Date Posted:12:23:00 03/21/07 Wed Author: Jay Subject: I read it . . . In reply to:
Cricket
's message, "Then don't read up on it." on 10:26:42 03/21/07 Wed
. . . but you say that his oath and contract weren't mutually exclusive and I still don't see how that could be. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the war is/was illegal. How could he have honored both his oath and his contract? It doesn't seem possible, to me.
As far as being offered a non combat role and refusing it, that seems to me to make his case even stronger. As far as the war goes, I don't think it makes any difference whether one is wielding a pen or a gun, they are still part of the same cause. If his position was that the war was illegal, he HAD to refuse to be a part of it, regardless of what assignment he was given.
