American soldiers apply for conscientious objector status

Are medics expected to bear arms? I did not know this.

The benefits of work in the Peace Corps aren't in $$.

But, I suppose there are some people that truely become conscientious objectors after having been in a while. Seems a lot more plausible to me than the story of the people at the start of Desert Storm that had enlisted and then claimed they didn't know they might be expected to actually fight at some point.

Actually everyone needs to go through basic training no matter what your position in the military is - that includes firing a weapon.

I have several friends that went into the Peace Corps and love it. I was not necessarily comparing money, but comparing if you want to serve your country, but not in a combative way. As far as money, if you want the bennies and the money, then is it fair that you do not also take the downsides of a position? I could also understand that they may not have realized after being combat how truly violent it would be - seeing many of these are all of 18 when they sign up. But saying it is wrong to bear arms? That is a bit of a stretch. I would support them being discharged, but not honorably with all the benefits. I would be supportive of a General discharge.

During the unpleasantness in Vietnam, those who claimed conscientious objector status, but were denied by their "draft boards" (local selective service panels), would not be required to take weapons training, and would be assigned a non-combat MOS (military occupational specialty). As an ironic aside, medics in Vietnam frequently carried M-16's, even if the magazine were empty--medics and radiomen were prime targets, and carrying the weapon, and putting your medical kit in your poncho or gasmask pouch made you less of a target.

The difference here is these are "voluntary" soldiers, not draftees - which I could understand.

Compare this to another job where you have a contract say for four years of service. If you finish these four years of service, you will receive a pension at the end of the contract. Now say one of the elements of this job is to travel frequently which you readily accept. After 9-11, you become terrified of flying. You decide you cannot commit to this particular obligation of your job. Since it is such an integral part of your job, the only option available is to leave. Well you still want your pension, but you did not fulfill your contract. Should the company be obligated to give you your pension?

They probably signed up for the military with the intention of defending our country - not going overseas to destroy someone elses. The soldiers in Iraq are forced to kill without thinking. The are constantly harrassed and intimidated by the populace and their lives are always threatened. Iraq never presented a danger to us. They never aksed for our help. But we so generously "offered" to give them Democracy even though they didn't want it!

Personally, I think that the article that you quoted is just another media spin to influence the election. Two c.o.s do not a mass defection make. I am sure that service people have asked for c.o. status in the past.............but the "news" was never important enough to be picked up by the media.

I once read somewhere that to create a "crime wave" all that the media had to do was take the crime stories from the back of the newspaper, and splash it all over page 1!

According to these soldiers that is not the only reason. It is because the idea of killing is "revolting" to them. "they both think it's wrong to bear arms and don't want to be involved with the war,"

Whether what you say Nick is the reason or not, they signed up for the military. They were not drafted. If you sign up for the military you may have to fight in a war you do not agree with. Right or wrong that is the way the military is set up. It is no surprise and should be no surprise you may have to fight in a war. If you do not want to have to fight in a war - do not sign up for the military. Even a naïve person must know that a major purpose of the military is not only to just defend your country, but sometimes you may have to go overseas to fight in some one else's war you may not agree with. That is your job when you sign up. Don't like it, don't sign up. In most military situations, soldiers are expected to take orders without thinking. I can't say whether this is best, but that is the situation. If you find you cannot do your duty, you voluntary signed for, then you should not get the benefits that go with that assignment and therefore should not have a general discharge.

You could be right Phoenix and I really can understand how these soldiers could feel. I also do not think they should have to stay in service if they sincerely cannot handle the violence and honestly feel as they stated. Personally I hold no ill will toward them, the only issue, I have is that I do not think they should get an honorable discharge. They did not serve as they were supposed to and did not complete their duty. They should be given a general discharge.

Back when I was in the military we took an oath to follow all lawful orders and there was nothing in there about being able to go home if we decided we didn't like it.

Hey Scrat! Hitlers soldiers were not excused under that "just following orders" stuff. This war is illegal. Doesn't that make the orders illegal also?

Nick - You don't get to take the benefits of military service and THEN decide you're a conscientious objector. You decide that BEFORE you go into the military, BEFORE you take an oath to follow lawful orders and defend your nation. You don't get to pick which wars you want to fight and which you don't.

They should throw these peons in the brig until the last combatant returns from Iraq.

yes they are expected to fight when they are not preforming medicial duties protected under the laws of land warfair. if flying a red cross or red crescent, you may not fight, any other time you are expected to.

i say give them there conscientious objector status, and let them do all the crappy non combat jobs for the rest of there time. it would free up fighting men and let them ( or make them) compleat there contract.

These guys can't be expected to be good combat soldiers now. They should in my opinion be put on some sort of community service-like duty until their time is up. Would you want to be fighting along-side a person who may or may not pull the trigger when your life depends on it?

I'm fairly certain there is some labor component to brig time. Let them serve their country behind bars until the last soldier comes home from Iraq.

No need to put them in jail, let them perform there duty as medics (by being litter barriers) in the middle of combat, just give there weapons and ammo to some one who will use them.