A woman native to Wautoma, Katherine Jashinski, that had refused to train with weapons as a protest to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as been sentenced to 120 days of confinement and was given a bad conduct discharge. Jashinski had filed for conscientious-objector status, but the Army denied the request.
I have mixed feelings about this incident. On the positive side, she had the courage to stand by her decision and faced the court martial. But the other hand, why did she join the military in the first place? But it gets interesting. Why was her conscientious-objector status denied? Because her duties didn’t include offensive combat operations. She was a cook. The only time she would be required to use force is if she needed to defend herself. Her conscientious-objector claim was a fraud and the Army saw straight through it.
I’m so sick of anti-war groups calling the cowards that fled to Canada heroes. A hero doesn’t flee from the consequences of their actions. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would accept the punishment for violating their oaths and abandoning their duties. However, the fact that Jashinski faced the court martial does not mean she is a hero. She abandoned her duties with no valid justification. She’s still a coward, just less of a coward than those that fled to Canada.
A notable mentionable is that Iraqi Veterans Against the War is representing Jashinski. IVAW seems to have a predisposition to attract frauds. Earlier this week a former member of their organization, Jessie Macbeth, claimed he committed and witnessed war crimes. Macbeth was quickly exposed as a fraud. He had never served in the military and every claim he made was a work of fiction. Why does IVAW think they have any creditability? They’ve demonstrated that they do not value the truth.
Mr. Stehling, you may think what you will about Katherine Jashinski. As far as a lot of people are concerned, we’re done in Iraq. As for the draft-dodgers in Canada, I say more power to ‘em. They saw right through the garbage the U.S. Government was trying to feed everyone about the goings-on in Vietnam. They refused to be a part of it. No, Steve, they weren’t the cowards. The blind patriot my-country-right-or-wrong imbeciles were the cowards because they were afraid to stand up to Johnson and Nixon, two presidents who were given a blank check and the power of life and death over every draft-age male and every Vietnamese civilian, including innocent women and children. Perhaps you feel proud because you wear a uniform and you are fighting in a war. But many others, including actual veterans older and wiser than you, have seen the truth for themselves.
I’d also be interested in knowing you opinion about the massacre at al-Haditha. I have searched your entire blog and nowhere is it even mentioned. So don’t bore us with shallow, pretentious muck about pride, mom and apple pie. We don’t buy it. As for Katherine Jashinski, I hope for the best for her.
By the way, it’s “decision”, not “discission”. Learn to spell!
Comment by Heather Czerniak — Sunday 28 May, 2006 @ 18:15
“… Because her duties didn’t include offensive combat operations. She was a cook. The only time she would be required to use force is if she needed to defend herself. Her conscientious-objector claim was a fraud and the Army saw straight through it. …”
You’re joking, right?? I believe you previously said you *had* served in Iraq. How then can you be so dismally unaware of the complete IRRELEVANCE of nominal MOS to the duties actually assigned there? For example, one noted New Jersey COMBAT unit hailed upon its return from Iraq was the equivalent of an Accounting Brigade. Their *technical* MOS was that of clerical office-worker! But that didn’t stop their totally arbitrary “re-designation” as would-be INFANTRY in the least.
Honestly, it’s incredibly difficult to take your comments seriously when they demonstrate such an utter dearth of awareness regarding the realities of service life in Iraq. When exactly was it you were last “in theater” there? Was it during the *current* conflict?? (Doesn’t sound like it.)
Concerning your “finesse” regarding Macbeth and the IVAW, it’s obviously nothing more than “hot air”. Care to provide some serious, impartial *documentation* substantiating that allegedly “proven fraud” and your asserted “complicity” of IVAW in it? (I doubt you could, especially since iVAW already issued an official disclaimer, stating that it was NOT a sponsor of that documentary and that the use of its name in the production was never approved.)
Regarding your question, “Why does IVAW think they have any creditability [sic]?”, I believe the word you’re groping for is “credibility”. And considering your own heavily opinionated yet amazingly uninformed diatribes (like this one), the question reflects rather glaringly directly back at you, the would-be Inquisitor: “Why do YOU think you have any ‘creditability’??” (As for IVAW, I suspect their innate credibility stems from having been there.)
In terms of credibility, it’s you who are currently batting zero. You’ve presented nothing here that remotely substantiates your own, exceedingly tenuous “conclusions”, and demonstrated an abysmal ignorance of the “facts on the ground” regarding the supposed “binding guarantees” of an MOS. Plus, once again you’ve lamely resorted to an amazingly loose “straw man” argument, injecting hypothesized, unrelated claims — which you alone attribute to “anti-war groups” — in the pursuit of this particular example of what I can only realistically call “muckraking screed”.
That being the case, “Physician, heal thyself!”
Comment by Nemo — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 1:35
“As far as a lot of people are concerned, we’re done in Iraq. As for the draft-dodgers in Canada, I say more power to ‘em. They saw right through the garbage the U.S. Government was trying to feed everyone about the goings-on in Vietnam. They refused to be a part of it. No, Steve, they weren’t the cowards. The blind patriot my-country-right-or-wrong imbeciles were the cowards because they were afraid to stand up to Johnson and Nixon, two presidents who were given a blank check and the power of life and death over every draft-age male and every Vietnamese civilian, including innocent women and children.”
-Heather Czerniak
A coward violates their obligations and then avoids repercussions of their actions. Would you support a contractor that takes your money to fix your home and them leaves the country to avoid prosecution? People need to either fulfill their obligations or face the repercussions. Anything less is cowardice.
“I’d also be interested in knowing you opinion about the massacre at al-Haditha. I have searched your entire blog and nowhere is it even mentioned. So don’t bore us with shallow, pretentious muck about pride, mom and apple pie.”
-Heather Czerniak
Given that there haven’t been charges filed yet and details really haven’t been reported by the press, what comments do you expect? I’m not like you. I don’t instantly believe everything that makes the military or Bush administration look bad. Also, you obviously didn’t search very far, because I did comment on that topic on the 27th in the comments of my post about Macbeth.
“How then can you be so dismally unaware of the complete IRRELEVANCE of nominal MOS to the duties actually assigned there? For example, one noted New Jersey COMBAT unit hailed upon its return from Iraq was the equivalent of an Accounting Brigade.”
-Nemo
Care to provide a source? I never heard of an Accounting Brigade. MOS matters because it’s inefficient to use a cook for infantry duties. They lack the appropriate training. And then there’s the fact that she is a women, which further reduces the chances that she would ever perform a patrol or infantry duty.
“Honestly, it’s incredibly difficult to take your comments seriously when they demonstrate such an utter dearth of awareness regarding the realities of service life in Iraq. When exactly was it you were last “in theater” there? Was it during the *current* conflict?? (Doesn’t sound like it.)”
-Nemo
I went over with my unit in 2004. I also have many friends that have been over or are over there right now. I don’t need to get my news from the mainstream media or the unhinged sources that you blindly trust. I rely on what I’ve seen personally or what I have heard directly from people I trust who are there or have been there. People that aren’t looking for attention from the media and signing book deals.
“Care to provide some serious, impartial *documentation* substantiating that allegedly “proven fraud” and your asserted “complicity” of IVAW in it? (I doubt you could, especially since iVAW already issued an official disclaimer, stating that it was NOT a sponsor of that documentary and that the use of its name in the production was never approved.)”
-Nemo
Do you honestly believe Macbeth is a veteran? If you do, you’re a complete puppet. As far as IVAW, they had no problem with Macbeth participating in their functions and only released a statement after the overwhelming attention to the fact that Macbeth is a fraud.
“As for IVAW, I suspect their innate credibility stems from having been there.”
-Nemo
Given that they accept anyone that approaches them without performing even a basic fact check, how can you say their members have been anywhere?
Comment by Steven A. Stehling — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 3:05
“People need to either fulfill their obligations or face the repercussions. Anything less is cowardice.”
- Steven A Stehling
And precisely what obligations did draft-dodgers and deserters in the Vietnam conflict have to commit murder of innocent civilians, Steve? Is this the patriotic duty of every able-bodied American to gun down unarmed men, women and children. My Lai was covered up for nearly two years before one congressman decided to listen to someone who knew and called for an investigation. Same goes for the Haditha. First, the Marines tried to cover it up by saying that the victims were caught up in crossfire. And then we found out that wasn’t the case. Now some enlisted guys are going to get prosecuted. How do you feel about that, soldier boy? Do you feel proud to spout off all that garbage and insist that you’re right because you’re in uniform? that only those who support the war in Iraq could possibly be right about anything? Mister, it’s self-righteous idiots like you who give our country the bad reputation it’s always had. Don’t expect a warm welcome when you come home. You’re not a hero, kid, just a wannabe.
Comment by Heather Czerniak — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 8:46
“Care to provide a source? … I dont need to get my news from the mainstream media or the unhinged sources that you blindly trust. I rely on what Ive seen personally or what I have heard directly from people I trust who are there or have been there.” -Steven Stehling
In other words, you’re telling me you rely heavily on “word of mouth”, rumor, and gossip for your alleged “facts” and freely exhibit a marked contempt for standard references. That *would* go far in explaining your own list of “preferred” links.
Pray tell, which reliable source that I’ve thus far provided you struck you as somehow “unhinged”? Was it the New York Times article on the Haditha massacre or the New York Times article on the Haditha massacre? (Hint: There’s only *been* one.)
As I related — to apparently deaf ears — in your Macbeth post, your “personal experience” is necessarily far removed from any reasonable semblance of the whole truth. (Of course, if mere pontification is your game — and it seems to be — that’s all you really need, plus an opinion to spout. But “credibility” is not a word I’d even introduce in any discussion of such substanceless rants.)
I’d normally honor any request for substantiation on my part. But since 1) involuntary re-assignment of military duties in Iraq has been fairly common knowledge for some time, 2) the specific item I referred to was a local television newscast from about a year ago, 3) you’ve yet to accommodate, or even to acknowledge, *two* such requests for substantiation from me, and 4) you’ve manifested a clear pre-disposition to label any reliable source I might offer you as either “mainstream” or “unhinged”, I see very little point in indulging you on that.
Sorry, Steven. I wanted to at least extend you the benefit of the doubt. But it seems your mind is “open like a steel trap”. And I prefer my discussions rigorously fact-based. Do yourself a favor — read more, from reputable sources, and blog less. Then you may ultimately have something of real worth to contribute.
Comment by Nemo — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 9:05
Steve, I’m curious: While I support the invasion of Afghanistan, since there was someone there that we had a reason to go after(Osama bin Laden), I find it totally absurd that we would stretch out our troops so thin by diverting so many to Iraq. In the absence of a draft, which I would oppose, it would be impossible to fight sustained wars in both countries for an extended time. Sooner of later, President Bush will have to decide to which war he should commit our troops. If it were up to me to choose, I would put all our troops back in Afghanistan. What motivated our “fearless leader” to invade Iraq? Was it the oil? Was it because he felt we’d never find Osama and, since we’re over there, why not kick Saddam’s tail again, as if he even had a tail left to kick? Or maybe it was a family grudge(i.e. his dad kicked Saddam’s butt, then got voted out of office while Saddam stayed in power)?
One final note: Steve, while you’re calling draft-dodgers and conscientious objectors cowards, has anyone bothered to inform you that George W. Bush was a draft-dodger? Yes, Steve, our president. You won’t have to look far to find the dirt on him. Is it like some draft-dodgers are OK with you, as long as they grow up to be president and send other people’s kids to die in the kind of war he successfully avoided by screwing around in-and out of-the National Guard? I’d be very interested in reading your opinion about that. Don’t be a shy guy. Let’s hear it!
Comment by Heather Czerniak — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 9:38
Hey Steve, I’m interested in knowing your opinion on something. OK, so we invaded Afghanistan, we’ve liberated the country but we still haven’t caught Osama yet. After a couple of years our beloved draft-dodging president decides he’s starting to look bad, so he opens up another front in the was on terrorism by invading Iraq, solely on the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. So he diverts a shole bunch of military personnel to Iraq, our troops in Afghanistan are thinned out, thus making it even harder to find Osama and fight off the local insurgents(over here, we call ‘em fraternities). Now I read in the Toronto Star that the Canadian government has voted to extend the term of enlistment of their troops in Afghanistan. Now Steve, do you think that’s fair that the Canadians, who were cool enough to send troops over to help us find Osama, should have to overextend their commitment to fighting the war on terrorism while we joyride all over Iraq when we should’ve been in Afganistan all along? Do you think it’s cool that our allies should take up all the tasks that we abandoned? Someone is severely lacking a spine, and I don’t think it’s the other guys.
One more thing: You just love to brag about the brave and courageous job you’re doing over there. Back here at home, we’ve got all these young upper-middle-class white Republican kids going around boasting of how proud they are of our troops. Well why the heck aren’t any of THESE bozos enlisting to help out? Surely, they must know know the incredible sacrifice our troops are making, and how hard a job it is to do. They’re all over the place calling other kids cowards while theygo out and booze it up instead of going to a recruiter and signing up. Steve, you’re an enlisted guy. You walk the walk and talk the talk. How’s about coming back over here and straightening these kids out? Tell them to put up or shut up if they’re so proud. I mean, these kids are the biggest put-ons. Only a hero like you could set ‘em straight. C’mon, Steve, your country needs you. Show ‘em what real men are made of. Show ‘em that a real American gets the job done while the pretenders just stay at home and mouth off. Be an example, be an inspiration! It’s down to you, Steve. You’re our only hope.
Comment by Adele Franklin — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 10:36
“And precisely what obligations did draft-dodgers and deserters in the Vietnam conflict have to commit murder of innocent civilians, Steve?”
-Heather Czerniak
Why do you keep bringing up Vietnam? Have you not been paying attention? There are VOLUNTEER military members that have fled to Canada to avoid fulfilling their obligation and avoid prosecution during the past few years. Code Pink and other puppet organizations constantly refer to these cowards as some kind of heroes.
And does someone need to remind you that JFK, got us into Vietnam? Who expanded our role in Vietnam? That was Johnson, both Democrats. Who campaigned for President claiming he would get us out of Vietnam? That was Nixon. And he did. A peace treaty was signed and US troops were almost completely out of Vietnam when the North attacked the South, causing the evacuation of the Embassy. But the US did not retaliate against the North because the treaty required Congress to approve new military operations. Congress wouldn’t give approval and history has somehow been written to make Vietnam “Nixon’s War”.
“Mister, it’s self-righteous idiots like you who give our country the bad reputation it’s always had.”
-Heather Czerniak
It’s people like you that insult instead of discussing that give the left a bad reputation. I hope you’re proud of yourself.
“Don’t expect a warm welcome when you come home. You’re not a hero, kid, just a wannabe.”
-Heather Czerniak
I don’t. I live in Madison, which is an extremely intolerant population. But then again, I already am home. I’ve been home for a year.
“Sorry, Steven. I wanted to at least extend you the benefit of the doubt. But it seems your mind is “open like a steel trap”. And I prefer my discussions rigorously fact-based. Do yourself a favor — read more, from reputable sources, and blog less. Then you may ultimately have something of real worth to contribute.”
-Nemo
Which is why you still haven’t supplied a source for your belief that an Accounting Brigade was reassigned to serve as infantry? And yes, NYT is notably bias and is getting measurably worse. The age of NYT being the paper of record has past. There are far better papers to get news from.
“One final note: Steve, while you’re calling draft-dodgers and conscientious objectors cowards, has anyone bothered to inform you that George W. Bush was a draft-dodger? Yes, Steve, our president. You won’t have to look far to find the dirt on him. Is it like some draft-dodgers are OK with you, as long as they grow up to be president and send other people’s kids to die in the kind of war he successfully avoided by screwing around in-and out of-the National Guard?”
-Heather Czerniak
I suggest you read some history books. The National Guard has been involved with every major US conflict, including Vietnam. Being in the Guard is not the safe pass some historians portray it to be. For fighter pilots it’s even less of a safe choice. Air National Guard squadrons were flying missions in Vietnam. And in case you care to know, when I deployed overseas, I was in the National Guard. I still am in the National Guard. I consider you calling Guard members draft dodgers an unforgivable insult and I’m not going to tolerate any more uncivil garbage from you. You don’t want to discuss an issue, you’re here to vent and I can listen to liberals vent anytime I want. I however choose not to.
I also find it incredibly dishonest to post under two different names on a blog. Interesting that Heather and Adele post from the same IP address. I don’t support trolls.
Comment by Steven A. Stehling — Monday 29 May, 2006 @ 21:36
It seems Britain’s Ministry of Defence has coined an amazingly ‘useful’ new propaganda term — “eternal AWOL”:
At Least 1,000 British Troops ‘Desert’ Since Iraq War, BBC Reports
At least 1,000 troops have deserted the armed forces since the US-led war was launched in Iraq three years ago, the BBC reported.
Britain’s defence ministry said however it knew of only “a handful of deserters since 1989″. …
I’d say that “Katherine Jashinski, Convicted Coward” — I couldn’t help noticing the “mixed emotions” expressed in the ALT Text for that posted image — is in VERY good company. In fact, her like-minded fellows in the British camp constitute more than a *battalion’s* worth. Could it be that they actually have a compelling *basis* for that alleged “cowardice”? (Read on, and learn.)
[Incidentally, your "link" to the Jashinski story doesn't lead *anywhere* in particular, except to the Main Page at "Channel3000.com". Where's the actual article??]
Comment by Nemo — Tuesday 30 May, 2006 @ 1:01
“I can listen to liberals vent anytime I want. I however choose not to. …”
But of COURSE — a closed mind is a healthy mind! Right? (Loved your truly liberal sprinkling of totally contrived labels there, too — “liberal”, “left”, etc. Very “original”. Ann Coulter fan??)
“… I also find it incredibly dishonest to post under two different names on a blog. Interesting that Heather and Adele post from the same IP address. I dont support trolls.”
How is it you “know” they’re not ROOMMATES sharing a computer?? Pretty “thin” logic, Mister Stehling! But then, you don’t appear interested in any genuine discussion either, only in propounding your own *beliefs* ad nauseum and ignoring any and all inconvenient facts or arguments to the contrary. (Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it. And I typically see it pretty clearly.)
Now, I’m going to fill you in on a little “secret” — my “email address” that I’ve posted several times here is NOT a legitimate one. (Frankly, I don’t believe my personal email address is any of your business.) So, if you want to “boot” me, as well, on a perceived technicality, please feel free to do so NOW. Otherwise, I don’t want to hear about it later, should some “disagreement” prompt you to conveniently dub me a “troll”, “subversive”, “Communist”, “anti-American”, “leftist”, liberal”, or whatever.
As for the two ladies, I believe you should seriously *reconsider* your amazingly presumptive “call” there. Such “hip-shooting” on your part reflects rather badly on you, and at least *suggests* ulterior motives underlying the proclaimed “conviction” that they’re one and the same person. Be a man, Steven — in that particular case, all you truly know is that you *don’t* know.
Comment by Nemo — Tuesday 30 May, 2006 @ 2:02
Somehow I had the URL wrong. Instead of the article, it was set to the news homepage. It’s fixed now.
I still stand by my belief that deserters are cowards. If you believe in something, you should face the repercussions of your beliefs. An increase in the number of deserters doesn’t necessarily indicate that they are opposed to the war. I believe it most likely means many of those deserters were scared and didn’t believe they would actually see combat during their military term. Of all of those that have deserted, only a handful have made any statements. You can’t fairly say with any certainty that those few that have made statements are representative of the whole.
“But of COURSE — a closed mind is a healthy mind! Right? (Loved your truly liberal sprinkling of totally contrived labels there, too — “liberal”, “left”, etc. Very “original”. Ann Coulter fan??)”
Now that was good for a laugh. You accuse me of using standard labels and then you fire out the often used Coulter reference. Seriously though, accusing someone of sounding like or being a fan of Ann Coulter has nearly become the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi on the internet.
But since when did liberals become offended by being called liberals or the left? Geez, get outside. The Air America Radio billboards feature a large yellow arrow pointing left with big bold letters saying “Turn Left”.
“Now, I’m going to fill you in on a little “secret” — my “email address” that I’ve posted several times here is NOT a legitimate one. (Frankly, I don’t believe my personal email address is any of your business.)”
What makes you think I care about your email address?
“As for the two ladies, I believe you should seriously *reconsider* your amazingly presumptive “call” there. Such “hip-shooting” on your part reflects rather badly on you, and at least *suggests* ulterior motives underlying the proclaimed “conviction” that they’re one and the same person. Be a man, Steven — in that particular case, all you truly know is that you *don’t* know.”
I let her get away with her insulting comments a couple times, but I have no obligation to give her a platform to insult me. If there truly was another person posting from the same connection, then I still don’t care. Both of them are condescending and are attempting to irritate me. It’s not working, nor will it. However, I don’t want garbage like that wasting space on my website.
Comment by Steven A. Stehling — Tuesday 30 May, 2006 @ 2:10
In December of 2003, I was discharged from the Army as a Conscientious Objector. I found this website from comments made by the blog author about the fake Ranger Jessie whoever. I’m glad I did. Maybe I can add a few thoughts to the discussion about cowardice and non-combat MOSes.
I was a 13F forward observer with 3rd Ranger Bat for about 7 months in 2001 before being accepted to West Point. I was at West Point for about 2 months when the two towers were attacked. And like everyone else in America, my whole life changed. Within a year I had a deep religious conversion and became a Catholic. I then discovered that I could not fight in an unjust war.
So, as this relates to 1) Cowardice and 2) Non-Combat MOSes…
1) Cowardice: I remember something they told us at airborne school - that if you weren’t scared to jump out of an airplane, you were probably crazy. But there was a good side to this fear - because without fear, there could be no bravery. So as cowardice goes, the question in judging another person’s heart ought to revolve around this question: was the person trying to avoid their fear, or were they facing it?
As you point out, Katherine was a cook. The threat to her life was probably quite small. In applying for CO status, she knew that she’d probably end up in jail. Camilo Mejia, a fellow CO who spent about 8 months in jail for it, was helping her along the process. She knew that she was probably going to jail.
The question then focuses upon this: was she more afraid of cooking some meals in relative safety in a fortified base in Iraq, or was she more afraid of a jail sentence and court martial? With this in mind, and knowing that she could have simply gone AWOL or done some drugs or done any of the other things they kick you out of the Army for (that route would truly have been cowardly), I conclude that she was sincere in her convictions and determined to follow them - regardless of the outcome. That might be the true test of bravey and cowardice - whether you follow what you know to be right, regardless of how fearful it may be.
In my own case, I was ranked fourth in my class at West Point, was a Ranger, and had a lot to look foward to as an officer in the Army. All my family and friends were in the military. I lost everything that I’d worked and trained for. But sometimes things change, and sometimes radically. Think of the terrorists who are blowing themselves up in Iraq. If they realized that what they were doing was wrong, would we call them a coward for changing sides?
The other issue, 2) Non-combat MOSes
When I was at the Academy, and had my conversion, I initially thought that I would become a doctor, that I would save people’s lives instead of taking them. And for a while, that made a lot of sense. But eventually I concluded that I couldn’t be part of the Army in any way - that I couldn’t support war in any form. And the key part of this conclusion came from a term that you might have heard - “combat multiplier.”
Support MOSes are called combat multipliers, and this phrase is used to let all the cooks and medics know - “hey guys, I know you aren’t out there shooting rifles or driving tanks, but without you, our soldiers couldn’t fight. You are the lifeblood of our military machine. You feed our troops. You keep them alive. Without you, we wouldn’t even consider going out into battle. You are a combat multiplier!”
And this is really true. As a Ranger, I received intensive medical training. We knew how to keep one another alive, and we knew that this capability gave us the ability to take on harder and more dangerous missions. We knew that we could come back alive, we knew that we could take an extra bullet, and that gave us the power to wage war further. The same applies to everyone in the military. Without the non-combat support MOSes, the Army simply could not function. It could not wage war.
Think of it from our point of view - if you come to consider a war (or all war) as evil, would you have any part in it? If I was a German in WWII, I wouldn’t be a cook, I wouldn’t be a medic, I wouldn’t be a chaplain, I wouldn’t be anything in the German Army. I’d be resisting it. And for those of us who have come to see all killing of our brothers and sisters (iraqi, american, terrorist, or patriot) as a horrible and terrible evil, there is only one option: resist all war and all killing.
Would we call WWII German Concientious Objectors cowards? I know of at least one German CO who was executed for refusing to serve the 3rd Reich. If you accept that some of us are sincere in seeing the United States as engaged in an unjust war in Iraq, and if you recognize that it is courageous for a soldier to say ‘no’ to his government’s unjust wars, then I think you and I might have room to begin to agree on some things. I think we’d both agree that German soldiers in WWII weren’t cowards for refusing to fight for Hitler.
Perhaps it all comes down to one final question: Do you think we are lying? Have we simply made up all of this stuff about religious conviction, unjust wars, etc, all in an effort to get out of the military?
If we are lying, then you are right to call us cowards. But if we haven’t lied to you, then perhaps you have been wrong about us.
God Bless,
Nate Wildermuth
Comment by Nate Wildermuth — Wednesday 31 May, 2006 @ 3:23
I should also add that people who desert or go AWOL aren’t necessarily choosing a cowardly course. It isn’t what I’d do, or did, but I can see how one might refuse to go through the legal proceedings of what we see as an immoral and evil organization (both the military and the government - both being founded upon violence and killing). Eventually though, if you aren’t willing to stand up, fight, and suffer for your convictions, chances are that you don’t really believe what you say you believe.
Comment by Nate Wildermuth — Wednesday 31 May, 2006 @ 3:43
I was doing a search for your father Nate and came upon your name . I know you dont remeber me but I went to the Academy (the other one)with Mark. We even roomed together for a while in Ft Walton before he married Pat. I havent been able to get ahold of Mark and was wondering if he will finally attend a reunion.(Nov this year) I would like to also say even though I have been in the AF /Reserves for over 30 years I am glad to see you are a man of conviction. It took alot of courage to go with your beliefs and whatever you do I am sure you will do well. Pass on to your Dad and Pat my hello and ask them to get ahold of me . I still live in Mary Esther, Fl
Thanks
Mike Wilson
BG USAF
Comment by Mike Wilson — Friday 4 August, 2006 @ 16:06
Hi Mike!
Thank you for the message. If you want to email my Dad, he is in Iraq working for the State Department. His email is (address removed). I hope you get in contact with him, and sent on the message you left. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find your email address or anything like that. So hopefully you will see this message, or he’ll find some other way to contact you.
Best wishes,
Nate
Note: This message has been edited to remove the email address. Both Mike and Nate have been notified of the editing. If I left the email address, it could be collected by a webcrawler and eventually added to a spam mailing list. No one wants that.
Comment by Nate Wildermuth — Friday 24 November, 2006 @ 20:03