Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Sure, people can change. But I do make a distinction between someone agrees to something and then neglects their duty, and someone who refuses on moral ground to take on the duty to begin with.
When he enlisted, he agreed to fulfill a duty to his country. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that fulfilling one's duty is important.
Now someone who is drafted, and resists has more sympathy in my book. Excersising one's free choice is a basic right IMO, and I certainly would not accept being drafted into a war I did not believe in.
I guess the closest analogy I can think of is someone who agrees to have a child, but then runs away from the resposibility after they find parenthood is not for them. It's totally different than if someone decides not to have children, but is forced to take one.
If this man was drafted, (which the article doesn't say), then I can sympathize with him more. Not everyone can muster the courage to say "no". But if he voluntarily signed up, then he should have refused to go to war and dealt with the consequences.
|
Well, certainly, it is a touchy subject, and I appreciate your thoughtful commentary, in what could easily become a heated debate.
Don't know the reasons as to why he enlisted, and then decided to run...for those in Iraq, who actually go overseas, I can understand it as they might have seen things there that changed their minds...things are a lot difference being there and watching on TV.
Now that being said, one of the reasons I believe it is a "red herring" is that many believe, rightly or wrongly, that the timing of this arrest isn't a result of simply following the law. Rather, that the arrest is a political move meant to frighten those who are resisting the "stop loss" strategy currently being used by the US military as a result of the growing difficulties in recruiting.