Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

One Soldier Echoes the Hearts and Minds of Millions

eyesonobama.com — As John McCain plans to continue the occupation of Iraq for at least five more years one soldier stands up and says No. Sergeant Matthis Chiroux is willing to fight, but not to commit war crimes or fight in an "unconstitutional and illegal" war. As Americans it is time to ask ourselves which direction we want to go in Iraq.

Bury

Stonecipher26 68 days ago, made popular 68 days ago

223 diggs
digg it

cookiemonster12, on 05/18/2008, -9/+14This story is so sad. I wanted to know... How long do you think he could stay in prison. Does anyone know? until the end of the war?
- Lyph5, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9Well, one of the responsibilities of a soldier is to refuse any unconstitutional orders. That's all this man did.
chrissku, on 05/18/2008, -16/+16Obama 08
kdawg1012, on 05/18/2008, -15/+8I'm totally and unequivocally against the war. BUT, by not living up to his obligations Sgt. Chiroux is betraying the guys on his left and right that depend on him. I have some problems with that.
- Stonecipher26, on 05/18/2008, -9/+12I understand that sentiment, but by giving The Army ample notice that he will not be there, he is giving them more than enough time to find an appropriate replacement. It is not as if he's bailing, mid-battle on his fellow troops. He is simply saying he can no longer be a part of an illegal and unconstitutional war.
  - gsxrjason, on 05/18/2008, -4/+14I think it takes more courage to stand up for what you believe in than it does to blindly follow orders.
- Lyph5, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I've got a better idea: We can keep the guys on his left and right safe by bringing them all home.
marabout40, on 05/18/2008, -14/+21Americans, when we go to the polls this November, the choice is clear.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/18/2008, -15/+9Yes! Don't vote for the party of appeasement and confiscatory taxation.
  NObama 2008!
  - chicofaraby, on 05/18/2008, -7/+9So you are in favor of crimes against humanity and the failed economic nonsense of the ultra right?
    - mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/18/2008, -11/+5Never said that. But I'm pretty much against most things you're for, little chiquito.
      NObama 2008!
    - chicofaraby, on 05/18/2008, -7/+10"I'm pretty much against most things you're for"
      
      Since I'm in favor of sane economic policies and prosecuting the war criminals, you must be for the GOPs insane economics policies and more George Bush.
      
      Well, OK. Someone has to be a twenty percenter.
    - twomeyw23334, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4That's just a wee bit polarizing. As uninspired by McCain's economic knowledge as I am, Obama's seems even more non-existent.
      And can you stop saying things like "failed economic nonsense of the ultra right" and point out specific examples. I would like to know how Bush (who isn't ultra right (that's why ultra right wingers don't like him)) is responsible for globalization and the mortgage crisis. And when is the recession going to start again?
- toekneebullard, on 05/18/2008, -4/+5Yeah, none of the above.
  Anyone else tired of voting for the lesser of two evils?
- noprtyaff, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5The U.S. should not have to be the world's police. And it is quite short sited to think that the U.S. can spread democracy throughout the rest of the world given the number of different cultures, religions, languages, ethnicities, traditions and boundaries that exist in it.
  
  That being said and despite the effort of many within the U.S.( which include the three remaining utterly terrible candidates for President - one of which may hold to racist black liberation theology - who for example, want to continue to leave the U.S. borders wide open for invasion) the U.S. is still a sovereign nation. However, independent of whether or not the it was right to go into Iraq or not; it is short-sited for any citizen to charge their own country with "war crimes." I write this given that it is an international court that would decide on such a charge. By allowing or demanding that your own country be judged is such a court for "war crimes", you are in effect selling your country's sovereignty out to the rest of the world. This does not make sense for anyone who enjoys the life that citizenship to the U.S. provides them with.
  
  Diggers are primarily leftists and Obama supporters are nothing more than true believers. So, save any Thomas Paine screed for someone else and have a nice day. In the very least, I have put forth a very valid argument.
chicofaraby, on 05/18/2008, -12/+15That's one.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
michaelpinto, on 05/18/2008, -7/+21I'm against the war but I have mixed feelings on this: Bush got permission to launch this law from Congress so you can't call it unconstitutional (that's what Clinton voted for) - in fact Congress had the power in 2006 to cut off funding and didn't, which would have ended the war. Also Bush is his Commander-in-Chief like it or not - the same way that you'd expect troops to serve if they objected to the mission in Somalia or bombing campaign against Yugoslavia during the Clinton administration. To put it another way: Would you want this guy doing the same thing to a President Obama in 2009 while a withdrawal process is going on?
- chicofaraby, on 05/18/2008, -10/+8"Congress had the power in 2006 to cut off funding and didn't, which would have ended the war."
  
  Yes they could. But it's not like they haven't tried to stop the murder of Iraqis by the US military.
  
  "President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a war-spending bill that calls for the start of a withdrawal of American combat troops from the conflict."
  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.ir ...
  
  Oh yeah, the b-b-b-but Clinton... nonsense is 8 years over.
- Crimsoneer, on 05/18/2008, -3/+8I agree. He might disagree with the mentality behind the war, but I wouldn't go so far as calling it unconstitutional, nor is it fundamentally "wrong" morally(eg, we aren't oppressing a population or anything).
  - cdahlkvist, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5But according to a poll of liberals (I just did the poll by reading this thread) our troops are just running amok killing innocent women and children.
    
    In fact, the liberals tell me that we are taping grenades to kittens and throwing them into schools filled with Iraqi children.
    
    Besides, it's not right that we oppress suicide bombers and terrorist groups.
    
    Where have you been?
- VnutZ, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1I completely second your statements and have commented before on the FAILURE OF CONGRESS to act. Even after the "sweeping changes" congressional election, nothing changed. The blame does not lie necessarily on Bush. For the past five years, it has been entirely on congress.
  
  http://www.omninerd.com/blogs/Authority_to_Withdra ...
  http://www.omninerd.com/blogs/No_Confidence_in_Con ...
- freezeout, on 05/18/2008, -6/+3he got permission after he lied to congress and the world
  not to mention war was never officially declared, this was supposed to be a short "operation"
- desertDenizen, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4Soldiers are human, and therefore responsible for their actions. "Just following orders" doesn't cut it.
  - desertDenizen, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Fascinating to get dugg down on such a patently obviously true statement. God help us.
- buckrogers1965, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I missed where congress made a declaration of war which would have given the president authority to invade another country.
  
  Legally, under the constitution, this was the requirement.
  
  "Permission" or "authorization" doesn't count.
  - VnutZ, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Nope - the president as commander in chief is authorized to deploy the US military anywhere he wants for a period of up to 90 days. This Constitutional perk was enjoyed on numerous, numerous occasions by everyone's favorite Bill Clinton. The ability to SUSTAIN forces in a location rests with Congress. It's called the War Powers Clause.
    
    http://www.omninerd.com/blogs/Authority_to_Withdra ...
- rewinn, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your mixed feelings. But what the media won't tell you is that AUMF/Iraq (Authorization to Use Military Force) was predicated on Bush's certifying that Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to the USA. He did so, and in doing so lied. That lie makes AUMF/Iraq meaningless and his war is therefore illegal.
  It's illegal for other reasons; even Congress cannot authorize a war of aggression. But the AUMF technicality suffices.
redcolumbine, on 05/18/2008, -9/+13How far have we fallen, that true heroism is rewarded with imprisonment and Americans are afraid to even voice their support? But we needed a hero and we got one - for America, for humanity (the race), and for humanity (the ideal). May I have the courage to play whatever part I can to restore this country to its former greatness too.
DrPaul2008, on 05/18/2008, -9/+6Just remember that you thought this way when Obama, or any other republicrat, finds a reason to continue this, or some new, occupation.
kemp34, on 05/18/2008, -10/+6Restore the Republic.
- Berkana, on 05/18/2008, -3/+6Obama might be a far lesser evil than McCain, but nothing in his campaign suggests to me that he'd go as far as Ron Paul would.
badassninja, on 05/18/2008, -11/+5Ron Paul For..ever.
Argentian, on 05/18/2008, -10/+5This is a bunch of comments from people who obviously have their heart where their head should be...no, not up their ass, but, probably that too.

Short-sighted are we, group? You seem to have an inability to see what danger you place the US, your friends, children and grandchildren in by parroting the Left's lies about the intelligence gaffes (done by those put into management positions by Clinton, by the way) and their mishandling of information.

I'm sure you'll find a way to blame Bush-CHeney on all things, when the roof is collapsing on you in a few years, because of a precipitous departure from Iraq and other places the Terror War is being fought. People like yourselves don't believe in taking responsibility for your words and actions.
- TrainingName, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4People in general are afraid to take responsibility for their words and actions, do not single out certain people.
- Lyph5, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4The roof is collapsing right now, Argentian. And it's Bush who removed the load bearing walls at the request of big business.
- jubalj, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Polarising the world the way America is at the moment, is definitely not the way to move towards world peace.. the war is just breeding hatered, i hope its not too late for the US to fix this..
- desertDenizen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Couching this in terms of left vs. right is so 2004. Anybody, anywhere on the spectrum, who has not by now come to the conclusion that this has been the worst disaster of policy in our lifetime frankly isn't intelligent enough to be worth talking to. Please go away and let smart people fix things. The idiots had their chance and ***** things all to hell for all of us (including myself, a former Republican, so ***** you, you brainless sheep).
Ventolin, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1You'd think his buddy could have fixed his hair a little bit.
Startemus, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5This war should have ended long ago... that's all there is to it.
MacroDaemon, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3Pulling out won't stabilize the situation in Iraq though. I'm worried that it might get quite bad over there should the US decide to pull out, since most of the problems in Iraq nowadays are due to religious and cultural conflicts, which originate from Saddam's oppressive rule and before that, not the invasion.
methos75, on 05/18/2008, -10/+10I am so sick of whiny troops bitching about the war, first off as a fellow Military member myself who has served in Iraq. I cannot honestly understand how anyone who has been too that ***** hole and seen the mass graves and Torture centers could say that the war was not warrented. And seriously as a Sergent, he should be setting an example and standard for his troops, one that ensures they get home alive. Instead he is doing the opposite, and in military terms, he is a " Complete bag of ***** and a waste of Flesh". Perhaps the reasons we went into Iraq wrong, but the intention was spot on. People bitchg about are so called torture, but guess what, what we do is nothing compared to what Saddam did to thousands. Ever see a room full of bloody meats hanging from the ceiling and bloody handprints covering the floor and walls? I have.

As to the unconstitutional and illegal war, such a lame statement. First off there can be no such thing as an unconstitutional war because there is no such thing as a constitutional war. There can also be no such thing as an illegal war either, war by its nature is the breakdown of the political and legal systems. War is outside the scope of such things as legality, anyone who calls a war illegal is a retard plain and simple, and it shows that they have zero knowledge of the processes that lead to War. Even if you want to try to throw legal misinformation around, one could easily call the systemtic culling of the kurds by saddam, his destruction of the Marsh Arabs, his refusal to follow UN sanctions, his torture of thousands and his killing of Millions of dissenters, etc as legal reasons for Bush to go into Iraq, because all are listed by the UN and the Geneva conventions as reasons for one country to war against another to protect human life.
- IHaveIssues, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4[People bitchg about are so called torture, but guess what, what we do is nothing compared to what Saddam did to thousands.]
  
  Well Saddam is gone now; dead and buried. Why is the U.S. still there? Can the U.S. cure centuries of tribal conflict? Is that the goal now?
- 9bpm9, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2You know what worsened the tribal conflict? When the imperialistic Europeans couldn't afford to control their colonies anymore because they spent all their god damn money fighting a world war. So they got up and left and split up the middle east into countries that have 3 or 4 different ethnic groups in each god damn area. There would still be fighting today, but it's doubtful that it would have turned into what it has today. Of course the Europeans feeling sorry for the Jews, that they themselves have persecuted for over a thousand years, and taking land from another nation and giving it to the Jews sure didn't help things along either.
  - methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0How did the Europeans take land away from another nation and give it to the Jews, if that land that was given to the Jews was in fact European Land in the first place. Remember that the entire Levant at that time belonged to England and they are the ones who gave it over to the UN to break up into Israel, and anyway that land was land stolen from the Jews in the first place by Europeans, they just gave back Yisrael to the Hebrews. I really wish people would do this cool new thing called Research on the history of Israel.
    
    If they did, it would immediately become clear that one, the land that Isreal comprises has always been the birth place of the jewish nation and has always been made up of largely Jewish inhabitants, infact the Palestianians are the outsiders there, because unlike the arabs and jews who are all an semetic people the Palestianians are Greek in nature. Every major city there is also Jewish in background and have been for thousands of years, the Palestianians historically after being placed there by the Romans did very very little at all in that region. And when present day Isreal was created, the area was almost 80% Jewish, why give land to a people that hardly lived there?
    
    And if your going to lambast Israel for taking land from the Palestianians, then you better go after Jordan and Lebenon as well. Because unlike the area that is now israel, those two countries are made up from lands that were largely Palestianian in nature when they were created.
- Elderon, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3You can think whatever you wish. But If mass graves/murders warrants an invasion of a country why not go into Darfur or Myanmar?
  
  I also think it's kinda strange how you call anyone who says this war was illegal/unjustified idiots because war is outside the law, but then go on to point out various laws that we could use as justification to go to war. So which is it. are we bound by the laws or are we not?
  
  Anyways, in a way he is setting an example. If he believes in it strongly enough he has the duty to disobey orders he deems wrong. though he will have to live with the consequences.
TrainingName, on 05/18/2008, -4/+5It's saddening to read articles like this, in a couple of ways.

1. The soldiers who do not want to fight have no choice, if they are in the warzone, or are being sent there regardless. This completely destroys "freedom of choice", where there never has been in the first place, I'm just surprised that people don't think about that "freedom".

2. Reading about it and how the USA is always regarded as the good guys, and that those in Iraq and such are the evil guys. First off, "good" and "evil" are a certain point of view. They are not clearly defined terms. Most of what we regard to be "good" or "evil" is what we are told by those with the illusion of authority over us. The ones the government calls the bad guys, think that we're the bad guys, and that they're the good guys instead. That's how Hitler did it, and that's how the world does/did it.

I suppose that the second part of that was not entirely related to the article completely, loosely, more likely, than on the actual topic I wished to discuss, but now I've run out of time.

Bye.
- jubalj, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0People have a choice (in most countries) about joining the army, once they join they have to abide by the chain of command. Armies are not democracies, if soldiers had freedom of choice it would fall apart..
- methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0He had "Freedom of Choice", he could of decided to not enlist but he took his freedom of choice and excercised it to join the Army where he took a legally binding oath to serve his country in peace and war and TO FOLLOW ALL THE ORDERS OF BOTH HIS SUPERIORS, THE OFFICERS PLACED ABOVE HIM, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He took his choice, now he has to live with it.
  - TrainingName, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Though to the lowest degree, he took an oath to do what he was told, regardless of whether he believed it to be right or not.
    The government makes the decision for him, because they're the ones with power, apparently.
    
    He has the choice to leave the military, but not without the consequence of not being able to serve again. Freedom of choice? I think not.
    
    There's no such thing as "freedom" in our society, yet the word is so loosely thrown around.
    - methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0If he isn't going to do his job, why should he be able to serve again? That makes no sense to me at all. Maybe its because I am in the Military and as a SSgt tasked to enforce these codes, but to me you either do what your told or its the door and a kick in the ass. And in reality that isn't just the military, in every job your payed to do what your told to do and if you don't its the door, that is just common sense.
    - woodeye18, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0We live in a civilization. That means that we have freedom to do some things, yet we do not have the freedom to break in to our neighbors home and rob him. We do not have the freedom to Rape the checkout girl at the Piggly Wiggly.
      
      The word is not loosely thrown around in our society. It is a concept that for most people in this society above all others is considered a very real concept that is our highest ideal.
      
      In a civilization, we make choices everyday. I am free to continue to live with my family or abandon my children. I am free to not show up for work tomorrow. I am free to tell someone on the street that their T shirt has an idiotic statement printed on it. Am I free from anything negative ever happening to me? No. If I abandon my commitments to my Family, my job, my neighbors and friends, if this angers them for my treachery and deceit, who can blame them? If there are laws in place to give them a means of dealing with their alleged injury I have caused, then I can suffer punishment criminally or civilly. If the guy with the T Shirt doesn't like my freedom of speech he might hurt my feelings by telling me to go stick it or he might punch me out.
      
      Your moral relativism is astonishing. Freedom has meaning. It does not mean freedom from having a bad day if you decide to screw over everybody you know. To Al Qaeda, their Utopia is to take the literal translation of the word Islam, meaning to surrender, and give up all freedom and have a totalitarian theocracy make even the most minute decision for you. Life under the Taliban was a world where people were fully aware of what freedom was not.
      
      This soldier made a promise and a commitment. He broke his word. His abandonment of his duty is an injury on the government's commitment to him and in turn is an injury against every American that was counting on him to protect and defend this country and he should pay the price.
  - buckrogers1965, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1You missed a word. Lawful is the word you forgot. The oath is to serve and obey all lawful orders of your superiors. Not any order. We are carefully instructed on the laws of war and what is legal or not.
    
    If an American soldier is given an unlawful order it is their duty to refuse to obey that order. Failure to refuse the order makes them complicit in the crime. The defense "I was only following orders" didn't work for the Nazi's and it isn't going to work when Americans are finally served up justice either.
- woodeye18, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0On your first statement, claiming that it is sad that this warrior has no freedom of choice to not wage war is bizarre. Does a police officer have the freedom to stand by and watch a mob beat someone and do nothing? A police man volunteers to police, he takes an oath. Oaths mean something. Does a Fireman have the freedom to go back to bed when he is called? He is a fireman he took an oath that when someone is in danger of dying, he is negligent to stand by and not exercise the duty he has given an oath to render. This wuss gave an oath to be a warrior. A Warrior wages War. Oaths, obligations, promises, commitments, these have meaning in a civilized society. How can you be surprised that people don't see it your way?
  
  Reading your second point explains to me why you are surprised. We are the good guys! Let me say it again....America is the good guys, period! And the ones you refer to as "...those in Iraq..." are the bad guys. Al Zarqawi was to use your words "evil". The day we snuffed his life was a day we should all celebrate and dance about with smiles and laughter. Ayman Zawahiri the religious voice of Al Qaeda driving these monsters we fight against, he is evil. If you can't see that Zawahiri is evil and the US soldiers in Iraq are the good guys and that America in general is the single greatest force for good in this world, then your rudder is so completely broken that you are a prime candidate for recruitment into a cult or worse. You mention Hitler at one point, how would someone with your moral compass describe his mode of operation? Is Hitler as much a force for good as lets say Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  
  George Bush made an oath "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The above mentioned monsters announced a holy oath to destroy each and every one of us in 1998, in part because they think that the concepts embodied in the constitution do not comport with Sharia. So they gave an oath to come and kill us. They have made good on that oath and killed thousands of Americans already. Bush understands that our WILL to abide by our oaths must be stronger than THEIR will to abide by theirs. For anybody that does not understand the concept of oaths, duty, and a commitment to answer when your brother calls for your help, is weakening that will and is sowing the seeds of our demise. Only when the good are removed as a bulwark to the forces of evil, will they learn that evil and good are very different.
ElAssoWipo, on 05/18/2008, -8/+3Why do they keep saying Obama was speaking against the war from the beginning?

He wasn't even in the senate when the Iraq war resolution was voted on and I can't find ANYTHING about him being publicly opposed to the Iraq war before it started.

There's only one guy out there who truly opposed the war and made efforts to convince everybody else. And that's Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2601OeBudE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7KsmzYxPs0&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4"Barack Obama on the other hand has a clear understanding of the toll this war is taking on our troops, on our nation, on the people of Iraq and on this nation's economy. Sen. Obama understands the urgency to end this war now"
mmm.
- methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Sen. Obama just understands that if he totes that line and deceives people into thinking he cares, it will give him votes. Obama would do nothing differently at all, and anyone who thinks other wise is deceiving theirselves.
9bpm9, on 05/18/2008, -4/+4Since when did war ever follow constitutionality or legality? People like this guy need to leave our armed forces. I for one don't want a guy protecting my ass in battle when he doesn't even think we should be fighting.
wh3873, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3What I always find interesting is that these guys decide they can't support the war only when they get deployed. Most of them have no problem supporting the war while they are safely stationed in the states. These guys fix Army guns, they fix Army Soldiers, and they fill out Army paperwork. All of these things support the war and the killing of "innocents".
Yet as long as they are collecting their paycheck stateside no problem. The only time their "morals" start to conflict is when they have to go somewhere that the enemy can shoot back.
I have no time for morals of convince. It is someone simply not wanting to go to war, an understandable feeling, but that's what the Army does. If it were truly a moral conflict he would have left the Army before he was going to be deployed. The war has been going on long enough for him to make the decision.
methos75, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Its funny that they call this loser a Soldier, he is a goddam Army reporter, and not anything that resembles a true Soldier at all.
CheckyCPSO, on 05/18/2008, -4/+2It is treason. He needs to be quietly escorted to the back of the prison and have a bullet placed squarely in the back of his head. Then send a bill to his parents/wife for the price of the bullet and execution.

As the poster above stated, no one wants to go to war, but it never becomes an issue until "you" have to go to war. Reserve and National Guardsman sit back and reap the benefits of Tuition, GI Bill for books, and a pay check. When it is time to pay up, morals get in the way.

This does not apply to all Reserve and NG, most of this war is being fought by these brave men and women.

Don't forget, it is an ALL volunteer military.
- methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+0Most reservist are also true patriots also, I just went into the USAFR after 13 years on active duty and the professionalism of my new Reserve unit is every bit the equal of my active duty units and these guys as an whole to the man volunteered to go to Iraq in August. Don't let this one loser speak for all of us.
- woodeye18, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0The two most prominent voices in the 1970s to end the draft were economist Milton Friedman and a Congressman from Illinois. Ironically when Democrats realized how hard it is to claim to support the troops and oppose their mission that they volunteered to risk their life for, they began to call for a Draft for the sole purpose of being able to turn around and oppose the war based on the very existence of a draft. At one point they claimed that Donald Rumsfeld was secretly planning a Draft. How bizarre that they can criticize Republicans for having the Diabolical idea of coming up with a secret draft and then at the same time advocate a draft themselves.
  
  Oh! that lonely congressman from Illinois during the Vietnam era that lead the fight to abolish the draft? His name was Donald Rumsfeld.
JointVenture, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4Anyone who thinks that Obama will end this war faster than any of the other candidates is a moron.

Have you noticed the evolution of Obama's stance?
It went from bring them home tomorrow to bring them home in 18 months(2 years).
silberj, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1He is a coward and does not deserve to wear the uniform. He volunteered for service. There is not a mandatory service requirement in the United States. He is still being paid by the Army. I am sure I will get dugg down by all the left wing nuts here, but it does not matter what his politics are, he is shirking his duty and spitting on the graves of soldiers that died to give him the right to profess his cowardice.

--A retired soldier
woodeye18, on 05/18/2008, -2/+0Many on the left that are too young to remember the concept behind civil disobedience, yet claim to be practicing it, need a history lesson. This young man volunteered of his on free will to join the US Military and kill people and break things anywhere in the world he is commanded to go and obey orders. It is expected that if he receives an order that he considers unlawful that he will convey his stance and be prepared to suffer the consequences if his government considers his disobedience in error.

Here is where many who love the romance of civil disobedience, but fail to understand the courage it takes to fully exercise it, turn into wussies.

If the government claims that you should be imprisoned for your actions, not only will you expect this, you will demand to be arrested and imprisoned. You don't fight imprisonment so you can make appearances at big rallies and make the Oprah circuit and become a rock star of the left. You demand to be arrested and imprisoned and you fill up the jails until they can't hold anymore. If no one follows you to Jail to fill them up, then you might be wrong, and if your not wrong, you write letters from Jail and live out your days comforted by the fact that you were right and George Bush is a really bad man controlled by petroleum pirates that live in a bat cave under the west wing.

John McCain was offered the chance to leave his torture chamber and leave his buddies behind. He chose principle over his own freedom. Has Obama ever had a similar challenge to his core principles?

This young man of principle should crawl into his cage and stay there or stop being a wussy.

.........

"...Did you exchange a walk on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?..."
-Pink Floyd, Wish you were here
buckrogers1965, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I'm fairy certain that pointing a gun at someones head and making them vote in a democracy doesn't work.

They will back a facist leader just to spite you.

I am also reminded that the Nazis were hung by the neck primarily for planning and waging wars of aggression. Those are the two charges that will be presented against our politicians when they finally get to explain what they were doing in an international crimes tribunal.

Hey, if they aren't guilty of any crimes, they don't have anything to worry about.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

One Soldier Echoes the Hearts and Minds of Millions

Login or register to add a comment