Your video, An Iraq Vet's animated personal film story about an ambush, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Iraq Vets Outrage At Army's "Debt Of Service" Claim.. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I would wonder why the "special forces" in the movie are called special at all. They looked like a ragtag team of douchebags to me.
Maybe they weren't special forces. But I thought they were because it looked like they were disguised in local clothing, which you wouldn't expect from normal forces.

>> ^cybrbeast:

They meet a special forces team and come under attack from an enemy sniper, presumably using a low tech sniper gun.


I don't think they were meant to be SAS, but private contractors. At one point I remember him shooting the prisoners as they were trying to escape and talked about a reward. I've read a lot of non-fiction about the SAS over the years, there's no way the SAS goes around collecting bounties. Though it's not really said in the film, I don't think that's what they're implying. So feel safe in that knowledge!

On the other hand, I did have problems with the film also, despite how well it portrayed the 'addiction' to war. Chris Hedges has described this phenomenon vividly, something that is never talked about.

In the film it is never even mentioned WHY the Iraqis attack American forces. That their entire army was disbanded when it was standing ready to assist, or de-Baathification which had thrown many out of work, for a couple of examples. So we're left to conclude, if we know nothing else about the history of the country, that they just simply hate Americans for no reason. It's not at least suggested that might be a more complicated answer.

>> ^Djevel:
>> ^cybrbeast:
. EOD are not snipers!

From what I understand, EOD personnel are trained in the use of the Barret for long range explosive detonation.

I guess you're right

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php
However I doubt they would have the skill and endurance of real snipers. And it's still ridiculous that the British special ops were taken out like pansies and couldn't even repair their own tire.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
If it's such a "lawful" refusal, then why the hell would you be fearing charges?
Because he will almost certainly be embroiled in a legal battle.
Based on the summary saying he's been honorably discharged, my guess is that he got hit with a "stop loss" letter, telling him that even though he's fulfilled his commitment to the Army, they're extending his contract because they need him.
Technically, refusal to serve would make you AWOL, and I don't know if there's still an opportunity for him to get some sort of conscientious objector status. The Wikipedia article on the topic suggests he won't qualify since he's already served at least 1 tour, therefore he's not opposed to war in general.
I hope he gets and holds the press's attention with this, since it's his only shot of winning this dispute.


Here's a little update on this guy from July. The Army commented on his refusal to redeploy.

"As he put his studies on hold to spend several months speaking to members of Congress in Washington about his plight, Chiroux's second deployment date came and went. Technically, he said, he's not AWOL because he feels he's essentially a civilian, and he's heard nothing from the Army since he failed to report.

The Army sees it differently, though. "The way he's going about it by not showing up puts him as a deserter and someone who is AWOL," Army spokesperson Major Nathan Banks said. "We won't go after him, but if he applies for a federal grant or school loans, certain jobs or gets a traffic ticket, he will be arrested and processed for being a deserter, and he will probably get a dishonorable discharge. He's digging his own hole." Banks said Chiroux's best bet is to file as a conscientious objector and explain his reasons for not wanting to serve. Quon added that if a soldier wishes to claim conscientious objector status, they must first report to their mobilization site and submit an application, which is then reviewed by a General Court Martial."

This came from the article http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1590339/20080702/id_0.jhtml which was linked through Iraq vets against the war. So, the ultimate outcome of this is that one day it will catch up to him and he will receive a dishonorable discharge (which he can have removed after a specified time limit). He essentially just disqualified himself from veteran's benefits. Thats it. The Army doesn't waste resources chasing after everyone that reneges on their obligations. When he looks for government assistance in the future he will be declined.

Unless otherwise, all quotes are from danny.

"And i KNOW you won't see that any of what you said is wrong or unbiased, so i almost think there's no point."

I can only assume your talking about what I said to babymech. Thats all I could really offer up in light of the fact the entire line of his was drivel. Ron Paul is the closest we have had in a LONG time to a TRUE Republican. He was trying to bring our country back to its Constitution. So excuse me if I fail to see how that justifies his wanting to laugh at the prospect of losing what would have been a great president.

As far as your rambling on about Iraq, and what I had to say in regards to building it up, I'm just going to throw everyones favorite acronym at you: STFU. The country of Iraq has been policing itself now for a couple for years with assistance of allied forces. A few years ago, American military sent teams, (MITT and BITT) into Iraq to help train their police forces and military so that they could police themselves. We removed a dictator and they set up a democracy.

"Dude, THE COUNTRY IS A WARZONE. By our standards, parts of it are uninhabitable"

Of course there is going to be areas of that country that suck. There are areas of MY country that suck. So when you start saying "parts of it are dangerously habitable and the parts that are comfortably habitable still have huge risks" Well no shit. And until their own people stop suicide bombing (which has been going on since WAY before the US showed up) its going to stay that way.

"...you absolutely cannot go into a country to liberate them and leave them in the kind of state that iraq is in."

Already explained that one to you.

"The moment you invade..."

That one gets tossed around alot. Yeah theres those that didn't / don't want us there. Then there are the shitloads that do. Ask MGR. He'll tell you. Hell, just about every Iraq vet I know tells me stories of how the locals took soldiers in their homes and tried to give them what they had to offer. Feeding them "lavish" meals while they ate crumbs. So yes, the US went in against its own laws, and depending how you look at it, you can call it an invasion. Or you can call it liberation. But whichever way you choose, keep in mind the US isn't the only country that went in. SO why is it JUST their responsibility?

As far as the collateral damage goes, I was talking about houses, doors, homes, vehicles and what not. I would never put a price of life, and not for one second did I mean to suggest we are financially reimbursing their families of people who we killed. Like you said, its a WARZONE. Shit happens, even if we try as hard as we can to keep it from happening. It sucks.

"
I know you're not a stupid guy, i've read some of your quality comments. Are you sure you're going the right way with this?"

Thank you and yes.

Interesting "Stop Loss" info from wikipedia

The stop-loss policy, in the United States military, is the retention of troops to remain in service beyond their expected term of service.[1] It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court. Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War. Stop-loss has been justified on the legal basis of paragraph 9(c) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States" but which has not been reviewed in full by a federal court system.

The use of this provision has been criticized by many as abuse of the spirit of the law, due to the fact it is often used in circmstances that Congress has not yet declared as war, such as in the current occupation in Iraq.

Stop-loss was first significantly used just before and during the first Gulf War. According to a military publication[1], "the Army last used stop loss during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990 when President George H. W. Bush delegated stop loss authority to the defense secretary." Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush

Stop-loss, as well as the practice of involuntary extension, have been controversial. In a campaign speech in 2004, former presidential candidate John Kerry described stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft."[1]

The first legal challenge to this policy came in August 2004, with a lawsuit challenged by an anonymous National Guardsman in California.[2] A basis for the suit is that stop-loss does not apply to the current situation in Iraq, which is a military occupation and not a war zone. Another argument used in the case is that it broke the contract of the guardsman, as he had already fulfilled his IRR obligation.

The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as one of his first acts in his position, penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers.

The United States Department of Defense now has begun a program to replace the stop-loss, as it is "too controversial". The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's LES (Leave and Earnings Statement).

The Army claims that enlisted soldiers facing stop loss can now voluntarily separate from the United States Army by request, under provision 3-12, but this is deceptive because only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days "stabilization time" can they apply.

Iraq Veterans Against the War, an activist organization of former and current service members, in solidarity with former Specialist and Iraq vet Evan Knappenberger, has announced a national "Stop the Stop-Loss" campaign at a recent press conference where they were holding a week-long vigil in a tower erected on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Other anti-Stop-Loss vigils have occured in Bellingham, Washington, and Colorado Springs, Colorado

Engels-

What about this Iraq vet who lost an arm and got billed $2000?
http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2004/12/10/abandon1.htm

Or the 300,000 homeless Iraq vets?
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/178/37/

Or how about the long standing history of the USA discarding their war veterans?
http://oldtimer.wordpress.com/military-tradition-history-veterans-abused-discarded/

Time to don your tinfoil hat.

Thank you, the suicide rates of Iraq Vets are rarely reported if ever. It's fucking sick. The whole thing. God fucking damn it. This kind of unexplainable shit deserves at the very least the sacrifice of Bush's life. With the level of general schizophrenic tendencies of this culture how is he not dead, such karma can't stand, even if ones comes around again.
The man is Hitlerian, and he's the president.
Bad craziness.