Sorry for taking a while to reply, work at the legal aid clinic has kept me very busy during the week [and I never find you argumentative, just thought provoking, which is always appreciated!]
 
ryc:
 
1) When is it right to leave a contract?  I suppose one could approach this question from different perspectives (moral, legal, ethical, etc).  From a legal point of view there is the equitable concept of “unconscionability” which means that if 1) there is unequal bargaining power and 2) the substance of the contract is unconscionable [ie. extremely unfair] then the contract is void.  There is also the defence of “non est factum” such that the signer of the contract argues that it is “not their deed” and that while they may have physically signed the contract they did not know/understand its contents (and that they were not negligent when signing).  If one looks at real life, in the family law context when parties make spousal support or child support agreements they may be re-negotiated due to changing circumstances of the parties (ie. if X is paying $10K in child support & $20K in spousal support but loses their job  – they are unable to afford to continue to pay that amount & their financial situation would be taken into account by the parties or the court).  one could also argue with the drafting of any contract, ie. what does “national defence” mean?  Has the nature of the work as described in the contract changed such that the terms are not what the original parties had agreed to?  **disclaimer:  I’m but a lowly law student and not an authority on contract law!**
 
NB: upon re-reading your comment you also mentioned that a contract may be void where it is illegal, which is generally correct.  Thus, I pose to you this question:  if the world determined that the war in Iraq was “illegal” would a soldier be bound by a contract to fulfill it?  (I’m wary of making legal aka “technical” arguments for this case, as I think a principled reason for refusing is stronger).
 
2)  I understand your argument about taxpayer’s engagement with the war in Iraq along with the soldier because they to are supporting it through financial contributions.  The taxpayer is contributing money through taxes to a # of projects that are decided upon by the government.  The taxpayer is also responsible for the war in Iraq.  What can the taxpayer do?  They can protest, object, write to their congress-person and try to change what their governement is doing.  Some taxpayers agree with the war in Iraq and others don’t.  Some US taxpayers don’t agree with the war in Iraq but haven’t objected or made their objections known to the people in power.  In each case they are responsible, just as a soldier would be responsible for going to fight in Iraq.  The taxpayer and the soldier have something in common:  they are both citizens.  Their responsibility as citizens is to object to a war they think is wrong (if they believe it is wrong).
 
I’m not arguing that there are different standards for different segments of American society.
 
3) You stated that nobody forces someone to sign a “deal with the devil”.  Earlier in this comment I mentioned several legal arguments and another one comes to mind: the defence of duress.  In a society where education is unaffordable for many and the opportunity to work is difficult for lack of jobs or education/skills then is it fair to say that there wasn’t duress? 
 
Have you ever seen the Michael Moore movie, “Farenheit 9/11″ ? — the scene where he stands outside of Congress and asks Senators if their children were signed up for military service in the war on Iraq comes to mind.  The US army is largely composed of individuals from a lower socio-economic class (at least the troops are, I have no idea if Generals in the army also only finished highschool before starting their military careers or whether they were educated before starting).
 
It seems like a large proportion of the people that make the “deal with the devil” are poor.  Don’t they matter?  Why are some people born with more choices than others because of their socio-economic status?  We can’t choose which families we’re born into and it can’t be a mistake that poor families tend to stay poor and rich families tend to stay rich even though time passes.
 
4) I acknowledge your point:  a soldier is not going to think that an Iraqi is more likely to die than they are in Iraq, they are just going to think if I go to Iraq *I* am *more likely* to die than if I did not go.  One would have to look at the history of the “deserters” to see if their objection to going to Iraq is more likely to be based on fear or other reasons – for example, if the soldier has a long record of service in the US army and has been stationed to other parts of the world on dangerous missions (ie. Somalia or the former Yugoslavia) then one might say it’s more likely that they are not trying to “desert” for fear.  I am not sure how many deserters are young or recent recruits but that may shed some light on the necessary analysis of “conscientious objectors” to the war.
 
5) You stated the contracts are rarely fair.  I think that’s a bit pessimistic!  On the other hand, I can see how signing a contract with the government there may be little room to negotiate (ie. doesn’t everyone sign the same boilerplate contract?).  In the commercial world “standard form contracts” are often used…
 
6) I’m not sure what an appropriate punishment would be for people that are trying to dodge their military duties.  There must be deterrence, but on the other hand, is jailing an individual for 10 yrs appropriate?  How about re-location to do other necessary work in the military?  Surely a superpower is using their military resources in many different ways all around the globe…
 
Thanks for the food for thought, hope the long response wasn’t too tedious to read…the ideas just kept popping!
CV