US Soldier in court for desertion

[The Feral Underclass]

'They made us break law'

Suzanne Goldenberg in Fort Stewart, Georgia
Thursday May 20, 2004
The Guardian

A US army infantryman who grew morally opposed to the war after six months of fierce combat in Iraq was brought before a court martial for desertion yesterday, in a case that has become a talisman for America's peace movement.
To his supporters, Sergeant Camilo Mejia is the antithesis of those soldiers facing trial in Baghdad for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail. He was the soldier with a conscience, no longer willing to follow orders he believed to be illegal or immoral. He pleaded not guilty to desertion yesterday.

His defence team introduced experts on war crimes and the elder statesman of the anti-war movement, Ramsey Clark, to try to construct a case that Sgt Mejia's decision to leave his unit arose from a desire to avoid committing atrocities.

"Assuming the facts in Sgt Mejia's conscientious objector application are true, he had authority under international law to absent himself from committing crimes against humanity," said Francis Boyle, an expert on international law at the University of Illinois.

However the judge, Col Gary Smith, rejected all three motions by the defence that tried to bring in considerations of war crimes and other international laws. His only concession was to allow Sgt Mejia his moment in court today to explain his decision to leave the military without permission.

The proceedings, at a small white clapboard building at Fort Stewart army base, were intended by Sgt Mejia's supporters to be the showcase for the anti-war argument. "We are trying to give this as much oomph as possible," said Tod Ensign of Citizen Soldier, a military advocacy group. "We are trying to make some law here. We are trying to change some thinking."

To that end Sgt Mejia's defence team yesterday enlisted the support of Mr Clark, who served as US attorney general at the height of the Vietnam war. He argued that Sgt Mejia was correct to abandon his unit of the Florida National Guard last October when it had engaged in acts he believed to be against the law. "The irony is that they are being court martialled over there for the very things that he is being court martialled for over here for not going back to do," Mr Clark said.

The son of a Sandinista activist - his father wrote the lines in the Nicaraguan national anthem about struggling against Yankee imperialists - Sgt Mejia moved to Florida as a teenager.

He joined the army in 1995 - in part to give him a sense of belonging in America - but he has yet to become a US citizen and carries a Costa Rican passport. In 1998, he left the regular army, transferred to the Florida National Guard and enrolled in a psychology course at university. He was mobilised at the start of the war.

During his stint in Iraq, Sgt Mejia received promotion and commendations. He was, according to his commanding officers and the men under his command, an exemplary and popular soldier until last October, when he left his unit while on two weeks' leave in the US.

By the time Sgt Mejia surfaced last March, he had turned against America's presence in Iraq, denouncing the invasion as a "war for oil". He accused his commanders of wantonly risking soldiers' lives, sending them into dangerous situations simply to drive up the medal tally.

He said soldiers at the al-Assad base, near Baghdad airport, were directed by three interrogators who were not in regulation uniform in tactics to soften up Iraqis for questioning. Soldiers were taught to stage mock executions, clicking pistols near the ears of hooded prisoners, or to bang on metal walls with sledgehammers to keep them awake.

"There comes a point when you have to realise there is a difference between being a soldier and being a human being," Sgt Mejia told the Guardian earlier this month.

Sgt Mejia's defence team is aware that his account of being guided in torture techniques is explosive in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal and it is hoping to give a full airing to his story in court. His lawyers attempted yesterday to construct a sweeping defence invoking international treaties with Costa Rica because of Sgt Mejia's citizenship, as well as articles of the Geneva convention on the treatment of detainees.

If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. He appears before a separate military panel next week that will determine his status as a conscientious objector.

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220721,00.html)

[lucid]

What a pussy. They should put him in front of a firing squad for abandoning his teamates.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He is the very model of the moral, honourable soldier. I salute him.

[cubist]

as ever lucid you input is vastly accurate in representing your moronic nature,

i hope he gets off,

GW is an AWOL specialist aswell

[scrap metal]

Morals in the military...who knew?

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 01:28 PM
as ever lucid you input is vastly accurate in representing your moronic nature,

i hope he gets off,

GW is an AWOL specialist aswell
If thats the kind of soldier you want on your side, so be it.
There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work.

I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

Cubist, blow me.

[cubist]

i would blow you but it will cost you five dolla,

i have little sympathy for army boys but people who wish to leave becuase the Governement failed to releive them of they're consicousness should be allowed, if they can't shoot at innocent people what use are they in the army anyway, so he should be allwoed to get off as he is human unlike the rest of the meathead subordinates,

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:03 PM
If thats the kind of soldier you want on your side, so be it.
Morally conscious and strong enough to stand by their principles. Yes!


There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work.

Torturing and abusing prisoners. Being forced to commit war crimes? Indeed it is dirty work? And morally reprehensable, not to mention against the Geneva concention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Torture treaty...oh yes that's right, the USA didn't sign it!


I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

Evidently the war part didn't bother him, as he went willingly and was honoured by his soldiers and his commanders. It was when they tried to force him into commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity when he decided to start "crying". And too fucking right!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:44 AM
What a pussy. They should put him in front of a firing squad for abandoning his teamates.
Agreed.

Court martial and summary execution should be the only option at this point.

He should be given a traitor's death, and no less.

He has a right to CO status, but he should have followed the correct avenue, not deserted his battalion. Now he must pay per the UCMJ.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 12:25 PM
He is the very model of the moral, honourable soldier. I salute him.
Apparently, you look for treason i your soldiers.

Oh, what a surprise, he wasn't even a legitimate US citizen.

[Le Libérer]

I agree the oxymoron of him being a soldier and having a concsience! I'm touched. Hopefully this man of honor will lead us all the way up to who is responsible for not stopping the inhumane treatment of soldiers, Rumfield and Bush. Hell yeah!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20 2004, 03:44 PM
Morally conscious and strong enough to stand by their principles. Yes!




I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

Evidently the war part didn't bother him, as he went willingly and was honoured by his soldiers and his commanders. It was when they tried to force him into commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity when he decided to start "crying". And too fucking right!

Morally conscious and strong enough to stand by their principles. Yes!

That notion does not reconcile with following the chain of command. If everyone was allowed to nbe insubordinate because of their "principles", then the American Military would probably be as effective as, say, the anadian military.

By the way, Was one of his great principles to break an oath he made to his adopted nation? Great principles indeed!!!


Torturing and abusing prisoners. Being forced to commit war crimes? Indeed it is dirty work? And morally reprehensable, not to mention against the Geneva concention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Torture treaty...oh yes that's right, the USA didn't sign it!

These are isolated incidents, indicative of poor decision making by a few bad apples. It does not reflect the US military or it's policies and practices as a whole.


Evidently the war part didn't bother him, as he went willingly and was honoured by his soldiers and his commanders. It was when they tried to force him into commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity when he decided to start "crying". And too fucking right!

Heresay. The court martial will get to the bottom of these proposterous allegations.

Funny how he made his decision not to return whiile he was back in the states. I think he just got re-acquainted with his local Wal-Mart and Mickey-D's, and didn't want to leave the world's greatest land again.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 20 2004, 04:17 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 20 2004, 04:17 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 12:25 PM
He is the very model of the moral, honourable soldier. I salute him.
Apparently, you look for treason i your soldiers.

Oh, what a surprise, he wasn't even a legitimate US citizen. [/b]
Soldiers conduct is bound by the geneva convention, if ordered to perform acts which are illegal then what right does the US army have to place him on trial for breaking the law, when it was their illegal actions which caused the offence.

Rather hypocritical.

Interestingly enough the US has just court marshalled a Soldier for the very crimes which this Soldier refused to commit.

Seams the poor buggers cant win.

[lucid]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 20 2004, 03:44 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 20 2004, 03:44 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 04:03 PM
If thats the kind of soldier you want on your side, so be it.
Morally conscious and strong enough to stand by their principles. Yes!


There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work.

Torturing and abusing prisoners. Being forced to commit war crimes? Indeed it is dirty work? And morally reprehensable, not to mention against the Geneva concention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Torture treaty...oh yes that's right, the USA didn't sign it!


I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

Evidently the war part didn't bother him, as he went willingly and was honoured by his soldiers and his commanders. It was when they tried to force him into commiting war crimes and crimes against humanity when he decided to start "crying". And too fucking right! [/b]
Here we go again. Another pink retard blanketing the entire us military based on the actions of a few.

[cubist]

pink lmao,

TAT is not a cappie sympathiser

[DaCuBaN]

Oh, what a surprise, he wasn't even a legitimate US citizen

Yet he went and fought where you didn't.... hmmmm....


Here we go again. Another pink retard blanketing the entire us military based on the actions of a few

I quote 20 lines, and say one. I have lots of valid input to this conversation. My name is Lucid. ;)
In future either debate properly, or leave it to those who can - there are plenty of intelligent capitalists and war supporters amongst this board, so please please leave this to them. Insults from you carry about as much weight as your non-existent arguments and merely sully the content of every debate in which you 'participate'

I don't mean to *****, but every time I see your name i really do roll my eyes - I've yet to see you say anything constructive one way or another. Please, do prove me wrong.


Was one of his great principles to break an oath he made to his adopted nation?

I believe the soldier is quoted as saying that you reach a point where you realise there is a difference between being human and being a solder. I agree he shouldn't have just upped sticks and left, but it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario - if he'd just refused to fight anymore he'd have received exactly the same treatment


These are isolated incidents, indicative of poor decision making by a few bad apples. It does not reflect the US military or it's policies and practices as a whole

I agree entirely. The left and right are equally as bad at tarring everyone with the same brush (which is proposterous). I do have to ask though... what possible reason could the US have for not signing the UN Torture Treaty? That is certainly not a 'bad apple' scenario.


Funny how he made his decision not to return whiile he was back in the states. I think he just got re-acquainted with his local Wal-Mart and Mickey-D's, and didn't want to leave the world's greatest land again.

Again, you are quite probably right. Anyone who signs up to the military for any purposes, be it because they have a desire to fight or some equally odd fantasy, or simply wish to use the resources to further themselves i naturally distrust anyone who gets involved with the military. It's a gross slander to many (and I am ashamed of it), but I simply cannot see why any sane person would want to get involed with them.


There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work

The kid was awarded medals for his work whilst over there and then deserted upon returning to the US. This implies that he was more than willing to do the dirty work and (as usual) the anti-war have dragged him onto the bandwagon as a 'show-child' (idiots). In all honesty he probably just didn't want to risk his ass every day.

[Severian]

"If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. "

How ironic...he could get the same sentence for refusing to aid the torturers as Sivitz just got for participating in torture.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 11:44 AM
What a pussy. They should put him in front of a firing squad for abandoning his teamates.
Com'n Lucid. You're a pathetic whiner behind a PC, safely supporting the troops. You are a big war supporter, yet you have never been into one. This guy has more guts in his pinky than you could ever think of.

Your authoritian soul in mate, Stalin said something like. "It takes more courage to desert in the Red Army, then to fight till death."

It takes more guts to desert for your moralistic ideas then having those ideas and just finishing your service. He didn't want to become a Lyndie England, maybe you do, but he doesn't. I admire this guy enormous, opposite to you, a guy representing the US gov't opinion. Not having enough guts to join either the troops nor having different toughts then the majority. Truely pathetic.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 12:41 AM
It takes more guts to desert for your moralistic ideas then having those ideas and just finishing your service.
Depends on what the moralistic ideals are.

[Touchstone]

I hate you Lucid. You are a fool! So you think that the soldiers who beat up and de-morilized the Iraqi prisoners were defending thier country? Ha, that's foolish. That is not dirty work. His teamates were being assholes.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:29 PM
I hate you Lucid. You are a fool! So you think that the soldiers who beat up and de-morilized the Iraqi prisoners were defending thier country? Ha, that's foolish. That is not dirty work. His teamates were being assholes.
Yeah touchstone, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 12:41 AM
Com'n Lucid. You're a pathetic whiner behind a PC, safely supporting the troops. You are a big war supporter, yet you have never been into one. This guy has more guts in his pinky than you could ever think of.


Simply deserting instead of filing for CO status through the formal channels is not gutsy, it is weak.

If he is a concienteous objector, that is fine, but go through the formal channels to declare your status, don't abandon your fellow soldiers.

[Touchstone]

Then say what you mean. Don't use general words.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
"If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. "

How ironic...he could get the same sentence for refusing to aid the torturers as Sivitz just got for participating in torture.
No, he would be convicted for deserting.

He could have simply stayed in and filed for CO status, as well as refuse to participate in actions in violation of the Geneva convention.

[Touchstone]

CONVICTED FOR DESRTION. That's not an easy indictment for a soldier. We all know the Geneva Convetion's laws are crap. NO ONE OBEYS THEM.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:35 PM
Then say what you mean. Don't use general words.
I said
What a pussy. They should put him in front of a firing squad for abandoning his teamates.

How the fuck is that generalizing? I was talking about a single soldier. It's you lefties that are so big on generalizing.

[Touchstone]

Wrong, I was talking about one of your other posts.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:46 PM
Wrong, I was talking about one of your other posts.
Maybe you can point it out to me.

[Touchstone]

If thats the kind of soldier you want on your side, so be it.
There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work.

I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

There.

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:00 PM

If thats the kind of soldier you want on your side, so be it.
There is nothing honorable about swearing an oathe to defend your country and then walk when you actually have to do some dirty work.

I have no pitty for the people that joined the military just for education and training and then start crying when they need to go to war.

There.
How is that generalizing? Maybe you need to look up generalizing when you look up Mexico.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 21 2004, 04:18 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 21 2004, 04:18 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 12:41 AM
It takes more guts to desert for your moralistic ideas then having those ideas and just finishing your service.
Depends on what the moralistic ideals are. [/b]
Huh?

If you're a Nazi in the Red Army, I'd still admire having the guts to desert. No matter the moralistic ideals, standing up for your ideas, deserves more credit then the sheep like behavior. Especially when there are consequences tied to it, like prison sentence, the risc of becoming a social outcast, etc.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+May 21 2004, 06:32 PM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ May 21 2004, 06:32 PM)
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 21 2004, 04:18 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 12:41 AM
It takes more guts to desert for your moralistic ideas then having those ideas and just finishing your service.
Depends on what the moralistic ideals are.
Huh?

If you're a Nazi in the Red Army, I'd still admire having the guts to desert. No matter the moralistic ideals, standing up for your ideas, deserves more credit then the sheep like behavior. Especially when there are consequences tied to it, like prison sentence, the risc of becoming a social outcast, etc. [/b]
I concur, and the US military acknowledges this, and that is why there is the concienteous objector option.

However, Sgt. Mejia did not go through the proper channels to file and achieve this status. He simply went AWOL in a time of war, which is deplorable and dishonorable.

[DaCuBaN]

But of course these self professed CO's get nothing but the upmost respect and best treatment possible, right? :rolleyes:

You can forgive him for trying to save his own ass - hell enough people do it that we'd need a mass genocide if we didn't. He was merely living up to the political ideals to which he was defending - look out for #1

[Loknar]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]This guy has a right to refuse his Officers' orders, however he deserted which is unacceptable. He abandoned his soldiers in a time of war, in any nation that is a very dishonorable act.

[Invader Zim]

Honour is the word fools use to mask their sins.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Honour is used by the rulers to push people into roles.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:04 PM
Honour is the word fools use to mask their sins.
Leftist Bumper-sticker philosophy.

Honor is among man's oldest and most noble concepts, and it should not be dismissed or trivialized as an excuse for "sins".

"Sin". Now that is a truly stupid concept.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:04 PM
Honour is the word fools use to mask their sins.
I disagree. True honor is a self-generated and self-acknowledged characteristic, and not a function or influence of any outside entity.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 21 2004, 04:37 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 21 2004, 04:37 PM)
[email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
"If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. "

How ironic...he could get the same sentence for refusing to aid the torturers as Sivitz just got for participating in torture.
No, he would be convicted for deserting.

He could have simply stayed in and filed for CO status, as well as refuse to participate in actions in violation of the Geneva convention. [/b]
In the mean time be charged with Mutiny, which in the UK is practically the only thing which still retains the death sentance (though they would never be able to do it).

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 21 2004, 10:34 PM
Honour is used by the rulers to push people into roles.
I disagree.

Honor is a self-generated and self-practiced characteristic, intrinsic to the individual, and not a function or influence of any outside entity.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Enigma+May 22 2004, 12:10 AM--> (Enigma @ May 22 2004, 12:10 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2004, 04:37 PM

[email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
"If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. "

How ironic...he could get the same sentence for refusing to aid the torturers as Sivitz just got for participating in torture.
No, he would be convicted for deserting.

He could have simply stayed in and filed for CO status, as well as refuse to participate in actions in violation of the Geneva convention.
In the mean time be charged with Mutiny, which in the UK is practically the only thing which still retains the death sentance (though they would never be able to do it). [/b]
In light of the current prisoner scandal, I think he would be a poster boy for doing the right thing, not accused of treason.

Even if he was accused, he would be exonerated at his court martial due to the fact that his orders were in violation of the Geneva convention.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 22 2004, 12:12 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 22 2004, 12:12 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2004, 04:37 PM

[email protected] 20 2004, 09:37 PM
"If convicted, Sgt Mejia could be sentenced to a year in prison, demotion of rank and a bad conduct discharge. "

How ironic...he could get the same sentence for refusing to aid the torturers as Sivitz just got for participating in torture.
No, he would be convicted for deserting.

He could have simply stayed in and filed for CO status, as well as refuse to participate in actions in violation of the Geneva convention.
In the mean time be charged with Mutiny, which in the UK is practically the only thing which still retains the death sentance (though they would never be able to do it).

In light of the current prisoner scandal, I think he would be a poster boy for doing the right thing, not accused of treason.

Even if he was accused, he would be exonerated at his court martial due to the fact that his orders were in violation of the Geneva convention. [/b]
In light of the current prisoner scandal, I think he would be a poster boy for doing the right thing

he already is, yet instead of mutiny its a trumped up charge of desertion.

Even if he was accused, he would be exonerated at his court martial due to the fact that his orders were in violation of the Geneva convention.

one can only hope, at least you accept that he was being ordered to do things that break the Geneva convention.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:17 AM
In light of the current prisoner scandal, I think he would be a poster boy for doing the right thing

he already is, yet instead of mutiny its a trumped up charge of desertion.

That is exactly my point. It is not a trumped up charge, to the contrary it is textbook desertion.

He should have simply filed CO per US military protocol.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 22 2004, 12:20 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 22 2004, 12:20 AM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 12:17 AM
In light of the current prisoner scandal, I think he would be a poster boy for doing the right thing

he already is, yet instead of mutiny its a trumped up charge of desertion.

That is exactly my point. It is not a trumped up charge, to the contrary it is textbook desertion.

He should have simply filed CO per US military protocol. [/b]
Actually a textbook desertion is to run from one set of lines, and straight into the other sides lines, and ask to fight for them. Something the US relied upon in order to have practically any Navy in the early 1800's... they still lost 1812 anyway but... such is life.


He should have simply filed CO per US military protocol.

And be harrassed, and possibly murdered by his former colligues who would almost certainly want to protect them selves?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 22 2004, 12:08 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 22 2004, 12:08 AM)
[email protected] 21 2004, 10:04 PM
Honour is the word fools use to mask their sins.
I disagree. True honor is a self-generated and self-acknowledged characteristic, and not a function or influence of any outside entity. [/b]
It's self generated you claim. But society and the gov't has a bigger impact on what is the "honourable" thing to do, then yourself. Who decides what is and what is not the honourable thing to do?

The deserting Soldier opinions that it's the honourable thing to desert then serve for a wrong cause. He finds his opinion more important then service or sticking with his "buds". He is doing the "honourable" thing, according to him. And if "honour" is truely self-generated, then the deserter is doing the honourable thing.

Yet people don't see his actions as "honourable", why not? Isn't his "self-generated honour" more important then the opinions of others?

Like I said. Honour is used by the rulers to force people into roles. It's the soldiers' role to obey, when following that role, you are "honourable". There is nothing noble or "self-generated honourable" with fighting for something that you don't believe in.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 12:24 AM
Actually a textbook desertion is to run from one set of lines, and straight into the other sides lines, and ask to fight for them. Something the US relied upon in order to have practically any Navy in the early 1800's... they still lost 1812 anyway but... such is life.


No,what you describe is treason. Desertion does not require the offender to serve the enemy force in any way except for the incidental benefit of having one less enemy to fight.


And by the way, nice try, but 1812 was a draw if anything, and the US Navy ruled the seas in that war, laying waste to British shipping by far. All historians will concede this. Based on your ludiscrous and unfounded statement, I think you are just looking to discredit the US regardless of facts.

Check your facts on the Naval battles of 1812 before you respond, sir.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+May 24 2004, 07:16 PM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ May 24 2004, 07:16 PM)
[email protected] 22 2004, 12:24 AM
Actually a textbook desertion is to run from one set of lines, and straight into the other sides lines, and ask to fight for them. Something the US relied upon in order to have practically any Navy in the early 1800's... they still lost 1812 anyway but... such is life.


No,what you describe is treason. Desertion does not require the offender to serve the enemy force in any way except for the incidental benefit of having one less enemy to fight.


And by the way, nice try, but 1812 was a draw if anything, and the US Navy ruled the seas in that war, laying waste to British shipping by far. All historians will concede this. Based on your ludiscrous and unfounded statement, I think you are just looking to discredit the US regardless of facts.

Check your facts on the Naval battles of 1812 before you respond, sir. [/b]
Actually it is desertion. Desertion to the opposition.

That is what it was called, when people did that.

And by the way, nice try, but 1812 was a draw if anything, and the US Navy ruled the seas in that war, laying waste to British shipping by far.

You sunk a few minor gunboats and cutters, such as the HMS Alert, and maybe a couple of larger ships of the line, maybe with 50 guns. The british never actually deployed their real power in that war, they had "bigger fish to try". American privateers certainly managed a few smart strikes on british shipping, but no major dammage resulted. The war was largley based on the Land, and the US was soundly thrashed, Washington was burned, and US attempts to invade and capture Canada, for her own imperialist motives were easily thrown back. The only remarkable US victories of that entire war were "old iron sides" victory against two British vessles (a fact always convieniently forgotten by US revisionist historians was that she was significantly larger, faster, and had significantly better guns than her opponents, and to lose such a battle would be pure stupidity), and the battle of New orleans, which atually occured after the peace was signed.

So in short, the US aims were to capture canada, she failed, Britain responded, and sent Canadian troops to attack Washington, they succeeded, and the presidential home was burned, and needed to be white washed to remove the scorch marks, hense the "white house".

Only a revisionist historian, or a stupid one would ever even grudgingly ever consider 1812, to be a draw, let alone a US victory.