A real and intelligent man.
http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca2...Watada512K.wmv (part 1)
http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca2...Second512K.wmv (part 2)

You were told to ignore me, but if you insist........

That man is a coward of your ilk. Of course he's a man to you because you are also a coward and that is why you recognize this piece of loser asswipe as something to be proud of. He is a deserter who joined the army for the benefits but when it came time to fight he grabbed the nearest liberal sound bite and used it as his excuse. Here is a message from an anti-war protester who grew up. Hopefully some day you will also. We can only hope.

By David Horowitz
horowitzsnotepad/2001/hn09-27-01.htm | September 27, 2001

I AM a former antiwar activist who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war in Vietnam at the University of California, Berkeley in 1962. I appeal to all those young people who participated in "antiwar" demonstrations on 150 college campuses this week, to think again and not to join an "antiwar" effort against America’s coming battle with international terrorism.

The hindsight of history has shown that our efforts in the 1960s to end the war in Vietnam had two practical effects. The first was to prolong the war itself. Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the antiwar activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists.

The second effect of the war was to surrender South Vietnam to the forces of Communism. This resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in "reeducation camps" of hundreds of thousands more, and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the socalled antiwar movement of the 1960s.

I say "socalled antiwar movement," because while many Americans were sincerely troubled by America’s war effort, the organizers of this movement were Marxists and radicals who supported a Communist victory and an American defeat. Today the same people and their youthful followers are organizing the campus demonstrations against America’s effort to defend its citizens against the forces of international terrorism and antiAmerican hatred, responsible for the September attacks.

I know, better than most, the importance of protecting freedom of speech and the right of citizens to dissent. But I also know better than most, that there is a difference between honest dissent and malevolent hate, between criticism of national policy, and sabotage of the nation’s defenses. In the 1960s and 1970s, the tolerance of antiAmerican hatreds was so high, that the line between dissent and treason was eventually erased. Along with thousands of other New Leftists, I was one who crossed the line between dissent and actual treason. (I have written an account of these matters in my autobiography, Radical Son). I did so for what I thought were the noblest of reasons: to advance the cause of "social justice" and "peace." I have lived to see how wrong I was and how much damage we did especially to those whose cause we claimed to embrace, the peasants of IndoChina who suffered grievously from our support for the Communist enemy. I came to see how precious are the freedoms and opportunities afforded by America to the poorest and most humble of its citizens, and how rare its virtues are in the world at large.

If I have one regret from my radical years, it is that this country was too tolerant towards the treason of its enemies within. If patriotic Americans had been more vigilant in the defense of their country, if they had called things by their right names, if they had confronted us with the seriousness of our attacks, they might have caught the attention of those of us who were wellmeaning but utterly misguided. And they might have stopped us in our tracks.

This appeal is for those of you who are out there today attacking your country, full of your own selfrighteousness, but who one day might also live to regret what you have done.


So in other words, you and his ilk are cowards. As far as I am concerned, you and him are guilty of treason. Wasting a bullet on you would be the only shame. How about some prison and a big hefty fine of say $100,000? Too bad you and your ilk didn't try this shit during WWI.

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.
The act was subsequently repealed in 1921.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the guy who went to officer school after the war in Iraq had already started. Now when it is time to go, he is the darling of every leftist group in the country. Does anyone else smell something fishy here? I smell a coward.

Here is something else for your "man" to think about:

I don't think that this lieutenant knows how much trouble he could be in.
First, he stated, "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war." This is wrong. It is not the duty of every soldier to evaluate the legality of every order. It is the duty of every soldier is to follow all LAWFUL orders.

It sounds as if he has been planning this. If it can be proven that he is doing this to encourage other soldiers to do this, he would be guilty of formenting a mutiny - a capital offense. This is Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Steven Burt
1LT, FA, USAR (ret)

I can only assume you whole heartedly agree with me that more men in uniform need to be as brave as this young man. It takes real intellect and courage to stand up for the truth. And that you are so enthused that it took 3 posts to express.

Alias, I think I should ask: Do you believe it is possible that the US might one day start an unjust war? If so, what is the appropriate course of action by soliders, and what is the appropriate course of action by citizens?

Uh, yeah, right. You go ahead and assume that.

I think you should ask: Do you think it is possible that you are wrong? I do not believe this is an unjust war. When America is attacked like they were time after time after time after time, it is not unjust to finally fight back.

I have a question for you? What should we do when we are attacked again?

If we are attacked again, we should prevent those who attacked us from harming anyone else using methods which may include war. Your question is answered, will you now answer mine?

I am not trying to debate you about whether our current war is moral. I am trying to show you why war protestors should not be charged with treason, mutiny, or any other crime. So here is my question again:

Do you believe it is possible that the US might one day start an unjust war? If so, what is the appropriate course of action by soliders, and what is the appropriate course of action by citizens?

Would you be okay with US assassins "taking out" Saddam Hussein, Iranian President NutsIsUs, Osama, etc.?

No innocent civilians killed. Should be okay, right?