of guys who used that.”

I do not respond to emotional appeals, Geoff. A tiny bit of advice: Confine yourself to facts only or will quickly find yourself speaking only to hysterics, which presumably includes you. Eventually you'll go nuts.

Now then. Thonourable thing would have been to refuse the order and face the consequences—provided, of course, the task was truly illegal / immoral and not simply disagreeable. Or he could have reported it, also accepting the consequences.

There is nothing honourable, however, about leaving with your tail between your legs, entering another country illegally, and then expecting those whose sovereignty you've violated to take up the cudgels for you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 1:58:54 PM


DP, compassion is not something that is bred into soldiers. It's not something you WANT to an excessive degree in soldiers. Otherwise they'll be too busy weeping to kill the enemy.

Discipline and rules have to be backed up with the threat of punishment. Otherwise there is no incentive to obey. To quote St. Benedict: "Behold the law under which thou dost wish to serve; if thou canst observe it, enter; but if thou canst not, depart freely."

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 2:03:22 PM


Actually, DP, Vietnam was lost because of a loss of resolve on the part of the American people, thanks to self-serving journalists and misguided peaceniks whose concept of geopolitics ran something like: "No prisons inside imaginary borders; rhythm of Nature as our guide." Of course they conveniently forget than in Nature the weak are food for the strong and the strong are food for the very strong and justice is a concept little known.

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to halt the spread of communism, then the greatest threat the world had ever known. In fact, once the Americans left, the Viet Cong butchered between one and three million Vietnamese citizens in reprisals. The real dying came not during the war, but after, and the departure of the American troops was the direct cause of that. That's a little-known historical fact that Hanoi Jane and her ilk hope desperately remains secret, lest they be remembered in the same breath as Neville Chamberlain and Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 2:08:10 PM


Snowrunner wrote: "I am still waiting for Adam to sign up and do what he wants others to do, mainly go into a foreign country and shoot and get shot at."

And we are still waiting for YOU to go to the samesaid country and interpose yourself between the warring factions, bearing garlands of flowers and pipes of peace--chock-full of B.C. Bud, naturally.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 2:09:58 PM


Geoff wrote: “ZP, you are missing my point. The refusal to obey an immoral order results in punishment which becomes a deterrant to the like-minded. How many decent Germans wound up having no recourse but to go along with the program or face serious repercussions?”

If they had all refused to obey, Geoff, what would Hitler have done then? Most Germans believed in Hitler, at least at first. See how much damage a single charismatic individual can do? But of course that could never happen in Canada…

Geoff wrote: “The inability of the British to recruit enough veteran soldiers and most critically, experienced officers, contributed to their eventual capitulation and the success of the Revolutionary War.”

Why would they need to recruit them if they already had a standing army and navy? And most people who refused to serve did so not for moral reasons but because of bad food, brutal discipline, and being even more likely to die of pneumonia, starvation or dysentery than by enemy fire.

Geoff wrote: “If Truman had taken the time to negotiate sincerely with Ho, the situation could have been resolved much earlier. The Vietnamese wanted freedom from French colonialism, not stalinist style totalitarianism.”

That’s right, Geoff; everything’s America’s fault, isn’t it? Do you have any proof that communism would not have taken root if not for Truman’s obduracy? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

Geoff wrote: “After the Japanese collapse, the Vietnamese felt quite sincerely that they had earned their independance the hard way. It was only when the French tried to re-assert colonial control that the whole mess spiraled out of control.”

Yes, that explains why brother was willing to butcher brother, to the tune of perhaps three million people. It also explains the killing fields of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. It explains everything! America’s responsible! Well, that was easy.

Geoff wrote: “Finally, Churchill. His beaches speech was delivered literally as the Nazis were assembling an invasion force. The danger was imminent and the outlook was bleak. The "jaw jaw" quote was delivered to the US Congress in 1954. Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war' reference to the burgeoning cold war. This warning from a seasoned warrior and war leader remains good advice to this day. We ignore the lessons of recent history at our peril.”

Like when fanatics fly airliners into office buildings, for example? It actually sounds like you’re less outraged when Americans die than when Iraqis or Afghanis die. Nope, nothing Canadian about that.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 2:17:12 PM


Geoff:

1) The Nazis only had one punishment for refusal to obey an order = execution. They did so quite freely too - i.e. Stauffenberg. That was their deterrent.

2) The British had more troops than the Americans ever did, yet they still lost. They lost because Washington had the right idea: if a British army could be trapped and besieged on land, while being unable to escape by sea, the war could be brought to an end. Yes, the French fleet was essential, but so was the Continental Army. The British lost the war because they were outgeneralled by the Americans.

3) First, Truman was not President in 1954; Eisenhower was. No American president would have negotiated with Communists. It would have been political suicide.

4) Churchill's comments may have made sense in 1954, but sometimes one has to respond. I cannot imagine any American president regardless of party failing to respond to 9/11 in the same way Bush did.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 2:37:45 PM


And we are still waiting for YOU to go to the samesaid country and interpose yourself between the warring factions, bearing garlands of flowers and pipes of peace--chock-full of B.C. Bud, naturally.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 2:09:58 PM

Actually I think we shouldn't go there in the first place and let them sort out their own crap.

You'd be surprised how much better that would end up for all now involved.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 3:00:00 PM


Snowy
"You'd be surprised how much better that would end up for all now involved."

You are correct. I would be quite surprised at that.

Do you have supporting research to back that up or is it just an opinion?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-07 3:29:34 PM


1) The Nazis only had one punishment for refusal to obey an order = execution. They did so quite freely too - i.e. Stauffenberg. That was their deterrent.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 7-Jul-08 2:37:45 PM

Stauffenberg was executed for an attempt on Hitler's life, not for refusing to obey an order.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-07 3:56:35 PM


I'd consider that an ultimate example of refusing to obey orders.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 4:09:29 PM


ZB, you are right. Eisenhauer was pres. at the time of Dien Bien Phu. The point is, America should never have supported the re-establishment of French colonialism following the Japanese withdrawal, and that took place on Truman's watch. Ho was not a doctrinaire communist at the time, he was a guerrilla leader. Negotiations were and should have been carried out. Sadly the price of French participation in NATO at the time was .. you guessed it.. Hands off Indochina..

You are right again that the British had more professional boots on the ground than the colonials. Points out how effective a civilian insurgency can be. Especially if the populace is motivated and really upset with the occupying power.

Churchill's comments made sense then and they make sense now. As to Pres. Bush's response to 911, if they'd just kept after Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan, I think the high moral ground was America's to keep. Even the moderate Muslim world must have seen that this had been provocation of the highest order. Sadly this advantage appears to have been squandered on political adventuring in the Middle East.

In any event, I'm still for allowing amnesty for service evaders. It's not like they are cutting and running in the heat of battle(and at that time only , the deterrent is necessary for the safety of the individual members of the entire squad). While there is no de facto draft, poverty and propaganda are powerful, recruiting tools. How many naive 18 year olds are needed to fill that hole in the ground anyway?
SM, I'm appalled when anyone dies as a result of an act of violence (state sponsore, terrorist, criminal or otherwise.) The key is not to turn it into a round of escalating revenge killing. It took the Irish hundreds of years to break free of cycle. As to America, with great power comes great responsibility; and with great responsibility comes the need to conduct a just and accurate accounting. Have American leaders never mis-stepped in the past or are they simply infallible? Hindsight can't undo the mistakes of the past but can atleast help avoid the quagmire of the future.

Posted by: geoff | 2008-07-07 4:21:37 PM


Do you have supporting research to back that up or is it just an opinion?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 7-Jul-08 3:29:34 PM

It's called History. Europe became what it became not because the Turks or Mongoles invaded it but because we sorted out our own crap.

Likewise, places like Afghanistan worked remarkably well (albeit not in the "country" sense that the Europeans have developed) before we decided (or in that case the British) to parcel it up.

Africa was probably a lot more peaceful too before the colonial powers decided to divide up the continent and in the process played one local group against the other, following the age old adage: Divide and Conquer.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 4:27:29 PM


Snowrunner wrote: "Actually I think we shouldn't go there in the first place and let them sort out their own crap. You'd be surprised how much better that would end up for all now involved."

Sorry, that's not an option for as long as they're determined to erase us from the map.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 4:37:26 PM


Sorry, Geoff, but you can't hold America to a higher standard than you hold other countries, your own included. It's the height of hypocrisy. Canada can afford to be preachy, because what we say and do doesn't matter one whit on the world stage.

And don't give me that "quagmire" nonsense; in spite of setbacks, things in Iraq are looking up. Or do you think we should simply have left the instant it was clear there were no WMDs and left Iraq to a bunch of terrorists and cutthroats?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 4:42:27 PM


Sorry, that's not an option for as long as they're determined to erase us from the map.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 4:37:26 PM

Funny, I am pretty sure the other side is saying the same thing.

Unlike your comment, at least they have something real to gripe about with us actually being there.

Someone, once again, confused action and re-action.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 4:43:06 PM


"While there is no de facto draft, poverty and propaganda are powerful, recruiting tools."

That is not a valid reason. There are plenty of other soldiers who came from similar backgrounds who continue to serve honorably. These deserters merely wish to evade prosecution for their crimes. They will be sorely disappointed when they serve their year or so in detention, then receive their less than honorable discharge.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-07 4:49:49 PM


Snowrunner wrote: "Funny, I am pretty sure the other side is saying the same thing."

Again with the "pretty sure." You'll let us know at once when you find out for certain, won't you?

Snowrunner wrote: "Unlike your comment, at least they have something real to gripe about with us actually being there."

Yes, doubtless they're pining for the soft, sweet kiss of Saddam's tender mercies, now lost to them forever because of those nastybad Americans.

Snowrunner wrote: "Someone, once again, confused action and re-action."

Someone, once again has confused fact with fantasy. Tsk, tsk.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 5:23:23 PM


Again with the "pretty sure." You'll let us know at once when you find out for certain, won't you?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 5:23:23 PM

Read some of Osama's "declaration" or any of the Taliban or a myriad of other groups. They have been pretty vocal in the beginnig as to why they consider us the enemy, going quite ways back to the good old colonial times.

------------------------

Yes, doubtless they're pining for the soft, sweet kiss of Saddam's tender mercies, now lost to them forever because of those nastybad Americans.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 5:23:23 PM

Yes, I am sure the average Iraqi is so much happier that he is free of Saddam's rule. We're back at the old discussion, which would you like more: Safety or "Freedom". You still seem to think that you're rather be "Free" even if that means things blowing up around you, no power and bullets whizzing over your head. I am still convinced that the majority prefers safety.

----------------

Someone, once again has confused fact with fantasy. Tsk, tsk.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 5:23:23 PM

Well, and I guess anybody who reads this and then does a bit of Googeling to look up a few things knows exactly who does what.

Hey, 2:0 for you Shane. Go go go.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 5:41:41 PM


Snowy

"It's called History."

What's past is prologue, then.

Always?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-07 6:08:53 PM


Snowrunner wrote: “Read some of Osama's "declaration" or any of the Taliban or a myriad of other groups. They have been pretty vocal in the beginnig as to why they consider us the enemy, going quite ways back to the good old colonial times.”

We are not responsible for what our ancestors did, and more than they are responsible for what their ancestors did in Greece and eastern Europe and elsewhere, and all the rest of that is just so much rabble-rousing propaganda to inflame the emotions of the masses. What a simple soul you are, taking the word of an avowed terrorist as gospel truth.

Snowrunner wrote: “Yes, I am sure the average Iraqi is so much happier that he is free of Saddam's rule. We're back at the old discussion, which would you like more: Safety or "Freedom". You still seem to think that you're rather be "Free" even if that means things blowing up around you, no power and bullets whizzing over your head. I am still convinced that the majority prefers safety.”

It’s not Americans firing those shots or setting off those roadside bombs, Snowrunner. It’s Iraqis, killing other Iraqis, glutting long-standing tribal hatreds. The Iraqis are to blame for their current situation, not the Americans. Oh, and I know I keep telling you this, but it matter’s not a rat’s stinking vulva what you’re CONVINCED OF. It only matters what you can PROVE. Petulance is not proof.

Snowrunner wrote: “Well, and I guess anybody who reads this and then does a bit of Googeling to look up a few things knows exactly who does what.”

And if we do some “Googeling” will we find your definitions of action and reaction, or are we supposed to infer that from His Majesty’s ramblings?

Snowrunner wrote: “Hey, 2:0 for you Shane. Go go go.”

Who appointed you scorekeeper? As we have observed in the other blog, you can’t even count to three without tripping over your own tongue.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-07 8:56:36 PM


We are not responsible for what our ancestors did, and more than they are responsible for what their ancestors did in Greece and eastern Europe and elsewhere, and all the rest of that is just so much rabble-rousing propaganda to inflame the emotions of the masses. What a simple soul you are, taking the word of an avowed terrorist as gospel truth.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 8:56:36 PM

Right Shane, we've meddled in the middleeast for over one hundred years, first the Britsh, then the Americans, up to this day. How would you like it if, say, the Saudis would meddle into the US or Canadian affairs, put some troops in the country etc.? Would that be ok with you? Or would you think that this stinks?

-------------

The Iraqis are to blame for their current situation, not the Americans. Oh, and I know I keep telling you this, but it matter’s not a rat’s stinking vulva what you’re CONVINCED OF. It only matters what you can PROVE. Petulance is not proof.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 8:56:36 PM

Right, so lets try proof here. Why don't YOU proof to me that the Iraqis were killing each other at the same rate before the US and UK removed Saddam?

---------------------

As we have observed in the other blog, you can’t even count to three without tripping over your own tongue.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 7-Jul-08 8:56:36 PM

Considering that I copied and pasted your drivel, I think we can assume that counting had nothing to do with it. Did it occur to you in Shane's world that maybe I didn't feel like replying to your little diatribe but figured I only confuse you if I re-number your own numbering? No? Gee, Quel Surprise.

BTW, you aren't in any way, shape or form related to H2 by any chance, you both have the same charming way of expressing your opinions.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-07 9:19:35 PM


"There's no point crucifying a deserter..."

Actually, DP, that sounds about right.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-07 11:17:42 PM


Under these current circumstances, the best thing to do with these deserters is to dishonor them. Give them some time in military prison, a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, and send them on their way. There are plenty of honorable people willing to take their place.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-08 12:08:34 PM


Well, maybe, but I don't see how executing them could hurt anyone.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-07-08 9:37:00 PM


1) it would be a public relations disaster. There are enough death penalty opponents out there to make this a huge issue. Much better to just kick them out after a stay in jail. The jail stay is an incentive to others that desertion is not a free ride.

2) It would ruin the professional ethos of the all-volunteer military. Today's service members enlisted of their own free will. If they know that they'll be executed if they make a mistake, then they'd feel trapped. Morale would suffer. Moreover, the existing punishment of detention and a dishonorable discharge is sufficient to prevent desertions. Most deserters, contrary to popular belief, are those who find military life too difficult, not because they don't want to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Only volunteers ought to go over there.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-08 9:43:33 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.