The Kyunghyang Shinmun (Korean) reports that a Korean soldier was arrested earlier this month by USFK authorities on charges of desertion.
The soldier, a U.S. green-card holder identified as Pvt. Kim, had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 for a three-year stint (that was to include a tour in Iraq) in order to obtain U.S. citizenship.
In November of 2005, Kim—then a corporal in the U.S. Army—returned to Korea upon receiving word that his father had lung cancer. He failed to return to his unit, however, and in November 2006, he entered the ROK Army upon receiving notification by the Office of Military Manpower Administration. This is because according to Korean law, even Koreans who reside overseas—if they are under 35—must enter the military if they stay in Korea for over 180 days.
Kim decided it might be a good idea to take care of the whole desertion problem, so on leave from the ROKA he paid a visit to a USFK base on March 8 to straighten things out. Instead, USFK decided to straighten him out and put him under arrest. U.S. military authorities believed Kim had deserted to avoid being sent to Iraq.
Kim was going to be extradited back to the United States a few days after his arrest, but the ROK Army—citing Kim’s Korean nationality—asked for him back. USFK complied and handed him over.
The ROK Army is now investigating Kim and what the hell is going on. An Army official explained that if he’s turned over to the U.S. military, he would be sent back to the U.S. mainland to undergo punishment, after which he would be returned to active duty or discharged. A military prosecutor, meanwhile, said that due to Kim being simultaneously a ROKA soldier and a U.S. military deserter, he presents a very complicated problem under international law. He warned that its was a very sensitive matter that could spark a diplomatic problem between Seoul and Washington.
NOTE: Pvt. Kim doesn’t appear to be getting a terrible amount of netizen support at Naver.com. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which being that Kim has managed the rather difficult feat of being disloyal to not just one, but two nations (Korea by trying to get U.S. citizenship, and the United States by deserting and joining a foreign army). Being stupid doesn’t help, either—if I’m a deserter, the last place I’d want to visit on my time off is a U.S. military instillation. A number of netizens, however, are suggesting a rather clever solution to this all—keep him in the ROK Army, but send him to the Zaytun Division in Arbil, Iraq.
42 Comments
No matter what else happens, one would assume that citizenship is right out.
So, he was officially a deserter for 11 months prior to his reporting for duty with the ROK Army, right? Had he become a deserter due to his obligation under South Korean law I could understand the complication but he chose to desert… and then 11 months later reported for duty. I don’t see how being in the ROK Army now complicates his crime of desertion. Extradite him, sentence him, then when he’s served his time, send him back to Korea to complete his service there…or, let him serve his remaining time in the Korean Army and then extradite him for his charges of desertion. Seems only a matter of sequence not one of conflicting sovereignty/loyalty.
Also, one minor thing: he left the states to be with his father? So, technically he’s not a USFK soldier being that he was past his “leave” period and away from his unit - which was not in Korea - without authorization.
Doesn’t matter where he goes worldwide Mr. Chips — technically once he’s a US military deserter, he’s subject to being arrested by any US military authority worldwide. There’s no statute of limitations on desertion as an offense under the UCMJ, if I’m not mistaken.
US military authorities couldn’t go “offpost” in Korea to arrest him (had they become aware of his presence) w/o permission/ cooperation from ROK authorities, but once he voluntarily went into a USFK compound and they became aware of his situation his arrest would have been automatic by any lower-level military authority, without them necessarily stopping to think about the diplomatic implications.
I suppose if this exact situation had happened 20 or 30 years ago, ROK govt would have just quietly told US to take him back to CONUS for court-martial.
By now he’s been “dropped from the rolls” of the US Army unit he deserted from anyway. Department of the Army can “cut” orders assigning him to a general court-martial authority anywhere for prosecution (in US Army Korea, or Japan, or Hawaii, or back in CONUS — whereever it’s “convenient for the government”).
If ROK Army chooses to keep him on his current duty status, my guess is that (with the approval of the ROK Army) he’ll be visited and offered some kind of a plea bargain deal by US Army Judge Advocate General lawyers assigned to USFK.
Likely punishment: “Bad” discharge and forfeiture of all rank, pay and allowances, but no jail time, he’ll be punished enough and it clears the case off the books as far as US Army is concerned.
Even a “regular” desertion case wouldn’t get much more punishment than this; the US military isn’t interested in incarcerating deserters, I think they prefer to reserve space in Leavenworth for more serious offenses.
They just give them a bad discharge, take away all rank pay and allowances, credit them for time already served in confinement while waiting for the action to be processed. Example: the Sergeant Jenkins case.
No US citizenship for PVT Kim but maybe those grapes were sour anyway.
Question then becomes: will the ROK Army chain of command want a US Army convicted deserter serving in one of their units. I suppose it all depends upon how the politics of it gets played out in the view of the Korean public.
If the father’s lung cancer story is more or less legit, and it turns out the insensitive and brutal US Army chain of command laughed derisively when Pvt Kim pleaded for a compassionate reassignment (from whereever he was stationed) to USFK Korea, to be with his dying father, then I suppose he could become a cause celebre and “beat the rap” so to speak.
I guess I shouldn’t be so quick to be cynical, maybe that’s more or less what really happened, who will ever really know. However, I find it very hard to believe that Pvt Kim made it all the way through US Army initial entry training, then got to a regular US Army unit, without truly understanding that you can’t just up and take an unauthorized and quite extended “leave of absence”.
And then “come in from the cold” some time later, when you feel like it, to “clear things up”.
From the original: 김이병은 미국 시민권을 받기 위해 2003년 ‘3년 복무 및 이라크 파병’을 조건으로 미 육군에 입대한 것으로 알려졌다.
=>
Pvt. Kim, had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 for a three-year stint (that was to include a tour in Iraq) in order to obtain U.S. citizenship.
There is no “go to Iraq” clause in any enlistment contract. While the process of obtaining citizenship has been sped up for green card holders in service, it is not contingent on time in a war zone. Whether or not a soldier is deployed to OEF or OIF is contingent entirely upon what unit he assigned to - a process over which he has very little control as a new enlistee. This kind of reporting helps to promote the notion that the US military is using citizenship as a way to induce unfortunate immigrants into fighting our wars. Hopefully the reporter just didn’t know what he was talking about.
You underestimate the how the self-regard of Korea and Koreans desensitizes them to other views, let alone any sense of genuine commitment to values other than their own (group) interest, narrowly construed.
He should be sent back to the US and punished no ifs, ands or buts.
Yes, Corpy Carly, someone at the paper is obviously biased, confusing his or her own political views with cold hard facts.
The guy obviously wants his cake and eat it, too.
Paul H., I didn’t mean to imply that he’s not subject to USMJ, I’m just stating that he’s not a USFK soldier. The article implied that he came from a unit in the states but also called him a USFK soldier, which in this case would be false.
My other point is only that there is a huge difference between 1. deserting and then joining the ROK army and 2. deserting because you were forceably conscripted which did not happen in this case. Had no.2 happened this would be a much different, and much more complicated matter of international law. I haven’t heard of that happening before but am surprised that such a complication hasn’t arisen. Has there ever been a case of an American of Korean descent serving in Korea and being snagged by MND manpower to serve in the Korea army while in Korea either on leave or on duty?? Anybody know?
MrChips—I might have missed it, but I don’t believe the article called Kim a USFK soldier.
Robert, belay my last. Apparently I am still in need of english lessons myself. I read “USFK soldier arrested” where it actually said “USFK arrested soldier…” My humble apologies.
It’s only fair to point out that Korean War MOH recipient Lewis Millett deserted from the U.S. Army prior to WWII to join the Canadian Army and go to War. While attached to a U.S. unit in Italy, he brought the matter to their general’s attention. So Lew Millett was in the same situation. Except that the Canadian Army agreed to discharge him, back under U.S. control he was given a slight administrative punishment, and then allowed to continue a career in the U.S. military which eventually saw him retire as a Colonel.
Lirelou is correct to point it out, but at the risk of belaboring the point (of difference) Millett deserted in order to “go to War”. Since Koreans are the past masters of circumstantial pettifoggery, (the relative merit of) Millett’s circumstances are worth bearing in mind.
OK. This is a winner. Of what, I don’t know. But, when you are confident you’ve heard it all…
I say - court martial him here in Korea, give him either a short amount of time he can spend in jail or just give him probation, then shift him back to ROK for punishment. I don’t think he is worth the trouble.
#6
I find the above statement not only inherently demeaning to all Koreans, but extremely racist and ignorant. Remember Sperwer, we cannot generalize about the behavior and attitudes of an entire group based on the actions of one person.
All of you seem ready to pounce on this guy and roll out the firing squad, but not one of you have asked the crucial question: If this guy really wanted to desert, why in the world would he turn himself in? IMO, he sounds more like someone who went AWOL and then had second thoughts. While still a serious offense — especially in wartime — it is quite common enough, as anybody who has served in uniform would know.
I’m not going to question his loyalty, as it seems that more powerful forces will be doing that for him. Also, I’m not gonna judge him either, b/c he did turn himself in.
And as long as we’re going to make generalized statements about Koreans, let’s not forget that there are literally thousands of KAs who proudly serve their country in the U.S. Armed Forces, and many more who have served honorably — including yours truly and the 13 Korean Americans who sacrificed their lives during OEF/OIF.
In case you didn’t know, the following are the 13 Korean American KIAs to date in support of OIF/OEF starting with the first:
2004:
1) Marine Lcpl. Brad S. Shuder, 21, El Dorado , CA
Unit: 2-1 Marines, 1st MarDiv, 1st MEF,Pendleton
KIA: 4-12-2004, Anbar Province , Iraq from enemy mortar fire.
2) Marine Cpl. Bum R. Lee, 21, Sunnyvale , CA
Unit: 2-4 Marines, 1st MarDiv, 1st MEF, Pendleton
KIA: 6-2-2004, Anbar Province , Iraq during combat operations.
3) Army Pvt.Jeung-jin Na Kim, 23, Honolulu , HI
Unit: 2-17 FA, 2nd ID, Camp Hovey , Korea
KIA: 10-6-2004, Ramadi , Iraq , small-arms fire during combat operations.
4) Marine Cpl. In-Chul Kim, 23, Warren , MI
Unit: 9th Com Btn, 1st MEF, Pendleton
KIA: 12-7-2004, Anbar Province , Iraq , vehicle accident.
2005:
5) Army PFC Min-soo Choi, 21, RiverVale , NJ
Unit: 6-8 Cav, 4th Bde, 3rd ID, Ft. Stewart , GA
KIA: 2-26-2005, Abertha , Iraq , IED.
6) Army PFC Samuel S. Lee, 19, Anaheim , CA
Unit: 1-506 IN, 2nd ID, Camp Greaves , Korea
KIA: 3-28-2005, Ramadi , Iraq , non-combat incident.
7) Navy QM2 (SEAL) James Suh, 28, Deerfield Beach , FL
Unit: SDV-Team 1, Pearl Harbor , HI
KIA: 6-28-2005, mountains of eastern Afghanistan , MH-47 Chinook helicopter crash.
2006:
Marine Lcpl. Kun Y. Kim, 20, Atlanta , GA
Unit: 3-8 Marines, 2nd MarDiv, II MEF, Lejeune , NC
KIA: 4-2-2006, Anbar Province , Iraq , combat ops.
9) Army Sgt. Kyu H. Chay, 34, Fayettville , NC
Unit: 1-3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), Ft. Bragg , NC .
KIA: 10-28-2006, Oruzgan Province , Afghanistan , IED.
10) Army PFC Jang-ho Kim, 20, Placentia , CA
Unit: 1-26 Inf, 2nd BCT, 1st ID, Schweinfurt , Germany .
KIA: 11-13-2006, Baghdad , IED.
11) Marine Lcpl. Minhee Kim, 20, Ann Arbor , MI
Unit: 1-24th Marines, 4th MarDiv, USMCR.
KIA: 11-1-2006, Anbar Province , from small-arms fire during combat operations.
12) Army Sgt. Jae S. Moon, 21, Levittown , PA
Unit: 2-12 Inf, 2nd BCT, 2nd ID, Ft. Carson, CO
KIA: 12-25-2006, Baghdad , IED
2007:
13) Army Spec. Louis G. Kim, 19, Covina , CA
Unit: 1-26th Inf, 2nd BCT, 1st ID, Schweinfurt , Germany .
KIA: 2-20-2007, Ramadi Iraq , from small-arms fire during combat operations.
Re: my comment above:
#6:
which I forgot to include…
The above soldier in question needs to have his head checked.
I respectfully acknowledge the sacrifice of each of these AMERICANS, for which I am grateful.
I’m not. He’s (possibly) just one exemplar of a general socio-cultural tendency to which I have been witness for going on 20 years.
There are individual exceptions. Many of them have gotten out of Dodge; most of the rest wish they could and are making plans for their children to do so. A few think things will change and that they can help in that.
Accusing someone of racism for taking to task a group that defines itself in terms of racial identity on the shortcomings of it’s ethnocentric view of things is a powerful “fragrance”. Have some more kimchi.
The U.S. military legal system probably has better or more important things to do than prosecute this deserter. I don’t want my tax dollars paying for any of his prosecution and jail time when there are bigger issues in the world. Cancel his green card and refuse any future visa requests, and let’s call the case closed!
But why the heck did he decide “it might be a good idea to take care of the whole desertion problem” and walk onto a U.S. military base? One possible theory is that Pvt. Kim was unhappy as a ROK soldier and perhaps realized how good he had it in the U.S. military, and/or perhaps that he’d screwed himself from ever going back to the U.S. again. My money is that Pvt. Kim wanted to plead his case to be allowed to return to the U.S.
And if that’s the case, he’s not too bright. I agree with the Korean netizens on this one, for once. Send him to Irbil as a ROK pvt, and never let him back into the U.S.
Desertion is an interesting crime anyway — there is a required element of intent never to return to duty. In other words, if the servicemember ran off for a time and then returned to the base to “straighten things out”, there is an argument to be made that he never had the requisite intent not to come back, which means his crime may not be desertion but unauthorized absence. UA doesn’t get you the firing squad; you get an all-expenses-paid trip to admin for outprocessing. Now, I wasn’t a JAG — just five years’ service as a sea lawyer, and ten as a real lawyer — but that’s my read on things.
Running off to be with your sick father doesn’t make you a scumbag. It would be interesting to know why he stayed here from November 2005 to November 2006.
But what about joining the Korean Army, you ask? I’d point out that the kid was conscripted into the Korean Army. He joined in response to his draft notice. It’s not a volunteer force like the US Army. Had he not been dragooned into service, he probably would have avoided the Korean Army like everyone else who can.
Send him to the Zaytun unit in Iraq? Isn’t that one of those “coalition” enclaves with soldiers that rarely, if ever, leave their base and require other forces to guard their perimeter?
I’m sure that’ll teach him lesson he’ll never forget. He’ll spend his time playing Starcraft
It is remarkable how AMERICANS suddenly become Koreans when adversity is befallen upon them. How many Irish-Americans sing Danny Boy when they receive a copper candy in conflict?
#15 H Kim:
1) Quote: “…All of you seem ready to pounce on this guy and roll out the firing squad…”
Reply: Nobody in the US military has been executed for desertion since this guy, in 1945 (and he was the only one so executed for desertion, during the entirety of WWII):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik
In fact, if I’m not mistaken, US military hasn’t executed anyone for anything since the early 1960’s, period. God knows there’s been some horrific crimes committed by US military members, ones which have gotten them a death penalty sentence from a general court-martial. But — all of them are still sitting in Leavenworth, awaiting the outcome of endless appeals (as far as I know).
I think Leavenworth uses (or used to use) hanging, don’t know if they’ve gone to lethal injection or not, I’ll have to go look it up.
And that’s too bad! I’m nostalgic for the old-fashioned firing squad, with the jaunty last cigarette and the (oft-refused) blindfold. Just thinking about the purple-faced apoplexy it would induce amongst the lefties is enough to make me raise my glass and burst into a Foreign Legion drinking song (in extremely bad French)….
2) Quote: “…If this guy really wanted to desert, why in the world would he turn himself in? IMO, he sounds more like someone who went AWOL and then had second thoughts….
Reply: AWOL and desertion are two different offenses with quite specific meanings under UCMJ. AWOL is under 30 days of unauthorized absence; it automatically “rolls over” and becomes “desertion”, and the soldier is “dropped from the rolls”, after 30 days have passed.
“DFR” means if/when the guy is brought back under US military control at some distant place, he(/she) almost certainly won’t be sent back to the unit he deserted from for UCMJ action. In fact, if convicted of desertion (or he “plea bargains”, if the US govt decides to offer him a deal) — it means he’s on his way out of the US military, as no commander anywhere will want a convicted deserter to be sent to his/her unit to serve out the rest of his military obligation. (For whether or not he spends any time in military prison for desertion, see my earlier answer above).
The word “punishment” has a very specific legal meaning under UCMJ; = loss of life, and/or liberty and/or rank and/or pay/allowances/fine (monetary). Shame, embarassment, disgrace, etc etc don’t count as “punishment” (at least, they aren’t supposed to).
3) Quote: “…While still a serious offense — especially in wartime — it (AWOL/desertion] is quite common enough, as anybody who has served in uniform would know…”
Actually, I don’t think it is “common” (I guess it depends on what your definition of “common” is).
My standard is a comparison to previous eras in US military history; it’s my understanding that AWOL/desertion rates since the implementation of the volunteer miltary in the early 1970’s (and in particular, since the early 1980’s) have been at an all-time low.
I haven’t looked at the latest stats for about 10 years, so it would be interesting to know what US Army/USMC AWOL/desertion rates for deploying units have been since the start of the current wars in Afghanistan/Iraq.
I’m willing to bet you “in the blind” that the rates are actually lower for these units than for non-deploying units, and also that both deploying and non-deploying units currently have AWOL/desertion rates much lower than for, say, US Army/USMC battalions/brigades deploying for combat during the Korean War era.
My experience was that usually an AWOL/desertion case involved a girl. Yes, AWOL’s/deserters usually do turn themselves in, after some time goes by and it gradually dawns on them how much trouble they are in. In fact, it’s my impression that most often the girl will “throw him over”, after she comes to realize “her guy” has basically just made himself a “loser”.
(Real life being very much “unlike” the movies, where I suppose every noble modern leftie likes to imagine a US military deserter as a misunderstood hero similar to Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves).
I’d be interested to know if in fact a girl is involved in this case, could be there isn’t one of course. Maybe we’ll never really know in any case, as it may not suit the political agenda of the Korean press and ROK govt/military authorities to delve deeply into (or to publicize) Kim’s motive(s).
Still–I’ll be interested to hear from those of you who read/speak Korean, as to what ROk authorities/press have to say further (if anything).
4) Quote: “…I’m not going to question his loyalty, as it seems that more powerful forces will be doing that for him. Also, I’m not gonna judge him either, b/c he did turn himself in.”
Reply: yes, that’s the one remaining “original sin” these days, isn’t it? All can be forgiven, except for the crime of “being judgmental” (I guess that means I’m damned).
5) Quote: “….And as long as we’re going to make generalized statements about Koreans, let’s not forget that there are literally thousands of KAs who proudly serve their country in the U.S. Armed Forces, and many more who have served honorably — including yours truly [goes on to list 13 Korean-American KIA's]…”
Reply: My goodness, you validate the very presumption you set out to rebut. The appropriate comparison for PVT Kim is not to any particular subset of US military KIA’s, but to hundreds of his fellow US soldiers (not all of whom are US citizens).
I mean specifically to all the ones who found out they had family members back home with serious cancer, but nevertheless did their duty and stayed at their posts (to include deploying to the war zone, if that was “the deal”).
Just curious, but what kind of punishment is this guy facing back in the US?
It really sucks that his father had cancer, but he still had an obligation to the U.S. military. We don’t have all the specifics, so can’t gauge extenuating circumstances. Still, the extended absence, which likely did get him out of going to Iraq (these days on a three year enlistment, who’s not going to Iraq?), has probably earned him at the least a Bad Conduct Discharge. If the facts do lead to that, it should be done in Korea – why waste shipping him back to the States and deporting afterwards? I’m not sure what could justify no such punishment in this case, but I’ll be waiting for the rest of the story anyway.
#24, cm, #25 Richardson:
A “Bad Conduct” Discharge can only be given as punishment by a “Special” Court-Martial empowered to award such discharge (referred to commonly as a “Special BCD” court-martial).
This type of court-martial is common, but it’s one level less severe than a “general” court-martial. Only a GCM can adjudge a death penalty, which evidently is still authorized for desertion in wartime.
I think it has to be a declared war, this was covered in my UCMJ classes but now I don’t remember for sure. Also, only a general court-martial can award a “dishonorable” discharge.
There’s a table of maximum punishments in either the UCMJ or Manual for Courts Martial, but I can’t get a usable link to open on my slow computer in order to read it for myself. It may only say “death, or such lesser penalty as a court-martial may direct”.
If the ROK won’t give him back, I predict (though I’m not a lawyer) that he’ll be offered a “Chapter 10″ discharge by US Army lawyers (under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, which covers “discharge in lieu of court-martial”). Again, I can’t get a link to open. Basically, this is formal miiltary language for the equivalent of a “plea bargain”.
My opinion: he’ll get offered basically the same deal as Jenkins got. He loses all accrued pay and allowances, is busted to lowest pay grade E-1, and gets a “bad” discharge (I don’t remember what chapter 10 says about exact characterization of this “bad” discharge, it may be that he gets an “other than honorable”; this is the “bad” discharge that is normally awarded administratively (ie not by a court-martial)).
Advantage for Kim in taking the deal is that he is no longer “wanted” by US military authorities for the rest of his life, and he doesn’t have to go to US military prison.
Uncle Sam won’t care if he “sincerely” apologizes or not, but he does need to take the deal IMO as I don’t think Sam will be willing to negotiate with him and/or his lawyer for some lesser punishment (at least –I sure hope Uncle Sam won’t).
He’s clearly guilty, by the bare-faced language of Article 85, UCMJ. Here’s a “secondary source” quote of that language; caveat, I haven’t checked the actual current language of the UCMJ. However, see last clause of (a) (3), below:
ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who–
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
(b) [omitted, applies to commissioned officers]
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
[DELETED. Reason: Racist and Deliberately Offensive Language.]
XXXXXXX
Wow. This turned into an anti-US (and even anti-Japanese) thread in only 27 comments!
I believe the topic of the thread is “USFK arrested ROK soldier for desertion” and not “Express your hatred for all things foreign, and include the Japanese whenever possible.”
Dear board monitors: I request you restore #27’s comment; instead of entire deletion, use your previous technique of crossing it out with lines.
You could use an “xxxxx” (with the exact number of letters) for the particular offensive words that dlatn used; that way, all could get an idea of what he said.
It’s good to know when well-placed shots are flushing out an opponent you didn’t even know was there. Dlatn was so infuriated that he grabbed a dull bayonet and came charging up the hill from cover, hoping to get in close with some particularly bloody hack work.
The inner essence of some of our debate opponents should be clearly on view for all to behold.
I hope that he’s released from the control facility directly into the arms of INS for deportation.
Second Paul H’s motion in #29.
#27 there once was a time at The Marmots Hole when pejorative roamed the green, grassy hills in all its freedom and glory. It seems now we are slouching down the slippery slope into dank, feted pools of censorship. Pity
Pity indeed. Reminds me of Deadwood when they knew the c***s***ers wanted to bring them the law. Lame new regime.
Hopefully this is a temporary phase.
You simply have to be more careful, railway.
An admirably assembled train of alliteration and poetic metaphor can be derailed by one little letter — like a single rail spike left undriven along the tracks, leading to a derailment.
You know what they say about trainwrecks — I want to avert my eyes, but I just can’t. And the English teacher union local is extremely strict about safety regulations.
“feted”
1) Main Entry: fete
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fet·ed or fêt·ed ; fet·ing or fêt·ing
Variants: or fête
1 : to honor or commemorate with a fete
2 : to pay high honor to
2) Main Entry: fet·id
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: ‘fe-t&d, esp British ‘fe-tid
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin foetidus, from foetere to stink
: having a heavy offensive smell
synonym see MALODOROUS
- fet·id·ly adverb
- fet·id·ness noun
I think we should all “support the deserters”. Whatever their reasons for deserting, the US military machine has gone the way of the Nazis and now threatens the survival of our planet. This particular deserter was foolish in going back to “straighten things out.” But I support his desertion and urge others to do the same.
Paul H.
Thank you for pulling me from the spell-check abyss. Where were you when I was pinned down in the Nam? English teachers…..
Beechtreem,
If your theory was true they would have lowered the boom on that old prune that came out of North Korea. I think the military is too soft. How could we have a good war if all the players flee?
railwaycharm,
sign-up or shut up.
Beechtreem
There are bull-drivers and bull-shitters, show me your whip.
Those soldiers who deserted the Nazi army and fled to other countries were celebrated as heroes. US power is going down the same sadistic and delusional path as the Nazis they supported and did business with up to and even during WW2. The US military has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and has plans for Iran which could lead to WW3. Therefore, I can on everyone to support and celebrate as heroes those who, for whatever reasons, desert the US military death machine.
beechtreem… Ahem..Ya.
This is either the put-on of the century or you have got into the Kool-Aid line a few too many times.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Marmot and [...]
[...] remember Pvt. Kim, the ROKA soldier accused by USFK of deserting a U.S. unit to avoid getting sent to Iraq? [Marmot’s Hole] Well, Yonhap is reporting that he went AWOL from his Korean unit [Yonhap [...]