Perhaps, but The Iraq War is the great tragedy of our generation*. It's morally reprehensible that someone would be jailed for their opposition to the war when those that perpetuated it go free.


I will gladly take up the "wrong" side of this situation.

*Western world

Sadly Rocketpig is right but I just hope the same like stof.

i hope they let him stay...and if there is another terrorist attack on the US i hope the canadians protect the terrorists because the US just wants to pick on them for political reasons. no one should be jailed for their opposition to the US.

I'm inclined to think that both parties are correct (somewhat). If the military had ordered him to go rape women while he was over there, of course he would have refused (I don't think he should have run away, however). However, in this instance, the government deemed it right to be deployed in the military operation in Iraq, so it was perfectly in the right for it's response. The man signed a contract, saying he would do what they told him, and he broke it. Sure, it was the right thing for him to do (that is, for his own moral stance), but he is also morally obligated to face the consequences of breaking the contract.

^perfect response, you cant take the glory of being in the military then when the chips get down decide you don't want to tough it out and run

people need to be held accountable for their actions and since he said he would fight for our country no matter how wrong we might be he needs to follow thru or face the brig, its that simple black and white

I thought this was a volunteer army?

In the court of law, contract violations have to punished in a fair manner. If someone owes you thousand dollars worth of lumber and you sue them for the lumber plus $50,000 in damages, your case will be thrown out.

The soldier needs to be punished for violating the contract, but instead of jail time he should lose all his benefits and perhaps a fine.

There are 2 points of view here:
1. You joined the army, you do what you're told. You're there to shoot people and be shot at.
2. How many times have we seen the excuse 'I was just following orders' when blame is being dished out. There has to be a point when you say 'No, your orders are wrong' and refuse to follow them.

I have both of those points of view.

Those aren't two seperate ones to me.

You joined the army, you do what your told, you're there to shoot people and be shot at.

If you think it's immoral you tell your government refuse to go to your missions and you serve your jail time.

People who think war is immoral really shouldn't join the army.... and people in the army should really realize that their commander in chief changes every 4 years and they will likely get somebody they don't agree with.

I think he should at least shoot himself in the foot like we did back when the Vientnam War was around... I also think you need to stick to your commitment... then again many soldiers join the army not to kill people but because of the other benefits it offers... and there are a lot... if you realize you can´t go to war for whatever reason there should be ways to get out (because you might be more harm than good)... or other military jobs you can do that don´t involve front lines... but it should not be easy to get out of such a big commitment or the whole structure in the army would collapse...

I am in favor of people standing up for their beliefs.

I am in favor of people upholding the promises they make.