2007-01-03 16:17:20 · 16 answers · asked by S&S 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
They are cowards.
US Military Definition of Cowardice
As a legal definition, according to Subchapter X, Section 899, Article 99[1] of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, cowardice is defined as:
Running away from an enemy;
Abandoning, surrendering or otherwise fleeing any post that the soldier is tasked with defending;
Endangering the safety of any post that the soldier is responsible for through disobedience, neglect or willful misconduct while in combat;
Discarding arms or ammunition while in combat;
Abandoning combat to plunder or loot or commit other crimes;
Willfully failing to do all within the soldier's power to fight or defend when it is his duty to do so, while in combat;
Refusing to give any needed aid or relief to fellow troops while in combat; or
Performing other unspecified acts of "cowardly conduct" while in combat.
Begging friends to fight your battle.
According to the UCMJ, the maximum punishment for cowardice is the death penalty. Cowardice can, by definition, only be charged during a time of and in an area of armed conflict.
2007-01-03 16:24:11 · answer #1 · answered by Red Yeti 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I feel that they are reneging on an agreement they made to serve and protect. Compare it to a cop who refuses to go to a domestic violence scene because he is scared. Imagine what would happen to that cop? Same goes for Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines.
If they didn't want to be deployed, why join in the first place?
Makes little sense.
2007-01-03 16:24:21 · answer #2 · answered by Fuzzy Wuzzy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I figure they should have never signed up to begin with.. Its a choice at the moment to be in the Armed Forces.. If there was a draft I could see or understand it better.. but the way it stands.. It was their choice they should be a man or woman about it and do their job
2007-01-03 16:20:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I feel sad that Bush put them in such a bad situation to begin with. The brave men and women deployed around the world are awesome!! Those that have second thoughts should be forgiven.
2007-01-03 16:22:05 · answer #4 · answered by Math geek 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
nicely to be honest, in case you examine the completed tale, it says she had a kinfolk care plan in place and her mom gave her back her son purely some days in the previous she replaced into set to place in and stated she could not shelter him for a 365 days: "the army demands all single-discern squaddies to positioned up a care plan for based infants in the previous they'd deploy to a try against zone. Hutchinson had one among those plan — her mom, Angelique Hughes, had agreed to shelter the boy. Hughes stated Monday she saved the boy for greater or less 2 weeks in October in the previous figuring out she could not shop him for an entire 365 days. Hughes stated she's already having to shelter her sick mom and sister, to boot as a daughter with particular desires. She additionally runs a daycare middle at her abode, conserving approximately 14 infants for the duration of the day. "that's an toddler, and that they require 24-hour care," Hughes stated. "It replaced into very, very stressful, purely too a lot for me to handle." Hughes stated she back Kamani to his mom in Georgia some days in the previous her scheduled deployment Nov. 5." and he or she in no way went to her commanding officer? this is contradictory to the tale to boot: "She stated they advised her daughter's commanders they mandatory greater time to discover yet another kinfolk member or close chum to help Hughes shelter the boy, yet Hutchinson replaced into ordered to place in on schedule." Her mom could have found out faster that she does not be waiting to shelter the youngster (in spite of the incontrovertible fact that somewhat, she runs a toddler shelter 14 childrens and can't upload one greater? to not point out that the mummy took the youngster back whilst the mummy replaced into being hung on base.) that's not inevitably the daughter's fault nonetheless, and it form of feels from the tale that she replaced into soliciting for her deployment to be in the back of schedule somewhat than canceled. Her CO would have been greater awareness, yet she additionally could have had her act jointly. i think of this is honest to supply her slightly greater time to get a clean care plan in place on condition that her mom looks to have canceled on the final minute, yet she easily should not be excused from deployment altogether. on the different hand, if evidently she and her mom deliberate this so she did not would desire to place in, she could be made to place in and face disciplinary movements.
2016-12-12 03:21:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They made a contract and swore an oath. They should be in Leavenworth prison.
2007-01-03 16:24:21 · answer #6 · answered by m. b 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are cowards.
Even though i'm not for the war, i feel that if you have chosen to be in a profession or "job", do it.
It's your obligation.
They've sworn their life for their country.
2007-01-03 18:37:09 · answer #7 · answered by falzalnz 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
its still a volunteer army. there is no draft, if you don't want to go then don't join up.no one will think poorly if you don't. but if you say "I state your name, do solemnly swear..." then man/woman up
2007-01-03 16:25:33 · answer #8 · answered by done 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cowards...
2007-01-03 16:19:41 · answer #9 · answered by Psychotic2 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
why go? so they can be a statistic and fight for a loser of a leader who is the downfall of our beautiful country?!
2007-01-03 16:22:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋