Some military reservists will risk jail to resist Iraq duty


PDA






2dogs
March 7, 2003, 06:30 AM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pobjector06mar06,0,3505973.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Some military reservists will risk jail to resist Iraq duty

By Prashant Gopal
Staff writer
Posted March 6 2003

National Guard reservist Bryan Alarcon said "no" when his sergeant called looking for volunteers to go to Turkey as part of the U.S. military ramp-up to war. If he's ordered to go, Alarcon says, he'll refuse -- even if his decision lands him in jail.

The 25-year-old West Palm Beach resident is among a small group of military personnel who have joined another fight -- the one building locally and across the country against war.


Alarcon said he'd rather risk going to jail than participate in a conflict he considers immoral. He said he didn't apply for money from the military to pay for his Palm Beach Community College tuition this semester and joined thousands of other Americans for the Jan. 18 peace rally in Washington, D.C.

It's uncertain how many service people share Alarcon's beliefs. But as war talk heated up in January, the anti-war G.I. Rights Hotline fielded a record number of calls, mostly from military personnel and families seeking advice on conscientious objector and other discharges.

The 3,582 calls were twice the normal monthly call volume, the group reported.

"They're going to call me a coward," said Alarcon, a full-time student who has a 9-month-old daughter. "But being a coward is not acting as I believe."

Changing beliefs

Soldiers who don't want to participate in the looming war are facing a difficult choice. But jail isn't the only option for resisters. The military recognizes conscientious objectors who prove they have deeply held moral, ethical or religious beliefs that would keep them from participating in war for any reason.

It might sound hypocritical for someone who volunteers for military service to claim pacifism. But the United States government acknowledges that beliefs can change.

Some callers to the G.I. Rights Hotline said they were 18 when they joined and were still forming their opinions. Others said they were persuaded to join by military advertisements, brochures and recruiters talking a lot about job skills, world travel and education benefits, and nothing about the brutality of combat, said Bill Galvin, counseling coordinator for the Center on Conscience and War in Washington, D.C., who helped answer calls.

A U.S. Armed Forces Web site, for example, asks: "Where else can you get paid to train with the best, travel around the world, make lifelong friends, and get an education?"

"Many of these people thought they were going to computer school," Galvin said. "Reservists think it's a job they do two weeks a year and a weekend a month. These people are realizing it's not about what they thought it was at all."

But government officials are skeptical of those who say they weren't aware of what they were getting into.

Soldiers, for example, take an oath of enlistment, promising to support and defend the U.S. Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to obey orders from the president of the United States and their superior officers.

Army Lt. Col. Ryan Yantis put it this way: "It's disingenuous for a soldier to wake up and say they never knew they were joining the Army to fight wars. ... It's much like a fireman suddenly realizing, `You mean I have to fight a fire?'"

Defense yes, attack no

When Plantation resident Travis Clark joined the Marine Corps in 1996, it seemed like a good option. Then 19, he couldn't afford college and the country was in a state of relative peace, Clark said. He signed an eight-year contract, which required him to serve five years of active duty and stand by for a possible call-up during the next three years.

As the years passed, his views began to change. He started reading works by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi. His active duty stint ended in August 2001, and he now volunteers as special events coordinator for the anti-war group Peace South Florida.

If he's called up before his military contract ends in the summer of 2004, Clark said, he won't go.

"I can see violence used if there was an invading army invading my people," Clark said. "But I'm not going to go into someone else's country and force them to defend themselves."

Like Clark, many resisters say they vowed to defend the country, not to take part in what they consider a war of aggression. Veterans for Peace, a national group with 3,000 members, wrote a letter to the military's top commanders on Feb. 13, urging them not to fight.

"We believe the war against Iraq that the U.S. government is planning and preparing for is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law," the letter reads. "The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted, `Resort to war of aggression is not merely illegal, but criminal.'"

Contract vs. `feelings'

The tradition of conscientious objectors dates at least to the Civil War. But draft resistance became a mass movement during the Vietnam War, when 200,000 men were accused of violating draft laws and another 360,000 war resisters weren't formally accused, according to American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker pacifist organization.

During the 1991 Gulf War, about 500 enlisted men and women filed for conscientious objector status and about 61 percent were approved, according to a General Accounting Office report. Several members of the all-volunteer military simply refused to fight and were jailed for up to 18 months.

It's not clear how many soldiers are resisting a war this time. Military officials say the numbers so far have been small. Only six members of the Army, for example, applied for conscientious objector discharges in February, an Army spokesman said.

As for Alarcon, he has kept his pacifist feelings from the rest of his unit. But, as the United States moves closer to an invasion of Iraq, he says he's ready to speak up and is getting his papers in order to file as a conscientious objector.

"I've got to let it be known that I'm not ready to just lay down and do what I'm told, because they say this is a free country," Alarcon said. "I know I signed a contract, but my feelings are lot stronger against this."

If you enjoyed reading about "Some military reservists will risk jail to resist Iraq duty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DadOfThree
March 7, 2003, 06:48 AM
"They're going to call me a coward," said Alarcon, a full-time student who has a 9-month-old daughter. "But being a coward is not acting as I believe."
I won't call him a coward, I don't know him. I will call him a leach and a parasite for taking the benefits of the Guard and not standing up for his responsibilities when called.
"I've got to let it be known that I'm not ready to just lay down and do what I'm told, because they say this is a free country," Alarcon said. "I know I signed a contract, but my feelings are lot stronger against this."
Wrong! He gave up certain rights when he signed up. One of those being to just do whatever you want when called to service. If his feelings are really that strong, where were they when he enlisted? Oh yeah, they were going to give him money to sign up. I guess the money was stronger than his feelings.
Send him to jail now!!!!!

Kahr carrier
March 7, 2003, 06:54 AM
Dad of Three Hit it on the head -Those guys are lowlifes they werent complaining when they were taking the money or getting their tuition reimbursements.:scrutiny:

0007
March 7, 2003, 07:02 AM
IIRC - the military can sue to recover any and all tuition monies paid out to people who pull this kind of stuff. I hope they do. The "I didn't know I was actually going to have to go to war.", whine is getting kind of stale already. If they can't read the contract they are signing, they should get someone else to read it to them before they sign.

bedlamite
March 7, 2003, 08:05 AM
Sounds like a perfect candidate for a dishonorable discharge. Much cheaper than keeping him in jail, and he would be paying for this choice for a very long time.

El Tejon
March 7, 2003, 08:22 AM
Where's the assumption of the risk, yellow footprints? No one made them sign. If you sign the militree owns you. Doesn't everyone go in knowing that?

Joe Demko
March 7, 2003, 08:57 AM
He signed on the dotted line and took the king's coin. Now he should do as he's ordered until his enlistment runs out. That's the way this thing is supposed to work.

Bottom Gun
March 7, 2003, 09:41 AM
Sounds like some jail time is needed. Maybe finishing his "contract" as Bubba's cell mate/date will further enlighten him.

foghornl
March 7, 2003, 09:56 AM
A solid Dishonorable Discharge after spending the rest of his enlistment in the crossbar hotel as Bubba's b**** seems like a fitting reward to me.

Kharn
March 7, 2003, 09:59 AM
Taking Uncle Sam's money sometimes means doing what Uncle Sam wants. TS, whiners.

Kharn

M1911
March 7, 2003, 10:20 AM
I just don't understand why we put up with these whiners. We should send 3 very large MPs with a bad attitude to pick up clowns like this. Put him in cuffs, toss him in the back seat, and tell him the destination is his choice: Leavenworth or the Gulf. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Swift justice.

Blackhawk
March 7, 2003, 10:22 AM
Bryan Alarcon revealed himself as a pernicious parasite, and he should pay back every dime he's received plus all the costs of his training and that of his replacement before receiving an "Unfit for Military Service" discharge by working it off at Ft Leavenworth.

Hkmp5sd
March 7, 2003, 10:47 AM
I think a dishonorable discharge is too light a punishment. He voluntarily joined the military. If he refuses to obey a lawful order with the country in a so-called state of war, I think it calls for a court martial and some time busting rocks at Club Fed at the minimum.

It would be a very bad precedent to allow members of the military, even reservists, to simply be discharged for refusing to enter a possible combat zone when so ordered.

TheEgg
March 7, 2003, 10:47 AM
Who would want these cowards in their unit? Dishonorable discharge, pay back Uncle Sam (us), maybe even some jail time, but do not burden our honorable fighting men and women with these simps.

pwolfman
March 7, 2003, 11:25 AM
All these parasites should be court martialed and sent to the "long tour" at Levenworth.

:cuss: :cuss: :fire:

4v50 Gary
March 7, 2003, 11:31 AM
Reminds me of the SFPD cop who ran into a church and claimed "santuary" rather than respond to the call up of reserves for Desert Storm. Appropriately he is called The Coward of Desert Storm.

You take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding (and go over the hills and far away).

Kaylee
March 7, 2003, 11:35 AM
The guy who's willing to go to jail for refusing orders I can respect. He is standing on his beliefs, and willing to pony up the cost for them. Just like the man (I believe) discharged a few years back for refusing to don the UN patch.

The lowlifes who somehow expect to be let off the hook scot-free because they "didn't know they'd have to go to war" after signing up are a different story though. :barf:

-K

CZ-75
March 7, 2003, 11:42 AM
I thought COs still had to go, but in non-combat duty. Some, like Desmond Doss, even get the Medal of Honor.

If the guy doesn't think he can put a bullet in the enemy, I'd be happy enough to make him a medic or whatever.

Not serving, when he signed up, is a whole other thing.

Airwolf
March 7, 2003, 11:47 AM
This will be happening more and more as time passes.

Remember, the military draws its people from the U.S. population for the overwhelming majority of its “talent”.

As kids grow up in government run publik skools being fed daily doses of crap from mostly left-leaning socialist “educators” more and more of them will never be introduced to the true history of this country and the part the armed services have played in it. They will never learn how this nation is supposed function. They spend their lives being told that the state will take care of them, that someone else is responsible, that they should always call 911 and let someone save their ***, never risk yourself but put someone who’s paid to take risks in the line of fire. Where do they think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines come from in the first place (or cops and firefighters for that matter)?

More and more kids grow up with little concept of personal responsibly, ethics or any sort of moral compass. Just spend a day at a mall or any public gathering place. Watch the parent/child interactions. If you don’t think this country is on an express elevator to Hell (going down) you will after a few hours of people watching.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that some people think because they now “feel bad” about what THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, that everyone should understand and let them off the hook. That’s the way they were taught from day one. Cry enough and you don’t have to eat your veggies and you might even get a treat to shut you up. Get a bad grade on a test and have mommy or daddy threaten to sue the teacher or school district. Don’t get treated like you think you should on the job (or don’t get the job you want). Sue somebody. Whine about it. Start a petition to make “them” change the way they do things to accommodate YOU. After all, you been told your whole life that you’re “special” and deserve not to have your feelings hurt or be placed in “uncomfortable” situations.

Fine. They want out? Time to learn a basic lesson of life. For every action you take there are consequences. This should be no different. If they are not true Conscientious Objectors then they should be dishonorably discharged. Any tuition or education benefits should be repaid to the government at the same rate that Uncle Sam paid them to you. Spell this out to them in black & white and offer them a choice. Serve your country as you SWORE AN OATH TO DO or live with the consequences of your “feelings”.

[long stream of paint blistering profanity directed at these morons deleted]

jmbg29
March 7, 2003, 11:48 AM
Forum rules regarding explitives prohibit me from saying what I really think about this particular :cuss: and any :cuss:er :cuss:ers of similar mind and attitude. Not to mention any civilian :cuss:heads that think that this coward is "standing on principle". He is a piece of :cuss:! Plain and simple.

Suffice it to say that vermin like Mr. Alarcon should be thrown into the "Hole" at Ft. Leavenworth for the duration of the war. Any current "guest" of Leavenworth (that the military deems suitable) who wishes to take Mr. Alarcon's place at the front should be allowed to do so, in order to offset the expense of the pig's upkeep.

Each and every dime that he has leached from this country under false pretense should be extracted from his assets first, and his hide second (since his assets may actually yeild value).

:cuss: him and the horse he rode in on! :fire: :fire:

Pward
March 7, 2003, 11:53 AM
:barf: :barf: [b)]


[beathorse]

Azrael256
March 7, 2003, 12:06 PM
"They're going to call me a coward," said Alarcon, a full-time student who has a 9-month-old daughter. "But being a coward is not acting as I believe." Y'know what, my brother left for the gulf on Sunday. This little twit can kiss my ***. My brother is the one acting as he believes, not some wuss who joined the army and then can't accept the fact that he might actually have to go and fight.

spacemanspiff
March 7, 2003, 12:38 PM
i was watching this WWII movie not long ago (forget the name of it) and in the movie, during an attack on the germans 88's, an officer shot one of his flamethrowers in the back as he tried running away in fear. the rest of his subordinates couldnt believe what they just saw, but later admitted that if their commanding officer hadnt done that, all of them would have run.

sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Sindawe
March 7, 2003, 12:44 PM
I do have to ask, why is the National Guard being sent overseas? From my understanding, the Guard is intended as a home land defensive force, not as an overseas military. On the basis of that opinion, I'll support Alacarn.

As for the bloke who signed up with the Marines, well, as the man said "You pays your money and takes your chances". He signed a legal contract and should be held to it. I'd be really suprised if that contract does not have clauses covering non-performance by the people who signed on the dotted line. A change of heart does not give one a free out from a contract.

I do find it interesting that not one of the indviduals mentioned in the article brings up an important point about this upcoming war with Iraq and other as yet unnamed parties. Congress has not issued a Declaration of War, and only THEY have the power commit U.S Armed Forces to armed conflict which is not self defensive in nature. We (the People and .gov fo the United States) wanna go to war? Fine, lets do it by the numbers and how the rules of our .gov call for. Not with 'war powers acts' and 'resolutions' that allow those ultimatly responsable to duck and dodge the issue should it go south on us. War is a deadly serious buisness, and those in office should have the gonads to lay their political necks on the line for it if they support it.

I'll toss out to the member of THR this point to consider, would you be so supportive of .gov and condem so strongly those who object the following of orders if those orders to the military involved the collections of weapons and 'undesirables' with in our borders?

benewton
March 7, 2003, 12:53 PM
Finished my tour in '74, a long time ago, I admit, after having the choice of either being drafted or "enlisting".

The joke was on me, per usual, the draft ended before my second week of basic.

They didn't offer me the chance to renegotiate my contract, of course.

Now, I had zero respect for the officers I served under, and even less for Tricky Dick Nixon, but I signed on the line, so that was that.

Even given the above, as a medic, I could not have imagined letting my guys head off somewhere without me, and this feeling continued through my NG time and even 'till today.

For sure, if the leaches don't feel this way, they shouldn't be maintained in the ranks at all.

There are many fields in which they could be useful, however. Mine field clearance, WMD detection...

In no case should they be allowed to sit back and relax while others take their places, and mere money is not enough to compensate for their betrayal.

Sean Smith
March 7, 2003, 12:53 PM
Wrong. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq last year. :rolleyes:

buzz_knox
March 7, 2003, 01:02 PM
Not only has Congress authorized the use of force in this situation, but via the War Powers Act, has authorized the use of force for a limited time at the President's discretion.

Robby from Long Island
March 7, 2003, 01:30 PM
I joined the U.S. Navy 45 years ago at the age of 17. Spent a total of 8 years between active duty and active reserves and was proud to do it.

I can't even comprehend the mentality of these service men and women acting like this.

You join the military, you are expected to fight, it's simple as that.

It's a good thing about the no cussing policy here 'cause I can't even describe my disgust with these wimps.:fire:

M1911
March 7, 2003, 01:33 PM
I think it calls for a court martial and some time busting rocks at Club Fed at the minimum.Nope. Club Fed is far to easy. It's my understanding that the military prison at Leavenworth is much harder time.I do have to ask, why is the National Guard being sent overseas? From my understanding, the Guard is intended as a home land defensive force, not as an overseas military.Your understanding is incorrect. The guard has been integrated into the US military for quite some time. They are trained and equipped to go to war.

buzz_knox
March 7, 2003, 01:38 PM
Correct. The Nat'l Guard is now part of the nation's reserve force for the military, much like the Reserves. It was part of the justification for the draw down in active military units.

Scott Evans
March 7, 2003, 01:59 PM
Oath of military enlistment

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD."

Burn him! He is a traitor; nothing more, nothing less.

Pilgrim
March 7, 2003, 02:35 PM
I do have to ask, why is the National Guard being sent overseas? From my understanding, the Guard is intended as a home land defensive force, not as an overseas military. On the basis of that opinion, I'll support Alacarn.

The National Guard is part of the military reserve structure when activated by the federal government.

When General Creighton Abrams was Chief of Staff of the Army, he made sure the Army could not go to war without the assistance of the organized reserves and the National Guard, thereby ensuring every community, every state would feel the effects of mobilization.

If Alacarn didn't understand that role of the National Guard, he is either extremely stupid or a fool.

tommytrauma
March 7, 2003, 03:42 PM
This will be happening more and more as time passes.

Remember, the military draws its people from the U.S. population for the overwhelming majority of its “talent”.

As kids grow up in government run publik skools being fed daily doses of crap from mostly left-leaning socialist “educators” more and more of them will never be introduced to the true history of this country and the part the armed services have played in it. They will never learn how this nation is supposed function. They spend their lives being told that the state will take care of them, that someone else is responsible, that they should always call 911 and let someone save their ***, never risk yourself but put someone who’s paid to take risks in the line of fire. Where do they think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines come from in the first place (or cops and firefighters for that matter)?

More and more kids grow up with little concept of personal responsibly, ethics or any sort of moral compass. Just spend a day at a mall or any public gathering place. Watch the parent/child interactions. If you don’t think this country is on an express elevator to Hell (going down) you will after a few hours of people watching.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that some people think because they now “feel bad” about what THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, that everyone should understand and let them off the hook. That’s the way they were taught from day one. Cry enough and you don’t have to eat your veggies and you might even get a treat to shut you up. Get a bad grade on a test and have mommy or daddy threaten to sue the teacher or school district. Don’t get treated like you think you should on the job (or don’t get the job you want). Sue somebody. Whine about it. Start a petition to make “them” change the way they do things to accommodate YOU. After all, you been told your whole life that you’re “special” and deserve not to have your feelings hurt or be placed in “uncomfortable” situations.

Fine. They want out? Time to learn a basic lesson of life. For every action you take there are consequences. This should be no different. If they are not true Conscientious Objectors then they should be dishonorably discharged. Any tuition or education benefits should be repaid to the government at the same rate that Uncle Sam paid them to you. Spell this out to them in black & white and offer them a choice. Serve your country as you SWORE AN OATH TO DO or live with the consequences of your “feelings”.

Airwolf, I don't know who the H*ll you are, but get out of my head and stop stealing my thoughts! I guess i need to start wearing a tin foil beanie or something.






__

M1911
March 7, 2003, 03:49 PM
Heck, if they think they are true COs, slap a red cross on their arm, train them as combat medics and ship them out to a front-line unit.

CMichael
March 7, 2003, 03:52 PM
Isn't it kind of pathetic that we have to call up reservists from the National Guard to invade Iraq?

Boats
March 7, 2003, 04:08 PM
No, certain military occupational specialties that don't have much frontline demand in peacetime patrols or deployments are the responsibility of specialized reserve and Guard units. CBR decon, water purification, etc.

Ledbetter
March 7, 2003, 05:28 PM
I agree with the statement that repayment of their tuition money isn't near enough to get them off the hook.

This country has been at war since 9-11-01. No one seems to appreciate that this means some inconvenience to all of us. Now, these "military men," having claimed the honor of that title, refuse to honor their word to fight for their country and obey their commander-in-chief.

As I understand it, in wartime there is an offense called "being absent without leave for the purpose of evading hazardous service." If you're guilty, you go to Leavenworth and then you get dishonorably discharged.

It is a slap in the face to honorable veterans to let these cowards go back on their word. If they had any committment to this country, they would be shamed by their dishonor. Perhaps a military court could help them get back in touch with these feelings.

Scott Evans
March 7, 2003, 05:36 PM
He is a traitor; nothing more, nothing less.
:fire:

XLMiguel
March 7, 2003, 05:41 PM
Cheers, Ledbetter.

We had some similar silliness in `91 with Desert Storm. Seems that some portion of the weenies who joined the Guard/Rserves of a group colelctively know as 'The Armed Forces' didn't want to live up to their end of the bargain. They were happy enough to take gov. $$ & benes to further their own life's agenda, but didn't expect to stand up and answer 'the call', if it came. Bad bet, eh?

It seems just a matter of simple contract law, damn shame us taxpayer have to pay to enforce it. Strikes me as just another kind of welfare cheat/fraud, may the appropriate crap fall heavy on their sorry heads.

RustyHammer
March 7, 2003, 05:46 PM
Some, like Desmond Doss, even get the Medal of Honor.

Yes, very true. One of my heros ... met him several times when I was growing up. (Still living, last I heard)

Beliefs change ... do your time and move on.

Leatherneck
March 7, 2003, 05:54 PM
As usual, you guys have hit the nail squarely on the head. ****can the guy with a DD and fugedaboudim. He is dishonorable.

TC
TFL Survivor

Leatherneck
March 7, 2003, 06:22 PM
the weenies who joined the Guard/Rserves Mike, Bud: please don't denigrate all of the Guard and reserve. There are a lot of citizens putting aside their home family lives to serve. They serve vital roles with distinction and honor. We could not defend our country without them. We owe them our allegiance.

TC
TFL Survivor

DeltaElite
March 7, 2003, 07:23 PM
Gutless cowards who should be dishonorably discharged and forced to repay the money that their training cost the govt.
Pathetic cowards.

To the others who answer the call....... THANK YOU

Leatherneck
March 7, 2003, 07:36 PM
The discriminator is whether the individual joining the Guard is doing it as a "contract" or "job"; or whether (s)he is joining the National Guard and willing to do the job, regardless.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

jmbg29
March 7, 2003, 10:22 PM
DOSS, DESMOND T.
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. Place and date: Near Urasoe Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April-21 May 1945. Entered service at: Lynchburg, Va. Birth: Lynchburg, Va. G.O. No.: 97, 1 November 1945.
Citation: He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them 1 by 1 to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands. On 2 May, he exposed himself to heavy rifle and mortar fire in rescuing a wounded man 200 yards forward of the lines on the same escarpment; and 2 days later he treated 4 men who had been cut down while assaulting a strongly defended cave, advancing through a shower of grenades to within 8 yards of enemy forces in a cave's mouth, where he dressed his comrades' wounds before making 4 separate trips under fire to evacuate them to safety. On 5 May, he unhesitatingly braved enemy shelling and small arms fire to assist an artillery officer. He applied bandages, moved his patient to a spot that offered protection from small arms fire and, while artillery and mortar shells fell close by, painstakingly administered plasma. Later that day, when an American was severely wounded by fire from a cave, Pfc. Doss crawled to him where he had fallen 25 feet from the enemy position, rendered aid, and carried him 100 yards to safety while continually exposed to enemy fire. On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri, he remained in exposed territory while the rest of his company took cover, fearlessly risking the chance that he would be mistaken for an infiltrating Japanese and giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade. Rather than call another aid man from cover, he cared for his own injuries and waited 5 hours before litter bearers reached him and started carrying him to cover. The trio was caught in an enemy tank attack and Pfc. Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter; and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. Awaiting the litter bearers' return, he was again struck, this time suffering a compound fracture of 1 arm. With magnificent fortitude he bound a rifle stock to his shattered arm as a splint and then crawled 300 yards over rough terrain to the aid station. Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Pfc. Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.

LostOneToo
March 7, 2003, 10:37 PM
Copraphagenic morons.......:cuss:

Airwolf
March 7, 2003, 10:43 PM
LostOneToo...

You have added a new word to my vocabulary, one that in 45 years on this rock I'd never heard before 30 seconds ago.

:what: :evil:

longspurr
March 7, 2003, 11:17 PM
We had a C.O. on our ship and in my department [1974] that went around always talking about the bible. He got his CO discharge and I drove him to the airport-he was in my department. On the way to the freedom bird he said [they bought it, hook line and sinker]. I understood him to mean he had been running a clever CO dodge for the past YEAR to get out of a 6 year hitch. He conned everyone and got out.

Things do change but I believe a contract is a contract. Jobs can be adjusted but you make your decisions and take the result!!!!!

Ya, I was pissed at the s o b.

.45FMJoe
March 7, 2003, 11:33 PM
Dishonorable discharge.

Double Naught Spy
March 8, 2003, 09:27 AM
I fully understand not wanting to go to war and have no problem with the concept. That said, the jerks voluntarily signed up for duty and one potential duty included was going to war. If they weren't going to honor the agreement, then the should not have joined.

They should not be sent to jail. If they are going to be allowed to live, then they should be put on mine clearing details working as individuals as there is no way in hell that they can be counted on to help protect other soldiers except when such protection is directly beneficial to themselves.

Then they should be dishonorably discharged if they survive.

M1911
March 8, 2003, 10:58 AM
Isn't it kind of pathetic that we have to call up reservists from the National Guard to invade Iraq?No, that's the way our forces are structured. It was done deliberately.

XLMiguel
March 8, 2003, 11:02 AM
Leatherneck -
Poor choice of words/phrasing on my part. The 'weenies' I was refering to were the ones who wanted the gov't benes but were'nt willing to live up to their part of the deal. When called to fight, they wimped out. Shame on them!

I have great respect for those who join the National Guard and Reserves. They provide a very necessary and valuable service to our country and at times at a great cost and personal sacrifice. I meant no disrespect to the Guard/Reserves at large.

Tim Burke
March 8, 2003, 12:21 PM
There are some military tuition programs that specify that, if the recipient fails to complete their obligation, they will be required to pay back the government... at 3 times what the government expended.
I have no problem with requiring financial restitution, but this isn't about money; it's about honor and the chain of command. If these guys have no honor, there is nothing we can do about that. The military cannot function without the chain of command, and therefore they should not let this challenge go unpunished.

usafpi
March 8, 2003, 12:59 PM
I can't stand people like that. I signed the dotted line, no one had a gun to my head. I chose to do it on my own and I accepted all the risks that come with it. I just got back from my deployment, in away I am glad to be back, but I miss it already. We have Arkansas Guard working with us. I give these guys and gals all the respect. They have sacrificed a lot to come here. Some have lost their families, houses and money. Send the pansies complaining about going to war to Leavenworth.

If you enjoyed reading about "Some military reservists will risk jail to resist Iraq duty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!