Riverwind Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) I’m not particularly troubled with your – and others – penchant for labeling the American Iraq war resisters as cowards. As I said, against the context of the most dishonorable Bush Iraq war…They are cowards because they signed up for the US military and think they should not face any penalties for breaking the contract that they willingly signed. As I said, if they had any honour they would do the time and accept the dishonourable discharge. Better people than them have spent much more time in jail standing up for what they believed in so it is not too much to expect from someone claiming they are making sacrifices for what the believe in. Edited January 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 .....I’m not particularly troubled with your – and others – penchant for labeling the American Iraq war resisters as cowards. As I said, against the context of the most dishonorable Bush Iraq war… Of course...they are just proxies for a meaningless domestic pissing contest. Deserters are readily defined by their own actions, not the actions of their leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 .....Better people than them have spent much more time in jail standing up for what they believed in so it is not too much to expect from someone claiming they are making sacrifices for what the believe in. Right...they are cowards for not taking responsibilty for their actions.....not much to ask compared to those who actually fulfilled their duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 They are cowards because they signed up for the US military and think they should not face any penalties for breaking the contract that they willingly signed. As I said, if they had any honour they would do the time and accept the dishonourable discharge. Better people than them have spent much more time in jail standing up for what they believed in so it is not too much to expect from someone claiming they are making sacrifices for what the believe in. is there a double standard you're willing to accept for active Canadian military personnel who seek conscientious objector status? Certainly the Canadian military has provisions for handling personnel in this regard - one's that don't include your dishonor labeling, that don't include your jail time. DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection some of these American war resisters have attempted to seek conscientious objector status in their American military - some have attempted to seek non-combat assignments while staying in the American military. Of course, their requests have been denied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 some of these American war resisters have attempted to seek conscientious objector status in their American military - some have attempted to seek non-combat assignments while staying in the American military. Of course, their requests have been denied. This is Canada. That's why we're deporting Iraq war deserters. How the USA wants to run their military has nothing to do with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Who cares what the CAF definition of CO is, these are not Canadian soldiers. I, for one, am glad that our immigration office is deporting these people, and I hope they don't stop doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 is there a double standard you're willing to accept for active Canadian military personnel who seek conscientious objector status? Certainly the Canadian military has provisions for handling personnel in this regard - one's that don't include your dishonor labeling, that don't include your jail time.Does not make any difference. They joined the US military - not the Canadian military. I realize a little something called "taking responsibility for your choices" is an alien concept to people like you but that is really what it boils down to. They choose to join so now they have two choices: serve or accept the punishments imposed by the US military which are not out of line given the nature of the offence (i.e. if someone signed a contract to spend two years serving in a war then they can hardly complain about spending two years in jail). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Does not make any difference. They joined the US military - not the Canadian military. I realize a little something called "taking responsibility for your choices" is an alien concept to people like you but that is really what it boils down to. They choose to join so now they have two choices: serve or accept the punishments imposed by the US military which are not out of line given the nature of the offence (i.e. if someone signed a contract to spend two years serving in a war then they can hardly complain about spending two years in jail). Actually they have a third option: Claim refugee status in Canada. Fat chance, I know, but if it works no jail time and Uncle Sam can kiss the deserters royal behind. And the best of it is - Its a perfectly rational thing to do! More power to them, I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Actually they have a third option: Claim refugee status in Canada. Fat chance, I know, but if it works no jail time and Uncle Sam can kiss the deserters royal behind. And the best of it is - Its a perfectly rational thing to do! More power to them, I say. They are refugees they have created their own situation, its not like they have been drafted into service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 They are refugees they have created their own situation, its not like they have been drafted into service. Stop-Loss is the same as Draft. Being compelled to serve against thier will. In such a curcomstance it is their duty to desert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Stop-Loss is the same as Draft. Being compelled to serve against thier will. In such a curcomstance it is their duty to desert. They signed up voluntarily for service be it reserves or not, no one forced them to enlist, they had no card that said service was manidtory at 18 so they are refugees these people are the victims of their own will they mad a commitment and the US taxpayers made a commitment to them, now it that the time has come for these people to live up to their obligations they run with tail between their legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Stop-Loss is the same as Draft. Being compelled to serve against thier will. In such a curcomstance it is their duty to desert. No it's not...read the enlistment contract and case law. You're just making your version up. DD Form 4/1: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf Edited January 16, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Actually they have a third option: Claim refugee status in Canada. Fat chance, I know, but if it works no jail time and Uncle Sam can kiss the deserters royal behind. And the best of it is - Its a perfectly rational thing to do! More power to them, I say.I should have said they only have two "honourable" options. Refusing to take responsibility for their choices is quite cowardly. Edited January 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The worst part of all this is how they let their comrades in arms down when they go into harms way. But like others have said. They would show some kind of credibility if they stayed in their own country and took it`s punishment. Instead they choose to run away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I should have said they only have two "honourable" options. Refusing to take responsibility for their choices is quite cowardly. Honour? F*&% honour. They are taking responsibility for their choices. The responisbility led them to take action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Something people forget: there is no such thing as a "just" war anymore. No matter what the rational someone will always decide that we should not be fighting it - just look as "Taliban Jack" and his attitude towards Afghanistan. That reality makes it even more rediculous to claim that you only signed up for "just" wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 No it's not...read the enlistment contract and case law. You're just making your version up.DD Form 4/1: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/enlistment.pdf I am not making it up at all. Stop-Loss, while perfectly legal and written into the contract, nevertheless compels folks to continue to serve or be imprisoned. That is no different than being drafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Something people forget: there is no such thing as a "just" war anymore. No matter what the rational someone will always decide that we should not be fighting it - just look as "Taliban Jack" and his attitude towards Afghanistan. That reality makes it even more rediculous to claim that you only signed up for "just" wars. The reality is that any war a state enters into will be a just war. Should a state enter into an unjust war then no one - not even those in the military - are required to serve or continue to serve in the cause of an unjust war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Actually they have a third option: Claim refugee status in Canada. Fat chance, I know, but if it works no jail time and Uncle Sam can kiss the deserters royal behind. And the best of it is - Its a perfectly rational thing to do! More power to them, I say. For them, it may be a rational thing to do. Desperate measures for desperate men. But for us, it will be a stupid thing to do. If we should open our door and give help and succor to anyone, make it to those who truly indeed need our help. Let's not tie up our system and waste our time and resources to something so worthless like this. This smug attitude is so nauseatingly hypocritical. So typical of the self-annointed, self-indulgent delusional bleeding hearts of today. You folks need not go far. No need to strain your eyes if you truly bleed for the angst and sufferings of others. We have our own homeless and poverty-stricken people, right here in our midst. Our very own. Don't waste your talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Stop-Loss is the same as Draft. Being compelled to serve against thier will. In such a curcomstance it is their duty to desert. Wow. Talk about rubbish! There goes principles and accountability down the drain. I guess word of honor is something that don't exist in your world....and signing a contract means nada. I like that...."it is their duty to desert." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 For them, it may be a rational thing to do. Desperate measures for desperate men. If we should open our door and give help and succor to anyone, make it to those who truly indeed need our help. Let's not tie up our system and waste our time and resources to something so worthless like this. Certainly. But first it needs to be determined wether this is something worthless. The Boards have so far rejected every single refugee claim from these soldiers. All is well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 The reality is that any war a state enters into will be a just war. Should a state enter into an unjust war then no one - not even those in the military - are required to serve or continue to serve in the cause of an unjust war. Peter, if any war a state enters into will be a just war, then that means there are no un-just wars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) The Boards have so far rejected every single refugee claim from these soldiers. As it should. I don't think they even need to open any books to come to that conclusion. It's plainly just so sensible. Anyone who can't see that doesn't deserve to sit on the board! Edited January 16, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Wow. Talk about rubbish! There goes principles and accountability down the drain. I guess word of honor is something that don't exist in your world....and signing a contract means nada. I like that...."it is their duty to desert." Word of Honour? Ha!. Reminds me of when I signed up in the Navy. "I guarantee you a cruise around the world within a year" the recruiter said. I replied "Gimmee your pen". Word of Honour dont mean crap. As for contracts; Any contract that requires the parties to engage in illegal actions is no longer a valid contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Peter, if any war a state enters into will be a just war, then that means there are no un-just wars! Quite so. Any state entering into armed conflict spends huge amounts of time and effort convincing the citizenry of the justness of the war. And they will do so even if its unjust. So best not rely on the government to determine justness or unjustness - The state will lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.