An army medic turned himself in Tuesday to face a possible court-martial because he could "not live with being a participant of war anymore". He fought the Pentagon for years to become a conscientious objector but lost. He served a year in Tikrit as a combat medic. Prior to his second tour he left his base until he turned himself in. He says his 'military experience' changed his mind.
"I have come to believe that it is wrong to destroy life; that it is wrong to use war' that it is immoral, & I can no longer go down this path." he said."Its the right thing to do. I'm not a deserter or a coward." It's something I can live with (possibility of court martial & jail time). "What I can't live with is being a participant of war anymore" he said.
We will wait and see w/this man.
In the interin, I can sympathize with him reference Iraq. It is a death trap. and no. I'm not a coward. I'm younger than Bush daughters.They need to enlist. If they did I mght reconsider.
I mean that
2006-09-26 16:04:28 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Definitely NOT a coward! He is actually brave for even taking on what many people are thinking/feeling but don't have the courage to do themselves.
2006-09-26 16:09:32 · answer #1 · answered by LolaCabana 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The President's daughters enlisting would be a bad idea. Can you imagine the pressure that would be on whoever is in charge of them? Plus, why do they NEED to more than anyone else in this country?
And Iraq is not a "death trap". There is about a 2% chance that you will be injured or killed in Iraq. Don't just throw out your opinions on whether something is a death trap or not. There is no room for opinions when it comes to facts.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with the war or killing, but why didn't he think of this before he signed up? They specifically ask you if you are a conscientious observer.
I think Bender said it best on the episode of Futurama where he joined the Army then wanted out-"I am a conscientious observer, I refuse to fight...you know..a coward."
2006-09-27 00:38:46 · answer #2 · answered by Curt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oh that's rich. Iraq is not a "death trap". Take a look at the casualty rates. Contrast that with any conflict of the 20th century such as Vietnam, or with a serious insurgency movement such as British Malaya.
The boy is a deserter. "He left his base until he turned himself in" should put any doubts to rest on that. And you, Questioner, telling anyone that the Bush twins "need to enlist" goes against the principle that our armed forces are manned by volunteers. This sort of "You First" bullshit is exactly why we barely make replacement rates for the service branches when the best and brightest competed for the right to serve their country during both World Wars.
The boy is an oathbreaker. That's just as bad as being a coward. What makes this absolutely unconscionable is that he's a MEDIC. He's bound by the Geneva Conventions to be a non-participant in hostile actions while performing his assigned functions in the line of duty. That means he would never have had to "destroy life" personally, but he apparently finds it okay to abandon his unit when his presence downrange could mean the difference for an American servicemember or a local national.
He should have thought this out before the taxpayer wasted money on his training, his MGIB, his paycheck. How convenient of people to discover newfound morality late in life that prevents them from being responsible.
Masses of idiots like him are the reason we are not the Greatest Generation. Not even close.
2006-09-26 23:47:54 · answer #3 · answered by Nat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am going to preface this with a little information about myself. I am ex-military and was in the first Gulf War, I am male and pushing 40 now.
I dont think that it matters whether he is a concientious objector or a coward. When you join the military ( not at the recruiter, at the military entrance processing station or MEPS ) you are informed in completely simple and unmistakeable terms that your job is to kill the enemies of the United States. It doesnt matter if you are a pilot or a cook, a reporter or even a medic, when necessary your are an 11B (infantry soldier) and 11B is the guy who fights.
They are also very clear on the punishment desertion carries.
With that being said and including the fact that you couldn't enlist as a concientious objector when I was in, this is a case of someone taking a job without ever having any plans of performing his duty, which is funny because I am virtually certain that while it was alright to refuse to do the job he chose, he almost certainly never refused any of the benefits he was entitled to as a member of the U.S. military.
Concientious objector?...probably not
Coward?...again probably not
My opinion?
Just a slacker who got in over his head and ran
2006-09-26 23:43:20 · answer #4 · answered by lou196720001 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one who has to actually be in combat can sanely enjoy war. I have two points to make. One is, what if everyone claimed to be a conscientious objector? As long as the world is as it is,we need a strong military to protect our nation.Everyone(men and women) should do their share. Second, I'm a Viet Nam veteran and still suffer because of the things I saw and did so I kind of understand where he is coming from. At least he joined up and maybe did the very best he could. We all have different limitations. Yes, Bush's kids should serve their nation along with everyone else. Every American has a price to pay to enjoy living in our wonderful country.
2006-09-27 23:16:42 · answer #5 · answered by blindogben 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's the problem. I too am a conscientious objector BUT a conscientious objector DOES NOT joint the military knowing full well they may be called to fight. Its common knowledge that it is not up to the soldier to decide if the action is right or wrong, its his duty to follow orders.
IF he were drafted - I could be more sympathetic, but the fact is, for the time being it is an all Volunteer Military. The Military (again) does have to kill from time to time. It comes with the job. If one does object to killing for ANY reason, he sure is a big fool for joining.
Unless he received a guarantee that he himself would not be fighting and aiding his country in another means - he has no leg to stand on in todays "volunteer" Army.
2006-09-26 23:26:52 · answer #6 · answered by Victor ious 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He should have Sucked it up and Drove On. He volunteered for this, and I'm sure was told about Iraq and watched the news.
I think he's a coward. I'm a female that spent almost a year and half over there In Tikrit among other places. I never once thought, I need to get out now. I wanted to go home like anyone else, but never lost my intent to fight and fight hard. I was over there and by the end of the first year I was the only female left with alll the guys, mostly due to pregnancies and injuries.
I learned a lot from them. I hung on and I made it home. You only see the bad stuff on the news, you don't get to see the units, who are doing nothing but standing by picking grass out of cracks and raking the sand.Granted combat medic's see a lot of horrible sh*# over there that messes with thier heads, but I think this guy was a little messed up in the head to begin with.
This guy should have his legs broken. I hope he goes to straight to the Brigg. Definitely a Coward!
2006-09-26 23:51:04 · answer #7 · answered by powerofconviction 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he is neither a conscientious objector or a coward. Rather, I think he is someone who was trying to use the system to get ahead in life. After all, he signed up to join the military....it was not required of him to join. He could have went ot a university and study medicine there. He chose not too.
He chose the military and everything that comes along with it. If it means going into a war zone, so be it. He is there to fight for our country, not to hide when its his turn for duty.
He may be a "conscientious objector" in his mind, and a "coward" in other peoples mind. However, I think he must one one ungrateful United States citizen, who should lose all of his rights for not upholding his part of the contract he signed with the Military.
I wonder if he is a friend of Michael Moore's?
2006-09-26 23:20:06 · answer #8 · answered by seatony 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm in favor of only considering the last paragraph
you see that if the daughter of the president was drafted they would change the rules and just because your not that important that you are going to not get the treatment fairly, i haven't the least problem with that being true.
Also throw in the towel because see for what ever reasons there are that time changes everyone and everything you will come to terms with time and all that you now believe in will come to pass and it will remain the same to everyone else but to you who now is sensitive about it would rather not be involved the depth of pain are no longer interesting and you may even reverse yourself as the scientists agree that it's just a fact that information gathering is not a closed door and all the facts aren't "in"' the book yet on: dead on facts on anything laws yes there are laws coming out of glutis maxi mus, also give your self time to see your right and medical things are not in the same light as yours. my girl loves to give care and is training to be a nurse and the CNA part of taking care of dementia cases has drained more than she ever could imagine life take away, so the guy got drained that's no big deal, you walk a mile in their shoes too and all will make sense,but nobody said the law was fair
2006-09-26 23:29:57 · answer #9 · answered by bev 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the world was full of cowards and conscienscious objectors then there would be no war. Rather than castigating cowards I think that agressors should be got rid of, then the issue of cowardice or not would be a moot point.
Whether he is a coward or not should not be the issue. In a civilised world the question should have no need to arise.
2006-09-27 00:05:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A medic is a non-combatant, according to the Geneva Conventions. He has no business objecting, since he is not a combatant. He voluntarily enlisted, and should accept part and parcel what he signed up to do.
All this guy is doing is trying to politicize his conduct in hopes that it might absolve him of his responsibility to his nation.
As an Army veteran, I am appalled at his conduct. Soldiers are only authorized to disobey illegal orders. There is no caveat to disobey "immoral" ones. He's toast, IMAO.
As far as the Bush daughters goes, there is no draft, and they may join (or not) at their discretion. Just as the medic did.
2006-09-26 23:47:26 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋