NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/06/hinzman041206.html

At first I thought, 'not a hope in Hell of this guy being granted refugee status', due to the understanding between our two countries - Neither Canada nor the US traditionally recognize each others' citizens as refugees.

But last night the CBC ran the first in a multi-part news serial called, 'Canada and the New American Empire' ( http://www.cbc.ca/empire/ ). The American deserter was a hot topic - and according to an immigration lawyer, who deals specifically with refugee claimants, this guy Hinzman might just be successful in his claim - as the agency responsible for assessing his claim is not political in nature, ie it cannot be controlled by the government of the day. It is an independent body.

This might just open up a whole new can of worms. There are other deserters just like Hinzman, all of whom are watching Hinzman's hearing. Where will this take us? According to Noel Semple, this ( http://www.cbc.ca/empire/semple.html ) may be a likely outcome.

We really aren't America Jr, no matter what the Simpsons may have taught you to think. I think Semple is right in suggesting that 2002 saw the masks slip, revealing both our countries as morally, ethically, and politically divergent.

Given that our paths are divergent, does it seem likely to anyone here that things will simply return to the old status quo?

I just wonder why he didn't just stay in North Korea. His whole life was there, and he spent most of his life there. His wife and kids had lives there.

Why leave? Then again, he doesn't seem too bright.

Sometimes, when people are completely stupid, I don't hold their stupid acts against them. Deserting is a crime, but when you're that stupid, I can't hold you responsible for it.

I would, however, let him stay in North Korea. Sorry bud. :rolleyes:

I just wonder why he didn't just stay in North Korea. His whole life was there, and he spent most of his life there. His wife and kids had lives there.

Why leave? Then again, he doesn't seem too bright.

Sometimes, when people are completely stupid, I don't hold their stupid acts against them. Deserting is a crime, but when you're that stupid, I can't hold you responsible for it.

I would, however, let him stay in North Korea. Sorry bud. :rolleyes:

Evidently, you couldn't be bothered to read the article, yet you insisted on opining at length.

Nice one, Gun.

If this guy is a Army deserter, I hope America catches that S.O.B. Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the penalty for desertion is death. and yes I know this is true, I went through bootcamp and have been AD for 2 years now and I have a copy of the UCMJ.

No, I didn't read the article, because I supposedly had my daily dose of "Truth" from NPR, who covered the story this morning.

He has already been through the UCMJ. He's going to get 30 days confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

You might consider 39 years in North Korea to be rather extensive punishment.

If this guy is a Army deserter, I hope America catches that S.O.B. Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) the penalty for desertion is death. and yes I know this is true, I went through bootcamp and have been AD for 2 years now and I have a copy of the UCMJ.
They need to kill this guy. I hope they catch him.

Ah yes a selfish coward:

"In an interview several months ago Hinzman said he enlisted "for pragmatic reasons, because I wanted a college fund."

He took the gamble and a war appears hey wait a minute I am opposed to this.

If he wanted the college fund why did he choose to go into one of the premier combat regiments?

There are many jobs in the military that don't have to see the battlefield. He wanted the ability to appear macho and say "I WAS A PARATROOPER!"

Sorry but the soldiers job is to fight. Not question the morality of the war.

He is a coward.

"Canada and the New American Empire"

:rolleyes:

I say kill the deserting cowardly commie scum

He has already been through the UCMJ. He's going to get 30 days confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

You might consider 39 years in North Korea to be rather extensive punishment.

You might want to look at the article, this guy is NOT the Korean War deserter.

He has already been through the UCMJ. He's going to get 30 days confinement and a dishonorable discharge.

You might consider 39 years in North Korea to be rather extensive punishment.

Well if you'd bothered to read the article, you'd know just to what extent the shit is emanating from the region of your teeth.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THAT DUDE IN NORTH KOREA. THIS IS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE ENTIRELY.

Of course, if you want to continue to appear to be a total and utter fool in front of everybody, be my guest - my sandbox is just big enough to cover you up to your ears, please make yourself comfortable.

My Bad!

Well, plenty of people did this during Vietnam. I know of one person in particular who deserted and lived in Canada, and came back after the Carter amnesty.

He might be there for a long time. I'm not sure anyone is going to pass an amnesty any time soon. We've got at least 4 more years of Bush, and whoever's next (even a Democrat) is going to have to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So no one's getting a pardon in their lifetime.

I was in the 101st, as an infantryman. I went and killed when I was ordered to. Why can't he?

He can't because he's morally and ethically opposed to do so, but was disallowed Conscientous Objector status, that's why.

I guess reading really isn't your strong suit - ?

It's covered in the article.

The problem is I don't buy his argument.

He enlisted as an infantryman, as I did.

They tell you on DAY ONE that your job is to follow orders to kill people and blow things up.

That's your job.

You are NOT here to get "college fund" even though that is a promised benefit. You are here to KILL and DESTROY. That's all.

If he can't understand that when it's yelled at him over and over again for 13 weeks, then he must be deaf.

It's not a secret. It's your job to kill if you're an infantryman. The whole raison d'etre for the 82nd and 101st.

Now don't tell me you suddenly became a CO. It's not plausible.

Iraq aint nam reguardless of what people in toronto and the CBC says, send the knuckehead back...

Canada and the new american empire, what the hell, the CBC needs to be dismantled. I dont agree with the war in IRAQ but this yankee bashing is just getting stupid, fucking TO idoits.

He can't because he's morally and ethically opposed to do so, but was disallowed Conscientous Objector status, that's why.

I guess reading really isn't your strong suit - ?

It's covered in the article.

Well if you'd bothered to read the article, you'd know just to what extent the shit is emanating from the region of your teeth.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THAT DUDE IN NORTH KOREA. THIS IS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE ENTIRELY.

Of course, if you want to continue to appear to be a total and utter fool in front of everybody, be my guest - my sandbox is just big enough to cover you up to your ears, please make yourself comfortable.

Feel free to stop being such an asshat. Flaming is not debate.

Well, that's interesting. Of the few soldiers I've seen interviewed by unembedded journalists, the dangling of post-secondary assistance has ranked first and foremost as the reason given for enlistment. Not killing and destroying.

Go figure.

"How much of an impact will the Mackenzie Valley Oil Pipeline have on Canada's Pacific-Northwest?" <<< off the CBC website on the new american empire...

Huh i thought this was going to go mainly through alberta since a huge network of pipelines is already in place in alberta...... DIE cbc

Feel free to stop being such an asshat. Flaming is not debate.

Neither is blithely ignoring the reason for the thread, and making gross assumptions about it.

Asshat indeed.

I just wonder why he didn't just stay in North Korea. His whole life was there, and he spent most of his life there. His wife and kids had lives there.

Why leave? Then again, he doesn't seem too bright.

Sometimes, when people are completely stupid, I don't hold their stupid acts against them. Deserting is a crime, but when you're that stupid, I can't hold you responsible for it.

I would, however, let him stay in North Korea. Sorry bud. :rolleyes:
you're not even talking about the right guy.

also, doesn't canada not have a habit of sending people back to the states when the death penalty is on the table?

I've heard soldiers say that before "I joined to get the college fund".

They go WAY out of their way to dispel that notion, including advising you during the enlistment proceeding.

It's never made a secret that you'll have to obey orders and kill people. Never.

It's repeated too many times.

You even yell that sort of thing yourself over and over again.

What did he think he was doing during bayonet training, learning to slice cheese?

What did he think he was doing during bayonet training, learning to slice cheese?

Maybe he thought he'd only go to war in defense of America, not to invade and occupy another nation for malleable, politically expedient reasons.

Screw the military's penalty on desertion. They seem like the mafia; once you're in, you rarely get out. You're not a coward for refusing to fight Bush's war, same thing as not being a coward for refusing an order to shoot civilians. Face it: this war sucks! It was fought for incorrect reasons and Bush has no idea how to handle Iraq. Giving them democracy might seem nice, but it's like a kid playing with dynamite.

Canada is a much better place anyway. They fight wars very infrequently, they got a much better social system so you don't have to join the military just to get a few bucks. Let him stay, I'd say. I would have done the same if I were in his shoes. Hell, even Cuba sounds more attractive than Bush's America.

Meh. Just file him under fraud and be done with it.

I'm not exactly a fan of the military (how much do they tax that 'college money' again? Twenty percent? Thirty?), but if you sign a contract and ignore it, you're a criminal. I wouldn't kill the guy, because that would make us bloody idiots like Saddam, but I'd definately file it under fraud.

Now, if he was in the National Guard, and he deserted because they tried to ship him out of the country.. I'd definately be on his side. The trick is that the military never gets in that big of trouble when its done something wrong. Makes it hard to get upset at cowards who haven't ruined anyone's lives.

Dobbs, at the Georgia School for Wayward Boys, in Ft. Benning, Georgia, you spend most of your waking hours singing about killing foreigners overseas, and train to do that, and talk about it, and it's just not plausible.

You aren't even permitted to rationalize killing when in training. Try spending two hours in the hot Georgia sun, wielding a bayonet and yelling various chants about killing and blood.

Under no circumstances were we EVER told that we would be acting in "defense" of the US. We were going to deploy (that's what paratroopers do) overseas on a moment's notice, drop out of the sky, and start killing.

It's rather like going to a male strip club, watching the dancers slowly disrobe, and then suddenly notice that the men have completely exposed themselves. It's not a surprise. It's not a secret.

Well I suppose it boils down to what his lawyer told the media:

"His lawyer says Hinzman is seeking refugee status because he's morally opposed to the war in Iraq and that the U.S. invasion of Iraq violates international human rights.

'We are allowed to argue that the conduct of the war on the ground is sufficiently outside the Geneva Conventions that Mr. Hinzman ought not to be associated with it. He should not be compelled to participate in an activity which is in violation of the Geneva Conventions,' said lawyer Jeffrey House. "

So, now they have to prove that assertion. This should be interesting to see.

A couple of background information:

It is Canada's policy to not send back someone if the Death Penalty can be applied to him. In this case, the military tribunal said the would-be refugee will not be condemnned to the DP. If the military tribunal did not do this, the would-be refugee would have had a much bigger chance to stay.

If I recall correctly, the would-be refugee was not objecting to war, just THIS war. As such, the other benefits of going in the military doesn't really apply. Also, he did the paperwork and applied for conscientous objector, it was denied for whatever reason. He then faced the choice of going where he didn't want or go AWOL. He chose the latter.

Either way the process is a lenghty one. Don't expect an answer this year. Especially with the strained relations that Canada and the US have these days.

I was in the 101st, as an infantryman. I went and killed when I was ordered to. Why can't he?
i think this might be the guy who became buddhist. buddhism does not permit any killing.

either that or it was the guy who left with him. (why isn't hte other guy mentioned?)

"...Theirs not to reason why
Theirs but to do and die"

(approximate... Charge of the Light Brigade)

How in the world would you prove that? Yes, there may be individual violations, but I bet you would have to prove that the whole war from the top down was a complete, systematic violation by order of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, if you've got a panel of sympathetic Canadians who oppose the war, you only have to say that the war is evil, and you won't have to prove anything.

Ah yes a selfish coward:
Sorry but the soldiers job is to fight. Not question the morality of the war.

He is a coward.

If he truely deserted because he objects to the war and it's not because he's afraid to die then he is anything but a coward. It's sad when not using our brains is the normal. I can't stand nationalist. If he's in the field and doesn't take a command he could end up being responisble for his units death, at least he's facing up to it.

Anyone that bitchs about people not wanting to fight etc shouldn't be posting on this fourm but should be out there fighting.

"Lions led by donkeys"

Dulce et decorum est pro patri mori.

EDIT-Whoops, slow typing. That's to the Charge of the Light Brigade quote...

Of course, if you've got a panel of sympathetic Canadians who oppose the war, you only have to say that the war is evil, and you won't have to prove anything.

Your bias is showing...

Dobbs, at the Georgia School for Wayward Boys, in Ft. Benning, Georgia, you spend most of your waking hours singing about killing foreigners overseas, and train to do that, and talk about it, and it's just not plausible.

You aren't even permitted to rationalize killing when in training. Try spending two hours in the hot Georgia sun, wielding a bayonet and yelling various chants about killing and blood.

Under no circumstances were we EVER told that we would be acting in "defense" of the US. We were going to deploy (that's what paratroopers do) overseas on a moment's notice, drop out of the sky, and start killing.

It's rather like going to a male strip club, watching the dancers slowly disrobe, and then suddenly notice that the men have completely exposed themselves. It's not a surprise. It's not a secret.
Exactly, it's not nationalism, it is a job. You enlist to be in the armed sevices, not for country club days. This is something that several of my comrads just don't get. "This is the Army, what did you expect?"

I am also an Infantryman who went to benning school for boys. Joining the Infantry is the best way to show one's love for their country. Going airborne is even better. If he just wanted college he could have joined up in some pouge supply unit. When you join the military you are basicly signing your life over. All of you that are running your mouths off about that the military is like the mafia and whatnot need to understand that this is the way its been done for thousands of years. It is not the military's job to question the political correctness of a war, they are to fight it.

And to the socialist who said Cuba would be better than Bush's America, why arent there boatloads of Americans trying to sneak into Cuba, I don't see South Koreans running across the DMZ to move to North Korea.

My advice to those of you that haven't served and support socialism,
Have a nice hot cup of shut the f*ck up.

If he truely deserted because he objects to the war and it's not because he's afraid to die then he is anything but a coward. It's said when not using our brains is the normal. I can't stand nationalist. If he's in the feild and doesn't take a command he could end up being responisble for his units death, at least he's facing up to it.

Anyone that bitchs about people not wanting to fight etc shouldn't be posting on this fourm but should be out there fighting.

Hear, hear. I've had my fill of armchair quarterbacks, not mention armchair generals and armchair dictators...

Dobbs, everyone has a bias. I bet they let him in. They let the lot in during Vietnam, and I don't think they've changed their view that "anything the US does in overseas combat is a bad thing".

I don't remember seeing any members of the US Congress stomping on a doll of Paul Martin on CNN...

Dobbs, everyone has a bias. I bet they let him in. They let the lot in during Vietnam, and I don't think they've changed their view that "anything the US does in overseas combat is a bad thing".

I don't remember seeing any members of the US Congress stomping on a doll of Paul Martin on CNN...

*sighs deeply*

They'd be more than welcome to stomp on a doll of Paul Martin on CNN. We don't regard him as some sort of Pharaoh, after all...

Dobbs, everyone has a bias. I bet they let him in. They let the lot in during Vietnam, and I don't think they've changed their view that "anything the US does in overseas combat is a bad thing".

I don't remember seeing any members of the US Congress stomping on a doll of Paul Martin on CNN...


Please feel free to burn, fart on and generally destory any idol of paul martin as he is a liberal piece of shit...

Dobbs, everyone has a bias. I bet they let him in. They let the lot in during Vietnam, and I don't think they've changed their view that "anything the US does in overseas combat is a bad thing".

I don't remember seeing any members of the US Congress stomping on a doll of Paul Martin on CNN...
No but I do remember a ambassador mouthing off in the papers about marijuana decriminalization, the latest elections, the missile shield and other decisions that is not his to make.

And I also remember than when the US had a case of Mad Cow disease, they blamed Canada even before the facts were known. Same when there was a huge power failure last summer caused by a plant in Ohio.

However, this is not a jury courtroom. This is a Immigration officer who has guidelines to minimize his opinion in the decision-making process.

i was unable to read the article because website was down, but from what i have read from other peoples post is that this guy just deserted to canada. correct me if this is wrong information.

my views on this seem to follow the same lines as what my gun not yours is saying. when you join you say you will serve for x many years, the amount of years can be different in a different branch and also the job. this says you belong to the United States Government for those years, thats why the government takes good care of you and expects you to do your job.

so there isnt much to justify him leaving the country. he should be black listed and never be allowed to work or return to the united states

the bush doll stomping was not done specificaly for a news brodcast, it was done on a political satire show as a joke just as the popular "Talking to Americans" skit, its not trying to be mean or anti american its just something that most canaidans find funny

also the statement, that basically stated that all candians are anti war i just have to mention both of the world wars, i feel the most important in modern history. America was the one that was unwilling to send in troops during most of both of those wars untill they felt that there was a harm to themselves. I am just saying that americans tend to only fight for something that is in their own interest, "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...bull, more like OIL, which funny enough was the first acronim for the war in iraq

If he truely deserted because he objects to the war and it's not because he's afraid to die then he is anything but a coward. It's sad when not using our brains is the normal. I can't stand nationalist. If he's in the field and doesn't take a command he could end up being responisble for his units death, at least he's facing up to it.

Anyone that bitchs about people not wanting to fight etc shouldn't be posting on this fourm but should be out there fighting.

And how do you check for being a coward? They always say "I OJBECT"

If you object to killing then you don't join the army.

There is nothing about being a nationalist. You can't have it both ways. You can't join an organization and then go hey wait I didn't sign up for that.

He isn't facing up to anything. I would respect him more if he refused to take orders and took his punishment.

He ran.

That is a coward plain and simple.

As to the comment about bitching.

Sorry but bitching is valid when people sign up for the army to use it's benefits but when a war appears. "This war is not moral"

Finally, I have a cousin and some friends in Iraq. Personally, they don't think the reasons for fighting were valid(the WMD claim). They don't want to be there but they do it because it's their job!

Yeah when you boil down all the phony rhetoric it's just a huge scam to gain unfettered access to oil.

I swear to God watching the US occupy Iraq is like watching an armed junky knock over a drugstore in slow motion.

You can't join an organization and then go hey wait I didn't sign up for that.

Happens all the time, BF.

Hear, hear. I've had my fill of armchair quarterbacks, not mention armchair generals and armchair dictators...

If you mean me, then that's too bad.

I don't feel for people that sign up for the army to get the benefits and cry foul if a fight appears.

As I have said, if he wanted only the college fund then he could have gone into other jobs. You don't join a combat regiment.

He is more than welcome.

The war in Iraq is illegal and he has every right to be a conscientious objector. If it means deserting, then fine! So be it.

He is more than welcome.

The war in Iraq is illegal and he has every right to be a conscientious objector. If it means deserting, then fine! So be it.

Ok if he was a conscientious objector, then why did he join a combat regiment?

That claim was also used by a guy who became a sniper.

An honorable man accepts his punishment for his choices.

This isn't Viet Nam where he was drafted and then ran.

He joined up!

Happens all the time, BF.

Yes it does.

Many still do the job as they knew that was expected of them.

Ok if he was a conscientious objector, then why did he join a combat regiment?

That claim was also used by a guy who became a sniper.

An honorable man accepts his punishment for his choices.

This isn't Viet Nam where he was drafted and then ran.

He joined up!
Either way, it's inhumane to force someone to do something against their beliefs, even if they did volunteer in the first damned place.

Either way, it's inhumane to force someone to do something against their beliefs, even if they did volunteer in the first damned place.

Well then there is the problem. If you don't believe in violence then why do you join and organization that will teach you to kill.

You have to requrest to join the para units, you don't get dumped into them.

If he said "I refuse" and took his punishment, I would have respect for him.

My Ranger buddy once said a guy he admired was a medic. He objected to killing but still went and saved lives.

He joined up!

From the article, it seems apparent that his primary goal, like many others who have served or are currently serving, was to take advantage of the post-secondary educational opportunities afforded to servicemen.

Why dangle that for people as an enticement? Why do so many young Americans opt for military service? Is it really because they're all bloodthirsty, or is it because they want a better future for themselves and their families, and they've been left with with little or no other options to achieve their goal, other than to put themselves in harm's way?

As for Hinzman, I have no idea why he signed on with a combat unit. Perhaps it was misrepresented to him by the recruitment officers...you know, upselling a rotten job. Or perhaps the benefits differ from unit to unit - ? I'm not sure.

Maybe someone who is familiar with CURRENT recruitmanet practices could post here and shed some light on the matter.

If he said "I refuse" and took his punishment, I would have respect for him.


He did say 'I refuse' and no-one listened to him.

I am familiar with the recruitment practices. They don't deceive you.
If you volunteer for airborne infantry, they don't keep any secrets from you.
You will be deploying overseas to kill people you don't know for reasons you may never be told.
Although the college money is given after you complete your term of service, most people never use it.

It sounds like an excuse to me. I've heard other soldiers try to say that they didn't expect to be in a war, they only joined for the money.

Well, that sounds really, really lame to me. I recall that on Day One, you swear an oath to obey ALL orders - and to support the US against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic - which means that they will decide who the enemy is, what you will do to them, and why. You have NO say in it. You are OBLIGATED by your oath and contract.

If you can't understand the oath, then perhaps you're completely brain dead.

From the article, it seems apparent that his primary goal, like many others who have served or are currently serving, was to take advantage of the post-secondary educational opportunities afforded to servicemen.

Why dangle that for people as an enticement? Why do so many young Americans opt for military service? Is it really because they're all bloodthirsty, or is it because they want a better future for themselves and their families, and they've been left with with little or no other options to achieve their goal, other than to put themselves in harm's way?

As for Hinzman, I have no idea why he signed on with a combat unit. Perhaps it was misrepresented to him by the recruitment officers...you know, upselling a rotten job. Or perhaps the benefits differ from unit to unit - ? I'm not sure.

Maybe someone who is familiar with CURRENT recruitmanet practices could post here and shed some light on the matter.

Well it is all second hand guessing at this point.

There is a bit of Machismo to say you were in the paratroops. I know a couple guys that proudly announce that the same way a Marine talks.

Recruiters have always painted a pretty picture. Navy talks about aircraft carriers and submarines. The army talks about Rangers, Para, and Tanks. The airforce talks about fighters.

Years ago I got the sell job when two army recuriters when camping with our boyscout troop.... ;)

I am familiar with the recruitment practices. They don't deceive you.
If you volunteer for airborne infantry, they don't keep any secrets from you.
You will be deploying overseas to kill people you don't know for reasons you may never be told.
Although the college money is given after you complete your term of service, most people never use it.

It sounds like an excuse to me. I've heard other soldiers try to say that they didn't expect to be in a war, they only joined for the money.

Well, that sounds really, really lame to me. I recall that on Day One, you swear an oath to obey ALL orders - and to support the US against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic - which means that they will decide who the enemy is, what you will do to them, and why. You have NO say in it. You are OBLIGATED by your oath and contract.

If you can't understand the oath, then perhaps you're completely brain dead.

Except for those officers you mentioned who were planning sedition against the CINC, apparently, eh?

Yes. Do something against the UCMJ alone or in small groups, get fried.

If you're all doing it, the President is in trouble.

Too bad for you the military isn't full of Democrats.

He did say 'I refuse' and no-one listened to him.

Alright maybe I am blind. Where did the articles say that?

Maybe I should make that more clear:

You are joining a substantially Republican organization when you enlist in the airborne infantry.

You will not find any political correctness here.

Here, the men plan on killing, and need only orders to do so. Orders that coincide with their worldview, which is, as I said, largely Republican and red-state.

Conscientious objectors and Democrats are going to find life difficult and promotion difficult.

I am familiar with the recruitment practices. They don't deceive you.
If you volunteer for airborne infantry, they don't keep any secrets from you.
You will be deploying overseas to kill people you don't know for reasons you may never be told.
Although the college money is given after you complete your term of service, most people never use it.

It sounds like an excuse to me. I've heard other soldiers try to say that they didn't expect to be in a war, they only joined for the money.

Well, that sounds really, really lame to me. I recall that on Day One, you swear an oath to obey ALL orders - and to support the US against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic - which means that they will decide who the enemy is, what you will do to them, and why. You have NO say in it. You are OBLIGATED by your oath and contract.

If you can't understand the oath, then perhaps you're completely brain dead.
Yes, but evere since WW2, there has been conscientous objector status and other varying things to bypass the oath.

Also, it has been established that a soldier has a duty to not follow orders deemed illegal. If the soldier deem the war illegal, then he's duty-bound to forego his oath and refuse to follow them.

If he was a Canadian citizen and was sent to Irak under NORAD or NATO, he would have the duty to refuse to follow orders as the Canadian government consider the war illegal under internationnal laws.

Maybe I should make that more clear:

You are joining a substantially Republican organization when you enlist in the airborne infantry.

You will not find any political correctness here.

Here, the men plan on killing, and need only orders to do so. Orders that coincide with their worldview, which is, as I said, largely Republican and red-state.

Conscientious objectors and Democrats are going to find life difficult and promotion difficult.


Democrats are not welcome? That a pretty stupid statement, lol. "Get ye out of the rangers you stupid Demcat..."

And I thought canadian politics were divided lol....

Yes, but evere since WW2, there has been conscientous objector status and other varying things to bypass the oath.

Also, it has been established that a soldier has a duty to not follow orders deemed illegal. If the soldier deem the war illegal, then he's duty-bound to forego his oath and refuse to follow them.

If he was a Canadian citizen and was sent to Irak under NORAD or NATO, he would have the duty to refuse to follow orders as the Canadian government consider the war illegal under internationnal laws.


What a stupid arguement, NATO isnt in iraq...

Maybe I should make that more clear:

You are joining a substantially Republican organization when you enlist in the airborne infantry.

You will not find any political correctness here.

Here, the men plan on killing, and need only orders to do so. Orders that coincide with their worldview, which is, as I said, largely Republican and red-state.

Conscientious objectors and Democrats are going to find life difficult and promotion difficult.

I thought it was the role of the soldier to kill, fight, destroy - on orders to do so - not to be politically active. I also hadn't realized that advancement in the US Armed Forces was predicated on one's political ideology.

This is nothing to be proud of IMO. This is cause for public outcry.

The reason for this is simple:

The Army, especially the airborne infantry, is a volunteer organization.

Name some die-hard Democrats you know personally who would enlist to go fight wars overseas. Go ahead, take your time.

They don't volunteer. They don't enlist. Not since Vietnam. Not since the advent of the all-volunteer Army, which was a GOOD idea. Now, the people that don't want to be there, generally aren't.

But it means that we're almost all Republicans. Which is why Gore and Kerry didn't want military absentee ballots counted - they tried so hard to disqualify them, even though they both said they wanted "every vote to count".

If you want to change the military, and you're a Democrat, you had better enlist in large numbers. Hardly likely, do you think?

So, Republicans run the military from within. They constitute the majority of Pentagon civilians.

Maybe I should make that more clear:

You are joining a substantially Republican organization when you enlist in the airborne infantry.

You will not find any political correctness here.

Here, the men plan on killing, and need only orders to do so. Orders that coincide with their worldview, which is, as I said, largely Republican and red-state.

Conscientious objectors and Democrats are going to find life difficult and promotion difficult.

Tsk Tsk. Certain Generals dream of robot soldiers.

Fact is there are bad commanders and the soldier is dutybound to refuse an unlawful order.

Alright maybe I am blind. Where did the articles say that?

It's not mentioned in this article specifically, although the full story aired on CBC last night. He filled out his necessary paperwork to be officially declared a Conscientous Objector, and it was rejected by his superiors.

As a man of conscious, he decided to forgo the college money, and did what he thought was the best thing (or in this case chose the least of all possible evils) for himself, his wife, and their young child, and went AWOL in order to come north where hopefully, his case will be heard. And he won't have to commit to an action that he is morally andd ethically opposed to.

Sorry that's not part of this article, it would help to clarify things somewhat.

The reason for this is simple:

The Army, especially the airborne infantry, is a volunteer organization.

Name some die-hard Democrats you know personally who would enlist to go fight wars overseas. Go ahead, take your time.

They don't volunteer. They don't enlist. Not since Vietnam. Not since the advent of the all-volunteer Army, which was a GOOD idea. Now, the people that don't want to be there, generally aren't.

But it means that we're almost all Republicans. Which is why Gore and Kerry didn't want military absentee ballots counted - they tried so hard to disqualify them, even though they both said they wanted "every vote to count".

If you want to change the military, and you're a Democrat, you had better enlist in large numbers. Hardly likely, do you think?

So, Republicans run the military from within. They constitute the majority of Pentagon civilians.

And so you think this is GOOD? Desirable? What's your point, man?

It's neither good nor bad. Good in the sense that the only people in the military are generally those that want to be there - unlike draftees, who may not want to be there.

But, you're not going to be able to complain about it, or say it's bad, or unfair, or somehow dangerous.

Democrats have had plenty of opportunity to enlist. That's been an open fact for decades. But they have chosen not to.

So, when a Democrat is in power, look to the military to make sure that whatever operation they plan will be a failure. I would not have wanted to be President Kerry, because our exit from Iraq would have been intentionally misplanned, and result in a genocidal civil war the moment we "accidentally" leaked the word that we were leaving for good.

He would have been wearing a lot of blood that he would not have been able to avoid.

It's not mentioned in this article specifically, although the full story aired on CBC last night. He filled out his necessary paperwork to be officially declared a Conscientous Objector, and it was rejected by his superiors.

As a man of conscious, he decided to forgo the college money, and did what he thought was the best thing (or in this case chose the least of all possible evils) for himself, his wife, and their young child, and went AWOL in order to come north where hopefully, his case will be heard. And he won't have to commit to an action that he is morally andd ethically opposed to.

Sorry that's not part of this article, it would help to clarify things somewhat.

Well?????

Hmpf. You see that is the problem. The army has no problem with Conscientous Objectors. There are jobs they can do as well.

The army always gets Conscientous Objector requests when fighting occurs.

I still have a problem with joining a combat regiment and announcing you don't like violence.

Ahh well.

He is just one man.

Let's just leave it with you thinking he is a hero and I will think him a coward.

;)

What a stupid arguement, NATO isnt in iraq...
Fine pick on the hypothetical situation in the last paragraph and forget the whole point will you?

i wonder what your opinions would be of a soldier that was full of pride and happy to serve the honour of his country fully acknowledging to the duty of killing when ordered to ...

... only later to be shipped off for holocaust duty?

has this hypothetical soldier no right to object?

after all international law has set a precedent that following orders is no defence for immoral killing

so its a judgement - participate in something against your principles (not war per se but objectional practices) or pick and choose when you think its ok to do your job

might it not be a massive stretch to describe folding to pressure to act against your principles as cowardice?

just for the record - im not stating a position on whether iraq is immoral that's his call - im certainly not likening it directly to the holocaust - thats a line-drawing test extreme case

at what point is it acceptable not to dumbly follow orders - at the risk of being court martialed/shot etc.

Well?????

Hmpf. You see that is the problem. The army has no problem with Conscientous Objectors. There are jobs they can do as well.
;)
Well it seems that in this case, they had a problem...

You can't follow illegal orders. But, the place to bring that up is at your court martial.

That's the Army way. I have refused orders before, knowing that I might be court martialed. Sometimes it works, sometimes you get the shaft.

This guy is obviously stupid, and has no idea how the system works.

I am also an Infantryman who went to benning school for boys. Joining the Infantry is the best way to show one's love for their country. Going airborne is even better. If he just wanted college he could have joined up in some pouge supply unit. When you join the military you are basicly signing your life over. All of you that are running your mouths off about that the military is like the mafia and whatnot need to understand that this is the way its been done for thousands of years. It is not the military's job to question the political correctness of a war, they are to fight it.

And to the socialist who said Cuba would be better than Bush's America, why arent there boatloads of Americans trying to sneak into Cuba, I don't see South Koreans running across the DMZ to move to North Korea.

My advice to those of you that haven't served and support socialism,
Have a nice hot cup of shut the f*ck up. Ah, here is a rabid American damning the evils of socialism. Well, I agree that the idiot should not have joined up - but you disturb me. "Show one's love for their country". Did you know that loads of American kids think that going to war is a good idea? Fun? Then again, America didn't have four years of trenches.

I agree that the military are there to FIGHT. But why are you going on about socialism. Maybe if the wealth was more evenly distributed, people wouldn't join just for the money…!

Fine pick on the hypothetical situation in the last paragraph and forget the whole point will you?


Well, a solder does have the duty to disobey orders if said orders are illegal but ahhhhhh that refers to decisions in combat and not an ENTIRE WAR.

Comments like yours make the whole anti-iraq position seem populated by fruits and hippies so stfu!

Well, a solder does have the duty to disobey orders if said orders are illegal but ahhhhhh that refers to decisions in combat and not an ENTIRE WAR.

Comments like yours make the whole anti-iraq position seem populated by fruits and hippies so stfu!
That, my friend, is a flame. If you don'T want to discuss the matter at hand, then I suggest you leave and/or stop reading the thread. Telling me to shut the fuck up is not going to shut me up and might get you a warning.

And, if an entire war is deemed illegal, by the UN for example, then any and all acts in the war are, by extension also illegal.

Well, I seem to recall around the time of the first Gulf War, the UN said that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was illegal. So by your statement, the rest of the Iraqi actions there were illegal.

Can you name one Iraqi officer or official who was prosecuted in the Hague for war crimes?

Just name one.

Well...

I'm sure we can find some dog tags for one... I'd find you an actual officer, but I'd have to spend a lot of time putting one back together.

Pesky bombs. :cool:

Well, I seem to recall around the time of the first Gulf War, the UN said that the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was illegal. So by your statement, the rest of the Iraqi actions there were illegal.

Can you name one Iraqi officer or official who was prosecuted in the Hague for war crimes?

Just name one.
So, because some crimes went unpunished in the past, we should let crime commited now happen without raising any objection?

That, my friend, is a flame. If you don'T want to discuss the matter at hand, then I suggest you leave and/or stop reading the thread. Telling me to shut the fuck up is not going to shut me up and might get you a warning.

And, if an entire war is deemed illegal, by the UN for example, then any and all acts in the war are, by extension also illegal.


I am discussing this thread by pointing out how stupid your comments are.

You could point out that perhaps the usa should have concentrated on afganistan or perhaps Iran. You could have pointed out the large amount of injuries + deaths inflicted on the USA in iraq.

Its annoying to have thse hippie arguements against the war in iraq because they are illogical + dont have any thread of prove to back them up. I just picked your thread as it one one of the more stupid ones + the closest...

So, because some crimes went unpunished in the past, we should let crime commited now happen without raising any objection?

No, I'm just showing that the UN is inconsistent. They presided over, acknowledged, and in some cases approved, more massacres in human history than any single nation.

Kofi Annan himself contacted the Colonel in charge of the Belgians in Rwanda and told them not to interfere with the massacre, as he had already worked everything out with the leader of the Hutus.

Yes, the UN is all wise, and all good, and it always knows when something is illegal.

I am discussing this thread by pointing out how stupid your comments are.

You could point out that perhaps the usa should have concentrated on afganistan or perhaps Iran. You could have pointed out the large amount of injuries + deaths inflicted on the USA in iraq.

Its annoying to have thse hippie arguements against the war in iraq because they are illogical + dont have any thread of prove to back them up. I just picked your thread as it one one of the more stupid ones + the closest...
Still no reason to say "STFU".

Besides, this isn't about the war as much as how the would-be refugee sees the war.

Well it seems that in this case, they had a problem...

Big difference.

Guy signing up. "I don't belive in killing"

Guy signs up. Guy goes through the process to join the para regiment. War happens. "Oh wait. I don't believe in killing"

To join an occupation whose motto is "Death From Above" and then when a war comes up, suddenly acquire an objection to that, strikes me as disingenuous on the part of the soldier.

Hey, I joined for the money, but not the "Death From Above" part.

Maybe it's a basic inability to understand spoken and written English.

No, I'm just showing that the UN is inconsistent. They presided over, acknowledged, and in some cases approved, more massacres in human history than any single nation.

Kofi Annan himself contacted the Colonel in charge of the Belgians in Rwanda and told them not to interfere with the massacre, as he had already worked everything out with the leader of the Hutus.

Yes, the UN is all wise, and all good, and it always knows when something is illegal.


Well if the UN's leadership ends up having profited from the iraq OIL for food money I wonder how long the left will continue to hold the UN's decision not to support the war against iraq against the USA...

I am discussing this thread by pointing out how stupid your comments are.

You could point out that perhaps the usa should have concentrated on afganistan or perhaps Iran. You could have pointed out the large amount of injuries + deaths inflicted on the USA in iraq.

Its annoying to have thse hippie arguements against the war in iraq because they are illogical + dont have any thread of prove to back them up. I just picked your thread as it one one of the more stupid ones + the closest...

I'm amazed by this latest torrent of bilge. I'll take a hippie argument over expounding on the need to kill still more people any day of the week.

Comments here and on Democratic Underground indicate that Democrats (true ones) will never admit the Oil For Food scandal, no matter what proof surfaces, no matter who resigns, or who admits it.

And in any case, none of them will say that invading Iraq was "a good idea".

Keep your thing in your pants, cause it ain't gonna happen.

To join an occupation whose motto is "Death From Above" and then when a war comes up, suddenly acquire an objection to that, strikes me as disingenuous on the part of the soldier.

Hey, I joined for the money, but not the "Death From Above" part.

Maybe it's a basic inability to understand spoken and written English.

Yet another searing indictment of the average American Serviceman?

I'm glad you're the one saying these things, and not me...

Still no reason to say "STFU".

Besides, this isn't about the war as much as how the would-be refugee sees the war.


Nooooooo this is about the war as his whole arguement on staying in canada as a "refugee" is about the iraqi war. :rolleyes:

Yeah when you boil down all the phony rhetoric it's just a huge scam to gain unfettered access to oil.

I swear to God watching the US occupy Iraq is like watching an armed junky knock over a drugstore in slow motion.
:D :D :D :D :D :D

No, I'm just showing that the UN is inconsistent. They presided over, acknowledged, and in some cases approved, more massacres in human history than any single nation.

Kofi Annan himself contacted the Colonel in charge of the Belgians in Rwanda and told them not to interfere with the massacre, as he had already worked everything out with the leader of the Hutus.

Yes, the UN is all wise, and all good, and it always knows when something is illegal.

The pot is, seemingly unknowingly, calling the kettle black.

Ah, here is a rabid American damning the evils of socialism. Well, I agree that the idiot should not have joined up - but you disturb me. "Show one's love for their country". Did you know that loads of American kids think that going to war is a good idea? Fun? Then again, America didn't have four years of trenches.

I agree that the military are there to FIGHT. But why are you going on about socialism. Maybe if the wealth was more evenly distributed, people wouldn't join just for the money…!

I know a lot of those "young kids" who are infantry and are volentering for a second tour in Iraq. My point about socialism is that people are always bitching about American capitalism but yet most countries that have tried to achieve a "socialist paradise" have failed and become scummy shit holes ie. vietnam.

That's been the motto since WW II. Maybe you should read the mottoes of certain other regiments and divisions.

Or even the national anthems of some countries. Lots of blood and guts stuff.

Once again, not a secret. No one has a national anthem that states, "We'll never shed the blood of our people, or anyone else, for any cause, because that would be illegal and immoral, and very unlike us. Peace be unto the world, and listen to what we say, and do as we do, so that we may all live in harmony together."

I'm amazed by this latest torrent of bilge. I'll take a hippie argument over expounding on the need to kill still more people any day of the week.


Well here's to expanding the anti iraqi war movement then!

"I joined a army that could go to war at any time, now that I object to the war in iraq I run to canada. Thats just plain stupid, ship the knuckehead back to the states."

I know a lot of those "young kids" who are infantry and are volentering for a second tour in Iraq.

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? FoxNews? Or Stars And Stripes?

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/06/hinzman041206.html

I think they should hand him over and he should be court marshalled. The armed services can do whatever they wish with him.

He signed up for the army, he knew the ramifications, and he wimped out and ran away. If his CO wanted to shoot him in the head, I wouldn't stop him.

I think that Dobbs is under the misguided notion that I believe in the legality of war, or that I am somehow a Republican.

Let's step back, shall we?

I believe that war is the natural state of human civilization.
I believe that atrocities occur. We may have some incentive to prevent or reduce their occurrence, but they occur nonetheless. Sorry.
I believe that when men kill in combat, the politics are no longer relevant. We don't sit and discuss "tending our garden" when the bullets are flying. Sorry.

I like killing in combat. It's fun. Hemingway was right. Most people who do it like it. Very few end up not liking it.

As for the guy in the story, he knew that's the way the Army was, how the unit was, and he suddenly decides it's not for him?

I would just put him out on the street with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

How does the oil for food scandal is of any relevance to this subject?

And what does Democrats and Republicans have to do with a guy going AWOL to Canada?

I'm sorry, I don't follow...


Let me make it simple for you:
a) hippie deserter runs to canada as the iraqi war is bad, his refugee claim states "many bad things happening in this war, I wanted out"
b) Anti iraqi side, such as yourself states moronic things like " they are killing children" " he needs out so he doesnt have to kill people"
c) anti iraqi side states "its against the UN, this iraqi war"
d) pro iaqi side states " the UN is full of shat as per the UN Iraqi food for oil scandle

To which you reply "how does this have anything to do with this deserter guy"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let me make it simple for you:
a) hippie deserter runs to canada as the iraqi war is bad, his refugee claim states "many bad things happening in this war, I wanted out"
b) Anti iraqi side, such as yourself states moronic things like " they are killing children" " he needs out so he doesnt have to kill people"
c) anti iraqi side states "its against the UN, this iraqi war"
d) pro iaqi side states " the UN is full of shat as per the UN Iraqi food for oil scandle

To which you reply "how does this have anything to do with this deserter guy"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And with that statement , you've just earned yourself a one way trip to my ignore list. See my posts in this thread and point out where I ever said "they are killing children" or " he needs out so he doesnt have to kill people".

And with that statement , you've just earned yourself a one way trip to my ignore list. See my posts in this thread and point out where I ever said "they are killing children" or " he needs out so he doesnt have to kill people".


Oh nooo your posts are so thoughtfull and well writen too!

I think that Dobbs is under the misguided notion that I believe in the legality of war, or that I am somehow a Republican.

- Let's just say your take on things would tend to compliment, rather than clash with, the current Republican viewpoint.

Let's step back, shall we?

- By all means, let's.

I believe that war is the natural state of human civilization.

- It's hard to refute beliefs. I don't happen to share your belief, I believe that peace is the natural state of human affairs.

I believe that atrocities occur. We may have some incentive to prevent or reduce their occurrence, but they occur nonetheless. Sorry.
I believe that when men kill in combat, the politics are no longer relevant. We don't sit and discuss "tending our garden" when the bullets are flying. Sorry.

- They don't occur unless there's war. More points scored for peace. Perhaps if there was more 'garden tending' there'd be less in the way of atrocities committed.

I like killing in combat. It's fun. Hemingway was right. Most people who do it like it. Very few end up not liking it.

- Hemingway was a perpetual adolescent, romanticizing his own arrested development, and projecting his own jeuvenile values on an entire generation of unknowing rubes.

I could just as easily substitute 'giving blowjobs' for 'killing in combat', and throw in some semi-historical figure, and be just as correct as you and Mr. Hemingway.

- Let's just say your take on things would tend to compliment, rather than clash with, the current Republican viewpoint.



- By all means, let's.



- It's hard to refute beliefs. I don't happen to share your belief, I believe that peace is the natural state of human affairs.



- They don't occur unless there's war. More points scored for peace. Perhaps if there was more 'garden tending' there'd be less in the way of atrocities committed.



- Hemingway was a perpetual adolescent, romanticizing his own arrested development, and projecting his own jeuvenile values on an entire generation of unknowing rubes.

I could just as easily substitute 'giving blowjobs' for 'killing in combat', and throw in some semi-historical figure, and be just as correct as you and Mr. Hemingway.


dobbs town is right. What sane person likes war? :confused: :confused:

It's no longer a draft. Any argument that what they were doing was a legit form of protest is turned to ash with hte fact that he knowingly joined the military. Just because he didn't think all the implications through does not justify his conduct.

It's no longer a draft. Any argument that what they were doing was a legit form of protest is turned to ash with hte fact that he knowingly joined the military. Just because he didn't think all the implications through does not justify his conduct.

/agrees

the war in iraq is wrong but this guy is either a idiot or a complete coward....

Says who? Rush Limbaugh? FoxNews? Or Stars And Stripes?
Considering well over 70% of the mil. vote was Republican, I think he has hit the nail on the head.

/agrees

the war in iraq is wrong but this guy is either a idiot or a complete coward....

Or a man of principle. Whether he became a man of principle before or after he joined the military is, I feel, beyond the point.

That he is a man of principle now is what's at issue.

Or a man of principle. Whether he became a man of principle before or after he joined the military is, I feel, beyond the point.

That he is a man of principle now is what's at issue.


:rolleyes: Beyond the silly "you have a duty to your nation" rebuke, this guy has to accept the consequences of his actions. He signed on, knowing about the war in iraq, deal with it....


Perhaps if he signed up before the war in iraq I could see his problem, but what did he think he was going to do when he joined up? Play shuffleboard?

I'm sure he thought it would be sport parachute jumping, with a gun and some funny looking clothes. I'm quite sure he never thought that the bayonet training was anything except Georgia aerobics.

Heck, I thought the Army was a free weight loss program.

:rolleyes:

Ignoring much of the stuff posted here, as I skimmed and quickly found some of it rather annoying. Just going to post my own opinions.

Let him in. The war has no real basis, and it wouldn't really be much different than a man running from Vietnam. Heck, there are even soldiers now trying to fight, in the legal courts on the USA, with lawyer's to keep their TOD's from being extend. The fact of the matter is, Iraq is not a popular tourist destination. Very few people want to go there, and now they're being forced to stay. Many are finished thier term of service with the USA, and are now for all practical purposes, "Conscripts". People who signed on for four years, before the war, are still stuck there, quite a while after it ended.

He has reasonable fear of punishment in his own country (As you can see from some of the thread responses) and if he goes back, he has a high risk of being killed, either by an American, or a Iraqi. Canada let in many Vietnam "Draft Dodgers", is this a huge amount of difference?

Fact of the matter is, we may as well let him in. His reasons for signing on are valid, if you want to argue it, why is the Army offering University Educations and then expecting people to sign on for "Army life" rather than University education?

:rolleyes:

Ignoring much of the stuff posted here, as I skimmed and quickly found some of it rather annoying. Just going to post my own opinions.

Let him in. The war has no real basis, and it wouldn't really be much different than a man running from Vietnam. Heck, there are even soldiers now trying to fight, in the legal courts on the USA, with lawyer's to keep their TOD's from being extend. The fact of the matter is, Iraq is not a popular tourist destination. Very few people want to go there, and now they're being forced to stay. Many are finished thier term of service with the USA, and are now for all practical purposes, "Conscripts". People who signed on for four years, before the war, are still stuck there, quite a while after it ended.

He has reasonable fear of punishment in his own country (As you can see from some of the thread responses) and if he goes back, he has a high risk of being killed, either by an American, or a Iraqi. Canada let in many Vietnam "Draft Dodgers", is this a huge amount of difference?

Fact of the matter is, we may as well let him in. His reasons for signing on are valid, if you want to argue it, why is the Army offering University Educations and then expecting people to sign on for "Army life" rather than University education?


the big difference is, you know, ummm this war ISNT SUPPORTED BY A BLOODY DRAFT. :rolleyes:

Its a big difference is, you know, ummm this war ISNT SUPPORTED BY A BLOODY DRAFT. :rolleyes:

It is, however, supported by a backdraft. That's what was being referred to, unless I'm mistaken.

It is, however, supported by a backdraft. That's what was being referred to, unless I'm mistaken.

I was aware it does not yet have a draft. However this, and I've heard reports of many people being called up, who have long since finished their terms. As well what I msotly meant, was Tours of Duties were finished but the men weren't home. They're are in effective being forced to continue serving.

I was aware it does not yet have a draft. However this, and I've heard reports of many people being called up, who have long since finished their terms. As well what I msotly meant, was Tours of Duties were finished but the men weren't home. They're are in effective being forced to continue serving.

Right, That's what I meant by a backdraft. We're on the same page here.

Right, That's what I meant by a backdraft. We're on the same page here.

Hurrah! :p That doesn't happen often to me.

Or me.

Of course that usually has something to do with my ambiguous gender in RL.

Let him in. The war has no real basis, and it wouldn't really be much different than a man running from Vietnam.

There is a HUGE difference. The draft-dodgers were doing just that. This guy signed up looking for the rewards and didn't think he had to pay. He wanted to use the army and then cried foul when they were going to use him.


Heck, there are even soldiers now trying to fight, in the legal courts on the USA, with lawyer's to keep their TOD's from being extend. The fact of the matter is, Iraq is not a popular tourist destination. Very few people want to go there, and now they're being forced to stay. Many are finished thier term of service with the USA, and are now for all practical purposes, "Conscripts". People who signed on for four years, before the war, are still stuck there, quite a while after it ended.

Well that is in the rule books. You can be extended.


He has reasonable fear of punishment in his own country (As you can see from some of the thread responses) and if he goes back, he has a high risk of being killed, either by an American, or a Iraqi. Canada let in many Vietnam "Draft Dodgers", is this a huge amount of difference?

Yes he does deserve punishment. He knew what could happen when he signed on. You can't enter a contract and then say sorry I don't like the terms later on.

As to killing by an American or an Iraqi? Hardly. Murder is still against the law.


Fact of the matter is, we may as well let him in. His reasons for signing on are valid, if you want to argue it, why is the Army offering University Educations and then expecting people to sign on for "Army life" rather than University education?

What's wrong with that? It's a temping offer to get recruits. Many of my relatives benefited from the GI Bill.

This guy wanted the benefits and felt he didn't deserve the bad luck he got.

As it was argued many times. There are many postitions in the army that don't involve combat. He joined a combat regiment figuring there wasn't going to be a war. Do his 4 years and then leave with the GI Bill.

He is faced with a war and then all of a sudden announces he doesn't belive in violence.

Rather then facing his courtmartial which does not mean execution.

He ran like a coward.

Or a man of principle. Whether he became a man of principle before or after he joined the military is, I feel, beyond the point.

That he is a man of principle now is what's at issue.

Good to know that your idea of principle doesn't include living up to your word.

Let him in. The war has no real basis, and it wouldn't really be much different than a man running from Vietnam. Heck, there are even soldiers now trying to fight, in the legal courts on the USA, with lawyer's to keep their TOD's from being extend. The fact of the matter is, Iraq is not a popular tourist destination. Very few people want to go there, and now they're being forced to stay. Many are finished thier term of service with the USA, and are now for all practical purposes, "Conscripts". People who signed on for four years, before the war, are still stuck there, quite a while after it ended.

When you sign up, you know that this is a possibility. It is your responsibility to live up to it.

He has reasonable fear of punishment in his own country

which, if he is any sort of decent person willing to live up to his word, he should take.

Fact of the matter is, we may as well let him in. His reasons for signing on are valid, if you want to argue it, why is the Army offering University Educations and then expecting people to sign on for "Army life" rather than University education?

Everyone who signs on to get an education knows that they are taking the risk of possibly being deployed in war time. If they are too stupid to read the contract, they don't deserve to be let out of it.

I was aware it does not yet have a draft. However this, and I've heard reports of many people being called up, who have long since finished their terms. As well what I msotly meant, was Tours of Duties were finished but the men weren't home. They're are in effective being forced to continue serving.

All of which is in the original contract you sign with the armed services when you join up.

Can't call it a backdraft, either.

When you sign up for National Guard, it's not a secret that you're actually Federal armed forces. Forever.

When you sign up for Reserves, same thing.

There are no secrets in the contract.

If you sign up for active duty, you may have trained for one thing but they can order you to do anything. Just because you're trained initially as a truck driver doesn't mean you can't be told to clear insurgents from buildings.

There is no deception or fine print. The whole contract is extremely short (shorter than any mortgage I've ever signed) and very readable.

Most people in the military understand these things. To say that you don't understand the obligation later borders on an outright lie.

Yes it's all well and good and, as far as I know, he understands all that. He objects to THIS particular war. He wants no part of Irak. If you told him he was going to Afghanistan or the North Korea border, he would have said yes. But not this war.

At least that's what he and his lawyer say. Whether you believe him or not is another thing altogether.

Yes it's all well and good and, as far as I know, he understands all that. He objects to THIS particular war. He wants no part of Irak. If you told him he was going to Afghanistan or the North Korea border, he would have said yes. But not this war.

At least that's what he and his lawyer say. Whether you believe him or not is another thing altogether.

I believe him.

But it doesn't matter. When he signed up for the armed services, he gave up the right to be a conscientious objector - and he sure as hell gave up the right to decide where he will and will not go. It was all in the contract, and he has no argument here.

When you sign up to be a soldier, and then volunteer for jump school and end up in the 82nd Airborne you are saying that you are willing to fight.

but the most important bottom line for me is that he swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

Period.

Whether he agrees or not, he also swore to obey the lawful orders of his superiors and the President determines who the enemy is, along with Congress. Both agreed on invading Iraq, therefore, going to Iraq is a legal order.

He should be sent back to the US, where he will be tried, convicted, and kicked out of the Army with a nasty dishonorable discharge. The US Army hasn't shot anyone for desertion since 1945 (Private Eddie Slovik, the only one shot in World War II for desertion, before that a few during World War I), and it sure isn't going to now.

And how do you check for being a coward? They always say "I OJBECT"

If you object to killing then you don't join the army.

There is nothing about being a nationalist. You can't have it both ways. You can't join an organization and then go hey wait I didn't sign up for that.

He isn't facing up to anything. I would respect him more if he refused to take orders and took his punishment.

He ran.

That is a coward plain and simple.

As to the comment about bitching.

Sorry but bitching is valid when people sign up for the army to use it's benefits but when a war appears. "This war is not moral"

Finally, I have a cousin and some friends in Iraq. Personally, they don't think the reasons for fighting were valid(the WMD claim). They don't want to be there but they do it because it's their job!


He might not object to killing but he can object to THIS action. He's not a coward if he stands up for what he things is right. And nationalism IS a factor, anyone that follows blindly and beleives everything they are told and do whatever they're told when they disagree is a nationalist. People that think we should love George Bush for the plain and simple fact that he is President is a nationalist view.

I've got a friend there and I have an ex-friend here. The one that is here got pregnet so she didn't have to go to war. Not that she objected but she just didn't want to go, that is a coward, I can't even stand to be reminded of her. A person that refuses to go not because he's afraid, but because he beleives it is completely wrong is totally different.

Why aren't you there?

but the most important bottom line for me is that he swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foreign and domestic.

Period.

Yeah but how are the Iraqi people America's enemies? They weren't America's enemies, remember? Remember the last story Bush told everyone? That this war was really all about freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny?

Maybe it seems confusing, as this war is and always has been politically malleable - it's one thing this week, it's whatever Bush needs it to be the next. It's not about defending or supporting the Constitution of anything, dude - it's about defending and supporting a big-eared goof with powerful connections, a dubious past, and more nukes than you'd need to blow up the moon stuffed in his y-fronts.

No, defending the Constitution comes into play when you're repelling invasive forces. This is totally off the mark, man. This is about marching into someone else's house and blowing their fucking brains out with a machine gun 'cause they looked at you funny, and you wouldn't mind helping yourself to their fridge while you're at it. Meanwhile, whoever it was (Osama) who threw a rock through your window is still wandering around the neighbourhood.

What does helping steal oil from another country have to do with the Constitution anyway??

I know a lot of those "young kids" who are infantry and are volentering for a second tour in Iraq. My point about socialism is that people are always bitching about American capitalism but yet most countries that have tried to achieve a "socialist paradise" have failed and become scummy shit holes ie. vietnam.
Scummy shit hole? Have you ever been to Vietnam? It's a beautiful country, friendly people and good food. No neon lit stripmalls, Red Lobsters, and crack houses but still nice nonetheless.

No, defending the Constitution comes into play when you're repelling invasive forces. This is totally off the mark, man. This is about marching into someone else's house and blowing their fucking brains out with a machine gun 'cause they looked at you funny, and you wouldn't mind helping yourself to their fridge while you're at it. Meanwhile, whoever it was (Osama) who threw a rock through your window is still wandering around the neighbourhood.

What does helping steal oil from another country have to do with the Constitution anyway??

By your logic the US would have stayed out of both World Wars, not to mention Kuwait and a number of other less clear cut wars..... in no case were we invaded. Even 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were not technically invasions but attacks. You volunteer for US military service, which is an 8 year committment each time you enlist or reenlist, and essentially for life if you retire after 20 years (although not really as after about age 55 they rarely need you that much). The oath that all military personnel take requires them to accept all lawful orders and Bush gave a lawful order to invade Iraq. It might be politically or morally questionable, but it is a lawful order.

You don't have to swear that oath or serve, but if you serve you swear that oath and you are bound to it.

I didn't want the US to intervene in Iraq, I thought is was questionable judgement, poor strategy, and ethically tenious. But I am not a soldier either.

But my son is a Marine, and he swore that oath and he will be going sometime in the next 12 months. He and I had this discussion before he went in. He knows what he swore to, and what the price could be.

and so did the deserter.

[QUOTE=New Shiron]You don't have to swear that oath or serve, but if you serve you swear that oath and you are bound to it.
But my son is a Marine, and he swore that oath and he will be going sometime in the next 12 months. He and I had this discussion before he went in. He knows what he swore to, and what the price could be.
[QUOTE]

What happens if in the meantime your son changes his mind? Not for any particular reason, but supposing he did - what then?

Dobbstown, just like when you have a child, you can't decide not to have one after the little bundle of joy has arrived and goes home from the hospital with you.

Some decisions are permanent and you face the consequences

Joining the military is one of those decisions

Well that is in the rule books. You can be extended.

Let's see here.
I go to war. Risk my life. Am Told, hey, guess what, in 2 day's you could've been going home. But, wait. We're Dumbarses, and so despite having the "Most powerful force in the world" we're extending your TOD.

So then, two days after I was suppose to get home, I get shot, and die.
Nice rule book. The fact of the matter is, they meet your contract. They finished their TOD. They shouldn't be told Screw you stay here. Is it any wonder people don't want to go? They're worried they might never come back for several years.

As to killing by an American or an Iraqi? Hardly. Murder is still against the law.
Not in Iraq it isn't.

which, if he is any sort of decent person willing to live up to his word, he should take.

Of everything here. This get's me.
"A decent person, would go back to a place where he has a decent chance of being shot, killed or maimed."


What's wrong with that? It's a temping offer to get recruits. Many of my relatives benefited from the GI Bill.
If you want Men, whom are there to fight, and not there to get an Education, then Don't frickin offer it. Don't bitch later about how "He joined for the University" when you offered it.

It's like complaining you got a horse, when you tried to lure a lion with horse feed.

Fact o' the Matter is, there are many reserve units being called up. Your running out of men, and people don't want to go. Believe it or not, not everyone buy's the BS about Iraq. Or about following your Leader unto Death.
Lots of German's followed Hitler unto Death. Luckily, some, in the Military, even Rommel, had the courage to say Frick you Prick. Maybe this guy is kind of like the first German soldier or civilian who realized that suddenly he might be fighting for the wrong side eh?

When you sign up for National Guard, it's not a secret that you're actually Federal armed forces. Forever.
A. A guy signed up like 17 Years ago. He finished his TOD. He SHOULD be left alone. He did his duty. Now your trying to suck him abck in.
B. "National GUARD". At the moment, it's not guarding, or being national at all. More like a "Foreign Legion" Type idea. Maybe you should try naming things like they are, rather than mis-using english.

Both agreed on invading Iraq, therefore, going to Iraq is a legal order.

A lot of people agreed on goign to war with Poland too. Was it fair? Or Right?

My point about socialism is that people are always bitching about American capitalism but yet most countries that have tried to achieve a "socialist paradise" have failed and become scummy shit holes ie. vietnam.
Try not to mix Socialist, and Communist. First off.
THE TOP TWO COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, FOR LIVING STANDARDS ARE SOCIALIST.
Sweden, and Norway. If they're scummy shit holes, I'd hate to know what America is? Maybe "Aspiring to be that stuff you step in when in the sewers." Or something like that.

I have to go. I know I've probably missed a lot of stuff. Sorry. Stuck in a class schedule. If you have a very urgent point you want an reply too, repeat it please. My apologies.
-New Scott-Land

Dobbstown, just like when you have a child, you can't decide not to have one after the little bundle of joy has arrived and goes home from the hospital with you.

Some decisions are permanent and you face the consequences

Joining the military is one of those decisions

Good thing I'm not having children then.

Let's see here.
I go to war. Risk my life. Am Told, hey, guess what, in 2 day's you could've been going home. But, wait. We're Dumbarses, and so despite having the "Most powerful force in the world" we're extending your TOD.

So then, two days after I was suppose to get home, I get shot, and die.
Nice rule book. The fact of the matter is, they meet your contract. They finished their TOD. They shouldn't be told Screw you stay here. Is it any wonder people don't want to go? They're worried they might never come back for several years.

They knew that their TOD could be extended in war time. They agreed to it. Therefore, if they don't like it - too bad.

Of everything here. This get's me.
"A decent person, would go back to a place where he has a decent chance of being shot, killed or maimed."

Considering that he said he would and signed a contract to that effect, yes, that is *exactly* what a decent person would do.

I find it interesting that "living up to your word" doesn't fall under your definition of a decent person.

If you want Men, whom are there to fight, and not there to get an Education, then Don't frickin offer it. Don't bitch later about how "He joined for the University" when you offered it.

He knew that, in exchange for his education, he would be *required* to do *whatever* the armed services asked of him while he was in.

His actions are like saying "If you pay for my education, I will work for you for 8 years. Oh wait, I don't like that kind of work. Thanks for the education, but I'm reneging on the deal! Byebye!!!"

He might not object to killing but he can object to THIS action. He's not a coward if he stands up for what he things is right. And nationalism IS a factor, anyone that follows blindly and beleives everything they are told and do whatever they're told when they disagree is a nationalist. People that think we should love George Bush for the plain and simple fact that he is President is a nationalist view.

Sorry a coward runs. If he stood by his principles, he would not have ran to Canada. He signed up, he took an oath, he joined a combat regiment, and then he tried to claim he was against violence.

If he refused to go and took the punishment that was due to him, then he would be an honorable man.

He ran.


I've got a friend there and I have an ex-friend here. The one that is here got pregnet so she didn't have to go to war. Not that she objected but she just didn't want to go, that is a coward, I can't even stand to be reminded of her. A person that refuses to go not because he's afraid, but because he beleives it is completely wrong is totally different.


Ok she got pregnant to avoid the war. This fellow ran to Canda. What's the difference?


Why aren't you there?
1) I am past the desirable age for soldiers.
2) I am ex-goverment. The "stuff" I worked on and the clearences I held exclude me from certain countries and situtations.

I've been there. Done the paratrooper thing. Killed Iraqis. Been back and killed more.

So I don't need questions about "why aren't I there?"

Sorry a coward runs. If he stood by his principles, he would not have ran to Canada. He signed up, he took an oath, he joined a combat regiment, and then he tried to claim he was against violence.
According to his statement, he's not against violence. He's against an unjust war based on lies (his words not my opinion). Telling that he is a coward is jumping the gun.

I'm so sick of people passing judgment on cases without having all the facts.

Let's see here.
I go to war. Risk my life. Am Told, hey, guess what, in 2 day's you could've been going home. But, wait. We're Dumbarses, and so despite having the "Most powerful force in the world" we're extending your TOD.

So then, two days after I was suppose to get home, I get shot, and die.
Nice rule book. The fact of the matter is, they meet your contract. They finished their TOD. They shouldn't be told Screw you stay here. Is it any wonder people don't want to go? They're worried they might never come back for several years.


Yup it's a bitch. Sorry but it's not a new thing and it's not something they hide.


If you want Men, whom are there to fight, and not there to get an Education, then Don't frickin offer it. Don't bitch later about how "He joined for the University" when you offered it.

You have to ask the armed services.

Point is many take this route and serve. A few like this fellow run when they find out they have to fight.


Or about following your Leader unto Death.
Lots of German's followed Hitler unto Death. Luckily, some, in the Military, even Rommel, had the courage to say Frick you Prick.

And did Rommel run for it?

According to his statement, he's not against violence. He's against an unjust war based on lies (his words not my opinion). Telling that he is a coward is jumping the gun.

I'm so sick of people passing judgment on cases without having all the facts.

He ran to Canda rather then face judgement. Sounds like cowardice.

Again volunteer not a draft dodger.

I've been there. Done the paratrooper thing. Killed Iraqis. Been back and killed more.

So I don't need questions about "why aren't I there?"

I guess not. You don't currently feel the urge to end life, then, is that it?

He ran to Canda rather then face judgement. Sounds like cowardice.

Again volunteer not a draft dodger.

Well, the draft-dodger issue was never really dealt with on either side of the border, save when Carter allowed them back in an official amnesty.

Listen, this is different - Hinzman is trying to remain here as a political REFUGEE. That's pretty big, guys. There's never been a precedent for this before. I can't think of any American citizen who ever became a political refugee.

Lots of people dodged the draft, camped out in the woods, some of 'em even became citizens - but no Yanks have ever gained refugee status in Canada.

It speaks of just who you are and where your nation is headed, but I guess you'd prefer to pretend your entire nation is happy with that direction.

Well, the draft-dodger issue was never really dealt with on either side of the border, save when Carter allowed them back in an official amnesty.

Listen, this is different - Hinzman is trying to remain here as a political REFUGEE. That's pretty big, guys. There's never been a precedent for this before. I can't think of any American citizen who ever became a political refugee.

Lots of people dodged the draft, camped out in the woods, some of 'em even became citizens - but no Yanks have ever gained refugee status in Canada.

It speaks of just who you are and where your nation is headed, but I guess you'd prefer to pretend your entire nation is happy with that direction.

I mention the draft-doger issue because those guys didn't want to be in the military in the first place. I can see their point especially when it wasn't a declared war.

This guys life was not in danger. At most some time in prision. Most likely he would get court marshalled with a dishonerable discharge.

It doesn't speak out for the future. One coward is not that nation and to suggest we want to pretend we are happy with the shrub?

Come on now. The shrub only won by a margin of 3 million.

Besides, how do we know his lawyer isn't the one who suggested he be a political refugee?

Military families(like mine) don't look kindly on deserters.

One of my great-uncles even said he didn't have to run. There are ways out. The military isn't going to send a guy they think is going to disrupt a unit. Like I said a dishonerable discharge.

He ran to Canda rather then face judgement. Sounds like cowardice.

Again volunteer not a draft dodger.


From Canada here, and I totally agree. Political refugee :p

From Canada here, and I totally agree. Political refugee :p

Well a couple more years of the shrub, you might see many more! And they won't be soldiers! :p

A democrat seems to be a dirty word to the red states! Does that count? ;)

Well a couple more years of the shrub, you might see many more! And they won't be soldiers! :p

A democrat seems to be a dirty word to the red states! Does that count? ;)

Only if they can prove there's a reasonable expectation of harm or death awaiting them back home...so, as you say, a couple more years of the Shrub and we may indeed see many more.

And they won't ALL be soldiers...true.

Only if they can prove there's a reasonable expectation of harm or death awaiting them back home...so, as you say, a couple more years of the Shrub and we may indeed see many more.

And they won't ALL be soldiers...true.

Now if our friend could prove he was in danger back home, that puts a different spin on the whole situation.

Oh ane East Canuck: Of course he says he is not against violence. If he did, people would ask "Then why did you join the military and a combat regiment?"

According to his statement, he's not against violence. He's against an unjust war based on lies (his words not my opinion). Telling that he is a coward is jumping the gun.

None of this matters.

He signed up, he has a responsibility. If he doesn't want to go, he could refuse, take the court martial, and be dishonorably discharged.

He is a coward because he won't even stand up for his own decision by facing the consequences.

Meanwhile, someone else who has already been in Iraq for who-knows-how-long will either have to stay or go back to make up for this asshole.

Listen, this is different - Hinzman is trying to remain here as a political REFUGEE. That's pretty big, guys. There's never been a precedent for this before. I can't think of any American citizen who ever became a political refugee.

He wants to be a political refugee because it gets him out of standing up for his decision.

It speaks of just who you are and where your nation is headed, but I guess you'd prefer to pretend your entire nation is happy with that direction.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I *agree* with the war. When you sign up for the armed services, you take the consequences of that decision. Period.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/06/hinzman041206.html

At first I thought, 'not a hope in Hell of this guy being granted refugee status', due to the understanding between our two countries - Neither Canada nor the US traditionally recognize each others' citizens as refugees.

But last night the CBC ran the first in a multi-part news serial called, 'Canada and the New American Empire' ( http://www.cbc.ca/empire/ ). The American deserter was a hot topic - and according to an immigration lawyer, who deals specifically with refugee claimants, this guy Hinzman might just be successful in his claim - as the agency responsible for assessing his claim is not political in nature, ie it cannot be controlled by the government of the day. It is an independent body.


This might just open up a whole new can of worms. There are other deserters just like Hinzman, all of whom are watching Hinzman's hearing. Where will this take us? According to Noel Semple, this ( http://www.cbc.ca/empire/semple.html ) may be a likely outcome.

We really aren't America Jr, no matter what the Simpsons may have taught you to think. I think Semple is right in suggesting that 2002 saw the masks slip, revealing both our countries as morally, ethically, and politically divergent.

Given that our paths are divergent, does it seem likely to anyone here that things will simply return to the old status quo?

personally I think it's rather stupid to cheer on someone who shrinked away from his duty to protect you to save his own ass. I think in most places that's called cowardice.

Sorry a coward runs. If he stood by his principles, he would not have ran to Canada. He signed up, he took an oath, he joined a combat regiment, and then he tried to claim he was against violence.

If he refused to go and took the punishment that was due to him, then he would be an honorable man.

He ran.

Ok she got pregnant to avoid the war. This fellow ran to Canda. What's the difference?

1) I am past the desirable age for soldiers.
2) I am ex-goverment. The "stuff" I worked on and the clearences I held exclude me from certain countries and situtations.

He said he would go to other countries just not Iraq, he's got a moral objection to that war, not killing. I would hope that people still have the ablity to think for themselves. It's ironic that our soliders have all their freedoms stripped away when they become soliders but that's not the point. He would fight he just won't do it there. I see that much differently, she did it because she was scared/inconfenanced, he's doing it because he beleives it's wrong. She also is being into the world another life not because he wants to or a mistack happen but because she was getting out of a duty she signed up for. If you think this guy should be excuted then so should the chick that got pregnet to avoid having to go as well.

As for your points about not being in service, they're bullshit. They'll take anyone as long as they're phsyically able to do the job, your age isn't a factor, your ablity is. And for the countries thing? Give me a god damn break, we have INVADED Iraq, we're sending people there everyday wiether they like it or not. If you're working for the US military then you go where they need and put you, right?

As for your points about not being in service, they're bullshit. They'll take anyone as long as they're phsyically able to do the job, your age isn't a factor, your ablity is. And for the countries thing? Give me a god damn break, we have INVADED Iraq, we're sending people there everyday wiether they like it or not. If you're working for the US military then you go where they need and put you, right?

Ok how many 30+ recruits have you heard? They aren't desperate for soldiers at the moment. Look at Viet Nam. How many 30+ men were drafted?

And for the countries thing? How many soldiers do you know worked on black hole projects? The stuff I did; I would not be on the front lines. My skills are best used elsewhere.

If you think this guy should be excuted then so should the chick that got pregnet to avoid having to go as well.


I have never suggested he should be executed. Court marshalled yes. The chick should be as well.....

He said he would go to other countries just not Iraq, he's got a moral objection to that war, not killing. I would hope that people still have the ablity to think for themselves. It's ironic that our soliders have all their freedoms stripped away when they become soliders but that's not the point. He would fight he just won't do it there. I see that much differently, she did it because she was scared/inconfenanced, he's doing it because he beleives it's wrong. She also is being into the world another life not because he wants to or a mistack happen but because she was getting out of a duty she signed up for. If you think this guy should be excuted then so should the chick that got pregnet to avoid having to go as well.

As for your points about not being in service, they're bullshit. They'll take anyone as long as they're phsyically able to do the job, your age isn't a factor, your ablity is. And for the countries thing? Give me a god damn break, we have INVADED Iraq, we're sending people there everyday wiether they like it or not. If you're working for the US military then you go where they need and put you, right?

all these snide remarks about people not using their brains is sounding kind've
childish. I think some people posting here don't fully comprehend that whether or not you are against a war for certain moral reasons is irrelavent. if you VOLUNTEER for the ARMY you should reasonably expect to do some type of fighting or if you're in a specialized career field to expect to be in a combat zone. The fact that this guy is Infantry makes it worse. The one thing that many people, republicans and democrats (like Joe Biden, who was on IMUS)and even the Iraqi interim government says we need is MORE troops in iraq to keep the peace and train IRAQI forces to handle the situation after we leave. By neglecting his duties this guy not only could cause the deaths of some Iraqi's,which I'm sure the liberals posting here all would be very happy about, but also his fellow countrymen and comrades in the Army. I'm sure somebody somewhere has suggested that he should be put to death. I don't know if we should go that far. But if you're hell bent on deserting I think you should definately spend some quality time in the brig.

Oh ane East Canuck: Of course he says he is not against violence. If he did, people would ask "Then why did you join the military and a combat regiment?"

Yeah, I'm not buying his story either. However, he has a right to due process.

And I wouldn't call his actions cowardly. Here's the thing: he has the choice of facing a disonorable discharge and possible jail time or flee the country. The discharge means that he'll probably never get a good paying job, especially if he's serving time and (depending where he lives) he can even be stripped of rights like voting and owning a gun, just because he disagree with the current administration. Now this guy has a family to support. He's got to take that into consideration. Hell, it can even go as high as the death penalty (wich, I agree, is not going to happen)

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. He chose the place where he may look like a coward but has a better chance to a good quality of life for his family. If I have to look like a coward so that my children can go to university, then a coward I'll be.

I glad it's not up to me to decide his and his family's fate.

How in the world would you prove that? Yes, there may be individual violations, but I bet you would have to prove that the whole war from the top down was a complete, systematic violation by order of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, if you've got a panel of sympathetic Canadians who oppose the war, you only have to say that the war is evil, and you won't have to prove anything.

I don't know about Geneva but during the Nuramburg Trails they did ban preemptive warfare which is exactly what this war is.

just a question, just picture it

you have a gun in your hand but it isnt aimed at anyone, im standing right in front of you, i tell you i have a gun, and in the past i have told you i will shoot you.

What do you do?

He said he would go to other countries just not Iraq, he's got a moral objection to that war, not killing. I would hope that people still have the ablity to think for themselves. It's ironic that our soliders have all their freedoms stripped away when they become soliders but that's not the point. He would fight he just won't do it there. I see that much differently, she did it because she was scared/inconfenanced, he's doing it because he beleives it's wrong. She also is being into the world another life not because he wants to or a mistack happen but because she was getting out of a duty she signed up for. If you think this guy should be excuted then so should the chick that got pregnet to avoid having to go as well.

He can object all he wants, but he should take the consequences. He signed on for whatever the armed services asked of him - implicit in that agreement was the *fact* that if he refused, he would be liable for a court marshal. He should stand up like a real human being with a backbone and stand trial.

If you think this guy should be excuted then so should the chick that got pregnet to avoid having to go as well.


with this guy it is easier to see that he did what he did to not go there, but with this woman who got pregnant it is harder to say that she only got pregnant to skip the war. people get pregnant all the time not just when they want out of a war

just a question, just picture it

you have a gun in your hand but it isnt aimed at anyone, im standing right in front of you, i tell you i have a gun, and in the past i have told you i will shoot you.

What do you do?

I've been in this situation before. If the other conditions of the situation permit, I shoot you. That is, if under law (civilian conditions) or under rules of engagement (military conditions) I can justify the shooting.

Since I spend a lot of time dealing with a stalker, and have hired a lawyer to think out all the civilian conditions for me, the thought process should take about a second. After that, you'll either be unshot and alive, or quite dead.

Yeah, I'm not buying his story either. However, he has a right to due process.

And I wouldn't call his actions cowardly. Here's the thing: he has the choice of facing a disonorable discharge and possible jail time or flee the country. The discharge means that he'll probably never get a good paying job, especially if he's serving time and (depending where he lives) he can even be stripped of rights like voting and owning a gun, just because he disagree with the current administration. Now this guy has a family to support. He's got to take that into consideration. Hell, it can even go as high as the death penalty (wich, I agree, is not going to happen)

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. He chose the place where he may look like a coward but has a better chance to a good quality of life for his family. If I have to look like a coward so that my children can go to university, then a coward I'll be.

I glad it's not up to me to decide his and his family's fate.

He could still move to Canada *after* his discharge. I doubt Canada puts as much stock on a US dishonorable discharge as US employers do.

On top of that, he *agreed* to the terms - he should live up to them. He is setting a really shitty example for his kids. "Look kids, you don't have to live up to deals you make! All you have to do is run away and you can get a free education!"

my question earlier was to help explain preemptive strike

some people dont seem to understand it is a kill or be killed situation

if you are a leader of a country you are not just concerned if you die or live you have to be concerned with the rest of your country

so its not a kill or you will be killed

its a kill or everyone that has put trust in you to protect them to be killed

I've been in this situation before. If the other conditions of the situation permit, I shoot you. That is, if under law (civilian conditions) or under rules of engagement (military conditions) I can justify the shooting.

Since I spend a lot of time dealing with a stalker, and have hired a lawyer to think out all the civilian conditions for me, the thought process should take about a second. After that, you'll either be unshot and alive, or quite dead.

are you for or against preemptive strikes?

are you for or against preemptive strikes?

Against what? With what information?

I've been more than fair in combat, and always waited for people to shoot first, but that wasn't so much to avoid pre-emption. I wanted them to feel they were doing well, so I didn't shoot until they emptied their magazine and started changing it.

Then again, I've never been closer than 300 yards, so I was safe. I'm sure that if I was closer, I would shoot first and check later.

As for nations, it also depends on what you can get away with.

my question earlier was to help explain preemptive strike

some people dont seem to understand it is a kill or be killed situation

if you are a leader of a country you are not just concerned if you die or live you have to be concerned with the rest of your country

so its not a kill or you will be killed

its a kill or everyone that has put trust in you to protect them to be killed
Please, explain to me how Iraq was a clear and present danger requiring that kind of pre-emptive strike. I just don't see it.

He could still move to Canada *after* his discharge. I doubt Canada puts as much stock on a US dishonorable discharge as US employers do.


You'd be surprised. First, if he does jail time, it's over immigration wise. Canada has enough request that we can be picky on who we let in. Also, many big companies are owned by the same group on both sides of the border (ex. Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Sony) these companies would seek reference and will not hire him.

But either way the outcome goes, he won't become top level managment anyways.

You'd be surprised. First, if he does jail time, it's over immigration wise. Canada has enough request that we can be picky on who we let in. Also, many big companies are owned by the same group on both sides of the border (ex. Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Sony) these companies would seek reference and will not hire him.

*Shrug* It's his decision. He can live up to his principles and face the consequences, or he can turn tail and run - demonstrating nothing but cowardice, teaching his kids that you don't have to live up to the deals you make.

Having been a solider myself I am disgusted.

...

Disgusted by all those hobos of you, those arm-chair generals and so-called soldiers who want this guys head on a silver platter. YOU Sirs are unfit and unworthy to wear your country´s uniform. You´re a disgrace, you don´t have the spirit of a warrior. If you´re so war-mongering, go sign up for the 101st Fighting Keyboatd Brigade (http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/ep0004-041123.shtml), but for crying out loud stop defiling this good man.

Now with this said, I cannot say what this guy did was the right thing to do - legally. Morally, he has all my support. He´s got a wife and a small child. He has other, more important priorities right now. Yes, he swore a oath to the army, the flag, whatever, so what? Ink on a page.

He also swore a oath to his wife at the day he married her. A oath, to protect her, to stand by her, to take care of her. He can do so if he dies in a stupid war he never wanted... now if Iraq would be invading the US (lets assume it for a sec), he´d be one of the first guys to volunteer for the defence of his home country, I´m sure.

No, this guy is not a coward. He´s a braver man than I will ever be and if he´d be right here, I´d be honored to shake his hand. He made a decision, a decision which will effect the rest of his life. I´m not the one to question wether it was right or wrong.

I life in a country exercising conscription. Up to the age of 45 I could be drafted to fight and possibly DIE in the defence of my country. In that case, I´d gladly march into the blood and thunder of war, face death, killing and maiming - having served in mechanized combat recon I´d have a good chance not to return home - without question, fear or hesitation. Because that´ll be my duty, and I´m honor bound to upkeep my oath AND because it would be the right thing to do.

Now if my country would send me to a war which I don´t support, like a offensive war of aggresion, I´d resign my duties or refuse to go. That´s not what I signed in for at the army, that´s not what I´d be willing to do. I´m not the kind of guy who´s in for blind obedience. As a soldier I learned about "good" and "right", about "order" and "obedience", but a long time ago, a very good and honorable man - my dad - thought me about morality and about a self-made code of honor. The things I think which are "good" and "right". Don´t make me break with them.

Canada should grant this guy sanctuary. They surely can use more good people like him.

Ulrich, I've been to Iraq more than once to serve.

The second time I was married with children.

I've been shot at too many times to count.

I signed the same contract, and swore the same oath (not just ink) that he did.

I had an obligation to protect my friends, as well as my family. Which I did.

So you're saying I made a mistake by not doing what he did?

just a question, just picture it

you have a gun in your hand but it isnt aimed at anyone, im standing right in front of you, i tell you i have a gun, and in the past i have told you i will shoot you.

What do you do?

I'd drop the gun. What are you going to do, shoot an unarmed man?

Having been a solider myself I am disgusted.

...

Disgusted by all those hobos of you, those arm-chair generals and so-called soldiers who want this guys head on a silver platter. YOU Sirs are unfit and unworthy to wear your country´s uniform. You´re a disgrace, you don´t have the spirit of a warrior. If you´re so war-mongering, go sign up for the 101st Fighting Keyboatd Brigade (http://www.idleworm.com/tww/2004/ep0004-041123.shtml), but for crying out loud stop defiling this good man.

Now with this said, I cannot say what this guy did was the right thing to do - legally. Morally, he has all my support. He´s got a wife and a small child. He has other, more important priorities right now. Yes, he swore a oath to the army, the flag, whatever, so what? Ink on a page.

He also swore a oath to his wife at the day he married her. A oath, to protect her, to stand by her, to take care of her. He can do so if he dies in a stupid war he never wanted... now if Iraq would be invading the US (lets assume it for a sec), he´d be one of the first guys to volunteer for the defence of his home country, I´m sure.

No, this guy is not a coward. He´s a braver man than I will ever be and if he´d be right here, I´d be honored to shake his hand. He made a decision, a decision which will effect the rest of his life. I´m not the one to question wether it was right or wrong.

I life in a country exercising conscription. Up to the age of 45 I could be drafted to fight and possibly DIE in the defence of my country. In that case, I´d gladly march into the blood and thunder of war, face death, killing and maiming - having served in mechanized combat recon I´d have a good chance not to return home - without question, fear or hesitation. Because that´ll be my duty, and I´m honor bound to upkeep my oath AND because it would be the right thing to do.

Now if my country would send me to a war which I don´t support, like a offensive war of aggresion, I´d resign my duties or refuse to go. That´s not what I signed in for at the army, that´s not what I´d be willing to do. I´m not the kind of guy who´s in for blind obedience. As a soldier I learned about "good" and "right", about "order" and "obedience", but a long time ago, a very good and honorable man - my dad - thought me about morality and about a self-made code of honor. The things I think which are "good" and "right". Don´t make me break with them.

Canada should grant this guy sanctuary. They surely can use more good people like him.


Dude please tell me your not German... :rolleyes:

No, this guy is not a coward. He´s a braver man than I will ever be and if he´d be right here, I´d be honored to shake his hand. He made a decision, a decision which will effect the rest of his life. I´m not the one to question wether it was right or wrong.

A brave man would stand up for his decision by facing the trial, being discharged, and facing the consequences of his decision.

I life in a country exercising conscription.

Guess what. THis guy volunteered. Different story altogether.

Now if my country would send me to a war which I don´t support, like a offensive war of aggresion, I´d resign my duties or refuse to go. That´s not what I signed in for at the army, that´s not what I´d be willing to do.

Would you turn tail and run? Or face the consequences of those actions?

Canada should grant this guy sanctuary. They surely can use more good people like him.

Good people face the consequences of their decisions. It's not like the guy is going to die over this. At worst, he might have to serve a month or two in jail and then will be discharged.

Fine pick on the hypothetical situation in the last paragraph and forget the whole point will you?Well...

Yes, but evere since WW2, there has been conscientous objector status and other varying things to bypass the oath. He was welcome to selct a non-combat job.

Also, it has been established that a soldier has a duty to not follow orders deemed illegal. If the soldier deem the war illegal, then he's duty-bound to forego his oath and refuse to follow them.There is one little problem with that, though. He is not the ultimate authority on the legality of an order. No matter how much he make think an order is illegal, if it is determined that it was a legal order, he will be prosecuted for failing to follow it.

If he was a Canadian citizen and was sent to Irak under NORAD or NATO, he would have the duty to refuse to follow orders as the Canadian government consider the war illegal under internationnal laws.Canada is obviously deluded if they think that the war is illegal under international law.

I can't wait for the day that some rouge nation attacks Canada. I will be the first in line to declare the war illegal under intenational law and refuse assistance to Canada.

Well...

Canada is obviously deluded if they think that the war is illegal under international law.

I can't wait for the day that some rogue (DT's edit) nation attacks Canada. I will be the first in line to declare the war illegal under intenational law and refuse assistance to Canada.

Ass backwards. A rogue nation (interesting choice, BTW - are you rethinking your own nation's surrent international standing?) attacks Canada, and you'll be 'first in line to declare the war illegal under intenational law and refuse assistance to Canada'?

I'd thought you'd be 'first in line to declare the war illegal under intenational law and refuse assistance' to the "rogue nation" in question.

Our nation has agreed to provide humanitarian aid to the poor bastards living without water, food or medicine in Baghdad under your benevolent dicta- uhhh, 'leadership'. Whaddayou guys done except shoot up the landscape, kill civilians, and steal oil?

Canada is obviously deluded if they think that the war is illegal under international law.

I can't wait for the day that some rouge nation attacks Canada. I will be the first in line to declare the war illegal under intenational law and refuse assistance to Canada.
Well, if Canada is deluded, we are in pretty good company. Even the head of the UN deems it an illegal law under internationnal law. We are not the US lapdog and can make our own mind, thank you wery much.

And if you want to be so vindictive as to refuse aid to a neighbour under siege because we refused to join your illegal war of ressource acquisition, then I feel sorry for the American mindset who can't get over a simple disagreement.

It's not like we helped Iraqi insurgent raise against you, we disagreed on the US cavalier attitude for internationnal laws.