US soldier refuses to report for active duty in Iraq

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

"If our country is in such a dire emergency that we need to conscript manpower, congress has to vote to reinstate the draft," the elder Chiroux told AFP.

There's an alternative to a draft. Maybe we should ask where all the men (largely) 18-31 were from 2001-2008. If the WWII generation was called "the greatest generation" what should we call the guys now? "The Missing Generation?" Wonder what that means for the future?

This isn't slam on the men and women currently in uniform or finished their contractual committments. I was outside the U.S. when there was a supposed surge in patriotism after 9/11. I asked people back in the States if they were long lines at the recruiter stations and nobody knew the answer. Lots of flags and not a lot folks in uniform but the same families who are part of the American military chaste.

This is really thought provoking and inspirational to me! Political Scientist have observed after a terrorist attack or just after our country does a bombing there is a phenomena called, "rally around the flag", so the surge in patriotism after 9/11 is correct.

Addressing where the call to action went and calling them the "Missing Generation" would be a nice title for a thought provoking journalism piece. It's the story that isn't being covered right now just like when the biggest story that was missed by journalist in the 60's-70's was the soldiers story coming back from Vietnam and the reaction of the public.

My brother was always the invisible child growing up. The family comes from a military background for generations. When 9/11 happened is when my brothers chose to join the military service. Would this be included in the American military chaste? It was their own independent choices without encouragement from our father or grandparents. I feel though from the background and how they were raised that they were instilled with a sense of duty. And now these brothers continue being the invisible missing children over there.

Wow I am really inspired to investigate this part of the story. Too bad I only have this region to work with and can't get around the country to get some good coverage for this piece.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What if he had signed up for 8 years and after the fact he was ordered by his commanding officers to smuggle drugs? I guess he made the commitment, he should shut up and do as duty calls whether or not it is illegal is of little consequence.

He views the war as illegal, as do many US citizens. This has nothing to do with wanting to sit at home, he has principles and opposes the war.

What he views as illegal is generally of little consequence in most situations. If the military allowed individual soldiers to pick and choose what orders to obey based upon what they believed to be a legal or illegal order, nothing would ever get done. Instead, there are certain orders that are considered illegal, such as "shoot and kill all the civilians" or "rape the women."

Ordering a soldier, who voluntarily signed up to be in the military, to report for active duty (whether or not he personally agrees with the war in Iraq) is in no way an illegal order. Besides, active duty doesn't have to mean "on the front lines" either. If he truly detests the idea of combat, there are tons of support roles that would most likely keep him out of battle.

[morocco4ever 63]

What if he had signed up for 8 years and after the fact he was ordered by his commanding officers to smuggle drugs? I guess he made the commitment, he should shut up and do as duty calls whether or not it is illegal is of little consequence.

He views the war as illegal, as do many US citizens. This has nothing to do with wanting to sit at home, he has principles and opposes the war.

What he views as illegal is generally of little consequence in most situations. If the military allowed individual soldiers to pick and choose what orders to obey based upon what they believed to be a legal or illegal order, nothing would ever get done. Instead, there are certain orders that are considered illegal, such as "shoot and kill all the civilians" or "rape the women."

Ordering a soldier, who voluntarily signed up to be in the military, to report for active duty (whether or not he personally agrees with the war in Iraq) is in no way an illegal order. Besides, active duty doesn't have to mean "on the front lines" either. If he truly detests the idea of combat, there are tons of support roles that would most likely keep him out of battle.

If invading a country on falsehoods isn't illegal then it should be. Where are those weapons of mass distruction anyway?

[alienlovechild 75]

Guts enough to get all the attention he'll ever need from an adoring media. Ever heard of these guys?:

MURPHY, MICHAEL P

DUNHAM, JASON L.

McGINNIS, ROSS A.

MONSOOR, MICHAEL, A.

SMITH, PAUL R.

Probably not but they deserved a lot more attention than Chiroux will get.

Yes, I actually met ensign Murphy back in 2001. A couple of years before dying in a ridiculously waged war.

Good for you. You could try typing Ensign Murphy because all military ranks are capitalized as titles, right? Let's give the man the proper respect. Guess you're also against the war in Afghanistan as well? Your guy, Obama, wants to keep up the war there.

Tell us when you figure that what the larger issues are.

How's the initiation of the Iraq war for starters?

That's it? Wow, pretty deep thinker you are. Should we get back in a time machine and change everything or deal with reality now?

Nevertheless, given some of the more flamboyant "ex-military" types that frequent, for example, VJ, I'd not find myself all that surprised if reading comprehension wasn't a forte for some of the less conscientious objectors.

Translation= If you are military veteran, you must be illiterate because you signed up (no doubt with a "X"). The smart guys are the conscientious objectors. That could be Obama's next campaign theme: I smart enough to avoid becoming a POW unlike my opponent, Senator McCain.

If that is your translation, perhaps you feel more alluded to than I even thought of mentioning. Unfortunately for your lack of translation skills, that is not what I wrote, is it? I italicize it for your benefit.

You couldn't explain yourself either? Changing the font doesn't help a poorly constructed swipe.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

What if he had signed up for 8 years and after the fact he was ordered by his commanding officers to smuggle drugs? I guess he made the commitment, he should shut up and do as duty calls whether or not it is illegal is of little consequence.

He views the war as illegal, as do many US citizens. This has nothing to do with wanting to sit at home, he has principles and opposes the war.

that is an unlawful order. next?

[Nagishkaw 510]

What if he had signed up for 8 years and after the fact he was ordered by his commanding officers to smuggle drugs? I guess he made the commitment, he should shut up and do as duty calls whether or not it is illegal is of little consequence.

He views the war as illegal, as do many US citizens. This has nothing to do with wanting to sit at home, he has principles and opposes the war.

that is an unlawful order. next?

Is unlawful order the same as out of order?

[HAL 9000 96]

Good for you. You could try typing Ensign Murphy because all military ranks are capitalized as titles, right? Let's give the man the proper respect. Guess you're also against the war in Afghanistan as well? Your guy, Obama, wants to keep up the war there.

Tell us when you figure that what the larger issues are.

Navy. Rate. Not Rank.

Wrong as well on where I think we should be fighting, but then its you, after all. A friendly suggestion would be to stick your foot out of your mouth for starters.

That's it? Wow, pretty deep thinker you are. Should we get back in a time machine and change everything or deal with reality now?

That would be up to you. I prefer to be real and get out of the situation we never should have gotten ourselves into in the first place. Kind of like admitting you made a mistake when in fact the mistake was started by a series of lies that some continue to follow like lemmings off of a cliff. Will this mean safely removing ground forces and ground support? Yes. Will this mean opening channels of diplomacy to make the conflict less an occupation and more a peacekeeping operation? Yes. Its also called thinking first, playing idiotic cowboy later.

You couldn't explain yourself either? Changing the font doesn't help a poorly constructed swipe.

OK.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Good for you. You could try typing Ensign Murphy because all military ranks are capitalized as titles, right? Let's give the man the proper respect. Guess you're also against the war in Afghanistan as well? Your guy, Obama, wants to keep up the war there.

Tell us when you figure that what the larger issues are.

Navy. Rate. Not Rank.

Wrong as well on where I think we should be fighting, but then its you, after all. A friendly suggestion would be to stick your foot out of your mouth for starters.

Hmmm... I've always heard that "Ensign" is a commissioned officer rank in the Navy, equal to that of an Army/Air Force/Marine Second Lieutenant. Therefore, the term "rank" would probably be used. If we're talking about enlisted personnel in the Navy, then I believe we'd use "rate."

Edited June 16, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[HAL 9000 96]

Good for you. You could try typing Ensign Murphy because all military ranks are capitalized as titles, right? Let's give the man the proper respect. Guess you're also against the war in Afghanistan as well? Your guy, Obama, wants to keep up the war there.

Tell us when you figure that what the larger issues are.

Navy. Rate. Not Rank.

Wrong as well on where I think we should be fighting, but then its you, after all. A friendly suggestion would be to stick your foot out of your mouth for starters.

Hmmm... I've always heard that "Ensign" is a commissioned officer rank in the Navy, equal to that of an Army/Air Force/Marine Second Lieutenant. Therefore, the term "rank" would probably be used. If we're talking about enlisted personnel in the Navy, then I believe we'd use "rate."

That is correct. US Navy Rates vs Ranks. Ensigns are O-1 pay grade, followed by O-2 Lieutenant Jr Grade and so forth.

[alienlovechild 75]

Good for you. You could try typing Ensign Murphy because all military ranks are capitalized as titles, right? Let's give the man the proper respect. Guess you're also against the war in Afghanistan as well? Your guy, Obama, wants to keep up the war there.

Tell us when you figure that what the larger issues are.

Wrong as well on where I think we should be fighting, but then its you, after all. A friendly suggestion would be to stick your foot out of your mouth for starters.

Yes, I actually met ensign Murphy back in 2001. A couple of years before dying in a ridiculously waged war.

If you were in the Navy, did they train you to fight where the enemy isn't? Where's the real fight? The reason I mentioned Afghanistan is that is where Murphy was killed not Iraq; therefore, Afghanistan is a "ridiculously waged war". Obama promises to continue the war there.

Kind of like admitting you made a mistake when in fact the mistake was started by a series of lies that some continue to follow like lemmings off of a cliff. Will this mean safely removing ground forces and ground support? Yes. Will this mean opening channels of diplomacy to make the conflict less an occupation and more a peacekeeping operation? Yes. Its also called thinking first, playing idiotic cowboy later.

Which lies were told? Open channels with whom? How do you get any leverage in diplomacy while you're withdrawing troops? How are you going find countries willing to play peacekeeper when it's (in your words) "based on lies" and who has more power projection than the U.S? You gave it shot but you haven't followed through with some simple implications. You and Bush may be more alike than you think.

[HAL 9000 96]

The reason I mentioned Afghanistan is that is where Murphy was killed not Iraq; therefore, Afghanistan is a "ridiculously waged war". Obama promises to continue the war there.

I stand corrected on the theater.

Which lies were told? Open channels with whom? How do you get any leverage in diplomacy while you're withdrawing troops? How are you going find countries willing to play peacekeeper when it's (in your words) "based on lies" and who has more power projection than the U.S? You gave it shot but you haven't followed through with some simple implications. You and Bush may be more alike than you think.

Simple, really. Iraq's neighbors are more interested in having us out. Why? Because we are not welcome where we make up stories about things that do not exist in order to overthrow dictators. Later, of course, we could trick enough of our own citizens to believe it was always about installing democracy in order to protect our national security.

Should be be part of a multinational force to peacekeep- coincidentally to clean up the mess we contributed to in the first place, its because we did so out of consultation with regional nations, not out of a cockheaded bravado intended to dominate instead of establish reason and an actual democratic sentiment amongst the policed.

[alienlovechild 75]

Iraq's neighbors are more interested in having us out. Why? Because we are not welcome where we make up stories about things that do not exist in order to overthrow dictators. Later, of course, we could trick enough of our own citizens to believe it was always about installing democracy in order to protect our national security.

That's not how they see things. Don't assume an ancient region revolves around a single U.S. president. At the very least, Iran and Syria don't want a destabilized Iraq if its problems blow back on to themselves. Saddam had no friends outside maybe Jordan but nobody wanted him around after three wars and border conflicts. I probably would have just installed some equally brutal dictator but less antagonistic towards the U.S.. That would have been my quick way out and may end up like that anyway.

Should be be part of a multinational force to peacekeep- coincidentally to clean up the mess we contributed to in the first place, its because we did so out of consultation with regional nations, not out of a cockheaded bravado intended to dominate instead of establish reason and an actual democratic sentiment amongst the policed.

Highly unlikely thanks, in part, to people with your attitude. No one is going to chip in with after years of anti-Iraq War speeches. Would you send a member of your family? There's never been a peacekeeping mission that large and expensive. Also, you can't keep the peace until all the major warring parties are tired of fighting and there's at cease-fire agreement. Too bad there's no one to talk to with their "chain-of-command". "Establish reason" and some kind of "democratic sentiment" in the Middle East? The Arabs aren't at that stage.

Obama didn't start the war but I haven't heard anything from him that makes me think he can sweet talk us out of Iraq without some serious consequences. He, like Bush, has committed to a course of action and he's going to ride out the storm. I hope he succeeds but he'll be fun to heckle him for a few years if he fails.

End of thread

Edited June 16, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Amby 490]

He signed the papers. He knew what it meant when he signed them even if he thought he would never be called back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iraq's neighbors are more interested in having us out. Why? Because we are not welcome where we make up stories about things that do not exist in order to overthrow dictators. Later, of course, we could trick enough of our own citizens to believe it was always about installing democracy in order to protect our national security.

That's not how they see things. Don't assume an ancient region revolves around a single U.S. president. At the very least, Iran and Syria don't want a destabilized Iraq if its problems blow back on to themselves. Saddam had no friends outside maybe Jordan but nobody wanted him around after three wars and border conflicts. I probably would have just installed some equally brutal dictator but less antagonistic towards the U.S.. That would have been my quick way out and may end up like that anyway.

Should be be part of a multinational force to peacekeep- coincidentally to clean up the mess we contributed to in the first place, its because we did so out of consultation with regional nations, not out of a cockheaded bravado intended to dominate instead of establish reason and an actual democratic sentiment amongst the policed.

Highly unlikely thanks, in part, to people with your attitude. No one is going to chip in with after years of anti-Iraq War speeches. Would you send a member of your family? There's never been a peacekeeping mission that large and expensive. Also, you can't keep the peace until all the major warring parties are tired of fighting and there's at cease-fire agreement. Too bad there's no one to talk to with their "chain-of-command". "Establish reason" and some kind of "democratic sentiment" in the Middle East? The Arabs aren't at that stage.

Obama didn't start the war but I haven't heard anything from him that makes me think he can sweet talk us out of Iraq without some serious consequences. He, like Bush, has committed to a course of action and he's going to ride out the storm. I hope he succeeds but he'll be fun to heckle him for a few years if he fails.

End of thread

Which is really why a lot of people the world over thought this war was a $hitty idea from the get-go.

[HAL 9000 96]

Iraq's neighbors are more interested in having us out. Why? Because we are not welcome where we make up stories about things that do not exist in order to overthrow dictators. Later, of course, we could trick enough of our own citizens to believe it was always about installing democracy in order to protect our national security.

That's not how they see things. Don't assume an ancient region revolves around a single U.S. president. At the very least, Iran and Syria don't want a destabilized Iraq if its problems blow back on to themselves. Saddam had no friends outside maybe Jordan but nobody wanted him around after three wars and border conflicts. I probably would have just installed some equally brutal dictator but less antagonistic towards the U.S.. That would have been my quick way out and may end up like that anyway.

Should be be part of a multinational force to peacekeep- coincidentally to clean up the mess we contributed to in the first place, its because we did so out of consultation with regional nations, not out of a cockheaded bravado intended to dominate instead of establish reason and an actual democratic sentiment amongst the policed.

Highly unlikely thanks, in part, to people with your attitude. No one is going to chip in with after years of anti-Iraq War speeches. Would you send a member of your family? There's never been a peacekeeping mission that large and expensive. Also, you can't keep the peace until all the major warring parties are tired of fighting and there's at cease-fire agreement. Too bad there's no one to talk to with their "chain-of-command". "Establish reason" and some kind of "democratic sentiment" in the Middle East? The Arabs aren't at that stage.

Obama didn't start the war but I haven't heard anything from him that makes me think he can sweet talk us out of Iraq without some serious consequences. He, like Bush, has committed to a course of action and he's going to ride out the storm. I hope he succeeds but he'll be fun to heckle him for a few years if he fails.

End of thread

End for your line of reasoning, perhaps.

For more linear reasoning, there in your own words lies part of the answer- Iraq's neighbors don't want an unstable Iraq once the US is not militarily involved. If you can, just try for a moment to realize that its not a tribal, ancient argument that created the WMDs theory to justify war, but the tribal, ancient grab for power that did so. As for brutal dictators, I wonder where your line of though would fluctuate when Saddam was enjoying our Intel against Iran back in the 80s.

Say what about peacekeeping ops? Somehow you are missing the point about regional peacekeeping. If you want to lay it on Arabs, then Arabs can take care of their own. Remember, lets base a simple premise for a moment which shouldn't be too hard to reason through- mainly... the majority of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at demoralizing and maiming the population to galvanize against certain foreigners presently occupying that country. I wonder whom, then, couldn't equate a diminishing of these attacks once these occupiers leave and are faced with a new psychological factor:

Would they continue antagonizing a population against their own Arab neighbors? Highly unlikely. In fact, its the gung-ho logic that you may be defending that is one of the biggest contributors to perpetuating antagonizing Iraquis against our occupation forces. Stayng the course, simply put, is a recipe for the continuation of hatred towards us, as well as guaranteeing planting future seeds of hate against you, me, and all of us on this side of the pond.