Originally posted by Martlet
Not odd at all. At least it isn't here. Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?
Sure it does, but it doesn't mean he didn't in this case.
The case for his 'dessertion' is based on 'facts' that I can't verify the authenticity of. I've seen some statements of 'witnesses' for pro and con but really can't wholeheartedly agree on as those statements are based on memories of many years ago, not to mention some circumstances as well.
I was hoping since you seem to be so well informed in this case that you might have some info that you'd be willing to share.
Please spare me your going off tangent and bringing up "whining/crying" statements. If you just don't have any proof of his actually serving out his military obligations and wish to believe wholeheartedly that he did (until proven otherwise to your satisfaction), then fair enough.
I'm on the fence on this one as I've yet to see any proof of his completing out his term. I've yet to see concrete (if possible in this case) proof that he didn't.
Did he or didn't he?
I don't know, wish someone would shed more light on the subject.
We have these possibilities:
1) He did in fact serve out his military term and some paperwork got lost and those memories of those witnesses that say otherwise are faulty and/or irrelevant, and/or they're lying.
2) He actually didn't take his military career as serious as his political career and decided to skip the last year (approx) of his service thinking that his father would straighten it out for him.
The memories of those witnesses that say he did serve out his term are faulty, and/or they're lying.
Did he or didn't he? I don't know. Period.
In closing, are you interested in an actual dialogue and discussion of ideas or are you just going to resort to childish 'attacking' insults/statements?
Hypothetical here:
BTW, are you saying that even if (that's a big if, mind you) he did abandon his post in his last year that it isn't dessertion only because he wasn't convicted?
Regards